Sitting of 30 June 1999

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

  Pensions
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  9.33 am
  Mr. Steve Webb: As I look around the Chamber, I see several hon. Members who obviously spent substantial parts of their childhood playing "Monopoly". They will recall landing on "community chest" and hoping either to get a "Get out of jail free" card or, failing that, a card that says, "Your annuity has matured, collect £100"—that was in the days when £100 was worth something. When I used to play Monopoly, neither I nor any of my fellow players had a clue what an annuity was—and, in some respects, not a lot has changed. Yet The Observer newspaper recently pointed out that annuities are no longer something that appear only in Jane Austen novels but have replaced house prices as a topic of dinner party conversations in certain circles.
  How has that come to pass? I suspect that I am not the only hon. Member who has received a growing number of letters from constituents who are concerned about the annuities problem. They are worried about low annuity rates and about being forced to buy an annuity at age 75. One example is my constituent from Thornbury, who is in his early 60s. He wrote to say that he had a self-invested pension plan from which he was drawing income in the manner allowed by the Inland Revenue up to the limits, leaving the capital largely intact. My constituent was concerned that, in a decade—the people of Thornbury are very far-sighted—he might be forced to buy an annuity with that pension pot, which would result in the loss of all his capital and leave him with a relatively poor pension. He writes:
  "it seems unjust that I will be compelled to buy this annuity, lose my capital sum, and yet receive no additional income."
  What are we to make of this issue? I am a simple man and, in my simple way of looking at the world, I like to divide it into the good guys and the bad guys—it makes life an awful lot easier. When I approached the annuities issue for the first time, it occurred to me that the chances were that Her Majesty's Government were the bad guys. That is a fairly safe working assumption.
  In this context, what makes the Government the bad guys on first examination is that they force people at age 75, against their will, to convert their personal pension pot or similar into an annuity. Why is that a problem? It is well known that annuity rates are now relatively low—certainly compared with their level at the start of the decade. At the beginning of the 1990s, annuity rates were
  260
  about double their present value. That obviously means that the pension that one can buy with a given personal pension pot is substantially less than it was in nominal terms. One could point out that the stock market has done relatively well during the same period and that therefore the pension pot would have grown. That would partly offset the difference—but only partly. There is a general perception among people in their 60s and early 70s that they are being forced to buy a product that will yield a relatively poor pension and cause the loss of all their capital.
  Why is there a problem with forcing people into annuities at age 75? A typical strategy for money in a pension pot is that it begins life invested in high-risk, high-return, or middling-risk, high-return assets such as the stock market. Towards the end of one's working life, it is shifted into lower-risk assets such as gilts. When one converts to an annuity, for the rest of one's life, one buys a product that is backed by gilts—which are very low-risk but low-return assets. If one does not take out a pension particularly early in life, one could find that half the time one's money is invested in shares and the other half it is invested in low-yielding gilts. It is far from easy to see how, in a rational world, that is a sensible way to invest pension assets. It is difficult to see why, over a lifetime, one would want to invest half the time in low-risk, low-yield gilts. That is not a rational strategy.
  Sir Robert Smith: That problem will not go away because, if the strategy of containing inflation is successful, gilts will continue to be low yield.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend is quite right: nominal yields will continue to be very low—although there is obviously a problem with perception. We have yet to generate a low-inflation culture. We recall that inflation rates were 10 per cent. at the beginning of the decade and I remember when inflation rates were 25 per cent. under the previous Labour Government. Against that background, nominal rates matter to people's perceptions of whether they are getting a good deal. Stable inflation over a long period would clearly be welcome. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention as I was about to turn to inflation.
  As well as low annuity rates, a second reason for concern is the effect of inflation on people's incomes when they buy annuities. There are annuity products containing escalation that take some account of future inflation. When surveyed before retirement, most people tend to say, "Yes, I would probably get an annuity with some sort of indexation; I would not want my income to be eroded". However, that is not what people actually do because four out of five of them buy level annuities. In other words, they see how much less they would get in the first year and in the next few years if they bought an indexed annuity and say, "Hang on a minute, I would rather have 75 per cent. more in the first year and I'll take a gamble on inflation". While, in theory, one might think that indexed annuities are a good thing, in practice, most people do not buy them. Therefore, we are forcing people to buy a product that is likely to be eroded by inflation.
  Inflation of only 3 per cent. for a decade would knock a quarter off a pensioner's real income. That means that as people get older—as they reach 80 or more—their living standards may fall dramatically. That issue will be

  261
  increasingly important as the Government force people who buy stakeholder pensions to convert them into annuities and as more occupational schemes move towards defined contributions. That is why I initiated this debate.
  As well as low annuity rates and the effects of inflation, a concern about forcing people to buy annuities is the inevitable loss of capital. When I first heard that argument, I thought that people wanted to have their cake and eat it. I thought that they were saying, "I'd like a pension—probably the same pension that I would have got anyway—and I want to keep all my capital." That seemed to be rather like saying to a car insurance company, "I'll buy my car insurance and if, after 10 years, I haven't claimed, I'd like my premiums back." Clearly, that would be unacceptable, but people are not saying that. They want a blend of a particular level of pension income and a particular level of preservation of capital. They have saved for their old age and taken the view that they might sacrifice part of their pension income now to preserve some of their capital to pass on to their children.
  In principle, there is no reason why we should not allow pensioners to do that, subject to tax and other considerations to which I shall turn in a moment. In principle, there is no reason why we should want to force pensioners to sacrifice all their capital at the age of 75 if they were prepared to forgo some of their pension income in return for keeping part of their capital. On the face of it, therefore, the Government are the bad guys because they have removed from people, or are not allowing them, a choice at the age of 75. That choice will not, by any means, be appropriate for all pensioners, but it is appropriate for growing numbers of them.
  I have read the report of the proceedings of the Standing Committees that considered the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and the Finance Bill, and this issue was discussed twice. The Government rest their defence for the age-75 limit—which seems somewhat arbitrary—on two main arguments. First, the dreaded Inland Revenue wants its slice of the cake. The argument is that if people were allowed to keep their money in the pension pot, they might inconveniently die, so they would never get their annuity and the Inland Revenue would never get the tax.
  That concern is unfounded. If people who have begun to draw down income from their pension pot die, their spouse or dependant can convert the pension into an annuity that can be taxed anyway. if that is not the case, a special 35 per cent. tax rate will apply to those funds. I suspect that 35 per cent. is much higher than the rate that the Revenue would typically receive from an annuity, so it might receive more money if a few more people popped their clogs before they took out annuities.
  If draw-down has begun, tax is not a problem. The only problem seems to arise if draw-down has not begun and the pension pot has not been touched. There is no reason why the law should not state that at 75, or another age, people should take out an annuity or begin draw-down. It is not beyond the wit of the Inland Revenue to ensure that it gets its tax take, while preserving choice for pensioners.
  The Inland Revenue objection does not stand, but there is one closer to home for the Minister—a Department of Social Security objection, which is that pensioners might spend, spend, spend and blow the pot on riotous living.
  262
  That might be welcomed, but the concern is that they would leave themselves in penury and throw themselves on the mercy of the stony-faced DSS.
  I am not entirely convinced by that line of reasoning. First, as the Minister knows, there are strict Government rules on the amount that can be drawn down from a pot. There are clear limits on that, and one cannot simply blow a fund in one go. If we consider the sort of funds that we are discussing, we realise that draw-down will be appropriate only in larger funds. Some say that it would be suitable only in funds of over £100,000 and others say that £250,000 and over would be a suitable size. The idea that someone would blow £250,000 from a pension pot and then throw themselves on the delightful mercies of income support is pretty far fetched.
  Secondly, there is no reason why there should not be further constraints on draw-down if the age limit of 75 were to be raised. Stewart Ritchie of Scottish Equitable, who is a member of the Government's pension provision group, has suggested that at age 76 or 77 there could be a slightly tighter limit. Instead of being the total amount that one could draw from a similar annuity, the limit could be a percentage of that figure. Obviously—I borrow Mr. Ritchie's example—we do not want to allow people aged 100, whose life expectancy is one year, to blow the entire pot, lest they inconveniently live to be 101. A safeguard is necessary, and that could be ratcheted in, but there is no reason for an absolute cut-off at age 75.
  The final reason why the "people will just rely on the state" argument is not convincing is that most pensioners, particularly those who have carefully invested—such as my constituent, who has invested his money himself—are not about to go to the Ritz or Monte Carlo to blow all their money. They are very cautious, and they are motivated by the desire to pass on money to their children. The idea that they would spend all their money and throw themselves on the mercy of the state is implausible.
  It seems that there could be little objection to allowing greater flexibility at age 75. A choice could be allowed between the purchase of an annuity and the commencement or continuation of draw-down, subject to certain restrictions.
  I want to draw the attention of the House to another group of people who may also, in some sense, be the bad guys in this story—those who sell the income draw-down policies. They have not done themselves any favours in recent years. The early evidence on those policies reveals that tighter controls on the charges and conduct of those companies might be needed to go hand in hand with the reform of the age-75 threshold that I have already suggested.
  This morning's Daily Mail contains a salutary warning about the possible mis-selling of income draw-down policies. It says that for two thirds of a sample of the 50,000 policies sold, there appears to be little documentation demonstrating why the policy was recommended. The Personal Investment Authority suspects that such a lack of documentation is often a proxy for mis-selling.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some companies will not allow draw-down recipients to change investment manager once they have started draw-down, which is surely outrageous in the present climate?
  Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman, who is very learned on these matters, and to whose contribution I look

  263
  forward, makes an important point about the regulatory framework within which the policies operate. There is considerable concern about that.
  To give the House an example, the market leader in draw-down policies has produced statistics for them. Three years after the policies are taken out, they have to be reviewed to establish whether the pot is running down too quickly, in which case the amount being withdrawn has to be cut, or vice versa. The policies were introduced fairly recently, so we are starting to see the first round of three-yearly reviews. The alarming statistic is that one in three customers of the market leader whose policies have been reviewed since 1 January have had to accept cuts in their income. The average nominal drop is 20 per cent., which is substantial, because one must add on 10 per cent. of inflation over three years. People who have large pots can, it is hoped, cope with such fluctuation, but it is of concern to people whose income is borderline.
  What has been the problem with those draw-down policies? Why has income from them fallen considerably? I shall briefly explain the three main reasons. The first, as I said earlier, is the fall in annuity rates, which are now substantially lower than they were three years ago, so the amount of money that people can get from an annuity based on a given pot will have fallen. In other words, if people had bought an annuity three years ago, they would have a higher lifetime pension than they do, because of the fall in annuity rates. Obviously, the converse would be true if annuity rates were rising, but the prospects of a significant rise are not particularly bright, so that problem may be with us for some time.
  The second reason why many people are experiencing a fall in their income from draw-down policies is what is catchily known in the trade as mortality drag. If 63-year-olds have bought an annuity at age 60, the annuity provider will not have been sure that they will live to 63. Some people will have died at 61 or 62, and will have given the provider profit, allowing the company to put a little extra money into the annuity. If the annuity is recalculated for purchase at age 63, people have given away the fact that they lived for the preceding three years, so the annuity company considers them a worse risk and the annuity rate would be lower. That tends to reduce the amount that people can get from draw-down policies.
  Charges are the third reason why some policies are not yielding good results, and this issue is of considerable concern. Moreover, if an income is drawn from the pot and the balance of the pot is then used for investment, that must battle against falling annuity rates, against mortality drag and against the fact that a big chunk of the money will be taken in charges. Against that background, unless the money is invested very well and the stock market does well, there is a risk—as the one in three people who took out draw-down policies three years ago and who now face a fall in their pension found out—of a fall in income.
  I mention that situation to remind the House that income draw-down is not a one-way bet and may not be suitable for many pensioners with relatively modest pots. None the less, my judgment is that we should give pensioners—especially those with large pension pots, who may be more financially sophisticated—a choice. We need to tighten the regulation, but I am aware of no reason for allowing people draw-down for 10 years—during which all these problems can occur—and then suddenly,
  264
  when they reach of 75, telling them that we cannot allow it any more. That is an arbitrary cut-off point, and there are easy ways around the problems that I have cited.
  In conclusion, I repeat my call for the Minister to introduce greater flexibility into pensioners' choices at the age of 75. I believe that pensioners should be given a choice, and that the arguments about possible loss of tax revenue or increased benefit expenditure do not stand up. However—this is an important caveat—I also believe that investors need to be protected, and that the regulation of draw-down schemes needs urgent attention. If the Minister will promise to do both those things, he may convince me that he is, after all, one of the good guys.
  9.51 am
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on presenting this important subject for debate and on the clarity with which he dissects even the most arcane problem. The problem of pension policy and annuities is especially arcane.
  About three months ago, I submitted a written question to the Treasury, asking when it proposed to revisit the regulation—I believe of 1921—that makes annuities obligatory. The answer that I received had the tone of lofty condescension and complacency that we have come to expect from the Treasury at its worst. That provoked me into looking into the problem of pension policy.
  I want to emphasise the scale and extent of the problem. There are probably about 5 million potential annuitants. That very large number includes not only the personal pension holders that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon mentioned, but a large number of people in defined contribution occupational pension schemes, many of which are linked to annuities—often with very little choice—and people who have made additional voluntary contributions. In terms of numbers, the problem is extensive.
  The scale of the problem in terms of its impact on individual pensioners also needs to be emphasised. Figures recently reproduced by the Library showed that, for a 65-year old pensioner with a pension fund of about £100,000, the annuity value had collapsed from about £11,000 in 1990 to £5,500 today.
  In many senses, the problem is getting worse, for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon has described, it is getting worse as a result of trends in the gilts market. It may be assumed that gilt rates are at an all-time low, but that is almost certainly not the case. Various factors are continuing to drive down gilt yields. If we succeed in joining economic and monetary union in a few years' time, one of the effects will be to push down the long-term cost of capital—that is one of the reasons for doing it. Long-term German bond rates are even lower than our gilt yields. That will be a factor pushing down our gilt yields even further. Barclays Capital recently did some long-term projections, which suggest that gilt yields could go as low as 2 per cent. Powerful economic forces are pushing down gilt yields, and therefore annuity rates, even further.
  Another factor working in the same direction is the fact that actuaries are constantly taking into account revised assessments of life expectancy. As individuals, we may be able to get our revenge on the actuaries by living

  265
  longer than we are expected to, but collectively, by definition, we cannot. The impact of that is necessarily to drive down annuity values.
  I want to make a fundamental point on policy. Quite apart from the complexity of the matter and the impact of low annuities on individual pensioners, an important issue of principle is involved. It is a simple libertarian issue about whether people should have the freedom to make choices about how they manage their own personal finance. In this country, we have a tradition that is extraordinarily paternalistic and illiberal.
  I quote from an 1888 report on which, I believe, the Government still draw heavily, which defined the basis on which state pensions should be dealt with in the 19th century. It argued against paying lump sums to pensioners as opposed to supplying a steady income stream. That report, written 110 years ago, said:
  "The payment…of a lump sum is open to the obvious objection that in the event of improvidence or misfortune…the retired public servant may be reduced to circumstances which might lead to his being an applicant for public or private charity".
  That is exactly the attitude that prevails today, except that for "public or private charity" one should read "income support". We fundamentally object to that paternalistic, illiberal view of personal finance, regardless of the specific circumstances of many of our constituents.
  Let me summarise what appear to be the central objections to annuity payments—at least in the rigid framework in which they operate today—from the pensioner's standpoint. There is an advantage to others—notably the Inland Revenue, which has a steady stream of income to tax—but the disadvantages are essentially four.
  First, as my hon. Friend explained at length, in practice most annuities are level annuities, so the pensioner is exposed to inflation risk. Inflation prospects currently look extremely good, but it requires only a fairly plausible set of circumstances, such as a collapse in the value of the pound, to take inflation back up to levels at which the value of such annuities is substantially eroded.
  Secondly, in present circumstances, annuities represent an extremely bad deal. People get a return of roughly 4.5 per cent. when they could be getting 8 per cent. in building societies, or 15.5 per cent. if the private companies were able to deliver the return that they are promising. It is an extremely bad deal in relation to what those companies claim they can earn in the market.
  Thirdly, conversion into an annuity involves handing over wealth. That issue has been covered at length.
  A fourth point, which I believe my hon. Friend, in his other capacity as our social security spokesman, would usually emphasise, is that low annuity rates are an enormous deterrent to the Government's long-term policy on pensions. The Government are trying to promote the idea of stakeholder pensions. They have not gone for compulsion, so they depend on psychology and motivation, and yet they are doing so in a context in which anyone thinking ahead and looking at the way in which their pension policy will play out will be enormously discouraged from pursuing it.
  We are not simply talking about the disadvantages of annuities as they operate at present. There are alternatives in the market—some of which my hon. Friend has
  266
  described—but they need to be balanced against the costs. Draw-down schemes, or schemes with built-in equity elements, have commission costs. Above all, there are risks if one wants to pursue a high-return option to an annuity. However, the fundamental point is that individuals should be able to make that choice for themselves. That is the essence of this debate. There are alternatives in the market. The industry is sophisticated; it can provide them, especially now that, with the advent of the Financial Services Authority, its products will be regulated. Individuals should be able to make the choice for themselves.
  I read from the report of an earlier debate that the Economic Secretary is promising a review of the problem. The results are expected in the autumn; we look forward to them. We look forward to much greater flexibility than the Government have demonstrated in the past. If the Government could unpick some of the rigidity and paternalism that have characterised British policy on pensions for the best part of a century, they would do us all a considerable favour.
  9.59 am
  Mr. Howard Flight: I have great sympathy with the Minister, who will have to defend arguments of 30 or 100 years ago which the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have described as out of date and paternalistic.
  I wish to cover some separate ground in the overall territory. My original focus was on my perception that there will be a massive growth in the volume and proportion of money-purchase pensions over the next decade or so. That is already in train. Companies are moving from personal pensions to occupational defined contribution schemes, and we now have the stakeholder scheme. It is likely that, within 10 years, the proportion of pensions that are not in a final-salary type of scheme will be the majority. No one seems to have thought about how these savings of money will convert into pensions. There is the assumption that annuities were always the way and that that must be the right way of doing things.
  Final-salary schemes have been one of the great successes in delivering pensions over the past 20 or 30 years. Such schemes do not have all their money invested in gilts. They have the maximum spread internationally, with about 80 per cent. or more in equities. They pay pensions out of that rolling pot of money. That is why pensions have been so successful in this country, and why about £800 billion was accumulated during the 18 years of the Conservative Government. If the schemes had been forced to invest in gilts, which is what annuities do, the accumulated total might have been a third of £800 billion, with the result that final-salary schemes would have been unable to afford to pay the improved pensions that they are now paying.
  That told me that it must be wrong to put such a great deal of money into fixed-interest investment because of archaic rules when people are likely to have a pension for 20 years or more. Despite the success in reducing inflation, that must be wrong from an investment point of view. People who retire at 65 are likely to live to 85, and many who retire at 65 are forced to buy annuities, depending on the scheme to which they belong. I have in mind especially certain schemes for professionals. Even

  267
  people living to 75 may have widowed spouses who continue to live for 20 or 25 years. The trustees of any final-salary scheme would say that it would be grossly irresponsible to invest in fixed interest to such an extent.
  A second area within this territory can be described as incompatibility. If, as a country, we are to have a roughly balanced budget, self-evidently the net new supply of gilts will be zero. If we are to have a huge and rising pool of money-purchase pension schemes that are obliged to buy gilts, it is simple to see what will happen in that supply-demand situation. Real yields will be driven down even further. Indeed, to some extent, that has already happened over the past two or three years.
  The Pensions Act 1995 resulted in an increased pension fund demand for gilts, particularly on the part of mature pension schemes, as a result of safety arguments. As a consequence, the net supply of gilts has been very modest. Real yields have been about 2 per cent., against an average over the past 30 years of about 3.5 per cent. One of the arguments in the equation is that people's pots of money have increased in value because equity markets have performed well and interest rates have been low so that everything washes out. That does not happen, however, when there is a fall in real yields.
  Unless there is much more flexible investment in money-purchase pensions for the future, the situation will stay as I have described it—and, indeed, worsen. The more virtuous the Chancellor of the Exchequer becomes in achieving his so-called prudence and a balanced budget, the lower will be the pensions that people will be able to buy with their savings if they are still stuck with having to buy fixed-interest annuities.
  There is another immediate problem on which I have focused. I thought that it was well described in a talk given by the Governor of the Bank of England last week. The Governor pointed out that inflation in this country—as in America—is in a sense artificially low because of the financial problems of the emerging economies and the depreciation of their currencies. Mature economies are in a sense importing about 1 to 1.5 per cent. deflation as a result. That is mixing with about 3 to 4 per cent. domestic inflation and we are coming out with inflation at about 2.5 per cent.
  The imported deflation will be transient and there is a strong argument that the real underlying rate of inflation in mature economies will be 1 to 1.5 per cent. higher. What is the level of inflation that long gilts are forecasting? It is bout 2 per cent. or less if we take 5 per cent. long gilt yields, which take off at 3.5 per cent., which should be the long-term real rate of interest. The assumption is that inflation will stay at about the present level and the sort of level predicted by the gilt market, which is extremely low. As the emerging economies catch up, and unless there are tight countervailing policies, western inflation will be somewhat higher than it is now.
  In a way, people are being mis-sold, especially if they are buying non-inflation-indexed gilt annuities. They are buying a flow of income that apparently is expected to depreciate at only 1.5 to 2 per cent. per annum, but which is highly likely to depreciate by 2 to 3 per cent. per annum, all things being equal.
  There is a problem at both ends of the scale. The dinner party conversation aspect, to which the hon. Member for Northavon alluded, is self-evident. I received a fascinating letter from one of my constituents, who has been one of
  268
  the pioneers of high-tech venture capital investment. He wrote along these lines: "Over the past 20 years, I have pulled together all my friends and a good bit of our self-administered pension funds have been invested in high-tech companies. They have done incredibly well and there is a huge amount in our pension pots. It seems ridiculous that now we are coming up to 75—we are still keen to continue investing in this way, thereby creating jobs—we must tip the whole lot into annuities. At the very least we should be obliged to tip into annuities only the minimum to keep us off the state in future." That argument, as advanced by those who have generously provided for their pensions, is irresistible and unanswerable.
  There is a powerful argument at the other end of the spectrum, which applies particularly to women. I hope that the Government will pay due heed to the report that is to be produced by Oonagh McDonald's committee. It is being worked on. There are hundreds of thousands of people with small money-purchase pension accumulations of £40,000 or £50,000. Many of these people are cautious and responsible women who have worked part-time. It is interesting that most of the people living in West Sussex—it is allegedly a prosperous part of the world—who have written to me are in that category. They to me along these lines: "It is unjust. I have struggled to put £50,000 in my money-purchase pension scheme. I shall be forced to buy an annuity with it and to chuck the capital away." They know that they can often get better running returns merely by investing in, for example, a portfolio of high-yield and corporate bonds. The returns from an annuity will be pretty poor and people are offended about losing their capital.
  I am persuaded by Oonagh McDonald's view that, for people in that category, the paternalistic 19th-century argument about keeping them off the shoulders of the state is not worth anything. They are likely to do much better with their £40,000 elsewhere. If there were any chance of their relying on the state, they would be relying on it already. They are being treated like those who were threatened with the workhouse about 100 years ago. There is a strong case for a liberal attitude towards modest pension fund accumulations.
  Mr. Webb: May I raise another issue relating to annuities that we have not covered? I should be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's views on the open market option. My concern is that a lot of people who build up a pension pot do not grasp the fact that they can buy someone else's annuity. They could suffer significant losses. Does he think that the regulation of that area is adequate?
  Mr. Flight: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and—at a tangent—another territory is relevant. When individuals surrender any form of insurance policy, there is no obligation to tell them that they could sell it for a sum significantly larger than that for which they could cash it in. It is desirable, would be relatively simple and no great regulatory burden, for people to be obliged to be told that they could sell any insurance policy, rather than cashing it in with the insurance company.
  One answer to the conundrum is to make available annuities with more flexibility, such as equity-linked, variable draw-down and term annuities. America presents an interesting range of choice, and South Africa presents

  269
  an even more interesting range. Ironically, South Africa's thinking is in advance of ours—it was much prompted by the trade unions, which objected strongly to their members being locked into financing the state. That is what having to buy an annuity amounts to. They rightly saw that pension accumulation offered, particularly for black Africans, a chance of a little economic freedom in accumulating their capital. Therefore, South Africa has a much more rational, flexible scheme.
  People who buy an equity-linked indexed annuity are affected by a devious and unpleasant Inland Revenue rule, the effect of which is that they do not get the full benefit if such annuities do well. The Revenue says to insurance companies, "Keep the rest as a windfall profit." The gist of how the rule operates is that the Revenue correctly says that companies must allow for equity returns to fluctuate—they cannot take everything that is made in one year. However, if the bad years are not bad enough and the reserves do not get used up, people do not get the full benefit of what their annuity makes beyond what the companies are allowed to take. Not surprisingly, equity-linked annuities are not terribly popular and I am amazed at how clever and perceptive my constituents are. I pay tribute to them: they know of all those wrinkles and they have taught me a great deal that I did not know about this territory merely by raising all those points with me.
  I utterly support the points that were made about the need for thorough review, more competitiveness and better regulation of draw-down alternatives. We have all been told that the Revenue is conducting a review of draw-down arrangements. I hope that it is wide ranging, because it should deal not only with the fancy formulas relating back to how much people can draw, but with the regulatory regime. I was amazed to find that, once people have taken a draw-down at 65, they cannot change the fund manager for 10 years. That is utterly against the spirit of the Government's stakeholder pension proposals and is quite inappropriate.
  I do not know their validity, but I note that surveys show that about 98 per cent. of people approaching 75 who are required to purchase annuities seem to be unhappy about that. That issue came on to the screen in a modest way, but is now important. I suggest that citizens understand the problems and that forcing people into relying wholly on fixed-income securities for 10 or 15 years of retirement when long gilt yields have fallen below 5 per cent. and inflation is artificially low is a bad risk-return mix, even though their pots may have benefited a little from that. They know that that is not a wise use of their pension savings and they are becoming increasingly annoyed that they have to do it.
  For the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Northavon, I think that the Revenue and the Department of Social Security have been extremely reactionary. I consider the Revenue's arguments to be completely bogus. It will probably get more tax under draw-down; if the investments do that much better and if the income averages more than that under an annuity over the period of retirement, it will get the tax on that and on the lump sum at the end. It is likely to do better as a result of more flexibility.
  If the Revenue argues that the timing of the cash flow is painful, the 35 per cent. tax on any sum that is left over could be increased to 40 per cent. That would not make
  270
  much difference. If there is a statistical cash flow argument, it can be addressed. Whenever I read its arguments I think of Messrs Slow and Bideawhile because they represent bureaucratic obfuscation and thinking that comes from the 1920s, not from today. There has to be one or other method for the Revenue to satisfy itself that it is getting its fair tax take.
  Another great argument is cited: "Ah, but we must do everything to make sure that people do not blow it all and then come on the state. People are living much longer." My response is twofold. First, if the Labour Government feel so strongly about that, it is rather strange that they have put in place a massive incentive for people not to save, not to accumulate pensions and to become dependent on the state. The pension top-up, with its link to earnings rather than to inflation, is a generous incentive to come on to the state for people who have either managed to avoid getting locked into a pension scheme or have done the very minimum. It is strange that the Government are providing a huge incentive to do something that they describe as profligate.
  Secondly, we should look at behaviour. Any Member of Parliament with parents knows that people become more and more cautious with their money as they get older. Often, the problem is getting relatives to spend their money and have a decent standard of living. I have never seen a profligate 79-year-old burning up the town. I am sure that there must be one or two, but it is entirely false and unrealistic to assert that all those people over 75 will blow the lot as soon as they get the green light. Under present draw-down arrangements, they cannot do that.
  I am increasingly coming to the view that even draw-down arrangements should be more flexible and more liberal. South Africa has providence scheme pension arrangements. People get their money and they can do what they want with it. Interestingly, most buy flexible equity-linked annuities, because all the administration is done for them, and time-termed annuities, which are still a useful instrument. There is no evidence, even in a country with a much lower standard of education than ours, that the money gets blown. South Africa has put in place a modest state old-age pension for those who have no other provision, so it has the moral hazard issue about which the Government—I think somewhat bogusly—are so concerned.
  There is a big issue to be addressed, purely from the angles that I referred to at the beginning of my speech. If nothing is done, and if we still have a balanced budget, a huge and growing volume of people with money-purchase pensions will be condemned to buying gilt-based annuities. That will give them a very poor deal. Real yields will be extremely low and no pension fund manager would argue that the risk-reward mix was right. We need imaginative, radical thinking about restructuring the whole area.
  I very much hope that the investigation by the Revenue, which the Government are using as a stalling mechanism to avoid answering the questions, will not be a pathetic fudge and a minor change to the draw-down regime. What is required here is a radical, rational reform based on what works in America, parts of Asia and other parts of the world. Pressure for that reform is coming from voters of all political shades. I believe that the Minister has had many letters from his constituents, so he knows how people feel about this matter. It should not be a

  271
  cross-party issue; it is something that the people of our country want, and I hope that the Government will get a move on with it.
  10.20 am
  Sir Robert Smith: I echo what the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said: the review should be wide ranging and constructive. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) talked about the Government being the bad guy. I think that he meant Government with a capital G—
  Mr. Webb: No.
  Sir Robert Smith: Well, perhaps the bad guy does not yet have a political label, but the political label will stick to the bad guy if the Government do not produce something constructive and far reaching out of the review.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for securing this useful debate. The three speeches that we have heard so far will help me to explain the matter to my constituents and to help them see that there is a way forward. All three of the previous speakers hinted to the Government that they can proceed constructively by recognising that the elderly are not profligate and want to make effective provision for their retirement. The Government must realise that the nearer people get to retirement, the more nervous and cautious they become about their financial position. Although this problem may not arise until they reach the age of 75, people who are only approaching retirement phone me up in my constituency surgery because they read in the papers that financial analysis shows that the problem will not go away.
  The gilt market is changing. As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said, it could change even more dramatically if the Government achieve their claimed economic objective. That worry hangs over people. They should be able to relax and enjoy their retirement, having made reasonable financial provision, but, instead, they are uncertain about their future. An extremely strict set of rules is making it difficult for people to see how they can proceed in a flexible way. I hope that the Minister understands that concern and accepts the need to tackle the problem.
  I have always worried when I see new products or new tax systems being introduced to encourage people down certain savings routes. New products are marketed effectively in terms of attracting people down certain tax routes to encourage them to save, but if one does the arithmetic, one finds that charges eat up most of that benefit. Moreover, by tempting people into various ways to save, one distorts the market. As has already been said, much of what should go to savers is taken away in fees, which are hidden in the whole investment structure. Thus, clarity and information are needed, as was said in Monday's debate on the regulation of the financial services industry.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, we must ensure that people are informed about their right to sell insurance policies rather than cash them in. Apparently, there is a requirement that information should be provided, but it is not provided in a way that gets through to people. Many people make
  272
  extremely bad financial decisions and one sometimes wonders why they ever considered them in the first place, yet they do so in their droves. Therefore, the market is clearly not working efficiently and effectively. As other hon. Members have said, products need to be competitive and people need to know that they can switch supplier, which is an effective way of ensuring a better return on an investment.
  The Government must accept that this is not a temporary problem. They must also accept that the new structure of the economy that they have created means that we need new solutions. Even inflation at 1.5 to 2 per cent. amounts to a lot of inflation over someone's lifetime. In planning for their future, people must take into account the fact that investments are eaten away even by low inflation.
  The purpose of this debate was to encourage the Government to look at the review and see that it is wide ranging. It is a real problem for many investors, but the potential for solutions exists.
  Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend mentioned the effect of inflation. Will he reflect on the fact that, at 2 or 3 per cent. inflation, after a decade, people's investments are down by a quarter? If people retire at 60 and live to 80 and beyond, the oldest pensioners will be by far the poorest. Does my hon. Friend think that any policy implications follow from that?
  Sir Robert Smith: The Minister will recognise that Liberal Democrat policy is immediately to tackle the problem of pensions for the elderly by providing a narrowly targeted benefit. Given the historical provisions that were made, the oldest pensioners are the poorest. By tackling that problem now, the Government could provide immediate relief for those who cannot provide a solution for themselves—they cannot go back and rearrange their financial affairs.
  When constituents first brought this problem to my attention, they wondered whether there was a magic solution somewhere in Europe, which has had a culture of low inflation. Before this debate, I was discussing with colleagues whether they would welcome a helpful intervention suggesting that we look in that direction. I was advised that pensions provision in Europe is a bit of a scandal—
  Mr. Flight: Like everything else.
  Sir Robert Smith: I would not go quite as far as that.
  In Europe, the unfunded state system has provided people with a security blanket and they have not needed to get involved with products that deal with a low-inflation market with long-term benefits for pensioners.
  This debate has given the Minister some useful meat from which to come up with some effective solutions. If he does not do so, the "bad guy" label will stick to the Government.
  10.27 am
  Mr. Michael Trend: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing the debate. It is clear, however, that the Liberal Democrat party has seen the bandwagon roll past it in the past few weeks and it is making a desperate scramble to board it.

  273
  The campaign to scrap the compulsory purchase of annuities has been driven by the Conservatives, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who spoke so well today. It is our clear view that the requirement to buy an annuity at the age of 75 should be abolished.
  Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman should be careful when talking about bandwagons. The Liberal Democrat bandwagon in this debate consists of three Members, whereas the Conservative bandwagon consists of only two.
  Mr. Trend: I do not need to remind the House that this is a Liberal Democrat debate. I notice that no Labour Member has spoken—let alone spoken with enthusiasm—in the Minister's welfare reform week, which is supposed to be so important but which is going like a damp squib.
  The Government should act without delay because, with every day that passes, large numbers of people who have worked hard all their lives to save for their old age are seeing their efforts cast back in their faces. We are told that the Government have asked the Inland Revenue to consider the matter, but the Government cannot continue to hide behind such obvious delaying tactics. The growing sense of unfairness with the current compulsory system has been looming on the radar ever since the Government came to power. The fact that people are now really hurting and are complaining vociferously to their Members of Parliament about their predicament shows that the Government have already left it too late to make an appropriate change to the law. They must act now.
  May I give the House a flavour of the sort of correspondence that Members of Parliament are receiving? One person has written:
  "I have saved long and hard so that I would not suffer financially in my dotage and the value of my pension pot is worth even more than the value of my house. I resent very much now that I made this great effort only to find that, even with the addition of my state pension, I still fall short of the amount that is considered to give one an adequate lifestyle in retirement.… It is unacceptable to have absolutely no control over what is probably the largest amount of money that most people will have in their lifetime at a time when it is giving the lowest return."
  We have heard many arguments about taxation. There are various ways in which the Revenue and the clever people at the Treasury could work out a compensating scheme for the Government. It has been suggested that people could be required to keep in a conventional annuity enough to cover at least the level of the minimum income guarantee. There must be dozens of other ways of achieving the aim, but my correspondent says:
  "I would be quite willing to pay a lump sum to the Government equal to the income tax allowance made to me while accruing my pension if I could have the freedom to do what I wanted with the capital."
  I am not sure that I would be prepared to do that, but it is another suggestion made by one individual who feels desperate enough to put such a deal to the Government.
  274
  All hon. Members who have spoken have said that the Government fear that people might go in for high living. My correspondent says:
  "The Government may fear that some would go out and buy, say, a Ferrari with the money and then fall back on the state to support them. However"—
  this is the key point—
  "people who take the matter of their retirement seriously and save for it are hardly likely to do this."
  We all agree that annuities involve a balance of risk. The choice of schemes for pensioners is wide and, to many, it must seem bewildering. Should they buy a fixed annuity or one that increases from a lower level of initial payment? Should it be linked to the retail prices index? Should it be a joint survivor annuity so that their spouse will benefit after their death? Should they opt for a guaranteed minimum length of payment? Should the annuity be "with proportion" or "capital protected"? Should they take the income in arrears or in advance? How often do they want payments?
  The central point about the current position, which others have made, is that the current rates are low. The Association of Unit Trusts and Investment Funds paper, which has already been referred to, says that a man aged 65 with a pot of £100,000 could reasonably expect to get a guaranteed five-year fixed annuity with no escalation of about £9,000. A guaranteed five-year annuity with 5 per cent. escalation would be about £6,000. A guaranteed five-year annuity index-linked to the retail prices index would be about £6,500. That compares with a figure seven years ago of between £15,000 and £16,000. The drop has been substantial and must be very scary to people coming up to making such difficult choices about what sort of annuity to opt for.
  Behind all the complicated choices and the consequences that flow from them there are two fundamental uncertainties: first, how long a person is likely to live; and secondly, what is going to happen to long-term gilt redemption yields. An individual could answer all the questions that I asked earlier in the most intelligent and appropriate way, sign up for an annuity on a Monday and die on the Tuesday. That would be bad luck, but there is nothing to be done about it. On the other hand, a life company could offer very generous payments to a heavy-smoking, heavy-drinking, overeating, never-exercising, highly nervous elderly man who then lives for decades. There is nothing that the company can do about that. An annuity is for life. Jane Austen rightly said that it was "a very serious business".
  I want to speak up for the annuity. Somehow, its popularity, based on the conversion of capital to income guaranteed for the full term of life, has persisted down the centuries that divide us from Miss Austen's world. For those able to save money for their retirement—thankfully, that is now a large number of people—the annuity continues to be a popular choice. At an important level, annuities are regarded as the fairest way of sharing the risks of our mortality.
  As the hon. Member for Northavon said, it is most interesting that, despite the wide range of annuities on offer today, and despite the actuarial information that

  275
  should help people to make the right choice, the industry average for those who buy level-term annuities is 83 per cent. The AUTIF document refers to an office that surveyed people about to retire
  "and found that most wished to buy an escalating annuity because they thought it was sensible to provide for future rises in the cost of living. But when it came to the actual purchase, the vast majority opted for a level term annuity."
  Level-term annuities are popular because they answer an important psychological need, as well as giving people the guarantees that they require at that age.
  There is a third party in the deal between the individual and the life company—the Government. The Government have obvious tax interests, but they must not be allowed to override other interests. The Government are also the final regulator of the balance of risk between the individual and the life company. A key Government responsibility is to ensure that the means of saving and providing income for oneself continues to be seen as a fair and reasonable way of sharing risk. As long as all those involved in the long chain from the young saver to the elderly pensioner retain a sense that the system is broadly fair, there is every reason to believe that the annuity will remain a popular means of providing for oneself.
  I ask the Minister to imagine what it must feel like to be a 73 or 74-year-old who, through their own hard work, has saved tens of thousands of pounds for their old age. As the long-term gilt redemption yields have declined, that individual will have noticed that the cost of annuities has roughly doubled over recent years. They will get about half as much to live on as someone who saved the same amount and retired a few years ago. Their prospects will be substantially bleaker than they might reasonably have expected. Someone in that position knows that they are going to get a bad deal. They have done everything that successive Governments have urged them to do, passing over some of the pleasures of life to be able to stand on their own two feet in retirement, but the system has stuffed them. The Government control the system.
  The fact that one group of pensioners who have worked hard and saved hard are getting a bad deal because they are being forced through no fault of their own to take out annuities erodes general confidence in the system. The Government cannot want that. Let us charitably assume that, one day, the Government sort out their muddle on stakeholder pensions. What if the dark cloud surrounding compulsory annuities rains down on that pet scheme? The previous Government saw how annuity rates were going and changed the law in 1995 to allow income to be drawn down directly from the pension fund until the pensioner reaches the age of 75. Enabling pensioners to defer the purchase of an annuity for 10 years or more was a sensible and popular measure. New financial products were developed to offer better choices to pensioners.
  However, the problem facing those coming up to 75 is now substantially worse than that which faced the earlier generation. Government policy must respond and develop. The previous Government acted to ensure the basic sense of fairness in the system. Those who have waited may well have been gambling on a rise in annuity rates, but that gamble has clearly not paid off. They, and a new generation facing this area of difficulty for the first time, are looking to the Government to remove the age limit. We are asking for greater flexibility, so that people coming up to 75 can make their own informed decisions.
  276
  The Government should at once free people from any artificial, arbitrary, unfair restrictions and let responsible people make their own decisions.
  10.40 am
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Stephen Timms): I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), as others have done, on his success in securing it. The issue is important and, as several hon. Members have pointed out, it is attracting a great deal of attention at the moment. I also welcome the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) to his place, and congratulate him on his appointment. I know that he will not take it amiss if I tell him that we shall miss the energy and vigour that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), brought to our debates on such matters—but that, if he does not match him in terms of the length of his contributions, there will be no complaints from us on that score.
  I also congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor on the fact that he has been able to make a policy announcement in his first contribution in his new role. Indeed, I have here the Conservatives' press release of yesterday announcing that, as the hon. Gentleman has told us, they intend to scrap the requirement.
  It is not entirely clear to me, either from the press release or from what the hon. Gentleman said today, whether the Conservative proposal is to change the age from 75 or to abolish the necessity to take out an annuity at any stage. I must add that the outrage that he has expressed about the unfairness of it all would be a little more convincing if it were not for the fact, which he mentioned towards the end of his speech, that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the requirement in the first place. No doubt, I shall come back to some of those points in due course.
  Let me reassure the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)—I have not consulted the 1888 report to find inspiration for what I have to say to the House this morning. I pay tribute to the expertise in these rather arcane matters that has been shown by everyone who has contributed to the debate so far.
  First, I shall say something about the reformed structure that we are introducing for the pensions system, so as to provide background to the concerns that have been expressed about annuities. There is a pressing case for reform. It is true that pensioner incomes have grown faster than working incomes over the past 20 years, mainly as a result of the success of occupational pensions—but that overall average picture masks the fact that a significant number of older people have been left behind by the improvements that others have enjoyed. Some pensioners have prospered; others have not. That is why it is important to give priority to extra help for those who need it most urgently.
  Every pensioner household will benefit from the £4 billion package that we have introduced for the life of this Parliament, but the lion's share of the extra money will be aimed at the least well-off. Through the minimum income guarantee, which several hon. Members have mentioned, pensioners receiving income support are now at least £160 a year better off than they were before April.
  Next April, the guaranteed level will increase in line with earnings, which will bring another 20,000 pensioners within the minimum income guarantee. As we aim,

  277
  in time, to uprate that guarantee in line with earnings, those whose income is just above the guarantee—a group often of particular concern, rightly so, both to hon. Members and to their constituents—will gradually be brought within its scope as its level rises. After next April's increase, a pensioner couple over 80 will be about £8 a week better off in real terms as a result of the changes that have been made since last year.
  That is a substantial boost, and we can give it because we are ensuring that the extra money is available to those who need help most. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who is not in his place at the moment, described that as an extremely generous arrangement; I am not sure that I would go quite so far as that, but it represents a great improvement for the people who, rightly, look to the Government to provide improvements.
  In addition, in the winter, every pensioner household will receive a £100 payment towards the cost of fuel, which will benefit about 10 million pensioners in more than 7 million households. The minimum tax guarantee, with additional uprating of pensioners' personal income tax allowances, means that, since the Budget, 200,000 pensioners have been taken out of income tax for the first time. Two thirds of pensioners now have no tax to pay.
  A range of substantial changes have therefore already been made. Looking to the future, our election manifesto recognised that we need major reforms to ensure that future generations of pensioners can look forward to a decent retirement. Our review led to the Green Paper on pensions, published just before Christmas.
  Everybody who can save for retirement has a responsibility to do so; in turn, the Government have a responsibility to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough, and to regulate effectively the private pensions system—an aspect of which is the focus of our discussion this morning.
  Our strategy for the future, as laid out in the Green Paper, rests on four interlinked pillars. The first is the basic state pension, uprated at least in line with prices each year. That will not be means-tested or privatised. The second is the minimum income guarantee, which I have described.
  The third pillar is the state second pension, and the fourth is our new funded stakeholder pension. The new state second pension is being designed to ensure that, in future, everybody with a lifetime of work and contributions behind them will build up a right to a pension that will be above the minimum income guarantee when they retire. In due course, we expect that pension to become a flat-rate scheme for those on lower earnings, with moderate and higher earners contracted out into funded pensions.
  The fourth pillar—the stakeholder funded pension—will be a new type of private provision, combining the low overheads and high security that characterise occupational pensions with the flexibility of the best personal pensions. Those are being designed particularly to help those on middle incomes, from roughly £9,000 a year up to average earnings. However, they will benefit those on higher incomes as well.
  Mr. Trend: With regard to both pensions in general and stakeholder pensions in particular, the Minister's
  278
  document, released yesterday, did not seem to say anything about the costs, which were supposed to be 1 per cent. In the light of that paper, and of other consideration that the Government are undertaking, can he tell us whether he still expects the costs to be that low, or whether they will be higher?
  Mr. Timms: We are issuing a series of consultation briefs about the design of stakeholder pensions. The first, issued on 2 June, was about minimum standards, including costs. We are consulting on the view that we expressed in that paper. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, another document was issued yesterday, about employer access to stakeholder pensions. Our aim is that every employee in the land who does not have access to an occupational pension scheme should have access to a stakeholder pension in the future.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we did not revisit the subjects covered in the paper of 2 June, but that is because the subject matter of the next document was different. Four further consultation briefs will be published before the end of July, and will cover the full range of the decisions that need to be made about the details of stakeholder pensions.
  We are driving a hard bargain on behalf of scheme members with our proposal for a 1 per cent. charge. We think that that is right, and that the Government and the industry need to work hard on stakeholder pensions to persuade people whose main knowledge of personal pensions is that they were mis-sold to lots of people in the past, that stakeholder pensions will be dependable, good value, and a good place to invest their savings.
  That is the basis for the view that we expressed on 2 June. I have been heartened by the positive response to that proposal so far. We are considering the matter and consulting, and we shall listen carefully to what everybody says. The proposal has lit a spark of enthusiasm about stakeholder pensions.
  The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill sets out the basic legislative framework for stakeholder pensions. There will be a series of documents between now and July about the detail. We have a structure for pensions reform that is well thought through and has been widely welcomed. There has been lots of comment about the detail, and our task now is to get that right.
  I readily acknowledge the widespread concerns about the requirement to annuitise a personal pension or a money purchase occupational pension arrangement. I have received numerous letters from hon. Members and constituents. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs said that I must have received many letters from my constituents, but in fact I have probably received more from his constituents, via him. Several hon. Members have also tabled parliamentary questions on the matter, and I have had discussions with both them and the pensions industry.
  The present position is that members of a personal pension scheme must use their fund to buy an annuity by the time that they reach the age of 75, and—this has not been mentioned today—members of money purchase occupational pension schemes must buy an annuity when they retire. Before reaching 75, but after the age of 50, holders of personal pensions may draw income directly from their fund, subject to upper and lower limits. We have already had some discussion about income

  279
  draw-down. We plan to introduce parallel arrangements for members of money purchase occupational schemes shortly.
  The current arrangements for annuity deferral until 75 have been in place for three years, as the hon. Member for Windsor said. The Inland Revenue is conducting a review of how well the arrangements are operating and will assess the need for any changes later in the year. The review is considering annuitisation by 75. I reassure the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs that it will be a wide and thorough review, and not the pathetic fudge that he feared. The results will be published in the autumn.
  The rate for a level annuity has fallen sharply over the past five years. Apart from the change to a low inflation environment, people live about 10 years longer than they did 50 years ago, and there have been sharp increases in longevity in the past few years. That continuing trend clearly affects the annuity rates that can be offered, as the fund will have to cover a greater number of years in retirement.
  Before writing off annuities, we should consider the whole story. I have some sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Windsor on the subject, although he seemed to be arguing both ways. He said that he was in favour of annuities and then said that people who had to buy them were getting a terrible deal. We must ensure that we do not encourage the view that taking out an annuity means bad value, which is often not the case.
  Mr. Webb: I was not remotely attempting to write off annuities, although they may not be appropriate for everyone. We are in favour of choice. People of 75 who are allowed to continue with draw-down and to keep a capital sum might be better placed to pay for their own long-term care, whereas those who buy an annuity get a pension stream that will never cover long-term care costs. Might that be another attraction for the Government of more flexibility?
  Mr. Timms: That is an interesting point. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are considering the arrangements for long-term care and will make an announcement in due course. There are attractions in various forms of flexibility that are not currently available and we need to keep an open mind. Throughout this debate, hon. Members have been asking for greater flexibility, and no one has suggested that there is a panacea that would allow us to convert a lump sum pension pot into an income stream to support people through their retirement.
  The current arrangements are easy to criticise, but it is hard to come up with genuinely radical alternatives. There is certainly scope for discussing the details and whether it might be appropriate to have extra elements of flexibility. The great virtue of an annuity is that it provides a guaranteed income for the remainder of a person's life, however long that turns out to be. That is an important virtue.
  It has been suggested this morning that it is rather patronising to be concerned that people will blow their savings on a Ferrari when they retire. Whatever the other considerations, the Government would need to think long and hard before signing up to an arrangement that could lead to people facing a sudden financial crisis in their 80s or 90s. I have seen some suggestions for alternatives that are quite open about the fact that they run out after
  280
  25 years, on the ground that most people do not live longer than that after retirement, but it would be wrong to go down a route that could lead to a crisis for people at exactly the time in their life when they would least want to be confronted with one.
  Annuity rates have fallen, but so has inflation. Lower inflation means that the purchasing power of a fixed-value annuity is now maintained much better than it was in the past. The rates for index-linked annuities are especially interesting. Five years ago, an indexed annuity would have produced an annual pension, for a man aged 65, of £6,600 from a fund of £100,000. The comparable figure today is about £5,800: a reduction of only £800 a year and a much smaller fall than that in the rate of level annuities.
  That comparison is instructive and it is as well to bear those figures in mind in considering whether the value offered by annuities is significantly worse today than it was five years ago. The evidence does not support that thesis. Over the same period, people's pension funds have enjoyed the benefit of substantial stock market growth, and fund growth has helped to mitigate the effects of the fall in annuity rates.
  The open market option for holders of personal pensions means that fundholders can shop around.
  Sir Robert Smith: People nearing retirement will not have had the full benefit of stock market growth, because their fund should have been managed in recognition of their age.
  Mr. Timms: That is a fair point, but, if one compares the past 10 years with the previous 30, it is clear that returns on equities have been very much better.
  Life offices that act as annuity providers have a very good track record for security. There has been no significant failure associated with them, owing to the underwriting process that secures the payment to an annuitant so that the liability is matched to suitable assets. That feature, guaranteeing income, is the real strength of the annuity system.
  There are already forms of annuity, such as with-profits annuities, that allow pensioners to share in equity growth; but that inevitably exposes the pensioner to increased risk. The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs suggested that those were not widely taken up because of Inland Revenue rules. I do not agree. I think that it is the inevitable risk that has deterred people. They are available as an option for those who want them.
  We have considered whether there is a viable alternative to annuity purchase that would guarantee income for the rest of the annuitant's life, but none has so far been identified. The Treasury is open to suggestions from the industry.
  The value offered by annuities is not as poor as is often suggested. I have seen no evidence that the providers of annuities are making exceptional profits, which they would be if some of the criticisms that have been levelled at them were valid.
  Stakeholder pensions are identified in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill as money purchase schemes. I want stakeholder pensions to enjoy—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. It is time for the next debate.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  11 am
  Mr. Martin Caton: In 1949, a Labour Government gave us the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which established national parks with the twin purposes of promoting their conservation and public enjoyment. It also established areas of outstanding natural beauty, where the objective was landscape conservation. I hope that today's debate—50 years after passage of the legislation—will allow us to celebrate our designated areas of outstanding natural beauty in England and Wales. I also hope, however, that we will not be afraid to focus on the weaknesses that have been exposed in the legislation over the past half century, or to consider how, in the years ahead, we might improve the protection of some of our most precious landscapes and habitats.
  The designation "area of outstanding natural beauty" was created by section 87 of the 1949 Act. The first thing that we can celebrate is the very fact that that Government, in that legislation, recognised the need to maintain our most beautiful countryside as places in which to work, to live and to play while protecting its special qualities.
  We can still, 50 years later, rejoice in the title of areas of outstanding natural beauty, as it tells us what we are talking about: some of the finest landscape and most environmentally important countryside in the whole of England and Wales. Although we might quibble about whether the countryside that we are talking about is truly natural, for most people the title communicates very well what we are trying to say, and does so far better than titles such as national park, nature reserve, site of special scientific interest, special area for conservation or special protection areas.
  Unfortunately, it could also be argued that creating the title AONB was almost all the legislation did. The legislation called for designation of parts of our countryside as outstanding, and, in the title, explained why they should be so designated. To be fair, I should add that the Act also made provision for land-use planning arrangements, which, although possibly imperfect, have helped enormously in protecting those special places.
  The Act did not provide for the administration of AONBs. It said that they should exist and why, but did not say anything about how—how they were to be managed—or about who was to manage them or to finance that management. That contrasts with the situation of national parks, which were created in the same legislation. Questions of who and how in relation to national parks were answered fairly clearly in the 1949 Act, and were further dealt with in the Environment Act 1995.
  The failure to make provision for positive management of AONBs was not an error, but was a result of the thinking of that time—particularly in the Hobhouse committee's 1947 report, which led to the legislation and which stated:
  "There are many areas of fine country in England and Wales which are not included in our selection of national parks but yet possess outstanding landscape beauty, are often of great scientific interest and in many cases include important holiday areas. While in the main they do not call for the degree of positive management required in National Parks…their contribution to the wider enjoyment of the countryside is so important that special measures should be taken to preserve their natural beauty and interest.
  282
  We recommend, therefore, that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should designate areas of high landscape quality, scientific interest and recreational value as Conservation Areas."
  In the 1949 Act, those conservation areas became AONBs. I suspect that, even then, the belief that those areas did not require positive management was mistaken. Consequently, the need for such management has become ever clearer.
  Perhaps, 50 years after passage of the Act, the most remarkable feature of our AONBs is how much has been built on such a flimsy foundation. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House who represent constituencies that include AONBs, or parts of them, will take this opportunity to talk about what is happening—for good or ill—on their patch, to help Ministers as they assess the best way forward for landscape protection in those very special areas.
  I should like—to set the ball rolling—to talk briefly about the AONB in my own constituency of Gower, to demonstrate not only some real achievements but some failings that were partly caused by the omission in the 1949 Act.
  The fact is that the Gower peninsula itself set the ball rolling. In 1956, it became our first designated area of outstanding natural beauty, in recognition of the national importance of its landscape, particularly its coastal landscape, and its wildlife and clear historical identity. It began the process of AONB recognition across England and Wales.
  For many years before designation, Gower had, quite rightly, been appreciated for its special qualities. Its complex geology produces a wide range of scenery in a comparatively small area. It ranges from the south coast's superb limestone cliffs and broad sandy beaches, to the salt marshes and sand dune systems in the north. Inland, large areas of common land—dominated by sandstone heath ridges—are a feature, and its rich natural environment of heath, grassland, fresh and salt water marsh, dunes and oak woodland were nationally renowned even before the war. That was reflected, from 1933 onwards, in a number of early acquisitions by the National Trust.
  Nevertheless, it took some intense lobbying before, on 9 May 1956, L. Strang, chairman of the National Parks Commission, and his secretary, Harold Abrahams, signed the designation order. The designation has been a matter of pride for Gower residents ever since. However, even in 1956, Gower people were worried about the availability of resources, after designation, for maintenance and improvement of the environment in their area.
  At the time, the then National Parks Commission proposed an extensive series of grants for landscape management. The proposal, however, was never implemented, so that the burden of providing resources for conservation of that nationally important area has fallen on local authorities, sometimes with the help of partner agencies. In fact, the nearest that we have come to putting into practice the National Parks Commission's 1956 idea occurred in the 1990s, under the Tir Cymen agri-environment scheme, in which Gower was a pilot area. The scheme enabled some very valuable environmental improvement work and enthused our local farmers. I hope that the scheme's replacement, Tir Gofal, will build on the earlier experiment's achievements.
  Since 1956, it has been mostly up to local councils to try to protect the Gower AONB as best they could. However, with no statutory requirement for positive

  283
  management, the record has been patchy. For example, in the 1960s, an AONB warden was appointed to implement small-scale projects and to patrol the area, but to do so without an overall strategic plan. When the warden retired in the early 1970s, his post lapsed.
  Similarly, in 1973, when the importance of Gower's unspoilt coastline was recognised by its designation as a heritage coast, a heritage coast warden was appointed by the city council, and several initiatives on various degraded sand dune systems were implemented. However, there was no heritage coast management plan, and no links to wider AONB work. When the heritage warden retired, he, too, was not replaced. Time was lost, and, with it, stone walls, traditional boundary hedges, stone-faced banks, old barns and goodness knows what coastal and inland wildlife habitats also were lost.
  Only in the 1990s, with publication of the Gower management plan and appointment of AONB staff, did conservation really move forward. Now, we have integration and co-ordination of the work of the agencies involved in countryside management in the AONB. However, a real threat is still posed by the absence of core funding and statutory responsibility. Gower AONB' s long-term protection is still by no means guaranteed.
  I believe that the situation at the Gower AONB is similar to that of AONBs across the country. There are now 36 areas of outstanding natural beauty in England, and four such areas in Wales. Additionally, a large part of the Wye valley AONB is in England, with a smaller part of it in Wales.
  All 41 AONBs, with our national parks, represent the finest landscapes in our country and are an absolutely vital part of our national heritage. They range from the Solway coast to the north Wessex downs; from the Norfolk coast to the Cotswolds; from the Cornish coast to the Clwydian range. Their beauty is matched only by their wonderful variety.
  As I have mentioned national parks, I should affirm that AONBs are not second-class national parks, but are equal in quality. They are distinguished from the latter in the legislation on the basis of access for extensive outdoor recreation, not on the basis of beauty or ecology. However, although AONBs are equal in beauty and environmental quality, they are not equal in treatment.
  National parks have authorities to manage their protection and public enjoyment. They also enjoy a high profile and guaranteed funding, which is not true of AONBs. Although AONBs often have to deal with national-park scale problems, they do so without resources that are anywhere close to those available to national parks. For instance, the Cotswolds, at 2,038 sq km, is much larger than the national parks, and the Chilterns, with 52 million day visitors a year, receives more visitors than most national parks in any year. Can it be right that the law fails to provide that those special areas must be managed to protect them, fails to identify anyone to do the job, and fails to provide for resourcing the work?
  Even now, when, thanks to local initiative, a lot of good work is being done, 13 of the 37 AONBs in England have no management plan in place. Some have not appointed an AONB officer, or set up a joint advisory committee. With no statutory requirement and no long-term funding, that is hardly surprising. As an aside, I should tell the House that we in Wales do not even have the benefit of additional financial resources directed to the English AONBs as an interim measure.
  284
  The Countryside Agency submitted advice to the Government on the future of AONBs last June. The Countryside Council for Wales followed, with a similar submission to the Welsh Office in January. Both organisations expressed concern about the increasing pressures of modern society on our vulnerable high-quality country areas, and about the threat from changing farming economies to our treasured landscapes.
  The Countryside Agency made specific recommendations to ensure effective management, adequate financial provision and improved development controls in our AONBs. It calls on the Government to give a lead in their planning decisions to demonstrate the very high degree of protection that AONBs should enjoy. It calls for a statutory obligation on all public bodies to have regard to the need to enhance the natural beauty of AONBs. It calls for highway authorities and the Highways Agency to act on their duty to have regard to the purposes of the designation of protected countryside, and suggests the use of transport policy and programmes to channel funds into schemes that protect our finest countryside.
  The agency argues that agri-environment schemes should cover all farm land in national parks and AONBs. It calls for Government funds to cover the costs of management services for visitors and recreation in designated areas, and suggests that this funding be supplemented by lottery and European Union finance. It calls for local authorities to be statutorily required to pursue the objective for which AONBs were designated, and to produce AONB management plans.
  The agency argues that local authorities, when they so wish, should be able to constitute conservation boards, with—as a minimum—consultee rights on planning matters, recreation and agricultural policies in their AONB. It calls for Government funding of the core costs of managing AONBs through a 50 per cent. grant. As a matter of interest, the Countryside Council for Wales argues that the grant should be 75 per cent., to give parity with national parks. Finally, the advice calls for Government finance for an AONB fund for special projects.
  I know that the Government are considering the Countryside Agency's advice, but they have been doing so for 12 months now. At different times since last June, we have been told that the Government would respond soon, and then very soon. When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up, I hope that he might be able to be rather more specific as to when we can expect that response. However, if he could manage a phrase such as "very, very soon", or "very, very soon indeed", I would regard that as at least a step in the right direction.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to make a speech and intrude on the time available to the hon. Gentleman, as, unfortunately, another engagement means that I cannot stay for the rest of the debate. However, on this specific point, may I say how much I welcome what he has said? The Sussex downs conservation board is seeking increased powers along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. My constituency contains an AONB, and the Sussex downs can be seen in the distance. What the hon. Gentleman has said should

  285
  command wide support in the House, and I hope that a favourable response from the Government will not be too long in coming.
  Mr. Caton: I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention, which fits nicely with what I have to say. I was about to refer to the private Member's Bill, the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty Bill, being introduced by Lord Renton of Mount Harry in the other place. Lord Renton is the chairman of the conservation board mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and that board is setting a good example for a possible way forward.
  I know that I am not allowed to request legislation in this debate, and I do not intend to do so, but I have read the Hansard report of the Second Reading debate on Lord Renton's Bill in the other place. It was quite a literary debate, with quotes from John Keats, Rudyard Kipling, A. P. Herbert and even Bill Bryson, and it helped to clarify the matters that need to be addressed. It identified some key questions, which I shall list and to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will respond.
  Are we going to be able to conserve our AONBs in the future without placing a statutory duty on local authorities? How can we make sure that all public bodies recognise and respond to the AONB designation in carrying out their functions in these areas? How do we ensure that every AONB in the country is positively managed, so that these landscapes and habitats can be properly protected in the face of increasing pressures?
  How do we resource that management and the special enhancement and conservation projects that will come out of it? How do we ensure a cohesive approach to AONB management, when the AONB in question straddles two or more local authority areas? Can we justify the differences in levels of protection offered to AONBs as compared with national parks, when we know that they are equal in terms of landscape quality?
  On Monday, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment launched the new Countryside Agency. Quite rightly, the former pointed to the actions that this Government have already taken to improve the quality of life in our rural areas and to protect our environment. He stressed his determination to do more.
  I know that the Minister is committed to the cause of conservation and, especially, to the protection of our finest landscapes. I hope that he will be able to address the questions that I have just asked, and outline Government thinking about protecting that invaluable resource—the 16 per cent. of our country designated as being of outstanding natural beauty.
  The AONB designation applies nationally. Its purpose is to conserve the most important landscape heritage of the nation for the benefit of this and future generations. It is about long-term stewardship for the conservation of natural beauty, and it includes the protection of flora and fauna. Geological features, as well as important features of the landscape, archaeology and history, are also covered. When AONBs are working at their best, these national objectives are achieved through partnership with local communities. That is what we must build on.
  286
  I noticed that the press release for Monday's launch of the Countryside Agency was entitled "Everyone's a Winner in Tomorrow's Countryside". I believe that we will all be winners if we get the future of our AONBs right.
  In this debate, we can celebrate the 50th anniversary of the 1949 Act. Despite its flaws, it was a landmark piece of legislation about how we live, work and play in the most beautiful parts of England and Wales and, at the same time, conserve their special qualities. Now, however, we need to ask whether it is time to create a new framework for areas of outstanding natural beauty for the new century—a framework for better management and fairer resourcing.
  11.17 am
  Mr. Tom Brake: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing a debate on such an important issue. He is privileged to represent a constituency that contains an area which, although I do not know it myself, my researcher Richard Thomas tells me is as beautiful as the Gower peninsula. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern that areas such as Gower should be afforded more effective protection.
  This is the first time I have contributed to a debate specifically concerning areas of outstanding natural beauty, but I have contributed to many debates on the protection of wildlife, sites of special scientific interest, national parks and the right to roam. These issues are, of course, inextricably linked.
  As the hon. Member for Gower stated, we are approaching the 50th anniversary of the post-war Labour Government's landmark legislation—the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. I hope that this Government will act in a similarly radical and forward-thinking manner. As we approach the millennium, we need further countryside legislation. However, I have already expressed concern that a super Bill, combining access, wildlife protection, AONBs and hedgerow legislation, could end up failing adequately to address the needs of any of those areas—but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
  It is probably worth setting out the exact definition of areas of outstanding natural beauty. They are, of course, defined under the 1949 Act to which I referred earlier. According to the Library, the designation is
  "supposed to conserve and enhance natural beauty, taking into account the needs of agriculture, forestry and other rural industries and of the economic and social needs of local communities.
  Sustainable forms of social and economic development, which in themselves protect and improve the environment, are encouraged."
  The purpose of AONBs must, of course, be to sustain the beauty of the area, but without freezing it in time—an argument that was stressed in another place as recently as yesterday.
  The key difference between AONBs and national parks is that creating opportunities for recreation is not a specific purpose of an AONB. Another key point is that local authorities are supposed to take the special character of the landscape into account when creating policy and controlling development in AONBs, but, as the hon. Member for Gower pointed out, AONBs do not have legal statutory protection. That anomaly should be tackled because "taking into account" can mean different things to different people.

  287
  AONBs should be given the same status in that respect as national parks—the highest level of landscape protection. That should be reflected in planning policy guidance note 7. There should be a statutory duty on public bodies and local authorities to have regard to, and further the purpose of, AONBs.
  Another feature of areas of outstanding natural beauty is that although they were designated under the 1949 Act, as the hon. Member for Gower said, that Act does not stipulate who is responsible for their management or funding. It is imperative that safe and secure funding from both central and local government be provided to make the AONB status truly effective. That is a view with which the Government have expressed some sympathy.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted AONBs to be put on a statutory basis, and I agree. Will he therefore support the Bill introduced by Lord Renton of Mount Harry, or something similar, to enable that to be done? Secondly, does he agree that the crucial requirement now is certainty? I have an AONB in my constituency—the south downs. The life of the south downs conservation board was extended for three years two years ago, so it will run out shortly. Certainty is desperately needed for those areas, where there is much concern about the long-term future.
  My area does not want to be a national park. It wants an extension of the south downs conservation board. The best way forward is legislation to put that on a sustainable basis. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Some key points are made in Lord Renton's Bill, which I can support. I will be asking the Minister a question about the south downs shortly.
  I believe that the Surrey hills is the nearest AONB to my constituency. It provides a place of relaxation and leisurely walks not merely for the residents of Dorking, Box Hill and Reigate, but for much of south London, including, I am sure, many constituents of mine from Carshalton and Wallington. Hence, there should be a national contribution to the running costs of that AONB.
  The Liberal Democrats have supported the core proposals outlined by the Countryside Agency and the Countryside Council for Wales. I believe that the Government are also sympathetic to some of those proposals, which would tackle some of the problems that I mentioned. However, I do not believe they would deal with all of them. For instance, they would ensure that in consultation with others a management plan for the AONB was produced. They would ensure secure funding from central as well as local government, and they would require local planning authorities to consult the conservation board, where one exists, on development plans and applications for planning permission that are likely to affect an AONB.
  However, the proposals would not solve every problem. For example, the conservation boards advocated by the Countryside Agency would have the power only to advise planning authorities. It is our view that there may well be a case for their having the power to veto developments that are contrary to the stated aims of an AONB. That is of particular importance if, as reported by the media yesterday, the Government are backtracking on their commitment to developing 60 per cent. of new homes on
  288
  brown-field land. It is precisely areas such as the Surrey hills AONB that would be vulnerable to green-field development if that target is relaxed. I will be happy, of course, if it is merely media spin without substance that has suggested backtracking on that target. I seek a reassurance from the Minister now or when he replies that the Government are holding firm to their target.
  I am sure that there is broad agreement in the House on the need to ensure that AONBs are enhanced for the benefit of both local communities and visitors alike.
  It is time for the Government to answer some simple questions. Can the Minister tell the House what is his preferred status for the south downs? Does he favour boosted or enhanced AONB status, or does he believe that the downs should become a national park? Can he tell us whether he favours a statutory requirement for conservation boards to be set up, either for all AONBs or for those that cover more than one local authority area? Does he favour a power of veto for the conservation boards over intrusive development in AONBs? Has he negotiated with the Treasury over central Government funding for AONBs, either at the 50 per cent. or the 75 per cent. level that has been advocated?
  Finally, when will the Minister make a statement? The hon. Member for Gower referred to "soon, very soon and very very soon". I understand that a reference was made to "pretty soon" in another place yesterday. I will listen to the Minister's response carefully. He has the ability to safeguard some of the most beautiful landscapes in England and Wales. He will need to demonstrate that they are safe in his hands.
  11.26 am
  Mr. Chris Ruane: Thank you for allowing me to speak in this important debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing this debate on the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. My contribution will be short, but I fully support my hon. Friend's arguments.
  Half my constituency is in an area of outstanding natural beauty—the Clwydian range, which also extends into the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). My right hon. and hon. Friends support and are aware of the importance of AONBs in the Clywdian range, as they have all signed a charter of support in the courtyard in front of the Members' Lobby, and I know that they wish my hon. Friend the Member for Gower well in his efforts to secure funding.
  The Clywdian range in my constituency includes the historic Offa's Dyke footpath, which runs along the brow of those hills. It also includes the Jesuit college of Saint Buenoes, from where the Victorian poet Gerard Manley Hopkins roamed the hills around Tremeirchion and looked down into the vale of Clwyd and the vale of Elwy and wrote poetry about the beautiful scenery that lay before him.
  I firmly believe that those hills and green vales are a national treasure—a much neglected treasure and one that is kept on the cheap. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower so eloquently illustrated, AONBs and national

  289
  parks are considered of equal beauty and importance. I would even say that the Clwydian range in my constituency has greater beauty than many of the United Kingdom's national parks, but I could be accused of bias. Even though they are of equal beauty and importance, they do not receive equal funding, however. AONBs are the poor relatives of the national parks.
  The long-term effect of that underfunding has been the under-utilisation of some of our most valuable and treasured assets. I fear that if long-term funding is not secured for AONBs, we may witness the degradation of those national assets. Funding for AONBs needs to be increased so that it is at least on a par with that of national parks. AONBs can play a key role in regenerating our rural communities, which have suffered so much in the past 10 years because of BSE, the strong pound and tighter regulations in agriculture.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gower asked us to share with him initiatives and good and bad ideas for the AONBs in our constituencies. I will share some initiatives from my constituency with my colleague and the House. It is intended, for instance, to extend cycleways in the rural areas and link them to the Sustrans national cycleway network. That will bring visitors staying on the coast of Wales into the rural hinterland in an environmentally friendly way. People from the coastal towns of Rhyl and Prestatyn, in my constituency, will be able to appreciate that rural hinterland—the mediaeval castles of Rhuddlan and Denbigh, the cathedral at St. Asaph and the marble church at Bodelwyddan.
  Those areas of outstanding natural beauty should be a hook not only for visitors to Wales but for the local population. Managers of the AONB in the Clwydian range are taking another initiative. They will pilot free bus trips from the coastal towns of Rhyl and Prestatyn, where 45,000 people live—including some of the poorest people in Wales. Free transport will be provided for those who have no access to cars, to take them to the AONB so that they can experience the beauty that surrounds them.
  To open up such sensitive areas as the Clwydian range to more visitors will require even more careful management to ensure that any development is sustainable and does not lead to any damage to the physical environment. I pay tribute to the managers of the AONBs of England and Wales—especially Mr. Howard Sutcliffe in my constituency. He manages the AONB on a shoestring budget and comes up with excellent new initiatives. He is committed to his work. That additional careful management will cost more. We need long-term, secure funding so that those who manage the countryside in the AONBs can concentrate on the task of management. They should not have to go to councils or quangos with begging bowls; nor should they have to lobby politicians: they should do what they are good at—managing the countryside on behalf of the public.
  The financial position of AONBs in Wales is even more precarious than that of those in England. Over the years, the Welsh AONBs have been put at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their English counterparts, although they all started from a low base. There will be a chance to redress that imbalance with the advent of objective 1 funding, which will affect 15 counties in Wales; the remaining seven counties will be eligible for objective 2 funding.
  290
  There will be a total of £1.8 billion for Wales over the next six years. If we use that money carefully, we can ensure that our AONBs are brought up to scratch and that the facilities offered there are comparable to those offered by the national parks. However, objective 1 funding should be regarded as the icing on the cake; the No. 1 issue is core funding. That will ensure that the original vision, in the 1949 Act, will be achieved. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to help us to achieve that vision.
  11.33 am
  Dr. Julian Lewis: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) and for Gower (Mr. Caton), with both of whom I share membership of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—there is a danger of the debate becoming a little parochial. I was born and brought up in Swansea and can, therefore, advise the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that he is missing out by never having visited the area of outstanding natural beauty in Gower—the second most beautiful rural area in the country. However, I shall speak about Hampshire, especially the New Forest, which is, of course, the most outstanding area of natural beauty in Britain—even if it is not formally classified as such.
  Before I begin my own comments, I shall relay the views on AONBs of the head of countryside at Hampshire county council—Mr. Merrick Denton-Thompson. He was good enough to write to me, hoping that I would be able to support the hon. Member for Gower in the general thrust of his remarks in the debate; I am happy to do so. Mr. Denton-Thompson points out:
  "21% of Hampshire is covered by AONB designation which provides substantial protection from changes in land use. However there is often little or no co-ordination of the land management operations which play an important role in sustaining the outstanding characteristics of such areas. There is an urgent need for more integration between agricultural and environmental objectives within Government if AONBs are to retain their outstanding contribution to the beauty of the English countryside."
  I am, of course, happy to endorse that in general, but I am sure that Mr. Denton-Thompson and others will appreciate that, sometimes, the same formula does not fit every instance of beautiful countryside. The New Forest is one such case. Some people would try to force the New Forest into the straitjacket of a national park. There are also those who would like to force the parliamentary representatives of the New Forest into a similar appliance. However, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and I are united in our belief that the New Forest has survived very well over many years, with special legislation that acknowledges its role as a unique, living and working forest. The forest would not have its current form were it not for the unique contribution of the commoners who raise animals there. That is essential for it to maintain its character.
  In recent times, the problems of the commoners have greatly intensified; they turn their animals out on the forest only as a labour of love. They certainly make no profit from doing so. However, they are content to do so in the knowledge that special mechanisms protect their rights in the New Forest, and hence the particular characteristics of the forest that give it so much value in the eyes of the many people who are fortunate enough either to visit it regularly, or—as in my case—to live there. One of the mechanisms that protect the forest is

  291
  the verderers court—an ancient institution that prevents change in the management of the forest that would be to its detriment. Another body that protects the forest is the Forestry Commission itself. The local authorities also play a serious and responsible role in keeping the forest as we want it to remain for generations to come.
  The delicate interplay of all those organisations has an overall beneficial effect and keeps the balance of interests in the forest gently in equilibrium. We are concerned that forcing the New Forest into the straitjacket of national park status would centralise and bureaucratise control of the forest.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy in giving way. Does he accept that, over the past 30 years, on every development versus environment issue, one or other of the local authorities in the area has been on the side of development? That does not inspire confidence in the prospect of a national park authority dominated by local authority interests.
  Dr. Lewis: As always, I wholly agree with my hon. Friend's comments on that subject. I much admire the Minister—I am pleased that he will answer the debate today—for the patience and consideration that he showed us when we made representations on that matter. My hon. Friend and I live in hope that the special status of the forest will continue to be recognised, and that the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949—of which the Government are, rightly, proud—will not be used as an excuse to turn the New Forest into a national park. To celebrate the anniversary in that way might be to the advantage of the Government's PR machine, but would be to the disadvantage of the forest itself.
  Other hon. Members want to speak so my remarks will be brief. I refer only to one other threat that seriously menaces the New Forest and to which I adverted on 26 November last year: that a giant container port will be built on the edge of the forest at Dibden bay. That container port would be part of the great port of Southampton. No one appreciates more than my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West and I the importance to the area of a successful port in Southampton. But the idea of giant container stacks, huge cranes, and enormous container lorries and trains trundling through the countryside, disfiguring the boundary of the New Forest, fills us with horror.
  Sacrifices sometimes have to be made in the national economic interest, but if such a development is imposed on the forest, it will not be necessary in the national economic interest because there is a perfectly acceptable brown-field site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) at the site of Shell Haven, an oil refinery which is closing. It is an example of cross-party co-operation that the hon. Lady and I have worked together to achieve something which might be necessary for the national economic interest, is certainly necessary for the interests of her constituents and is anathema to the interests of my constituents, so that the new container port is sited in the most suitable area.
  The New Forest has been a jewel in the crown of the English countryside for 900 years. It can continue to glitter and to shine providing that it is protected from the twin threats of unnecessary designation as a national park and appalling desecration by the building of a container port far better suited to other parts of the United Kingdom.
  11.42 am
  Mrs. Diana Organ: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing this important debate on areas of outstanding natural beauty. I represent part of an area of outstanding natural beauty, which is unique in that it is covered by three local authorities and two nations—the Wye valley. It is unusual because it follows the outline of the Wye valley rather than a wider countryside area. However, that has not given it the protection that areas of outstanding natural beauty need. Under the previous Administration, under the minerals plan, there was a proposal for five sites for limestone extraction within the boundaries of the Wye valley. When the Labour Government of 1949 set up areas of outstanding natural beauty, they surely never envisaged that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) pointed out, pressures on such areas must now be addressed.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that one problem facing areas of outstanding natural beauty is the burgeoning wind farm business which, even when outside the area, damage the aesthetic beauty of protected areas because they can be seen from them? Should not we be extending protection to those areas which are visible from areas of outstanding natural beauty?
  Mrs. Organ: I agree. We would not have a wind farm in the Wye valley, but we might on the limestone escarpment at its edge, and, if that was visible from other vistas, it would detract from the landscape's beauty.
  When the Hobhouse report designated our national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty, it left out one or two important areas, one of which was the Forest of Dean. As the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, the New Forest was also exempt from the designation. The Forest of Dean shares many of the characteristics of that landscape. We, too, have a verderers court and an area which is administered by the Forestry Commission. We do not have commoners, but we do have sheep badgers. That same mix of beautiful landscape and heritage linked to agriculture, forestry and the area's culture meant that the Forest of Dean was not included.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): In answer to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), who asked about the effect of the Government's decision in respect of the verderers and the commons—I am not sure about sheep badgers—I have given assurances to both the hon. Member for New Forest, East and the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on a number of occasions that the particular status of both groups would not be affected by the Government's decision.
  Mrs. Organ: I thank my hon. Friend for that information.
  The Forest of Dean was left out and, over the years, we have considered ways in which to give our beautiful landscape some kind of designation to protect it. In the past, many areas have rejected the status of an area of outstanding natural beauty, seeing it as a second-class designation without the powers required to protect the landscape.

  293
  Consequently, in April 1997, the then shadow Secretary of State for the Environment came to the Forest of Dean to see the problems facing the area. He said that the area needed special landscape protection, and that proposal has been taken forward by the Government. Land use consultants have come to the area and reported that the Forest of Dean is an area of natural beauty and of national value. We all knew that before, but it is nice to see it in a report. That report is now with the Countryside Agency, which has the remit to take forward consultation on exactly the kind of protection that the Forest of Dean should have and what area it should cover. That is obviously a matter for much wider consultation during the summer and autumn.
  In the past, we in the Forest of Dean have rejected the status of an area of outstanding natural beauty because we felt that it would not provide the protection that we wanted for our beautiful landscape. Moreover, the designation is concerned only with the physical landscape; it pays little heed to an area's culture and heritage. It has very little interest in the social and economic regeneration and health of an area. I hope that the Government, in their proposed countryside Bill, will consider an area of outstanding natural beauty mark 2, which would have an holistic approach to the social and economic regeneration of the countryside and the protection of its landscape.
  Many who wish to have their landscape protected may be a little chary of such a designation because it has a bad name. Many know that landowners on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty prefer to be outside the area rather than within it because they see such a designation as a prescriptive planning hand on the development of their agricultural businesses.
  We need a visionary approach to a new area of outstanding natural beauty, rather like the pares naturels in Europe, which are inclusive and have a certain remit for the area's economy.
  Mr. Brake: Perhaps the hon. Lady is looking for national park status but with local management. Would she favour that sort of model, which might also be applicable to the constituency of the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis)?
  Mrs. Organ: National park status also comes with its own problems. The national parks were rightly given a remit to provide leisure facilities for people from cities and other areas. There has been a problem, for example, in the Peak district, where the national park board has prevented the development of small rural activities and industries because it sees them as conflicting with the remit of the national park.
  The Forest of Dean has an industrial background, although we are a rural community. We would resent not being able to develop our manufacturing sector in the villages and small towns of the forest. The direction in which a national park board wanted to move may work against keeping the economic livelihood of the Forest of Dean going. Although there would be certain advantages for others in national park status, we would reject it.
  The protection of landscape of great beauty is done within a planning regime that is often seen to be restrictive and may not allow small rural and agricultural businesses
  294
  to develop appropriately to keep people employed in the rural economy. There is a mismatch between the wish to enhance the natural landscape and the desire to keep it as a living landscape. People live and work in rural areas. A way forward that could be taken in a countryside Bill may be a land use planning designation that includes a wider remit to regenerate the local area.
  I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister has read the land use consultant report for the Forest of Dean. I know that he has visited the area and has commented to me on the beauty of the landscape. I should be interested to know what he envisages for the Forest of Dean as a result of the consultation with the Countryside Agency. We have a great opportunity. I congratulate the new Labour Government on setting up the Countryside Agency with a wider remit than the Countryside Commission. There are opportunities for the Countryside Agency to come up with something visionary and new for areas of England and Wales of special landscape that will tackle the problem of preserving areas of great beauty while keeping a working countryside.
  11.53 am
  Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to take part in this important and so far well-balanced, interesting and well-informed debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for calling it. I find myself in the awkward position, in following the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), of agreeing with almost every word that she said. It is an unusual position for me to be in, but none the less I pay tribute to her. I am not certain that I agreed with quite so much of what the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), said. I have had occasion before to comment in countryside and rural debates that his constituency is some distance from the nearest area of outstanding natural beauty—not that that precludes him from having a view on the matter.
  Mr. Brake: I am happy to point out that Surrey hills and Box hill are approximately five miles from my constituency, so the nearest AONB is not a hundred miles away.
  Mr. Gray: I meant no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman. He and I sit on the Environment Select Committee together and I never miss an opportunity to pull his leg.
  Rather than being five miles from an area of outstanding natural beauty, my constituency incorporates two. The Cotswolds includes such marvellous places as the villages of Badminton, Castle Combe and Lacock and the North Wessex downs—I must not repeat my maiden speech. I have a certain amount of experience of living and working in two AONBs and I want to talk about that rather than, like the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, looking into them from outside. There is an important distinction to be made. Often, people talk at great length about how fine the landscape is and how much we like to go on holiday to areas of outstanding natural beauty. I go to one in Cornwall and enjoy it as a holidaymaker. I go fox hunting in another one—I just thought I would throw that in for the benefit of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. We all like to go for picnics in AONBs and see them on chocolate boxes.

  295
  However, we are not talking about going to them for recreational purposes—we are talking about what they are, how they can be preserved, how they can be made better and how, as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said, we can look after the people who live and work in them. Therefore, this is a useful and important debate.
  I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill currently in the other place, introduced by my noble Friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry. Much of the Bill is useful and it will strengthen AONBs in a variety of ways. It will impose a duty on local authorities to have due regard to and further the AONBs. Curiously enough, local authorities have not had to pay attention to them until now. The Bill institutes a duty to have a management plan. It is terribly important that there must be some kind of business plan stating how the AONBs will be managed. The Bill requires local authorities to consult conservation boards on planning. Those are useful provisions.
  I have some reservations about the views of some interest groups including Friends of the Earth and the Countryside Agency, which believe that the Bill does not go far enough. They have talked about more stringent restrictions in AONBs. To go further than my noble Friend does in his Bill might cause some of the difficulties that the hon. Member for Forest of Dean mentioned.
  The beauty of landscapes has not happened automatically over the centuries. They are not as God made them. If one walks in the Cotswolds, one sees a landscape that has been created by farming, hedgerows, walls, fields, sheep farms and the beautiful warm yellow buildings typical of the area. All those things were created by farmers, who are the caretakers of the landscape. The crisis in agriculture must worry all of us who care about AONBs. Not only past but current generations have created AONBs. My two—not exclusively mine, I hasten to add, but the two in my constituency—are traversed by the M4. People who like to denigrate my constituency say that it is junctions 16 to 18 of the M4 and a couple of miles either side of it.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Gray: That is disgraceful, as my hon. Friend correctly says. It is true that the M4 goes straight through the middle of my constituency. We have some vibrant companies such as Dyson, who makes his vacuum cleaners in Malmesbury right in the centre of the Cotswold AONB. Mr. Dyson is currently applying for planning permission to double the size of his factory from 1,100 employees to 3,000. The land is smack bang in the middle of an AONB. I have not yet come to a clear conclusion on the application. Do we say to Mr. Dyson, "Of course you must continue to expand. Your business is important to us. You employ up to 3,000 people"? Or do we say that the AONB is so overwhelmingly important that Mr. Dyson must be prevented from expanding and he can perhaps move to south Wales, Swindon or wherever? There must be a balance between considering the area as a picture on a chocolate box and considering it as a chocolate box within which real people live and work—a point made well so far in the debate.
  We have to think not only about the beauty and the landscape, but about the economic and social attributes of the area and all the other things that go into the creation of an AONB such as that in my constituency. It is a living,
  296
  working countryside. People who look at AONBs from outside forget about the rural poverty of many people in constituencies such as mine, and about the transport problems and the cost of petrol for people who live in an AONB. All they think about is going to an area of outstanding natural beauty on a Saturday to have a picnic. That is not what AONBs are about: they are about creating living, working places that are as vibrant as the towns.
  I welcome the debate and many of the contributions. I thoroughly welcome most of the proposals in my noble Friend's Bill. However, I urge a little caution on the forthcoming rural Bill, which may be introduced in the next Session. We must find a way of preserving the beauty of our countryside that we inherited from our grandparents and ancestors, but we must never forget the vibrancy and economic importance of such areas. It is terribly important to maintain that economic vibrancy by preserving jobs and improving employment prospects in the area. We must constantly balance the everlasting, unchanging changelessness—in the words of the English Prayer Book—of the English countryside, which in my constituency straddles the vibrancy and economic importance of the M4 high-tech corridor.
  12.1 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: I echo the congratulations offered by hon. Members on both sides of the House to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) on securing this debate, not only because of the importance of the subject, but because it has given hon. Members the chance to take part in an imaginary tour of some of the loveliest areas of England and Wales, which is good for the soul and informs an important and topical debate.
  Much mention has been made of the Bill before the House of Lords proposed by my noble Friend Lord Renton. It is worth putting on record that this House has held its own in the literary stakes. Those who are interested in the subject will have read the Second Reading debate on Lord Renton's Bill in the other place. It showed not only the expertise and experience that we have all come to expect from Members of that House, but it contained a surprising degree of poetry. Keats, Kipling and Wilde were quoted as illustrations of what AONBs evoke in some of our greatest writers. I am glad that, in our tour of the same subject, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane) mentioned Gerard Manley Hopkins, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) mentioned the English Prayer Book. This House has held up its literary end.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Gower about the necessity for a speedy response from the Government on the issues that have been raised by Lord Renton and by various environmental bodies, including the Countryside Agency. The Opposition welcome practical moves to improve the status and protection of AONBs. If the 1949 Act needs changing, we will not oppose any necessary moves in that direction.
  It is worth mentioning in detail the ideas suggested by Lord Renton, partly because his Bill is closely based on the advice given to Ministers by the Countryside Agency—or the Countryside Commission as it then was. That advice fell into three main categories. The first was to establish statutory conservation boards on an opt-in and not a compulsory basis, which is an important distinction.

  297
  The second was to secure funding from central and local government, and the third was to strengthen the protection given by the planning system. I am sure that the Government will consider each of those three areas, and will ponder how best to put each of them into legislation.
  I agree with hon. Members that the Government should proceed quickly, but I urge them not to mix the vital countryside protection measures that we all want with more politically controversial proposals. The Opposition will support sensible legislation that updates wildlife and countryside protection laws, but it must not be mixed up with damaging and controversial legislation, such as right-to-roam measures or any new attempt to introduce anti-hunting provisions.
  The future of AONBs and other areas, such as sites of special scientific interest, is too important to be put at risk, which it would be if the much-delayed countryside Bill were designed to cause political controversy. With that caveat, I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance that of all the delayed Bills that his Department has not yet got into the legislative programme, that one will feature in the next Session. If it is limited to measures that are wanted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, Lord Renton and the many conservation bodies that take a deep interest in these matters, we shall give it a fair wind, although we shall obviously have detailed comments to make. I hope that that strengthens the arm of the Deputy Prime Minister in negotiations with his colleagues about what will appear in the next Gracious Speech.
  This is an urgent measure, but each issue is complex. I shall deal with them in turn, as they appear in the Renton Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about the need for co-ordination among the various bodies that currently have powers over AONBs. There is clearly a strong argument for statutory management boards built on the south downs model. It is wise for Lord Renton to propose making that optional rather than compulsory. Different circumstances obtain in each AONB, not least the practical problem of the number of different local authorities that are involved in controlling an area. I strongly believe that permissive powers are better than an imposed centralised structure.
  One may well ask the valid question whether an additional tier of bureaucracy that may emerge in some areas is the best way, in practice, to protect the countryside. We are all interested in the countryside. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said, AONBs are not merely picture postcard areas. If the imposition of an extra tier of bureaucracy hinders sympathetic development, it may, in the long term, do no good to the preservation of the beauty of these areas.
  The Minister should also consider the duty of local authorities to act sympathetically to protect AONBs. As well as a sympathetic attitude, we all know that money is very important. AONBs are the equivalent of national parks in terms of landscape quality, but not in other ways. It has been said that although AONBs may not be the ugly sisters, they are the poor sisters of the national parks. They do not get the same support as national parks. Many local authorities will feel that they are in the same position. I urge the Government not to impose new duties on those local authorities without giving them the money to perform them effectively. The Countryside Agency
  298
  reckons that 50 per cent. of the core management costs should come from central Government; others are bidding higher at 75 per cent. Will the Minister explain his thinking on this issue?
  Recreation is clearly another difficult area. Too much of it would destroy an AONB: not just its natural beauty, but the preservation of its flora and fauna. I congratulate the Sussex downs board on its success in hiding the 32 million visitors to that area each year—not least in hiding them from each other—so that its beauty is not lost. I am sure that the Minister appreciates this essential point: if we destroy the flora and fauna that constitute an AONB, they are destroyed for ever. Sympathetic recreation is extremely important.
  I feel most dubious about my noble Friend's Bill in the area of compulsory purchase. I have two reasons for wondering whether extending the powers of compulsory purchase is an appropriate way of protecting AONBs. First, responsible private ownership has proved to be the best way of ensuring the long-term protection of a managed landscape. I am encouraged by the tone of this morning's debate to believe that there is no instinctive prejudice on either side of the House against private ownership and the advantages that it can bring to our countryside.
  A few months ago, The Field magazine wrote:
  "The old threat of nationalisation of the ownership of land has been replaced by a gradual move to actual nationalisation of the use of land."
  That is an overly dramatic statement, but it is an important and legitimate consideration. As long as its private owners behave sympathetically, too much intervention in the landscape may do long-term harm. Bodies such as the Country Landowners Association and the National Farmers Union have pointed out—as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire today—that the landscapes are both settled and managed. They are not empty areas where people go for the weekend to enjoy the chocolate box scenery. The work that has been done to such areas—and which continues to be done within them—makes them attractive. We must not turn them into museums.
  In that regard, I pay tribute to the work of the Rural Development Commission—which ceased to exist this week. I know from its efforts in my constituency that it has worked hard to provide the support for small local businesses that allows people to continue to live and work in villages and therefore preserve the health of the countryside. I hope that the RDC's good work will be continued not only by the Countryside Agency, but by the regional development agencies.
  Mr. Gray: Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are concerned that the voice of the rural areas may be lost on the regional development agencies unless the correct people are appointed to those bodies? Someone must assume the former role of the RDC and continue to fight the rural corner within the RDAs.
  Mr. Green: I had restrained myself from making that point, but I happily agree with my hon. Friend. I also fear that the rural voice will be lost on the RDAs.
  Although work should continue in AONBs, it is clear that they are not suitable for large-scale housing developments. The National Trust has expressed

  299
  its concern about the way in which new housing developments may be accommodated within AONBs to meet the demand for housing in rural areas. That is a topical issue in light of the release of Rogers's report yesterday. An outcome of that report must be less pressure on AONBs for house building. I must admit that, although I live in hope, I have no great expectations. I agree with the editorial in today's edition of The Independent, which recounts the Deputy Prime Minister's response to the Rogers report. He said:
  "It provides a wide range of interesting and forward-thinking recommendations to feed into ongoing work across Government and beyond'.
  The Independent goes on to comment:
  "It is hard to think of a phrase of Whitehall-speak to dampen enthusiasm faster."
  New measures must be introduced quickly. The Countryside Agency, in its previous guise as the Countryside Commission, got it right when it said:
  "We"—
  that means all of us—
  "have a duty to future generations to protect and care for these areas of beautiful countryside. If action is not taken, their integrity will crumble; their fabric will deteriorate."
  I hope that the Minister will respond to calls for early legislation in this area. Such legislation must be practical, it must be based on the real needs of our countryside and it must not include measures that will damage the countryside. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind and that he will win a legislative slot next Session so that the House may return soon to the consideration of this vital issue.
  12.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) and thank him for giving the House the opportunity this morning to celebrate the importance of areas of outstanding natural beauty in Wales and in England. I am particularly glad of the chance to respond to this debate.
  My hon. Friend takes a special interest in AONBs and is very knowledgeable about them. As he demonstrated at the beginning of the debate, he is able to wax eloquently about AONBs in his constituency of the Gower, which—as he pointed out—was the first AONB to be designated in 1956. Because it was a trend-setter, the Gower clearly has a special place in the family of AONBs, and my hon. Friend's championing of it is typical of the loyalty and the pride that areas of special value inspire in people across England and Wales. My hon. Friend was certainly inspired by the countryside in the House this morning.
  I was glad to meet recently my hon. Friend and a delegation from the AONB staff forum to talk about issues of interest and concern across the AONBs. As the name suggests, the staff forum is a grouping of the dedicated people who work in AONBs and who come together to exchange expertise and to champion the cause of conservation and the enhancement of those areas. At the meeting, they told me about some of the imaginative projects that are under way in our AONBs and of their concerns for the future. I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend and a further delegation from the AONB Association.
  300
  I turn briefly to a question raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) in relation to the Rural Development Commission. I am grateful for the congratulations that he offered on the honourable work that that august body has performed and I agree with him wholeheartedly. However, I disagree with his interpretation of how the rural voice will be affected by its demise—a view that was also expressed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I remind hon. Members that, when regional development agency boards were established, the Government insisted—this call has been repeated again and again by Labour Members—that the rural voice should be heard loudly in those august bodies.
  We set out several criteria, the most oft repeated of which concerns the recruitment processes that we introduced for membership of RDAs. We insisted that if people failed the rural test in their interviews, they would not be appointed to the boards. Since then, in the context of RDA financing, we have insisted on a 20 per cent. ratio for rural and coastal communities and for coalfield areas—which, in most cases, straddle the two. That criterion is built into the economics of RDAs.
  My hon. Friend spoke about the 50th anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, which, I am proud to say, was enacted by the Attlee Government in 1949 and which provided for the designation of AONBs as well as national parks. I say that with pride because I was brought up in an urban coalfield area in the north-east of England.
  One of the leading figures in passing the 1949 Act was Hugh Dalton, who was then the Member of Parliament for my constituency. He visited my parents on occasion to talk about matters of deep interest to him in his role as local MP. He used to wax lyrical about the importance of that legislation, as did one of my predecessors as Member of Parliament for Mansfield—Lord Bernard Taylor, who is, sadly, deceased. He was a leading figure and, at one time, Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. Lord Taylor was deeply engaged in the establishment of national parks and tried to build on the 1949 legislation. Like the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, I never miss an opportunity to mention such matters because, if nothing else, it makes me feel good. However, those matters are particularly relevant to today's debate. Various celebrations of that anniversary will occur this year, marking the successes that have been achieved while looking to the future. I cannot think of a more appropriate time, when we are about to enter a new millennium, for such celebration.
  The formation of the AONB Association, in time for the 50th anniversary and over 40 years after the designation of the first AONB, is a demonstration of the increasing awareness of the importance of our AONBs. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) pointed out, they have long been regarded by many as second-class citizens compared with our national parks, and many people who care for them are determined that this should no longer be the case. The AONB Association provides, for the first time, a channel for members of local authorities that look after AONBs, and others who are interested and involved, to further their common cause.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I very much regret that we have been unable, because of previous diary commitments, to take up an invitation

  301
  to attend this year's conference of the AONB Association in Cirencester in September. Nevertheless, we wish it well, and hope to have the opportunity to participate in future events of that kind. I have given a commitment on that.
  I am reliably assured that there are 37 AONBs in England and four in Wales. Those 41 AONBs all have special qualities, but they are very diverse in size and in landscape, ranging from one that includes the limestone grassland and pretty villages of the Cotswolds to one that is less than a twenty-fifth of that size—the salt marshes and cliffs of Arnside and Silverdale. Of course, we must not forget the Gower, which has an extremely varied range of coastal and inland habitats.
  It is useful at this point to remember that the legislation recognises no distinction in the landscape quality between the two national landscape designations of national parks and AONBs. Each is regarded as being as beautiful as the other. The difference lies in the fact that national park designation relates not only to landscape beauty, but to wildlife and cultural heritage, and in the requirement for the parks to be substantial tracts of countryside that provide significant recreational opportunities. National parks have also traditionally been designated in our more remote upland areas.
  The purpose of designating AONBs is, of course, to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the landscape. Many of them undoubtedly also play a big part in meeting the huge demand for visits to the countryside, and they are visited by an enormous number of people who come for all sorts of reasons, as well as being enjoyed on a regular basis by those lucky enough to live in the area.
  As everyone engaged in this debate is aware, the Government are firmly committed to protecting and enhancing our finest countryside. Indeed, we fully recognise the importance to the nation of our AONBs, which contain so many of our finest landscapes. We recognise also that the interests of the local communities who live or work in those areas are vital considerations. The contributions of farmers and other landowners to maintaining the landscape are of particular importance.
  Mr. Tyrie: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Meale: In a moment. First, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's colleague, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire—which is almost as surprising as the hon. Member for North Wiltshire paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks because in these debates we often lose sight of the role of the farming and countryside communities as caretakers of our rural areas. There often seems to be a lack of communication, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the important role of those communities.
  Mr. Tyrie: The Minister has made clear his commitment to the principle of AONBs. I came fairly new to this subject and, as he probably knows, two years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and I called for a debate to try to secure an extension to the south downs conservation board. The Government granted a three-year extension,
  302
  which is due to expire in about 18 months. Before he concludes, will the Minister tell us whether the Government intend to make the arrangements for the south downs permanent? As he knows, and I have said before, there is widespread opposition to having a national park, but there is overwhelming local support for making the south downs conservation board permanent.
  Mr. Meale: I hope to deal with that matter. If I can get through the rest of my speech in the next three of four minutes, I will give the hon. Gentleman that information.
  Special consideration must be made of AONBs because of the recognition that their landscapes are of sufficient importance to have particular value to the nation as a whole. However, as I said earlier, we need to maintain a balance between that consideration and the need, which the Government's policy towards the countryside stresses, to sustain living and working communities as well as a ood-quality environment.
  We have heard today about the advice on the future treatment of AONBs which the former Countryside Commission delivered to the Government last summer. I can assure hon. Members that the subject of the advice—which related to the future status of the New Forest and the south downs, as well as making recommendations for AONBs generally—is never far from my mind or that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and our postbags always contain letters about those matters.
  Hon. Members will not be surprised when I confirm that I shall not today make any statement about the Government's conclusions on those matters. I can, however, confirm that they remain under active consideration in my Department and that we intend to announce conclusions very soon. [Interruption.] That is better than soon.
  I understand that the Countryside Council for Wales has delivered similar advice about AONBs, although, because of the nature of the Welsh AONBs, it does not see the need to provide for statutory conservation boards. Those will be matters for the Welsh Assembly to consider.
  The Government are sympathetic to the need to do more to foster a positive approach to the management and protection of AONBs into the next century. In that respect, we have already demonstrated our commitment by providing the Countryside Agency with an extra £2.5 million for work in AONBs in England this year. That will make a difference. It more than doubles the funds that were available to the former Countryside Commission for the support of AONBs, and it will allow a considerable degree of progress to be made in putting in place new management plans and new programmes, and in helping to provide additional expert staff. We shall continue to monitor progress on that to find out what is being achieved and what more needs to be done.
  A great deal has, of course, already been achieved in AONBs through the enthusiasm and commitment of local people, by local authorities and other local partners working together, by the Countryside Agency in England and by the Countryside Council for Wales. I understand that at least 26 of the 41 AONBs currently have a management plan in place, and a great many have an AONB officer or a joint advisory committee set up by their local authority.

  303
  Of course, because AONBs are very different in size and nature, there is not only one way of managing them or caring for them. Some lie solely within the area of one local authority, which is generally best placed to co-ordinate a management programme. Others stretch over long distances, often following a geographical feature, such as the Sussex downs. In that case, and in other cases, several local authorities are involved.
  The experiment set up by the former Countryside Commission and the local authorities in 1992 to form a conservation board for the Sussex downs has in many ways brought us to where we are today on the question of AONBs. In conclusion—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

  Schools Funding (South-West Hampshire)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I wish to draw attention to the £100 million that has been lost to the budgets of grant-maintained schools this year. In so doing, I shall focus principally on south-west Hampshire, because six of the nine secondary schools in the New Forest area are grant-maintained schools. They have become models of efficiency. Despite the fact that many of them have a very mixed social intake and have sought out and addressed special needs, they include some of the most successful comprehensive schools in the land.
  On Monday, a BBC journalist approached me, preparatory to this debate, and suggested that the disproportionate success of grant-maintained schools in my constituency was a consequence of their rather generous funding, and that fairness required that that advantage be withdrawn and that all schools be placed in the same funding boat.
  I would always suggest that the grant-maintained schools had enjoyed better funding, but I do not think that that equates to more generous funding. Grant-maintained schools—[Interruption.] If the Minister for School Standards will allow me, I shall point out that grant-maintained schools enjoyed a replication of the local education authority's locally managed schools budget, with a central add-on to cover the costs that would otherwise have been provided by the local education authority but which the schools were then required to provide for themselves. That gave the schools the liberty to spend that central add-on on their own priorities rather than on priorities determined for them by the local education authority.
  Locally managed schools, under the local education authority, continued to receive quite significant discretionary grants throughout the financial year. However, they never enjoyed the principal benefit of being able to budget and plan on the basis of receiving that financing.
  That form of funding for schools has now been brought to an end and replaced by fair funding. If by "fair" we mean equal, the Minister has achieved an objective, because all schools will indeed now be funded according to the same formula. Nevertheless, the grant-maintained schools have suffered a very significant fall in their budgets this year—so much so that the Minister has had to introduce a measure of cash protection to cushion them from the effects of that fall. The very existence of cash protection is a recognition of the less favourable environment that grant-maintained schools now enjoy, and that was not a Government objective.
  That is a failure of the Minister's policy because, as the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), the then Minister for School Standards, said, the Government's objective was not
  "to cut the amount being spent on pupils in GM schools, but to increase the funding for pupils in other schools."
  He said that he was engaged in a policy of
  "levelling up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 February 1998; c. 461.]
  Levelling up is not the experience of grant-maintained schools in south-west Hampshire. I have in my hand a

  305
  statement issued on 15 April 1999 by the headmasters of those schools. It may help to clarify the issue if I quote at a little length:
  "We understood that one of the purposes of the Government's 'School Standards and Framework Act' was to extend the successful practices of the current Grant Maintained schools to all schools and the local education authorities were to be accountable for enabling schools to raise standards. Critical to the new Framework was the concept of Fair Funding …
  Fair Funding should have extended the local management of schools formula to provide delegation of funds for almost all services to all schools, in effect incorporating elements of the Central Grant. As 8.7 per cent. was…agreed"
  as the sum to be
  "held back by the local education authority for such services, it would have been reasonable to expect that the local management of schools formula would provide additional delegation of this order.
  Far from it. The extra delegated amount is nearer 2.8 per cent. and Grant Maintained schools typically find their income 5.9 per cent. short of their…commitments…Indeed, the reduction in real terms is so great that the extra delegation together with inflationary increases would give some Grant Maintained schools a cash income for this year some 4 per cent. lower than they received last year.
  This situation triggers a measure of 'cash protection' which … leaves the schools funding this year's, incremental drift, pay rises and inflation from the equivalent of last year's income. These schools will need to lose teachers and support staff, reduce expenditure on educational resources and postpone improvements. Classes will be larger, computers fewer, books older and buildings less well maintained. The position is reflected also in the reductions to other 'special grants' where, for example, income for training teachers and regular income for capital improvements will halve.
  In 2000–1, if cash protection ends, the position for some will become even more serious and an additional wave of budget cuts, typically 4 per cent. equating to 3 or 4 more teachers, will be necessary."
  That statement is signed by the head teachers of Applemore college, the Arnewood school, Burgate school and sixth form centre, Ringwood school, Testwood school and Hardley school and sixth form.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Several of the schools that my hon. Friend has listed are actually in my constituency. I have a copy of a letter from Mr. Underwood, headmaster of Hardley school, to the chairman of the county council. Elaborating the thesis that my hon. Friend has advanced, he says:
  "It is our contention that all schools"—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Swayne: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). Of course I am aware that Hardley school is in his constituency. He will be aware that, this year, as a consequence of this funding settlement, the school will have to function with 4.2 per cent. fewer teachers. It will be implementing a cut of some 20 per cent. in its funding of educational resources and it will have to spend its entire reserve, built up over nine years. Next year, if it loses its cash protection of £85,000, those problems will be compounded.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend agree that the same points apply to Highcliffe comprehensive school in my constituency, which is attended by many of his constituents?
  Mr. Swayne: That is indeed the case. The principal problem that is highlighted by the headmasters is that the
  306
  key central add-on is not being fully replicated in the new extension of the local management of schools settlement. The money is not being passed on to the schools.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Swayne: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I must make progress.
  This issue touches on the bureaucracy surrounding the local education authority, which I shall attend to in a moment.
  When I drew the Minister's attention to the problem on 10 June 1999, I said that some schools had even introduced a measure of charging for lessons, which gave her an opportunity to lecture me on the nature of the law and gave rise to some very unwelcome press attention on those schools. On that occasion, I referred to charging for keyboard musical skills, which one school in my constituency had had to introduce as an understandable but regrettable consequence of the settlement. It is not breaking the law.
  I now draw attention to the problems of the Arnewood school in my constituency. The Minister will be aware that we have a shortage of secondary schools in south-west Hampshire. It is very difficult to get into the Arnewood school, despite all sorts of expedients in the past few years to increase the capacity of the school. Even children living at the gates of the school who meet all the high priority criteria for entry to that school must be bussed to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and cannot get into the school.
  On 7 April, the headmaster wrote to me:
  "I would like to draw your attention to the very significant funding difficulties that the Arnewood school is facing at the start of the new financial year. In general terms, we anticipate a drop in income this financial year of some £400,000, this with a level of protected funding without which in 2000–01 we can expect a cut of a further £200,000. In crude terms, this is a total loss of £600,000 over two financial years, which would mean losing 25 teaching staff."
  I know, and the Minister knows, that not all those problems arise from the change in the funding of the schools. For example, £185,000-worth of the problem is the consequence of a mistaken formula used in the past for predicting the capitation of the Arnewood school. Nevertheless, the bald facts that the headmaster sets out in his letter are true.
  In addition to the loss of funding, the damage done to grant-maintained schools is compounded by their finding themselves back under the dead hand of the local education authority's bureaucracy, from which they thought they had escaped. To give the House a taste of that, I shall treat it to a vignette, for which I am indebted to the headmistress of the Burgate school, who provided me with it. The letter is from Hampshire education authority.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I gave the hon. Gentleman some leeway in allowing him to read out the entire contents of a headmaster's letter. I would not appreciate another letter being read into the record. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will paraphrase the letter from the education authority.
  Mr. Swayne: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  307
  The letter is about the need to measure the floor space of grant-maintained schools. It explains why it is necessary to measure the floor space and adds, happily, that this feast of floor measurement will be an annual occurrence.
  Before headmasters resign in horror, they should thank their lucky stars and count themselves fortunate that they live in Hampshire, which, despite the absurd machinations of the floor-measuring department, is a very good local authority. Hampshire emerged rather well from the statistics published last week. It passes on more than the entire standard spending assessment to schools. Administrative costs are only £76 per pupil in Hampshire, compared with the national average of £82. Hampshire consulted widely before deciding what proportion of its funds would be delegated to schools and what it would retain. The Minister must appreciate, however, that, last year, grant-maintained schools enjoyed 100 per cent. of their budgets and not, as this year, 85.2 per cent., with some services in kind, which the schools may not require and may not value.
  Nothing could illustrate more graphically the policy blunder into which the Secretary of State has stumbled than the release last week of statistics and the attempt to name and shame local authorities. The principal instrument of raising school standards chosen by the Government is local education authorities. Their record on school standards is not a glorious one. Although the dispute has degenerated into an argument between the Secretary of State and the Local Government Association about how accurate the figures are, it is clear that the Secretary of State has a measure of reserve about the competence and motives of education authorities. Why did he bring grant-maintained schools, which were enjoying an efficient means of funding, back into the less efficient method of funding of local authority schools?
  I suggest to the Minister that it would be more appropriate to proceed from now on by providing a budget directly to schools on the basis of the locally managed formula. I suggest also that the Government should make separate provision for funding what the hon. Lady regards as the proper functions of the local education authorities. She could then be sure that schools would obtain the funds that she thinks it proper they should receive, without putting herself in the absurd position in which the Secretary of State has placed himself. The right hon. Gentleman is now to be seen standing on the touchlines shouting at the players—in this instance, the LEAs—in the hope that they will take notice of what he is saying. The Government have chosen local education authorities as their instrument, but the figures released last week show that there is a complete lack of confidence—or at least some lack of confidence—in the LEAs. I hope that the Minister will take up my suggestions, and I give her that opportunity now.
  12.46 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on securing this debate and thereby giving me a longer time than I ever have when responding to Education questions to contribute to a debate that started with correspondence that has continued throughout the year.
  Secondly, I acknowledge the interest shown by the hon. Gentleman's neighbouring colleagues, the hon. Members for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and for New Forest,
  308
  East (Dr. Lewis). I accept that they wish to do the best for the children in their constituencies. However we might differ about the different funding of education, I acknowledge a deep-seated commitment on both sides of the House in recognising that the future of our children matters. That is why it is so important to get school funding and what happens in school correct.
  It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for New Forest, West. There are 30 schools in his constituency, of which about half a dozen are grant maintained. It is interesting also that, although he spoke for slightly more than 15 minutes, he said not one word about any of the schools in his constituency that are not grant maintained. I applaud, as does the hon. Gentleman, the high standards that are attained by the GM schools in his constituency, and everywhere else. However, I wish to acknowledge—the hon. Gentleman failed to do this—the high standards that are achieved by many schools in his constituency that are not grant maintained, and have not had favourable funding in recent years. It is a cause for celebration wherever there is excellence, and not merely because excellence happens to be in GM schools. I regret that, in that regard, the hon. Gentleman's speech was somewhat one sided.
  Mr. Swayne: Will the Minister acknowledge that local education authority schools in Hampshire are enjoying an increased settlement this year as a result of the improved locally managed formula? The problem is being faced by the grant-maintained schools, and that is why I dwelt on them.
  Ms Morris: I an glad that my attack at least brought the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge the improved funding for most of the schools in his constituency and throughout the county since the Labour party came to government. He failed to say that the standard spending assessment in Hampshire has increased by almost £50 million during the first two years of the Labour Government, compared with a 5 per cent. increase over two years under the old county boundaries formula. That means that for children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency there has been a real increase of 6 per cent. for primary schools and 4 per cent. for secondary schools. That is to be welcomed.
  When we took power, we were faced with a funding system that discriminated against children. That was not because some children were less important or needed less finance. They were discriminated against because their parents had chosen to send them to schools that did not have a GM label. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged—we must all do so—that, under the Conservative Government, there was a funding differential that was based merely on category of school. That Government had the necessary power and authority, and they could have found the resources to level up. They could have ensured that every school received the funding level that applied to GM schools. However, there was the ridiculous situation of budgets for GM schools increasing year by year in terms of revenue and capital, while real budgets for children in the vast majority of schools fell. I wonder how many angry words were spoken in the House by Conservative Members before the election on behalf of

  309
  the vast number of children who were educated under the previous Government in schools whose funding decreased year by year.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Morris: Yes, but I give warning that, because of the extra time taken by the hon. Member for New Forest, West, this will be the last intervention I shall take.
  Dr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way so that I can get in a completed comment. Is not the problem that the Government have said that they will level up and extend the funding advantages from grant-maintained schools to the rest, even though the effect of those changes is that over half the central funding, which was being distributed by the GM schools, is now being retained—by the county council in our case? That means that the funding environment for the GM schools is less favourable and, thus, the Government's promise has not been fulfilled.
  Ms Morris: That is the crux of the argument made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West. I shall deal with that now.
  The previous Conservative Government acknowledged that there was an element of double funding for grant-maintained schools—that point was first raised by the Select Committee on Education, which had a Tory Chairman—and, well before the election, they introduced a degree of parity to the funding mechanisms. To some extent, we have furthered that. The argument revolves around the addition that was made for central functions held back by the local education authority.
  On the element of double funding, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that central annual maintenance grant gave schools extra money—I accept the figure of 8.7 per cent for schools in Hampshire—because they would no longer need the services of the local authority on which that money was spent. Hon. Members know that those schools were not charged for that money, but received the same service free from the Funding Agency for Schools. That is the element of double funding—it was delegated to those schools as central AMG, but not charged to them by the FAS. Central Government picked up the tab. We can debate that arrangement, but no hon. Member can justify it as fair and reasonable or as a funding system with which we should continue.
  The previous Government remedied the error in the funding formula, and we have continued with that. I take the view that local education authorities need to do certain things, some of which concern managing the funding formula. When local authorities did not undertake such management for GM schools, the FAS did it. Someone has to manage the admissions system and the surplus places and make sure that there are sufficient places for children in LEA areas. That important measure, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, does not come free; it has to be paid for.
  Schools do not want to have to manage those services by themselves—indeed, they cannot do so—so an element of what was central AMG has to be kept back by local
  310
  authorities, and that has to be part of the education budget. Much of the dispute is about that remedying of the double funding element of central AMG.
  Like the hon. Gentleman, I congratulate Hampshire education authority on the way in which it has delegated funding. Compared with other local authorities, it is to be praised. Although we always want more and are never complacent, I shall not criticise it on this occasion. It has delegated 85.2 per cent. of its funds to schools compared with 82.4 per cent. nationally and 83 per cent. for all shire counties. That increased delegation and the fact that Hampshire has passed the increase that the Government have secured on to the education budget means that every school in his constituency will benefit from increased funding, as he acknowledged.
  I have two more points to make. On transitional funding, I admit that it is not easy to move from a funding system that was not fair and just to one that treats children on the basis that they are of equal value and have equal need for funding. Managing that transitional arrangement is not easy. We have acknowledged the contribution made by GM schools to the debate about schools' ability to run themselves. Much of the fair funding formula and much of the work that we have done take the best from the GM system as well as the best from the system of financing maintained schools.
  Last year, we offered transitional protection at cash levels based on pupil numbers. Although the hon. Gentleman did not do so at Question Time, I am delighted that he acknowledged today that some of the difficulties of Arnewood school—and of another school, which may be in the constituency of one of his hon. Friends—arise from the difference between the number of pupils who attend the school and the number who were forecast to attend. Against the predictions of the LEA, the FAS decided to fund Arnewood school at such a level last year.
  Whatever funding system was used this year, and even if the FAS had been managing the funding arrangement, there would have been a clawback from Arnewood school because pupil numbers were inaccurate last year. Indeed, it has come off better because transitional protection gave it protection based on its funding last year. The money that would have been clawed back in other circumstances was not clawed back. A bit of me says that the hon. Gentleman protests too much on behalf of Arnewood school, although I acknowledge the difficulty that transitional funding can offer
  We have to remember that every school that receives transitional funding is receiving more money than a comparable school in the local education authority area. I say to Conservative Members that that is a criticism not of the funding that we have put into schools and the funding mechanisms that we have employed, but of the funding that most schools had to put up with in the years of Tory government. The key point is that such schools are receiving more than schools in similar circumstances. As we enter a period of increasing education budgets, the funding of all schools will increase to match the level that favourable funding gave to GM schools before the general election and beyond it.
  Teachers have received an above-average pay increase in the past year, which I welcome, and, for the first time in many years, their increase was not phased, which meant an extra cost for school budgets. I have always been sympathetic to the position in which that put some

  311
  schools—not some LEAs—so I am delighted to tell the House that, this morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in his speech to the inaugural meeting of the Association of Heads of Foundation and Aided Schools that transitional funding will be offered next year and will be uprated at 2.5 per cent. to take account of inflation.
  We are being true to our word. We offered transitional funding for GM schools during our first year. We increased budgets throughout the local authority area so that the vast majority of schools in the hon. Gentleman's constituency could benefit. Transitional funding will continue next year and the budgets of GM schools will increase by 2.5 per cent. to take account of the pressures to which I have referred.
  I was delighted to read a press release from Bob Lloyd, the chairman of the newly founded AHFAS, which says of my right hon. Friend's announcement:
  "This is good news for all schools. We are delighted that David Blunkett has listened to the concerns raised … by AHFAS that the Government's increase in education funding was not being passed on to schools by LEAs. He is now taking action to ensure all schools are properly resourced."
  That was our pledge at the general election and it now comes not only from the mouths of Labour Ministers, but from people who have been properly elected to represent foundation and aided schools. Bob Lloyd's remark that the Government are
  "now taking action to ensure all schools are properly resourced"
  means that, for the first time, extra money will go to schools based on need, not on category. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that announcement.

  Genetically Modified Food
  12.59 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I doubt whether anything that I shall say in this debate will come as a surprise to the Minister, who has been assiduous in dealing with the welter of parliamentary questions that I have tabled on genetically modified foods and their implications for human and environmental health. I am pretty certain that he will already have read the Bill in my name—the Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill; I am equally certain that he will have seen the "Soapbox" documentary platform that I had on this subject; and I am fairly certain that he will have heard the "Farming Today" interview that I did this morning. He may at that time already have been out feeding his civil servants. I offer those introductory comments as a tribute to the Minister's assiduous commitment to public standards and food safety.
  I want to use this opportunity to give equal praise to the national campaign that Friends of the Earth is launching today on the safety of food, specifically GM food. The campaign seeks to set up a platform that establishes society's basic rights and responsibilities, which, sadly, we do not fully have but which are entirely consistent with the values with which the Labour party came to office. When we came into government, we said clearly that the society that we wanted to take part in shaping had to strike a balance between rights and responsibilities.
  I believe that the campaign needs to address three rights and two responsibilities. The rights are fairly simple: the right to know, the right to say no, and the right to grow safe food. Those rights must be balanced by the responsibility to protect the environment in which we live and the responsibility to put right the damage done to that environment.
  On the right to say no, European Environment Ministers have recently been involved in discussing the framework of constraints that should exist on releasing GM organisms into the environment. I welcome the fact that they have tightened the rules within the past week, although I would have preferred it had they gone a couple of steps further and recognised the strength of the case for a moratorium on GM crop growing. There is still time for a decision to be reached on that.
  One of the arguments used was that we may not be able to go as far as a moratorium because it could be illegal; that it would somehow interfere with international trade agreements. As such, it would require us to abandon one of the most important principles that has guided us through the ages: the right of countries, both nationally and internationally, to lay claim to the precautionary principle. That applies to medicines, drugs and all types of new products. It means that if we are uncertain about the risk to human or environmental health, we have the democratic right to say no and to define a pause within which to reflect on the risks involved. It cannot be right that trade treaties override the obligations to put public safety first that democratically elected Governments have to the citizens who elect them.
  The second right, which follows, is the right to know. A huge amount of the debate on GM foods has focused on how much—or how little—we know about the foods that we already consume. It is extremely important that

  313
  we go further down that path. It allows the public to exercise an informed choice and does not allow the food chain to be polluted, as it has been, by GM foods being secreted into it without allowing the public to make an informed choice.
  Mr.David Tredinnick: The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this matter before. As he knows, the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee, which I chair, recently reported to Parliament on the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1999. The Committee was concerned that the regulations did not require suppliers to state clearly on a product that it contained GM organisms. There was thus a danger of consumers buying GM foods without realising it. The Minister wrote to me, as Chairman, asking the Committee to look at the matter again. I am not sure that the Committee can "unreport" what it has reported, but it will look carefully at the matter.
  Despite assurances that the Ministry had consulted widely, I am mindful of what Friends of the Earth—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Simpson: I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for raising the issue of labelling. I know that the Minister takes it seriously because I have raised it with him as well. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with it in his own speech.
  I should like to direct my comments about the right to know in a slightly different direction. One of the great frauds that have been perpetrated by the biotechnology industry on our democratic process is that we have been persuaded to accept a complete contradiction. We are told that genetic modification is revolutionary technology, yet that GM crops are no different from traditional crops—that we can deal with GM products as though they are equivalents. That is the term that has been used to push revolutionary products as though they were simply novelties.
  We need to step back and reflect on the case to be made for moving the scrutiny process for GM crops from the food Acts to the medicines Acts. I have a fairly simple example for the House. It is now possible to produce a potato with its own insecticide factory chugging away inside it as it grows, thus avoiding the need for extensive spraying of pesticides. However, if someone were to go into a garden centre and buy pesticides off the shelf, cautionary warnings about the health risks from those pesticides would be spelled out in large letters. A potato with the same pesticides inside has no health warning attached.
  There has been no scrutiny process that has allowed us to study not only the long-term implications for human health, but the short and long-term implications for the eco-systems within which these crops are grown. We need to establish new benchmarks against which scientific scrutiny can be measured if we are to have any confidence in the industry's claims.
  The third right is the right to grow safe food. It is important to stress that this is not an anti-agriculture argument. Indeed, it is an argument in favour of
  314
  agricultural rights. It is in favour of traditional agricultural processes and the protection of farmers' rights against the processes that are unfolding globally in terms of corporate exploitation of the land and the growers of food.
  Last September, David Chaney, a farmer in Kentucky, pleaded guilty to a crime and was fined $35,000. He had pleaded guilty to the heinous crime of saving and replanting seeds—in this case, soya beans. He had to pay that fine to Monsanto because the soya beans had been supplied by Monsanto under new product licences, driven by patent protection, whereby there is an everlasting obligation to pay to the biotech companies royalties on their seeds. That seems perverse.
  Suddenly, the whole history of human agriculture is on trial. To prosecute farmers for saving and replanting seeds is like prosecuting birds for flying, people for breathing or fish for swimming. It is the basis on which agriculture depends. Farmers have historic rights to save seeds—rights on which societies have always depended. We need to set down benchmarks that protect farmers' rights to save and propagate their own seeds.
  I am pleased that in November last year a different farmer, Percy Schmeiser of Saskatoon, Canada, decided not to plead guilty because he had not bought any Monsanto seeds. They had simply turned up growing on his land. Monsanto prosecuted him, but he has put up a resolute defence, saying that if the seeds got on to his land, Monsanto should prosecute the wind and the bees—or perhaps he should have the right to prosecute Monsanto for an act of pollution and intrusion. The polluter should be prosecuted, not the farmer who ends up with the responsibility of clearing up the pollution.
  In a press release on 29 September last year Monsanto, far from being apologetic, celebrated the fact that it had 475 such prosecutions across 22 states, with another 250 in the pipeline. They were all against farmers who had saved seeds. That nailed the lie that GM foods are about feeding the world. They are about biotech corporations seeking to take ownership of the global food chain. We need to protect farmers and the public against such monopolisation and takeover.
  Mr. Norman Baker: The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) has done a public service by securing the debate and saying what he has said. I wholeheartedly agree with him. Does he agree that, given the piranha-like behaviour of the biotechnology companies, it is important that liability issues should be clearly established so that we know what rights farmers and consumers have? If something goes wrong with the environment and there is pollution of a farmer's fields or further on in the food chain—let us hope that there is not—it should be clear who is liable. It will not be the farmer or the consumer, but those who are seeking to introduce alien technology to our countryside.
  Mr. Simpson: That is absolutely right. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on the work that he has done on pushing that point forward. We must take the principle that the polluter pays much more seriously. I hope that recent changes in the framework agreed for the European Union may move the debate on beyond producer liability for processed food to liability for primary agricultural produce.
  There must be a framework of clear, corporate liabilities for making good the damage that is done. That is one of the cornerstones of the Friends of the Earth's

  315
  campaign that is being launched today—but before I touch on that, I should like to take the House back a couple of steps.
  I am always confident that the Minister will have researched the background to the issues rigorously. However, he may not know that my starting point on the issue probably dates back to my mother. I remember being taken around the supermarkets as a child. I was a willing helper, loading my mother's shopping trolley. That worked well until I was stopped from putting something into the trolley. My mother refused to allow a tin of Argentinean corned beef to cross the front line of her shopping trolley because there was a huge food scare at the time about the safety of Argentinean corned beef.
  My mother was an urban warrior, defending her right to feed her children safe food. I suspect that her inclinations are identical to those of most parents today, who make the same presumptions. They will not allow food that they believe may damage their children's health into their shopping trolley. Today's campaign may not be led by my mother, but it is led by the massed ranks of the Women's Institute, by Prince Charles and by the collectivity of environmental organisations around the country. They are telling the major retailers that we intend to hold their boards of directors corporately and personally liable for every aspect of environmental damage or damage to human health that follows from the introduction of GM crops into the environment. That responsibility needs to be locked into the centre of the debate taking place in this country, which also needs to take place in the House.
  We have to see where the front line of democracy is being redefined. At times, the democratic debate is led from the House; on this issue, it has been led from outside. In many ways, the defence of democracy has moved from the Bar of the House to the barcode of the supermarket checkout, where the massed ranks of the public will be actively engaged in a process of not consuming food that they believe to be unsafe. I hope that we can persuade the environmental movement to go a step further. As well as defining the liabilities and responsibilities of producers, we could get them to introduce a different form of loyalty card. Every supermarket chain in the land seems to have its own loyalty or reward card. I should like to see the launch of a "loyalty to the land" card that people can hand in at the checkout, notifying the store that the bearer does not wish to purchase any goods with GM ingredients. The right to reject is also the right to choose safely and confidently.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will also want to associate himself with a non-negotiable commitment to a safe environment, a more rigorous scrutiny process and the right to put loyalty to the land and loyalty to the public before the right of corporations to exploit the food chain and to enslave farming communities.
  1.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate. Without devaluing his other comments, I want to concentrate on the central issue of product liability. I congratulate him on his recent private Member's Bill, the Genetically Modified Food and Producer Liability Bill. We often hear too many speeches
  316
  of complaint in the House and not enough follow-up action with parliamentarians using this place as a tool to achieve action. This is a working environment. The honour of being a Member of Parliament is a tool to be used. I do not expect that his Bill will make much progress in this Session, but that is not the intention. The Bill is a vehicle that can be ridden through many Sessions.
  I cannot comment in detail on the difficulties of the farmers that my hon. Friend mentioned. I saw interviews with some of those farmers on television recently. The situation is not as clear cut as some people might think. It is not the norm for farmers to be able to save any old seed. There are very tight rules and controls governing the use of many seeds under the direction of the consent holders. Those who have researched the technology have intellectual property rights and are entitled to a return. Genetically modified foods are not in a separate category. That applies to many hybrid seeds that farmers want to use and which they have to purchase separately.
  The other night, at a meeting in this place, I heard about the way in which seeds have been developed by a technique that I believe is known as mutogenesis. That horrified me far more than anything that I have heard about genetically modified seeds. If the public knew what had happened to seed development over the past 30 years there would be far more debate in this place, because that has happened in an unplanned way, with seeds being bombarded with radiation in the hope of something being developed that might be useful as a crop. We know far more about GM crops and foods than we know about their non-genetically modified equivalents. It is amazing, but most of the foods that we eat have not been subject to toxological examination as GM foods have been.
  In response to what my hon. Friend said about potatoes that contain their own pesticides—we may call them biocides—I must make it clear that those potatoes are neither on sale here nor being grown commercially. Yes, technology is being used, and a vehicle may be developed to give us crops that contain their own armoury against the bugs that would otherwise eat them before we human beings get the chance to eat them.
  The way in which those products are regulated is crucial because they are both a food and a pesticide at the same time. We must be very careful about how they are put on to the market. Part of our weaponry is to ensure that food is safe and does not contain products harmful to human beings. We examine thousands of products a year, looking for hundreds of different pesticides that may remain in them although they should not be there.
  Early tomorrow, we shall publish a survey of pesticide residues in pears, which for the first time will specify brand names. A certain pesticide that is not allowed to be used in this country has been found in large but not harmful quantities in imported produce from Holland and Belgium. We shall give the details of where those products were purchased, both by supermarket and by country. We are policing the system all the time, and that is crucial.
  As my hon. Friend said, we must bear in mind the right to know. There have been substantial changes in policy over the past two years, and we now publish veterinary medicine residue surveys, pesticide surveys and chemical contaminant surveys, with products identified by brand name. That puts a much greater onus on the importer and the producer to ensure that they know that their food is absolutely safe, and as clean and pure as can be.

  317
  My hon. Friend talked about product liability. He will know that on 3 February, in reply to an intervention on a debate on the same subject, I said to him:
  "Civil liability for damage caused by genetically modified organisms is covered by common law developed in the courts. On the basis of common law principles, the firm holding the marketing consent for the GMO crop can be held liable in law for any damages arising from ill effects attributed to that crop. As I have made it clear in a scrutiny Committee upstairs, the Government support the proposal in the European Commission Green Paper on food law to extend product liability to primary agricultural producers."—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 864.]
  Producers and importers of most products have indeed long been liable for any damage caused to consumers by defects in their products, but, under the EC directive on product liability, that is applied only to processed foods, not to primary agricultural products and game.
  That has changed since I spoke on 3 February. The recent extension of the scope of the directive means that it now covers the whole food chain. The United Kingdom Government fully supported the move, and the Department of Trade and Industry is taking the lead in implementing the extension. As a result, consumers will be able to sue for damages caused by fresh or processed food without having to prove producer negligence—a small but important step in improving compensation rights for consumers. Those EU rules were adopted on 10 May, and will have to apply throughout the EU by 4 December next year.
  I recently gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee when it was producing its report on GMOs and the environment, which also considered the issue of liability for environmental damage. Its report notes that, in the United Kingdom, liability for environmental damage is currently governed by the normal rules of tort law.
  The issue of liability was considered by the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg last week as part of the debate on the revision of the directive on releases of GMOs. The UK issued a minutes statement calling on the European Commission as a matter of priority to consider, outside the framework of directive 90/220, the feasibility of, and the possible criteria for, a liability regime or regimes to cover the release and marketing of GMOs. In relation to liability for producers and those who own and control the technology, we are therefore tightening up at every possible opportunity throughout the food supply chain.
  Two of the other issues are consumer choice and labelling. We are determined to secure consumer choice, which can and has to be achieved in two ways. The first is effective labelling, and the second is ensuring that there are alternatives. That is why we took the initiative a year ago in publishing on our website the details of 60 suppliers of non-GM soya that could be accessed by British food producers.
  Within a month of coming to office, we also changed the policy on specifying ingredients on labels, which the previous Government had declined to do. Indeed, they said that there was no need for separate labelling because such foods were neither technically nor nutritionally different.
  We introduced the regulations for packaged foods from 19 March. Labels must now conform to them, and it is a prosecutable offence if they do not. We gave the catering
  318
  industry a six month lead-in, until 19 September, for non-packaged foods. That is the issue that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) raised, and wrote to me about, confusing the issue completely in the process.
  On Friday, we shall publish the guidance notes on the regulations. I agree that they come three months down the line, but everyone knew what the plan was. They will now be published and distributed to 500,000 food establishments, so that there can be no doubt about what the rules are.
  Propaganda against GM foods is often illustrated by a picture of a tomato, or we might see someone dressed up 6 as a tomato. That is nice and convenient—tomatoes are lovable products—but I must tell the public that there are no GM tomatoes on sale or imported into this country.
  Mr. Baker rose—
  Mr. Rooker: No, it is impossible to give way.
  There are only three products that have been regulated and are on sale in this country. The first, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South knows, is GM tomato paste based on a variety of tomatoes developed by Zeneca in his own constituency, at Nottingham university. The tomatoes are grown in p California and the tomato paste is imported. The other two products are maize and soya, which are also imported. There are no fresh tomatoes. However, because of misleading publicity, there has been a big drop in the sale of English tomatoes. People think that they are genetically modified, but they are not.
  When the propagandists are at work, the points have to be balanced and we have to put the argument across as fairly as possible. We must avoid using misleading propaganda to make our case. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument, for those who want to debate it rationally, and using misleading images to make a point is not the best way.
  Mr. Baker rose—
  Mr. Rooker: I am sorry, but it is impossible to give way now.
  There have been several debates in the House on the subject, and there will be more. There have been more Select Committee inquiries, and other inquiries, published on the subject in recent months than on any other subject that I can recall. Nobody has come up with a shred of evidence, medical or scientific, that there is any problem with the safety of GM foods compared with the non-GM alternative. It is not as if we have not looked for such evidence; we have.
  We have taken stronger powers, which were published on 21 May, to increase and open up the regulatory process. The new advisory commission on agriculture and the environment, whose members are currently being advertised for, will, I imagine, want to take on board one of the issues connected with the potatoes as early as possible. It will be an overarching body, and consumers will be represented on it, so I expect that it will press the regulatory committee and the scientific committees on whether GM foods should be regulated as pesticides, as a food, or both. The rules are different in each case.
  We have taken positive action on a series of issues, and we will not stop there. The setting up of the Food Standards Agency is another way of dealing with food

  319
  safety. The advertisements for the board and commission have appeared this week, and the Food Standards Bill is now passing through the House.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on making good use of the Floor of the House, and the procedures of the House, to advance his case. In general, we do not disagree with the points that he makes, especially those affecting the safety of food and the information available to consumers.

  Hospitals (Mid-Essex)
  1.29 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I rise both in sorrow and in anger to raise on behalf of my constituents the important issue of hospital waiting lists and ward closures at Broomfield hospital in the Mid Essex hospital trust area.
  The Labour candidate in the general election campaign in West Chelmsford was a national health service consultant who spent a great deal of time criticising the previous Government's record on health care in West Chelmsford and elsewhere. I vividly recall a leaflet that was distributed, saying that he was proud to support new Labour's early pledges, one of which was to cut NHS waiting lists in West Chelmsford and the rest of the country.
  I am devoting this debate specifically to my constituency and its problems. Some of my constituents were convinced by the rhetoric that new Labour would bring a new Jerusalem in health care and that if they turned up at Broomfield hospital for an operation, there would be consultants and doctors waiting at the doors, fighting to be first to operate on them. Sadly, that has not happened.
  Over the past two years, the number of my constituents on in-patient waiting lists for 12 months or more has risen from 104 to 1,093. Too many of my constituents write to me to complain bitterly about operations being cancelled—in far too many cases not once but twice—because Broomfield hospital cannot provide the treatment as originally arranged.
  There is a problem nationally that will come back to haunt Mid Essex with a vengeance in the current financial year, concerning what has happened to the 13-weeks-plus out-patient waiting list of people who need to see a consultant before even getting on to a hospital waiting list. In March 1997, there were 555 such people in mid-Essex; now the figure is 2,422, and I suspect that it is still rising.
  The total waiting list figure has risen from 8,391 in March 1997 to 9,961 this April: a rise of almost 1,600 people. I asked the Minister then responsible, who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, what was the agreed waiting list target reduction for Mid Essex for 31 March 1999. His junior colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) replied:
  "The agreed waiting list target reduction for the Mid Essex Hospitals National Health Service Trust is to a list size of 9,738 at the end of March 1999."—[Official Report, 2 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 416.]
  Unfortunately, the task force was not even able to ensure that that target was met. In March 1999, just over 200 people above the target were on the waiting list.
  I accept that the total waiting list figure, having ballooned from 8,391 two years ago to more than 11,500, has come down to 9,961; but that is still unacceptably high. I even questioned the Prime Minister on the problem. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman is not expected to know the intimate details of every health trust in the country, but my constituents would have found it more helpful if he had said that he would look into the problem and get back to me.

  321
  Instead, the Prime Minister, as has become familiar under new Labour, came back with the soundbite on the wider scale, telling us what was happening nationally. Interestingly, he also said:
  "we are putting in … more nurses, more doctors and more capital spending—everywhere, including mid-Essex".—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 648.]
  That sounded optimistic. I thought that perhaps the Prime Minister knew something that I did not know that was going to help my constituents.
  I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Health about those
  "more nurses, more doctors and more capital spending"
  in Mid Essex. His junior colleague the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), replied. I hope that I am not harming his career prospects. He said that capital spending in Mid Essex was £12 million in 1997 and £7.3 million in the current year. To me, that is a £4.7 million cut; but the Prime Minister considers it an increase. I look forward to his explanation when he replies to the letter that I have sent him.
  More perplexing was the question about more doctors and nurses. The Minister gave me a figure for 1997, but he told me that the data for following years were not available because they had not been published and that data for 1999 had not yet even been collected. Again, I am puzzled about how the Prime Minister could tell me that there were more doctors and nurses; again, I look forward to his reply.
  Part of the problem—I do not blame the Government—is the way in which Mid Essex and North Essex were funded under the old resource allocation working party system, with a disproportionate amount going to the east end of London at the expense of mid-Essex. That was unravelled in the early 1990s when my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) changed the funding system, and both the previous Government and the current Government in their first year recognised the problem by giving North Essex and, in particular, Mid Essex larger increases in funding.
  The trouble is that the area never caught up with what it would have received if we had never had RAWP. Unfortunately, the previous Minister of State fine-tuned the funding formula for this and the previous financial year in a way that cost Mid Essex money. I know that the Minister wants to alleviate my constituents' problems. North Essex and Mid Essex urgently need more money to deal with what is clearly a problem of significant proportions that is causing undue suffering and distorting the service. I urge her to reconsider the changes in the funding formula and find ways of providing extra resources to an area that has historically had problems with financing because of its proximity to London.
  Those problems are bad enough, but, just over a week ago, it emerged that the health trust is £2.4 million, and the authority just over £10 million, in deficit. One way in which they are trying to overcome that problem is by closing three wards at Broomfield hospital, saving £1.75 million; the rest is to be saved by improving management and bureaucracy. They are seeking to make those savings partly by removing about 80 bed blockers from Broomfield hospital. I fully endorse such action, as
  322
  it is ludicrous for people to remain in hospital when there is no clinical or medical reason for them to do so. Not only is keeping people in hospital expensive but their quality of life deteriorates.
  I had assumed, however, that those people would either be going home, with a care package, or into residential care. I was therefore surprised to hear that those options have not been chosen, but that most of those people will be going to St. Peter's hospital and to St. Michael's hospital—thereby incurring costs to the health authority and the health trust, so that the savings may not be as great as anticipated. Moreover, as social services do not have enough money to deal with the problem, I fear that closing the wards will prove to be a one-off and short-term solution, and that, perhaps in 12 months' time, we shall be confronted with another problem of bed blocking, when we shall not again have the option of closing wards to overcome a short-term financial deficit.
  Similarly, when there are so many problems with people waiting for treatment, it is crazy that three wards—84 beds—should be taken out of the hospital system and left empty and redundant so that they cannot be used to help overcome the problems facing my constituents and those of other hon. Members in the area.
  I therefore urge the Minister—who is a perfectly reasonable person—to recognise that there is a specific problem in mid-Essex. I ask her to recognise, too, that my constituents do not deserve the delays, heartache and problems that they are suffering as a result of having to wait ever longer for hospital and out-patient treatment, or the misery and shock of operations cancelled at the last minute—sometimes after they have already gone to hospital psychologically prepared for their operation.
  I urge the Minister yet again to persuade the NHS executive to re-examine the problem in mid-Essex; to seek to direct more money into North Essex and Mid Essex to bring down waiting lists; and to ask the hospital to justify fully why it is closing the wards, whether there is a better alternative for achieving the same aim, and what will happen to staff working in those wards, who must be extremely concerned and worried about the consequences of the actions on their role in the health service.
  1.42 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) for allowing me to contribute very briefly to the debate. My constituency of Maldon and East Chelmsford is covered by the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust, and, therefore, my constituents are experiencing the same problems and difficulties as those suffered by my hon. Friend's constituents.
  I also congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and pay tribute to him for the assiduous way in which he has pursued the matter in recent months. He and I both know, from our postbags and surgeries, the distress being caused to an increasing number of our constituents because of the lengthening time they have to wait for operations. His efforts, however, have forced the Government and the hospital trust to publish the real figures, showing the huge increase in the number of people in mid-Essex who have to wait for an operation.
  As my hon. Friend said, to be fair, there has long been a problem of underfunding and long waiting times in the North Essex health authority area. Nevertheless,

  323
  the problem was being dealt with by the previous Government, who, in successive years, awarded North Essex an above average real-terms increase. Consequently, waiting lists fell to historically low levels. However, the progress has been reversed, and the figures quoted by my hon. Friend graphically demonstrated the huge deterioration in the situation in the past two years.
  Both my hon. Friend and I have many cases of individual constituents who had been given operation dates, which were months in the future, but who—at the last minute, when the date had finally arrived, and sometimes after they had gone to the hospital—discovered that the operation had been cancelled. Subsequently, they were told that they would have to wait still more months before the operation could be rescheduled.
  The Government were elected on a pledge that waiting lists would fall, but the fact is that, in mid-Essex, they have got steadily worse.
  In December 1998, one of my constituents, who lives in Great Baddow, wrote to me, saying that her husband was house-bound and facing a 12-month wait for a quadruple bypass operation. She wrote:
  "I know we don't count for much in the system of things but we are as important to our families as you are to yours … Please keep the promises that are made. I don't want my husband to die waiting."
  For that one constituent, I could name another 100 who have written to me to describe similar cases.
  Our constituents in the mid-Essex area deserve more from the Government. I ask the Minister now to spell out exactly what action the Government are planning to take to ensure that the situation is not allowed to continue.
  1.45 pm
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate, on a matter in which he has taken an active interest. I am sure that his constituents appreciate his concern.
  I should begin with the figures, as they were one of the issues central to the hon. Gentleman's concern. At the time of the general election, a total of 8,391 people were waiting for in-patient treatment at the Mid Essex Hospital Services NHS trust. Mid Essex was not immune from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has referred to as the supertanker effect, and, in the following year, the number rose to 8,360. Since then, the number has dropped, and, at the latest count, stood at 9,961.
  Mr. Burns: I think that the Minister has given the wrong figure. When the previous Government left office, the figure was 8,381; in the following 18 months, it rose to just over 11,500, but then dropped to 9,967.
  Ms Jowell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; I misread the figure. To be absolutely clear, at the previous general election, the figure was 8,391. Subsequently, it rose to 11,360. At the last count, it had fallen to 9,961.
  As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will be aware, waiting lists have shrunk across the country. However, the situation in Mid Essex differs from the picture nationally in that it has more people waiting than it did when the Government took office—which is a
  324
  matter for concern. The case cited by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) provided a clear illustration of why reducing both waiting lists and the suffering that they cause is our No. 1 priority.
  Neither the trust's local management nor the NHS executive are willing to tolerate the situation. However, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford made it clear, the trust has financial problems. At the end of the previous financial year, its deficit was £1.8 million. The trust has now identified savings of £1.7 million, and, this year, is planning for a deficit of £1.6 million. The trust has robust plans for next year, including further savings of £700,000 in management costs, and it expects to achieve financial balance.
  The eastern region of the NHS executive has been deep in discussion with the trust about implementation of its recovery plan. Today, the regional office, the health authority and the local trust are meeting to agree the plans. There is a total commitment to achieving those plans without adversely affecting services to future patients. To that end, a group—comprising local primary care groups and social services, as well as the health authority and trust—has been formed to contribute to the plans.
  That brings us to the question of ward closures. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford knows, part of the savings central to the trust's plans arise from its proposed switch of services from St. John's hospital to Broomfield hospital and the accompanying closure of three wards at the Broomfield site. We recognise that waiting lists, budgets and ward closures are obviously interdependent.
  The trust's proposals entail a complete relocation of services from St John's to Broomfield by 2002, and the sale of the St John's site. The trust believes that providing all its acute services from a single site will deliver better and safer care to all its patients, and achieve significant savings.
  Mr. Burns: Is the Minister aware that one of the wards being closed was refurbished last year so that it could accommodate some of the services transferred from St. John's?
  Ms Jowell: Clearly, the trust is making these proposals because it judges that they constitute the best use of available resources, and that they will protect standards of patient care. I expect that the trust took the hon. Gentleman's point into consideration when it made the proposals.
  The first stage is the transfer of 86 patients from Broomfield to settings that are deemed to be more appropriate to their needs. Some patients will go home and will be cared for in the community: others, as the hon. Member for West Chelmsford said, will go into alternative community hospital care. That will allow three wards to be closed, saving £900,000 this year and twice that amount in a full year, thereby freeing up resources for investment in other, locally based services.
  Perhaps naturally, the hon. Member for West Chelmsford jumps to the conclusion that fewer wards and beds will mean longer waiting lists. That is not what the trust expects. It believes that, because the beds are blocked now, their removal will not have an impact on the number of people that the hospital can treat. However, the onus is on the trust to make that case in the consultation that will follow as the strategic plan develops.

  325
  No reundancies are planned as a consequence of the closure, although the trust should be able to cut back its use of agency staff, so nurses on those wards could instead treat patients who need to be in hospital. The trust also expects to move its cardiac services to better facilities, to expand renal services so that fewer patients have to travel to London for treatment, and to increase its capacity to treat patients on a day-care basis. The trust treats fewer patients on that basis than other comparable trusts, and we hope that the number so treated will be increased.
  The trust believes that, even after the proposed reduction, it will be better placed to meet the needs of the local population and it intends to refurbish the wards as part of its longer-term strategy.
  I believe that I have given an accurate summary of the trust's plans, which I understand have the support of Essex social services, the health authority, other local trusts and primary care groups. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford may know, the community health council is reserving its judgment on the immediate ward closures until it is convinced that the plans are achievable. In the interim, it has agreed with the health authority to hold a public meeting in Chelmsford on 21 July, when all the agencies will explain their plans to the public. In addition, the health authority is planning a full public consultation on the whole strategy later this year.
  With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Member will understand if I do not give the plan the ministerial seal of approval—or disapproval—here and now. What I can promise him and his constituents is that, if called on to arbitrate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be guided by the one principle that always guides him in these matters—the best interests of the patients, and their care.
  I mentioned the financial problems facing the trust. It might be relevant for me to say something briefly about the financial support that this Government have made available to the North Essex health authority, which largely funds the trust.
  Two years ago, North Essex health authority was 3.7 per cent, or £13.8 million, below its capitation target. Today it is only 0.7 per cent, or £3.4 million, below target. This year alone, it received a cash increase of £31 million, and a real-terms increase of £18.7 million. The Mid Essex trust has also benefited directly from an £845,000 share of the accident and emergency modernisation fund. I assume that the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will welcome all that. That funding and the trust's own recovery plans are freeing resources for practical action to help patients and drive down waiting lists.
  The trust is now putting together a scheme for the new day-care centre to which I have referred. It expects the centre to make a real contribution to reducing the number of people waiting for elective surgery without the need for additional beds. I wish to make it clear that neither I nor any of my colleagues underestimate for a moment the sheer misery caused by cancelled operations.
  Meanwhile, the local primary care groups have been studying the patterns of referral by general practitioners. They have produced guidance for GPs that is being piloted by the local primary care group and acute hospitals to help improve the consistency and appropriateness of referrals.
  326
  The regional office of the NHS executive will continue to monitor the trust's waiting list performance, and it has been helping to identify where bottlenecks may cause delays in getting patients treated. The local waiting list task force has also been actively working with the trust.
  This debate is about one NHS trust, but my response would not be complete without some reference to the national picture and what the Government are doing to cut waiting lists in the Mid Essex trust area and the rest of the country. I do not want the hon. Member for West Chelmsford or anyone else to be in any doubt about the priority that the Government and the NHS give to beating waiting lists.
  Through a stupendous effort, the NHS, supported every inch of the way by the Government, has delivered a record reduction in waiting lists to below the level inherited from the previous Government. That is the action that has been taken to deliver our pledge to bring lists down by 100,000 from the level that we inherited. We have made it clear that no patient should have to wait more than 18 months for hospital treatment once on a waiting list, and I am glad to say that the Mid Essex trust has consistently delivered on that.
  We have often been told that it was wrong to concentrate on the length of lists, and that we should care only about waiting times. We always believed that both could be shortened: now, average waiting times are down to below three months and are below the average that we inherited. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford must accept that, nationally, waiting times for patients waiting 12 months or more are down by one third.
  I mentioned that one of the fundamental problems facing the Mid Essex trust is the number of patients ready to be discharged but waiting to be given social services support. We are taking big steps in improving joint working between health and social services, and taking action to get rid of the constraints in the existing system to providing the right services in the community.
  Finally, I repeat my earlier assurances to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford and to the people in the Mid Essex trust area. The trust is expected to bring waiting lists down further, and will get the advice and support that it needs. We are determined that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and people throughout the country will enjoy the benefits of a new, modern and dependable NHS.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

NEW WRIT
For the county constituency of Eddisbury, in the room of the right hon. Sir Alastair Robertson Goodlad (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL. (By Order).
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered Tuesday 6 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Anti-drugs Strategy
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What progress has been made in the implementation of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. [87715]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): For the past 12 months, a review team has been examining the current policy statement on drugs and has now devised, and recently agreed, a new drugs misuse strategy for Northern Ireland. This is ready to be published, but the timing of publication is dependent on progress towards devolution in Northern Ireland, as the new Assembly will have responsibility for this matter.
    Mr Jenkins: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but what measures have he and the Government taken to involve various sections of the community, in particular the business section, in that strategy programme?
    Mr Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for that question because the various sectors of the community are vital to producing any coherent and constructive policy to deal with the problem. I recently launched an initiative with the business community, which was well attended—there were more than 80 participants and there was a significant up-take from the business community in moving forward and dealing with that problem as it affects the workplace.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The right hon. Gentleman will remember his answer on that very subject at the previous Northern Ireland questions. After further reflection, and with his understanding of the drugs strategy that he is putting in place, does he think that, given the growing use of heroin in Northern Ireland, it is time for a change of tactics to deal with the problem? Will he welcome the recent move by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to put a mobile support unit in Ballymena to deal with it?
    Mr. Ingram: We all recognise that there is a growing problem of heroin and hard drug misuse in Northern Ireland. A strategy has to deal with the reality that exists and with the possibility of that menace growing in the period ahead. The RUC is active in dealing with the problem. Of course it will constantly review how it tackles the problem, should it begin to manifest itself—hopefully, it will not—in the various communities in Northern Ireland. We are alert to that very real probability but we hope that we can tackle it in the way that we are setting forth in the strategy.

    Decommissioning
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If she will make a statement on progress towards decommissioning illegal weapons under the Good Friday agreement. [87716]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The British and Irish Governments are clear that decommissioning is an important and fundamental element of the Good Friday agreement. The current talks in Belfast are designed to implement the agreement in all its aspects. Decommissioning is not a precondition but an obligation under the agreement. The two Governments are due to consider a report from the Independent Commission on Decommissioning. We are optimistic that progress can be made if all parties are prepared to move together.
    Mr. Robathan: The IRA has stated publicly several times that it is not prepared to give up its weapons, yet the Minister and the Secretary of State continue to press for the inclusion of Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland Executive. Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA—it is one and the same as the IRA. Does the Minister genuinely believe that the IRA is operating a ceasefire? If so, who does he think murdered Paul Downey in Newry earlier this month, Eamon Collins or Brendan Fegan, or attempted to murder Martin McGartland? I trust that the Minister will not give the House some wittering, weasel words about evidence. Has the Chief Constable advised the Government that those murders were carried out by the IRA? Has he advised the Government that the IRA continues with its terrorist activities?
    Mr Ingram: The original question was about the decommissioning of illegal weapons and, of course, such weapons are held by more than one terrorist or paramilitary group. In relation to the hon. Gentleman's specific points, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I receive security briefings; indeed, yesterday, we received a long briefing from the Chief Constable. The best suggestion that I can offer to the hon. Gentleman is that he read the transcript of the Chief Constable's comments when he launched his annual report today. The Chief Constable gives advice and we assess the information given to us by him and by other security sources. As far as we are concerned, the ceasefires remain intact. That is why the talks are going on at present. If the hon. Gentleman argues, on behalf of his party, that talks should cease, let him say that.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Every sane person in Northern Ireland wants decommissioning to take place so that the Executive and the Assembly can get down to work. I need hardly remind my right hon. Friend that we are within 24 hours of the formal opening of the Scottish Parliament and of the Welsh Assembly. The people of Northern Ireland want the same for their Assembly. When is General John de Chastelain due to make his report? Is it not true that the obligation on decommissioning has to be met by May next year?
    Mr. Ingram: The report of the independent commission is a matter for the members of the commission. We understand that they have compiled an assessment of the various responses, and that the report is due to be given to the two Governments today; I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise time. The document will be important; it will be the best assessment from an independent body that was set up to deal specifically with that issue.
    Mr. William Ross: If the Government really believe that keeping Sinn Fein out of

    329
    the Executive now would cause violence because it has not given up its weapons, how on earth is violence to be avoided when Sinn Fein is thrown out next May because it has given up no weapons in the interval?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has not been a supporter of the Good Friday agreement; he is now predicting the failure of the peace discussions—I hope that he is not wishing for that. As I have said to Opposition Members in the House, in Committee and elsewhere, they would do well to listen to what the majority of people of Northern Ireland want, and, hopefully, to reflect on that. They could then use all their efforts to bring about a peaceful resolution to the past 30 years of trouble and strife, imposed on Northern Ireland from too many quarters; that should become a thing of the past.
    Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend pass the thanks of the majority of Members of the House to General John de Chastelain and his independent commission for the long and difficult work that they are doing in tackling the real issues of decommissioning? Will he please try to elicit exactly what the Opposition propose on decommissioning? How do they expect decommissioning to occur without the implementation of all parts of the Northern Ireland agreement in tandem?
    Mr. Ingram: With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have enough on our plate without trying to elicit what is in the mind of the Opposition on that matter, or trying to read how it has been tackled over recent months. The process is difficult enough without that. As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I am only too happy to report those strong messages of support for the good work already carried out by General John de Chastelain and the other two commissioners, and for the work on which they are currently engaged.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: As anyone who follows these matters knows, decommissioning is not a precondition of where we stand today, although obviously it must be a commitment. Therefore, aside from the fancy rhetoric, will the Minister answer as honestly and candidly as he can? How likely is it that we can make progress today in the important talks taking place in Northern Ireland on the crucial question of decommissioning in its symbolic context, as well as on the other sticking points? Can he really hope for the Northern Ireland Assembly to take up its full responsibilities, together with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly?
    Mr. Ingram: The one thing that we can say with certainty is that all parties to the current round of talks want to see that Assembly up and running. They know that the two fundamentals that will take that forward—decommissioning and the establishment of the Executive—are critical to that. Those talks are taking place as I answer the hon. Gentleman's question at the Dispatch Box. We hope that good progress is being made and that every effort will be made by the two Prime Ministers and by those who are participating in the
    330
    talks to resolve the issue and the other fundamentals, which will allow the Parliament to be up and running and to go forward from there.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are well aware of the tremendous support on the Government Benches for the full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. Will they take a relatively simple message to both sides? The first is that the agreement cannot be rewritten, but, at the same time, it does need to be said to those who have contact with those holding illegal arms that it is difficult to take democratic decisions when behind them is the threat of the use of those illegal arms. If both sides could move, I am sure that almost all Labour Members certainly would want to see the agreement implemented in full.
    Mr. Ingram: Those are the very sentiments that are at work within those around the negotiating tables in Northern Ireland, but, more so, they reflect the overwhelming wish of the people of Northern Ireland. I shall take those points back to those engaged in the process.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: We very much hope that a lasting agreement will be reached today, not least because of the innocent, law-abiding majority of people in Northern Ireland from both communities who have suffered too much in the past 30 years of troubles. Will the Minister confirm that there is only one real stumbling block, and that is the non-decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives by the paramilitaries, both loyalist and republican? The two Governments have fulfilled all their obligations under the agreement, the constitutional parties, Unionists and nationalists, have done the same, but the paramilitaries have been all take and no give.
    Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes to those involved in the negotiations. Clearly, the Good Friday agreement must be implemented in full in all its parts. That includes decommissioning. We have made that clear from the Dispatch Box time and time again. It also includes the establishment of the Executive and the implementation of all the other obligations that are placed upon the two Governments. When agreement can be obtained, we will have dealt with the two fundamental issues of the establishment of the Executive and the decommissioning of weapons.
    Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister accept that we cannot be confident that the IRA will decommission its illegally held arms and explosives when, only last week, the Irish police arrested two terrorists in Donegal who were carrying explosives for bombing in Northern Ireland, who both wore Sinn Fein green ribbons when they appeared in court and who have both been admitted into the Provisional IRA wing of Portlaoise prison?
    Mr. Ingram: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman wanted us to proceed with the Good Friday agreement. Two people have been arrested in the Republic of Ireland for crimes within that jurisdiction. That will be a matter for its courts. We have information on the background to that as it may have applied within Northern Ireland. As I have said before, we do not share intelligence over the

    331
    Dispatch Box. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) about the way in which the judgment has been made and what the Chief Constable says about the current state of the ceasefire. He and the Secretary of State are both agreed on the stability of that ceasefire at the present time.

    Equality Commission
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What progress is being made on the establishment of an Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. [87717]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): The process of appointing people is under way and it should be completed by the end of July. All efforts are being made to ensure that the commission will be broadly representative of the community, as the Good Friday agreement requires.
    Mr. Shaw: I welcome the progress made so far and the hard work that everyone has put in to ensure that, since the agreement, there has been progress on establishing institutions that all the people of Northern Ireland can be absolutely guaranteed will ensure equality and fairness throughout the Province. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the people who are appointed to the commission will broadly reflect the communities, very much in the spirit of the Good Friday agreement?
    Mr. McFall: As my hon. Friend knows, it was a difficult process to bring four bodies into one. I have to congratulate the voluntary and community groups that were involved in that. I can give him a concrete assurance that appointments will be made to the Equality Commission on merit. The posts were advertised widely in major newspapers and on the internet and were made available in several languages. At the core is the need for broad community representation. I hope that, with those assurances, my hon. Friend will welcome the new body.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that there are a number of commissions in Northern Ireland. If there is no agreement on decommissioning and the Assembly is suspended, will all aspects of the agreement be suspended, including the Equality Commission and the early release of prisoners?
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman is looking ahead. That decision will be taken after 30 June. I do not need to remind him or other hon. Members here that the most strenuous and genuine efforts are being made today to secure that agreement. The spirit of those talks was matched by the spirit of the community groups who came together to form the Equality Commission.
    Judy Mallaber: Is the Minister satisfied that the Equality Commission will properly represent the interests of women and bring into the political process those women who have been so essential and strong in the political process? Does he agree that the Equality Commission is one of the essential building
    332
    blocks of the Good Friday agreement and that it will bring benefits to people who are disadvantaged in all sections of the community?
    Mr. McFall: The issue of women is one of the key tests of the Equality Commission. As my hon. Friend knows, we are now establishing one of the most advanced frameworks for equality and rights in Europe. The experiences of women have been taken into account. Over the period of the troubles, it is women who have largely kept communities together. We are thankful for that, and we welcome their inclusion in the Equality Commission.

    Drumcree Parade
    Shona McIsaac: What measures she is taking to avoid disturbances in connection with the parade at Drumcree. [87718]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Government regret the necessity for the recent Parades Commission ruling. Considerable efforts were made, and continue to be made, to reach a satisfactory accommodation. The Parades Commission ruling has legal force and all law-abiding people should respect it, however much they dislike it. Meanwhile, I am confident that the RUC and the Army will be able to cope with any threatened disorder in the days ahead.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that the whole House agrees that, in recent years, there has been far too much violence and disturbance associated with the march at Drumcree. Has he emphasised to all those involved that the key to resolving this issue is parity of esteem, that both traditions have to recognise that the other tradition exists and that, in order to give peace a chance, people must learn to make friends with their enemies? To that end, will he convey the message to Northern Ireland that people ought to try to have a peaceful weekend this weekend and all future weekends?
    Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely with those sentiments. In recent years, the human cost of Drumcree has been dramatic. One RUC officer has lost his life and many others have been injured, and tens of RUC families have been forced to move home. Families who live in the Garvaghy road are being forced to live in the most intolerable circumstances. The only way forward is for both sides to reach an accommodation. The Prime Minister has expended a lot of energy over recent days trying to get an agreement such as my hon. Friend described.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Has not the timing of the Parades Commission's banning of the proposed march at Drumcree shown that these decisions are supremely political in their nature? They should be made by Her Majesty's Ministers, taking into account all the circumstances that obtain at the time, and should not be shuffled off to a Parades Commission, whatever its ancestry. Will the Minister always bear in mind the fact that there is no equivalence between the exercise of the

    333
    citizen's rightful entitlement to walk on the Queen's highway and the violent efforts of those who wish to frustrate that democratic right?
    Mr. Ingram: I should have hoped that the hon. Gentleman understood that the Parades Commission has legal force behind it. This decision is a legal determination by that body. I should have thought that all law-abiding citizens would be only too willing to rise in this Chamber and say that they support that legal ruling. It is not a political decision: it is a matter for that body, which Parliament established.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Orange Order and those who purport to speak for it will be judged by the world on the way that they behave this weekend in response to the ban?
    Mr. Ingram: The Orange Order has shown great willingness to engage in this process over recent days in its talks with the Prime Minister. Continued efforts will be made to bring about a reconciliation and a different accommodation in that area. If its members behave with dignity in that march on Sunday—most of them want to do so—they will have the support and respect of the House and the majority of people in Northern Ireland. They have it in their own hands to ensure that this Sunday passes off peacefully.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the Orange Order is doing everything in its power to ensure that the legitimate protests are peaceful, and has asked anyone who wants to cause trouble to stay away? The Prime Minister acknowledged that in his recent contacts with members of the Order. Will the Minister acknowledge that? As the Human Rights Act 1998 will come into operation next year, will the Minister review the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to ensure that all its provisions accord with the convention on human rights?
    Mr. Ingram: All Government legislation must conform to the Human Rights Act 1998, and that examination takes place at all times. The matter would be considered in the courts if anyone challenged us. If we were found to be wrong, we would have to amend the legislation.
    The Orange Order has been engaged in discussions with the Prime Minister in recent days, and that is encouraging. There is movement towards a different realisation from that which has applied in recent years. That will hopefully help to bring about a different approach for this Sunday and for the years ahead.

    Devolution
    Mr. Tony McNulty: If she will make a statement on progress towards devolution in Northern Ireland. [87719]
    Sir Teddy Taylor: What progress has been made in discussions on the future constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland. [87720]
    Mr. David Winnick: If she will make a statement on the latest position on the peace process. [87724]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland: A great deal of progress has been made towards achieving devolution. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister are currently engaged in intensive discussions with the parties to try to reach agreement on the outstanding issues and enable devolution to take place. I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing them well in making progress in the hours ahead.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. She will be aware that confusing signals are emanating from the Belfast talks. Will she ignore the witless, partisan and frankly irresponsible comments of some on the Opposition Benches and give us her real assessment of how far we are from the real prize of devolution and lasting peace in Northern Ireland?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I have difficulty answering my hon. Friend's question. It is difficult to provide facts in the middle of a negotiation, as he and others who have engaged in negotiations will know. We were feeling positive at lunch time, but by the time that I left to come to this place an hour later, people were getting worried again. The situation goes up and down: it is a case of three steps forward and two steps back. It is difficult to give a fair judgment to the House now. I apologise to hon. Members for that, but it is the nature of negotiations. My colleagues in the Northern Ireland team have done their best to answer questions today, but I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that, when the talks have finished, there will be a statement on the details, by me or by the Prime Minister, as soon as is feasible.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish the right hon. Lady every possible success and blessing in her complex and difficult task. Will she make it abundantly clear that, should the talks sadly fail, all those who have been released very early from custody—some of whom were convicted for the most appalling crimes—will be returned immediately to prison in the interests of the security of people on both sides of the community?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The details of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 do not facilitate the course of action that the hon. Gentleman has outlined. However, I make it clear that, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a minute ago, it is difficult to say exactly what will happen after the 30th. If I were to do so now, the folk in Northern Ireland would discuss not how to deal with the issues of the Executive, decommissioning and how it will be determined in line with the Independent Commission on Decommissioning but my answer to the hon. Gentleman. That is why I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait a wee while. However, I guarantee that there will be an answer when the outcome of today's talks is known.
    Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the negotiations do not succeed, it will be a moment of real joy for those responsible for last year's Omagh atrocity, for instance, as well as for the loyalist murder gangs who would seize any opportunity to start a murderous pogrom against the minority community? Should not that be borne in mind by those on the Opposition Benches, some of whom give the impression that they do not want the negotiations to succeed?
    Marjorie Mowlam: It is difficult with the parties that are not supporting the agreement and it is very difficult with those who are bent on destroying it by violent means. However, many of those who are anti-agreement—particularly the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the Ulster Democratic Unionist party—were in the talks building yesterday. The Prime Minister and I have had meetings with them in the past three or four days. It is their democratic right to oppose the agreement, but they remain very interested in what progress is being made. That is where the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), is now and he sends his apologies to the House.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: While the Opposition hope fervently for a settlement later today on the implementation of the Belfast agreement in full, does the Secretary of State agree that talking about falling into an abyss if no such agreement is reached may be counterproductive? After all, life in the Province must go on and we cannot afford to have a political vacuum. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government intend to continue talking in order to press for a settlement and that, if Sinn Fein-IRA do not fulfil the requirement under the Belfast agreement to decommission by next May, they will proceed with devolution with the consenting parties, excluding Sinn Fein?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I am sorry, but I have tried to explain in my responses to three questions today why I will not answer that specific point. The hon. Gentleman is asking me to negotiate across the Dispatch Box what the parties in Northern Ireland are now discussing. It is for the parties in Northern Ireland to reach conclusions. I hope that we in this House and those in the Dail in the Irish Republic will do everything possible.
    The best indication to the hon. Gentleman of the situation in Northern Ireland and the negotiations is the number of people who come to the doors of the building in which the talks are taking place. Just as I was leaving that building, a group from the Northern Ireland Youth Forum arrived with a letter for every member of the talks. Those talks are taking place for them. In their letter, the young people said:
    "We do not want a return to the violent sectarian cauldron of the past. Nor do we want to live…in a state of suspended animation where growth is impossible."
    The parties in Northern Ireland are doing their best to make progress.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. John Randall: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 June.
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott)rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank Opposition Members for that warm response. I have been asked to reply.
    As the House knows, the Prime Minister has decided to remain in Northern Ireland today to make every effort to secure agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the whole House would wish him, the Irish Prime Minister and all the parties well in their endeavours to bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Randall: Why are the Government fast-tracking the commercialisation of GM seeds?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: They are not.
    Mr.Andy King: The hopes and prayers of the House and the whole country are with our Prime Minister and Secretary of State as they continue to work tirelessly for a peaceful resolution in Northern Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that without the implementation of the peace process, the men of violence will surely return, with their reign of terror? Does he agree that it is the responsibility of all those involved in the talks to choose a path of peace and to concentrate on the future, not the past; and that the children of Northern Ireland deserve a better future?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be echoed on all sides of the House. As we speak, the Prime Minister, his Irish counterpart and other parties are discussing proposals for a way to meet today's deadline.
    Throughout this process, our position has been clear—we want every aspect of the Good Friday agreement to be implemented in full. What has been written into the agreement about decommissioning still stands, and it is not a precondition but an obligation. The House will be aware that a great deal has been achieved, but the parties must take that final step; otherwise, as the Prime Minister said in the House last week, we risk a return to violence. His remark reflects the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the decent people of Northern Ireland, who simply want a peaceful and stable future for themselves and their children.
    Sir George Young: Of course we understand why the Prime Minister is in Northern Ireland. The whole House hopes that the discussions that are under way can be brought to a successful conclusion and that a devolved Assembly can be established for

    337
    Northern Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the sole remaining block to progress has been and still is the failure of the terrorist organisations to give up their illegally owned weapons?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his role of deputising for the Leader of the Opposition, and I wish him well. He raises an important issue, which is at the heart of the present discussions. Clearly, agreement will have to be reached on that matter. All parties are addressing themselves to that, and the House will wish them well in achieving a successful agreement.
    Sir George Young: The House will welcome that response, but is it not the case that, for the terrorists on both sides and their political allies, it has been all take and no give? Have not the British Government, the Irish Government and the constitutional parties all honoured their side of the agreement? So does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the way the other parties can demonstrate their commitment to peace and democracy is to hand over the guns and the bombs?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has made clear exactly how he feels on these matters, and he is in the middle of the negotiations, with the Irish Prime Minister. It would be far better for peace in the north of Ireland if the negotiations took place over there, and were not made more difficult by people in this place making remarks of the type that the right hon. Gentleman is making.
    Ms Joan Ryan: May I tell my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister how very, very welcome is the Government's initiative, launched today, called "Living without fear"? I welcome the Government's courage and their commitment to tackling violence against women. Two women every week lose their life to a partner or an ex-partner. That is a criminal activity.
    I also welcome the initiative because it recognises the importance of local projects. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Government will continue to recognise the need for such local funding? I welcome the £6 million made available for local projects, and the extra £6.3 million for Victim Support. Does he agree that it is very important that all Government Departments continue to work together effectively to tackle this problem, which we should not tolerate in our society today?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would condemn domestic violence. The Government are making it clear that we shall do everything that we possibly can to assist in preventing such domestic violence, providing compensation where we can, providing assistance where we can, and running a campaign to ensure that it is brought home to people that this crime is totally unacceptable and that we shall do all that we can to prevent it.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware of our strong support for the efforts that the Prime Minister is making in negotiations
    338
    today, and we agree with him that, while negotiations are going on over there, the less said here on that subject, the better.
    In the week when the Scottish Parliament opens, though, is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of the strong feelings in some regions of England that it is time we had powerful democratic bodies to manage regional policy? Does he recall his manifesto commitment to introduce legislation for elected regional assemblies when there is clear public demand, shown in a referendum? Can he tell the House when he expects that to happen?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: This is an opportunity to offer our congratulations to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, to which powers will be transferred tomorrow. It is another good example of the Government carrying out their manifesto promises; and as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Government's commitment to further decentralisation can be seen in the proposals for a London elected mayor and a new regional assembly for the London area.
    I have always believed in the regional government dimension. Our manifesto said that we would consult the people and take a decision then as to whether we would institute a form of regional government. I firmly believe in it. I shall be advocating it and doing all that I can to see that it is brought in.
    Mr. Beith: What are we to make of reports that the right hon. Gentleman is having to do battle with No. 10 Downing street to prevent the commitment from being watered down, and to stop it disappearing from Labour's next manifesto? Is he facing difficulties of the type that he has faced over bus lanes, bus fares, road tolls and various other things? The Deputy Prime Minister did say that we deputies should stick together, so just between ourselves, would he tell me—is it getting a bit frustrating at the moment?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the press. How could anyone possibly think that I am likely to get into any disagreement with No. 10? I am a loyal deputy to the Prime Minister, and I am very proud to serve this Prime Minister, who in two years has brought about more fundamental change in this country, and brought more benefits to the people of this country, because we are carrying out our manifesto commitments.
    So I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he should take no notice of press prattle and remind himself that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that such reports are garbage. And I agree with him.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who will be tasked with disarming the Kosovo Liberation Army?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I—[Interruption.] I always have problems with these closed questions.
    As envisaged in United Nations Security Council resolution 1244, the commander of KFOR, General Sir Mike Jackson, is responsible for the demilitarisation of the KLA. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House last week, the commander-in-chief of

    339
    the KLA signed an undertaking on 21 June to hand in its weapons. This will be completed in stages over 90 days. I can tell the House that the KLA is showing clear signs of complying with the undertaking. It is moving to the designated assembly areas, assisting with mine clearance and starting the weapons handover. KFOR is doing all that it can to ensure that the KLA continues to abide by its undertakings.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do soldiers, however professional and well trained, make satisfactory police officers in the long term?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is the understanding, with the United Nations, that a police force will be introduced to the area. We have already committed a number of police to that force. The more we see movement towards normal circumstances in Kosovo, the more that will be welcomed by those on both sides of the House. The objectives that we set for Kosovo were controversial and they have been carried out. In these circumstances, the introduction of a police force will be another important step to bring about normality.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What assessment has the Deputy Prime Minister made of the remarks yesterday by Vuk Draskovic and of the effect that they will have on the disarming of the KLA?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not think that they will have any effect upon that. We have entered into an undertaking and all the signs are that the KLA is carrying it out, as I have said. That should be welcomed by both sides of the House.

    Engagements
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: While I accept the need for checks and balances in the Freedom of Information Bill, what assurances can my right hon. Friend give that the legislation will open up public authorities in such a way that it will be able to succeed in its objective, and can thereby be recognised as one of the Government's major achievements?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The draft Freedom of Information Bill creates for the first time powerful new rights of access to information in the public sector, to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. For the first time, people will have the right to find out how schools have made decisions on pupil admissions, how hospitals set priorities for different treatments, how the police have conducted their inquiries—a very important development—and how the Child Support Agency has made decisions about maintenance payments. I believe that this is a big step forward.
    We are making sure that the public can have information about decisions that affect important areas of their everyday life. That contrasts rather vividly with the press story that we read today on freedom of information. Apparently Tories at central office—the ones that are to be sacked—are to sign a gagging clause to keep them quiet. I presume that that shows they will be on message until they die.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the major crisis in the milk
    340
    industry, which was brought about by the delay of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in publishing the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on Milk Marque? The publication of the report is well over 10 weeks late, and it is of great importance that publication be effected. Many in the milk industry are hanging on by their fingernails—[Interruption.] The laughter from the Government Benches only goes to show how few Labour Members understand what the agriculture industry is about. People are hanging on by their fingernails and there is a demand that this report should be produced immediately. Will the right hon. Gentleman apply pressure to bring that about?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and we recognise it to be such. It is being considered, and I shall pass on his advice to the Minister involved and see whether the report can be published as soon as possible. On his remarks on agriculture policy and Milk Marque, I am bound to say that the previous Government privatised the milk distribution industry and added to its difficulties.
    Gillian Merron: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the double triumph of Lincoln's 300th new deal success, shop manager Nicola Robbins, whose milestone placement was made by Steve Green—himself a new deal employee? Amidst all the criticism of the new deal from Conservative Members, does he agree that we will not go too far wrong if we continue to focus on releasing the potential of young people such as Nicola and Steve?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and it should be—[Interruption.] The fact that more people have become employed under the new deal system should be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. The Government have kept their commitments to getting people back to work and to making the provision of work, especially for young people, a priority.
    My hon. Friend makes the point that Steve Green is a symbol of a change that is taking place in today's employment market. We offer him our congratulations and best wishes for the future. We should recognise that the number of young long-term unemployed, in her constituency in particular, has come down in two years by a massive 79 per cent. That is a considerable cut, however one measures it. Britain must never allow hundreds of thousands of young people to be put on the scrap-heap, which was another characteristic of 18 years of Tory government.
    The Opposition have criticised a great deal, but the statistics speak for themselves: 100,000 young people were found jobs through the new deal and 85 per cent. were not subsidised in any way. Among young people, long-term unemployment has fallen by 60 per cent. since May 1997, so we have another record for a Labour Government—the lowest youth unemployment since 1975.
    There is a very good contrast. After 18 years of Tory government—[Interruption.] You don't like it, but you're going to get it. The 18 years of Tory government

    341
    produced record unemployment of 3 million. After two years of this Government, a record number of people are in work. That is the difference.
    Sir George Young: The right hon. Gentleman's colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, said last night of the passport crisis that the jobs of all Ministers—his, the Home Secretary's and those of every member of the Government—are on the line. Does he agree?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Nobody is on the line. Let us get the problem into proper context. More than 3 million passports have been issued this year and the Passport Agency is currently issuing 150,000 a week, which is more than 20 per cent. up on last year. There has been a 40 per cent. increase in applications in recent weeks. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, he is treating these problems seriously and putting new measures in place to tackle them. He said that in his statement to the House yesterday.
    Hundreds of new staff have been taken on to deal with the problems and, to be fair, let us recognise that they are due particularly to the number of passport applications being made for children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, exactly."] It was our policy to implement that measure to improve the situation so that children are not abducted. That was agreed by the all-party group of which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is a member. The group recommended that measure to the House.
    Sir George Young: Not even the Home Secretary yesterday pinned the blame on my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. Do the latest figures from the Home Office show that the queues are getting longer or shorter?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Today's figures show that the queues are getting shorter. I have no doubt that the advertising campaign and the information being provided by the Home Office will reassure people. Indeed, 99.9 per cent. of applicants have had their passports processed in time for their holidays. We are sorry for any inconvenience that may have been caused, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday. The fact that he did not blame the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald just shows how generous he is. I should point out to the House that it was he who came to the House and said that he was sorry for any inconvenience. That may seem unusual to a party that, in 18 years in government, never apologised for anything that it did.
    Sir George Young: The figures published today in Hansard show an increase of 34,000 outstanding applications for the last week for which figures are available. Given that an additional £10 is currently payable by those who have to queue in person at the passport office to get their passports processed, will the right hon. Gentleman at least consider suspending that fine, which is due entirely to the Government's incompetence?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am assured that, by 11.30 this morning, the queues had been completely
    342
    cleared. I should have thought that both sides of the House would welcome that, as it means that less inconvenience is caused. Suggestions about possible changes have been heard by the Home Secretary, and he can consider them. At least we have shown sensitivity in dealing with this problem, and people can be assured that they will get their passports in time for their holidays. The changes introduced by the Home Secretary reduce the possibility that children will be abducted.
    Incidentally, I welcome the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to the Dispatch Box on this occasion, but remind him that he is the third substitute for the Leader of the Opposition in two years. I do not want to worry him, but look at what happened to the other two. I hope that it will be some time before he has to get on his bike and leave the job.
    Sir George Young: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman wants to be reminded of his last appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that all the queues had been cleared. Half a million people are waiting for their passports and 1 million have been unable to get through to the Government by telephone. Thousands of people are queueing at passport offices and having to pay £10 extra for the privilege. When will the Government start working round the clock to process passports instead of excuses?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, we are working round the clock and at weekends to clear the backlog. I should have thought that achieving 99.9 per cent. of passport applications in time for people to go on holiday was a record. It is at least a better performance than that of the privatised railways that the Conservative party gave us.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares my concern about the announcement of 2,000 job losses at British Aerospace. Will he initiate a high-level meeting between the Government and executives of British Aerospace to discuss those job losses in the military division, especially in the north-west? Will he ensure that British Aerospace considers the introduction of civil as well as military work, so that we do not have ups and downs in that high-profile industry?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am well aware of the concerns expressed by British Aerospace workers, because I have a plant near my constituency. My hon. Friend will know as well as I do that the company has dealt with considerable change over the years. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has heard my hon. Friend's proposals. If not, I shall make sure that the comments are passed on to him so that the fears can be dealt with and we can ensure the change that is necessary to keep British Aerospace as a powerful company in the global economy.

    Organ Transplants
    Dr. Evan Harris: What plans he has to increase the number of organ transplants taking place in the United Kingdom.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: About 2,800 organs are transplanted each year, but currently more than 5,000

    343
    people are awaiting transplants. We are keen to improve donation rates. We are taking steps to increase public awareness, such as through the organ donor campaign, which was launched in October 1998. We want donors to carry their donor cards and, most importantly, to make their wishes known to their families. That is a matter of particular concern. We are developing another important campaign to inform the medical profession about best practice in dealing sensitively with organ donors and their families.
    Dr. Harris: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the figures that I have obtained today show that the situation is getting worse? The number of terminally or critically ill people on a waiting list for a transplant has risen significantly, while the number of lifesaving transplants in 1998 dropped by 7 per cent. Is he aware that the current confusion in the law means that those who have given notice of their wish to donate and save a life and whose organs subsequently become available run a 30 per cent. risk of those wishes being vetoed by distraught or bereaved relatives, who should never be placed in that position?
    Finally, if the British Medical Association votes next Thursday to support a move to an opt-out system of presumed consent, as has been introduced successfully in Europe, will the Government look seriously at reviewing the situation with a view to implementing such a proposal?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has written to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today making many of those points. I have seen the correspondence and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond. Overruling relatives' wishes is very difficult in practice, however many of us may feel about the issue. However, refusal is almost unknown when relatives know that their loved one wished to donate. That is why our current publicity stresses the need to "let your family know your wishes". I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that.
    I gather that the subject is to be debated at the BMA's annual general meeting. Opinion in the medical profession is divided. Ministers have continually said that we shall consider all suggestions for improving transplant rates, but any proposed measures in that sensitive area will have to command public confidence and support. On a more personal note, when I saw the question I asked myself the same thing. I have always been in support of a donor scheme, but I am not registered and I shall correct that tomorrow.

    Engagements
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Yesterday, the junior Home Office Minister blamed the public for the queues outside the passport office. Does the Deputy Prime Minister support the junior Minister's statement?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Anyone who attended yesterday's debate or read any of the press reports will be well aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took full responsibility. I know that it was rather unusual under the previous Administration for a Secretary of State to accept responsibility. My right hon. Friend accepts the responsibility and he is getting on with the job to ensure that the problem is settled.
    Mr. Phil Sawford: Is my hon. Friend aware that bus drivers and former bus drivers in my constituency and throughout the country very much welcome the action that this Government have taken to restore £355 million to their pension fund—money that was taken from them by the previous Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Yes, it is another problem from the previous Administration that I have had to deal with. With all the demands for resources to be invested in transport, finding that I have to foot the bill for an incompetent Government who robbed the pensions of the National Bus Company, and having to repay the £355 million, is an indictment of a Government who were constantly robbing pensioners one way or another. I am pleased that I have been able to settle the matter, find the compensation and bring social justice to the pensioners of the National Bus Company.
    Mr. William Ross: As the Deputy Prime Minister said earlier that he was in favour of open government, will he take steps to ensure that when General de Chastelain publishes his report—perhaps later today, or tomorrow—we shall also have sight of the copy that he had yesterday?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Those are indeed matters for negotiation, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I hope to see a peaceful agreement in Northern Ireland, and I hope that all matters of free and open information should be available as much as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"] In this case, it is a matter for consideration.

Post-16 Training
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's proposals for education, skills and lifelong learning in England. I thank my ministerial colleagues and officials for the work that they have done with me on the White Paper.
Earlier this year I announced a review, and consultation resulted in substantial support for radical change. It is clear that a highly skilled work force is essential for prosperity and social cohesion in the next century, that the existing post-16 system is inadequate for that purpose, that staying-on rates remain too low, and that standards are too variable and are unacceptably low in many areas. There is too little clarity, co-ordination and coherence between further education and training, and there is too much duplication and too many layers in the contracting and funding system.
In view of the need to plan for such major change, we have set out an illustrative timetable—subject, of course, to legislation. Today, I commend to the House our new White Paper "Learning to Succeed", the draft transitional plan that accompanies it, our consultation paper on the future of sixth-form funding, and the parallel consultation on the Small Business Service announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
We set out proposals which support the tripartite responsibility of employers, learners and Government. We need to ensure that we have high standards in further education and training, effective planning and funding, and the delivery of national targets. I wish to build on what has worked best and improve dramatically what has not.
Those in further education, training and enterprise councils and the careers service have done a good job; many have given their time freely, and I thank them for that. The local learning partnerships that I announced last autumn are developing a powerful role in bringing together providers and broader interests. Those will continue.
Today, we propose a new national learning and skills council to respond to the weaknesses that we have identified. The council will be responsible for the learning provided to more than 5 million students over the age of 16, funded by about £5 billion of public money each year. The council will bring together the role of the training and enterprise councils and the Further Education Funding Council in funding and contracting for training. It will have separate committees focusing on the needs of 16 to 19-year-olds and of adult learners, ensuring that both are addressed thoroughly.
We need greater coherence to meet the needs of students, trainees and employers. Our proposed new local learning and skills councils will take responsibility for all post-16 learning, from developing basic skills through community learning to the funding of high-level training and for promoting work force development. They will work in partnership with both the new regional development agencies and the existing local learning partnerships.
346
Each local council will cover a travel-to-learn and travel-to-work area. They will work alongside the local arms of the Small Business Service and co-operate with them and with local authorities on economic development and meeting labour market needs. The new arrangements will cut through duplication and unnecessary bureaucracy, with a saving of at least £50 million a year to fund the needs of learners.
Employers and the nation need skilled, adaptable men and women in order to stay competitive in the modern economy. It is vital that our new arrangements meet employers' needs and engage them in shaping and influencing the range of post-16 provision. That is why, both nationally and locally, employers will have the largest single input in the new learning and skills councils. Trade unions, local government and the service users will be fully represented. I hope that those from small as well as large businesses will work with us to help to determine a budget five times larger than that administered by TECs. Our goal is a funding system that responds to the needs of learners rather than institutions and that encourages greater participation and achievement.
Individual learning accounts, the university for industry and new incentives through the tax system will make learning more accessible. I also want higher standards and greater choice for over-16s through more co-operation between school sixth forms, sixth-form colleges and further education. Such co-operation already exists in certain areas. Both schools and colleges play a central role in the education of 16 to 19-year-olds.
We intend to promote high standards across all providers, but there are different levels of funding for 16 to 19-year-olds depending on which institution they attend. That is why the Further Education Funding Council announced last week significant improvements in the funding of colleges for those taking three A-levels. Over a period, we want to develop the principle of equivalent funding for equivalent courses. We will guarantee that present levels of funding for any school sixth form are at least maintained in real terms, provided that student numbers do not fall.
Our focus is on improved standards, increased probity and renewed emphasis on quality. Over the past two years, the Further Education Funding Council and training inspectorates have identified and tackled the weaknesses in poorly performing further education and training providers. We want to introduce greater rigour and coherence, so we will create a new adult learning inspectorate to deal with all post-19 education and training, with responsibility for inspection of work-based training for students of any age. Ofsted will be responsible for the inspection of provision for 16 to 19-year-olds in schools and colleges. The two inspectorates will work together on the inspection of colleges for that age group.
The support and guidance that young people receive is vital to their future. In the White Paper we outline a programme called "Connexions", which is designed to address the needs of young people. We propose a new youth support service to modernise and reform the careers service and improve links with the youth service: a new gateway to work and learning. We will publish further details, alongside the report from the social exclusion unit, shortly.
The proposals will make it easier to improve standards, to increase the skills of our work force, and to foster greater efficiency and co-ordination between national

347
training organisations, work-based training, employers and formal providers. They will help our young people to make better and more informed choices about the best route to success, and focus resources on the needs of learners.
Above all, we aim to modernise learning and skills for the economic challenges of the new century. Investment in human capital will be the foundation of success, both economically and in building a cohesive society. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mrs. Theresa May: First, I thank the Secretary of State for prior sight of his statement and of the White Paper—although, at least in relation to the White Paper, perhaps I need to improve my skills by training in speed reading.
The Opposition recognise that the education and training of young people and others post-16 is of the utmost importance for the United Kingdom. We therefore believe that certain criteria must be met by any new proposals for provision of education and training post-16. They are clear and simple criteria, aimed at ensuring the best possible provision to meet the needs of young people and others and the needs of the country.
Do the proposals involve the minimum of centralisation and the maximum of local discretion? Do they minimise bureaucracy and ensure that maximum funding really goes to students' education and training? Do they ensure diversity of provision, flexibility and real choice for students? Finally, will they preserve the best and improve the rest—not impose a new structure, willy-nilly, over the whole system, but preserve those spheres and institutions that have worked well?
Sadly, on all four of those criteria, the proposals that the Government have announced today fail. I say sadly because, in failing to meet the criteria, the Government will be not only failing to meet the country's training needs, they will be failing young people and other learners, as they are the ones who will suffer. The proposals centralise decision-taking, increase bureaucracy and red tape, reduce diversity and throw away what has been achieved in recent years in bringing business into the education and training system through training and enterprise councils.
Today is a sad day for the Government. The proposals show that, whatever their rhetoric, the Government have turned their back on local decision-taking and only pay lip service to involvement of the private sector. As the Financial Times said today:
"The last time Mr. Blunkett's centralised approach was adopted was under the Manpower Services Commission in the 1970s and 1980s".
That commission was wound up and the TECs invented precisely because it was recognised that skills shortages and training deficiencies were best tackled by the private sector at local labour market level.
Today's White Paper throws away that local decision-taking and introduces a centralised bureaucracy that will weaken the involvement of the private sector and reduce private sector commitment to local partnership. Bureaucracy will increase. There will now be a national learning and skills council, regional development agencies, local learning and skills councils and local learning partnerships before one even gets to a school or a college, let alone to a student.
348
How much will the Secretary of State's desire to control every aspect of the education system from Whitehall really cost? Will he tell the House how much the new structure will cost—in capital and revenue—to implement and operate in each of the next three years? How much of that money will be new money, over and above current expenditure? What criteria will be used to judge the distribution of funding by the national body? What percentage, if any, of national funds will be made available through, or on the decision of, the local learning and skills councils?
Will the Secretary of State explain how large those local learning and skills councils will be, how many staff they will employ, and what is a "travel to study and work area", which is the area that they will cover? If they have no power in the discretionary release of funds, what will their purpose be, other than as a fig leaf to hide the Government's centralising tendencies?
Three groups of people will lose out as a result of today's proposals. The first to lose out will be the Deputy Prime Minister, whose regional development agencies will be emasculated in their education and training role. The right hon. Gentleman has not had a good time recently. First, the Prime Minister drove up his bus lane, and now the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has driven a coach and horses through his regional development agencies.
The second group to lose out will be business. Over the years, many business men and women have given voluntarily of their time and that of their companies to TECs because they were concerned about improving training and enhancing the skills base in the country as a whole, but especially in their local communities. They are now to be cast to one side. How will the Government convince the business community that it will continue to have a real role to play, when that role is to be subsumed in a national body? The White Paper is 84 pages long, but the question of engaging and involving businesses merits only half a page.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the national body will include employer representation, rather than business representation, and so could be led and driven by the public sector? By what criteria will the Government judge whether local business needs are being met in any particular area? If they are not being met, what action will be taken, and by whom? There is real concern in the business sector that the new bodies will fail to address real needs and will become nothing more than talking shops. As one business man told The Guardian recently:
"What is going to happen now is a reversion to the days of manpower planning which did not work."
Perhaps this is more about the internal debate in the Labour party than it is about providing training and education, because the third group to lose out—and the most important—will be young people and other learners. Training provision in their areas will fail to meet the needs of the local community, but it will be determined nationally by the Government's agenda.
School sixth forms have been under threat since the review was announced, but they still do not know whether they have a future. If anything, the statement has made matters worse for them, as they find themselves subject to a further review, consultation on which will be held over the summer holidays. A decision will be reached

349
within weeks of the end of the consultation exercise, which therefore looks very much like the normal sham that we expect from the Government.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House who will undertake the review of school sixth forms? How will consultation be conducted with school sixth forms, and with others? Will the Secretary of State confirm that school sixth forms, unlike colleges, will get no additional funding for the new curriculum? If no money is to be made available, what will be the consequences for standards and for schools' ability to offer the full range of subjects under the new curriculum? Will school sixth forms also be excluded from funding for other Government initiatives in future?
Local education authorities are to have two choices: either the Secretary of State will tell them what to spend on school sixth forms, and how, or the national learning and skills council will tell them. Either way, local discretion is reduced. Is this to be the closure of school sixth forms by stealth? Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the undertaking given in this House on 29 April by the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment that, whatever the outcome of the review of sixth forms, no school sixth form will close against the wishes of local parents, teachers and education authorities as a result of that review or of today's White Paper? Will the Secretary of State also confirm that anything in the review that does not build on sixth forms will be strongly opposed by the Government, as the Under-Secretary stated?
We have waited a long time for this review. The review of training and enterprise councils was first announced in May 1998. In March this year, it became clear that the results of that review had been ditched, and the Secretary of State announced that he would extend the TEC review to consider options for local and national delivery of learning and skills. Seldom have we waited so long for so much, and got so little.
The Government have had two years to get this matter right. They have produced a mishmash of proposals that leaves many questions unanswered, particularly regarding the future of school sixth forms. The proposals increase centralisation and bureaucracy, but reduce diversity, flexibility and choice. In so doing, they will damage the education and training of all learners post-16. "Preserve the best and improve the rest" should be our watchwords in all education. We want both: sadly, this statement delivers neither.
Mr. Blunkett: I welcome the hon. Lady, in her new guise, to the Dispatch Box and wish her a long sojourn in the post. I have two pieces of advice for her—one is not to be negative and the other is not to take so long.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has not found it in her soul to welcome our announcements this afternoon, which will involve employers across the board at national and local level in a way that they have not been involved before, with spending of £5 billion—not the £1 billion that training and enterprise councils currently operate under—which will give them influence in driving the skills needs of the nation, in collaboration with all those at national and local level who have a part to play.
I made it clear, when I said that local government would have a role to play in local learning and skills councils, that we were not simply talking about rolling
350
together the term "employer". I say that as it is important that Conservative Members do not mislead people into believing that we are saying something that we are not. That is also true of sixth forms. I gave a guarantee this afternoon on the funding of sixth forms, and I did so on the basis that sixth forms are not threatened by these proposals.
We are talking about getting people to work together to provide real choice for young people and the highest level of efficiency. For instance, I want all providers—further education and sixth forms—to match the productivity and quality levels of sixth-form colleges. For a reduction of 20 per cent. in funding, sixth-form colleges provide the equivalent A-level points to the average sixth form throughout the country. If we can achieve that sort of quality level in every provider, we will have transformed the life chances of millions of young people.
How can I promise the House that we will save £50 million a year and be accused by the hon. Lady of creating new bureaucracy? Far from doing that, we are about to slim down a contracting system that was equalled only by the Soviet Union's wholesale distribution network. In some training and enterprise council areas, 35 per cent. of their budgets have been going on administration and staffing costs. The reality of the situation is that to gain a level 3 vocational qualification, it costs on average £3,900 in further education and £6,100 through a TEC.
If the hon. Lady is to succeed on the Opposition Front Bench, she should do a little homework, which I know she is renowned for doing, get her facts straight and understand that the new slimmed-down system with 50 sub-regional local councils and one body nationally, operating with all those who are prepared to be part of the partnership, will ensure that we deliver to our nation what we have needed for a very long time.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement in the White Paper. It throws an encouraging light on an area of public policy that has been much neglected, albeit at some expense. May I ask my right hon. Friend about the approximately 160,000 boys and girls aged 16 to 18 who are neither in work or in education? That is about one in 11 of that age group. Will he say more about his plans for that important group, bearing in mind that some of those youngsters will have had a bad experience in their own schools and that in some parts of the country some of them may have older siblings who are out of work and dads who have recently been made redundant? How do we persuade and enable that group to take up the opportunities of a second chance—a second chance that they need and the country needs for them?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We need to do so by connecting them with the education and potential employment of the future at a much earlier stage. In many cases, we need to reconnect them with the education service that they have left through truancy or disaffection. We need to do so by building the new service connection from 12 and 13 upwards, so that it links mentoring in school with a gateway and support service for those in the transitional stage between school, post-16 and adult life.
We need to create a careers service and a 14 to 16 curriculum that relates those young people to the world of work, and ensures that they appreciate that only

351
through qualification will they be able to earn, secure and hold a job in the knowledge-based economy of the future. Through education and maintenance allowances, on whose pilots we are engaged, and through the other proposals that we are introducing, we shall be able to sustain them through that critical period. I hope that the report of the social exclusion unit, which will be published shortly, and the further detail that we shall publish with it, will enable the House to see that we are at last putting together the jigsaw. From sure start in the earliest years, we shall develop the needs of children from the moment that they are born until they enter adult life—giving them the opportunity of learning and work.
Mr. Phil Willis: We welcome the broad thrust of the White Paper. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has completed the school of charm at Smith square, but we have only to look around us, in all our cities, to see how past policies have failed. We welcome particularly the idea of co-ordinating both the planning and the resourcing of post-16 provision. We welcome the setting up of local, sub-regional councils, although we should have liked the regional development agencies to have played a more significant role, as I am sure the Secretary of State is aware.
We have some concerns as to the structure, especially whether, for example, the careers guidance will be only for 16 to 19-year-olds. Will it follow the Welsh model of a careers guidance service that is inclusive of all adults as well? We are concerned about the part to be played by the university for industry—it seems to have a separate identity, with its own structure. It may be complementary, but will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is not part and parcel of an inclusive programme?
We were promised that we should have standards not structures. However, apart from the new inspection regime, which I am sure will be welcomed by all, there is little about standards. Why has the Secretary of State not taken this opportunity to deal with the tremendous problems relating to the professionalism and career opportunities of our further education staff? One in five full-time staff, and six in 10 part-time staff, have no teaching qualification. Is not this the place to start by giving them their own equivalent of a General Teaching Council or an institute of teaching and learning? This was an opportunity to grasp the nettle and say that our FE lecturers must have increased status and professionalism if we want this agenda to be delivered.
Mr. Blunkett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his broad welcome for the White Paper. I assure him that the points that he makes are dealt with. May I take this opportunity to say that I delivered the White Paper to Opposition Members an hour earlier than was traditional before we took office? I am not having a go at Liberal Democrat Members; I refer to the comment made by my opposite number on the Conservative Benches, the hon. Member for Maidenhead. I want to assure the hon. Lady that her colleagues used not to do that, although, obviously, I shall be happy to try to do better in future.
The White Paper deals with the question of separating the funding regime from the delivery mechanism. The university for industry, which is a provider and a facilitator of learning, will play its part in the same way as do further education colleges and private providers.
352
In relation to training and quality, it is not only in further education that it is important that the new further education and national training organisation gets a grip on the needs of part-time and full-time employees; it is also important in private training provision, where almost no qualification system exists at all. We need to set up mechanisms to introduce that as quickly as possible. We share that agenda. The concordat that has been reached between the unions and the Association of Colleges and the rebuilding of industrial relations offers real hope that we can lift the morale and motivation of those in formal further education, and that we can improve quality for those in private providers.
Mr. Derek Foster: I warmly welcome the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend's White Paper, which is so important to enhancing the competitiveness of the nation and of regions such as mine and his. But may I say, as someone who has lived through many such reorganisations during the past 30 years, that the acid test of his success is whether he really will devise an employer and learner-driven system rather than one which is for the convenience of organisations, training providers and further education institutes?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is clear that the provider-purchaser separation will enable us to put the learner at the heart of what we are doing, through the development of individual learning accounts and the focus on individual learners, and through the involvement of employers who will, for the first time, not only locally but nationally, be able to drive the system. Getting that partnership working and getting people collaborating in a way that overcomes past divisions and conflicts rather than emphasising them will be crucial to success.
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the whole history of taxpayers' support for post-school training in Britain, going back over many years, has been a history of substantial sums of public money, committed for the best of motives but failing to deliver its objectives, in large measure because of inadequate voice from employers and inadequate influence by employers on the way in which that money is used? If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that analysis, can he tell the House now what single change he is proposing this afternoon that will make more effective the voice of employers in the training system and, thereby, make the training system itself more efficient?
Mr. Blunkett: I accept a great deal of what the right hon. Gentleman says about the investment of past resources. We have not succeeded in developing our productivity, competitiveness or qualification levels to anything like those of other developed nations. The greater involvement of those who have an immediate interest and who are closest to the needs of delivery are critical, not simply in this new structure in terms of their involvement nationally and locally, but by engaging the new national training organisations, of which there are now 70 since the general election, dealing with particular sectors and, therefore, needs within the economy. We wish to engage them and individual employers, including small employers, and, linked to the Small Business

353
Service, their enterprise commitment to making this work better. There is no guarantee that, by involving employers more, we will have a better system. There is a guarantee that, by making everyone engaged and focused on the needs of tomorrow rather than the training needs of yesterday, we might get things right.
Mr. Barry Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, which may well turn out to be historic. Does the statement in any part refer to Wales and does it presage more apprenticeships to service our manufacturing industry, with particular reference to steel and to aerospace? Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about further education colleges, which have been having a tough time and need a boost?
Mr. Blunkett: A separate consultation has been undertaken in Wales, which the Welsh Assembly will be taking forward. We are keen to develop and build on the excellent modern apprenticeship programme. During the past two years, we have had 100,000 modern apprenticeships, and many young people are entering the programme. However, with the development from the old youth training scheme into the new national traineeships and the modern apprenticeships at level 3, there has been a real problem in terms of those finishing their training and, therefore, of retention. We need to examine with employers why that is happening and what sorts of rights of appeal and support young people can be given so that they have the same rights and investment that they would have in full-time education. As I mentioned a moment ago, we want to invest heavily in further education—as we are with the £725 million during the first two years of the comprehensive spending review—lift morale and ensure that the job can be done.
Each year, 3 million-plus learners go through further education colleges. Very few of them are the sons, daughters or relatives of those in powerful positions, particularly in our broadcast and print media. I want them to take more seriously what in France, Germany and the United States drives the link between vocational and academic education and to stop the sneers from the professional classes about what we are investing in today.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that Weymouth college and other further education colleges that run sixth forms will welcome the hint that they might get some more money for A-level students, but the rest of industry will be very upset with what the Government are saying about doing away with TECs. I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that the governing bodies of colleges such as Weymouth had to sack business governors because they were not allowed to have as many governors as under the previous Government. The input from TECs has been the reason why our economy is working as well as it will—[Interruption.]—as it currently is and, indeed, for the reduction in unemployment.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully what has happened with the new deal? One hundred thousand people have gone through the gateway without TECs being involved; 85,000 of them have found their own jobs without going into any sort of learning. People coming out of the learning options are not getting jobs. In the
354
12 months since the new deal has been in place, the number of people in the 18 to 24 age group who are unemployed or on a non-employment option has increased.
Mr. Blunkett: Just to put the record straight, 284,000 young people have gone into the gateway and 105,000 have had a job. The programme engages for the first time with qualification and training for all young people who are on the new deal. That never happened on the make-weight schemes that the previous regime put in place. Those young people are contributing to the lowest level of youth unemployment since 1975. Just a few facts would shed a bit of light on this subject.
The central issue that the hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his submission—it was not so much a question as a submission—was that employers would be annoyed with the proposals. In March, I embarked on this final review because every agency that had come forward in previous reviews—the TEC national council, the Further Education Funding Council quinquennial review, the Moser commission on basic skills, the skills task force and the chambers of commerce—all said that the existing system was in need of review. That is why we embarked on a fundamental and radical review to get it right. We are rolling with the tide in this country that is in favour of a slimmed-down system in which money is spent on learners, not bureaucracy.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am sure that the majority of Members agree with me that my right hon. Friend has made a statement this afternoon that shows the way forward from a system that was shambolic, inefficient and inequitable. I congratulate him on that. How does he expect the proposals to benefit and assist part-time as well as full-time students who sometimes fell through the cracks under the previous regime?
Mr. Blunkett: We are pulling together vocational and non-vocational, part-time and full-time courses and young people who are in work and out of work so that the funding tariffs and the contracting system as it exists at the moment make it possible to assist and support part-timers wherever and whenever they need it. That fits in with the programme of linking our commitment to funding for higher education with enabling those in further education to have the same opportunities.
Sir David Madel: Do the changes mean that the Government expect a pattern to develop whereby young people will do one or two A-levels in the school sixth form and the other one or two at a college of FE? Will the changes have any effect on schools that are involved in intricate negotiations with his Department on obtaining special technology status or special modern language status?
Mr. Blunkett: The changes will not affect those schools. We are committed to the substantial expansion of investment in specialist schools on the basis of their co-operation with other schools in the area and the wider community.
Young people can do one or two A-levels in a sixth form and undertake one of the new GNVQs at advanced level in a local college. It may be possible for college and sixth-form staff to work together using combined

355
resources. People could break down the antagonism between providers if they realised that they have a common goal, which is to meet the interests of those young people.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. May I commend to him the effective co-operation and partnership between Cambridge Regional college, Hills Road and Long Road sixth form colleges and some of the school sixth forms in my constituency? Will he assure the House that his statement will offer some relief to further education colleges, given the funding pressures that they have faced ever since the previous Government imposed swingeing cuts on that sector of the education system?
Mr. Blunkett: I remember attending the Cambridge Regional college with my hon. Friend—I think it was in opposition, but it is all merged into one these days as the years pass by. Yes, we can give a commitment that, as I spelled out, students taking a course in a particular institution in the period ahead will have the same funding whichever college, institution or sixth form they attend. That seems to me to be equitable. The £400 per student for those taking three A-levels, which was announced by the Further Education Funding Council last week, is a step in that direction.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: In my constituency, Guildford college of further and higher education, which has just launched a new sixth-form unit, will welcome the extra money that the statement presaged. Most 16 to 18-year-old students in my constituency and in other parts of the country are in sixth forms, and for them the death knell for the sixth forms in schools up and down the country has been sounded in this statement. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his guarantee of an increase in real terms relates to an increase in prices, not wages? After all, costs increase year after year because of increased wages. Will he also confirm that he hemmed in his guarantee by saying that resources would be increased provided that numbers were maintained? Surely if extra money is given to FE colleges, their numbers will go up at the expense of sixth forms, which will have to close as a result.
Mr. Blunkett: I despair. We are about to encourage tens of thousands more young people to stay on in further education of one sort or another. That is the endeavour of all of us. We are going to great lengths to persuade them that it is in their best interests to stay on. There is no threat to providers under this system—in fact, quite the opposite. We have gone out of our way to say that we will maintain funding for sixth forms in real terms—and real terms means real terms under anyone's guarantee. I said that increases will be dependent on numbers because if a sixth form dwindles to a handful of students and the school decides that it cannot cross-subsidise to keep it open, clearly that guarantee cannot stand. That is common sense.
I appeal to the Opposition, whatever differences they may have with us about the White Paper, not to go around scaring sixth-form teachers, parents and young people by suggesting that we are about to close sixth forms. We are
356
about to open many more places for post-16 youngsters, because that is the future they will need to compete in the new economy of the new century.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It will be difficult for me to enable every hon. Member to make a contribution. However, brevity would help me to be more generous.
Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I welcome the proposals that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon. Does he agree that one of the most disgraceful aspects of further education since incorporation has been its lack of accountability? For example, the Further Education Funding Council and the Department have been unwilling to intervene in some absolute scandals—and many of them have come to light in the past few years. Will the Secretary of State explain how he intends to make further education more accountable and to whom it will be accountable?
Mr. Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. In chapter 3, from paragraph 34 onwards—which my hon. Friend has obviously not had time to examine thoroughly—I spell out a new, accountable system. I also do that in the same chapter in the early paragraphs about learning partnerships. The development of a local learning forum and the accountability of both the providers and the local learning and skills council—which will have to present a report, detail what they have been doing and answer for the decisions that they have taken—will be very important. It will be linked to the changes that we are making to the governance of further education, the new audit arrangements and the new inspection scheme. Together, they will form a powerful package and will ensure that we root out corruption and lack of probity and lift standards.
Mr. Michael Jack: I have had some extremely difficult constituency cases involving post-16 children with severe learning difficulties who have had great problems finding appropriate training opportunities. How will the proposals that the Secretary of State announced today benefit those disabled young people? He puts proper emphasis on the role of technology colleges. Will he explain to the headmaster of Lytham St. Annes technology college in my constituency why, on the day the Secretary of State has made this announcement, that headmaster is facing a funding restriction on the second phase of the moneys that he needs to complete his technology status position? Could the Secretary of State also provide an explanation to Mr. Reg Chapman, the principal of Blackpool and Fylde college, who wrote to me recently to say that national pay agreements exceed in percentage terms the rate at which his resources are increasing? The Secretary of State has properly emphasised FE colleges; what is his message to Mr. Chapman today?
Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to answer all three of the right hon. Gentleman's questions. On the last question, we announced a record increase in further education funding—an unprecedented 8.2 per cent. increase—in this year's Budget. My answer to his middle question is no,

357
I cannot. I have no idea about that technology college. However, I will write to him about that matter. As to his first question, he is right: there is a very real problem both in the transition from school to post-16 education for children with special educational needs and with the failure to transfer the statement. We must solve that problem and create a new emphasis, through the funding arrangements, to make that possible.
Mr. John Healey: The prospect of greater clarity, coherence and co-ordination of post-16 arrangements is long overdue and very welcome, as is the promise of a large input from local employers into the learning and skills councils. Can my right hon. Friend reassure other local agencies with a detailed knowledge of local labour markets and skills needs—I am thinking of training and enterprise councils, councils and the Employment Service—that their views will be taken into account by the councils as they plan and contract for the services?
Mr. Blunkett: All those engaged in the learning partnerships will be crucial to making the measure work, and their voices will be heard. The training and enterprise councils will obviously be merged into the new structure, as will the Further Education Funding Council. However, those who have given of their time and energy will be key to ensuring that there is the continuity that my hon. Friend seeks in terms of both economic development and labour market needs and concentrating and focusing on what has been lost in recent years: the skills needs of tomorrow.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given the importance of schools in delivering post-16 education, and in view of the statistics that the Secretary of State released last week in order to name and shame local education authorities, does he not now regret the emphasis that he placed on local education authorities in his School Standards and Framework Act 1998? Does he now regret placing back under LEA control so many schools that had escaped the dead hand of local education authority supervision?
Mr. Blunkett: First, the question has no bearing whatsoever on the White Paper. Secondly, I had an interesting experience this time last week, and it was not the local authorities saying that they loved the School Standards and Framework Act, under which I was acting. The hon. Gentleman should go back to the drawing board and do a little more homework.
Mrs. Christine Butler: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which the sixth-form college in my constituency will broadly welcome. It is appropriate to warn Opposition Members that if they were listening, instead of reading the odd item in the newspaper, they would appreciate that almost every provider of post-16 education is saying, with the same affirmative voice, "Well done. This is just what we wanted."
358
There has been a disparity of almost 30 per cent. between post-16 provision in schools and in colleges. That needs to be addressed. Will my right hon. Friend tell us when he thinks the same level of funding will be available for all post 16-year-olds? Will he advise us whether the careers service will be incorporated into the new body, and whether that body will be able to tackle post-19 education to fulfil lifelong learning?
Mr. Blunkett: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the careers service will form the core of the new service for young people. Of course, that will also dovetail and develop with the adult guidance service—this relates to the question asked by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster)—so that we have a seamless provision for people across the board. I welcome my hon. Friend's question. I cannot say how long it will take to equalise funding for particular courses, but I can guarantee that it will be done as quickly as possible, given the negotiations that I shall, no doubt, be having with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the months and years to come.
Mr. Graham Brady: My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) urged the Secretary of State to seek to preserve the best and improve the rest. He will know that school sixth forms in my constituency deliver some of the best post-16 education in the country. Will he reassure them that he bears no malice to school sixth forms by guaranteeing that capital and revenue funding will remain available for the expansion of existing sixth forms in schools and for the establishment of new sixth forms in schools on exactly the same terms as it will be available for the expansion of further education colleges?
Mr. Blunkett: I made it absolutely clear that we intend to expand all sectors of the post-16 arena. We want to do so on the basis of need and demand. If there is a demand for additional sixth-form places, we will meet it and we shall do so on the basis of the commitments that we have already made. I want to put on record once again that this is not an ideological decision. For the past two years, we have been making decisions on the basis of meeting that need. Sixty per cent. of youngsters between 16 and 19 in full-time education are not in sixth forms, but 40 per cent. are, and that 40 per cent. matter as much to us as they do to Opposition Members.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend will know that this statement could represent a new beginning for this sector of education. He will be aware, as I am, that any judgment made will be on the basis of the quality of education and training delivered to young people. Does he know that many employers will be thankful for his announcement because for a long time they have been putting their energy and work into training and enterprise councils, and then having all their efforts dashed by the diktat from a Department run by the previous Administration that pushed them into cheap, quick, low-value training? This new beginning will be based on the quality that we shall provide in the coming years.
Mr. Blunkett: I am very pleased to say yes.
Miss Melanie Johnson: While recognising the very many flaws in the present system and the waste and inefficiency, my right hon. Friend also recognised in his comments the good practice that exists in some areas and in some pockets. I am thinking especially of Hertfordshire training and enterprise council, which covers my constituency and those of a number of my hon. Friends. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how good practice will be secured by the developments in the White Paper?
Mr. Blunkett: We wish to build on excellence wherever it is. Some excellent work is going on through training and enterprise councils. We wish to ensure that we secure it and build on it. I shall say exactly that at the TEC national council conference tomorrow.
Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, especially what he said about locating the councils at sub-regional level, which makes a great deal of sense. I welcome what he said about the need for national targets, but I put it to him that it is vital that the new structure is flexible, building on the partnerships that already exist in many areas, linking with the Small Business Service and, crucially, with the regional development agency network. Will he say a little more about how the new structure will show such flexibility?
Mr. Blunkett: It will be possible to have flexibility within the new structure, enabling the learning and skills councils at local level, with the national training organisations and the regional development agencies, to plan what is right for their region and their sectors, so that there is much greater synergy between what is required locally and what is deliverable in terms of the funding tariffs, the contracting system and the available funds. This is a real opportunity for people to get it right in their locality.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be aware that the Conservatives never really understood the apprenticeship scheme, which is why they destroyed it in the 1980s. Will he ensure that the national learning and skills council promotes the national apprenticeship scheme as an alternative career structure and that, at the same time, opportunities are extended to join the national apprenticeship scheme?
Mr. Blunkett: Wholeheartedly I can. The Small Business Service will also help promote to small businesses that have not necessarily become aware of the opportunity of modern apprenticeships this high-level, high-quality opportunity to give young people real skills and hands-on experience for the future.
Barbara Follett: Given the enormous contribution made by further education colleges, such as the North Hertfordshire college in Stevenage, to their local communities, will some of their representatives be given the opportunity to serve on the new sub-regional skills bodies?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer is yes. The local learning partnerships will obviously engage a range of providers
360
and other interests, but they will also have representation on the local learning and skills council. It will, however, be driven by the needs of learners and employers rather than of providers, and we must get that balance right.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I welcome the statement as a great step forward for training and education, but will it help the post-16 kids who leave school with no qualifications and usually drift into crime and drugs and have no prospect of a job?
Mr. Blunkett: I honestly think that we shall be judged in future on whether we have made any inroads into helping those young people. Therefore, we need to come together, whatever differences there may be, to build on those interesting and challenging experiments in the voluntary sector, and on the new start initiatives, which are starting to work, so that we can reach out to those young people where they are and draw them in on terms that engage them again, not only with learning but with the community and society around them.
Mr. Hilary Benn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people will warmly welcome his announcement today, not least because, essentially, he has brought education and training together, in keeping with the spirit that led to the creation of a single Department for Education and Employment by the previous Government? If I may say so, that is why I think that the remarks of the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) were so wide of the mark.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a specific question about the new arrangements. Is he able to give an assurance that the support which training and enterprise councils and the Further Education Funding Council now give to trade unions to help them promote learning in the workplace will continue to be provided by the new learning and skills councils?
Mr. Blunkett: First, I welcome my hon. Friend to questions on my statement. I knew that he was going to give me a hard time in his new role.
There has been enormous co-operation in the development of work force learning and in the part that trade unions are playing. I spell out clearly in the White Paper that we want to build on bargaining for skills, on employee development programmes and on the excellent work that has been done through the union learning fund. Employers have welcomed this as a key role for agreement with trade unions. It is the future in terms of developing learning representatives in the workplace and in focusing on what benefits both the individual and his employer, which is high productivity, high added value and jobs for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid we must now move on. There will be other opportunities to return to this subject.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Health Act 1999

Water Industry Act 1999

Tax Credits Act 1999

Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999

Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Act 1999

University College London Act 1999

Imperial College Act 1999

HFC Bank Act 1999

Cathedrals Measure 1999

Care of Places of Worship Measure 1999

Holocaust Remembrance Day
4.32 pm
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to introduce a national day to learn about and remember the Holocaust.
This year, I visited Auschwitz-Birkenau for the first time on a visit sponsored by the Holocaust Education Trust. As I went round the various blocks, I felt a sense of powerlessness and of the dehumanisation which still pervades the site. I could only wonder at the absolute terror that the Nazis' victims must have felt. The cold-blooded, methodical processing of fellow human beings was brought home to me by the huge and tragic piles of personal belongings and by the detail, such as the systematic removal of laces from the mountains of victims' shoes. The sheer scale of the operation was revealed only at Birkenau, where 1.5 million people died.
At Auschwitz, I was privileged to be in the company of 150 teachers from all parts of Britain who specialise in holocaust studies. We all came away with a sense of the overwhelming importance for all communities and for people of all ages to commemorate, and learn from, the holocaust.
I appreciated more than ever how unique the holocaust was. It was a defining episode of our century, a crisis for European civilisation and a universal catastrophe for humanity. It remains an unparalleled act of genocide in its vast scale. It was perpetrated by evil, harnessing the processes and technology of what was a modern, industrialised country.
The need to commemorate the holocaust applies in Britain as much as anywhere. Our country made terrible sacrifices to defeat Hitler. The period of Nazism and the second world war remain a defining episode in our national psyche. However, we were not affected directly by the holocaust in the same way as occupied mainland Europe.
Although the holocaust is now taught as part of the history syllabus for 13 and 14-year-olds, those aged over 25 have not been so privileged. For instance, I did not study it when I was at school. Learning about, and remembrance of, the holocaust must extend beyond formal education and childhood. It is right that our busy way of life should be punctuated by a day each year so that learning and remembrance can continue. That is why we need a holocaust remembrance day. It will provide a national focus for promoting a democratic, tolerant and respectful society. It will emphasise the positive values of Britain and of civilisation and draw attention to the consequences of the alternative.
More recent persecutions in Rwanda and the Balkans have dramatically and tragically underlined the lessons of the holocaust. Those lessons are just as relevant decades after the war as they were when Auschwitz was liberated in 1945. NATO's reasons for intervention in Kosovo graphically demonstrate that the holocaust still has a clear resonance for today's world leaders. It is vital to retain that understanding in future generations of leaders, which is why a remembrance day is so important.
The holocaust remembrance day in Britain could be marked in a number of different ways. For example, nationally, there could be a service or ceremonial occasion, perhaps including a keynote speech by my right

363
hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has given great encouragement by setting up a consultation, through the Home Office, on the concept of a remembrance day. Lighting a yahrzeit candle in memory of all victims of the holocaust could form a central part of such a ceremony.
In schools, the remembrance day would emphasise that the holocaust is important and more than a mere academic subject. The day would lend itself to assemblies, school projects, exhibitions and fund-raising events. The message would extend to the wider questions of anti-racism, tolerance and respect, and of understanding the values and customs of different groups in our society.
For the first remembrance day, literature could be distributed to all households to explain the relevance of the holocaust and the importance of the remembrance day. In Sweden, for example, the Prime Minister's office has already produced a book on the holocaust to be given free to each family who ask for it. Local communities could also mark the day together with events and ceremonies in their churches, synagogues and town halls.
Those events would generate great media interest nationally and locally. The remembrance day would be a catalyst to scheduling television and radio programmes about the holocaust and related issues of genocide, racism and human rights, which would emphasise why the remembrance day is so important.
Clearly, there needs to be consideration of what is the best date for a remembrance day and we need to bear in mind the main objectives, which are to touch the population as a whole and to let schools use the day to reach out to young people. There are several possible dates, but I suggest the Monday nearest 27 January, which is the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. That would be a convenient time of year for schools and would harness one of the most powerful images of the horror of the holocaust.
364
That date has the additional advantage of coinciding with the date likely to be recognised as holocaust remembrance day in other European Union countries.
The new Labour Government are committed to building a fair and prosperous society in which everyone has a stake and the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced. In our ethical foreign policy, we are seeking to spread the values of human rights, civil liberties and democracy, which we demand for ourselves. Our citizenship programme in schools will be designed to teach equality and diversity, democracy, the duty to act responsibly, the ability to recognise forms of manipulation and persuasion and concern for human rights. A holocaust remembrance day would be another focus for those building blocks of a civilised society.
Each day, the link with the holocaust through its survivors is weakened as they pass away or their memories fade. It is vital to ensure that remembrance of the holocaust as a unique tragedy is perpetuated, and I believe that we should not delay in that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Dismore, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Tony McNulty, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Mr. Stephen Twigg, Mr. Mike Gapes, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Ivan Lewis, Mr. Stephen Hepburn, Mr. James Clappison and Dr. Evan Harris.

Holocaust Remembrance Day
  HOLOCAUST REMEMBRANCE DAY
  Mr. Andrew Dismore accordingly presented a Bill to introduce a national day to learn about and remember the Holocaust: 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 131].
Orders of the Day
  Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Disability Rights Commission Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 2

      ACTION PLANS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to enable a provider of services under Part III of the 1995 Act to lodge an action plan with the Commission.
      (2) An action plan may provide for changes to policies, practices or procedures or any other arrangements under Part III.
      (3) An action plan shall comply with any requirements as to its form or its content as specified by the Commission.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.39 pm
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Before I speak to the new clause, I make it clear to the House that I am new to the responsibility of speaking on disability issues for my party. That will perhaps become apparent in a few moments. I take up that burden with some diffidence, but with a degree of satisfaction. It is important for all of us who have constituency and other experience of these issues to be aware of the importance of achieving their proper resolution—for the individuals concerned, and their families and carers, and in respect of setting the tone of society. We must show that we have a collective responsibility and a collective readiness to care for, protect, support and empower the people who may benefit from the Bill. It will be particularly appropriate to consider whether those who are not in a position to be articulate in their own interests might be able to use the commission to advance their rights.
      On a personal note, I express my gratitude to my immediate boss, the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who previously assumed this burden and took the Bill through Committee. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who participated constructively in those debates. In the same vein, may I say how pleased I am to have the opportunity to debate this matter, on this and no doubt on subsequent occasions, with the Government team? I am glad to see on the Government Front Bench the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who had to bear the burden of taking the Bill through Committee. She has had to think about the amendments and respond to them, and one could fairly say that she has done a good job. She has come back with a number of serious amendments, which we shall discuss in due course. They reflect the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends and others in Committee and offer a degree of tidying up as well.
      Given the context, and the failure to achieve consensus in the past, but also given the real advances that successive Governments have made in this area, it is right that there has been some consensus on this matter. It is in
      366
      that spirit that we move our new clause. One might almost call it "Opposition lite", in the sense that it is the only new clause that we are moving. The selectors, in their wisdom, precluded consideration of one or two other matters, which may already have been touched on in Committee.
      This provision would add a new element. I recognise that the Under-Secretary is in a difficult position because this comes right at the end of our consideration of the Bill and their Lordships have already dealt with the Bill. If she does not quite like what we have said, there is not much that we can do about it, but she may be able to reflect our thinking and that of the disability groups that contacted us. In that case, we will have supplied a draft and she can decide what to do about it.
      The hon. Lady knows better than I do that clause 4 sets out how the commission may make a formal investigation and serve notices on individuals or legal persons to do something about the discrimination that has been found to be practised. That is a practical and sensible approach, because the clause suggests that
      "The notice may require the person concerned…to propose and finalise an adequate action plan (subject to an in accordance with Part III of schedule 3)…and…once that action plan is finalised, to take any action which…is specified in the plan; and which he has not already taken".
      I emphasise to the House that action can be taken only in the context of a complaint or an investigation that has shown a defect in the arrangements when someone has gone to the person concerned and said, in English, "What are you going to do about it?" That is reasonable enough.
      The new clause goes further and builds on the concept by looking at action that might be taken—occasionally, my classical training comes back into my mind—proleptically, which means ahead of being forced to do it, before a formal investigation. Hon. Members with Treasury experience will be familiar with the concept of taking an idea to the Inland Revenue and saying, "We are minded to do this; would you take note of it and advise us whether it is acceptable?" That is the background to our thinking.
      We are not trying to subvert the concept of action plans. We want to build on the idea and extend it to cases in which the commission has made no formal request for action. The disability interests who have lobbied us have said that it would further assist service providers and disabled people if the commission were able to be proactive, helping with the development of action plans for organisations that it was not proceeding against for discrimination. Service providers who were genuinely trying to act responsibly and take account of the Act and who wanted to be sure that they were taking the reasonable steps required of them under part III might feel reassured if their action plan were endorsed—or run—by the commission, even if that does not in itself admit to an exemption. We are not trying to produce an elaborate means of hoodwinking the commission, drawing the wool over its eyes or doing a sweetheart deal. We are saying that it would be helpful for those with a problem to be able to explain to the commission in good faith how they would like to deal with it and ask the commission for a response.
      We expect the commission to be heavily engaged initially. We are not saying that it should be required to take a role on action plans if it does not want to. It could

      367
      politely decline to comment. We recommend that the commission should be given the chance to develop that side of its activity without subsequent onerous primary legislation to make that possible. Equally, the commission must have the discretion to make provision for action plans that meet its requirement to be lodged with it.
      The issue of precedent is bound to be raised at this point. It was suggested in Committee that action plans had no precedent in UK law. I remember at least the concept of action plans in relation to education. We were considering education action zones in the Education Act 1993. Local education authorities or schools were required to produce them. The idea is not new. My wife is not a speaker of Welsh, but the Welsh Language Act 1967 provides for mandatory action plans, called statutory schemes, for public authorities in Wales. There is also Australian legislation that provides for similar action plans, as well as the precedent, which I have cited before, of what the Inland Revenue can do.
      Nobody wants to overload the new commission. Nobody wants it to be tricked into signing up to something that is unsatisfactory or second rate. We want to enable it to give advice in good faith about plans before push comes to shove in litigation or legal process. That is consistent with many of the points that the Conservatives have made on the Bill. The Government like to emphasise the importance of partnership, consensuality and trying to get things agreed rather than people taking what I might call narrow-minded, litigious attitudes, if that can be avoided.
      I refreshed my memory about that in relation to the general functions of the commission and, if the hon. Lady cannot accept the new clause as drafted—if she can, of course, I shall be delighted—I would like her to say something about the possibility of the commission's at least considering giving assistance to service providers, as part of its general duties.
      The commission is supposed
      "to work towards the elimination of discrimination … to promote equalisation of opportunities"
      and
      "to take such steps as it considers appropriate with a view to encouraging good practice in the treatment of disabled persons".
      Those are general obligations, but they might also be applicable to the particular case.
      In any event, we are anxious, and the new clause is an attempt to put down a marker that says, "Let us be as constructive and flexible as possible. Let us encourage people to think about their actions ahead of the event, before they are forced to." The result could be better-planned action taken in better time, and matters might be resolved before it is ever necessary to get involved in the rather messy—and, one hopes, infrequently used—business of enforcement.
      I commend the new clause to the House, and I shall be interested in any comment made about it on either side of the House, as well as in the Minister's response.
      Mr. Mark Oaten: The concept of the action plan certainly has some appeal, but my concern about the new clause is that it would be in danger of adding to the several different tiers of action that the commission could take.
      368
      At present, there are three powers. The first, which we all welcome, is an education role, which involves going out and talking to organisations, working with them and trying to put good practice in place. The second, slightly tougher, power is the power to enter into written agreements. Perhaps we shall debate later whether those should be private or public. The commission can certainly say, "Something isn't right, and we need to put a written agreement in place to tie up some of the issues."
      The third key area—the last resort—is the issuing of non-discrimination orders. My problem with the action plan is that it could cover any of those powers. I can envisage an action plan involving a management consultancy function, in which an organisation would want to get involved as part of its education work. Organisations could welcome the commission in and say, "Give us advice." In those circumstances, it is almost inconceivable that, by the very nature of its work, the commission would not come back with an action plan describing what the organisation should do. That would happen almost naturally, as part of the education process.
      As for written agreements, I must ask: what will an agreement be about? Surely it has to be about what the organisation should do to put things right—the very point at which the action plan would, by default, apply. Thirdly, a non-discrimination order would also need to set out the reasons why it was being made, and why things needed to be put right.
      Therefore, although I welcome the concept behind the new clause, I think that, by default, actions plans will be made at several stages anyway. Indeed, I would be extremely concerned if they were not, because that would make nonsense of the commission's existing procedures. On that basis, I do not support the Opposition's proposal, because it clouds the issue and would put in place a fourth tier and, because of the other powers already provided, that will not be necessary.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): I welcome the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) to his Opposition Front-Bench position. I look forward to working with him on a whole range of issues involving people with disabilities, and I hope that there can be unanimous agreement across the Floor of the House on many of the issues that we face and the policies that we shall try to develop.
      I hope that, having read our proceedings in Committee, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we tried to respond to amendments and incorporate them if they improved the Bill. I hope that he will listen to my reasoning on the new clause and withdraw the motion.
      I am sad that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) has left. I have certainly enjoyed working with her on these issues. I first met her when she stood against me in Barking. At that time she was Essex girl, but now she represents the royal county of Berkshire. I do not know what effect that has had on her; I prefer to remain Essex girl, representing Barking.
      Mr. Boswell: If the Minister cares to consult my CV, she will see that I was born in Brentwood. I am inextinguishably and indelibly Essex man.
      Ms Hodge: A combination of Essex man and Essex girl will do wonders for our proceedings.

      369
      I agree entirely that it makes sense for organisations to plan to meet their duties under all parts of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including part III, and that it often makes sense to prepare an action plan. Indeed, the disability rights task force—which I am currently chairing and which is examining what further amendments may be required in legislation and what further action needs to be taken to improve civil rights for people with disabilities—has considered the issue and come to the preliminary view that action plans should be voluntary, not compulsory, for the private sector.
      I also agree that the commission may want to help organisations to develop action plans. The difference arises over whether it would be appropriate or whether there is a need to make provision for regulations in the Bill to allow that to occur.
      Mr. Boswell: The Minister is being very helpful. Can she confirm that we do not need to make a special provision for the commission to be helpful to those who volunteer to prepare the plans, because the Bill as drafted provides for that?
      Ms Hodge: I was just about to say that. The commission can decide whether to produce guidance for service providers on the form and content that action plans might take, and there is nothing in the legislation that would prevent it from doing so. Indeed, I would imagine that the commission will find it appropriate to provide guidance for organisations seeking to fulfil their duties under part III of the 1995 Act. I hope that it will reassure the hon. Gentleman further to hear that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a service provider from approaching the commission for advice on the development of an action plan.
      I have some concerns about the new clause. I understand that the concept is drawn from the Australian legislation, which is quite distinct from ours. In Australia, the production of an action plan can lead to an exemption from specified provisions of the legislation for a specified period, as long as the service provider sticks to the plan.
      Individual cases going to court in Australia are subject to a form of central control that is reminiscent of old Labour and is certainly not embodied in the Bill, which is why I wonder why the official Opposition are in favour of the new clause. A case can be taken to court only with the consent of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission in Australia. There are incentives in the Australian model to work with the commission to establish action plans.
      If new clause 2 were agreed to and an action plan were in place, a disabled person could be prevented from taking action in the United Kingdom. If, for example, an organisation had adjusted the service that it provides, such as by providing signing, and a blind person entered the organisation's premises wanting to be taken somewhere, but the organisation refused to oblige, the individual could not take action against the organisation for failing to provide that additional service, which was necessary to exercise his or her rights, if there had been an action plan stating that signing provision was sufficient.
      370
      Therefore, in the United Kingdom context, an action plan could limit individuals' rights to service provision as provided by part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
      5 pm
      As neither the United Kingdom's current system nor the Bill provides incentives, I wonder whether voluntary actions plans—under which the commission would have power to impose certain requirements—would work.
      The hon. Member for Daventry also mentioned the impact of action plans on the business community. I have real concerns about whether the provisions of new clause 2 would undermine the business community's confidence in working with the commission. As he will know, in creating the commission's framework we have been determined to engender such confidence.
      The idea that our Disability Rights Commission should impose or specify action although it has no reason to believe that an organisation has broken the law does not sit well with our concepts, enshrined in the Bill, that written agreements—to which the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) referred—and formal investigations should begin only when the commission believes that discrimination has occurred.
      For those reasons—and with my confirmation that no provision will stop voluntary co-operation and assistance between the Disability Rights Commission and organisations, or prevent the commission from giving guidance—I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Boswell: The hon. Lady has perhaps slightly over-argued her case. She mentioned a situation in which it might be impossible to deal with a particular individual's disability on the grounds that the action plan had whitewashed the general issue, making it inappropriate to apply a plan's provisions to that individual. A case can be made for that possibility, which concerned me when I considered the Bill. However, I think that if an action plan were signed on a new and different type of disability, it would not be sufficient simply to have regard to previous provision, unless it were clearly done in the context of a progressive improvement in standards generally.
      I said rather little about the impact of plans on business, as I was anxious that there should be—as the hon. Lady rightly said that there should be—a coincidence of commitment, interest and involvement by business and the commission in getting the matter right. I also did not try to suggest that plans should take away individuals' rights or make matters more inflexible than they need to be.
      Nevertheless—it would be churlish of me not to say so—the hon. Lady had already given me an entirely satisfactory assurance on the voluntary aspects of the commission's work. It is important—both in general education and, as the hon. Member for Winchester said, at all levels—that there should be proper collaboration and sharing of good practice. It is also very reassuring to hear that the commission may engage itself in the affairs of a particular service provider and seek to give advice.
      The advice will not in itself be binding, by precluding the law, and I did not really want it to be. Nevertheless,

      371
      the advice will help people to seek and implement best practice. That is what we all want to do. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      NON-DISCRIMINATION NOTICES
      Ms Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 6, leave out 'and finalise'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10 to 13 and 20.
      Ms Hodge: These amendments are minor and technical and have been recommended by parliamentary counsel at this late stage to tidy up the drafting of the Bill. They are designed simply to clarify the provisions in the Bill and to ensure that all cross-references are consistent. They have no effect on the substance of the provisions in the Bill. I ask the House to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Boswell: I shall be brief, as I shall certainly not suggest that we divide the House on the amendments. I am rather glad that they have been tabled, although I am little less happy that they have been tabled at such a late stage.
      We all know that the parliamentary draftsperson's job is a difficult one and that it is hard to get legislation right. Errors occur that have to be corrected at the end of the House's deliberations. However, it is worth noting that, although the Bill has been considered in the House of Lords—to which all hon. Members, regardless of party, would defer in matters of law—these little matters have been neglected.
      Enforcement is always important. I gather that these provisions will be enforceable, in England and Wales, under section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 and, in Scotland, under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The provision will therefore not be self-verified under schedule 3 of the Bill.
      I am sure that that will add a great deal to the sum of human knowledge, but the embarrassing situation could have arisen in which provisions that had been agreed could not be enforced. However, if the Minister says that the matter has been put right, I shall defer to her and agree to the amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 10, leave out
      'that action plan is finalised'
      and insert
      'an action plan proposed by him has become final'.—[Ms Hodge.]

    Clause 5

      AGREEMENTS IN LIEU OF ENFORCEMENT ACTION
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 3, line 45, after 'the' insert 'unlawful'.—[Ms Hodge.]
      Ms Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 43, leave out subsection (10).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 7, 9, 14 to 17, 19 and 21 to 25.
      Ms Hodge: I begin by reassuring the hon. Member for Daventry that I, too, find it profoundly irritating that the
      372
      House must consider these drafting amendments at this late stage. However, this is the first Bill that I have steered through the House, and I hope that next time there will be less need for such last-minute amendments.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: Do not hold your breath.
      Ms Hodge: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am afraid that the comments of the hon. Member for Daventry in relation to the previous group of amendments are also relevant to these drafting amendments.
      This group of amendments relates to the enforcement of orders made under clause 5 and schedule 3 of the Bill. These sections cover written agreements, nondiscrimination notices and action plans.
      Amendment No. 16 is technical and simply puts right an incorrect reference to the fact that an order made under paragraph 18(3) of schedule 3 of the Bill would be enforceable under paragraph 23. In fact, the draftsmen have found that the order would be enforceable under section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 in England and Wales and the Contempt of Court Act 1981 in Scotland, to which paragraph 23 refers.
      Amendments Nos. 22 to 25 have also been recommended by parliamentary counsel, to improve the drafting of the Bill by bringing all the provisions relating to the enforcement of orders under clause 5(8) and schedule 3 together in one place—that is, under paragraph 23 of schedule 3. Amendments Nos. 4, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 21 are consequential on amendments Nos. 22 to 25 and would delete what would become unnecessary cross-references to enforcement.
      Amendment No. 25 has been drafted to have one further effect, which I would like to cover briefly. This amendment would add a new sub-paragraph to paragraph 23 to replace paragraphs 18(5) and 18(6), which have been drafted in more general terms. Paragraphs 18(5) and 18(6) as drafted enable orders relating to action plans to be modified to alter any time limit so that in the order it is clear that the commission can return to the court for repeated fines in the case of persistent offenders. The new sub-paragraph has been drafted in more general terms so that it covers all orders—for example, those relating to written agreements—not merely those listed under paragraph 18.
      The effects of the amendment are limited, as most orders have continuing effect and would not need modification in any event. However, it does mean that, where an order requires something to be done by a particular time and it is not, it is clear that the commission would be able to return to the court for repeated fines until the person complies with the order. In that respect, I hope that hon. Members will agree that the amendment improves the provisions as well as the drafting of the Bill.
      I therefore ask hon. Members to accept amendment No. 25 and the other amendments in this group.
      Mr. Boswell: Very briefly, I thank the hon. Lady for correcting my confusion—perhaps it was a good indication that these are complex matters. If she has, as I suspect and hope, the opportunity and privilege of bringing further legislation to the House, she will find that it is just as difficult the second time around because these things always seem to happen. It has even occasionally

      373
      been known for Opposition Members to spot the errors ahead of the parliamentary draftsperson, but I claim no credit for that. It is a complicated area to get right and it is important that the provisions for sanctions and penalties should be appropriate. The hon. Lady explained well how penalties and sanctions should work.
      I draw a slight moral from all this—not in any contentious sense—in that it will be important for the commission to understand how the process works. It will need good operational rules, bearing in mind that the nature of the operation means that we do not want a series—perish the thought—of parliamentary draftspersons advising people on their disability concerns. We want people who are able to get a clear understanding of how the law operates and to explain it. That is also very important to service providers. If there is to be a cumulative penalty, as the hon. Lady explained, it is extremely important that people do not fail to comply because they cannot understand the notice that they receive.
      May I alert the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities to the fact that I found this an interesting point? I do not dispute its legality, but it reawakened my interest in the matter even before the transfer of responsibilities when I received a letter from him stating that Members of Parliament would be required to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in their capacity as service providers. My only reason for eyebrow lifting at that is that we are not normally paid for the services that we provide, although we are paid to be service providers.
      As an example, it is commendable and perhaps exemplary that the Government have told us that we had better do our thing, and I am in no sense seeking to renege on my responsibilities to do so. Indeed, I have had to make adjustments to, and will have to make at least one further change in, the arrangements for my constituency advice bureau to facilitate the provisions; I am sure that other hon. Members will be thinking that they must do the same.
      5.15 pm
      Within the spirit in which this legislation has been pursued and the way in which we are debating it today, it is important that people should appreciate that the way in which it works needs to be clear. No service provider—acting as a reasonable person, we hope—should be in any doubt as to his or her obligations or as to the way in which they will be enforced if people decide or fail to fulfil them.
      I have no difficulty with the provisions. The hon. Lady has explained them well and corrected my misunderstanding, in a letter that was designed to be helpful. I too would give the amendments a fair wind.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Listening to the debate one might think that we were discussing highly technical drafting matters, which in a sense we are, but the section of the Bill to which the amendments apply is the section that could cause the most problems. I therefore want an assurance from the Minister that she wants to work very much with the grain of good business practice.
      374
      In particular, I want to ask her about the agreement in lieu of enforcement action. I want a commitment from her that when those agreements are drawn up, business, in particular small business, will be able to understand exactly what is happening; and that the procedure will not be unduly bureaucratic. Will those matters be dealt with through forms or letters? How protracted will the process be? Will the commission be working on the assumption that we should normally proceed in that way rather than through more onerous action against anyone who may be in breach of their undertakings?
      I very much hope that the Minister can give me that reassurance, which will be welcomed by the business community in general.
      Ms Hodge: First, on information to service providers, which the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned, yesterday we laid before the House the code of practice that has been developed by the National Disability Council on the implementation of the first part of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which changes policies and procedures. I hope that when hon. Members have had a chance to look at the code, they will realise that it is laid out simply, with many examples to assist service providers to meet their obligations under the disability discrimination legislation.
      I am also very conscious that if the legislation is to work, the Disability Rights Commission and others will have to work closely with employers and service providers to ensure that they meet their obligations. We have taken a range of initiatives to assist service providers and employers to do just that.
      I hope that hon. Members have seen the start of the "See the person" campaign, which was launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to raise awareness on disability issues a few weeks ago. That was an attempt on our part to put all disability issues more centrally on the agenda, but specifically the obligations that providers and employers have under disability discrimination legislation.
      We are producing a range of new leaflets to assist employers and suppliers of goods and services; they will be available in the coming weeks. We have enhanced the DDA helpline so that organisations can use the services to assist them to comply with the new legislation.
      A key duty of the new Disability Rights Commission will be not merely to support individuals to ensure that they get their civil rights in law, but to work with employers and businesses that supply goods and services to help them ensure that there is proper access and equality of opportunity for disabled people as regards employment, goods and services.
      In relation to the legislative issues raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), we have seized the opportunity to learn some lessons from the operation both of race relations and sex discrimination legislation, of which we have now had more than 20 years' experience. That is why we have tried to ensure that the body will work co-operatively with businesses and suppliers of goods and services, rather than in a confrontational way. We also want to make sure that action is effective; that is why the Bill provides for written agreements to be reached without having to make formal investigations. That is a better way for businesses and individual disabled people to get proper access to goods

      375
      and services, and for people to have the opportunity to work, without having to undertake court procedures. This is the first time the concept of written agreements has been included in discrimination legislation.
      The Bill includes regulatory powers to tighten up formal investigations, so that they do not go on for ever with no resolution. That has been the experience in some of the formal investigations under the race relations and sex discrimination legislation; it has met the interests neither of organisations nor of the individuals subject to discrimination.
      With those assurances, I hope that hon. Members will accept the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      CONSTITUTION ETC
      Ms Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 13, line 28, at end insert—
      'List of consultees
      17.—(1) The Commission shall maintain a list of the organisations it has consulted generally for the purposes of any of its functions.
      (2) An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal.
      (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), consultation is general unless it relates only—

      (a) to an investigation to which paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 applies,

      (b) to assistance under section 7, or

      (c) otherwise to a particular individual or individuals.

      (4) The Commission shall make the list available to the public in whatever way it considers appropriate (subject to any charge it may impose).'.
      The amendment requires the commission to produce, and make publicly available, a list of organisations that it has consulted. I hope that hon. Members will accept that we tabled the amendment in response to the reasonable amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in Committee.
      When we discussed the amendment in Committee, I said that I had sympathy with the thrust of what the hon. Lady wanted to achieve, but that I needed to look carefully at the burden that that might place on the commission, and to minimise that burden where it was practical to do so. We have, after all, said that we do not want the commission to tie itself in red tape or to waste resources. Through this amendment, I wanted to address the concerns that were expressed in debate in response to the hon. Lady's amendment. They were that the list should be useful as a point of reference and provide transparency as to whom the commission consults, but that it should not include contacts with particular individuals—such as general practitioners—in response to a particular case.
      The key feature of the amendment is that the list would be publicly available, on demand. The commission could decide the best way to make it available; for example, we hope that it might be posted on the internet. That would retain the "publicness" of the list, but would be likely to reduce the cost and administrative burden of producing perhaps several thousand glossy copies—probably as part
      376
      of the commission's annual report. The list should be updated to get rid of dead-wood organisations—for example, organisations in the voluntary sector that are defunct. The amendment allows the commission to remove organisations from the list, if they have not been consulted during the previous 12 months, but does not require the commission to do so. That would mean that the DRC was obliged neither to start from scratch every year, nor to keep the list under continuous review—both of which could be administratively burdensome.
      Only organisations—rather than individuals—would be included on the list, but not if an organisation had been consulted for the purposes of a formal investigation, or if the DRC was giving an individual assistance in relation to proceedings.
      Mr. Oaten: If an organisation was paid for the advice it gave, would that point be attached to the provisions that the Minister is listing?
      Ms Hodge: We have not specified that point, because we wanted to ensure that the list was more complete than I had suggested in our original exchange of views in Committee. For the sake of completeness, it would be best not to specify that point. However, nothing in the amendment would prevent the DRC from listing organisations that had received moneys for assisting the commission with its work.
      With those reassurances, I hope that the amendment, tabled in response to representations from Opposition Members, will be accepted.
      Mr. Boswell: As the Minister has reminded the House, she has been as good as her word in tabling an amendment that enshrines the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). In the rather speedy transfer of responsibilities on the Opposition Front Bench, I have not consulted my hon. Friend on the matter. However, she is aware of what has happened and has not expressed her dissent.
      In relation to the intervention of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I assume that, in deciding whether to state that a charge has been made, the commission will consider whether that would colour the advice that was given, or whether such a statement would be required for accountability. I am sure the commission will be sensitive about that. The same point relates to the provision that the commission should not refer to individuals, or to formal investigation. In relation to our constituencies, we sometimes write letters on the record—indeed, for the record—but there are other occasions when we want to consult individuals confidentially in the interests of our constituents.
      We realise that different types of consultation have to take place, so it is important to have a good working list, which is updated by the exclusion of organisations after a period of non-consultation and shows whom the commission has approached for advice, so that those with particular interests can debate matters on which they feel that there are gaps or an undue emphasis. That is wholly consistent with the constructive way in which we have discussed these matters.
      Will the Minister comment on one outstanding matter that relates to proposed sub-paragraph (4)? I gather that there was some misunderstanding—to put it charitably—

      377
      about exactly what the Government's commitment was on charging by the commission. In correspondence, the Minister pointed out that she had confirmed, on Second Reading, that the commission would not be empowered to recover any of its legal costs from compensation awarded to individuals, or agreed outside a court or tribunal. Such costs could be recovered only from an amount for costs awarded or agreed upon—there would have to be some pre-existing agreement or a separate charge for the service given by the commission to the organisation or the individual. I hope that the Minister can reassure us on that point.
      There is a general duty on public bodies—for which the Cabinet Office and others publish advice—that they should have a reasonable schedule of charges. From time to time, we all complain that some of the charges that are imposed are excessive—as indeed sometimes they are, and we are right to complain. However, such bodies should be able to institute a reasonable charging policy. If we can complain when we believe the policy to be unreasonable, and if they can explain the rationale for their charges, they should be able to implement them, subject only to the following qualification. We are dealing with people who, by definition, have some difficulties, and with organisations that are often voluntary and do not have large assets. They will not welcome heavy charging by Government or para-governmental organisations. As technology improves, no doubt much of that information may be available on the website and may be free to the user. I hope that it will be. We certainly do not want anyone who has a genuine interest in checking such material to be inhibited by a charge for accessing information.
      I should be grateful if the Minister would speak to those points and give me the confirmation that I seek. I repeat my thanks and those of Opposition Members to her for responding to the point put to her in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Leigh: Maintaining a list of organisations to be consulted is important. I take an interest in social security matters and I serve on the Select Committee on Social Security. It is often a feature of social security matters that, compared with many other areas, there is no well funded, widely based group of natural consultees. In contrast, the agricultural sector has some of the best organised lobbyists in the country, as does defence. If one is taking a decision in such matters, there is almost an embarrassment of riches in terms of consultation. However, the number of people who are sufficiently well funded and interested in social security matters to understand the technical nature of the subject, and who are prepared to be consulted and want to submit good proposals to Government is limited.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: I rise merely on a factual point to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to a list of organisations to be consulted. That is not what this list is. This is a list of organisations that have been consulted in the course of the commission carrying out its duties. I am certain that it is not intended to be a list of the great and the good of approved organizations
      378
      for consultation. I would hope that a huge range of organisations—any organisation—could be consulted if the commission thought fit.
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point.
      The point that I want to make is that, although often on social security matters there is a dearth of people to be consulted, or who have been consulted or may be consulted, there is a well organised disability lobby, and that is a good thing. It is the one social security area on which the Select Committee receives excellent briefings from those who might be affected by a proposal. Therefore, I am not too worried about the list of consultees with regard to the disability lobby. It is good, well organised and can put its case across extremely well.
      However, I am concerned with the other side of the picture—the business lobby. Full transparency is important. Two obvious business organisations that might be consulted about a proposal are the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors. However, it is often difficult for such organisations, particularly the CBI, and particularly in relation to issues that might be under discussion by the commission, to take a robust, pro-business approach, if I may put it that way. Obviously, we are dealing with a sensitive area. We are dealing with people who may have severe disabilities and no business organisation, particularly those such as the CBI, wants to receive the bad publicity that it might receive if it is seen to be unduly negative about any proposal.
      The Minister presumably has an idea of the sort of people who will be consulted, and I want to be assured that the list of consultees will go further than the large business organisations, which may find it difficult, in public at least, to take a robust attitude. It is important that they should take a robust attitude, that there should be a debate about these issues and that the two sides of the argument should be put. We are potentially talking about a lot of small businesses that might find enforcement of these procedures extremely onerous. That is not because they are unsympathetic to disabled people, but simply because they have limited resources.
      I use the amendment as a peg to seek the Minister's reassurance that she understands that the consultation should not simply be limited in the business world to the Institute of Directors or the CBI, but should go wider—perhaps down to a local level, such as the chambers of trade and commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses—so that we ensure that the commission has before it both sides of an argument. Unless that happens, this could be an extremely intrusive organisation which proves damaging to the interests of business and, eventually, to disabled people themselves.
      Mr. Peter Luff: What I have to say follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has just said. It relates not simply to what one might characterise as the awkward customers in the business lobby, but to the awkward customers in the disability lobby. It is clearly important that those who have clear and original thoughts should be included in the list of consultees and should be consulted by the commission.
      What slightly concerns me about the amendment is that it gives the commission the right to remove from the list any organisation that it has not consulted for the past

      379
      12 months, without a right of appeal by that organisation. Whether that is a small business organisation of the kind described by my hon. Friend, or a small disability rights lobby—[Interruption.]
      Labour Members disagree, but I feel a little uncomfortable when I read:
      "An organisation may be removed from the list if it has not been consulted generally in the 12 months preceding its removal."
      I see no corresponding right for that organisation—disability rights organisation, commercial organisation or whatever—to appeal against that removal. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) looks amazed and aghast at that idea, but it is entirely possible. I welcome the principle of open consultation and this addition to the Bill, but I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the commission will not exclude any body—I mean body in the legal sense, not individuals—or any organisation that could reasonably be expected to be included in consultation.
      Ms Hodge: I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), in relation to the recovery of costs from individuals, that the Bill relates to the recovery of costs when an award for costs is made. That mirrors the position that exists for the other commissions. The Bill does not provide for the Disability Rights Commission to recover costs from compensation. Neither can they be recovered from settlements reached outside courts or tribunals, unless an amount for costs has been identified therein.
      In relation to the charging policy, it will be for the commission to decide for which services it wishes to charge—for example, the distribution of papers. The commission is not expected to charge for general advice. As I said, I hope that the list of organisations will be placed on the internet where it will be free. However, if a particular organisation requires thousands of copies, it would not be unreasonable for the commission to charge.
      With regard to whom the commission will consult and the specific request that it consult the business community, I reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the commission has been designed to take an evenhanded approach between those individuals who will be seeking to exercise their rights in relation to discrimination and those organisations providing goods and services to the public or acting as an employer.
      It may reassure the hon. Member for Gainsborough to know that, on the disability rights task force, which I chair and which is discussing what further steps are needed to secure further comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, are representatives from not just the CBI and the Institute of Directors, but from the Federation of Small Businesses and the chambers of commerce. So we are aware of the need to ensure a broad spread of representation on that body.
      We have yet to determine the precise composition of the new commission. We have not been able to do that because the Bill is not law yet, but as soon as it is, we shall ensure that it, too, reflects the broad spectrum of people who have an interest in the commission's workings. I expect there to be strong representation from the business community, the trade union movement, local government and perhaps the health service.
      380
      It will, at the end of the day, be for the Disability Rights Commission to decide whom it chooses to consult on particular issues. The purpose behind the amendment, for hon. Members who were not present in the Committee, is to ensure that the process of consultation is transparent and that when the commission comes out with a policy proposal or new code of practice, we all know who has been consulted. It was in the interests of transparency, and perhaps to meet some of the fears expressed by Opposition Members, that we have moved the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS AND NON-DISCRIMINATION NOTICES
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 15, line 8, leave out 'which has become final'.
      No. 7, in page 16, line 19, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
      No. 8, in page 18, line 12, leave out 'day' and insert 'date'.
      No. 9, in page 18, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
      No. 10, in page 18, line 30, leave out 'and finalise'.
      No. 11, in page 18, line 43, leave out 'and finalise'.
      No. 12, in page 18, line 45, leave out 'that requirement' and insert
      'the requirement mentioned in section 4(1)(b)'.
      No. 13, in page 19, line 6, leave out 'time and insert 'period'.
      No. 14, in page 19, line 7, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
      No. 15, in page 20, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
      No. 16, in page 20, line 6, leave out 'under paragraph 23' and insert
      'to a county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff'.
      No. 17, in page 20, leave out lines 14 to 23.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Ms Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 20, line 25, leave out 'with immediate effect'.
      The amendment relates to new provisions now contained in clause 4 and schedule 3, following Committee consideration, on non-discrimination notices and action plans, to which we have already referred. The Bill as it now stands enables the commission to require a person to submit an action plan to address any unlawful acts that have been committed and which are specified in a non-discrimination notice.
      The amendment relates to paragraph 19 of schedule 3, which would enable an action plan which has become final to be varied with the agreement of the commission and the person concerned. The amendment would allow flexibility in terms of when any variations would take effect. The Bill as currently drafted would mean that any changes agreed would take immediate effect. By taking out the words "immediate effect", we would enable the commission, the individual and the organisation to respond to those occasions when the commission and the person concerned wanted to agree a variation in advance.
      It may help if I give an example. A person may be making provision for a disabled person in a particular way in accordance with the action plan, but realise that, on moving premises, it would be better to change the way in

      381
      which that provision had been made. The original action plan may have been that someone would work on the ground floor. In a changed premises, there may be a possibility of installing a lift that would lead to a change. In that case, the person might want to agree a change to the plan, but to provide that the change would take effect only once the move was completed.
      Amendment No. 18 would remove the words "with immediate effect" in paragraph 19 and thus leave it to the parties to decide, as part of their agreement, when any variation would take effect.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Boswell: The Government are importing a welcome measure of flexibility into the provisions, which are already fairly flexible. We are pleased that they are moving the amendment. It means that we will not be tied to having everything done immediately. I imagine that it would be possible to contrive to overcome that problem by providing that the variation should be agreed and come into effect on the day on which it was necessary, but then one could have a series of rather complicated provisions leading to a series of variation orders or agreements. So it is probably sensible to proceed as the Government are doing.
      The only point on which I seek assurance is that there is no scope for monkey business and non-compliance with the action plan. If the instruction is that the thing should take immediate effect, that is fairly easily pursued, judged and, if necessary, proceeded on. If some date in the future is stipulated, especially if it relates to a contingent event that may not be easy to define, such as "the day I finish moving house", which may not even be easy for a court to determine, the situation will be a little vague. I hope that that can be overcome. I do not think that it is an objection to proceeding with the amendment.
      Ms Hodge: There is absolutely no intention of using the amendment to weaken the facilities in the Bill to eliminate discrimination. I simply draw it to the hon. Gentleman's attention that it would require the agreement of all parties to vary the timing of implementation of the action plan.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 20, line 37, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
      No. 20, in page 21, line 6, leave out 'this sub-paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph (3)'.
      No. 21, in page 21, line 9, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
      No. 22, in page 21, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 39 and insert—
      '(1) This paragraph applies to any order made by a county court or the sheriff under section 5(8) or under any provision of this Schedule.
      (2) Section 55 of the County Courts Act 1984 (penalty for failure to give evidence) shall have effect in relation to a failure to comply with an order made by a county court to which this paragraph applies'.
      No. 23, in page 21, line 43, after 'under' insert 'section 5(8) of or'.
      No. 24, in page 22, line 6, leave out from 'sheriff' to end of line 7 and insert
      'to which this paragraph applies'.
      No. 25, in page 22, line 14, at end insert—
      '(3) If the Commission applies to a county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff to enforce an order to which this paragraph applies, the court may modify the order.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      5.48 pm
      The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The debates on this Bill on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee have been good-spirited, as befits a thoroughly good measure. The standing of the commission will be all the stronger and its work all the more effective for the breadth and depth of support now being expressed for its establishment.
      The consensus behind the commission is such that I have no need to detain the House with a prolonged speech. I should just like to say that securing this commission is a great tribute to all those who have campaigned long and hard to bring it about. A debt of thanks is owed to the people involved from disability organisations and in the general public, to many Members of this House and another place, to the disability rights task force and to the all-party disablement group. It can be a bit invidious to single out names, but I know that the House would want to join me in voicing particular thanks for the pioneering work of Jack Ashley and Alf Morris, which comes to fruition today in this Bill.
      I should also like to thank all hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee, and the Opposition parties for their constructive contribution. This was a very good Bill when it started its passage through the House, and it is an even better Bill now. I should also like to thank the civil servants, the parliamentary officials—and Hansard staff and the police—and all who have worked on the Bill's proceedings. It is all the better for their invaluable input.
      May I say a particular thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East Mr. (Howarth), who put a lot of work into getting this Bill under way, and to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has thrown herself body and soul into seeing the Bill through so successfully in a good spirit of partnership with disability organisations and others.
      We will now at last have a proper independent body to help disabled people to secure their rights. Together with the work of the disability rights task force, the extension of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the new deal for disabled people, the disabled persons tax credit and income guarantee and the hearts and minds campaign, this measure marks decisive progress towards comprehensive civil rights for disabled people.
      The establishment of the Disability Rights Commission and the action that will flow from that are achievements of which this Labour Government, the disability rights movement and the whole House can be proud. What really matters is the difference that it will make in the lives of disabled people as we open up opportunity, challenge prejudice and discrimination, and enable people to live lives of dignity and fulfilment. The Disability Rights

      383
      Commission has an enormous role to play. It is long overdue. Disabled people have waited more than long enough. Let us give the Bill a Third Reading so that they wait no longer.
      5.52 pm
      Mr. Boswell: The Minister moved Third Reading in a broad and generous spirit. He has expressed thanks to almost all parties, and rightly so. I shall not repeat those thanks, not because I do not share his sentiments but because they have already been expressed. He injected the minimum of partisanship. That is proper because although we may have had our differences in the past on some disability issues, we have now all come together on this measure. It is right that occasionally in this place we find ourselves all on the same side, just as it is entirely right that on other occasions we vigorously debate matters of political tension and hardship. I think that we have found the right balance in this instance, and it respects the circumstances of the case.
      I shall not repeat those thanks; I shall merely refer to my diffidence, in that it is almost unprecedented for me to have my first outing on a Bill on Report when others have done all the spadework. However, I believe that even in these short contributions I have reinforced the attitude that we have taken on these matters.
      As for how the Bill will work, we have obtained useful assurances and, as the Minister rightly said, the Bill has been improved in response to points made by hon. Members from both sides of the House. The first matter that should concern people is whether the commission will have sufficient resources to do its job. We shall have to see whether there is a sudden flood of cases that have been pent up and not adequately developed. I hope that they can be managed, and that the commission will have the right resources to keep that under review.
      The second major concern will be the way in which the commission approaches consultation with the service provider and the business interests that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) mentioned in several interventions. The Under-Secretary referred to the need for maximum discussion to achieve positive results without cracking the legislative whip. I am sure that that is the right general approach, and I am relieved that that view is shared across the House.
      It would be unfortunate if this measure were seen not as a matter of civil rights—I do not dissent from that view—but as a fruitful vehicle for contention and litigation whenever possible. The moral should be to improve awareness and consciousness, to move on to good practice and—if necessary—prescription, and to introduce the big stick only when absolutely necessary and when there is recalcitrance. I do not wish to take away the obligations of employers or service providers, but they should have a chance to behave reasonably. My strong hope and belief is that most of them, given that opportunity, will want to manage their affairs in such a way as to be helpful to the interests of persons with disabilities.
      My concluding remarks will be addressed to people with disabilities as they look forward to their new rights. It is important that we do not oversell what we have achieved in the Bill. That is in no sense to diminish its importance or the fact that we have reached agreement on it, but it does not, by itself, remove discrimination and
      384
      deal with entrenched attitudes and insensitivity. Perhaps no one could legislate to deal with those problems effectively. We must do what we can in legislation, but we should realise that litigation is a difficult process, and for persons with disabilities it is even more stressful.
      Having just come to this issue, I was struck by the survey carried out by the university of Sussex for the Institute for Employment Studies, which examined the cases brought during the first 19 months under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It interviewed 180 parties and 40 lawyers in 92 cases, and found that the process was daunting and that the problems for disabled people of being in court were enormous. That is undoubtedly true. The assistance of the commission may help to support some of these cases appropriately.
      It is important that if attempts to enforce rights come to litigation, lawyers on all sides should bear in mind the circumstances of the parties. We cannot tolerate a situation in which public authorities, private employers or service providers sit it out in the hope that the problem will go away through what was once memorably and chillingly called the biological solution. The answer is to give people their rights and to understand that there will be differences of interpretation. The commission must be used positively and constructively to articulate and determine the rights of disabled people, and to find a practical way of resolving the problem. If possible, it should not become a battleground between the political parties or employers and service providers and persons with a disability.
      This is a sensitive issue. I am encouraged by the way in which all parties have worked together. The Government and other parties have worked to try to produce the best possible outcome. We must cast it into existence on Third Reading, with Lords consideration completed, and on to the tide of history. We hope that it will flow in the direction we all want it to flow. I believe that the spirit in which we are dispatching it may modestly help to bring about that objective.
      5.59 pm
      Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood): I warmly welcome the Bill, personally and on behalf of the all-party disablement group. I am sure that the many disability organisations that this afternoon issued a press release welcoming the Bill would also wish me to say on their behalf how welcome it is.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that we should not overstate the importance of a Bill to establish a Disability Rights Commission. I tend to think that there is a great danger of underestimating its significance. It is easy to say that this is an historic occasion for 9 million disabled people in Britain. We have said that before, but it remains true. The more I reflect on the Bill, the more I suspect that we are not yet clear about what its effects will be. I believe that they will be extremely far-reaching.
      As of today, there is no statutory body to assist in promoting equal rights for disabled people. The Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality deal with discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, but there is no statutory body to assist in tackling discrimination against disabled people. Yet we know that the extent of that discrimination is very great—whether it is in employment, education, housing, transport

      385
      or in any other area of human life. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is profoundly important. It is a measure for which campaigners outside and inside the House have worked for almost 20 years.
      Mr. John Healey: My hon. Friend talked about the Bill's campaigners, but no one has worked harder or for longer than he has for this measure. Does he agree that one feature that gives cause for optimism about the implementation of the Bill and the new commission is the wide support that it has received not just from disability organisations but from employers' organisations, including the Employers Forum on Disability, the Confederation of British Industry and even the Institute of Directors, which has welcomed the Bill with reservations?
      Mr. Berry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind comments. I agree very much with his point. I welcome, with the greatest possible enthusiasm, the extent of support for the Bill. One cannot forget entirely the fact that the previous Government were forced to introduce the Disability Discrimination Act in 1995 after years of doing everything imaginable—and even things that I thought were unimaginable—to block that legislation.
      One of the most glaring omissions from the Disability Discrimination Act was the lack of any effective enforcement mechanism—the lack of a commission, for which many people had argued at the time. The then Government established the National Disability Council, and it is no criticism of its members—they have done a very good job and I pay tribute to the chair, David Grayson, and his colleagues—that it was never given the power or the terms of reference to do what was necessary. The National Disability Council is the only Government agency that I can recall that campaigned for its own abolition almost from day one. It recognised that we needed a commission, and the Bill will deliver that commission.
      Let us be perfectly frank: change has come about first and foremost because we have a Labour Government. Let no one pretend that we would today be debating the Third Reading of the Disability Rights Commission Bill without a Labour victory at the last general election. We are debating the Bill also because the Government have moved with great speed: they found the legislative time to introduce this legislation within a mere two years of taking office. I believe that is a great achievement, not least because of the enormous pressures on parliamentary time.
      Every right hon. and hon. Member must be bombarded, day in and day out, with requests for the Government to do this, that and the other—and, in most cases, we agree with all of those requests. That suggests that an enormous amount of legislation is required after 18 years of Conservative Government. The fact that the Government have found the time and given priority to establish a Disability Rights Commission within two years of the general election is a tribute to them and to their commitment to tackling discrimination against disabled people.
      I also acknowledge the fact that the disability rights task force, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred, has been very effective in advising the
      386
      Government and in facilitating a dialogue between them and not only disabled people but employers, trade unions and all of those who have a legitimate interest in this field. That reflects an inclusive approach to policy making that should be welcomed warmly. In their press release this afternoon, the disability organisations particularly applauded the fact that they have been involved in the process. They have been consulted and listened to and they feel that they have ownership of the exercise. That is how Government Departments should operate, and I congratulate my colleagues on functioning in that way.
      In this month's Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation bulletin, the organisation's director, Bert Massie, says:
      "It is a credit to disability organisations and the Government that this milestone in the rights of disabled people had been reached less than halfway through this Parliament."
      The disability organisations are correct, and I join them in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), on the way in which they have steered the legislation through Parliament and have consulted and listened to people.
      Many improvements were made to the Bill in Committee, and some were made on Report this afternoon. As a result of contributions made on Second Reading and of proposals advanced by disability organisations throughout the whole process, we have a better Bill.
      I also place on record my appreciation—and I am sure that of the House—of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), who was the first Under-Secretary of State after the election to have responsibility for disability issues. I worked with him when we were in different political parties—I hope that those on his Front Bench knew about it at the time—and I pay tribute to him now that we are in a better position: namely, members of the same party.
      I think that disabled people and the Government have an enormous amount to be proud of today, but there are others for whom this is also an important milestone. I refer first to the Conservatives. I congratulate the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on his new post. It was a pleasure to share a platform with him at a meeting organised by Sense and Deafblind UK at the end of last week, and I wish him well. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Conservatives are recent converts to the need for comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people—I offer that comment merely as a fact. Therefore, support for the legislation is an important milestone for the Conservative party, and I welcome it most genuinely.
      The Bill is also a milestone for many other people—some of whom are perhaps not aware of it. I have in mind employers. Equal opportunities is about much more than equal access to rights and responsibilities. Effective equal opportunities means that employers can be certain that they have employed the best person for the job. Without an effective equal opportunities policy, how can any business know that it has found the most effective employee? Finding ways of overcoming the prejudices and the barriers to employing disabled people allows businesses to employ the best person and to become richer in every sense. Today is a milestone for employers up and

      387
      down the country because the Bill will help them to ensure that they are employing the best people for the job, irrespective of any disability that they might have.
      When the Disability Rights Commission opens its doors on 1 April next year, not only disabled people will seek its assistance to overcome discrimination: I think businesses will also queue up for advice and information about how to open themselves to the wider community. Those will be the businesses that, to paraphrase the slogan from the current campaign, want to see the person, and understand that social inclusion is about social justice and economic efficiency.
      Hon. Members will be aware that I do not often quote President George Bush with approval but, on this memorable occasion, I will. When he enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, he said that it would
      "let the shameful walls of exclusion finally come tumbling down".
      That is what the Bill will help to achieve in Britain. It deserves the unanimous support of the House, and I am delighted that it will, in all probability, receive it.
      6.10 pm
      Mr. Oaten: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), who has done an enormous amount of work in this field. He must be very proud today that the Bill is being passed. We can see the obvious pleasure and delight that he takes in that, and he displayed more pleasure than he did when I last heard him speak in the Chamber.
      I warmly congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who mentioned earlier that this is the first Bill that she has taken through the House. It has been a pleasure to watch her doing that with incredible openness. Certainly in Committee, she was very open to points made by Opposition parties. As a new Member who has been somewhat disappointed by the yah-boo politics in this place, I find it refreshing to play a small part in a process in which I have seen how politics can work in an extraordinarily constructive way. I congratulate the Minister on her role in that.
      Clearly, Liberal Democrat Members welcome this important landmark in disability legislation. I do not want to hold up the House, because many of the points were made on Second Reading and we have debated the Bill at length. The legislation is long overdue, and the process that we have undergone today has strengthened existing legislation. We have passed a Bill for which disabled groups have been arguing for many years, and we can all be proud of having played a part in that.
      There are, however, challenges ahead for the Disability Rights Commission, and we should not be so enthusiastic that we do not recognise that it will face difficult hurdles. Sadly, attitudes are still very tough, and that is why we need such an organisation. Although businesses and the public have certainly changed their attitudes towards disabled people, we still badly need the commission, and it will have many obstacles to overcome, not least the limits on its powers in the areas within which it will be able to operate.
      I know that the Government have made it clear that they hope to extend the Bill's provisions to education, policing and transport. Those are fundamental areas,
      388
      and although the commission will be able to make good progress in the areas included in the Bill, it will find it hard to make progress where there is no legislation for it to enforce. If we are to take a holistic—I hate that word—approach to disabled people, having two such fundamental areas as education and transport outside the Bill's provisions will restrain progress. I hope that the commission will work with the Government to ensure that those areas are brought within the scope of its powers.y
      Similarly, I have concerns about the commission working with business. It is a shame that not all businesses are included in the Bill. Those with fewer than 15 employees are exempt, which means that about 80 per cent. of companies are excluded from the Bill's provisions. It must be an urgent priority for the Disability Rights Commission to bring that to the attention of politicians and to put pressure on and work with the Government to change that threshold. It will be difficult for the commission to send out a positive message and to educate businesses if many are not legally required to comply.
      We have spoken in previous debates about the Disability Rights Commission's requirement for resources. I have taken comfort from the Government's comments about that. That position needs to be monitored; otherwise, we may find that in two or three years the commission's education work expands, as we hope it will, and its resources are too stretched to allow it to help individuals who are trying to be positive and making constant demands for help. If the commission had to refuse help to those people, and it was unable to begin charging them for help, that would be a missed opportunity, and the funding would have to be reconsidered.
      I referred earlier to the three-tier process of education, written agreements and the final resort of nondiscrimination notices. I am assured that it is sensible, and I think that it will work well. I am slightly concerned about the written agreements, and when the Minister winds up the debate, I should welcome a little more clarification about whether those agreements will be public.
      I understand the need to have a positive dialogue with businesses, so that they feel that they can be open about their difficulties. It would not be helpful if that was all made public. Nevertheless, if those written agreements deal with serious cases in which the commission believes that a company has failed in its duties, and an agreement is the last stop before issuing a non-discrimination notice, the public, the company's work force and people who may want to apply to the company have a right to know about the concerns expressed in the agreement. Private written agreements could prevent businesses from being accountable.
      A concern that has not been allayed by the amendments relates to the commission's ability to try to tackle organisations that may be about to act in a way that is anti disabled people. It will be difficult for the commission to deal with such problems. It will need to work on events that have already happened, where it believes that the company's actions are discriminatory.
      We can all think of examples in which companies may be preparing to act in a discriminatory manner. I am thinking particularly of the building trade, which I mentioned in Committee. Builders may be about to take

      389
      action that is discriminatory because they have not built a building in the right way or they have not complied with the Government's new legislation on building requirements, but the commission will not have the power to step in at that point. That is a disappointment, because it must be better to try to tackle discrimination before, for example, a disabled person turns up at a house and cannot get inside. Clearly, at that point, the building company will have committed an offence. When the commission is up and running, it will come across such difficulties week in and week out, and those will have to be reconsidered in the future.y
      This is a super Bill, and we should all be proud of taking part in its consideration. I envisage having to call the commission in a year or so to check that I am myself complying with the provisions and to get help and advice. In a city such as Winchester it is difficult to get offices and buildings converted. As an MP, I have found it extremely difficult to find out how I can follow good practice. The commission will face many demands to do the part of its work that we all want it to do—persuading, educating and taking a positive approach. I am reassured, however, that when things go wrong and that education does not work, the commission will be able to take a firm hand. By putting that provision in place, the House sends those organisations who want to ignore the disabled a strong message that they can no longer do so. We have created a body that will be on their case, and I warmly welcome that and the Bill.
      6.19 pm
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am delighted to be able to speak in support of Third Reading. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 made an important start in providing disabled people with rights of access to employment, goods, services and premises. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), acknowledged to the Select Committee on Education and Employment, of which I am a member, that the first two or three years of that Act's operation had provoked cases and a momentum similar to those created by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the setting up of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Bearing in mind the positive contribution that they made to transforming our society, the Disability Discrimination Act was a good start.
      However, the 1995 Act did not provide a platform from which individuals could make a progression. It was a blunt instrument. I believe that the Disability Rights Commission, which I hope that the House is about to bring into being, will give an edge and a temper to everything for which disability campaigners have fought for so long.y
      I share the delight of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) that a Labour Government are introducing the Bill, but it is only fair to say that it builds on the efforts of members of all parties. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, but I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning)—and to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who presented the Opposition's position very constructively this afternoon.
      390
      The Bill ties in with the overall thrust of Government policy to aid and empower disabled people—the new deal for disabled people, the special educational needs Green Paper, the new role for personal advisers in the single gateway, and other measures that the Government are bringing forward, which are giving teeth to the Tomlinson report proposals.
      I am delighted that the Bill is being taken through the House by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, as others have said, has displayed great energy and commitment in doing so. In one of her first engagements in her position, she visited my constituency to meet the Blackpool Bears, a disabled sports group that has done admirable work in the Blackpool area.
      As an example of joined-up government, I also pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), for the thought-provoking way in which he has dealt sensitively with the issues surrounding disability that hon. Members have brought to his attention.
      The Disability Rights Commission embodies four essential ingredients. It is a spur to cultural change; it is a source of central advice and information; it is a practical source of redress; and it is an empowering device. I believe that it will have a key role to play in a range of areas.
      I believe that the extension of the 1995 Act in October of this year for service providers will give a major new impetus and an added edge to the type of work that the commission takes on board. I believe and hope that it will provide a major boost and support system to the many voluntary sector organisations that, together with the pressure groups, have been a lifeline to disabled people. Despite the new and welcome emphasis by the Government on working with them, we tend too often to take for granted the contribution of the voluntary sector in this respect. However, the voluntary sector, its volunteers and its organisations are often the backbone of civil society.
      I have just returned from a visit to Russia, where the health of that nascent democracy is much debated locally. One of the most impellent gaps in Russian society today is the lack of that voluntarist tradition and that voluntary principle. We should never take them for granted. We should always be extremely pleased and proud of the voluntary work that is done in our country.
      In my constituency, the Disability Services Organisation for Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde, of which I have the honour to be president, will welcome the umbrella opportunity that the Disability Rights Commission offers. It has several different initiatives, offering free independent advice and a volunteer service for disabled people with sensory and physical disabilities, jointly financed by Blackpool council, Blackpool social services and North West Lancashire health authority. It has achieved a great deal in buying and leasing scooters and wheelchairs, shop mobility, a dial-a-ride scheme and a disability information service. It has now obtained a £30,000 grant from the Millennium Commission to make and produce a disability awareness video for people in the north-west. All such organisations will benefit from the support and encouragement and the umbrella function of the Disability Rights Commission.
      All those aspects tie in with the need to strengthen disabled people's rights, not by condescension or toleration, but by giving them their proper rights

      391
      in society. If I may be forgiven a historical reference, that has so often been the route that minorities have had to tread in our society—beginning with condescension, moving on to toleration and finally achieving full civil rights.
      The new commission will need to be aware of, and especially sensitive to, the increasing involvement of disabled people in voluntary and statutory bodies—in school boards of governors, in health trust boards and in tribunals. However, along with that goes a responsibility on those bodies that welcome disabled people to give them the proper support and encouragement, and to anticipate the need for time off and the need for appliances with which to do their job properly. Disabled people should not have to go to them cap in hand. I hope that the new Disability Rights Commission will strengthen their voice in that respect. I believe that, with increased participation by disabled people in public bodies, in ministerial Departments and in local councils, the DRC will have a very important role to play in using its powers to be proactive.
      I add my voice to those who have spoken about the excellent new publicity campaign—the "See the Person" campaign—because that is all about inclusion. I too, welcome the fact that businesses—especially small businesses, of which there are many in my constituency—will be involved in that process. It is important that businesses recognise that disabled people are about "what I can do, not what I can't do".
      Often, unwitting and unthinking discrimination is a major element in the barriers to disabled people. It is the so-called "Does he"—or, for that matter, does she—"take sugar?" syndrome, of which I have some personal experience in my family through my mother, who is disabled.
      The Disability Rights Commission has a very important role to play in encouraging and developing codes of practice. It has a particular opportunity at this time to encourage new administrative organisations—the regional development agencies, the new unitary authorities, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, all of which start with a clean slate.
      The DRC has a very important encouraging role. Tonight, I especially want to highlight the issue of tourism. I am very pleased that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport document "Tomorrow's Tourism", published earlier in the year, acknowledged the needs and concerns of disabled people. It recognised that an estimated 4 million disabled people in the United Kingdom want to take a holiday break but do not do so. Holidays and leisure breaks, to an extent which people who have no experience of disabled people and their carers often underestimate, can be a lifeline to those people, but often it is very difficult for them to take holidays.
      I believe that the Disability Rights Commission will provide a welcoming context for initiatives that are already under way, such as the Holiday Care Service and Tourism for All. I hope that the commission will be able to encourage the industry and the providers to take on more disabled people in the tourism business and to welcome more holidaymakers into their establishments. I am delighted to say that many hoteliers in Blackpool—incidentally, in some of the smallest establishments—have already made good progress in that respect.
      392
      In the final analysis, the commission's power to help individuals with complaints under the 1995 Act is terribly important. There is an old Quaker adage that he who would do good must begin with doing it in minute particulars. In that respect, we must always remember that, although disabled people are individuals, whose struggle and sense of self-worth is very important to them as individuals, they also act as beacons—as champions—for others in that area.
      I see the Disability Rights Commission as a milestone on that path, which was so nobly inaugurated by Alf Morris and Jack Ashley, who have rightly been paid tribute to today. There was once the saying, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job." Today, with the DRC, effective tools have been provided. I commend the priority that the Government have given to it. I commend also the enthusiasm with which it has been received by those on both sides of the House. I am delighted to support Third Reading.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: In his introduction to the White Paper concerning the Bill—"Promoting disabled people's rights—Creating A Disability Rights Commission fit for the 21st Century"—the then responsible Minister, who is now the Minister for the Arts said:
      "We do not believe there should be any tension between the interests of disabled people and the interests of employers or of providers of goods and services; rather the contrary."
      He added:
      A Disability Rights Commission … will be an agency of benign change."
      Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman is right. I sincerely hope that the Bill will be an instrument of benign change. In the right hands, it can be. In the wrong ones, it could be an instrument of intrusive over-regulation that could work against the interests of disabled people.
      I was thinking about the Minister for the Arts only yesterday when I was clearing out an old wardrobe that I had inherited. In it was a newspaper of 28 May 1979, from the early, heady days of the previous Conservative Government. There was a long article in it about the new head of the Conservative research department, one Mr. Alan Howarth. Let us hope that what is created today does not end up in the same way as a fading newspaper article in a dusty old wardrobe. I do not think that it will.
      What we are about to pass into law is important. I do not want to be churlish. I accept that the Bill is a great victory for those who campaigned for it over many years. I took part in those debates in the middle part of the previous Parliament when the disability legislation of the Conservative Government was before us. I have no worries with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on 24 November 1994, when he was the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said that the then Conservative Government believed that it should be possible to enforce legislation without setting up an expensive bureaucracy to police it. That is my view.
      We should be able to live in a society where disabled people feel that they have rights and that those rights can be enforced. Equally, I hope that we understand that creating an expensive bureaucracy and, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, enforcing it can be extremely dangerous.

      393
      I thought that MENCAP put the matter very well in its contribution to the all-party disablement group's Second Reading briefing, when it said:
      "There are men, women and children who have hitherto been awarded protection from discrimination in theory but who have been left without a supporting mechanism for redress of grievances in practice."y
      I agree with that statement. It is perhaps wrong for society to try to make itself feel comfortable by introducing legislation that it is impossible to enforce in practice. However, following the long debates that we have had over many years, I think that there is always a right time for doing things. Perhaps this is the right time for the Bill. However, as we pass it into law, I believe that we should consider carefully the representations that have been made to us by employer organisations, particularly by the CBI and particularly in relation to what it has to say about non-discrimination notices, as referred to in clause 4.
      We have only to read clause 4 to realise that we are talking about a commission that potentially will be very powerful. The clause reads:
      "If in the course of a formal investigation the Commission is satisfied that a person has committed or is committing an unlawful act, it may serve on him a notice (referred to in this Act as a non-discrimination notice) which … gives details of the unlawful act … and … requires him not to commit any further unlawful acts".
      That is a great power.
      I realise that those who speak in the debate have fought for many years for rights for the disabled. Why should they be primarily concerned about burdens on business? My only plea is that we ensure that we have a balanced debate, and that what the CBI has said about the potentially huge powers contained in the Bill is taken to heart by the Government. I hope that they are prepared, willing and undertaking to act in the benign way that the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth) was talking about when he introduced the White Paper.
      I agree that we must move from an era where disabled people had no rights. Indeed, they were heavily discriminated against. We must move from an era in which there is perhaps an element of condescension. We must then move on to an era where we do not talk constantly, as we often do in the social security world, of benefits for disabled people. Instead, we must move them into the world of work.y
      The Bill, if it is used in the right way, can be a benign measure for moving disabled people out of a ghetto, or the ghetto, into the world of work. However, if the commission is placed in the wrong hands, it could do a great deal of harm. I note that the majority of the commissioners will be disabled people. They will have to take a broad-minded attitude. They will have powers that they have not been enjoyed before. They are no longer a lobby outside knocking on the door. They are now inside the establishment, and they will be wielding great powers. I very much hope that, as we pass the Bill into law, they will feel that it is their duty to act in a balanced way in the interests of society as a whole, including the interests of disabled people and those who wish to provide jobs for them.
      6.37 pm
      Mr. Tom Levitt: I think that I am the only Back-Bench Member who has sat through, and spoken on, every stage of the Bill's passage through the House. I am delighted that we have reached where we are today.
      On various occasions, I have said to Conservative Members, "Remind me, why was it that you voted against similar measures time after time years ago?" Until the past few minutes, they could not remember. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) obviously has stronger memories than other Conservative Members. I do not mean this unkindly, but the warmth that has emanated from repenting sinners has given great joy to Labour Members. I thank them for the contributions that they have made to our debates during the various stages of the Bill.
      I say in response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Gainsborough that the Bill is a milestone and not a millstone. It is a step forwards, not a step backwards.
      I shall make only two points, and the first concerns the awareness—for example, of employers and service providers—of the needs of disabled people. The present campaign is a stimulating one. It produces smiles and, perhaps, controversy but it gets people thinking, which is important. That is a role that the Disability Rights Commission will have to take on in future. In terms of awareness raising, it will be looking to good practice and disseminating it.
      At the launch of the campaign—it is a good example to put on record—there was a contribution from B and Q. It spoke of its employment practices, which encourage disabled people to apply for and to be accepted as employees. It told of the disability awareness training that it gives to its non-disabled and disabled staff within its stores. It told of the expectation that its suppliers would have an equally positive attitude to disabled people. Tellingly, it told of the Norwich store which has specialised in making kitchen fittings for people in wheelchairs. It has discovered a gold mine, because disabled people have commercial needs. They go out and buy things, and a service provider who meets their needs will reap the benefits from that. There is a commercial argument for organisations including those 8 million people in their marketing plans, which will be a relief to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who expressed doubts.
      I shall tell the story of a receptionist in a local authority office close to where I live. He is blind, but he welcomes people to that office, functions very well as a receptionist and telephonist and is not disabled because the facilities are present to give him all the abilities that he needs to carry out that vital job and exceed the reasonable expectations that could be demanded of him.
      I have told that story to make the point that the barriers that prevent disabled people from playing a full, positive and constructive role in society have been erected by us—not only the politicians, but able-bodied people, service providers, employers and anyone else who does not think about the consequences of their words, deeds and actions for disabled people. We can take those barriers down. We can give disabled people the emancipation that they deserve and that it is their right to have.

      395
      The Disability Rights Commission and the awareness-raising activities associated with it are steps along the way but, however good today is—it is a wonderful occasion—it is only another step along a long road, the end of which we still have to reach.
      6.42 pm
      Mr. Peter Luff: The eerie light of consensus has illuminated the debate, although that did not characterise the debates in the previous Parliament, during which I frequently expressed exactly the same objectives as the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), but sought rather different mechanisms to secure them. We could never have foreseen that those loud and noisy discussions would end in such a way as they did today—not with a bang, but with a whimper, which is good. Disability issues should not be the subject of the fierce partisan battles that took place in the previous Parliament.
      I congratulate the Minister on his opening remarks; he struck the right note, although there were hints of a return to partisan comments from other hon. Members. It is no doubt true that the Bill would probably not have been introduced by the previous Conservative Government—we can say that with a reasonable degree of certainty—but I am not so sure that that could be said of a Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition. He is committed to the measure. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Kingswood ever has the good fortune to serve in a Government, he will sometimes find himself at the Dispatch Box saying things with which he does not entirely agree. Such is the nature of collective responsibility.
      It is worth putting on record the fact that the previous Government did a considerable amount on disability issues. When Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, she attached great importance to the welfare spending issues related to disability. Contrary to the myth the she constantly slashed expenditure, she trebled spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled; and her successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), continued the process.
      We also introduced the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which the chairman of the National Disability Council has described as a good Act, although I agree that David Grayson, who is a good friend of mine, wants that Act to be toughened. Indeed, the Bill does just that, but those were real and substantial achievements for disabled people which I hope the whole House would welcome. I rather resent the note that has been struck by some Labour Members, who have said that nothing happened for disabled people in the previous Parliament. A considerable amount happened.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: Disability living allowance.
      Mr. Luff: From a sedentary position on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend reminds me about DLA. He is absolutely right to do so.
      How do I approach this Third Reading debate? With mixed feelings—all my doubts remain about establishing a body with the powers that the commission could have, but the disability rights lobby still wants a commission to
      396
      be established. The mood in the House is clearly in favour of a commission, so this is the time to lie back and accept the inevitable. I can do so with a clear conscience because I am encouraged by what Ministers have said about how they expect the commission to use the powers being given to it.
      It is right to emphasise our hope that the commission will use those powers in the way that Ministers hope it will use them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, clause 4—and, indeed, clause 5—contains considerable powers and they could harm the cause that the commission has been set up to help if they are used insensitively.
      The Liberal spokesman talked about the omissions from the Bill, and I hope that the commission will consider not only employment matters, but issues of democracy. The House is still inaccessible to disabled people and that is one of the things that we should put right as a matter of the utmost urgency. In my previous incarnation in the House, my constituency contained New college, which is run by the Royal National Institute for the Blind in Worcester. Issues relating to blind and visually impaired people are at the forefront of my thinking and I hope that the commission will do what it can to improve voting forms.
      I will put pressure on the Government to make it easier for disabled people to exercise their most fundamental right of all—the right to vote—and for people who are disabled but do not have visual disabilities to gain access to polling stations, which is often scandalously difficult to achieve. There are many issues for the commission to address that relate, directly or indirectly, to the way we carry out our business. I hope that it will do so with enthusiasm.
      On a slightly partisan note, I hope that the commission will not be frightened of taking on the Government over their allowance for county social service departments. Despite all the good words that we have heard today about the great achievements of the Government, disabled people and their carers—in Worcestershire in particular—face serious problems because of the scandalously low funding increase offered by the Government. I hope that the commission will speak out on that, too.
      Although I can give the establishment of the commission a rather less guarded welcome that might otherwise have been the case, I want to strike a note of dissent from everything that has been said about the Government's hearts and minds campaign. Ultimately, the fundamental point is that no Act of Parliament can ever change the way people behave. The real discrimination lies in people's hearts, and that is what must be tackled.
      I have no objection to a hearts and minds campaign, but this is a bad one. When I first saw the poster about Kathy, outside Worcester Shrub Hill station, I thought that it was either advertising a sequel to a programme on homelessness or trying to attract people to a teacher training campaign. I could not work out what the poster was about and realised what it was advertising only today, when hon. Members referred to its subtext. I hope that the commission will do a much better job of winning the hearts and minds of the British people than the Department for Education and Employment is managing at present.
      None the less, this is a momentous occasion. We have put to rest one of the great, contentious issues that has divided the House over the years, and done so in a

      397
      constructive way. The Minister rightly paid tribute to a number of individuals and, although I have crossed swords with him on a number of occasions, I emphasise my personal congratulations to the hon. Member for Kingswood, who has played an extraordinary part and driven this issue through the House. He, together with all the other people to whom we have paid tribute today, deserves a share of credit for what he has done. I hope that his best hopes are achieved and my worst fears are never realised.
      6.49 pm
      Mr. Harry Barnes: I hope that it goes without saying that the House would expect me to support this measure and to believe that this is an important day to celebrate. It is a stage on the road to the objective of full civil rights for disabled people and it is, therefore, strongly to be welcomed.
      The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), attacked the yah-boo approach to this subject that has prevailed in the past. Although I accept that a lot of yah-boo politics and trivial point scoring take place in the Commons, I am in favour of a strong debate taking place, particularly on this subject. Had we not had as much outside campaigning and as many arguments from the previous Government about this issue, as well as a distinction between the principles involved, we would not have reached this point. Had the measure been sorted out by men and women of good will sitting around a table, we would not have achieved this sort of legislation and would not have tested out each others' ideas in quite the same way.
      The strength of the ideas expressed by Labour Members, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, prevailed after the tussle with those who had other ideas. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) spoke, because I remember some of the tussles with him. The views that he expressed today showed that, fundamentally, he still has the same attitude. It is important to have that honourable dispute in developing different positions.
      When I introduced my version of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, which was a private Member's Bill, the hon. Member for Gainsborough spoke against it because he was worried about intrusive regulation. He now hopes that the operation of the changes will be benign, but in the past he expressed great fears that legislation of this type would not be benign. I remember pointing out that his arguments were against the Disability Discrimination Bill, which was going through the House at the same time. To judge by the look that he gave and his response on that occasion, and despite the fact that he was using the Disability Discrimination Bill to argue against the measure that I was proposing, he recognised that that was what motivated him.
      We all benefit from such argument. John Stuart Mill once said, perhaps in a slightly sexist way, that he who knows only his own side of the argument knows little. Our argument was certainly developed considerably as a result of coming into conflict with the views of people with differing attitudes. One person who had a strongly differing attitude on this matter was the Leader of the Opposition. In the period to which I refer, two Bills
      398
      were in competition with each other: the Disability Discrimination Bill and the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. I am convinced that we would not have secured the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if, the preceding year, the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) had not been scuppered with a great deal of blood and heated yah-boo on the Floor of the House.
      I then picked up the baton and ran my hon. Friend's measure. The techniques that were used against my Bill were different from those that had been used against his. It was a rival measure, while the blocking of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill took place essentially in Committee with attempts to stop it getting back to the Floor of the House. The person who carried out those opposition techniques almost single handedly in Committee was the Leader of the Opposition.
      Having talked to a Conservative Member who is now a Labour Member, the Minister for the Arts, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), I found out which Conservative Members to ask to join us. Most Conservatives and others sat on my side of the Committee and the Leader of the Opposition was often almost alone in battling for his position. He had to engage in all the filibustering on the amendments and would agree to the Bill's coming out of Committee only when nothing could be done with it. We had only 32 minutes on the Floor of the House in which to take about 108 amendments. The Leader of the Opposition gained promotion partly as a result of the role that he played in scuppering civil rights for disabled people.
      I was pleased to hear the Minister say on Second Reading that civil rights for disabled people are on the agenda in the future and that we are moving in that direction. I welcome the fact that in the debate on the Queen's Speech the Leader of the Opposition immediately expressed support for the measure before us today. That, however, is a significant change and it comes about as a result of the nature of politics in this country. Those politics sometimes take place on the Floor of the House in the form of strong debate and dialectic argument, which help to produce the situation in which we find ourselves today. I am therefore keen that that sort of yah-boo should continue to take place. There was a sign of it in coded language in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough.
      Although we have had an interesting discussion on this Bill, it has been a little too cosy. One often needs arguments to be propounded that challenge one's own ideas, so that those can be improved. The ideas in the Bill have been challenged so much in the past that they are sufficiently well shaped and we did not need the disputes that we have had in the past. I welcome the fact that we have reached this stage and, like all good campaigners, I look forward to the next one.
      6.57 pm
      Mr. Andrew Smith: By leave of the House, I shall respond as briefly as possible to some of the points made in the debate.
      First, may I welcome again the positive and generally constructive spirit that has prevailed? The hon. Member

      399
      for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) asked about resources. We are satisfied that the commission will be adequately resourced. We have looked at the experience of the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said that we needed to monitor the resourcing. It will be monitored and kept under review. It is generally accepted, however, that the £3 million start-up cost and the £11 million annual budget that we have provided for should be adequate.
      The hon. Member for Daventry also said that we should be careful to ensure that the big stick was used only where necessary, and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) made comments in a similar vein. Although the statutory enforcement powers in the Bill are a last resort, it is necessary to have them to ensure that the law is complied with. The Bill is about ensuring that disabled people have rights not only in theory but in practice.
      Obviously, we expect this legislation and the proceedings of the commission to work in a business-friendly way. Equally, we expect business to work in a disabled-friendly way. That is part of the general shift in culture to which a number of hon. Members referred.
      I echo what the hon. Member for Daventry said about the importance, when it comes to litigation, of bearing in mind the circumstances of the parties likely to be involved. In terms of proceedings on investigations by the Disability Rights Commission, there will be a requirement, where appropriate, to have timetabling of those proceedings, which will offer a safeguard against the delays which the hon. Gentleman rightly said would be unacceptable.
      I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) very much for his kind remarks and for those of the all-party disablement group. As others have said, if my hon. Friend had not promoted his Bill in the previous Parliament, followed in similar vein by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), we would not be here today establishing the Disability Rights Commission. They deserve tributes, together with Alf Morris, Jack Ashley and others.
      The hon. Member for Winchester asked whether written agreements would be made public. As is evident from my answer on Second Reading, I share his instinct for openness, but we have seen how that could be counter-productive. There is no statutory requirement for a public register of agreements or for written agreements to be kept private. It will be for the DRC and the organisation concerned to discuss when reaching the agreement whether it should be made public and under what circumstances. That is only common sense, because we do not want an organisation to refuse to enter into an agreement that would be in the interests of disabled people because it would be made public.
      The hon. Gentleman also referred to anticipated discrimination. It will be open to the commission to make recommendations for further legislative enhancements of the rights of disabled people or their enforcement. That covers the circumstances that he referred to.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) hoped that we would not think him churlish in expressing
      400
      caution and an incomplete conversion to the Bill. I hope that I do not sound churlish when I say that he sounded churlish, but as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire pointed out, it does no harm for such matters to be tested in debate. Out of the fire of the debate in the previous Parliament we have tempered a sensible proposal for the commission. The hon. Gentleman may have been unhelpful to his present leader by reminding the House of his previous position on the issue. However, we welcome all converts to the Bill, whatever their attitude before.
      My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) made a good point about awareness, which answered some of the reservations of the hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Mid-Worcestershire. The B and Q example shows that with a thoroughgoing approach to disabled people's rights an employer can not only recruit the best employee for the job, but offer the best service to the whole range of customers. There is a commercial imperative as well as a moral one behind rights for disabled people. By working with employers, the commission will be helping the business case for equality as well as the ethical and moral case.
      I hope that the Bill will gain a Third Reading with the unanimous support of the House. We should remember that the commission is not the end, but a very important means to the end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) said, it will be a spur to cultural change and an empowering device as well as a source of advice and a means of redress. The practical benefits in the lives of disabled people and all of us that will result from the establishment of the commission will be its real achievement. We shall all benefit from the cultural change and empowerment of which the commission is an instrument.
      The unanimity and enthusiasm in the House for the establishment of the commission is great to see. As well as all that it will be able to achieve through consensus and discussion, we should bear in mind the fact that the commission will sometimes have to take tough and perhaps controversial decisions. I hope that it enjoys the same consensus and enthusiasm when it has to do that, because that will be the test of making a reality of disabled people's rights.
      Given the extent of support in Parliament and among the public as the Bill moves to a Third Reading, the commission will get off to a good start. It is a milestone in advancing disabled people's rights. It is time to move past that milestone towards a better future in the lives of disabled people and us all.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  FINANCE BILL
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions, more than one stage of the Finance Bill may be taken at any sitting of the House.—[Mr. Dowd.]

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

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 1617), dated 10th June 1999, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th June, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

  Bereavement Care
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  7.6 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I am privileged to have the opportunity to address the House on an intensely important matter that is rarely discussed on the Floor of the House and is almost as widely ignored among the vast majority of people. The subject is bereavement.
  The few speeches and debates about death usually fall into one of two categories: how to stop it and how to make up for the lost wages. We can never prevent death. As Benjamin Franklin, the leading US political philosopher and inventor of the lightning conductor, said 200 years ago,
  "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."
  Whereas in Victorian times there was much discussion and debate about death, but sex was taboo, in our generation, there is much debate and discussion about sex, but the question of death has become taboo. Debates about how we can prevent death are numerous. Of the 220 all-party groups in the House of Commons, around one in five concern health or health-related matters. In last week's debate about widows pensions, we talked about making up for lost wages and the upgrades to provide for widows, but no mention was made of the emotional difficulties of bereavement counselling.
  For many years, I was vice-chairman and am now vice-patron of what is now the Carers National Association, which came into being to provide support and recognition for carers. For those who have been caring for an elderly relative, the experience of bereavement and being left on their own and isolated after the death of their loved one causes at least as much difficulty.
  There have also been debates about the regulation of the funeral industry. There has been a welcome for the expansion of the voluntary funeral ombudsman service. Around 21,000 people are involved in the funeral industry. They require greater recognition, more training and more respect in the community. The National Association of Funeral Directors has introduced excellent initiatives on that, but people still tend to be bashful about saying that they are an undertaker and they are not regarded as being as important to the community as midwives.
  Inevitably, death is usually seen as intensely personal, or too frightening to discuss and accept for what it is. When discussing the television film about the man who had his own process of death filmed, Lord Winston—who, appropriately, is a professor of fertility studies at Hammersmith university—recently said:
  "We live in a society which hides death because it is beyond our control and, partly in consequence, we are terrified of it. In hiding death, we make it a taboo."
  There have been other interesting accounts, such as Virginia Ironside' s book "You'll Get Over It: the Rage of Bereavement", in which she describes how, before her father died, she thought that she knew a little bit about bereavement:
  "In my job as an agony aunt I would blithely send out leaflets to bereaved people full of kindly, sympathetic advice, telling them about stages of grief."

  403
  Colin Murray Parkes is a president of Cruse, and his academic work and practice have helped us understand more about the process of bereavement, and made an enormously important contribution.
  Virginia Ironside said that when her father died
  "nothing made sense. Perhaps he was resting in peace",
  and that grief
  "was only a minuscule part of the process … with other shameful feelings of rage, greed, loathing, hatred for life; physical feelings of lethargy, shooting pains in my legs, a permanent ache in my neck, and a new, embarrassing interest in religion and the afterlife. And there was relief. He had been a loving but emotionally and intellectually dominating figure. Now he was gone I could breathe. And yet how can anyone breathe when consumed by the fury of loss?"
  That is an open account, but typical of the experiences that people have when, without previous thought, preparation or consideration, they find themselves in the turmoil of bereavement. That contrasts starkly with the process of childbirth, for which there are preparation for parenthood classes, the National Childbirth Trust, support from health visitors and so on. People understand that childbirth is a life stage with implications both for themselves and for their immediate families.
  However, there is little to help prepare grieving relatives, work colleagues and associates for death. Fortunately, in 1959, Cruse was founded by Margaret Tome, OBE, who was concerned about the isolation and poverty of young widows and their children. She established the first group, in the Richmond area, and supported many young widows and helped them to find ways of surviving emotionally and financially.
  As a result of the publicity, other Cruse groups were formed around the original group, offering support not only for widows, but for others affected by death, including children, and people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds. Today, for example, three out of 10 of those who seek assistance from Cruse are widows, one in eight are widowers, one in three have lost a parent, and one in 10 have lost a child. The picture of bereavement moves on.
  I used to support Cruse when I was a Minister at the Department of Health. I was also approached by Cruse in my constituency to speak at a fundraising concert in Guildford cathedral. In the light of my on-going interest in the activities of Cruse, I am pleased to say that it has asked me to be a patron, so I should declare that interest to the House.
  Now, under the leadership of its executive director, Dr. Carole Easton, Cruse is still based in the Richmond area and after 40 years, it is busy preparing itself for the challenges of the next generation and the next century. There are now 188 branches throughout the United Kingdom, and I am pleased that it is acknowledged by the Home Office as a lead voluntary organisation for dealing with major disasters in the United Kingdom.
  Cruse has certainly gained the respect of many in the medical profession, and 45 per cent. of its clients are now referred by their general practitioners or other health professionals. At this moment, the General Medical Council and others are discussing, with the all-party group on primary care, the nature of GP training. Before I left the meeting early, I said that one of the important steps in the training of GPs, and all medical professionals, should be how to handle death. It is a difficult and sensitive subject for the professionals involved as much as for bereaved families.
  404
  The challenge now is to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom knows about Cruse. People need to know that there is a place where they can get help in dealing with the complex and intense emotions associated with death. They need not only support and comfort, but practical advice. The complexities of death—such as the forms to be filled in and the process of organising a funeral service—do not come routinely, and are not widely understood.
  It is not only bereaved people who need to know about Cruse. Employers, health care providers, ministers of religion, educators and family and friends all need to know that the best support that they can give someone struggling with a loss is to lead them to someone else—someone who has been trained to deal with bereavement.
  The services that Cruse offers are varied. Each bereavement is different. There is no one way to help someone to cope with a loss. The different branches across the country are flexible. The focus is on counselling, but they also act as a source of practical information and practical assistance. Some clients are seen in their own homes; others attend the centres; some choose to talk on the telephone.
  At the latest count, there were 154 social groups, 165 specialised groups, including groups for the recently bereaved, and 60 drop-in centres. Last year, they provided face-to-face counselling for more than 21,000 clients, counselled 5,500 clients over the telephone and received 110,000 requests for information about their services and about surviving a loss.
  Each year in this country, about half a million people die, and only a fraction of the bereaved look for specialist support and help. However, investing in caring for those people at the time can often lead to safeguards for the future, better functioning and a less prolonged mourning period.
  There has been an increase in the more traumatic forms of death. Anyone who has acted as a Minister with responsibility for roads will have met many parents of young people who have been killed in traffic accidents. Sudden death is often all the more distressing—not only from traumatic causes such as a road accident, a murder or a heart attack; any form of death that has taken the family unawares can leave people feeling confused, angry and needing help.
  Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the loss of life for this generation is the growing number of people who take their own lives. More young men now take their lives through suicide than are killed on the roads. When people take their own lives, the effect on parents, grandparents, siblings and friends is all the more distressing and traumatic. There is associated guilt, anger, perplexity and sadness, and people often need expert help and support to talk that through. Cruse has created specialised groups to provide care for those who have lost loved ones from a range of particular causes.
  The population is ageing; that is well understood—but it leads to a need to change the services designed to help people who are bereaved. Old people are more likely to have to deal with death alone when a spouse, child or friend dies. They are more often left isolated, with nowhere to turn and no one to turn to. More than 30 per cent. of those who seek assistance from Cruse are over 60.
  Cruse has been able to establish itself as a link between the elderly and bereavement care. With the advances in modern medicine, it is crucial that Cruse maintains its

  405
  connection with elderly people. People who live longer will see more other people die. Elderly women, especially, are at risk, because their life spans continue to exceed those of their spouses—and in many cases, those of their children.
  We in this country pioneered the development of hospices: a concept that is now respected around the world. The hospice movement has effectively removed the physical pain of death and dying, but that still leaves a huge gap in emotional and practical support, for which we must provide better services. There are complexities involved if people are bereaved when they are homeless or in prison. The growing number of divorces has led to more complex and ambivalent feelings. When someone dies who was long since divorced, the experience can bring back many old sensitivities and hurt feelings.
  Cruse works through a remarkable army of 6,500 volunteers giving from two to 10 hours a week of their time. They certainly deserve our gratitude. Many know how hard it is to offer condolences to a friend or colleague who has experienced a loss. Cruse's commendable volunteers give their time to help those who need a kind word, a shoulder to cry on or an attentive ear.
  In this generation, there is a need to refocus on the importance of that gift relationship and the role of volunteering. I hope that more people will feel that becoming a Cruse volunteer is a constructive way of investing back in the emotional and social fabric of their community. In my constituency, Cruse operates the Guildford and Waverley branch, based in Godalming. I want to express my profound appreciation, on behalf of the local community, for the effective and professional support that it offers my constituents.
  Cruse's plans for the future will succeed as long as the Government are able to give their support, encouragement and authority and help it to overcome the complex labyrinth of funding mechanisms, grants and available resources. As it moves to the next decade, Cruse is planning improvements to make it even better able to provide help to the bereaved. Its development plan proposes that it further diversifies the services that it offers, giving more support, information and advice.
  Branches need back-up and professionalism. Today's public are discriminating consumers of services and demand a professionalism that may not have been so essential in years gone by. Management of the branches will be restructured so that the volunteers can concentrate on delivering the services and receive better support and back-up from headquarters. All the change is being led by the executive director, Dr. Carole Easton. She is undertaking a major consultation exercise with the branches to prepare the organisation for the next century.
  The key millennium project that Cruse wants to undertake is to develop a national Cruse helpline: a telephone number that anyone anywhere in the country can ring to get advice, support and encouragement. It wants to establish a centrally answered telephone service that is readily accessible to anyone, including deaf people and non-English speakers.
  Inevitably, like almost every not-for-profit organisation, a crucial and central preoccupation for Cruse is how it can secure the funding to maintain its services. To offer increased services, volunteer training and numbers need to
  406
  be increased. Cruse needs funding to allow it to recruit, train and support effectively volunteers of all ages and ethnic backgrounds.
  Last year, Cruse helped 110,000 people at an average cost of only £23. It has done remarkable things with the little money that it has. It can continue to do that, but it needs and deserves increased income. Its current income is simply not sufficient to allow it to expand its services to the extent of its potential.
  The question is how we can help Cruse to provide the best possible support. Almost everyone who has had experience of Cruse wishes that more people knew about its services. If it is to raise its profile and expand its services it needs to expand its budget.
  I want in fairness to acknowledge the funding that the Government have provided. This year, Cruse was granted £60,000 a year for three years for a quality care-in-bereavement project. Last year, it was granted £40,000 a year for three years as part of the regional support network project. In 1997, it was granted £150,000 over three years as part of that project and in the same year it received £97,000 over three years for an equal opportunities officer project. Time and again, Cruse receives a packet of money for a specific project, which is welcome in itself but does not solve the underlying problem of core funding to support its headquarters and the services that it provides every day.
  I am delighted to report, as an echo of days gone by, the number of lottery awards that Cruse has received. There was a phase in my life when every question that I had to answer involved how many lottery awards had been made available for a project. Cruse has received 29 National Lottery Charities Board awards, totalling £837,000, ranging from £120,000 for a training and development programme to £736 towards the start-up costs of a group in east Sunderland.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to help Cruse to access more substantial sources of funding. There are several initiatives under way that may offer Cruse an opportunity. "Our Healthier Nation" identified mental health as an area in which the Government want the national health service to make more progress in preventing ill health. Is it possible to consider some of the mental health sources of funding?
  In exploring resources locally, Cruse branches have found that they get sent from the primary care group back to the mental health trust and on to the health authority or social services. Are there any guidelines to make it clear which was likely to be the primary source of funding for a project as evidently worthwhile as Cruse?
  Savings can be made in long-term mental health services and people will be able to invest in other aspects of education and employment if they can overcome the mourning process more swiftly, so supporting Cruse provides excellent value for money in the true sense of the phrase. In a study published in the European Journal of Palliative Care, Marilyn Relf argues that support from volunteers leads to bereaved people using their GPs and medical services less. Any way of saving the NHS money is welcome.
  I hope that the Minister will appreciate that it is of the utmost importance to assist Cruse to meet its funding challenges. Many elderly people have mobility problems, so it needs to expand its capacity for home visits. Above all, there is the national Cruse helpline, which will need core funding and assistance.

  407
  There is a difficulty that is becoming progressively more evident. I suspect that the Minister is already aware of it. I spoke this morning to Marjorie Wallace of Saneline who, like the supporters of Childline and the Samaritans, believes that the establishment of NHS Direct has led to a strangulation of funding for the other national helplines.
  I appreciate the difficulty of Ministers funding all their pet projects, but if £14 million goes to NHS Direct while all the existing, highly professional and valued helplines wither, it will be seen to be an error of priorities.
  NHS Direct will undoubtedly take calls from those for whom bereavement, mental health or children's difficulties are the primary concern. I believe that NHS Direct will need and benefit from the experience and specialised expertise of those professional national helplines. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to re-examine that particular difficulty.
  The deeply moving funeral of the late Cardinal Hume was held only last Friday. Not very long ago, the nation suffered an enormous outburst of grief at the death of the late Diana, Princess of Wales. The emotion surrounding those two events—perhaps like the effect in "Four Weddings and a Funeral" of the reading of W. H. Auden's poem—are modern examples of occasions on which attention has been focused on death and bereavement. Nevertheless, the subject is all too rarely debated in the House.
  I believe that the Minister could raise the subject's profile, and increase not only the acceptability of seeking specialist help, but the availability of help in dealing with a specific crisis in family life. The Government's communication skills exceed all others, and I hope that the Minister will be able to help to identify Cruse as an organisation for which the Government have special regard.
  I have some specific questions. First, how can the Minister help Cruse to raise its profile, to ensure that people know about it without having to struggle to discover it? Secondly, has he visited the Cruse branch in his constituency or in any other constituency? Thirdly, what research is being done on bereavement care? Fourthly, what can the Government do to help Cruse to keep functioning for another 40 years? Fifthly, will there be more joined-up funding for Cruse from various Departments? Although I realise that it is not easy to have responsibility for millennium volunteers, lottery awards and health funding, we really should have a map and a navigator on the bereavement issue. Sixthly, how will the Government help Cruse to celebrate its 40 years of service? It is certainly hoped that the Minister will attend the party that Cruse hopes to hold for hon. Members—on 20 October, on the Terrace—not only to celebrate its success, but to discuss its plans for the future.
  Above all, in thanking the Minister for being here to reply to the debate and in welcoming the workings of the House, which enable us to continue this debate until 10 o'clock—I do not want to cut short the hon. Gentleman's remarks in any way—I ask him to join me in congratulating Cruse on 40 years of service and in commending its staff and volunteers for all their hard work and dedication to helping others.
  7.33 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey
  408
  (Mrs. Bottomley) on raising the subject of bereavement and drawing the House's attention to the outstanding service that Cruse provides. I should also like to congratulate her on her recent appointment as a patron of Cruse. The House will be very well aware of her long-standing interest in mental health issues.
  The right hon. Lady has asked me some specific questions, and I certainly want to answer them in my speech. However, she started her speech by saying that bereavement is a taboo subject, and she was right about that. Nevertheless, bereavement is something that we shall all experience.
  Bereavement might be coupled with feelings of guilt—to which the right hon. Lady referred—particularly if an elderly relative has died in residential care, for example. There may be difficulties for working-age adults, when a partner is left behind, not only in coping with their loss, but also perhaps with a young family. There may be trauma for younger children facing the death of a parent, or for parents facing the loss of their child.
  Our concern should extend beyond the effects of bereavement on family and friends. The attitudes of staff in the national health service and in various agencies are very important in helping families or loved ones to begin to come to terms with their sense of loss. It is therefore very important that staff working in both the NHS and social services are sensitive to the needs of the families of their patients. However, it is also important that they do not "medicalise" normal grief reactions.
  The care offered need not be specialist help: much of it is common sense. Staff need to keep relatives up to date about the condition of a critically ill family member, and support them when told of his or her death. People need practical information, such as guidance on necessary post-mortem procedures, on contacting funeral directors—to which the right hon. Lady referred—or on notifying friends or relatives of the death.
  The right hon. Lady rightly mentioned some of the wider issues in death and bereavement, not the least of which is the economic cost to the nation of bereavement, which some estimates place as high as £800 million annually.
  The right hon. Lady also rightly spoke extensively about the work of Cruse. I associate myself and all my colleagues in the Government with the very warm words of praise that she expressed about the work of Cruse, which is the major organisation in bereavement counselling. The healing process following a bereavement can take a very long time, and the bereavement counselling done by Cruse can play a big part in that process.
  In opening its doors to all bereaved people, Cruse bereavement care offers a free and confidential service to all those who need it. The trauma following bereavement can affect all ages and, without sensitive care, can often lead to other problems. I pay tribute, as the right hon. Lady did, to Cruse's work.
  I have already mentioned young people coming face to face with death. Ensuring the mental health of children and adolescents is a matter of key importance for us all and is among the Government's national priorities for both health and social services in the next three years. It is an important issue, as mental health problems in young people not only hinder their own life opportunities but create distress for their families, obstacles for teachers, and tensions in the wider community. We are therefore

  409
  dedicating new resources—£84 million in the next three years—to supporting the development of effective child and adolescent mental health services.
  Cruse is certainly to be congratulated on the introduction, in March 1998, of a new national "Youth Line" service to help bereaved children and young people to come to terms with their loss. The telephone helpline gives young people the opportunity to talk to a trained counsellor about their loss, to explain in confidence the particular difficulties they are facing, and to receive advice on how to cope.
  Much can be achieved in promoting the mental health of young people by helping them to cope with major life events and experiences, such as bereavement and parental discord and divorce. The death of a parent is a particularly well-recognised risk factor in the development of emotional and behavioural problems. In such times of distress, young people may welcome the opportunity to talk things over with someone outside the family circle who is knowledgeable, sympathetic and easy to approach. Voluntary groups have traditionally played a very significant role in providing information, advice and counselling in an informal and user-friendly way. Cruse is already providing precisely that type of service.
  The Government recognise the vital role that Cruse plays in offering a free nationwide service—to a consistently high standard—of counselling, information and social support to anyone who has been bereaved. It also offers training, support, information and publications to those who work in caring for bereaved people, and increases public awareness of the needs of the bereaved through education and information services. That is why we have supported Cruse with section 64 grants for several years. For example, we gave Cruse core finding for five years, until last year, amounting to over £500,000, and are providing grants for four of its projects, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Lady.
  The first project is development of a regional support network, which aims to develop and maintain Cruse's network of local branches by developing the role of its regional officers. The officers provide support and training for Cruse volunteers and help to maintain quality standards and monitor all aspects of work of local Cruse branches. Funding for the project is £50,000 per annum for three years, which started in 1997.
  The second project, on the development of regional support for bereaved people and Cruse volunteers, aims to provide support in training and management for Cruse volunteers in central and northern England, to ensure proper communication between their headquarters and support groups and to develop and maintain a Cruse branch network in those areas. The project also helps develop new branches of Cruse in those areas. We are funding this project for three years from 1998–99 with £40,000 for each year.
  In addition to that support, we are helping the equal opportunities officer project, which seeks to promote good and consistent equal opportunities practice among Cruse branches. The project grew out of a recognition that Cruse needed to broaden accessibility to the services that it provides to clients and potential volunteers from all sectors of the community. We gave this project £35,000 in 1997–98, £32,000 in 1998–99 and £35,000 in this financial year.
  410
  Finally, the quality care in bereavement project is designed to ensure that all clients of Cruse receive the best possible care, support and information. The project defines what is essential for quality care and ensures that the mechanisms to deliver it are in place. The Department began funding this project this year and will continue to do so until 2001–02, with £60,000 for each year.
  In answer to a question from the right hon. Lady, let me say that the Department is not funding any specific research into bereavement care at present. However, I should be happy to discuss with Cruse representatives any ideas that they might have in that regard.
  In total, our financial help for Cruse this year amounts to nearly £200,000. That is an indication of how well we regard the organisation and how strongly we support its aims. As the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey knows, I have already arranged to meet Cruse's director, Dr. Carole Easton, next week. I look forward to that meeting so that she can tell me at first hand of the work of her organisation. We will also discuss how the Government might be able to help with plans to develop a national telephone helpline as part of Cruse's millennium project. The right hon. Lady asked specifically about that, and I can confirm that we shall be happy to discuss any detailed proposals that Cruse might want to put to us.
  My Department has been a supporter of a number of voluntary organisations that run helplines. They include Sane, the Samaritans and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. We have been doing some work with the organisations to see how they can best be linked to the NHS Direct helpline. That helpline may be best placed to offer general advice about local service provision, with the voluntary organisations able to offer specialist advice on mental health issues, as appropriate.
  Again, the right hon. Lady drew my attention to the work of the Saneline service, and I want to place on record my appreciation of, and admiration for, what that service provides. We certainly do not want that service to wither on the vine. In the near future, I hope to be able to discuss with Sane its concerns in more detail.
  Indeed, this Government recognise fully the vital role that voluntary organisations such as Cruse play in helping people cope with their grieving and the loss of a loved one. Apart from Cruse, we are also funding three other organisations that deal with bereavement to the tune of some £90,000 in the current financial year. People suffering a loss often turn to the voluntary sector first, because it is seen as user friendly and perhaps more understanding of the difficulties that they face, and because it is regarded as having a sympathetic ear.
  It is important for us all to remember and recognise the important role played by the wider voluntary organisations in promoting mental health and meeting the needs of the mentally ill. Much of the innovation takes place in that sector and we must make sure that we learn from their experiences. We are supporting some 64 voluntary organisations working in mental health with some £4.2 million of funding this year. That is a record sum.
  We should also keep in mind that mental health problems are as common as asthma. Mental health is not, therefore, a marginal issue for the NHS or for social services. Improving the mental health of our country is one of the new national priorities for health and social services.

  411
  In recognition of that, we have launched the biggest investment and reform programme for mental health since the inception of the NHS 50 years ago. An extra £700 million will be invested in improving mental health services over the next three years. To underpin that investment, last December, we published our strategy document on modernising mental health services, which sets out the direction of travel for the national service framework for mental health.
  That strategy will address unacceptable variations in services across England. It will set national standards for both health and social care, and establish performance indicators to measure the progress made by services, ensuring that they all meet basic criteria. It will address the whole range of mental health service provision, from primary care—where the majority of mental health problems can be managed—to specialist mental health services
  Many, indeed most, of those who have suffered a recent bereavement will be in contact with their general practitioner or with other primary care health professionals. Older people may make that contact for their own health needs, and a general practice or district nurse may be in a prime position to identify their grief and the effects of bereavement. For others, the GP and others in the primary care team will have cared for their dying relative: either way, primary care staff have a unique role.
  I am very conscious of the need for a primary care work force able to deliver consistent, good-quality, primary mental health care to people who have been bereaved and who, as a result, are often depressed and vulnerable in
  412
  both their physical and mental health. Many primary care teams do just that, but we know that depression may often be missed, especially when concurrent with other physical health problems.
  I and my colleagues in the Department want the national health service to ensure that people who are bereaved and who present to their GP are properly assessed for their mental health needs and offered effective help and treatment, with referral to specialist services where appropriate. Primary care teams, along with specialist mental health services and social care agencies, should agree and implement protocols to that end.
  We also want to make sure that grieving patients receive adequate information about the process of grief, their depression, and its management. Finally, we want to make available adequate information about the local voluntary agencies and self-help groups, such as Cruse, that can offer people expertise and services complementary to those of the NHS.
  I therefore reassure the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey that we are continuing to support Cruse and that we value highly the service that it provides to our fellow citizens. I join with her in congratulating Cruse and all its staff and volunteers on their excellent work in this difficult but very important area. I also join with her in hoping and expecting that Cruse will continue that tradition for another 40 years.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eight o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role his Department is playing in the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention. [89515]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My Department is playing a full part in meeting the UK's obligations under the Convention. Since the convention's entry into force in April 1997, the UK has received 28 routine verification inspections, of which 19 have been to defence or former defence facilities in the UK. All have been conducted successfully by the international Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, who oversee the treaty. Earlier this month, we held the latest in a series of successful exercises to simulate an incoming challenge inspection (which could be requested by another State Party) to a defence facility in the UK, in which inspectors and observers from the OPCW and overseas countries participated.

  I am pleased to report that Ambassador Bustani, Director General of the OPCW, announced yesterday that CBD Porton Down has achieved the status of Designated Laboratory under the CWC, following its success in a series of demanding proficiency tests. This means that Porton is internationally recognised as competent to carry out analysis of chemical samples to the highest levels of accuracy. Such samples could be taken during routine or challenge inspections, including in cases of the alleged use of chemical weapons. Porton is one of only 12 laboratories worldwide to achieve this status.

  Yesterday's announcement confirms both the world class scientific and technical excellence of Porton and the UK's full commitment to ridding the world of chemical weapons.

  Meteorological Office, Newcastle
  Mr.Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Meteorological Office in Newcastle; and if he will make a statement. [88280]

  Mr.Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Eric Martlew, dated 30 June 1999:
  I am replying to your question to The Secretary of State for Defence about Newcastle weather centre. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Met. Office.
  Following a comprehensive review of our forecasting processes, we recently announced plans to rationalise our national network of weather centres. The opportunities offered by improved technology will allow us to make greater use of automation in the production of weather forecasts and concentrate our activities at fewer locations,
  158
  thereby maintaining the quality of the services we offer at a much reduced cost. As a result, we plan to close 5 weather centres over the next 2½ years, including Newcastle by the end of 2001.
  I am confident that the accuracy of forecasts will remain as high as ever in the Newcastle area, and indeed improve as meteorology continues to advance. In particular, we aim to provide a better service to the public through closer working relationships with the BBC regions. We will also continue to collect observational data locally. Knowledge of local geography and meteorological conditions will always be important, but the latest advances in technology together with improved communications, will enable us to prepare and deliver forecasts remotely, more cost-effectively.
  I can assure you that we remain wholly committed to our primary aim of providing our customers, now and in the future, with the range of services they require, in a timely and effective manner, at a price they can afford.

  Service Children's Education
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure(a) parity of standards and (b) equality of opportunity between Service Children's Education and local authority provision in the UK. [88361]

  Mr.Spellar
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: Service Children's Education was established as a Defence Agency specifically to provide an education service to the children of Service and MOD personnel serving overseas, that conforms, as far as possible, to the scope and standards required by the Education Acts in England and Wales. Key Targets are set annually and those for 1999 were announced in the House on 9 June 1999, Official Report, column 329. Performance against Key Targets is reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts which are laid before the House each year prior to the summer recess. To date, the Agency's performance has been slightly ahead of the UK LEA average.

  The Agency's ownership is delegated by the Secretary of State for Defence to the Adjutant General, who is assisted in this task by an Owner's Advisory Board, the membership of which includes senior representatives from the DfEE, Ofsted, and Wiltshire LEA. All the Agency's teachers are UK qualified and all the Agency's schools are subject to regular inspections by Ofsted. The Agency is implementing all the Government's latest education initiatives, in particular the literacy and numeracy strategies, in its schools worldwide. It has also successfully introduced the provision of free nursery education for 4 year olds in 48 nursery and pre-school locations worldwide.

  Parents have the right to express a preference in their choice of SCE school, although there is clearly less opportunity for choice in the more isolated locations. Although the Agency does try to meet Special Education Needs in its schools, it is not always possible to accommodate children with certain, more specialised needs especially in those areas lacking appropriate inter-agency support.

  We have also taken action, through the Families Task Force, to ensure that local education authorities are sensitive to the position of Service children returning from abroad. There is now specific guidance on this point in the DfEE Code of Practice on Schools Admission Policy.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, under the public-private partnership proposals
  159
  for DERA, that organisation will be deemed to carry the full risk of bankruptcy for the purpose of being able to borrow freely in the private capital market. [87372]

  Mr.Spellar
  No decisions have been made on the form of a PPP for DERA. However, regardless of the precise form of PPP, the Government would wish to ensure that it had rights to retain access to any strategic capabilities for use only in extreme circumstances, such as bankruptcy.

  Millennium Compliance (Russia)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of cooperation with Russia over year 2000 compliance. [87654]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD officials took part in discussions with Russia on the Millennium compliance problem under the auspices of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council prior to the commencement of the air campaign in the Balkans, when Russia suspended formal cooperation on defence issues. In April, a technical expert from the MOD attended a G8 Y2K meeting in Moscow. The possibility of trilateral talks between the UK, the US and Russia is being pursued.

  Mutual Defence Agreement (USA)
  Mr.Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the number of personnel currently working in the United States under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement, (b) which US facility they are working in and (c) their purpose for being there. [88136]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are four UK officials serving in the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement (MDA). All are located in the British Embassy, Washington, DC. Their duties are to facilitate the conduct of bilateral business within the provisions of the MDA. In addition, there are three staff seconded from AWE Aldermaston to the US to assist with the technical development of facilities of mutual interest. Currently, two are stationed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits of UK personnel to the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement have occurred in the last 12 months. [88138]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999, a total of 235 visits to the US, involving one or more individuals, took place under the auspices of the 1958 UK/US Mutual Defence Agreement.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many EIVRs have been generated as a result of exchanges of information under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement in each of the last five years; and if he will place unclassified versions in the Library. [88139]

  Mr. Spellar
  Two Exchanges of Information by Visit and Report, EIVRs, have occurred within the last five years. One, on the subject of Test Monitoring, was generated in 1997 and first met in 1998. The most recent, on matters concerned with the future contract to manage the Atomic Weapons Establishment, was both created and met in 1998. The details of such exchanges are invariably classified and are withheld under the terms of Exemption 160
  Category 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations. Accordingly, no unclassified version is, or will be, available.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many French personnel have visited AWE Aldermaston in the last 12 months. [88140]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999, a total of 82 French personnel visited AWE Aldermaston.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits of US personnel to AWE Aldermaston have occurred in the last 12 months. [88137]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the period 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999, a total of 110 visits to AWE Aldermaston by US personnel, involving one or more individuals, took place.

  Tanks (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many tanks were(a) destroyed and (b) significantly damaged during the military action against Yugoslavia. [88079]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 24 June 1999]: Now that KFOR troops have deployed into Kosovo, a fuller assessment of the damage inflicted on Yugoslav forces is under way. This will take some time to complete. But the measure of the campaign's success lies in the fact that it resulted in the withdrawal of Milosevic's troops from Kosovo, the entry of KFOR and the return of the refugees.

  Controlled Substances (Emissions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the letter of 3 October 1998, D/MIN/(DP)(TG)/3521/98M, on atmospheric pollution, what collaborative research and development programmes aimed at identifying further alternatives to ozone-depleting substances in the applications where they are still necessary have been carried out in the last nine months; and what reduction has taken place in controlled substances where acceptable alternatives are available. [87386]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: In my response to the hon. Member's earlier question on this subject on 18 January 1999, Official Report, columns 312–13, I reported on the continuing progress made by the MOD in reducing its use of ozone depleting substances.

  Since the beginning of the year, a number of CFC and halon systems have been converted to alternative substances. The Royal Navy has completed the conversion or replacement of refrigeration plant on HMS Fearless, HMS Illustrious, HMS Leeds Castle, HMS Sultan, HMS Lancaster and RFA Black Rover. Modification kits have been procured for conversion of refrigeration plants on HMS Spartan, HMS Torbay and HMS Trenchant, and for a chilled water plant on HMS Spartan. Installation of a new chilled water plant has started on HMS Torbay. Action has been taken to procure the kits for conversion of

  161
  refrigeration plants on the Type 23 frigates. The Army has completed trials of alternatives to halon fire extinguishants for use in in-service armoured vehicle engine compartments and an acceptable fire extinguishant has been identified. A programme of work to convert these systems is now being drawn up. Work to convert CFC environment cooling systems in armoured vehicles has also started. The Defence Procurement Agency has completed the majority of its trials of alternative refrigerants in equipment for which it is responsible and the final report on the conversion of the Challenger 2 engine fire protection systems is expected during July. The Royal Air Force has completed the conversion of refrigerators on all but two of the E3 Sentry aircraft; these remaining aircraft will be modified as soon as operational commitments allow. In a number of cases, equipment that used ozone-depleting substances has been decommissioned as surplus to requirements. At DERA Chertsey, for example, this has reduced the installed quantity of CFC refrigerants by approximately 230 tonnes.

  The use of CFC refrigerants will be necessary until conversion programmes can be completed or, where conversion is not technically and economically feasible, until equipment is removed from service. For halon systems which protect, amongst others, existing aircraft, ship machinery spaces and armoured vehicle crew compartments, acceptable alternatives have not been identified, despite considerable international effort. The MOD Corporate Research Programme is funding a study by DERA into alternative fire extinguishants for use in normally occupied enclosed spaces. The study has identified two classes of material with promising fire extinguishing properties. These are the tropodegradable bromoalkenes and a range of phosphorus-containing compounds. The aim is to identify one or more chemicals with good performance and acceptable toxicological and environmental characteristics. This work is being undertaken in close collaboration with the US Advanced Agent Working Group and the US Department of Defence's Next Generation Fire Suppression Technology Program. The Royal Navy continues its sponsorship of research into water mist technologies for potential use in fire protection in new warships. The work has demonstrated that low pressure fine water spray systems with certain additives can give a very effective performance and this work will be validated with real-scale tests over the next 18 months. Close contact is being maintained with the US Navy and US Coast Guard who are also developing water-based technologies for use in future ships.

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to market test services previously supplied to it by the Security Facilities Executive. [87775]

  Mr. Spellar
  SAFE, now the Security Facilities Division of the Cabinet Office, continues to supply specialist security advice and services. The MOD has not market tested these services.

  France (Stockpile Programme)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the broad areas of assistance that have been provided to date to France to aid their stockpile stewardship programme. [88141]

  Mr. Spellar
  The MOD continues to maintain contacts with France on a range of technical and scientific issues relating to nuclear weapons. I am withholding more specific information under the terms of Exemption Category I of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to defence, security and international relations.

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88484]

  Mr. Spellar
  Ministry of Defence officials have attended meetings of POLARM, an ad hoc EU working party on European armaments policy, on four occasions in the last 12 months.

  Aldermaston Health and Safety at Work Committee
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place copies of the minutes of the nine meetings of the Aldermaston Health and Safety at Work Committee in the Library. [89018]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have arranged for this to be done.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Rover
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the new BMW-Rover deal on United Kingdom suppliers to the company. [88501]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]: The new R30 model this investment secures comes into production in 2003. Rover have therefore yet to open discussions with suppliers. The action taken by the Government to secure the future of Longbridge will provide opportunities for UK suppliers which otherwise would not have been available.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the conditions he has set for the Government investment in Rover, Longbridge. [88503]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 June 1999]The exact conditions of the aid package to Rover are commercially confidential.

  Small Business Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for the Small Business Service; and if he will make a statement. [89517]
  163
  Mr. Byers
  The Government are planning to set up a Small Business Service with three main tasks: to act as a voice for small businesses at the heart of Government; to simplify and improve the quality and coherence of Government support for small businesses; to help small firms deal with regulation and ensure small firms' interests are properly considered in future regulation.

  We want to ensure that opportunities for enterprise are open to all; and to create an environment where more entrepreneurs emerge and are successful.

  The Small Business Service will be headed by a Chief Executive who will report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and have direct access to Ministers across Government. He or she will have a substantial and wide-ranging role, including:
  a right to be consulted on all new Government legislation presented to Parliament in Westminster that is likely to affect small businesses; and a right to be consulted on all new proposals for business support likely to affect small business in England;
  representing the interests and concerns of small firms and ensuring they are taken into account by Government;
  responsibility for ensuring that all Government services directed primarily or mainly to small businesses-led are accessible through Small Business Service local outlets, thus taking forward the Business Link network;
  responsibility for ensuring that the delivery of business support services reflects local priorities so that it is business-led and Government-backed. In addition, local delivery arrangements will be shaped by the overall economic strategies developed by the Regional Development Agencies.

  I am today launching a public consultation on the Small Business Service, which includes a range of proposals in addition to the role and responsibilities of the Chief Executive.

  One particular proposal is to set up the Small Business Service as a Next Steps Agency within the Department of Trade and Industry as from April 2000.

  Other key proposals include:
  creating an independent advisory body—the "Enterprise Council" to advise the Chief Executive and report regularly to Ministers on matters of concern to small business;
  making the Small Business Service responsible for managing the Government's Enterprise Fund;
  making the Small Business Service responsible for providing practical help with payroll administration;
  giving the Small Business Service responsibility for providing co-ordinated information for small firms on their regulatory obligations and for developing ways to work with regulators so as to ensure that they provide information and guidance material tailored to the needs of small businesses.

  Copies of the consultation document and a summary leaflet with the main proposals have been placed in the Library of the House. I am inviting comments on my proposals by 30 September.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish the report by the Director General of Fair Trading for 1998. [89518]
  164
  Dr. Howells
  The 25th annual report by the Director General of Fair Trading has been published today. It covers the period from 1 January 1998 to 31 December 1998. Copies of the report have been laid before Parliament.

  Interconnector (France)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the amount of electricity received via the interconnector with France in each of the last five years. [88205]

  Mr. Battle
  The following table shows the quantities of electricity imported from France in each of the last five years:

  GWh

  1994

  16,887

  1995

  16,306

  1996

  16,677

  1997

  16,558

  1998

  12,819

  These imports amounted to 3½ per cent. of United Kingdom electricity requirements in 1998.

  Mineworkers (Respiratory Diseases)
  Mr. HomeRobertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of compensation payments to former mineworkers affected by respiratory diseases in(a) Scotland, (b) Wales and (c) each of the English regions; how many claims are still outstanding; and when he expects the process to be completed. [87584]

  Mr. Battle
  As at 17 June 1999, IRISC, the Department's claim handling agent, have received some 71,500 claims from former miners and their dependants. These can be broken down into(a) Scotland—5,500; (b) Wales—20,500; and (c) North West—4,100; North East—7,700; North and West Yorkshire—4,700; South Yorkshire—14,100; East Midlands—10,100; West Midlands—3,400; South—1,200; Overseas—200.

  The contract for a national programme of spirometry testing for all respiratory disease claimants has been awarded to Healthcall Services Ltd. Healthcall have established testing centres in Newport, Cardiff, Swansea, Newcastle, Sheffield, Nottingham, Leeds and Glasgow and will shortly be opening at least 17 more in other coalmining areas. The programme of spirometry will enable us to make further interim payments beyond the £25 million already offered and, in some cases, full and final offers to those who may not wish to pursue their claim further.

  Discussions have taken place with Scottish solicitors and similar handling arrangements to those in England and Wales are close to being agreed to compensate ex-miners in Scotland.

  Environmental Measures
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the emission savings that could be achieved(a) by an additional

  165
  5 per cent. tax on domestic energy consumption and (b) by the introduction of the climate change levy; and if he will make a statement. [88318]

  Mr. Battle
  For social policy reasons, the Government have no intention of introducing new taxes on domestic consumption of fuel and power. The climate change levy will encourage energy efficiency in business and is expected to save around 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010.

  Electricity Supply Interruptions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take in response to the report on Electricity Supply Interruptions. [88308]

  Mr. Battle
  While we recognise that security of supply is of paramount importance even in open markets, ensuring this is a matter for the Director General of Electricity Supply. The report, which he commissioned, followed the disruption to electricity supplies as a result of gale force winds on 26 December 1998. The report contains a number of recommendations concerning electricity distribution network performance, restoration of supplies, communications with customers and payments to customers under Standards of Performance Regulations.

  Comments on the full list of recommendations, together with suggestions for other areas where further investigation is merited, were invited, and the period for those comments ends on 25 June. Any feedback will be used to inform the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets' continuing review of the companies' performance.

  Aero Engine Manufacturers (US)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the(a) direct and (b) indirect support given by the United States Government to United States aero engine manufacturers. [88122]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is aware of the substantial support the United States Government provide to their aero engine manufacturers, mainly through various NASA and Department of Defence programmes, while noting that the US economy is six times that of the UK.

  The key US civil programmes which have supported propulsion research and development include NASA's programmes on High Speed Civil Transport; Advanced Subsonic Technologies; and Advanced General Aviation Transport Experiment.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on legally-binding targets for renewables in the EU; and if he will make a statement. [86859]

  Mr. Battle
  I have received letters from Greenpeace, RSPB and Climate Network Europe.

  The adoption of targets can assist in promoting the greater use of renewable energy. In the UK, we are working towards a target of 10 per cent. electricity from renewables as soon as possible. We hope to achieve this by 2010. Other member states have set their own targets.
  166
  Support schemes for renewables should be designed to operate in the most cost-effective way possible. This will require the introduction, in due course, of a system which promotes competition between renewables providers, in order to ensure that costs are driven down as far as is practicable. I want to see renewables come in from the margins into the mainstream, and I believe that competition-based schemes are the right way we will achieve this.

  I remain committed to the promotion of renewables. I pressed the case at the Energy Council on 11 May, called for action by the Commission, and sought to persuade all member states to implement national strategies to increase significantly the contribution of renewables to Europe's energy supply.

  Aerospace Industry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussion he has had with(a) BAe and (b) other UK aerospace companies about the restructuring of the industry; and if he will make a statement. [88873]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: I and officials in my Department maintain regular contact with BAe and other UK aerospace companies about restructuring and other strategic issues facing the industry. When I attended the ministerial meeting of Airbus partners and the Paris Air Show recently, I was able to meet a wide range of industry's key players for this purpose.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to assist and co-ordinate efforts by British companies in reconstruction projects in Kosovo and the neighbouring countries. [88596]

  Mr. Battle
  At the Secretary of State's initiative, the Department has already established a joint Government private sector Taskforce to promote and co-ordinate the UK's response to the reconstruction arising in Kosovo; its prime objective is to ensure that the UK is co-ordinated to play their role in the rebuilding process. The Taskforce, which has already met twice, is chaired by Nigel Thompson of Ove Amp; the other private sector representatives on the Taskforce are from: AMEC, Mott MacDonald, Kennedy Construction, Taylor Woodrow, Crown Agents, British Consultants Bureau and the Confederation of British Industry.

  All the private sector members of the Taskforce are well aware that they are on it as representatives of the UK business community generally, not their own companies. As all the companies represented on the Taskforce have seats on national or international bodies covering their sector interests, this is second nature to them. These industry bodies are the channels through which the messages from the Taskforce are being disseminated to the business community more generally. Indeed, to reinforce the message that the Taskforce is representing the interests of all UK companies, the minutes of its meetings are circulated freely to all interested parties.
  167
  Although in existence for only a very short time, the Taskforce is already making good progress. I am leading a group of six companies on a visit to Kosovo between 28 and 29 June to assess the initial likely reconstruction opportunities, and how best UK companies can position themselves so that they are able to play their role in the rebuilding of Kosovo. A post-mission conference, organised by my Department, is being held on 1 July so that the findings of the visit can be disseminated more widely to UK companies.

  Initially, the work of the Taskforce will concentrate on Kosovo; but in due course it is hoped that it will also be able to focus on the wider region.

  Vibration White Finger
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the timetable for the compensation payments awarded by the High Court to be paid to the former miners diagnosed with Vibration White Finger; and how many people(a) are eligible for payments, (b) are awaiting payments and (c) have received payment in full. [87984]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 24 June 1999]: The Department proposes to settle the bulk of compensation payments awarded by the High Court to former miners diagnosed with Vibration White Finger (VWF) as soon as practically possible, the majority being settled by March 2001.

  (a) To date the Department has received some 42,000 claims.

  (b) As at 20 June 1999 there were 37,222 claims outstanding at IRISC, the Department's claim handling agents. However, it is difficult to give an accurate total of claimants awaiting payment until medical evidence has been obtained and an assessment of liability in each of these cases has been completed.

  (c) As at 20 June 1999 2,748 claimants have received payments in full.

  We have awarded the contract for the delivery of the medical assessments to the SEMA Group and are hopeful that significant offers of full and final payments will start flowing in the late summer.

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of benefit payments made to pensioners were paid by automated credit transfer in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will provide a comparable figure for the payment of benefits by automated credit transfer to non-pensioners. [88109]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 24 June 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  In the year ending 31 March 1999, 14.5 per cent. of all Retirement Pension and Widows Pension payments were made by automated credit transfer (ACT). The percentage of Retirement Pension and Widows Pension clients receiving payment by ACT as at 31 May 1999 was 43 per cent.

  In the year ending 31 March 1999, 15 per cent. of all benefit payments made to clients in receipt of benefits other than Retirement Pension and Widows Pension were
  168
  paid by ACT. The percentage of clients receiving benefits other than Retirement Pension and Widows Pension by ACT as at 31 May 1999 was 28 per cent.

  The reason for the difference between the percentage of payments made by ACT and the percentage of clients being paid by ACT is that, in general terms, clients who are paid by ACT receive payments less frequently than those clients paid by order book or girocheque.

  Supermarkets (Local Production)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to seek means of encouraging supermarket companies to facilitate the sale of goods produced within the vicinity of their outlets; and if he will make a statement. [87996]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  The sourcing of supplies in supermarkets is a matter for the commercial judgment of retailers rather than Government. "Food from Britain" are working with the multiple retailers to encourage level sourcing and several major supermarket chains are now showing more interest in regional products.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  FCO Establishment (Morwenstow)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) UK personnel and (b) US personnel are based at his Department's establishment at Morwenstow, Cornwall; and what is the rank of the most senior (i) UK officer and (ii) US officer. [88637]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 22 June 1999, Official Report, column 360. It is Government policy not to provide details about the staffing and organisation of the intelligence services. This information is withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Panel 2000
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 14 June 1999,Official Report, column 31, if he will list the detailed steps (i) taken, (ii) under consideration and (iii) rejected on the recommendations from Panel 2000. [88601]

  Mr. Hoon
  All the recommendations in the Panel 2000 Consultation Document have been accepted following a broad welcome during the consultation process. At its meeting on 17 December the Panel gave priority to the recommendations on one stop shops, showcasing, a campaign in Germany in 2000, and the opportunities offered by Millennium activities to promote Britain abroad. Progress has been made in all of these areas as well as on implementation of other recommendations. We remain engaged with individual Panel members about further ways of enhancing how Britain is perceived. The full Panel will meet in the second half of this year to assess progress.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is offering to(a) the Yugoslav authorities and (b) the Kosovar refugees and returnees to provide post-trauma counselling to children affected by the war. [88609]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The UK will play its part in international efforts to meet real humanitarian needs within Serbia. But we expect to provide assistance through intermediaries such as the UN agencies and non-governmental organisations, rather than directly to the Yugoslav authorities.

  We are supporting the provision of psycho-social assistance to Kosovar refugee children in neighbouring countries. Part of our contribution of £2.25 million to United Nations Children's Fund's (UNICEF) regional programme will support help for traumatised children. We are also funding training for care providers in Macedonia through the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.

  Through our Humanitarian Assistance Field Office in Pristina, we will continue to identify further areas of support in accordance with the needs of the returning refugees and the displaced people of Kosovo.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment is being made of the environmental effects of NATO's military action in Yugoslavia; and if she will place in the Library copies of the work done in this area by the United Nations Environment Programme. [88653]

  Mr. Foulkes
  A team of environmental experts from the UN-sponsored Balkans Task Force on the Environment and Human Settlement will carry out a full scale assessment of the environmental impact of the conflict on the region. They paid a preliminary visit to Serbia and Montenegro earlier this month.

  Reports of work already done in this area are available on the internet at http"//www.grid.unep.ch/btf, as will that of the full-scale assessment mission when it is available. We will arrange to place a copy of the full-scale report in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he intends to bring forward to clarify planning procedures where the planning authority has a possible conflict of interest over a piece of land. [88176]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The procedures to be followed when a local authority has an interest in land for which a planning application is made are set out in the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992, with guidance contained in DOE Circular 19/92. The general principle 170
  underlying these Regulations is that local authorities must make planning applications in the same way as any other person applying for planning permission. The proposals must be advertised in the usual manner. However, applications may not be determined by a committee or officer responsible for the management of the land or buildings concerned. If it is intended to approve such a proposal, and it is not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area, the application must be notified to the Secretary of State so that he can decide whether it should be "called in" for his own determination. We have no evidence to suggest that the procedures are unclear.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what checks he makes on the administrative overheads of housing associations; [88178]

  (2) what checks he undertakes of the salaries paid to the chief executives and other senior officers of housing associations. [88179]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Corporation, sponsored by my Department, is responsible for regulating the activities of housing associations, now known as Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). RSLs are independent bodies, and members of their governing bodies serve in a voluntary capacity. The setting of salaries for chief executives and other senior executives is a matter for each RSL' s board.

  The Housing Corporation measures RSLs' performance annually against performance standards which cover their propriety, probity, financial management and accountability. It requires RSLs to publish in their annual report and accounts details of the remuneration of any executive earning more than £40,000 per annum. As part of its performance review process, the Corporation assesses RSLs' accounts and other financial information and publishes performance indicators for England's 371 largest RSLs. These include specific indicators on management and maintenance costs and on staffing costs.

  The Corporation has also put in place a Best Value framework for RSLs which expects them to hold down and reduce their running costs (including salaries) whilst improving the quality of services provided to their residents.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what monitoring he undertakes where housing previously under the control of a local authority has been transferred to a housing association, with particular reference to(a) rent levels, (b) repairs, (c) new building and (d) specialist provision. [88180]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Where local authority housing has been transferred to a registered social landlord, the Housing Corporation is responsible for monitoring the performance of the new landlord.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with housing associations about rent levels during the last year. [88181]
  171
  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has discussed rent levels with the National Housing Federation, the representative body for registered social landlords (RSLs), on several occasions. We also meet representatives of individual RSLs from time to time, when rents may be one of the issues under discussion.

  Rail Crossing, Rovie
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the safety of the rail crossing at Rovie, Rogart, Sutherland; and what response he has made. [89088]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Secretary of State has recently received an application from Railtrack for an Order under the Level Crossing Act 1983 to authorise the most appropriate safety measures for the level crossing at Rovie. Railtrack has written to the Highland Council giving them two months to make any representations on Railtrack's proposals to the Secretary of State. My Department has also received a copy of a letter written by the Highland Councillor for the area to the Secretary of State for Scotland commenting on safety at this level crossing. In deciding the most appropriate safety measures for this crossing the Secretary of State will also take advice from the Health and Safety Executive.

  Household Projections (Hampshire)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 28 June 1999,Official Report, column 26, on new households in Hampshire, what assessment he has made of the reasons for the increase in the number of projected households since the 1992-based household projection. [89255]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Sawford) on 29 March 1999,Official Report, columns 470–74.

  Health and Safety Appraisal
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the strategic appraisal of Health and Safety which he announced on 30 March. [89575]

  Mr. Meacher
  I will be launching a public consultation document entitled "Revitalising Health and Safety" tomorrow, jointly with the Health and Safety Commission. Copies will be placed in the House Libraries. This is an important initiative aimed at injecting new impetus into the health and safety agenda. Everyone concerned with health and safety is encouraged to respond to this consultation.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the Driving Standards Agency's written submission to the Minister recommending the closure of 172
  a Driving Test Centre is not made publicly available; and if he will make it his policy to publish such submissions in future. [86257]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The reasons why a test centre might be closed are put into the public domain as part of public consultation about the issue. To protect the integrity of decision-making, we have no plans to publish policy advice from officials to Ministers. This is in accordance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, exemption number 2-internal discussions and advice.

  Speed Policy
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what organisations have been or will be invited to take part in the speed policy review; and what steps are being taken by his Department to ensure maximum involvement by professional organisations in the speed policy review process. [86349]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The full list of those who will be invited to take part has yet to be finalised, but it will include professional organisations suggested by the relevant divisions in DETR and other Government Departments.

  Officials have already met the Automobile Association, Royal Automobile Club, County Surveyors' Society, Association of Chief Police Officers, the groups represented by the Slower Speeds Initiative.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make available a speed policy document for consultation. [86350]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is proposed to have a consultation document available for consideration towards the end of July.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the speed policy review announced in the white paper, A New Deal For Transport. [86348]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave our hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) on 9 June 1999,Official Report, columns 319–20.

  Vehicle Mileage
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average annual mileage travelled per road vehicle(a) in the latest year for which figures are available, and (b) (i) five years, (ii) 10 years and (iii) 20 years before that year. [87013]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The figures are given in the table. The earliest date from which figures for vehicle numbers by body type is available is 1982.
  173

  Average annual distance travelled by vehicle type in thousand kilometers

  Year

  Cars and taxis

  Motor-cycles, etc

  Buses and coaches

  Light vans

  Goods vehicles

  1982

  14

  4

  49

  18

  32

  1988

  16

  4

  57

  20

  41

  1993

  15

  4

  62

  20

  43

  1998

  16

  3

  63

  23

  48

  Traffic estimates are based on observations of traffic flows, matched with road length figures. Vehicle licence data are provided by DVLA.

  Average mileage for each type of vehicle is derived by dividing the total annual mileage by the estimated number of vehicles of that type.

  Fuel Tax Escalator
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the environmental effects of the fuel tax escalator; and if he will make a statement. [87570]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government regularly undertake assessments of the environmental impact of the fuel duty escalator, to inform the development of transport and environment policies. The latest estimate of the carbon savings from the escalator, published in the consultation document for the UK Climate Change Programme, stated that the escalator between 1996 and 2002 is expected to save 2–5 million tonnes of carbon in 2010. The impact of the escalator on air quality is also kept under review.

  Mother Teresa's Funeral
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people travelled with him to Mother Teresa's funeral, excluding members of the Royal Family and their private staff. [88100]

  Mr. Prescott
  I represented my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Mother Teresa's funeral, and was accompanied by two members of my staff. Because of the short notice available to make the arrangements, and the unavailability of scheduled flights, it was necessary to charter an aircraft for the journey to Calcutta. In order to ensure best value for money the flight was shared with five members of the Royal party.

  Wal-Mart
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many meetings Ministers in his Department have had with representatives of Wal-Mart; and what were the main subjects of discussion. [88099]

  Mr. Caborn
  Neither I nor any other Minister in the Department have met representatives of Wal-Mart.

  GM Organisms
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to use his power under Part VI of the Environmental 174
  Protection Act 1990 to vary existing genetically modified marketing consents issued thereunder to include a condition requiring post-release monitoring. [88159]

  .Mr. Meacher
  There are no plans to vary existing consents issued in compliance with Part C of Council Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Once a GM crop has Part C (marketing) consent under the Directive it applies across all member states. Individual member states cannot vary a consent unilaterally. Under the new arrangements agreed in the Environment Ministers' Council last December, all new applications for part C consent will have to include plans for post market monitoring. Government and industry, through SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative for Modified Agricultural Crops), have a voluntary agreement that for consents already granted or currently under consideration crops will be grown and managed in accordance with the SCIMAC Guidelines which include post-release monitoring.

  London Underground
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies into passenger levels on the London Underground have been commissioned by his Department since 1 May 1997. [88431]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground makes studies of both existing and future passenger demand on a regular basis. The results of these studies are reported to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies have been carried out into the practical effects of the closure of the London Underground Circle Line between Gloucester Road and High Street Kensington stations from 12 June to 15 August. [88430]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Before engineering works began between Gloucester Road and High Street Kensington, London Underground made a full Hazard and Operability study into the line closure and the proposed changes to train and station operations. This study forecast the impact on passenger flows across London's public transport system and also assessed the probable effect on congestion levels and waiting times.

  Graveyards
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the planning regulations relating to the sale of graveyards; and if he will make a statement. [88450]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no planning provisions which apply specifically to a proposed disposal of a graveyard, although a local authority may need a disposal consent in certain circumstances, for example to dispose of the land for less than the best consideration that can reasonably be obtained. A disused burial ground, which is no longer used for human interment, falls within the definition of open space for the purposes of local government and town and country planning powers. A local authority proposing to sell or otherwise dispose of or appropriate open space land must advertise the proposal and consider any objections. The disturbance of
  175
  buried human remains normally requires a licence from the Home Office or, in relation to consecrated ground, a Faculty from the Bishop. Planning permission would normally be required for the carrying out of any development of land. We have no plans to review the present planning controls relating to the sale of graveyards.

  Westminster Tube Station
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the construction work on Westminster tube station will be completed. [88444]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Underground expect to complete the construction work on Westminster tube station in late autumn this year.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list in respect of those properties which have been acquired in the past by his Department in relation to the Birmingham Northern Relief Road(a) those which he intends to dispose of because he no longer needs them in relation to the road and (b) the acquisition price of each such property and the price at which each such property has been placed on the market; [89119]

  (2) if he will list in respect of those properties which have been acquired in the past by his Department in relation to the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (a) those which have been disposed of by him because he considers he no longer needs them in relation to the road and (b) the acquisition price and the money received on disposal in relation to each such property. [89129]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Dr. Tony Wright, dated 30 June 1999:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Glenda Jackson, has asked me to reply to your recent questions about properties that have been bought and sold in relation to the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (BNRR).
  I am afraid I am unable to provide the information in the form that you have requested. To list properties and prices would make public the amounts that private individuals have received or paid. I am sure you agree that such information should remain confidential.
  The Agency has purchased 24 properties in connection with the BNRR that have since been sold. The total purchase price was £2.105m and the amount received on disposal of these same properties was £1.741m.
  A further 5 properties, purchased at a total cost of £415,250, have been identified as surplus to requirements. Two of these are under offer at a total price of £135,000. The remaining properties have yet to be valued. We expect other properties to be declared surplus as the scheme progresses.
  These figures relate to both the former publicly funded road and the privately financed Midland Expressway Ltd scheme. They include discretionary purchases (that is properties seriously affected by but not required for the road) as well as statutory blight purchases.

  Waste Strategy
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in developing a waste strategy for England and Wales. [89296]

  Mr. Meacher
  Consultation responses to "Less Waste: More Value" last year were overwhelmingly supportive of the vision set out in that document which we have now developed into a blueprint for a more sustainable, integrated waste management system for England and Wales.

  This blueprint is described in "A Way with Waste: A Draft Waste Strategy for England and Wales" which is published today for further public consultation. "A Way with Waste" makes clear that a step change is needed in the way we think about and manage our waste which applies equally to municipal and industrial waste. We need substantial increases to both recycling and energy recovery if we are to meet the challenges of sustainable development and of the European Directive on the landfilling of waste's stringent targets for diverting waste from landfill.

  We have therefore set two goals by 2010 of recovering 45 per cent. of municipal waste (by recycling, composting and incineration with energy or heat recovery) and of recycling or composting 30 per cent. of household waste. To do this we must meet, as soon as possible, the existing targets of 40 per cent. recovery and 25 per cent. recycling or composting. We aim to do this by 2005. Beyond 2010 we must do more. By 2015 we expect to recover value from two thirds of household waste, half of this by recycling or composting.

  We need to develop stronger markets for recyclate. The Government set up a Market Development Group to look at this and its report and recommendations are published for comment today alongside the draft strategy. Some of its recommendations are for Government and we will be addressing them with vigour, seeking further views as necessary. Some are for other bodies whom the Government calls on to address these proposals with same degree of energy.

  It will of course be for the National Assembly for Wales to decide how to take forward this draft strategy, and the responses to the consultation on it, to produce a final strategy for Wales.

  Tree Planting
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there will be specific mechanisms proposed in the Urban White Paper to encourage the planting of trees in urban areas. [88807]

  Mr. Meale
  The Urban White Paper will look at ways of improving the quality of life for people in our towns and cities. Urban greening, including the contribution of trees, will be an important part of this.

  The Government already acknowledge the important role of trees in urban regeneration by sponsoring a range of programmes which involve tree planting as part of a wider strategy to improve the urban environment. These include the Community Forest programme, the National Forest and others under the Single Regeneration Budget.
  177
  We also support the work of the National Urban Forestry Unit. They have shown that, by using simple, low-cost techniques urban forestry can help to improve the environment in a practical way and make trees a more significant feature of the urban landscape.

  Local Authority Finance
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department makes of previous spending patterns by individual local authorities in its calculations of total standard spending for that authority. [89023]

  Mr. Meale
  The formula for Standard Spending Assessments is built up from formulae relating to blocks of services. Those formulae are, in many cases, based on statistical analysis of the variations between authorities in spending on those services.

  Oil and Fat Waste
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 22 June 1999,Official Report, column 334, on oil and fat waste, what factors underlay his decision not to commission research. [89007]

  Mr. Meale
  There are statutory provisions to ensure that sewerage undertakers can monitor, control, restrict and deal with discharges into public sewers. The Department is not aware of any significant problems associated with these problems.

  Sports Clubs (Rate Relief)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the cost of allowing mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs. [88579]

  Mr. Meale
  The Central Council of Physical Recreation estimate that there are 150,000 voluntary sports clubs affiliated to the national governing bodies of sport in the United Kingdom. However, we do not hold centrally information on the number of clubs subject to non-domestic rates, their rateable values or their rates bills reflecting discretionary rate relief awarded by local authorities. Therefore, we cannot make a reasonable estimate of the cost of allowing mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  European Communities Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88469]

  The Attorney-General
  No representative of my Department has attended any European Community Working Group during the last 12 months

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Good Friday Agreement
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions she had in June with members of the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [87721]

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions she has had with members of the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [87728]

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions she has had with members of the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [87729]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have regular contact with representatives of the Irish Government concerning the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. I was in Dublin just a week ago with Ministers and, since Monday, I have been in constant contact in the talks in Belfast—including over breakfast this morning.

  Peace Process
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on international support for the peace process in Northern Ireland. [87722]

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on international support for the peace process in Northern Ireland. [87738]

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on international support for the peace process in Northern Ireland. [87740]

  Mr. Ingram
  International support, both economic and political, has been overwhelming. It is a generous sign of growing international confidence in the people of Northern Ireland and what they have achieved over the last decade.

  The Government will continue to work to seek the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement on which so much of that support is based.

  Residential Colleges (Student Funding)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons her Department is proposing to discontinue funding students from Northern Ireland attending adult residential colleges in Great Britain. [87723]

  Mr. McFall
  The Government will invest an additional £47.5 million over the next three years in Lifelong Learning in Northern Ireland. This will provide some 10,000 additional student places in further and higher education, together with continued support for access courses to higher education provided by local colleges. To make this possible, reductions in some programmes, including the very few adult education bursaries in Great Britain, were inevitable.

  Equality Commission
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the establishment of an Equality Commission in Northern Ireland. [87727]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given today,Official Report, column 331 to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw).

  Paramilitary Organisations (Crime)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the number of crimes attributed to paramilitary organisations committed in Northern Ireland in 1999. [87731]

  Mr. Ingram
  Statistics for crimes believed to be attributed to paramilitary organisations are collated under the headings in the following table. These show the number of incidents recorded as being of paramilitary style during the period 1 January to 18 June 1999. This figure is not exhaustive, however, and is subject to amendment

  Number

  Paramilitary style incidents

  Deaths

  5

  Shootings

  66

  Bombings

  46

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  Shootings

  43

  Assaults

  81

  Note:

  These figures are subject to amendment

  Northern Ireland Executive
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions she has held with the leaders of the political parties concerning the setting up of the Northern Ireland Executive. [87732]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I and my ministerial colleagues have had regular discussions with the leaders of all political parties in Northern Ireland concerning the setting up of the Executive and the implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday Agreement.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of when decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives will begin. [87733]

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of when decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives will begin. [87743]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have welcomed the start to decommissioning made by the LVF on 18 December last. The Decommissioning Commission continues its vital work. It is time for all groups to play their part in the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement; they should start to decommission now

  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Pay Settlement)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of this year's police pay settlement on RUC neighbourhood policing and other commitments. [87734]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 gives the responsibility for, and control of, all the resources required to deliver a policing service to the Chief Constable. It is for him, in conjunction with the Police Authority, to decide upon priorities and allocate resources in line with the Policing Plan. One of the objectives of this is to work in partnership with local communities and other agencies, to improve the quality of service delivered by the police to all the people of Northern Ireland.

  Drumcree Parade
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to deal with the disputed parade planned at Drumcree. [87735]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for dealing with the parade at Drumcree. [87744]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave today,Official Report, column 332, to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona Mclsaac).

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the current level of long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland. [87736]

  Mr. Ingram
  Latest estimates from the Labour Force Survey for the period February to April 1999 show that approximately 29,000 persons in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for one year or more. This represents 53 per cent. of the total unemployed and 3.9 per cent. of the workforce.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are being taken to tackle long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland. [87737]

  Mr. McFall
  New Deal 25+ will provide up to 30,000 developmental placements over 18 months for eligible long-term unemployed. From 1 August 1999, Worktrack will provide 2,100 places annually for those not eligible to join the various New Deals.

  New Deal for young people seeks to prevent young people becoming long-term unemployed.

  Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial provision she has made to support the search for victims' bodies under the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act 1999. [87739]
  181
  Mr. Ingram
  Section 2 of the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Act provides that"the Secretary of State may make payments to the Commission or to members of the Commission; and provide for the Commission such premises and facilities, and the services of such staff, as he thinks appropriate".

  Devolution
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the prospects for devolved Government in Northern Ireland. [87741]

  27. Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the prospects for the establishment of a cross-community Executive to govern Northern Ireland. [87742]

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the prospects for devolved Government in Northern Ireland. [87726]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) and Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), today,Official Report, column 334–35.

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to involve Northern Ireland Assembly Members in decision making in Northern Ireland. [87725]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Intensive discussions are currently taking place between all of the parties represented in the Assembly and the British and Irish Governments to agree a way forward to complete the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement including devolving power to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Until devolution takes place, Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will continue to consult the Northern Ireland political parties in the normal way about any decisions they take.

  RUC (Portadown)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many incidents of(a) assault and (b) affray occurred in the Thomas Street and Market Street/Woodhouse Street area of Portadown town centre between 1 April 1996 and 27 April 1997; and how many arrests were made. [85499]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC have advised that there were three recordable offences of assault in this area between the dates in question. Of these, two were assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one was grievous bodily harm. One person was arrested in each case. There were no recorded offences of affray.

  Chief Constable
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to lay before each House the annual report for 1998 of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [89357]
  182
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Copies of the Chief Constable's annual report for 1998 have today been placed in the Library. It is a general report on the carrying out of the RUC of their functions during 1998 which is submitted to the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and also to me for laying before Parliament in accordance with Sections 48 and 49 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

  Security Arrangements
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made towards the normalisation of security arrangements in Northern Ireland. [87730]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the Good Friday Agreement, routine military patrolling has been reduced by almost two thirds. Since the start of the year, there have been under 15,000 service personnel on operational duties in Northern Ireland, fewer than at any time since 1970, although there may be some short term increases over the summer period. Military installations have been closed and some demolished.

  We are committed to as early a return as possible to normal security arrangements, consistent with the level of threat.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sentencing
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he has made to implement sections 80 and 81 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [89576]

  Mr. Straw
  Section 80 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 places a duty on the Court of Appeal to consider producing or revising sentencing guidelines when a suitable case arises.

  Section 81 of the Act establishes a new Sentencing Advisory Panel which must be consulted by the Court whenever it decides that guidelines are necessary. The Panel may also propose that the Court frame or revise guidelines and I may direct it to do so.

  Both sections come into force on 1 July 1999.

  The Lord Chancellor will appoint the following members to the Panel:

  Professor Martin Wasik (Chairman)

  Professor Andrew Ashworth

  Pamela Brown

  Dr. Michael Chan

  Anne Fuller

  Heather Harker

  Professor Frances Heidensohn

  Peter Jones

  David Mallen

  Judge Michael Mettyear

  Sir Richard Tilt.

  Prime Minister (Security Vehicles)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that the lead security vehicle for the Prime Minister is a British-made vehicle. [88161]

  Mr. Straw
  The Metropolitan Police are responsible for the purchase and supply of the lead security vehicle used for the protection of the Prime Minister. The vehicle currently used is a Land Rover Discovery.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish figures for each police authority in England and Wales setting out(a) the percentage changes in their budget and (b) the numbers of police officers in the force between 1 April 1998 and 31 March 1999. [89577]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is set out in the table. The information on changes in police numbers is based on provisional strength figures at March 1999 provided by forces.

  Police numbers—comparison between percentage change in numbers and changes in budgets for 1998–99

  Percentage

  Percentage change in police numbers

  Percentage change in budget

  Force

  March 1998 to March 1999

  March 1998 to March 1999

  1997–98 to 1998–99

  5–5.9 per cent. reduction in strength

  City of London

  -5.7

  (-46.8)

  -7.3

  Cleveland

  -5.2

  (-76.8)

  +5.1

  4–4.9 per cent. reduction in strength

  Lincolnshire

  -4.3

  (-51.5)

  +1.1

  Nottinghamshire

  -4.2

  (-98)

  +3.8

  3–3.9 per cent. reduction in strength

  Bedfordshire

  -3.4

  (-37.2)

  +3.8

  Cumbria

  -3.2

  (-37.5)

  +3.7

  Norfolk

  -3.4

  (-48.2)

  +3.8

  Sussex

  -3.7

  (-107.9)

  +3.8

  West Yorkshire

  -3.4

  (-172.7)

  +3.8

  2–2.9 per cent. reduction in strength

  Devon and Cornwall

  -2.5

  (-74.5)

  +4.5

  Dorset

  -2.7

  (-35.9)

  +3.7

  Greater Manchester

  -2.0

  (-138.8)

  +3.8

  Humberside

  -2.3

  (-46.8)

  +3.8

  Northamptonshire

  -2.7

  (-31.2)

  +3.7

  North Yorkshire

  -2.2

  (-30.7)

  +4.0

  Staffordshire

  -2.4

  (54.5)

  +3.7

  0–1.9 per cent. reduction in strength

  Cambridgeshire

  -1.3

  (-17)

  +3.8

  Derbyshire

  -0.8

  (-13.6)

  +3.8

  Essex

  -1.3

  (-38)

  +3.7

  Hampshire

  -0.5

  (-16.1)

  +3.8

  Hertfordshire

  -0.9

  (-16.2)

  +3.8

  Kent

  -1.5

  (-50)

  +4.4

  Lancashire

  -0.4

  (-12.3)

  +3.8

  Metropolitan Police

  -0.08

  (-20.7)

  +3.7

  South Yorkshire

  -0.4

  (-14)

  +3.8

  Thames Valley

  -0.7

  (-27.4)

  +3.8

  Warwickshire

  -1.7

  (-15.4)

  +3.7

  West Mercia

  -0.5

  (-10.5)

  +3.8

  Wiltshire

  -0.5

  (-5.3)

  +3.7

  184

  Police numbers—comparison between percentage change in numbers and changes in budgets for 1998–99

  Percentage

  Percentage change in police numbers

  Percentage change in budget

  Force

  March 1998 to March 1999

  March 1998 to March 1999

  1997–98 to 1998–99

  Forces with increases in police numbers

  Gloucestershire

  +0.02

  (0.2)

  +3.8

  Avon and Somerset

  +0.8

  (23.4)

  +3.8

  Cheshire

  +1.4

  (-28.7)

  +3.8

  Durham

  +3.5

  (53.1)

  +4.9

  Dyfed-Powys

  +2.4

  (24)

  +3.8

  Gwent

  +1.2

  (14.3)

  +3.8

  Leicestershire

  +0.5

  (10.1)

  +3.8

  Merseyside

  +2.3

  (95.1)

  +3.8

  Northumbria

  +1.9

  (71.5)

  +4.7

  North Wales

  +0.4

  (5)

  +3.8

  South Wales

  +0.13

  (3.8)

  +3.8

  Suffolk

  +0.4

  (4.4)

  +3.8

  Surrey

  +3.3

  (53.5)

  -1.0

  West Midlands

  +2.3

  (165.3)

  +3.8

  Overall total

  -0.6

  (-793.3)

  +3.7

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1999,Official Report, column 296, concerning police manpower, when he intends to publish figures for the number of police officers, per force and in total, on 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [88192]

  Mr. Straw
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures are provisional and subject to validation.

  Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in their force area, within the resources available to them. The Home Secretary no longer has any power to set entitlements of forces.

  Police numbers as at 31 March 1999

  Force

  Police numbers1

  Avon and Somerset

  2,999.3

  Bedfordshire

  1,041.3

  Cambridgeshire

  1,274.4

  Cheshire

  2,070.6

  City of London

  778.1

  Cleveland

  1,406.6

  Cumbria

  1,126

  Derbyshire

  1,758.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,887

  Dorset

  1,274.1

  Durham

  1,567.9

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,026.3

  Essex

  2,890.5

  Gloucestershire

  1,104

  Greater Manchester

  6,809.9

  Gwent

  1,247.1

  Hampshire

  3,473.4

  Hertfordshire

  1,723.7

  Humberside

  1,974.4

  Kent

  3,200.8

  Lancashire

  3,244.8

  Leicestershire

  1,993.2

  Lincolnshire

  1,139.6

  Merseyside

  4,311.5

  185

  Police numbers as at 31 March 1999

  Force

  Police numbers 1

  Metropolitan Police

  26,073.1

  Norfolk

  1,381.4

  Northamptonshire

  1,137.5

  Northumbria

  3,840.2

  North Wales

  1,401

  North Yorkshire

  1,336.5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,224.6

  South Wales

  2,990

  South Yorkshire

  3,168

  Staffordshire

  2,237.6

  Suffolk

  1,190.2

  Surrey

  1,661.9

  Sussex

  2,846.8

  Thames Valley

  3,748.1

  Warwickshire

  908.7

  West Mercia

  1,999.1

  West Midlands

  7,320.8

  West Yorkshire

  4,982

  Wiltshire

  1,151

  Force total strength

  123,921.5

  1Figures are for full-time equivalents, are provisional and subject to validation

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations are being made by the UK Passport Agency for the processing of criminal record checks; and if he will make a statement. [88167]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Passport Agency has set up a team in Merseyside to manage the introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau.

  Detailed planning is under way with the aim of commencing operations on a phased basis.

  Procurement of accommodation and Information Technology services is now under way by open competition and advertisements have been placed in the Open Journal of the European Community (OJEC).

  Road Safety
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are in place between his Department and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for linking the aims and objectives for the Police Service with the National Road Safety Strategy. [88315]

  Mr. Straw
  The over-arching aims and objectives for police forces in England and Wales which were published last year include an objective of contributing to improving road safety and the reduction of casualties. That links with the police's aim to promote safety and reduce disorder. The performance measures related to the new duty of best value are likely to include performance measures in relation to this area of policing. These measures are to be agreed following a period of consultation over the summer. The new National Road Safety Strategy and casualty reduction targets for 2010 are being developed by the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) in close consultation with officials in my Department and with representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers' Traffic Committee. DETR expect to be able to publish the strategy and targets in the autumn.

  Subversion
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 June 1999,Official Report, column 783, what the role of F Branch of the Security Service formerly dealing with subversion currently is; what proportion of its work relates to the pensions of former F Branch employees; if the threat assessment set out on page 12 of the Home Office publication of 1998, "MI5 The Security Service", with particular reference to subversion, still applies; and if the statement on page 19 that there are no investigations into subversion is still valid. [88224]

  Mr. Straw
  The 1998 booklet "MI5 The Security Service" contains as much information as it is possible to disclose on this subject. The information which it contains on Security Service investigations of subversion remains valid. It would not be in the public interest to provide further details of the kind requested.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will survey those persons admitted to young offenders' institutions over the next three calendar months to establish how many and which had been members of uniformed youth organisations; for what duration; and what percentage of admissions this represents. [88420]

  Mr. George Howarth
  No. The Government believe that the 'what works' and related research provides a reliable basis for developing ways to tackle offending by young people and have no plans to commission a survey of this nature.

  However, I have set up some focus groups with young offenders to discuss in more general terms their backgrounds, experience of the criminal justice system, their perceptions of custody and their plans for the future. A draft report has been received and the final report should be made available to me very shortly.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison drug tests proved positive in(a) drug-free wings and (b) other wings in the latest period for which figures are available. [88306]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The proportion of random mandatory drug tests that proved positive for the period 1998–99 was 18.3 per cent. which is 1.7 per cent. less than the target of 20 per cent. set for the year. This can be compared with the previous years' figures of 24.4 per cent. positive in 1996–97 and 20.8 per cent. in 1997–98. Figures for drug testing results from voluntary testing units are not collated centrally.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests have been made on suspicion of smuggling drugs into prison, :(b) prosecutions have been brought and (c) convictions have been obtained in the most recent period for which figures are available. [88303]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 23 June 1999,Official Report, column 379.

  Means Assessments (Convicted Criminals)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review court procedures for conducting means assessments prior to sentencing of convicted criminals. [R] [87556]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 June 1999]Courts are required by law to inquire into the financial circumstances of a convicted offender before fixing the amount of any fine. Means assessments are also currently carried out in criminal cases before the grant of legal aid.

  A case is pending before the European Court of Human Rights questioning the role of the Justices' Clerk in conducting means inquiries in magistrates courts. Once the outcome of the case is known the Government will consider what action, if any, needs to be taken.

  The Access to Justice Bill includes a proposal to transfer from the Justices' Clerk to the Justices' Chief Executive the administrative responsibility for collecting fines. The Bill also proposes the abolition of means assessments before the granting of legal aid and the introduction of a power at the end of a case for the higher courts to order defendants to meet some or all of the defence costs. There will be power to assess the defendant's means before any such order is made.

  The Government have no other plans to review court procedures in this area.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress is being made with respect to the Public Safety Radio Communications Project; and if he will make a statement; [88605]

  (2) what funding arrangements will be put in place for the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [88606]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), a Home Office Non-Departmental Public Body, is managing the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP). This is a major Public Private Partnership project designed to replace the police service's existing radio communications systems with a modern national infrastructure delivered under a service provision contract. The Service Provider will design, build, fund and own the infrastructure and individual police forces will contract to take a range of core (mandatory) and menu (optional) services for anticipated contract periods of 15 years.

  A Project Definition Study has been completed and negotiations on price and contractual terms are now in progress with British Telecommunications as the candidate Service Provider. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) and the Association of Police Authorities (APA) are being kept fully briefed of progress. When negotiations are concluded, a formal business case will shortly be put to Ministers, ACPO and the APA, for a decision on its acceptance.

  Over the next three years the police service will receive an additional£1.24 billion in central government funding. It is a matter for each police authority to set their budget and for each chief constable to determine how to use the resources that are available. The scope for additional funding for PSRCP is under consideration.

  Released Prisoners
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what programmes there are to help prisoners find accommodation on their release. [88675]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison and Probation Services work closely together to help prisoners released on licence to maintain or secure appropriate accommodation. For prisoners not subject to statutory supervision there are a number of sources of advice and guidance. These include prison officers trained by "National Association for Care and Resettlement of Offenders", accommodation specialists from the probation service and independent organisations.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his Department has done to identify debt problems affecting prisoners that could increase the likelihood of an individual re-offending, if not dealt with before the prisoner's release. [88672]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is recognised that financial considerations can be related to the risk of re-offending in some cases. While no specific programme is in place to identify problems of debt, it is a factor which is taken into account in wider assessments for sentence planning and in the provision of advice and information.

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what work is being done in the Prison Service to ensure that a resettlement service is provided for each prisoner. [88673]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Adult prisoners with six months or more to serve and young offenders serving one month or more are subject to a system of sentence planning to determine what can be done during their time in custody and on licence to contribute to successful release. The Prison Service invests annually in the "National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders" prison link unit, providing £226,000 for 1999–2000, to train prison officers to provide advice and information on resettlement issues, and for specially trained staff to provide pre-release courses.

  Individual prisons liaise with probation services and other statutory and independent organisations, to provide resettlement services appropriate to local circumstances.

  The Government have also invested nearly £3.5 million in piloting Welfare to Work in 11 prison establishments. In the 12 months the pilot has been in operation, over 2,500 young prisoners have joined, and over 1,700 have completed, the programme.

  However, the Government recognise that there may be a particular difficulty in pro viding effective resettlement advice and support for prisoners serving sentences of less than a year. Under the Crime Reduction Programme, pilots are therefore to be established in seven areas to test out and evaluate new ways of meeting the resettlement needs of short term prisoners.

  Firearms
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take measures to ensure that information as to whether firearms used in crime are legally or illegally held is provided by the police; and if he will publish this information. [88706]
  189
  Mr. Boateng
  Information as to whether firearms used in crime are legally or illegally held is not published in the annual Criminal Statistics because, although the police are asked for this information, in practice they are only able to provide it in some six per cent. of cases. The information is thus not complete enough at present to make statistical analysis or publication worthwhile. The Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate is considering how to improve the quality of this data.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving pistols led to charges in the 12 months up to 1 October 1997 and in the 12 months thereafter. [88694]

  Mr. Boateng
  No information is kept centrally on the number of offences involving firearms that lead to charges.

  The readily available information relates to notifiable offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in which handguns were reported to have been used. Annual figures are contained in "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library.

  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the cost to date of paying compensation to firearms' owners; [88695]

  (2) how many people have been charged for failing to surrender.22 pistols; [88692]

  (3) what has been the cost to date of processing claims for firearms compensation; [88696]

  (4) how many firearms have been surrendered following the ban on.22 pistols; [88691]

  (5) how long, on average, it has taken for compensation to be paid for surrendered firearms. [88693]

  Mr. Boateng
  Payments under options A and B of the compensation schemes for large and small-calibre handguns have been made in an average of 21 weeks, and in an average of 63 weeks under option C of the schemes. A total of £60.3 million has been paid in compensation to individual firearm certificate holders. The administration costs of the compensation scheme total £4.6 million. In addition, a total of £3.8 million was provided to police forces in England, Wales and Scotland to help meet their costs in handling the surrender exercise.

  A total of 19,183 small-calibre pistols were surrendered to the police in England, Wales and Scotland during February 1998 following the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) (No 2) Act 1997. This is in addition to the 26,371 small-calibre pistols surrendered voluntarily under the Government's ex gratia payment scheme, which began in July 1997. Information on the number of persons charged for failing to surrender or otherwise lawfully dispose of.22 pistols was not collected centrally.

  Accident Reports (Government Departments)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds it is proposed that accident reports from Government Departments will be exempt from publication under the draft Freedom of Information Bill. [88725]
  190
  Mr. Straw
  The exemption was considered necessary to avoid the possibility of compromising future legal proceedings by giving a right of access to such information. The Bill as drafted requires the authority holding information falling within this class to consider disclosing it, pursuant to clause 14, in the exercise of any discretion it may have to do so. Our view was that it was appropriate to place responsibility for considering the disclosure of such information on the authority concerned.

  When I appeared before the Select Committee on Public Administration on 22 June 1999, I accepted that there were arguments in favour of extending rights in this area and I undertook to reconsider the scope of this exemption.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance his Department has given police forces about enforcing the wearing of car seat belts by children; and if he will make a statement. [88726]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. The enforcement of road traffic law is an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  European Council (Tampere)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 91, concerning the topics to be raised by the special European Council meeting at Tampere, Finland, concerning co-ordination of judicial and home affairs, if he will define the phrase, European Judicial Area, and provide reference to the relevant Treaty articles providing a basis for its use. [88677]

  Mr. Straw
  Following the conclusions of the Vienna European Council, which asked for"particular attention to be paid to the creation of a European Judicial Area, in accordance with the Treaty of Amsterdam",
  the Government understands the phrase "European Judicial Area" as referring principally to closer judicial co-operation in criminal and civil matters between the Member States. The relevant Treaty Articles are Article 65 of the European Community Treaty, and 29, 31 and 32 of the Treaty on European Union.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 91, concerning the agenda items and related documents to be discussed at the additional European Council to be held in Tampere, Finland, in October, to consider the European Judicial Area, what criteria were used to determine which documents are inappropriate for publication; and what committees of either House of Parliament will be able to consider those published prior to that council meeting. [88690]

  Mr. Straw
  As I indicated in my reply on 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 91, the documents to be submitted to the European Council will not be known until shortly before the meeting. When they are received they will be subject to the provisions relating to deposit for Parliamentary scrutiny as laid down in paragraph 127(1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 143. Documents deposited under these provisions are sent to

  191
  the European Scrutiny Committee and to the European Communities Committee of the House of Lords. Copies are also sent to the Home Affairs Select Committee.

  Article 36 Committee
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1999,Official Report, column 89, concerning the duties and meetings of the Article 36 Committee of the Home and Justice Ministerial Committee, what means he intends to adopt concerning communicating to Parliament its conclusions and recommendations prior to their consideration and decision by the Home Affairs Ministerial Council. [88664]

  Mr. Straw
  As I informed my hon. Friend in my reply of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 259, it was not the general practice of the Government to report to Parliament on the business of the K4 Committee. This policy will continue to apply to the work of the Article 36 Committee. The conclusions and recommendations of that Committee are considered by the Council, and a report of the Council's proceedings is of course made to Parliament.

  City of London (Protection)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the protection of workers in the City of London from violent demonstrators. [88440]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is vital that the people who work in the City are allowed to go about their business without fear of harassment or intimidation. It is an operational matter for the police service to ensure that public order is maintained and that the public is protected from disorderly or violent conduct. The Government will liaise closely with the City of London Police, and will consider any changes to policy or practice which the police service indicate would assist them in preventing further disruption.

  PAVA Incapacitant Spray
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being conducted by the Police Scientific Development Branch into the incapacitant spray PAVA; what is the aim of this research; for what reason it has been started; when this research began; when it is expected to end; and if the results of this research will be published. [88439]

  Mr. Boateng
  Some research has been commissioned privately by Hertfordshire Constabulary into the use of Pelargonic Acid Vanillylamide (PAVA) as a potential incapacitant spray. The Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB) are not conducting any research into PAVA at present. Discussions have been held with Hertfordshire Constabulary to assess the research they have carried out to date and to assess what still needs to be done before PAVA could be considered for use in the United Kingdom. No decision has yet been taken on the future involvement of PSDB in any further research.

  Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 1999,Official Report, column 371, concerning the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, when he intends to announce the appointment of an independent reviewer of those provisions of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 which were not incorporated into the Prevention of Terrorism (Termporary Provisions) Act 1989; when the first review will take place; and if he will make a statement. [88809]

  Mr. Straw
  Arrangements are currently in hand to identify potential candidates for this appointment. We hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. The reviewer will, on taking up post, review the operation of sections 5–7 of the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 since they came into force in September 1998.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were received from(a) Serbia and (b) Colombia in 1998; and how many of the applications (i) were agreed, (ii) were refused and (iii) await decision; and if he will make a statement. [88835]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. I regret that it is not possible, without involving disproportionate cost, to separately identify Serbians within the statistics held on nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

  Applications1 received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions 2.3 for nationals of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Columbia, 1998

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

  Columbia

  Applications received

  7,395

  1,360

  Total decisions of which:

  1,570

  425

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  935

  20

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  75

  25

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  565

  380

  Applications outstanding at end of year4

  7,700

  2,260

  1 Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions

  3 Decision figures do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1998

  4 Estimated figures

  Criminal Record Bureau
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that the structure of application fees for the Criminal Record Bureau does not discourage volunteering. [88850]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Criminal Record Bureau will be run on a full cost recovery basis and the cost of the fees for certificates from the Bureau will be kept to the minimum necessary to recoup costs. All applicants will be treated equally.

  SCOTLAND

    Ministerial Meetings (US)
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 4 May 1999,Official Report, column 337, what were the names of the two individuals from the US Government whom he met on 17 March. [84343]

    Dr. Reid
    [holding answer 21 May 1999]: My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State met Stuart Eizenstadt, Under Secretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs at the US Department of State and Ambassador Peter Scher, US Special Trade Negotiator.

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what dates special advisers from his Department have travelled in an official capacity to the United States since 2 May 1997; what were the names of the special advisers; and if they accompanied ministers. [84325]

    Dr. Reid
    [holding answer 21 May 1999]: One special adviser travelled to the United States with my predecessor on 15–19 March 1999. In accordance with convention, the name of the special adviser has not been given.

    A9 (Strathsteven)
    Mr. Maclennan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps(a) have been taken and (b) are planned following the accident investigation and prevention study by the National Roads Directorate to improve road safety on the A9 to Strathsteven, Brora. [89089]

    Forestry commission land currently on the open market

    Property

    Area (hectares)

    Grid ref.

    Category of Land

    Date first put on the market

    Access classification

    England

    Benacre wood

    25.0

    TQ945440

    FL

    22 October 1996

    3

    Black Plantation, Seaton Ross

    14.0

    SE794367

    FL

    28 June 1995

    3

    Brandon Central Depot

    16.0

    TL786875

    O

    1 June 1998

    4

    Deershill Wood

    11.0

    SS520172

    FL

    18 June 1999

    2

    Seaton Old Wood, Seaton Ross

    16.5

    SE787394

    FL

    28 June 1995

    3

    Stanley Cottages Plantation

    31.0

    NZ168390

    FL

    1 January 1989

    1

    Wales

    Allt Parc Y Dilfa

    14.0

    SN640335

    FL

    31 July 1998

    2

    Amnodd Wood

    101.0

    SH810372

    FL

    19 April 1996

    3

    Bryn Glas 2

    2.9

    SJ091056

    FL

    13 August 1998

    2

    Coed Cochion

    17.0

    SJ110725

    FL

    29 June 1999

    2

    Coed Hengefn

    10.0

    SJ083048

    FL

    13 August 1998

    2

    Coed Mynydd Mawr

    24.0

    SH365406

    FL

    17 July 1998

    3

    Coed Pandy

    22.0

    SJ 190363

    FL

    7 September 1998

    2

    Coed Pwynt

    5.0

    SJ118197

    FL

    13 August 1998

    2

    Coed Y Graig

    35.0

    SH641078

    FL

    17 July 1998

    3

    Craig Yr Arail

    58.0

    S0210044

    FL

    24 March 1995

    2

    Cwm Prysor (Penllyn Forest)

    56.0

    SH790380

    FL

    19 April 1995

    3

    Eglwyseg Mill Wood

    6.0

    SJ215461

    FL

    29 June 1999

    2

    Fagwr Fran (Trecwn)

    80.0

    SM995315

    FL

    17 July 1998

    2

    Foel Eglwyseg

    162.0

    SJ203465

    FL

    29 June 1999

    2

    Gelli Dywyll

    25.0

    SH686413

    FL

    17 September 1998

    2

    Graianog

    19.0

    SH464488

    FL

    30 April 1997

    1

    Graig Ynysgollen

    10.0

    SN802013

    FL

    4 June 1987

    2

    Nant Y Stalwyn

    44.0

    SN820097

    FL

    2 March 1993

    1

    194
    Mr. Macdonald
    (a) Works to strengthen the edge of the carriageway, boundary wall and verge are currently being undertaken. (b) An Accident Investigation and Prevention study is to be commissioned to identify any appropriate low cost accident prevention measures for this location. Any measures agreed will be implemented during this financial year, providing sufficient funds are available.

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

    Forestry Commission
    Mr. Etherington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those Forestry Commission land sites currently on the market in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales indicating for each proposed sale (i) the total area, (ii) location, (iii) type of land, (iv) length of time on the market and (v) the provisions for securing continuing public access. [87444]

    Mr. Macdonald
    The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by Forest Enterprise. I have asked its Chief Executive, Dr. Bob McIntosh, to arrange for a reply to be given.

    Letter from Bob McIntosh to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 30 June 1999:
    The Secretary of State for Scotland has asked me to reply to your Question about Forestry Commission land that is currently on the market.
    I enclose a table which gives the information you have requested.
    The table does not include negotiated sales, such as sales of houses and agricultural land to sitting tenants or sales of land to conservation bodies through our sponsorship arrangements, as these are not available on the open market.
    I hope that this is helpful.
    195

    Forestry commission land currently on the open market

    Property

    Area (hectares)

    Grid ref.

    Category of Land

    Date first put on the market

    Access classification

    Pengwern

    15.0

    SH696427

    FL

    17 September 1998

    1

    Pennsylvania Wood

    35.0

    SJ886832

    FL

    18 June 1999

    2

    Pen y Clawdd Plantation

    37.0

    SJ200458

    FL

    29 June 1999

    3

    Pen Y Gribin

    12.0

    SH680190

    FL

    17 July 1998

    2

    Rassau/Carno

    93.0

    SO158134

    FL

    8 September 1998

    1

    Rhiwbach and Tyddyn Bach

    106.0

    SH743462

    FL

    11 January 1995

    1

    Rhiwlas

    14.2

    SS833901

    O

    12 October 1998

    4

    Tan Y Clawdd

    13.0

    SH436491

    FL

    30 April 1996

    1

    Tan Y Graig

    23.0

    SJ234405

    FL

    7 September 1998

    2

    Trecwn

    182.0

    SN381312

    FL

    17 July 1998

    2

    Ty Mawr Hill

    15.0

    SJ129018

    FL

    13 August 1998

    2

    Tyn Rhos and Coed Cefncoch

    13.0

    SH834037

    FL

    23 June 1998

    2

    Wern Land

    77.4

    SN853142

    O

    1 December 1998

    4

    Scotland

    Badiebath Woods

    46.0

    NJ831397

    FL

    23 December 1998

    1

    Barnbarroch

    62.0

    NX400505

    FL

    1 September 1998

    1

    Braes of Gight

    91.0

    NJ822390

    FL

    23 December 1998

    1

    Claigan Plantation

    252.0

    NG266530

    FL

    19 October 1998

    3

    Dunvegan Woodlands

    258.0

    NG2455I6

    FL

    19 October 1998

    3

    Field at Hillhead

    0.4

    NH522239

    O

    1 June 1999

    4

    Gartochorrans

    199.0

    NS465845

    FL

    10 June 1999

    2

    Knockbain

    145.0

    NX 166900

    FL

    1 September 1998

    2

    Land at Savary

    6.7

    NM635461

    O

    21 April 1999

    4

    Land at A836, Stittenham

    7.2

    NH653750

    O

    19 May 1999

    4

    Lochbank

    23.0

    NY075840

    FL

    10 June 1999

    2

    No. 1 Savary and Land

    1.8

    NM635461

    O

    21 April 1999

    4

    Soutra

    156.2

    NT460565

    FL

    25 September 1998

    2

    Whitslade Hill (Pt)

    23.0

    NT095335

    FL

    9 October 1998

    2

    Codes:

    Category of Land

    O—Other Land (Agricultural land, hilltops etc.

    Access Classification

    1 Access agreement in place

    2 Offer of access agreement not accepted by Local Authority

    3 Access agreement not possible due to third party constraints

    4 The arrangements for access agreements do not apply to other land

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Alan Simpson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many households in Scotland would meet the eligibility criteria for the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme if it were to be applied in Scotland. [88152]

    Dr. Reid
    The information is not held centrally.

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

    Pollok Centre, Glasgow
    Mr. Davidson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total rateable value of the Pollok Centre in Glasgow; how much was paid in rates by the centre during the last financial year; and how much and what percentage of the total raised was made available to Glasgow City Council. [88160]

    Mr. Macdonald
    Assuming full occupation, the total rateable value of the Pollok Centre is £2,374,550, of which almost £1.2 million was paid in rates by the centre in the last financial year. This amount will be included in Glasgow's contribution to the Non-Domestic Rates Pool for 1998–99. Each council's share of Aggregate External Finance (AEF) is calculated according to relative spending need or assessed by Grant Aided Expenditure (GAE). Once specific grants have been top-sliced the 196
    balance of the AEF share is made up of two components, Non-Domestic Rates Income (NDRI) and Revenue Support Grant (RSG). NDRI is distributed pro-rata to population and the balance then becomes the council's RSG.

    Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date his Department was first informed that Parts IV A and IV B of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 were no longer in force. [88796]

    Dr. Reid
    [holding answer 28 June 1999]: My Department was advised on 21 June that these provisions were no longer in force.

    Vacant Land
    Mr. David Marshall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures the Government will take to implement the recommendations of the Scottish Office/Pieda Study, Towards a Strategy for Vacant Land, that(a) dereliction considered to have adverse environmental effects should be dealt with by 2010 and (b) no local authority should have more than 0.5 per cent. vacant land by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [89022]
    197
    Dr. Reid
    The two specific recommendations cited from Pieda's report to the Scottish Office have not been adopted as targets. The Government have, however, allocated £3 million a year to bring vacant and derelict land in Glasgow up to a standard suitable for housing. In addition remediation of contaminated land will be addressed by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which it is planned will be brought into force by the end of 1999. A number of National Planning Policy Guidelines also make clear to planning authorities that priority should be given to the re-use of vacant and derelict land. The information in the Scottish Vacant and Derelict Land Survey has been improved to record the development potential of sites and to enable planning authorities to prioritise sites for re-use.

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

    Opencast Coal
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications have been made to local authorities for the development of opencast coal over the past 12 months; and how many have been approved.[R] [88943]

    Mr. Macdonald
    [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Information on planning applications made to and approved by local authorities in respect of open-cast coal developments is not held centrally. General information on planning statistics is collected by the Scottish Office Development Department. However, there is no detailed provision for authorities to inform the Department of applications made for opencast coal developments unless the proposal falls within the scope of the Town and Country Planning (Notification of Applications) (Scotland) Direction 1997.

    Belgian Food Products
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland from whom information about the contamination of Belgian food products was first received by his officials. [88951]

    Mr. Macdonald
    [holding answer 29 June 1999]: Scottish Office officials initially received this information from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when(a) he and (b) his officials were informed of the contamination of Belgian food products. [88950]

    Mr. Macdonald
    [holding answer 29 June 1999]: My right hon. Friend first learned of the contamination of Belgian food products on 3 June 1999. Scottish Office officials first learned of this problem on 1 June 1999.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    School Sports Co-ordinators
    Valerie Davey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the sports co-ordinators for schools will be apportioned(a) by individual sport, (b) by school sector and (c) in other ways; and if they will include co-ordinators for swimming events. [88183]
    198
    Mr. Banks
    Sport England are currently working up detailed plans for the role the Co-ordinators will play. However, it is not envisaged that Co-ordinators will be apportioned by individual sport, but play a generic role covering all sports, including swimming. They will be based in secondary schools, with the target being up to 600 Active Schools Co-ordinators operating in 1,000 secondary schools and associated primary schools over the next 10 years.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the announcement of the appointment of school sports co-ordinators was first made; and by whom. [88453]

    Mr. Banks
    The announcement of the appointment of Active Schools Co-ordinators was first made in Sport England's Lottery Strategy in May. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced that he had written to Sport England to ensure that arranging competitive fixtures between schools was a key part of the Co-ordinators' job description.

    Sports Participation (Asian Community)
    Lorna Fitzsimons
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action his Department is taking to encourage participation by and representation of the Asian community at national level in cricket, badminton, hockey and football. [88676]

    Mr. Banks
    Sport can play a major role in ridding society of racism, especially given the positive influence it can have on young people. It is an issue which impacts on all sports and must be tackled by them.

    Sport England, in conjunction with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE), has established a Racial Equality Advisory Group to work with all sports national governing bodies to encourage racial equality in sport. The group meets on a regular basis and comprises representatives from a variety of agencies. The Group examines issues relating to ethnic minorities in sport, and advises Sport England to ensure that its policies offer equal opportunities to all people, irrespective of their ethnic background.

    Furthermore, all recipients of grant-in-aid must agree to have all facilities, courses and events open to the whole community. Similar criteria are also used in assessing applications for grants from the Lottery Sports Fund.

    Much has been done to address the problems of racism in football. I am pleased to acknowledge the good work undertaken by the Commission for Racial Equality and the Professional Footballers Association, who were involved in the Lets Kick Racism Out of Football campaign. The Football Task Force Report on Racism in Football, produced earlier this year, has also been very well received alongside initiatives such as Kick it Out and Show Racism the Red Card.

    I want to ensure that the lessons and proposals highlighted in that report are extended to other sports. To this end I have recently written to the governing bodies of five major sports as a first step asking how they are going about addressing any problems within their sports. I intend to call a meeting with those governing bodies, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Local Government Association to root out this problem.

    Youth Sports Schemes
    Mr. Gorrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure that equal opportunities are offered to girls and boys in youth sports schemes funded or promoted by the Government. [88593]

    Mr. Banks
    The Government fund Sports England to develop programmes for young people and they do this through their Active Schools programme. A key principle of the programme is that every child—having due regard for differences in ability, gender and background—should benefit from the programme.

    Tourism
    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent per head of population on tourism in England in the last year for which figures are available. [88600]

    Janet Anderson
    The total amount spent in England in 1997 by tourists who stayed at least one night is estimated at £21.7 billion, equivalent to £440 per head of the population. Including the spending during tourism day visits would almost double these amounts.

    Mr. Hoyle
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his expenditure plans for tourism for the next three years. [88813]

    Janet Anderson
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced his expenditure plans for tourism over the next three years on 14 December 1998. They include an extra £5 million over three years for the British Tourist Authority and an extra £4 million to transform the English Tourist Board into a new strategic body, the English Tourism Council (ETC). The launch of the ETC heralds new regional funding arrangements enabling a greater proportion of funds to be provided direct to Regional Tourist Boards to provide extra support for tourism in the regions of England.

    Sports Sites
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the National Register of Sports Sites. [88462]

    Mr. Banks
    The proposals for a national register of Recreational Land were originally put forward during the preparation of The Playing Pitch Strategy by the GB Sports Council, the National Playing Fields Association and the Central Council for Physical Recreation in 1989. The objectives of the Register from the outset were to monitor change in the recreational land resource; to assist in policy development at the local and national level; and to provide information to the public. An independent evaluation of the Register 1994 found a number of shortcomings with the data. These shortcomings were due to a number of factors, including the voluntary nature of the project, with owners and managers of sites under no obligation to provide data, and many refusing to co-operate.

    A review of the effectiveness of the Register in 1998 indicated that the likelihood of achieving and maintaining a comprehensive, accurate, up-to-date national inventory of playing pitches was remote. Sport England, with the support of the DCMS, the National Playing Fields
    200
    Association and the Central Council for Physical Recreation, is currently working with local authorities on a suitable model of the Register which can be used by local authorities to undertake assessments of playing field need and provision in their area.

    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the criteria are for the funding of sports sites through the allocation of National Lottery money. [88463]

    Mr. Banks
    Sport England is the statutory distributor of Lottery funding for sport in England. It dispenses these funds according to its own published criteria within a general policy framework agreed with the Government. The Council takes individual funding decisions based on a number of principles independently of Government.

    Sport England has established stringent assessment criteria for applicants in which priority is given to those projects which demonstrate a commitment to increasing active sporting participation within the community, particularly those members of the community who may previously have been under-represented, for example, people with disabilities, women and junior participants. Projects that demonstrate a well thought out, structured programme for achieving this and those which expand the choice of sports available to the community are more likely to receive support. Sport England reaches its award decisions after a thorough appraisal of the many different aspects of each proposal. These criteria are fully explained in an application pack that is made available to all potential applicants to the Sport England Lottery Fund. Copies of the pack have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to amend the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. [88460]

    Mr. Banks
    I have announced that we will seek to amend the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937 so that chess may become eligible for funding from the Sports Council. Primary legislation will be required and proposals to do so will be introduced when Parliamentary time allows.

    Playing Fields
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of making the National Playing Fields Association a statutory consultee on playing fields development. [88461]

    Mr. Banks
    Any decision to include the National Playing Field Association as a statutory consultee on playing fields development is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have already introduced a number of measures to protect playing fields which require local education authorities, schools and developers to consider carefully the needs of school children and local communities for whom playing fields are a vital resource.
    201
    Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself are in the closest contact with Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to monitor these arrangements, and we will consider any further action which may be needed.

    Sports Clubs
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of allowing mandatory rate relief to voluntary sports clubs. [88746]

    Mr. Banks
    The issue of mandatory rate relief is a matter primarily for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, though I take a close interest in the potential for developing grass roots sport.

    We made a Manifesto commitment to review the current arrangements under which local authorities give business rate relief to non-profit-making sports clubs in England, Scotland and Wales. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will issue a consultation paper later in the year.

    Private Sports Grounds
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications have been received to finance retention of private sports grounds with funds from the Sportsmatch programme; and if he will list them. [88745]

    Mr. Banks
    Sportsmatch, which is administered by the Institute of Sports Sponsorship, launched the Company Sports Facilities Initiative pilot scheme last year to encourage companies with sports facilities to open them to wider use by local communities and sports clubs. Discussions are in hand with potential company sponsors, but no applications have been received to date. The retention of private sports facilities is not eligible for Sportsmatch funding.

    Activity Holidays (National Minimum Wage)
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry on the impact of the national minimum wage on activity holidays; and if he will publish them. [88454]

    Janet Anderson
    We have received a number of representations from the tourism and hospitality industry on the national minimum wage, including some from the activity holiday sector, which we have passed on to the Department of Trade and Industry. The industry had good and productive discussions during 1998—99 with the independent Low Pay Commission and the Government subsequently set the National Minimum Wage at the sensible level recommended by the Commission.

    The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the impact of the introduction of the national minimum wage. The Commission will welcome views from tourism and hospitality operators on the impact the new legislation is having in practice.

    English Tourism Council
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what legislative changes will be required to establish the English Tourism Council. [88452]

    Janet Anderson
    No legislation is needed at this stage. The Development of Tourism Act 1969 still applies. Following its launch on 19 July, the English Tourism Council will be the trading name for the English Tourist Board. The new name reflects the change in the body's remit and will be changed formally when a legislative opportunity arises.

    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to announce who has been appointed to be the(a) chairman and (b) chief executive of the new English Tourism Council. [89135]

    Janet Anderson
    We are announcing today that the chairman of the English Tourism Council is to be Alan Britten. He will take up the post on Monday 12 July. The appointment of a chief executive is a matter for the ETC.

    Millennium Wheel
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is(a) the cost and (b) the design life of the Millennium Wheel; and how long it is planned to remain at its County Hall location. [88838]

    Janet Anderson
    The Millennium Ferris Wheel (London Eye) is an entirely privately funded project sponsored by British Airways; no application for funding has been made to any Government Department or Agency. Temporary planning permission was granted for a period of five years and any plan to extend this period would have to be made through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Wembley Stadium
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is his Department's estimate of the cost of transport projects involved in the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium as the centrepiece for a bid to host the Olympic Games; [89139]

    (2) what is his Department's estimate of the total cost of the redevelopment of Wembley Stadium as the centrepiece for a bid to host the Olympic Games. [89133]

    Mr. Banks
    The British Olympic Association are currently undertaking feasibility studies involving Sport England, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government Office for London on the key aspects of mounting a successful bid for a future Olympics. These cover environment, transport, Olympic village and sports facilities, including a stadium capable of staging the opening and closing ceremonies and athletics events. These working groups are expected to report in December with a full assessment of what is in place and what needs to be in place to bid for and stage the Olympic Games.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Berry
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many current incapacity benefit recipients who first made their claim after April 1995 and who have been excluded from the transitional protection provided to former invalidity benefit claimants have an occupational pension; and, for those who receive an occupational pension, what is the average weekly pension payment. [87588]

    Mr. Bayley
    When Incapacity Benefit was introduced, transitional arrangements allowed those already in receipt of Invalidity Benefit to continue to receive their previous rate of benefit. This is standard procedure following a major change in Social Security legislation.

    It is not possible to provide figures for the occupational pension income of Incapacity Benefit recipients whose claims began after April 1995. Such information as is available is in the table. The table shows levels of occupational and personal pensions for all current Incapacity Benefit recipients. No existing Incapacity Benefit recipient will be affected at the point of change by the proposal to take some account of occupational and personal pensions over £50 a week.

    Income Support claimants by Government Office Region and age of claimant, February 1999

    Thousand

    Region

    All claimants

    18–24

    25–49

    50–64

    65–84

    85 and over

    North East

    211

    20

    80

    38

    55

    19

    North West

    563

    48

    226

    103

    135

    51

    Yorks and Humber

    339

    30

    123

    60

    89

    37

    East Midlands

    237

    19

    87

    40

    63

    27

    West Midlands

    360

    29

    128

    66

    103

    34

    Eastern

    263

    19

    97

    44

    69

    34

    London

    573

    43

    270

    104

    118

    37

    South East

    353

    25

    134

    59

    89

    45

    South West

    267

    20

    96

    45

    70

    35

    Notes:

    1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand cases.

    2. Based on a 5 per cent. sample and as such subject to a degree of sampling error

    3. Income Support claimants are defined as aged 16 or over and as such there are nil claimants aged 0 to 8.

    4. All claimant figure excludes Income Support claimants aged 16 and 17 years

    5. Government Office Region codes are assigned by matching postcodes against the 1999 version I postcode directory.

    Source:

    Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1999.

    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the most recent figures showing how many people in each of the regions covered by the new Regional development agencies have(a) telephones and (b) central heating in their homes in the age ranges (i) 0 to 8, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over [88649]

    Angela Eagle
    Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.
    204

    Levels of occupational and personal pensions for Incapacity

    Benefit recipients 1996—97

    Occupational and personal pension income (£ per week)

    Number of recipients

    0

    1,120,000

    less than £25

    120,000

    £25 to £49.99

    110,000

    £50 to £74.99

    110,000

    £75 to £99.99

    90,000

    £100 to £124.99

    40,000

    £125 to £149.99

    40,000

    £150 to £199.99

    50,000

    £200 or more

    40,000

    All IB recipients

    1,710,000

    Notes:

    1. The average gross occupational and personal pension income for Incapacity Benefit recipients with non-State pension incomes in 1996—97 was £85 per week.

    2. All estimates are based on data from the 1996—97 Family Resources Survey and are in gross 1996—97 prices.

    3. Estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response.

    4. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

    Income Support
    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the most recent figures showing how many people are on Income Support in the age ranges (i) 0 to 8, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over in each of the regions covered by the new regional development agencies. [88648]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is shown in the Table.

    Individuals with access to a telephone by Regional development

    agency and age

    Thousand

    Age of individual

    Regional development agency

    0–17

    18–24

    25–49

    50–64

    65+

    North East

    630

    250

    960

    510

    390

    North West and Merseyside

    1,490

    540

    2,290

    1,230

    930

    Yorkshire and Humber

    1,010

    310

    1,600

    850

    690

    East Midlands

    880

    350

    1,420

    820

    540

    West Midlands

    1,200

    440

    1,740

    900

    710

    Eastern Region

    1,200

    430

    1,880

    1,010

    770

    London

    1,730

    560

    2,710

    1,040

    850

    South East

    1,640

    610

    2,590

    1,400

    990

    South West

    970

    300

    1,570

    900

    770

    205

    Individuals with central heating in their homes by Regional development agency and age

    Thousand

    Age of individual

    Regional development agency

    0–17

    18–24

    25–49

    50–64

    65+

    North East

    660

    260

    980

    490

    380

    North West and Merseyside

    1,330

    490

    2,030

    1,090

    790

    Yorkshire and Humber

    910

    290

    1,420

    760

    570

    East Midlands

    860

    340

    1,350

    780

    510

    West Midlands

    1,040

    390

    1,540

    820

    590

    Eastern Region

    1,170

    420

    1,820

    960

    720

    London

    1,680

    540

    2,570

    980

    730

    South East

    1,520

    570

    2,440

    1,290

    890

    South West

    860

    280

    1,390

    820

    700

    Notes:

    1. Age ranges provided in the tables do not exactly match those requested as these had missing ranges and overlapping boundaries. In addition, sample sizes for the highest age range are too small to support reliable estimates of the statistics in question. Therefore, age ranges which are as close as possible to those requested have been used.

    2. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response

    3. All figures are provided in thousands and have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

    Source:

    1997—98 Family Resources Survey (Great Britain)

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made on the implementation of The Activities for Management of Life test for entitlement to disability living allowance, suggested by the disability benefits forum; and if he will make a statement. [89046]

    Mr. Bayley
    In line with recommendations from the Social Security Select Committee, we have discussed with the Disability Benefits Forum the possibility of developing alternatives to the current tests for entitlement to Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance, and it was agreed that further work should be undertaken. We are now exploring the possibility of using a set of activities undertaken by disabled people in managing their lives (AMLs) as a means of assessing need; work on this is being carried out by an AMLs Working Group which includes representatives from disability organisations in its membership.

    The Working Group is currently in the process of carrying out initial testing of models based on AMLs, and progress was discussed with the Working Group on 25 June 1999. It was agreed that testing and analysis of the results should continue; it is, however, too early to say if it will be possible to produce an AMLs system which represents a significant and worthwhile improvement on the present methods of assessing entitlement to the benefits.

    Annuities
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners on Income Support are receiving income from an annuity. [89004]
    206
    Mr. Timms
    Estimates from the Family Resources Survey 1997—98 suggest that less than 1 per cent. of pensioners on Income Support were receiving income from an annuity.
    Notes:

    1. Pensioners are defined as single people aged 60 years or over and couples where at least one partner is aged 60 years or over.

    2. Estimates of receipt of Income Support and annuity income are based on respondent's own assessment and therefore may be subject to mis-reporting

    Pension Upratings
    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the difference was in each year since 1980 between the amount by which pensions would have increased if based on(a) the retail prices index and (b) average earnings. [88177]

    Mr. Timms
    The information is in the table.

    >£ per week

    Uprating date

    Actual rate paid increased by Retail Price Index

    Rate if increased by average earnings

    Rate if increased by higher of earnings or prices

    November 1980

    27.15

    27.60

    27.60

    November 1981

    29.60

    30.75

    30.75

    November 1982

    32.85

    33.35

    34.15

    November 1983

    34.05

    36.25

    37.10

    November 1984

    35.80

    38.05

    39.00

    November 1985

    38.30

    41.35

    42.40

    July 1986

    38.70

    43.20

    44.30

    April 1987

    39.50

    45.60

    46.80

    April 1988

    41.15

    49.15

    50.45

    April 1989

    43.60

    53.50

    54.90

    April 1990

    46.90

    58.70

    60.25

    April 1991

    52.00

    64.30

    66.80

    April 1992

    54.15

    69.20

    71.90

    April 1993

    56.10

    72.50

    75.35

    April 1994

    57.60

    74.80

    77.75

    April 1995

    58.85

    77.35

    80.40

    April 1996

    61.15

    79.50

    83.55

    April 1997

    62.45

    82.85

    87.05

    April 1998

    64.70

    86.25

    90.60

    April 1999

    66.75

    90.50

    95.05

    Notes:

    1. The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

    2. Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

    3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

    4. From April 1994 the basic rate of Retirement Pension has been increased by 50p to reflect VAT on fuel.

  WALES

    North Wales Health Authority
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department informed the North Wales Health Authority of its capital expenditure allocation for 1999–2000. [87998]
    207
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    Capital allocations for 1999–2000 were issued to health authorities on the 27 May 1999 as part of the health authority cash allocation announcement. NHS Trusts were issued with their capital allocations on 22 June 1999.

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

    European Social Fund
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what preparations he is undertaking to develop within Wales appropriate financial management and payment systems for European Social Fund delivery for the period after 2000; and if he will make a statement. [87994]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in discussion with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment over arrangements under which responsibility for payments and financial management of ESF in Wales would transfer to the National Assembly for Wales from 2000. The terms will, however, need to be acceptable to the Assembly.

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. Rowlands
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for how many appointments to non-departmental public bodies he was responsible prior to the passing of the Government of Wales Act 1998; and for how many he is currently responsible. [88587]

    Mr. Michael
    I currently have sole responsibility for making 404 appointments to Executive, Advisory and Health Non-departmental Public Bodies in Wales. Responsibility for all these appointments will transfer to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July.

    As Secretary of State, I will retain responsibility for a small number of appointments to bodies which do not have NDPB status, such as the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Wales and the Courts and Councils of the Universities.

    There are also several UK bodies to which I make appointments, or where I have joint responsibility for making appointments, or am consulted on appointments. These responsibilities will also transfer to the Assembly by means of an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.

    Detailed information about public appointments for which I have had responsibility as Secretary of State for Wales is published quarterly in "Appointments made by the Secretary of State for Wales". The latest edition is dated March 1999 and is available in the House of Commons Library.

    Mr. Rowlands
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many non-departmental public bodies there were in Wales prior to the Government of Wales Act 1998; and how many there are currently. [88586]

    Mr. Michael
    There were 42 non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department immediately prior to the Government of Wales Act 1998; there are now 37. The five bodies that have been abolished since 31 July 1998 are the Development Board for Rural Wales; the 208
    Land Authority for Wales; the Residuary Body for Wales; Tai Cymru; and the Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse.

    Mr. Rowlands
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the non-departmental public bodies which have been abolished and (b) established since May 1997. [88642]

    Mr. Michael
    Since 1 May 1997, the following non-departmental public bodies have been abolished: the Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales; the Development Board for Rural Wales; the Land Authority for Wales; the Residuary Body for Wales; the Staff Commission for Wales; Tai Cymru; the Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse; and the Welsh Council for Post-Graduate Medical and Dental Education. In addition, the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation has been identified for abolition. No new non-departmental public bodies have been established by the Secretary of State since 1 May 1997.

    Heart Bypass Operations
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently waiting(a) 0 to six months, (b) six to 12 months and (c) over 12 months for heart bypass operations in each NHS trust in Wales. [88924]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    Information on the number of people waiting less than six months for coronary heart bypass operations is not collected centrally. At 31 March 1999, the numbers waiting 6 to 12 months and over 12 months in each of the relevant NHS trusts in Wales is given in the following table.

    Numbers waiting over six months for coronary heart bypass graft surgery by NHS trust, 31 March 1999

    Number waiting

    Trust

    6 to 12 months

    over 12 months

    Morriston Hospital NHS trust1

    36

    3

    University Hospital of Wales NHS trust2

    76

    5

    1Forms part of the new Swansea NHS trust

    2 Forms part of the new UHW/Llandough trust

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

    Refugees
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Welsh Administration and Welsh local authorities about the implications of the Immigration and Asylum Bill for refugees in Wales. [89049]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    The Home Office is in the lead on this matter, but Welsh Office officials have been directly involved in considering the strategic and operational implications for Wales from the outset.

    Strategically, Welsh Office officials liaise with the Home Office and, together with the Welsh Local Government Association and Welsh Refugee Council, attend meetings of the Home Office Stakeholder Group.

    Operationally, with particular regard to the proposed support and consortium arrangements, Welsh Office officials initiated consultation with interested parties in

    209
    Wales such as the WLGA, Local Authorities, the Welsh Refugee Council and other potential consortium agencies, and play an active part in the planning group which has arisen from this consultation.

    Internally, a group drawing together all the relevant interests meets on a regular basis.

    From 1 July, this role will fall to the National Assembly for Wales. I expect Assembly officials will continue to play an active and supportive role in conjunction with other interested parties to ensure that the implications of the Bill for Wales are fully considered and that the interests of Wales are fully taken into account.

    NHS Waiting Lists
    Mr. Touhig
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average waiting time for appointments with consultants in(a) obstetrics, (b) trauma and orthopaedics, (c) ENT, (d) coronary, (e) general surgery, (f) urology, (g) ophthalmology, (h) oral surgery, (i) gynaecology and (j) other specialties in each health authority area in Wales. [88904]

    Mean waiting times for selected specialities, by health authority, patients seen in 19981—mean waits given to the nearest whole week

    Speciality

    Gwent

    Bro Taf

    Dyfed Powys

    North Wales

    Morgannwg

    General surgery

    16

    15

    17

    13

    12

    Urology

    12

    10

    10

    12

    12

    Trauma and orthopaedic

    29

    23

    26

    23

    22

    Ear, nose and throat

    20

    17

    16

    22

    16

    Ophthalmology

    22

    19

    19

    18

    21

    Oral surgery

    9

    8

    13

    12

    10

    Cardiac surgery

    31

    26

    27

    13

    22

    Obstetrics

    3

    8

    3

    3

    4

    Gynaecology

    12

    11

    7

    11

    10

    All other specialties

    9

    9

    6

    8

    11

    1Mean waits are calculated using information in respect of each health authority treated in Welsh hospitals during 1998

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

    NHS Consultants
    Mr. Touhig
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in each health authority area in Wales were referred to hospital out-patient departments between 1990 and the last year for which figures are available to see consultants in(a) obstetrics, (b) trauma and orthopaedics, (c) ENT, (d) coronary, (e) general surgery, (f) urology, (g) opthalmology, (h) oral surgery, (i) gynaecology and (j) other specialties. [88934]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    Data are reported to the Welsh Office on the total number of referrals to NHS trusts in Wales. The totals for Wales in each of the years 1994—95 to 1998—99 are given in the following table. A breakdown of the data by health authority and specialty is not held centrally.

    The total number of referrals to NHS trusts in Wales, 1994—95 to 1998—99:
    210
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    Information on routine out-patient waiting times for some common procedures, by consultant, is contained in the quarterly "Hospital Waiting Times Information for GPs and Patients" publication, a copy of which is held in the Library.

    Information on average out-patient waiting times by health authority and specialty is not collected centrally.

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

    Mr. Touhig
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average waiting time between first appointments and any surgery deemed necessary in(a) obstetrics, (b) trauma and orthopaedics, (c) ENT, (d) coronary, (e) general surgery, (f) urology, (g) ophthalmology, (h) oral surgery, (i) gynaecology and (j) other specialties in each health authority area in Wales. [88905]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    For all patients treated in a given period, data is available which gives the average waiting time between the decision of a consultant to admit a patient for treatment and the actual date of admission to hospital. For 1998, the average (mean) waiting times in weeks for each specialty and health authority are given in the following table.

    Year

    Number of referrals 1

    1994—95

    578,462

    1995—96

    577,831

    1996—97

    610,117

    1997—98

    651,815

    1998—99

    680,985

    1 Data as reported to the Welsh Office by Welsh NHS trusts. They include estimates for Powys Health Care NHS trust for 1994—95 and 1995—96.

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

    Mr. Touhig
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many consultants there are in each health authority area in Wales working on(a) full-time contracts and (b) part-time contracts in (i) obstetrics, (ii) trauma and orthopaedics, (iii) ENT, (iv) coronary, (v) general surgery, (vi) urology, (vii) ophthalmology, (viii) oral surgery and (ix) gynaecology and (x) other specialties. [88936]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    Information on NHS medical and dental staff is collected annually as at 30 September. The latest available information relates to September 1997 and is given in the following table.
    211

    Hospital medical and dental consultants in post at 30 September 1997 (excluding locums)

    Full-time

    Part-time

    Total

    Bro Taf

    Obstetrics and gynaecology

    11

    6

    17

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    12

    2

    14

    ENT

    7

    2

    9

    Cardiology

    6

    2

    8

    Cardio-thoracic surgery

    1

    4

    5

    General surgery

    10

    13

    23

    Urology

    3

    3

    6

    Ophthalmology

    4

    3

    7

    Oral surgery

    7

    5

    12

    Other specialties

    196

    141

    337

    Dyfed Powys

    Obstetrics and gynaecology

    6

    11

    17

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    8

    10

    18

    ENT

    2

    9

    11

    Cardiology

    1

    2

    3

    Cardio-thoracic surgery

    —

    —

    0

    General surgery

    10

    9

    19

    Urology

    1

    2

    3

    Ophthalmology

    5

    6

    11

    Oral surgery

    5

    1

    6

    Other specialties

    115

    40

    155

    Gwent

    Obstetrics and gynaecology

    7

    5

    12

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    8

    5

    13

    ENT

    1

    3

    4

    Cardiology

    —

    —

    0

    Cardio-thoracic surgery

    —

    —

    0

    General surgery

    9

    4

    13

    Urology

    2

    1

    3

    Ophthalmology

    1

    3

    4

    Oral surgery

    2

    I

    3

    Other specialties

    114

    32

    146

    Morgannwg

    Obstetrics and gynaecology

    6

    5

    11

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    6

    5

    11

    ENT

    5

    1

    6

    Cardiology

    4

    —

    4

    Cardio-thoracic surgery

    3

    —

    3

    General surgery

    12

    6

    18

    Urology

    1

    2

    3

    Ophthalmology

    5

    2

    7

    Oral surgery

    4

    —

    4

    Other specialties

    163

    20

    183

    North Wales

    Obstetrics and gynaecology

    6

    8

    14

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    7

    4

    11

    ENT

    2

    5

    7

    Cardiology

    2

    —

    2

    Cardio-thoracic surgery

    —

    —

    0

    General surgery

    9

    9

    18

    Urology

    2

    2

    4

    Ophthalmology

    7

    2

    9

    Oral surgery

    I

    2

    3

    Other specialties

    147

    33

    180

    Wales1

    Obstetrics and gynaecology

    36

    26

    62

    Trauma and orthopaedics

    39

    22

    61

    ENT

    16

    15

    31

    Cardiology

    13

    2

    15

    Cardio-thoracic surgery

    3

    4

    7

    General surgery

    51

    35

    86

    Urology

    8

    9

    17

    Ophthalmology

    20

    14

    34

    Oral surgery

    12

    8

    20

    Other specialties

    703

    231

    934

    1A consultant working in more than one health authority area is counted in each authority in which they work but only once in the data for Wales as a whole.

    212
    Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

    Hepatitis C
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of introducing a scheme to provide financial assistance for people who contracted hepatitis C through their haemophilia treatment; over how many years the scheme would last; and how many people would be eligible for such assistance. [89035]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    In Wales, we believe there about 105 haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment. We estimate that the cost for a special payment scheme for haemophiliacs would be in the region of £7m—£8m based on UK estimates.

    Government policy remains that those infected with hepatitis C through NHS treatment should not receive special payments, as the same considerations would apply to patients infected with another illness or otherwise harmed as a result of medical or surgical procedure not resulting from negligence.

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

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with haemophilia were infected with hepatitis C through their NHS treatment before 1986; and how many are still alive. [89034]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    The information requested is not available centrally.

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

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of financial assistance schemes for people who contracted hepatitis C through contaminated blood products in(a) Canada, (b) Ireland and (c) Italy; and if he will assess the benefits of introducing similar schemes in Wales. [89036]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    It continues to be Government policy that compensation or other financial help to particular patients or groups of patients is paid only where the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault. We are aware of compensation schemes in other countries, but these relate to the specific policy and operational circumstances in those countries and a direct comparison would not be appropriate

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

    Dental Services
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of general dental practices are linked electronically to the Dental Practice Board in each health authority area. [89037]
    213
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    The position as of 31 March 1999, as reported by the Dental Practice Board (DPB), is that the percentage of general dental practices that are able to transmit claims (i.e. are linked) electronically to the Dental Practice Board in each health authority area are:

    Per cent.

    Gwent

    49.1

    Bro Taf

    49.6

    Dyfed Powys

    44.9

    North Wales

    49.2

    Iechyd Morgannwg

    46.9

    This represents a figure of 48.1 per cent. for Wales as a whole. May I clarify the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 15 March 1999, Official Report, column 529. The figure of 66 per cent. quoted in my answer, based on data provided by the DPB, referred to general dental practitioners in Wales who utilised information management and technology systems at that time, of which a proportion were linked electronically to the DPB.

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

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if local health groups will be required to make available funding for dental audit on at least the same scale as the funding which is already available. [89038]

    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    The new clinical governance agenda gives local health groups an important role to play in encouraging and supporting quality improvement projects. This therefore provides a mechanism for the dental profession to have equal access to funding for dental audit projects. Applications from the primary health care sector, including dentists, will be assessed by the relevant local health group, all of whom have an elected dental member. Funding will be made available on the basis of the merits of the application/business case submitted.

    In addition, the Department funds a Dental Adviser post whose primary role is to encourage and support successful applications for funding from the dental profession in Wales.

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

  CABINET OFFICE

    Drugs
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what is his estimate of the amounts of confiscated illegal drug assets that will be used for anti-drugs measures in each of the next 10 years; and what percentage he estimates this will be of the total value of illegal drugs trafficked in the United Kingdom. [86955]

    Dr. Jack Cunningham
    The first annual report of the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator sets out that from the financial year 1999—2000, assets seized from drug traffickers in the UK will be channelled back into anti-drugs work through a new Confiscated Assets Fund (CAF). The activities to be funded will be identified by 214
    the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator based on his assessment of the strategic priorities. For 1999—2000 the Fund will total £3 million; this should rise to £5 million in 2000—01 and —7 million in 2001—02. The amounts allocated to the Fund thereafter will be set according to receipts in the previous year

    There are no figures available for the value of illegal drugs trafficked.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    European Communities Working Groups
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the European Communities working groups which met over the last 12 months with a representative from his Department in attendance; if he will list the number of times each met; if he will indicate the nature of the Government's representation; and if he will make a statement. [88468]

    Mr. Vaz
    Officials from my Department regularly attend meetings of Council working groups. Occasionally my Department is represented by officials from the United Kingdom's Permanent Representation to the European Union. I have listed the working groups with which my Department is most closely involved, and the number of times these have met in the last 12 months.

    Working group

    Meetings

    Extension of the Brussels Convention

    1

    Rome II

    5

    Revision of the Brussels and Lugano Conventions

    7

    Treasury Counsel
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) representations were made, (b) correspondence was had and (c) meetings were held by (i) the Lord Chancellor and (ii) the Parliamentary Secretary's predecessor about (1) the creation of the vacancy for Treasury Counsel (Common Law) in May 1997 and (2) the filling of the vacancy. [89114]

    Mr. Vaz
    Soon after the Lord Chancellor was appointed to that office in May 1997, it became apparent to him that the then First Treasury Counsel (Common Law) should be recommended to Her Majesty for appointment as a puisne judge of the High Court. He informed the Attorney-General that this appointment would be offered. The Attorney-General and the then Solicitor-General consulted widely as to who should be appointed to the post of First Treasury Counsel, and the Lord Chancellor was among those who were consulted. Once the Attorney-General had decided who should be appointed, his Department had correspondence with the Lord Chancellor's Department to synchronise the announcement of the two appointments.

    To the best of my knowledge, my predecessor was not in any way concerned with either of these appointments.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Devolution (Scotland)
    Mr. Maxton
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement regarding the giving of advice by the First Minister to Her Majesty on the exercise of her functions in connection with the implementation of the Scotland Act 1998. [89358]

    The Prime Minister
    In a number of situations advice is by convention, given by a Minister of the Crown to Her Majesty in respect of the exercise of her functions. The majority of Her Majesty's functions in respect of which she receives advice from a Minister of the Crown in this way relate to the making of appointments and the use of the Royal prerogative.

    As a consequence of the new constitutional arrangements under the Scotland Act 1998, it is proposed that in some of those situations the First Minister instead of a Minister of the Crown will give advice, by convention, to Her Majesty after 1 July in respect of her functions. No formal order is required to give effect to these transfers, which will be carried out by administrative arrangement. In this context "Her Majesty's functions" refer to her statutory functions and cases where Her Majesty acts under her prerogative or common law powers. It concerns only those functions of Her Majesty which she exercises personally and not those which are exercised on her behalf by a Minister of the Crown. It deals only with circumstances in which a Minister of the Crown provides advice to Her Majesty by convention and it does not deal with circumstances in which a Minister of the Crown exercises a statutory function of advising Her Majesty. Where appropriate, provision has been made in the Scotland Act, or in subordinate legislation under the Scotland Act, to transfer these statutory advice-giving functions from the Minister of the Crown to the First Minister

    In cases where Her Majesty exercises a function which is exercisable within devolved competence for the purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 and she is, by convention, advised by a Minister of the Crown about the exercise of that function, then after 1 July she will be advised by the First Minister instead of by a Minister of the Crown.

    For example, Her Majesty exercises the Royal prerogative of mercy and appoints regius professors of the ancient Scottish universities in this way. A list of further examples of circumstances in which Her Majesty will in future be advised by the First Minister instead of by the Secretary of State in relation to the exercise of her functions which relate in whole or in part to a devolved matter has been placed in the Library.

    There are some matters in respect of which the Prime Minister gives advice to Her Majesty on the exercise of her functions and on which it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to consult or to take advice from the First Minister. These matters include recommendations of Scottish candidates for honours and dignities, which are a
    216
    reserved matter, and advice on the appointment of Lords Lieutenants in Scotland, the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and members of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Forestry Commission. There are also matters where a Minister of the Crown gives advice to Her Majesty and where it also would be appropriate for the First Minister to be consulted by or to give advice to that Minister of the Crown.

    The Scotland Act 1998 confers upon the First Minister various functions of advising Her Majesty either directly or through the Prime Minister. This includes seeking Her Majesty's approval to the appointment of Scottish Ministers and recommending to Her Majesty persons for appointment as Scottish Law Officers. Section 95 of the Act sets out in detail the arrangements for the First Minister to nominate persons for appointment as Lord President of the Court of Session and Lord Justice Clerk to the Prime Minister, who in turn makes recommendations on those appointments to Her Majesty. It also provides for the First Minister to recommend to Her Majesty the appointment of other judges.

    In a number of other situations, Her Majesty is advised in relation to the exercise of her functions by the Privy Council rather than by a Minister of the Crown. The Privy Council deals with various items of Scottish business, both prerogative business and statutory matters, such as the grant of Royal Charters and Privy Council appointments. I have placed a paper in the Libraries of both Houses that briefly describes the circumstances in which the First Minister will, from 1 July, contribute to Privy Council business in the same manner as the Secretary of State for Scotland has done.

    Engagements
    Sir Peter Tapsell
    To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 June. [88447]

    The Deputy Prime Minister
    I have been asked to reply.

    As the House knows, the Prime Minister has decided to remain in Northern Ireland today, in order to make every effort to secure agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland.

    I am sure the whole House will wish him, the Irish Prime Minister and all the parties well in their endeavours to bring lasting peace to Northern Ireland.

    United Nations
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has put forward for reform of the United Nations. [87763]

    The Deputy Prime Minister
    I have been asked to reply

    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23 June 1999, Official Report, column 399.

  HEALTH

    Coronary Heart Disease
    Laura Moffatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date the national framework for coronary heart disease will be published. [85963]

    Mr. Hutton
    A rolling programme of National Service Frameworks was announced last year. The first two frameworks—on coronary heart disease and on mental health—are planned to be published this summer.

    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 296, on cardiac rehabilitation programmes, when he expects to publish the national service framework for coronary heart disease. [87852]

    Mr. Hutton
    A rolling programme of National Service Frameworks was announced last summer. The first two—on coronary heart disease and on mental health—will be published this summer.

    Genetically Modified Crops
    Joan Ruddock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the antibiotics to which marker genes used in the production of genetically modified crops convey resistance and the medical uses of those antibiotics. [86317]

    Ms Jowell
    The antibiotic marker genes and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance that are used in the production of genetic modification of plant crops are Kanamycin; Ampicillin; Hygromycin; Streptomycin; Spectinomycin; Tetracycline; Amikacin and Gentamycin. There are no currently licensed indications for Hygromycin.

    The licensed indications for the others are:
    Kanamycin:
    For the treatment of infections due to gram-negative organisms resistant to other antibiotics. It may also be used in the treatment of certain staphylococcal infections due to multi-resistant strains, and in gonorrhoea.
    Ampicillin:
    Urinary-tract infections, otitis media, sinusitis, chronic bronchitis, invasive salmonellosis, gonorrhoea.
    Streptomycin:
    Tuberculosis, in combination with other drugs; adjunct to doxycycline in brucellosis.
    Tetracycline:
    Exacerbations of chronic bronchitis; brucellosis, chlamydia; mycoplasma, and rickettsia; acne vulgaris, rosacea.
    Spectinomycin:
    Gonorrhoea caused by penicillin-resistant.
    Amikacin:
    Serious Gram-negative infections resistant to gentamicin.
    Gentamicin:
    Septicaemia and neonatal sepsis; meningitis and other CNS infections; biliary-tract infection, acute pyelonephritis or prostatitis, endocarditis caused by viridans streptococci or Enterococcus faecalis (with penicillin); pneumonia in hospital patients adjunct in listerial meningitus.

    Surgical Detritus
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 425, how much compensation has been paid (a) to persons left with surgical detritus inside them following an operation and (b) to the relatives of those who died as a consequence of such negligence in each of the last three years. [86650]

    Mr. Denham
    The National Health Service Litigation Authority reports that payments in respect of claims arising from a foreign body left inside a patient following surgery amounted to £1,073,192 in the period 1 April 1995 to date.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many actions were brought against NHS trusts alleging negligence arising from surgical detritus left in wounds following an operation for the most recent year for which figures are available. [87671]

    Mr. Denham
    252 claims arising from foreign bodies left inside a patient were reported to the National Health Service Litigation Authority in the period 1 April 1995 to date.

    Radiotherapy
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the report on the review of radiotherapy provision. [87970]

    Mr. Hutton
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 14 June 1999,Official Report, column 11.

    NHS Management Posts
    Dan Norris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress the Government have made on reducing management posts in the NHS. [88216]

    Mr. Denham
    We recognise the importance of good management in improving health and modernising the National Health Service. We have no plans, therefore, to set targets to reduce the number of management posts in the NHS. However, we remain committed to tackling unnecessary bureaucracy to ensure that a greater proportion of every pound spent in the NHS is directed towards patient care.

    Action taken to reduce NHS management costs in 1997–98 and 1998–99 have already freed up £¼ billion by 1999–2000 that would otherwise have been spent on bureaucracy. Further reductions are planned in 1999–2000.

    Long-term Care
    Mr. Bill O'Brien
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many long-term care beds for elderly and mentally disabled people were available in each health authority area in England on 1 May. [88227]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested on the number of long-term care beds in each Health Authority is not available centrally.

    The available information on the number of residential care beds and beds in wards open 24 hours within each health authority area in England for 1997–98 has been placed in the Library.

    Allergy Bracelets
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make funds available to Medic Alert in order to defray the costs of re-engraving allergy bracelets for those on low incomes following the proposed changes to telephone numbers in the Central London area. [88656]

    Mr. Hutton
    The Department has no funds available for this purpose. Telephone numbering is a matter for the Office of Telecommunications.

    Waiting Times (South Staffordshire)
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the average waiting times from GP referral to inpatient admission for patients living in the South Staffordshire Health Authority area for each of the last four years for which data are available. [88446]

    Mr. Denham
    The Department does not collect data on patients' total waiting time from general practitioner referral to inpatient admission.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    School Playing Fields
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where detailed information is kept on the individual school playing fields sold between 1979 and 1999. [88661]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Prior to 1 October 1998, there were no restrictions, other than those that may have been imposed by the planning authorities, on the sale of school playing fields by local education authorities. The Department does not, therefore, have any information on the sale of individual school playing fields by local authorities before that date.

    The Department does have information about the sale of school playing fields by grant-maintained schools from 1988 to the present.

    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the school playing fields which the Government have prevented from being sold and developed(a) between 1 May 1997 and 30 September 1998 and (b) since 1 October 1998. [88663]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Since 1 May 1997, applications by the governing bodies to sell playing fields at the following grant-maintained schools have been rejected:

    Merrill College, Derby

    Cranbrook School, Kent

    Lincoln Christ's Hospital School

    The King's School, Peterborough

    Deacon's School, Peterborough.

    Before 1 October 1998, there was no control over the sale of playing fields by local authorities. The Government introduced control by bringing into force section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Since then, all application from local authorities to sell, or change the use of school playing fields have been considered against strict criteria. So far, all the applications that have been considered have met the criteria and have, therefore, been approved. It would not
    220
    be in a local authority's interest to submit an application that did not meet the criteria. What we do not know is how many local authorities have been deterred from submitting applications to sell school playing fields that, prior to 1 October 1998, they could have sold without needing consent.

    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will assess the impact on community usage of non-sport development of school sports grounds. [88743]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Before a local authority, governing body or foundation body in England may dispose, or change the use of a school playing field, they must first secure the prior consent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Applications for consent are considered against four criteria published in DfEE Circular 3/99, "The Protection of School Playing Fields". One of these criteria is that the playing field provision and other sports facilities to be left will meet the needs of the local community. This is in addition to any consideration of proposed development under the planning system.

    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to ensure that schools do not replace all their grass pitches with artificial surfaces. [88496]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Whether or not a maintained school's outdoor sporting provision is grass, hard surfaced or artificial surfaced is a decision best taken at local level. However, paragraph 55 of DfEE Circular 3/99 "The Protection of School Playing Fields", highlights the fact that not all types of games can be played on artificial surfaces and that a balance may need to be struck. Our Building Bulletin 85, "School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice", provides detailed advice.

    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his Department's policy on use of school sports facilities by the community. [88744]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Individual governing bodies control the use of their school's premises but, in doing so out of school hours, the law requires them to have regard to the desirability of making their premises available to the wider community. We value community use and the "Code of Practice on LEA-School Relations", published this year, states that
    "schools should seek out opportunities to develop their community role".
    Later this year, the Department will be issuing further guidance on community use of school facilities as part of a drive to better promote community use.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of(a) the cost of the climate change levy to his Department and (b) the savings from the reduction in national insurance contributions that will occur when it is introduced. [88859]
    221
    Mr. Mudie
    The net impact of the climate change levy and the associated reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions on the Department for Education and Employment will depend on the rates of climate change levy. The final rates of climate change levy will not be set until the Finance Bill 2000.

    In addition, the Government are still considering a number of detailed issues on the tax treatment of different energy products which could have a significant impact in some instances. It is therefore not possible to give definitive figures about the impact of the climate change levy on the Department for Education and Employment.

    Key Stage 2 (Attainment Levels)
    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what steps he has taken to encourage schools with able children to take up the opportunity to sit level 6 tests in English, Mathematics and Science at Key Stage 2 SATS; [88833]

    (2) what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the numbers of children who attained level 6 at Key Stage 2 SATS in 1998 in English; what conclusions were reached; and what future work is planned on this subject area. [88834]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    It is the role of the teacher to assess which children are working within Level 6 in a subject and therefore which pupils should be entered for both the Levels 3-5 tests and the Level 6 extension test. Level 6 is awarded in a subject only when a child has attained a Level 5 on the main Levels 3–5 National Curriculum tests in addition to achieving sufficient marks on the extension test.

    The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is currently reviewing National Curriculum extension tests and is taking full account of the recommendations in the recent Select Committee Report on Highly Able Children. The Government will ensure that any changes are consistent with its commitment to improve the education of gifted and talented children.

    The QCA has commissioned research, on behalf of the Secretary of State, from the University of Leeds and the National Federation of Educational Research (NFER) to look at the design of the Level 6 test. Their job will be to incorporate comments received by the QCA about children's performance at Level 6 and how future tests can be designed to make them more accessible to pupils.

    59 pupils achieved the Level 6 English extension test in 1998.

    Out-of-school Clubs
    Mr. Lock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his policy towards local education authorities seeking to impose full cost recovery or full commercial rate charges on out of school clubs operating out of premises owned by local education authorities for their use of the premises and associated facilities. [R] [88959]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 29 June 1999]A School's budget may not be used to subsidise non-school activities. Sections 149–152 of the Education Act 1996 and, from 1 September 1999, Schedule 13 to 222
    the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, require that community use of school premises must be self-financing. Rates are not payable by out-of-school clubs. Paragraph 58 of the "Code of Practice on LEA-School Relations" states
    "there may be a natural tendency to maximise profits from letting to community users. But nothing in guidance from LEAs about the costs to be recouped, or in decisions taken by governing bodies…should promote the maximisation of profits at the expense of existing, or potential, benefits to the wider community."
    The department will be issuing further guidance on community use of school facilities later this year.

    Mr. Lock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to local education authorities concerning the proper basis upon which out of school clubs operating out of premises owned by local education authorities should be charged for their use of the premises and associated facilities. [R] [88960]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 29 June 1999]The Department's advice is currently set out in paragraph 58 of the "Code of Practice on LEA-School Relations". This states that
    "there may be a natural tendency to maximise profits from lettings to community users. But noting in guidance from LEAs about the costs to be recouped, or in decisions taken by governing bodies … should promote the maximisation of profits at the expense of existing, or potential, benefits to the wider community."
    Legislation requires that community use is self-financing. A school may not subsidise non-school activities with its own budget. The Department will be issuing further guidance on community use of school facilities later this year.

    Sustainable Development Education Panel
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to respond to the recommendations of the First Annual report of the Sustainable Development Education Panel; and if he will make a statement. [88891]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    These are important and wide-ranging recommendations. I congratulate the Panel on its hard work.

    I met the Chairman of the Panel, Sir Geoffrey Holland, and Panel members in May, and discussed their plans to consult on the recommendations in the Annual Report affecting further and higher education, youth services, and training for employment. As far as the schools sector is concerned, we agreed that the current consultation on the draft National Curriculum would enable the sector to state its views on the coverage of sustainable development, particularly in geography, science and citizenship.

    I am keen to develop appropriate partnerships in the area of out-of-school education, and I asked the Panel to let me have further proposals on this. I am also keen to involve employers as much as possible in spreading sustainable development messages and I hope to speak at an event organised by the Panel in due course.

    I have written to Anthea Millet, the Chief Executive of the Teacher Training Agency, and to Chris Woodhead, HM Chief Inspector of Schools, asking them to meet

    223
    Sir Geoffrey to discuss the Annual Report's implications for teacher training and the inspection framework. The meeting between Sir Geoffrey and Anthea Millett has now taken place, and I understand that the TTA will write to Sir Geoffrey shortly to follow up the meeting with some suggestions on sustainable development.

    I propose to meet the Panel Chairman and members from time to time to review progress.

    EFL Courses
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what assessment he has made of the impact on the budgets of those further education colleges which are major providers of English as a foreign language courses of the current proposal by the Further Education Funding Council to withdraw Schedule 2 funding; and if he will make a statement; [88888]

    (2) what discussions he has had with the Further Education Funding Council concerning its proposal to withdraw Schedule 2 funding for English as a foreign language courses; [88890]

    (3) what representations he has received concerning the proposal by the Further Education Funding Council to withdraw Schedule 2 funding for English as a foreign language courses. [88892]

    Mr. Mudie
    The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) is reviewing the position of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) qualifications with representatives of further education colleges which are major providers of EFL qualifications. But there is no current proposal from the FEFC to withdraw Schedule 2 funding from EFL courses. The FEFC continues to fund EFL qualifications under Schedule 2(f), such courses having previously been funded under Schedule 2(a).

    Further Education
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how often the Charter for Further Education is reviewed and revised; and if he will make a statement; [88582]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the extent to which the standards in the Charter for Further Education are being met; and if he will make a statement. [88583]

    Mr. Mudie
    The Charter for Further Education was last reviewed and an addendum issued in October 1997. "Service First—the new charter programme" encourages the continued development and revision of local charters in line with the Government's commitment to improving local services. Further Education sector colleges have their own charters which focus on local needs. The national charter remains under review.

    The Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate monitors colleges' performance against local and national charter standards, as part of its ongoing assessment of quality in the sector. Inspectors' findings are routinely included in published college reports. These highlight good practice and, where necessary, issues which need to be addressed.

    Sixth Forms
    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 100, concerning the costs of education and training for 16 to 19 year olds, if he will harmonise the funding per student of sixth form colleges and local education authority-maintained school sixth forms. [88780]

    Mr. Mudie
    At present, it is the responsibility of Local Authorities to allocate funds to schools, and of the Further Education Funding Council to allocate funds to other sixth-form providers.

    Today the Government issued a White Paper "Learning to Succeed", setting out plans for a Learning and Skills Council which will in future fund Further Education colleges. A parallel consultation paper has been published today inviting views on options for the funding of school sixth forms in the light of the new arrangements. I refer my hon. Friend to these documents, which have been placed in the Library this afternoon, and to the statement made to the House this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 100, about A level funding, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions about the average level of funding of students at sixth-form colleges; and if he will make a statement. [88575]

    Mr. Mudie
    There are regular discussions between the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and Environment, Transport and the Regions on many issues. The DETR was naturally involved in discussions leading up to the publication today of our White Paper "Learning to Succeed", and a parallel consultation paper on options for future arrangements for school sixth-form funding.

    Mr. Paul Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with sixth form teachers and principals about the review of post-16 educational training; and if he will make a statement. [88585]

    Mr. Mudie
    A number of sixth-form colleges responded to our consultation on the post-16 review as well as representative organisations of colleges and teaching unions. I have also recently met the National Union of Teachers. The Government today issued a White Paper setting out its plans for post-16 education and training.

    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the pay levels of teaching staff in sixth form colleges. [88434]

    Mr. Mudie
    We have recently met representatives of the Sixth Form Colleges Employers Forum and the National Joint Council for Sixth Form Colleges to discuss issues about the pay and conditions of sixth form college lecturers. We have received a number of letters from hon. Members about this issue. We have replied to those representations, noting that we are providing very substantial extra funds for further education—£725 million over the next two years. Colleges are responsible for the pay and conditions of their staff. Nevertheless, we take every opportunity to encourage
    225
    unions and employers to work together to determine a sensible way forward under the improved circumstances we have created.

    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to harmonise pay levels of teaching staff in sixth form colleges and staff teaching the same age group in schools with sixth forms. [88433]

    Mr. Mudie
    Sixth Form Colleges are independent, and we do not wish to interfere with that independence. We are providing very substantial extra funds for further education—£725 million over the next two years. This will offer colleges more room to manoeuvre when setting pay levels.

    The Government today issued a White Paper "Learning to Succeed", setting out plans for a Learning and Skills Council which will in future fund further education colleges. A parallel consultation paper was published inviting views on options for the funding of school sixth forms in the light of the new arrangements.

    Departmental Staff
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were employed by his Department in each of the years from 1993–94 to 1998–99; if he will break down the total into the categories(a) male, (b) female, (c) registered disability and (d) ethnic minority; and if his Department has an equal opportunities policy. [88684]

    Mr. Mudie
    The following table shows the breakdown of staff figures in DfEE from 1993–94 to 1998–99:

    Total employed

    (a) Male

    (b) Female

    (c) Registered disability

    (d) Ethnic minority

    1 April 1993

    8,978

    3,950

    5,028

    —

    —

    1 April 1994

    6,561

    2,887

    3,674

    —

    —

    1 April 1995

    5,683

    2,500

    3,183

    —

    —

    1 April 1996

    5,212

    2,345

    2,867

    240

    324

    1 April 1997

    4,795

    2,206

    2,589

    226

    312

    1 April 1998

    3,956

    1,838

    2,118

    191

    310

    1 April 1999

    4,094

    1,874

    2,220

    247

    347

    DfEE has a comprehensive Equal Opportunities Strategy which overarches our proactive equal opportunities action plans. Equality of opportunity is central to the achievement of DfEE's objectives and values. It is about the effectiveness of everything we do—how we manage ourselves, how we develop policy and how we deliver services. The Department is committed to being an equal opportunities employers. We value and welcome diversity and aim to develop all our staff to enable them to make a full contribution to meeting the Department's objectives, and to fulfil their own potential on merit. DfEE will not tolerate harassment or other unfair discrimination on grounds of sex, marital status, race, colour, nationality, ethnic origin, disability, age, religion or sexual orientation. We will promote and support the use of a range of flexible working patterns to enable staff to balance home and work responsibilities; and we will treat people fairly irrespective of their working arrangements.

  TREASURY

    Offshore Oil Revenues
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last five financial years the amount of revenue received per barrel of oil extracted from United Kingdom offshore fields. [88790]

    Mrs. Roche
    North Sea oil tax revenues per barrel of oil produced in the same financial year, including revenues from gas production converted into equivalent amounts of oil, are in the table.

    Financical year

    Tax1Revenue per barrel(£)

    1994–95

    1.20

    1995–96

    1.70

    1996–97

    2.40

    1997–98

    2.20

    1998–992

    1.60

    1Petroleum revenue tax, corporation tax, and royalty

    2Provisional

    VAT
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at(a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, any security or secondary security; [88379]

    (2) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the underwriting of the issue of any money, or security, or note or order for the payment of money; [88380]

    (3) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the services of the authorised corporate director of an open-ended investment company so far as they consist in managing the company's scheme property; [88381]

    (4) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the management of an authorised unit trust scheme or of a trust-based scheme by the operator of the scheme; [88382]

    (5) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the making of any advance of the granting of any credit; [88383]

    (6) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the provision of the facility of instalment credit finance in a hire-purchase, conditional sale or credit sale agreement for which facility a separate charge is made and disclosed to the recipient of the supply of goods; [88384]

    (7) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the provision of administrative arrangements and documentation and the transfer of the title to the goods in connection with the provision of the facility of instalment credit finance in a hire-purchase, conditional sale or credit

    227
    sale agreement for which facility a separate charge is made and disclosed to the recipient of the supply of goods if the total consideration therefore is specified in the agreement and does not exceed £10; [88385]

    (8) if he will estimate the total annual revenue if VAT were charged at (a) 17.5 per cent. and (b) five per cent. on the issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money. [88386]

    Dawn Primarolo
    It is not possible to provide the requested estimates due to insufficient data on these specific financial activities.

    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what prior consultations were held by Customs and Excise with trade sectors concerned by the legislative changes enacted by the VAT (Finance) Order 1999; and if he will make a statement. [88920]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Through the regular meetings of the joint finance sector liaison group, businesses have been aware for some time of Customs and Excise concerns in this area. It was not possible to consult on specific proposals because of the risk of tax avoidance. In this area there is a history of forestalling adverse tax changes by the use of artificial pre-payment schemes that side-step the intended effect for some years in the future, leading to considerable loss of revenue.

    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what legal advice he sought on(a) the vires of the VAT (Finance) Order 1999 and (b) its compatibility with European law; and if he will make a statement. [88922]

    Dawn Primarolo
    In considering the content of the Order, Customs took advice from in-house lawyers and from independent leading Counsel.

    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects Customs and Excise to produce written guidance on how the provisions of the VAT (Finance) Order 1999 will be applied; and if he will make a statement. [88926]

    Dawn Primarolo
    HM Customs and Excise produced standard explanatory material on Budget Day when the VAT (Finance) Order 1999 was announced. Immediately following this they undertook detailed explanatory meetings with trade representatives and advisers. Customs have sent a draft of a more detailed guidance note to a number of trade representatives for comment. They aim to publish this by mid July.

    Mr. Pearson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review with Customs and Excise how they propose to handle judgments of VAT tribunals where both the financial sector and Customs and Excise have agreed beforehand to treat such judgments as test cases; and if he will make a statement. [88923]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The care and management of VAT, including the conduct of litigation, is the statutory responsibility of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. They did not agree to treat as a "test" case any recent or current case concerning financial services.
    228
    The Tribunal has primary responsibility for determining the facts of a case. Its decisions are binding between the parties but do not constitute binding legal precedent. Either party has a right of appeal on a matter of law to the higher courts; and on matters of European law either the Tribunal or a higher court may refer questions to the European Court of Justice.

    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to adopt Article 4.4 of the EC Sixth VAT Directive; and if he will make a statement. [88913]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Article 4.4 of the Sixth VAT Directive has been incorporated into UK law as VAT Act 1994 sections 4 and 43 and Schedule 1 paragraphs 1 A and 2. There are no plans to introduce further legislation.

    Inland Revenue 35
    Mrs. Organ
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been received concerning the introduction of Inland Revenue 35. [88415]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 29 June 1999]There have been a substantial number of responses both to the Budget Day Press Release IR35 and the subsequent material which the Inland Revenue have been distributing to interested parties. The Government are currently considering the representations.

    Ms Ward
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the implementation of Inland Revenue 35. [88222]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue is currently considering representations received in response to the proposals.

    Duty Free
    Mr. Maude
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise Information Sheet (June 1999) regarding excise duty and VAT arrangements following the withdrawal of duty free sales of goods to intra-Community travellers, what is the VAT liability on goods liable to UK VAT in the domestic market purchased on a flight from London to New York which is subsequently diverted to Paris(a) when the passengers are permitted to disembark at Paris to join a new flight to New York and (b) when passengers remain on the same aircraft until it is able to continue to New York. [88918]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The withdrawal of duty free sales of goods with effect from 1 July only affects travellers on intra-Community journeys. Passengers travelling outside the EU will continue to be able to purchase duty free goods. Diversion of an international flight via another Community airport would not affect the VAT relief of sales to passengers on that flight. In such circumstances passengers, and any duty free goods that they had purchased, would be subject to the usual arrangements whereby they would remain within a Customs controlled area pending their onward flight.

    Community Budget
    Ms Lawrence
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the Statement on the 1999 Community Budget. [89459]
    229
    Ms Hewitt
    I have today laid before Parliament the Statement on the 1999 Community Budget, entitled "European Community Finances". This White Paper is the nineteenth in the series. As in the past, it covers annual budgetary matters and includes details of recent developments in European Community financial management and in countering fraud against the Community Budget. It also describes the Community Budget for 1999 as adopted by the European Parliament, and the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions to the Community Budget between 1996 and 1999.

    I have placed copies of the White Paper in both Libraries of the House.

    Individuals holding a current bank account by regional development agency and age

    Thousand

    Regional Development Agency

    Age of individual

    North East

    North West and Merseyside

    Yorkshire and aHumber

    East Midlands

    West Midlands

    Eastern Region

    London

    South East

    South West

    18–24

    190

    420

    270

    300

    320

    370

    410

    530

    260

    25–49

    840

    1,970

    1,410

    1,270

    1,490

    1,760

    2,330

    2,400

    1,470

    50–64

    420

    1,030

    700

    710

    770

    920

    860

    1,300

    850

    65+

    260

    690

    490

    370

    430

    620

    650

    850

    670

    Notes:

    1. Data are not provided for the under 18 age group as information on children holding current bank accounts is not available. Samples sizes for the highest age group are also too small to support reliable estimates of the statistics in question. Other age ranges provided in the tables do not exactly match those requested as these had missing ranges and overlapping boundaries. Therefore, age ranges which are as close as possible to those requested have been used.

    2. The estimates are based on sample counts that have been adjusted for non-response using multi-purpose grossing factors that control for region, Council Tax Band and a number of demographic variables. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response.

    3. All figures are provided in thousands and have been rounded to the nearest ten thousand.

    Source:

    1997–98 Family Resources Survey (Great Britain)

    Overpaid Tax
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to ensure that older people are aware of their right to claim back overpaid tax. [89146]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Government are considering running a Taxback campaign in the year 2000. The aim of this would be to stimulate free media publicity and to encourage people, including the elderly, who had overpaid tax on their bank and building society interest to claim it back.

    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the total amount of overpaid tax by older people on their income from savings. [89147]

    Dawn Primarolo
    No information on which to base an estimate is available from Inland Revenue's records. Tax offices will generally be aware of cases where tax has been overpaid only when tax returns are sent in, or when claims are made for the repayment of tax deducted at source.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Meat Hygiene Service
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will establish an expert multi-disciplinary audit of the Meat Hygiene Service independent of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. [88286]

    Bank Accounts
    Mr. O'Hara
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the most recent figures showing how many people hold current bank accounts in each of the regions covered by the new regional development agencies in the age ranges (i) 0 to 8, (ii) 18 to 24, (iii) 25 to 50, (iv) 50 to 65, (v) 65 to 85 and (vi) 85 years and over. [88650]

    Angela Eagle
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Mr. Rooker
    The work of the Meat Hygiene Service is scrutinised by NAO, the Audit Consultancy and Management Services Division of MAFF, operational audits by the State Veterinary Service, the Intervention Board as well as by auditors of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to ensure that the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service is independently monitored. [88279]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Meat Hygiene Service's performance targets are set by the Minister and monitored independently by the Audit Consultancy and Management Services Division of MAFF. Information on the Meat Hygiene Service's performance in key areas is made widely available in the monthly publications "Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report" and "BSE Enforcement Bulletin".

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the current arrangements for auditing the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service. [88396]

    Mr. Rooker
    Audits of the operational performance of the Meat Hygiene Service are carried out by Veterinary Meat Hygiene Advisors of the Joint Food Standards and Safety Group. The auditors visit a selection of licensed premises to assess MHS compliance with the procedures
    231
    and practices set out in the MHS Operations Manual and a report is published annually. This year the audit manual has been revised and changes made to report formats and the categorisation of findings.

    The annual performance targets of the MHS are monitored independently by the Audit Consultancy and Management services Division of MAFF. I am fully satisfied with these arrangements.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria are used by veterinary officers of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group during their routine audits of Meat Hygiene Service performance to assess the competence and performance of official veterinary surgeons. [88283]

    Mr. Rooker
    The audit staff of the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group assess the performance of official veterinary surgeons of the MHS against the procedures contained in the MHS Operations Manual.

    Critical Control Points
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the definition of the term critical control point used in the hazard analysis and critical control points system; and how many critical control points there should be in(a) a typical slaughterhouse, (b) a red meat cutting plant and (c) a poultry processing plant operation; and at what stages in each operation. [88289]

    Mr. Rooker
    A critical control point is a step at which control can be applied and is essential to prevent or eliminate a food safety hazard or reduce it to an acceptable level.

    Every food operation is unique and it is for each operator to apply the hazard analysis and critical control point system and determine critical control points appropriate to the business. The Government/Industry Working Group on Meat Hygiene's Forward Programmes provide some generic examples of critical control points relevant to the red and white meat industry.

    EU Food and Veterinary Office
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if staffing of the European Union Food and Veterinary Office is allocated on the basis of national quotas; [88295]

    (2) how many professional grade officials are employed by the European Union Food and Veterinary Office; and how many are (a) United Kingdom citizens, (b) qualified veterinarians and (c) qualified environmental health officers. [88221]

    Mr. Rooker
    This is a matter for the European Commission.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations(a) he and (b) his officials have made to the European Union Commission as to the composition of the EU Food and Veterinary Office. [88287]

    Mr. Rooker
    None.

    Wild Boar
    Sir Geoffrey JohnsonSmith
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce measures to protect the health status of the pig herd from the potential threat of colonies of free-living wild boar. [87958]

    Mr. Rooker
    We are considering options for an animal health risk assessment of wild boar. This will examine the potential for disease transmission or other interactions between wild boar and livestock and will help us consider whether action needs to be taken to limit or eradicate the population of wild boar.

    Genetic Modification
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will amend his Department's Fact Sheet issued in June 1999 on genetic modification of crops and food to incorporate the recommendations of the Chief Medical officer and the Chief Scientific Advisor on population health surveillance. [89056]

    Mr. Rooker
    Yes. The fact sheet has already been up-dated.

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

The Lord Bishop of Rochester
Michael James. Lord Bishop of Rochester—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Southwark and the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester

  Royal Assent
  The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Health Act,

  Water Industry Act,

  Tax Credits Act,

  Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare)

  Act, Road Traffic (Vehicle Testing) Act,

  University College London Act,

  Imperial College Act,

  HFC Bank Act,

  Cathedrals Measure,

  Care of Places, of Worship Measure.

  Summerhill School
  2.42 p.m.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What is their response to the recent Ofsted report on Summerhill School.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Ofsted has reported that Summerhill School fails to meet statutory minimum standards of accommodation, welfare and instruction, and is not providing adequate education. We have served a notice of complaint, requiring the school to make specified improvements within a year. We have also asked the school to submit an action plan within three months.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does the noble Lord think it appropriate to consider closing, after 78 years, a unique educational institution in the private sector which has such massive support from pupils and parents? Does he accept that, despite Ofsted's disclaimer that it is not sitting in judgment on Summerhill's philosophy of pupil democracy, that is exactly what it is doing?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the key issue is children's entitlement to minimum standards of
  272
  education and welfare. The Ofsted team was an experienced HMI team. The inspection lasted five days. It took place against a background of many years of promises to take action which were not achieved.
  As to whether it is an attack on the principles of the school, it is perfectly possible to argue that there is no requirement on the school to change its ethos. It is about ensuring that pupils pursue a broad and balanced curriculum, whether through lessons or prim ate study, that their progress is monitored appropriately, and that acceptable levels of achievement are attained.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since when has it been the policy of the Government to take a view about the philosophy and education of private schools? This is a school which attained 75 per cent A to C passes in 1998 and 63.9 per cent in 1999. Those figures are well above national averages. There is no truancy; and there is the highest possible level of parental satisfaction with the school. When those parents are paying their money and know what they are paying for, who are we to take a different view about the philosophy of education in a private school?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the situation is straightforward. There is a duty to ensure that independent schools reach and maintain standards laid down in the 1996 Education Act 1996. The inspection identified problems of attendance at lessons, progress not being properly assessed and poor teaching in a quarter of the lessons observed. The inspection reached its conclusions on that basis, following which a notice of complaint was served.
  Lord Bridges: My Lords, does not the Minister's last reply suggest that the remit of the inspectors may not be wholly appropriate in examining schools such as Summerhill, which has deliberately set itself out to promote qualities of character and personal development rather than those of strict educational attainment as measured in classroom performance? Those who, like me, live near the school understand the international reputation which it has gained and the extraordinary effect which will be brought about by its closure and the impact on its friends abroad.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I repeat that the statutory provision relating to minimum standards must be operated. The inspection team concluded that there were serious weaknesses which had to be addressed. Of course it is open to the school to make representations to Ofsted about the inspection and the report. It is also open to the school to appeal to the Independent Schools Tribunal within one month of the service of a notice of complaint. But I am satisfied that the inspection was carried out properly and that the conclusions reached were in accordance with the statutory responsibilities.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, reflecting on the wider implications of the threat to Summerhill School, does the Minister agree that the beacon of innovation, flair, imagination and lateral thinking which ought to

  273
  characterise teaching in our schools has all but been snuffed out by the overload of government prescription and an overcrowded national curriculum? Can the Minister tell us of any government initiative that will assist teachers to re-establish their professional independence and, at least as important, their own innovation?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we have certainly travelled some distance from Summerhill School. The Government are concerned to raise standards in all our schools. That is why we allocated extra resources; made the classroom size pledge; published the teacher Green Paper; and are tackling failing schools. That is why the public are supportive of the action we are taking.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, is it not a fact that in many respects Summerhill School has been a pioneer of many educational ideas which have subsequently been incorporated into mainstream school teaching and practice? Is it not also true that to do anything which would destroy such a school, different as it may be from most independent schools and others, would damage the whole educational system?
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure that all schools, Summerhill included, have lessons which they can offer to the rest of the school system. However, I do not believe that the inspectors' request that the school effectively monitors the progress of pupils, that acceptable levels of achievement are produced, and that health and safety provisions are properly put into place cuts across the ability of any school to innovate and to develop good practice.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the levels of achievement are well above the national average of our own state schools.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to refer back to the report of the inspectorate. That report identified serious weaknesses in terms of health and safety issues, teaching and non-attendance of pupils at lessons. It also identified that progress was not properly assessed. In the light of those conclusions, it was inevitable that the report would be produced as it was and that my right honourable friend took the action he did.
  Lord Glenamara: My Lords, this is a splendid old school which does excellent work. Its standards and philosophy are quite different from those of Mr Chris Woodhead. Thank heaven there is at least one school where they are different. It would be an outrage to close down this school. Parents send their children there because they want to. Its achievements, including its educational achievements, are high. Please do not try to iron out all schools in accordance with the ideas of Mr Woodhead.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there is no intention of prohibiting parental choice or the freedom
  274
  of the independent sector. However, as I said, the inspection identified serious weaknesses which need to be addressed. The hope is that the school will get down to addressing them.

  Climate Change Levy
  2.51 p.m.
  Lord Hardy of Wath Lord Hardy of Wath asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What further consideration will be given to ensuring that the climate change levy will not place high energy-using industries, including the engineering steels industry, in an internationally uncompetitive position.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government recognise the need for special consideration to be given to the position of energy-intensive industries under the climate change levy proposals, given their high energy usage and exposure to international competition. The Government intend to set significantly lower rates of the levy for those energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. Detailed negotiations are now under way with the sectors concerned. The Government will work closely with business on the detailed design and implementation of the climate change levy.
  Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am exceedingly grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and for the information given in Question Time earlier this week. I wonder whether my noble friend can go a little further and cover two points. First, can he make it clear that the Government are well aware of the investment and priorities served in a number of high-energy using industries, especially in engineering steel where a marked environmental advantage has already been secured? Secondly, can the Government make it clear that no British industry will be faced with particular disadvantage or threat of closure by having to bear burdens which are not shared or matched by those in competing industries, either in Europe or elsewhere? Would it not be a great tragedy if cleaner industry in Britain was closed in order that dirtier industry abroad could prosper?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the first question raised by my noble friend, yes indeed, the Government are appreciative of the efforts already made by industry to cut damaging carbon emissions. However, as I stated in response to a similar Question on Monday, the demands of the Kyoto agreements are very strict. We have to produce a 20 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2010. In response to the second question, that is a target accepted by all industrialised countries. The competitive position of energy-intensive industries in all countries of the world will be affected by their commitment to the Kyoto agreements.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, in their attempts to reduce emissions of climate change gases, will the

  275
  Government reconsider some of the anomalies in their present proposals, such as applying the levy where the sources are nuclear or hydro-electric and therefore produce no gases—bearing in mind that half the electricity in Scotland comes from nuclear sources—but exempting from the levy hydrocarbon oils which, on combustion, do release the offending gases?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to the first question raised by the noble Lord, yes, we are aware of different levels of emissions from energy-intensive industries. Of course, we are prepared to discuss those matters with the industries concerned. We are considering, in particular, a low rate or no rate for renewable energy sources. I have forgotten the second question raised by the noble Lord!
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I asked about hydrocarbon oils.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, that is an important point. However, those are dealt with by fuel duties rather than by the climate change levy.
  Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate whether at the end of the consultative process on the document dealing with the climate change levy, the Government will give serious consideration to making more of the proceeds of the levy available for energy-saving purposes? Does he recall that at present, out of the £1.7 billion raised by the levy, only £50 million will be made available for that purpose, apart from whatever arrangement is made with the intensive energy users?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the levy is intended to be fiscally neutral; in other words, all the proceeds from the levy will be returned to business in the form of reductions on national insurance contributions. Our activities in energy conservation, which are not insignificant, are in addition to that return.
  Lord Paul: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of an engineering company. The manufacturing industry has become very efficient. However, at present the main problem it faces is the high rate of the pound. That prohibits more investment which is needed for it to be competitive. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no extra levy, which would add to its costs, and that instead they will allow the industry to spend money on increasing efficiency?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have to achieve the targets to which we agreed at Kyoto, as do all other countries. The competitive position which they have vis-à-vis our industry is the same as that of other countries because the commitments they made at Kyoto.
  Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his gracious welcome the other day. Does he accept that the root of the Government's difficulty with this proposed
  276
  levy lies in the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place on 9th June? He said:
  "Any money raised by the climate change levy is given back to industry through cuts in national insurance costs".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/99; col. 645]
  Is the Minister aware of the estimate which shows 17 major industries paying £742 million more in tax and saving only £64 million in national insurance contributions? I expect the Minister will say that the Government will provide reliefs from this extra tax. However, is it desirable to introduce a new tax and then promptly mitigate its effect by adding a whole new layer of complicated allowances, reliefs, deductions, indexations, exemptions, and so on?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, neither I nor the Prime Minister has said that the reduction in national insurance contributions would go back exactly to those businesses and industries which were being charged the climate change levy. If that were the case, it would not be worth doing at all. The purpose of the exercise is to reduce emissions, of carbon dioxide in particular. We have to achieve that by increased efficiency, energy saving and emission reduction in the industries which are energy intensive. There is no way round that.

  Disabled People: Access to Justice
  3 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What has been done to improve access to justice for disabled people.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord is well known as a champion of the rights of the disabled, in particular for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill which he introduced in another place in 1991. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 met many, but not all, of his concerns. It did not establish a disability rights commission. This Government have done just that by their Disability Rights Commission Bill which is before another place today. Royal Assent is anticipated by the end of July and the commission is expected to be up and running by April 2000.
  More particularly, a freephone disability helpline has been set up by the Court Service. It has been operational since March this year. In April 1998 the Court Service introduced provisions to arrange and pay for interpreters for deaf court users in civil cases. A pilot scheme is also running in the magistrates' courts for the appointment of blind and partially-sighted lay magistrates. The Court Service has also carried out a programme of disability access audits in order to plan and prioritise the changes required to court buildings. This involves no less than 341 separate audits.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his reply, and both to him and the Government as a whole for the urgency with which they are enacting the Disability Rights Commission Bill—an historic advance for

  277
  disabled people. Can my noble and learned friend now say what was involved in the disability access audits; how many have been conducted; and when they will all be completed? And how does he respond to the expressions of concern in and outside Parliament that reform of the legal aid system will be seriously detrimental to disabled people seeking legal redress?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, those are two substantial supplementary questions. Court Service staff visited every building on the courts estate—341—to identify where any fails to meet the required standards. The staff involved received special training in the facilities required to meet the needs of all categories of disabled court users. A report has been prepared on each building, identifying how a disabled person would gain access to the building and making recommendations about the alterations or additional facilities required. Ninety-eight per cent of the audits have been completed. Out of a total of 335, only six are outstanding. Those should be completed in the next two weeks.
  As to the second supplementary, I have heard concerns expressed that reforms to legal aid will be detrimental to the disabled. I deprecate that scaremongering which must be very troubling for the disabled. In fact, they have nothing whatever to fear. There is no evidence that legal aid lawyers fail to act for the disabled in cases where they would act for others, and no reason whatever why they should fail to do so. It will be exactly the same under conditional fee agreements.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, given the Government's intention to provide access to justice for all, and given the need to create a level playing field to ensure equality of access to justice for all, how satisfied is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with the present provision, for example, in relation to deaf people who attend court or who find themselves involved at any stage in the legal process? There is a real dearth of interpreters for the deaf in the United Kingdom?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is the first question that the noble Baroness has asked from the Front Bench, to which I welcome her as a fellow lawyer. She will come to learn that your Lordships' House much appreciates lawyers. As I have already said, in April last year the Court Service introduced provisions to arrange and pay for interpreters for deaf court users in civil cases. Since the scheme was introduced, interpreters have been booked for 124 hearings. As the noble Baroness will also know, there are issues about how the deaf might act as jurors in criminal trials. There is no bar on their doing so. The trial judge has to be satisfied that the individual deaf juror would be capable of discharging his duties. A problem is that under the present rules an interpreter for the deaf may not sit in the jury room. The Government are undertaking research into that issue. A consultation paper is likely to be issued next year.
  Baroness Masham of Ilion: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor give us an
  278
  assurance that, because of the complications involved with disabled people, they will not be turned down by lawyers and will always have access to a lawyer?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said, I can think of no reason why a disabled person would be turned down by a lawyer. Legal aid lawyers act on behalf of the disabled today and there is no conceivable reason why it would be in their interests not to do so tomorrow.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, nevertheless, is not the Lord Chancellor aware of the great concern within the legal profession, particularly among groups which act for minorities, including the disabled, that under the conditional fee system where the lawyer receives double fee or no fee, the prospect is that in difficult cases of low value lawyers will not find it in their interest to act for the disabled in cases where they are now ready and willing to do so under legal aid?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no rational reason whatever—lawyers are rational people—why a lawyer would abstain from acting under a conditional fee agreement for someone who is disabled when he would not abstain from acting for someone who is not disabled.
  Baroness Uddin: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend accept that members of minority groups who are disabled are doubly disadvantaged in accessing justice? If so, can he tell the House what he proposes to do to redress that inequality?
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would require persuasion that a member of a minority group who is also disabled is doubly disabled in relation to access to justice. I accept that he or she is doubly disabled, but not the latter.

  Rover Car Company
  3.7 p.m.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
  What talks they have had with Karel van Miert, the European Union Competition Commissioner, regarding the aid package to BMW for the Rover Car Company.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the UK met with the European Commission on 11th May to discuss the package of support for Rover's Longbridge plant. This was the first of a series of meetings which are expected to take place. The UK will shortly be lodging its formal notification of the aid package with the European Commission.
  Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, as far as it goes. However, if the Government failed to convince Herr Miert and as his approval is necessary, can the Minister say when

  279
  they intend to meet him again? Is it not unfair to the workers of Longbridge that they have been led to believe that all is well and doubts are now cast on the future of the rescue package?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the words which Commissioner van Miert used were that he, "remains to be convinced" of the mobility aspect of the aid package; in other words, whether there was a realistic alternative to Longhridge for the development of the R30 car. Mr. van Miert has expressed comparable opinions on many occasions. We are confident that at the end of the negotiations we will show that in all respects, as we anticipated, the aid package is in conformity with the EU framework. A series of meetings to which I referred in my first Answer will start on 7th July.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, would it not have been far better if Her Majesty's Government had made certain that the Competitions Commissioner was content with the package before it was announced? Are not the Government ashamed at the terms of the press release issued by the Commission when it said:
  "The UK Government gave ample coverage yesterday [last week] to its formal agreement with BMW over an aid package to Rover's Longbridge factory. It should be quite clear that the UK Government must notify the aid to the Commission and indeed withhold any payment until the Commission has formally approved the proposal"?
  Is not that a fairly stiff reprimand? Is it perhaps the reason why neither of the two Ministers who look after the DTI in your Lordships' House have come along today? Will not the Government do this kind of thing the next time, and, before they trumpet aid, clear it with the Commission?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord knows as well as I do that aid packages of this kind are always subject ultimately to the European Commission. It has always been the case that they have been announced before the final negotiations are complete, always under his government as well as under this Government. This is no exception to the rule. In those circumstances, there has been no breach of existing procedure. BMW, Rover and the United Kingdom Government always knew from the beginning that ultimately European sanction would be needed. We said so at the time and we say so now. As for my presence at the Dispatch Box, I apologise, as always, to the noble Lord for the inadequacy of my answers.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the well known pro-European credentials of the noble Lord who has just asked that question need these days perhaps to be hidden, when one considers the company that he keeps?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is too fly to allow
  280
  himself to be caught with the Eurosceptic philosophy of his party. He always asks questions and makes speeches which fail to reveal his own views.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that these aid packages are dealt with by the Commission in an even-handed way across the whole Community?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course they are dealt with in an even-handed way. The framework is well established. It has been set out for many years. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we are very much in favour of the rigorous application of competition legislation in the European Community. It is enormously to our advantage to see that unjustified state aid is reduced and that genuine competition throughout the European Union is encouraged by this kind of regulation.
  Lord Paul: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the support that they have given to BMW and Rover. It is an essential industry in that part of the country. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will expedite the procedure of the European Commission?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those congratulations on behalf of the Government. It is, of course, a procedure which takes a number of months. There has to be a thorough investigation by case officers into all the matters that are contained within the framework. We will, of course, be doing our part by submitting our evidence. BMW and Rover will also be doing their part by submitting their evidence in sufficient time to ensure that we reach a satisfactory conclusion, of which a am confident, as early as possible.

  House of Lords Bill
  3.14 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
  Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 46:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  VOTING RIGHTS OF LIFE PEERS: EXTENSION OF DURATION OF PARLIAMENT
  (" . In respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a Bill providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond five years, no peer appointed to the House of Lords under the Life Peerages Act 1958 during the course of that Parliament shall be entitled to vote on such proceedings.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that this is a very simple amendment. Under the provisions of the quinquennial Act, which is more properly called the Septennial Act, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, your Lordships have an

  281
  absolute power of veto should the government of the day bring forward a Bill to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years. If the Government have a legitimate reason for so doing, such as in time of national emergency, your Lordships might choose to agree with the proposal. It was, for example, with your Lordships' agreement that the 1935 Parliament continued until 1945.
  The power of veto was deliberately left with your Lordships under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911, and again by the Labour Government of Mr Attlee when the 1949 Act was passed. Although it might seem unlikely that the Government would attempt such a thing, it was felt to be so important that this extraordinary and unique provision should remain. Indeed, it is significant that in its submission to the Royal Commission the Labour Party spelt out its view that this power should continue to remain with your Lordships' House.
  During the course of the Bill, the Government have made it clear that the Bill before your Lordships today is solely concerned with the composition of the House and that there is no intention within it to alter the powers of the House. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, repeated this point somewhat forcefully when he addressed this issue in answer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry at Committee stage.
  I would suggest to your Lordships that the Government are being a little naive. Any Bill which removes a substantial proportion of the membership of this House, while not affecting the theoretical powers of the House, is bound to affect the way in which those powers can be used. No one could argue that if one were to reduce the cubic capacity of a motor car engine, it would not have a marked effect on the ability of that car to operate; of course it would.
  In the case of your Lordships' House, the removal of a large number of existing Members would automatically increase the voting power of those who would remain. We have already felt the effect of the uniquely large number of new Peers who have been appointed by the Prime Minister since May 1997. I believe that the House has been happy to welcome them and has indeed benefited from their input. However, there is no denying the weight of their impact, not least in the Division Lobbies. Imagine how much greater that effect would be, whether benign or malign, which is not relevant today, when at the other end of the scale almost half the existing membership departs, as the Bill proposes.
  The situation which this amendment is designed to counter is one in which a future prime minister—and, before anyone gets over excited, nobody has mentioned the present Prime Minister, who, as we all know, is completely perfect in every way—might decide that it is temporarily inconvenient to submit himself to the judgment of the electorate; and he may believe that, with a little help, he can get your Lordships to allow him an extra year in which to persuade the voters to re-elect him. I am the first to admit that this is unlikely to happen. I am also of the view that it would be extremely
  282
  difficult to pack this House with enough new Peers to make a significant difference—unlikely and difficult, but not impossible.
  Although today it may be difficult for us to envisage a set of circumstances in which that could happen, I wonder how many noble Lords sitting in this very Chamber in June 1899 would have predicted that in less than 10 years' time they would be facing a threat from the Prime Minister to pack this House. What is even more significant is the fact that noble Lords at that time clearly believed that the threat to pack the House was both real and possible. It is also interesting to note that the size of the House at that time was broadly the same as it will be when this Bill is passed.
  All that this amendment does is prevent Peers of all parties and no party, appointed during the term of a Parliament, from voting on proceedings to extend the life of that Parliament. In other words, a prime minister cannot pack your Lordships' House with his supporters before asking the House to prolong the term of the Parliament beyond five years, by suspending a general election. Those Peers denied a vote on this issue will still be able to speak in the relevant debate and will be able to vote on all other proceedings as normal. Should the prime minister's request be reasonable, as it was in 1939, the House would, of course, be able to agree to it. The voting prohibition only extends to the term of that Parliament because, following a general election, the prime minister will have defended his policies and received a fresh mandate, or not, as the case may be. In either event, the electorate will have had the opportunity to express a view. My Lords, it is as simple as that.
  I suspect that we shall be told that this amendment is unnecessary in the light of the assurances already given about the parity between the parties and in respect of the proposed appointments commission. Unfortunately, it is difficult to assess the impact of these, since they are not on the face of the Bill, which is what we must consider in isolation. It is equally difficult to assess the effect of the amendment that was accepted by your Lordships last week, setting up a statutory appointments commission, since the Government have already declared their intention to try to remove it from the Bill. In a sense, the importance of the amendment this afternoon is reinforced by the haphazard way in which the Government have chosen to execute the reform of your Lordships' House.
  When my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry proposed his amendment, the response from the Government Benches was largely devoted to destroying my noble friend's solution rather than addressing the problem. At one point the debate almost deteriorated into an extremely unpleasant "hereditary versus life Peers" match. I am happy to say that this amendment does not stray into that territory. I do not believe that hereditary Peers are the sole guardians of the constitution, nor do I believe that the life Peers who will remain cannot be relied upon to act independently or with integrity. On the contrary, I am confident that many life Peers on all sides of the House, who I have come to know and work alongside, can be relied upon with confidence. But none of us can be sure that a future Prime Minister, a person unknown who may not hold

  283
  office until we have all gone to that great debating Chamber in the sky, will not seek to appoint a different sort of person to this House for his own short-term political gain.
  It is for that reason, and that reason only, that my noble friends and I propose this amendment today. In matters constitutional, I believe that we would be failing in our duty if we did not seek to ensure that this piece of legislation is as watertight as we can make it. That is not because we do not trust the Government; it is not because we do not have faith in those noble Lords who will remain when the rest of us have taken our seats in the tumbrels. It is because none of us can see into the future and predict what political turmoil may lie ahead, particularly during the next few years of unprecedented constitutional upheaval.
  The amendment would not stop the Royal Commission making recommendations; nor would it tie the Government's hands. It would not infringe upon the Labour Party's manifesto commitment and it would not alter the main substance of the Bill. Indeed, if the Government fulfil their promise to implement stage two reasonably quickly, the amendment will never come into play.
  The amendment would not change the powers of your Lordships' House in any way whatever: it merely seeks to ensure that its most important constitutional power cannot be undermined. If I may say so, it is the smallest and mildest of insurance policies for a future crisis that may never happen. But if that crisis were to develop and your Lordships had failed to press the issue, we would rightly be accused of neglecting our duty. For some of us, it may be our last opportunity to be of collective service to the British people. I beg to move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord who moved the amendment said that on the last occasion it was raised I was somewhat strong in my objection. I was strong in my objection then, and I remain strong in my objection today. If it helps the noble Lord, I will coo as gently as a sucking dove in what I have to say, but that will not alter the substance of my view.
  I find it a little ironic that the only time this issue arises is when the Conservative Party is in danger of losing its majority in this House. The implication is clear: it is that the constitution is safe in Conservative hands but unsafe in the hands of anyone else. I reject that view. It is neither accurate nor fair. I think that this side of the House and the Labour Party are just as capable of upholding the British constitution and the principles in which we all believe. Indeed, I believe in them, as, I am sure, do my noble friends, just as deeply as the noble Lord who moved the amendment. With great respect, it cannot be right to say that what has been sauce for the Conservative goose in this House because of its majority cannot be sauce for the Labour gander if, at some stage in the future, we get a majority in this House. I am sure that the noble Lord also knows that we are not even proposing that we should have a majority in this House; indeed, we are proposing rough parity with the Opposition.
  284
  I am afraid that I find the suggestion implicit in the amendment just as offensive today as I did on the last occasion the matter was discussed. It assumes—does it not?—two things in essence. The first is that a Labour Prime Minister will try to do this—not a Conservative Prime Minister because, by definition, Conservative Prime Ministers do not do that sort of thing—and I reject that. Secondly, it assumes that a Labour majority in this House would go along with it. I reject that just as strongly as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, rejects the proposition that the hereditary peerage on that side of the House would have gone along with a Conservative Prime Minister's suggestion to extend the life of a Parliament.
  There is no suggestion anywhere that we should interfere with the power that this House has in relation to the Septennial Act. It is right that that should remain precisely as it is. But a suggestion—and that is what this is about—that somehow that side of the House can be trusted and this side cannot—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Richard: Noble Lords can shout as much as they like. The fact is that when you actually analyse the essence of the suggestion that is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that is what it comes down to. I reject it; indeed, I hope that the House will reject the amendment.
  Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agreed with a number of the preliminary points that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, made, but I wholly disagreed with his conclusions. He has sought to turn the issue into a Labour versus Conservative argument and an hereditary Peer versus life Peer argument. It is neither. The principle behind the amendment is that the existing House, and the House as it evolves, can be trusted to act as a safeguard to prevent a very specific set of circumstances arriving; namely, a government seeking to prolong the life of a Parliament without a very good reason for so doing.
  What we are saying is quite simple. We are saying that an unscrupulous administration some time in the future—be it Labour, Conservative or even (who knows?) Liberal Democrat—would have the ability to pack this House with its supporters, with people who have given a pre-arranged commitment to support the government in their intentions whatever they may be, including the prolonging of the life of a Parliament. That is wholly different from what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested, which is that Conservatives or hereditary Peers are better at judging these major constitutional issues than life Peers or indeed Labour Members of this House.
  With the Bill that the Government are seeking to pass through your Lordships' House we are being asked to sign a blank cheque. We are being asked to pass a temporary measure, and ill-thought out measure, which the Government recognise will need urgent amendment at some time in the future. All we have is a commitment from the Government that they will bring forward further reform of an unspecified nature and at an

  285
  unspecified time in due course. We know that no government can bind their successors; we know that circumstances change; and we know that priorities in the legislative programme change. We are being asked to approve a temporary set of circumstances, but a set of circumstances which might last for a very long time. We must legislate for the future and we must legislate on the basis that all legislation that comes from this House can stand the test of time and is not just for three or four years. This Bill will go onto the statute book and, until amended, will be the law of the land.
  This is an incredibly important issue. The ultimate safeguard against serious abuse of the constitution is the fact that the executive must face re-election every five years unless there is an extraordinarily pressing national interest. This provision is there. The very fact of the numbers of the House as it stands at present means that it is difficult to pack this place. It is simple mathematics. Many times more Peers would have to be introduced in order to achieve the aims of an unscrupulous administration. With the removal of the vast majority of the hereditary peerage, that would substantially change. It would become much easier for that to happen.
  I return to our central point. We cannot envisage any immediate circumstances in which this situation could arise. We do not know what is around the corner but we have to produce robust legislation. On these vital constitutional issues we have to produce legislation that will serve this country well in the long term. We do not pretend that this amendment will turn a bad Bill into a good one. All we are saying is that it would provide a strong safeguard on the face of the Bill against the terrible circumstances that we have discussed occurring in the future. The Government should recognise—they would be wise to do so—that there is strong feeling that a safeguard is required to prevent serious abuse of the constitution in the future. I believe that this amendment would achieve exactly that. I hope that the Government will accept it. If they do not, I hope that my noble friend will press the amendment.
  3.30 p.m.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I have no wish to oblige those noble Lords who are "packing" the House to stay too long. I am pleased to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. As he will know, I have followed his name in another context. Unlike my noble friend Lord Richard, I do not just find this amendment offensive. Frankly, I find it rather insulting. It is insulting to all life Peers.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, the amendment is insulting to life Peers. For 18 years and more there was a majority in this House of Conservative hereditary Peers. No one on that side of your Lordships' House thought for one moment that they should introduce legislation to prevent life Peers undertaking this action when assurances have been given that the life of a Parliament will not be extended beyond five years. They will not say that they do not trust any future Labour Prime Minister on this
  286
  matter. They claim the measure is decent, honest, honourable, safe and impartial. Of course all those 400 Conservative hereditary Peers were impartial in taking the Conservative Whip! Frankly this measure is a nonsense. I hope that Conservative hereditary Peers and others—and certainly Cross-Bench Peers—will see this measure for what it is; namely, a nonsense. I hope that it will be rejected out of hand.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that he found the measure offensive. Unfortunately, that message was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. I think that they have this matter totally wrong. The amendment, spoken to so well by my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Goschen, states the case simply; namely, that if there is a move to extend the life of a Parliament beyond five years—we all agree that that is highly unlikely—those who have been created life Peers since the previous general election cannot vote until there has been another general election. That applies to Conservatives, socialists and Liberal Democrats. I do not believe that that is in any sense an attempt either to demean life Peers—of which I am one—or to criticise socialist life Peers. It is an attempt to build an additional constitutional safeguard into the most important aspect of our life altogether in parliamentary terms; namely, how long can a government last?
  In moving the amendment my noble friend Lord Mancroft said quite rightly that I had moved an amendment at Committee stage to discount Clause 1 of the Bill in the event of an attempt being made by a government in the House of Commons to prolong their own life. As was pointed out by several noble Lords during that debate—and as one of them rather unkindly put it—it was not possible to dust off a lot of hereditaries, bring them out of the cupboard and put them back in this Chamber again. That is a sentiment with which, sadly, I agree. But it was clear in that debate that there was a general feeling that some additional safeguard was needed for the particular circumstances of a government extending, or attempting to prolong, their life.
  I hope that I may attempt to divert your Lordships for a moment. I refer to the idea that "packing" a particular party will never happen and therefore there is no necessity for the amendment. I quote from a cutting which is headed,
  "Political Notes. The Creation of Peers. The Whip's List".
  The article states:
  "It has for some time been understood in Ministerial circles that the Master of Elibank, as Chief Whip, has had the preparation of the list of names of supporters of the Liberal Party which the Ministry will submit to the King if the Constitutional crisis ends in a creation of peers. The number 500, with which the public have been familiarised, there is reason to believe was taken as the number that might be required in extreme eventualities, and it is stated that there are more than 500 names now on the list. Some, it is understood, are members of the House of Commons, and a large number are supporters of the Liberal Party outside the House".

  287
  Thus The Times, on 12th July 1911, a month before the Parliament Act of 1911 was passed. On top of the article, in handwriting—the reference to Nicholson is to Nicholson of The Times—appears the following:
  "These are the Master's notes given to Nicholson in the Chief Whip's Room, House of Commons, on the evening of July 11th 1911 to bluff the Tories".
  That is why the Liberals had to do it. It is worth remembering the history. There had been an election in January 1910 in which the Liberals maintained their majority over the Unionists of two. The question of the Parliament Bill, as it then was, was at the top of the agenda. The Liberals went back to the country again in December 1910 to get the country's support for passing the Bill that gravely reduced the powers of this House. It was only then, following a second general election in December 1910, that the threat of creating more Peers to get the Parliament Bill—with its great reduction in the powers of this House—through Parliament became a reality and they got the support of the newly crowned George V for it.
  We should not forget that history. It all seems a long time ago but this was a case of Asquith taking great care to ensure through a second general election that if he created a lot of new Peers—they would have been hereditaries then—it was on the clear understanding that the aim was to limit the powers of this House. I do not want to detain the House long—
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am following his speech carefully. However, can he address the point which has now been made twice; namely, what was to prevent any Conservative Prime Minister in a period of 18 years doing exactly the same thing? I am sure there is an answer to that, but I am waiting to hear it.
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I have no problem with that point at all. In the course of 18 years of Conservative government there never was an attempt to change radically the composition of this House.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, that is clear. Although this Bill is about composition—as Clerks in the Public Bill Office have frequently pointed out to us—it is a fact of life that those appointed by different political parties use their powers differently. That is exactly why the Liberal government of Asquith took care to have a second general election in order to make certain that they had the country's backing for a reduction in the powers of this House. Therefore I very much support the amendment. My noble friends have certainly improved on the amendment that I moved in Committee. Like them, I regard the establishment of this constitutional bulwark in the rapidly evolving process of constitutional charge that is now occurring as of supreme importance. I hope that the Government will therefore accept the amendment without a vote. If they do not, I very much hope that we will pursue it in the Lobbies.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I very much support the principle that this House should have the power to prevent the extension of the life of Parliament—a principle which is well enunciated in Amendment No. 61, tabled in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth. It is of great importance. However, I very much doubt that the amendment is appropriate to achieve that end. I say this not for the party political reasons so robustly advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but on perhaps more dispassionate grounds.
  The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has quite rightly referred to the history of the procedure up to the 1911 Act. It seems to me that the noble Lords moving the amendment appear to have forgotten that the power to appoint new Peers is vested not in the Prime Minister but in Her Majesty. There had to be the two elections referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, because His Majesty—as he then was—declined to exercise that power for the sole purpose of swamping the House unless and until the country had demonstrated that that was its wish. It would be the undoubted power—and presumably the proper course—of a monarch who was invited to swamp the House purely to achieve an escape from the 1911 Act to decline to do so until there had been an election. Therefore, if swamping is not to be carried out until after an election, that of itself defeats the attempt to extend the life. If one cannot extend the life until after a new election, one has rather defeated the point.
  Secondly, I fail to understand why this power has suddenly become necessary in the context of the Bill. There has always been, and will remain, a theoretical risk of swamping; however, I do not see why that risk grows with the Bill. Indeed, the House after the Bill will not be a better place but it will be a more evenly balanced place. I do not see that it will therefore require a greater number of appointments to achieve the overall majority to vote this through than it would have done had the Conservative Party made such a proposal in the past.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I fail to understand why it is said that pre-appointed life Peers are less apt or able to defend the constitution. Although it is fair to say that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, entirely disclaimed that allegation, it seems to me to be somewhat inherent in his proposals.
  Thirdly, I find it a very strange proposal that Peers who were appointed long before the idea of extending life was ever mooted and who had exercised a position in the House for perhaps two or three years should suddenly be disenfranchised from a particular measure. Let us take the situation where a new Government are appointed and they desire to appoint as the Leader of this House somebody from another place or from outside this House. That person is duly appointed and exercises that role with great aplomb and skill and with the admiration of the House for three years. The Government then decide, for good or bad reason, that they wish to seek to extend that life. The mover of that Bill is this very Leader of the House. For some strange reason, that person will be disenfranchised. Because he or she arrived only on the first day of that Parliament

  289
  some three or four years before, he or she would be suddenly disenfranchised for the purposes of that Bill and for no other.
  I would be happy to hear that all my doubts are wrong. But unless and until they are resolved, I shall find it impossible to support the amendment.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this story goes back a lot longer than even my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry said. This habit was started by the Tories after the Treaty of Utrecht. They decided to pack the House to make sure that a rather bad treaty went through. The Whigs used it to deal with the 1832 Bill and then the Liberals used it again in 1911. I should say that in no way do I distrust the Government; I give them, completely and utterly, 100 per cent for integrity. I am not saying that they would dream of doing something like that.
  We have had recently a rather large number of ill thought-out constitutional proposals, all of which, I suspect and I am afraid, will end in tears. Therefore it is even more important to have proper checks and balances. Historically, whenever constitutional change has been introduced at such a rapid rate, things have got out of hand. One has only to look at England in the 17th century or France in the 18th century to see that things go wrong. It is essential that we should have in the Bill this particular check.
  Let us assume—it is not a totally phantasmagorical assumption—that this Government potter on for another three years and we then have a general election; and then a stroppy Liberal Government are elected. I admit that it is unlikely. They may think that we do not trust them. We are not saying that we do not trust noble Lords opposite. I completely trust the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington—who would not? The point we are trying to make is that there are others who may not be trusted and we should have checks and balances. That is the way our constitution has worked. The Whig concept of checks and balances is terribly important. It is all very fine and large saying "Oh no, it will not happen" because almost invariably when people say that it will happen. As my mother frequently told me, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and things go wrong.
  No one is impugning the honour of Labour life Peers, Tory life Peers, Tory hereditary Peers or even the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. One is saying, please let us be careful. It would do no harm at all to accept the amendment; it would do quite a lot of good to have it in the Bill. It would show the grandeur—I use the word advisedly—of the Labour Government if they were to say, "Yes, we see validity in your argument. In no way do we think it will happen, but we must be doubly sure". All we are suggesting is that we should be doubly sure. I support the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we accept that there are arguments in favour of the amendment. Those arguments have been put clearly by those who have
  290
  moved it. It is true that both in 1911 and when the Parliament Act was amended in 1949 the extension of the life of Parliament was excepted from the restriction on the powers of your Lordships' House. That is not to be altered by the present Bill.
  As matters now stand, the exception in the 1911 Act can be overridden in two ways: first, by a further Act of Parliament which removes that exception—although, of course, that would take a year if the Parliament Act procedure had to be relied on, as no doubt it would. Secondly, as matters now stand, it could also be overridden by packing the House with new Peers. That possibility has, of course, always existed. The risk of packing is no greater now than it was in 1911 or 1949.
  Extensions of the life of Parliament will happen only in times of profound national crisis and with the consent of all major parties. That is what happened in the First and Second World Wars; and it happened then with the consent of all major parties. When that consent was withdrawn—as happened after VE-Day in 1945—a general election followed immediately.
  No one has suggested that any Conservative Government at any other time have considered exercising the power to extend the life of Parliament; no one has suggested that any Labour Government have at any time considered extending the life of Parliament. The real sanction on a government who seek to extend the life of Parliament without the broadest national consent is that that Government would face rebellion on their own Benches in both Houses; that they would face massive public protests and demonstrations; and that they would face certain and catastrophic defeat when they were eventually forced into a general election.
  The amendment therefore adds nothing of value. We have lived with the risk of packing for 88 years. Why is the amendment being introduced now? Nothing in the Bill makes packing any more likely. We on these Benches will be unable to support the amendment.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I rise to speak because the amendment in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, Amendment No. 61, is linked with Amendment No. 46. Our amendment states:
  "Nothing in this Act affects the power of the House of Lords to veto any Bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years".
  Those words combined with what has been put forward by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and others is very compelling. I am not Conservative—I served with a Conservative Government for a period of time but that was quite a different matter; it was on colonial questions only. I was a Cross-Bencher before and a Cross-Bencher soon after.
  It is curious that these amendments, which are bracketed together, should raise such anxiety. I could almost use the word "hostility" on the part of some on the Labour side. I completely trust what the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said at one time or another, in writing or otherwise, and indeed what the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has said. That is not the issue. The issue is something quite different. It is that one cannot tell what

  291
  the future will hold. No one knows what the outcome of making a major change in the composition of the House would be. It is for that reason that Amendment No. 46 is most ingenious because it in no way affects the powers except if someone threatens to prolong the life of Parliament. No one can tell when that might arise. It could be a Conservative government just as easily as a Labour or even some new government which might, under certain circumstances, try to do this.
  Under those conditions, packing the House is also something that has been threatened before. We have heard the historical side of that. What is proposed in the first amendment prevents that. It gives time and time is of the essence in an issue like this.
  Not only can there not be packing, but there cannot even be the threat of packing which could be a very serious issue. With every power that I have I urge the Government to accept the amendment in good faith in the belief that we are worried as to what could happen in the distant future. I wondered how to express the anxiety about the extension of the life of a Parliament. I came to the conclusion that if it were a statutory statement in the Bill itself, it would not be absolutely effective but it would show what the Peers of this moment are worried about. It would give time, which I think is of the essence here, for everybody, the Government of the day included, to think for a second time and give public opinion, particularly the media, the opportunity to draw attention to the danger that lies ahead.
  It may be said that the first amendment by itself is enough. Amendments Nos. 46 and 61 cover one and the same anxiety and purpose, that we should have a defence which is not only the belt but also the braces. The first amendment is the belt and mine is the braces. The two amendments go together. I beg the Labour Government to realise that this is not intended to be a party matter but one which is for the good of the country and the future, the future may well be in 40 or 50 years time as nobody can tell just what we are really faced with.
  I hope very much that the amendments which are in a sense totally bracketed and belt and braces will be accepted in the spirit that they are put forward.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am pleased that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who has very carefully and calmly made much of the case that I want to make.
  I was struck by the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who said that there is a need to build in additional constitutional safeguards. The puzzle on this side of the House is why, when there is a change of political power, there is the need to build in additional constitutional safeguards.
  Reference has been made to the impact of this attempt. I do not besmirch anyone's motives in this matter at all. We are all politicians. We all look at these matters from the point of view of how they affect, among other things, the political fortunes of the party that we serve. We on this side of the House—I speak
  292
  for myself of course—are just a little suspicious that the need to protect the constitution arises this year or next year when it did not in the past.
  You do not need to look into a crystal ball to see what a political party did when it had power in this place. I can recall that, in 1979 when the Conservative Government took over, the Conservatives had a majority in this House over Labour of more than 300. At the end of the government of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, with that majority of 300, Labour was down by 28 and the Conservatives were up by 32. There was a net difference in the strength of the parties in this House of 60. One might say that was not deliberate, that it just happened. We have to make sure that someone who governs the country in the future who has a different point of view, a different agenda, will not deliberately take advantage.
  One of the matters that upsets noble Lords on this side of the House, despite protestations, is the clear implication that they do not believe what the Prime Minister is saying. What he has said with all the dignity that he can is that it is not his intention to pack the House. In fact, he has taken away from himself the supreme power of a Prime Minister in forwarding to Her Majesty the names of those upon whom she should confer a peerage. The Prime Minister has given his word, which in my view the country will accept and we on this side of the House accept. If the other side is worried about that possibility, let them take my assurance too.
  I remember very well what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. If there were ever any attempt by a Labour Prime Minister to do anything remotely like what has been hinted at, his biggest opponents would be here on these Benches. So if there is a worry, please be assured that the Labour Benches are as much in tune as others about damage to the constitution. We have worked hard. The issue was resolved on 1st May 1997. Whether noble Lords on the other side of the House like it or not, the manifesto was put before the people and we have a mandate to govern; and that is what we intend to do.
  4 p.m.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, perhaps I may—
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive me if I do not follow him, because I wish to be as brief as possible. As the Life Peerages Act and the powers under it are being discussed, I should declare that I had some responsibility for piloting it through Parliament in 1958. I was then merely an Under-Secretary at the Home Office; the Home Secretary who introduced it was the late Mr R.A. Butler, as he then was. It will intrigue your Lordships to know that the purpose of that Act, although it was not declared in it, was to enable people who might be offered peerages to become life Peers if they did not want to become hereditary Peers. However, it became clear after a year or so that that would not be the limited purpose for which peerages under it would be created. Indeed,

  293
  in the past 30 years—this is an answer to the noble Lord—no party in your Lordships' House has had a clear majority.
  If in 1958 when the Life Peerages Act was passing through Parliament it had become clear that the powers under the Act could be used for creating peerages to extend the life of a parliament at the behest of a government, that Act would not have been passed into law at that time. No party would have agreed to it; neither House would have agreed to it. We have as a possibility—it is no more than a possibility but it is one that we should guard against—that some government, for some reason, inevitably, I think, an inadequate reason, might say, "Let us use the powers in that Act to extend the life of the government and of the parliament". That would be wrong and that is why I fully support my noble friend's amendment.
  Perhaps I may say as well that Amendment No. 61, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, which goes somewhat wider than Amendment No. 46, is also worthy of support.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise briefly to speak as my name is attached to Amendment No. 61. I like Amendment No. 46 for the simple reason that it has real teeth, whereas the other amendment does not. The question has been asked as to why such a provision should now be necessary when it has not been necessary for many years. The answer is that we have not been looking at changing the composition and powers of this House for many years. Therefore, there was no point in raising the issue as it was not an issue. It has now been made an issue, so we are looking at all the implications of what has been proposed. If one notices that there is a shortfall somewhere, it is naturally logical to try to close some loopholes such as exist at the moment under the 1911 Act so that there will not be a problem in the interim House. That is why the amendment is needed.
  I have found it sad that life Peers seem to think that the provision is aimed at them. Life Peers will be able to vote under Amendment No. 46. Life Peers will not be excluded from voting on the measure which will come before the House to extend the life of Parliament. They will be included. The only ones who will be excluded are new Peers who are created immediately before that measure is proposed to the House.
  As someone once said, "I know you think you understand what I said but I am not sure you realise that what you heard is not what I meant". The trouble is that people are trying to look for offence when none is intended. This is a perfectly reasonable idea in order to try to prevent problems arising. As a Cross-Bencher, my concern is that the Conservatives, with their larger group, might, if the Cross-Benchers had not come out against, have been able to get such a measure through more easily than they should have been. I look forward to the time when the House is more evenly balanced, as it will then be harder for a Conservative Government potentially to abuse their position of power. On the other hand, if the House is more evenly balanced, it will also be easier to pack it. One will not need to put forward so
  294
  many in order to tip the balance in one's favour. Therefore, with a more evenly balanced House, the danger becomes greater.
  I found the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, slightly naïve in his thinking that Her Majesty might tell the Prime Minister that he could not create new peerages. Those days have long since gone. I fear—and I am not sure that one should say it—that it is now accepted that the Crown will always accept the recommendations of the Government of the day. That is a sad reality. I strongly support Amendment No. 46.
  The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry: My Lords, it is with great diffidence that I intervene in the debate, but I have been listening carefully to the arguments. It seems to me that the main objection to the amendment is that it is not necessary. If it is not necessary, why are those on the Government Benches so strongly against it? It will not do them any harm. I believe that it may not be necessary in the near future or in the immediate future but perhaps in the distant future it could become necessary. One does not know what may occur in years to come. It may be that my feelings on this matter are somewhat encouraged by having recently read that great classic by George Orwell, 1984, where one sees things moving slowly towards a state of big brotherhood. There are already signs that the Executive is taking greater powers throughout the land and that Parliament is losing powers to the Executive. One sees the media becoming more dominated by the Left-wing. So the drift carries on towards the situation which George Orwell so clearly described. We should look rather further ahead than the immediate future. Therefore, this could be a worthwhile safeguard.
  Perhaps I may mention this point in conclusion. Noble Lords may not remember that George Orwell's real name was not George Orwell. It was Blair; Eric Blair.
  Lord Monkswell: My Lords, when I saw the amendment I was very angry. I thought it offensive and insulting. I shall have to temper my remarks and try to calm down. It made me angry for three reasons. First, it flies in the face of history. On only two occasions in this century has the life of a parliament been extended. One was when we had a Liberal ascendancy and the other was when we had a Conservative ascendancy. Never has it been on the agenda for the Labour Party. Secondly, it perpetrates the big lie that the only safeguard for democracy in this country is the House of Lords. That is absolute nonsense. Noble Lords have been talking about packing the House of Lords. I was at a Labour Party Conference in the mid-1980s when Tony Benn made a resounding speech in which he declared that the Labour Party would install a thousand Peers to get rid of the House of Lords. We all cheered that to the rafters.
  After we had had a good cheer, thinking it a terrific idea, I wondered how we would select the thousand Peers to flood the House of Lords. I thought that the sensible way would be to pick the chairs and secretaries of every constituency Labour Party up and down the

  295
  land; and then, knowing a good number of them and having been in the Labour Party for God knows how many years, I suddenly realised that once they were in here they would vote to keep the place going. So the threat that the Labour Party would engage in that sort of activity is nonsense.
  I take exception to the suggestion by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it would do no harm to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. I think it would do a great harm to the House. One of the terrific strengths of this place is that when we come in, whether we are life Peers, hereditary Peers or Peers on the judicial Bench or are on the Bishops Bench, we are considered completely equal; we all have exactly the same rights to speak on the Floor of the House and to vote.
  One of the terrible things that the amendment would do is to introduce the concept of second-class, probationary, apprentice Peers. That would be a grave mistake for the House to make. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, put his name to the amendment because in this Parliament he comes into that putative category of apprentice Peer or probationary Peer. I would defend his right to speak and vote in the House on the same basis as I and every other Member of the House.
  I implore the House to reject the amendment because it is insidious in introducing the concept of second-class Peers.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am not offended, upset or insulted by the amendment. Rather, I think it is self-defeating. I find it strange that the Conservative Benches in particular, which I had always taken to be upholders of our unwritten constitution and of the conventions underlying it, should put forward an amendment which, on the admission of those proposing it, deals with an extraordinarily unlikely eventuality.
  It may be odd for a lawyer, as I am, and part of this House, which is a legislative House, to question the effectiveness of trying to legislate virtue. It has always struck me that the strength of the British constitutional arrangements rests not upon their words but on their spirit and the fact that certain acts, certain denials of a constitutional nature, would be so repugnant to the broad mass of the people of this country, let alone those that sit in this House and the other place, that they would simply not pass.
  Therefore, I have the sense that the amendments, far from sustaining and ensuring that which they purport to preserve and protect, could give a bogus credence to the very notion of packing this House and extending the life of Parliament. They could undermine the very taboo which in a sense they seek to protect.
  While, I suppose, understanding the endeavour of the two amendments, I have confidence in the people of this country and in the occupants of this place and the other place, not only now but in the future. I also believe that ultimately we provide a much greater protection for future constitutional arrangements if we have confidence in the good sense and decency that have sustained us these thousand years.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am not a politician. I am a life Peer though. I find no difficulty in supporting the amendment. It is not about the past; it is about the possible future. The White Paper says that the future powers of the House of Lords should be looked at and reviewed, and we are considering one of the most important powers among them. Indeed, it is so identified in the White Paper.
  It seems to me logical and right that when so much constitutional change is happening—who could have thought two years ago what the extremely changed constitutional picture would be today?—we need to make absolutely sure that any further change, such as extending the life of a parliament, whoever does it, must be stopped and thought about.
  I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, that this is an honourable and excellent House, but we are not talking about the constitution of the House as it is now; we are talking about a possible future threat. I cannot see why it is not right to be quite sure that the House of Lords, which I hope will always be the impressive body it is now, can exercise that very necessary brake on possible action by a possible future Prime Minister, who might by then be much more presidential, for instance, than we have ever had. There might not be that much consultation.
  Therefore, I feel very strongly that we ought to put in this safeguard; we ought to do our duty by the future. I do not think that we ought to look at this in terms of one party thinking that another is insulting it. That is irrelevant and it is beneath us. We should not be thinking like that.
  I greatly respect many of my friends on the Opposition Benches. I feel sure that if they think about it they will accept that we are talking about the future of the country. It is all very well saying that the people would rebel. If there is one thing about the British, it is that they never notice anything that is happening to them until it has happened. That is why we always win wars at the last moment. We cannot afford to put this particular liberty at risk.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, speaking from these Cross-Benches, I have no concern with party politics, but I remember one very old proverb: better be safe than sorry. I shall vote for the amendment.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, while I very much support the purpose behind the amendment, I am a little concerned about the reference solely to the Act of 1958. For the amendment to become really important there would have to be some very exceptional circumstances. A Prime Minister, probably with a very large majority in the other place, would have the power, if confronted with the amendment as part of an Act, to introduce another new measure appointing life Peers or Peers Members of this House. Doing that under a completely new Act would get round the amendment. Would that be a problem?
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, the undying trust expounded by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the

  297
  propriety of the Labour Party in all respects is matched only by my cynicism, and that of others, I suggest, with regard to a government who make such a major constitutional change without any idea whatsoever what will replace the House as now constituted or how it will be done. That must give rise to doubt.
  My only surprise is that there is no provision in our constitution at present to prevent any government swamping your Lordships' House with sufficient Peers, whether hereditary or life Peers. I am amazed that it has not come in sooner. There were opportune moments. I do not know, I was not there, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, has given some indication. It was long before my time.
  This must surely be an appropriate moment, when we are considering a major constitutional change, to write into the Bill this sort of amendment which prevents any tampering—for want of a better word—with the unwritten understanding of how we proceed.
  I leave noble Lords with one thought. Do those who oppose this amendment have something to hide? Is there not something that we should fear? I thoroughly support the amendment.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the trouble with debating this proposal in this country at this time is that this country has been without a revolution for 311 years. Any Spanish or Portuguese people, for example, listening in the Gallery at this moment would be astonished at your Lordships' equanimity. Our anxiety is about a future that we cannot foretell.
  There is common ground on one matter in this debate; namely, it is essential to the health and survival of a democracy that the electors are able remove a government and are assured of being able to do so at regular intervals. The amendment turns on that principle.
  If that ability is lost, the only way of removing a government, as the Portuguese, the Spaniards and many others will tell us, is by violence—by revolution—which sets a country back many generations, costs the breaking of families and lives and is at all costs to be avoided. The purpose of the amendment is to avoid that loss.
  Many noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, foremost among them, focused their attention on the present and said that this could not possibly happen now. Of course it could not. We are not so crass as to suggest that it could. I do not go along with the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, in his doubts about the Government, but even he would not expect them to engineer their survival with the present manning of the Front Bench in this House, let alone the other place.
  We are not thinking about now; we are thinking about the future—and in exactly the same way as your Lordships think about the future of the houses in which you live when you decide to buy a fire extinguisher. You are certain that you will put out your cigarettes before you go to bed; you are certain that the oven will not be left on when you go on holiday—but, just in case, you put in place a provision to take care of that, so that
  298
  someone can put the fire out damn quick before the fire brigade gets there and has to souse the place with water. My noble friend is doing an analogous thing. He is attempting to put in place a provision that will nip in the bud any unfortunate development which could easily take place in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, laughs, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, winds his hand as though I had not finished. He is right; I have not.
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, I apologise. I was not in fact referring to the noble Lord.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I gladly accept the noble Lord's apology. It gives me time to draw breath in my excitement.
  There was no bloodshed in the 1688 revolution 311 years ago. We have to go back before that. Did people in 1600, three years before Queen Elizabeth I left the throne, think that there would be a civil war in this country during their lifetime? Certainly not. Did people in 1920, in the German empire, foresee the rise of Hitler and the democratic republic? Certainly not. We cannot tell the future. My noble friend Lord Halsbury is right—wait and see.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the amendment and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Halsbury. I speak as a mother. When you take a child upstairs, put it into bed, listen to its prayers and read a story, you say to the child, "Now, do not move from there until morning". You then say goodnight and turn out the light. Then what do you? You tuck the child in—just to make sure. That is all that this proposal is. You love your child very much, but you tuck it in, just to make sure.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, this amendment is not like installing a fire extinguisher in one's home, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, maintained. It is like taking out an insurance policy against being struck by a meteorite. The odds against such an event are astronomical.
  Noble Lords say that they are not speaking about the immediate future. They are right; they could not be speaking about the immediate future. They must be speaking about a future in which it is not this House that is calling the shots and deciding that the life of Parliament is to be prolonged but the other place. They are talking about a government being installed who presumably have no mandate from the people to prolong the life of Parliament, but they decide, halfway through their term of office that they wish to govern for longer than the five years and present a Bill in the other place to prolong the life of Parliament. They see that that would not go through this House without the creation of a vast number of new life Peers, so they set about bringing in the 1,000 or so new Peers to get the legislation through. That is the point at which the main

  299
  amendment that we are considering comes into play. It states that those new life Peers would not be able to vote on the Bill to extend the life of the Parliament.
  What is happening in the country during that period? Is it contended by those who advance this proposition that a government who do not have a mandate from the people will introduce such a Bill halfway through the life of a Parliament and that they will seek to create this vast number of Peers who will ensure that the Bill goes through this House? That is science fiction. It is way beyond anything that George Orwell thought of. It might be considered that such an event might occur in the year 3000, but if we were to legislate against all such improbable circumstances, why stop at extending the life of Parliament? One speaker mentioned the fact that Hitler came to power even though there was an elected government in Germany, and suggested that that could happen in this country—so we could legislate against any party representing an extreme appointing Peers to this House.
  All kinds of things could happen to change the composition of this House in the future which might be of an extreme or remarkable character. But they will not happen in our lifetime or in the 21st century. Events may occur in the far distant future which are not the responsibility of Parliament as it is composed today.
  It is utterly wrong that fears should be raised by noble Lords who support this amendment. Incidentally, they are not correct in saying that there is a vast public outside this House which is anxious to see what this House does. When I travel on the No. 36 bus I do not hear people talking about the extension of the life of Parliament and how the Lords must be vigilant to protect the country against that. It is not a matter for consideration. To debate it at such length now is not the best use of this House's time. It is not important to the wishes of the country. We should get the Bill onto the statute book and leave these matters for consideration by others in the 36th century.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I do—
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—
  Noble Lords: Cross-Bench!
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as a comparative—
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords—
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross-Benchers—
  Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, as a comparative neutral in the matter under debate, and one who has been accused in the past of propping up governments of both complexions, perhaps I may briefly make a point that was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. With great respect, too many contributors to this debate are living in the
  300
  past. I beg to differ with what has just been said from the Liberal Benches; namely, that some of these events may occur in the distant future. It is not quite like that.
  For 27 years, at the other end of the building, I had the honour and privilege of working with both governments. At that time, one was quite clear as to the procedure. One operated with the Prime Minister of the day, based on a freshly elected parliamentary party. Decisions were made eventually through the usual processes of civilised discussion, both in the Chamber and sometimes outside it. It is not like that now and it will not be like that in the future.
  The part of the United Kingdom from which I come is involved in a very serious crisis; I do not know what the outcome will be by midnight tonight. But one thing I do know is that this present crisis and much of the uncertainty and instability in Northern Ireland could have been avoided had it not been for those whom I call the unelected Whitehall manipulators who sometimes meddle in the decisions made by elected governments, reaching a peak in, for example, the recent Hillsborough agreement and this week showing their hands again. What are we to make, for example, of two schoolchildren being dragged up to Stormont bearing placards transmitting a political message? In certain circumstances, and under other legislation, that might be called a form of child abuse.
  To return to the theme of the debate, I should be happy if we did not need safeguards, but I suggest that we need the safeguard provided for in the amendment and many similar safeguards if the real power of governance in the United Kingdom is not to slip out of the hands of the elected representatives and, ultimately, your Lordships' House.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say that I agree entirely with one speech made this afternoon which I hope the Government Front Bench will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest with care. I refer to the speech of my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I cannot believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will have found anything deeply offensive in it and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will not have been deeply insulted by anything that my noble friend said with such eloquence.
  The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, began his speech by saying that he would attempt to calm himself down from the point of rage that he had reached. I am bound to admit, in all fairness, that I thought he made a very good job of that! Whether he achieved anything else must be open to doubt.
  We then plunged into this extraordinary argument about trustworthiness. I cannot remember a government who ever claimed to be entirely trustworthy without anticipating a sharp rebuke, usually from the bottom of the hearts of the British public. I do not think we should have an argument about who is trustworthy and who is not. I believe that governments are not in control of events, although they frequently pretend to be. The unforeseen and unpredictable frequently occur. Therefore the undertakings given by government, in

  301
  perfect good faith, become worn in the course of events. I hope that noble Lords will not be too upset when we on this side of the House ask for provisions to be put on the face of the Bill. I recollect that not long ago, during the previous Parliament, the party now in government was most eloquent in demanding that matters should be put on the face of Bills. I even recall—without too much shame—that I supported many amendments against the government, who in name I supported, which sought to put provisions on the face of a Bill. I do not think the party now in government has any reason to claim to be shocked or upset by what is a very innocent request.
  I go back to the speech made by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth. I hope that members of the Government Front Bench will be convinced by what my noble friend said that amendments from this side of the House are not prompted by viciousness or a wish to embarrass the Government but by a genuine concern. From that remark I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. What I say this afternoon is milder and more restrained because of the speech made by the noble Lord in response to what I said last time I spoke in these debates.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying one or two things which I hope will preserve my friendship with the noble Lords, Lord Barnett, Lord Graham, Lord Richard and Lord Monkswell. Nothing that I or any of my friends say on this issue implies in any way that we think that the present Prime Minister, or anyone we know who is likely to be Prime Minister in the future, is ever likely to try to use the majority in another place to drive through an extension of the life of a parliament unless, as happened in the two world wars, there is general agreement on all sides that that should happen. I certainly do not think that the current Prime Minister falls into any category that deserves suspicion. He may drive down bus lanes, but I do not believe for a moment that he would drive a bus through the very heart of the British constitution. Let us have that clear.
  To those who say, "You did not complain about this over the past 90 years, so you must have been happy with the previous provision", I would say that, on reflection, I think that perhaps the previous provision was not that terrific. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Renton of Mount Harry pointed out, there have been threats in this century to pack your Lordships' Chamber with hereditary Peers. The Chamber could have been packed with hereditaries every bit as easily as it could in future be packed with life Peers. I believe the position is perfectly straightforward.
  Why are we discussing this matter today? It is for the simple reason that the Government have come forward with some major constitutional changes, including the reform of your Lordships' House. Therefore, thinking laterally, it is quite legitimate to look at some of the other aspects of your Lordships' House. The matter referred to in the amendment is one of the most important duties laid on your Lordships' House, a duty which will continue to be laid on the second Chamber.
  302
  My preference for dealing with this would have been along the lines of the Scotland Act, of which I am reminded because I shall be attending the opening of the Scottish Parliament tomorrow. In Section 3 of that Act, which is about the life of the Parliament, the Government themselves chose to put in a qualified majority, not for the extension of the life of the Parliament but for the restriction of its life. The Scottish Parliament is a four-year Parliament and in order for that four-year Parliament to be dissolved early it is required that the resolution is passed on a Division, the number of Members voting in favour being not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for Members of the Parliament. That is a new concept in the British constitution, put into the Scotland Act by the Government because they felt it necessary. I should have liked to see a similar provision to that put into the Bill. Unfortunately, that was deemed not to be in order because of the Long Title of the Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has come forward with a provision which is almost as good which puts in a protection. If noble Lords on the Government Back Benches think that that protection should have existed before, perhaps they are right. That is a good reason for putting it in today. I think the House should put it down as a marker.
  None of us can foretell the future. A Prime Minister of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or even the Liberal Democrat Party—admittedly, that is an unlikely event—may have a sufficient majority and convince himself and sufficient of his colleagues that, for a number of reasons, Parliament should last a bit longer than five years. As in this Bill we are looking to the future, we should consider how to prevent that admittedly very unlikely event.
  Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will say that this is only an interim measure and that when in three or four years' time—who knows?—the Government bring forward stage two, that will be the time to address the wider powers of the House. I can see that argument, but is it not sensible that today when discussing the changes under stage one we put down a marker in the Bill so that when the next one comes along it is carried forward? Those of us who are here then will realise that they must put in a similar protection for the Parliaments to come. I believe that that is the sensible way to proceed. It is no reflection on anyone living today, but it guards against the possible danger that some day in the future the world will be different. The world will certainly be different in future but it may not be to the advantage of democracy in this country. This amendment is a straightforward protection and is worthy of support.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, it is heartening to see such a good turnout this afternoon for this particular amendment. I cannot begin to put my finger on the reason for it. I felt downhearted when I heard the in terrorem argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. He threatened me, among others, after death with the great debating chamber in the sky. Please, God, no,

  303
  because if I got there I would still find the ranks of the hereditary Peers doing their utmost to hold up the passage of this Bill.
  The amendment together with that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, proposes that some Members of this Chamber should not be allowed to vote on one particular issue irrespective of party, where they came from and why, the quality of their attendance or non-attendance, their contribution to debates or lack of it and their independence of mind or heart. They are, therefore, always to be considered potentially as second class and untrustworthy. As was rightly pointed out, that applies to a number of life Peers presently here who came after the previous election. That remains a fact even though unpalatable.
  It seems to me that two justifications, spoken or not, underlie the approach. It is not said, but sometimes hinted—admittedly, not this afternoon but certainly in similar debates in the past—that hereditary Peers are uniquely independent. Experience demonstrates the contrary. They are no more independent than life Peers. It is suggested that the balance of numbers in the House may make it easier for the government of the day, or any future one, to pack this Chamber. I do not accept either of those propositions.
  I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Baroness, as I always do. I also listened to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil. I recognise that there is concern, and it is only right that I should try to deal with it. One way of addressing the concern that has always been refused by the Conservative Party and Conservative governments throughout the years is to have a written constitution that can be amended only in the circumstances described generally by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. This amendment does not begin to do that, and I shall demonstrate why.
  I find the amendment wholly unacceptable, not least because it cannot work for two reasons. First, even if passed—I recognise that the present arrangements allow the mover of the amendment and his supporters overwhelming fire power to have their way this afternoon—the amendment cannot bite on any legislation to amend the Act of 1911. It is therefore wholly valueless and meaningless except as a rather superficial, cosmetic device. Secondly, it would not catch a newly re-elected government who had taken the trouble to pack the House shortly before an election. If one looks for the "conspiracy" motive in modern political life, one nee is to bear in mind that anyone with half a grain of intelligence, or even the foresight to read what is being said presently, will not be hampered in the slightest.
  Let us see what powers would remain in the House. Those who were disenfranchised from voting on what one recognises would be an important aspect of your Lordships' duties could still vote on a number of matters. I take some examples across the spectrum. Those noble Lords could still vote on a declaration of war, a state of emergency or martial law. Should they be so inclined, they could vote—perhaps it is doubtful—for the complete restitution of the hereditary peerage in
  304
  this House in its intact and sublime glory. They could also vote for the complete abolition of the judiciary or jury system; and they could vote for the abolition of the monarchy. Therefore, if one wants constitutional safeguards one should make a proper job of it rather than tinker at the edges in a way that will not work.
  The fact is that this is a device. I impugn no one's motives because I take the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. It does not take the argument any further to say that an amendment is bad because motive is had. An amendment may be good and motive bad, and vice versa. The fact is that none of this will work. This is a self-indulgent amendment, which I am aware is capable of being passed this afternoon. The amendment will have no effect at all, except to demean—I put it neutrally—what we have been about.
  To conclude, my observations are: first, the amendment will not work; secondly, it is not needed; and, thirdly, it is based on a flawed premise. Apart from that, it is quite a good amendment.
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain to a bemused Cross-Bencher exactly why it will not work? I have missed the point.
  Lord William of Mostyn: My Lords, it will not work for two reasons: first, it does not bite on the fundamental statute, which is the Act of 1911; and, secondly, any government can pack the House before the election and the post-election sitting life Peers will have a vote even on the basis of this amendment.
  Lord Mancroft: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate this afternoon. The quality and breadth of the contributions demonstrate the strength of feeling in the House about this amendment. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is always nice to see a full House, particularly when most noble Lords, suspect, would rather be watching the tennis. I am particularly glad to see so many new faces on the Benches opposite. Although noble Lords opposite do not have the advantage of several generations of experience in constitutional affairs, they will undoubtedly have learnt much which will be of use to them in the years ahead. I accept that not all of those new faces have turned up this afternoon. I suspect that they do not support the Government as much as the Government might like them to.
  I have no intention of attempting to sum up the debate because I am not qualified to do so; and if your Lordships will forgive me, nor shall I attempt to answer the many points noble Lords raised. The House is more than capable of reaching its own conclusion without help from me.
  The only point I wish to make is this: the amendment is not party political. However much the party opposite may like to think that it is, the amendment is not aimed at this Government or this Prime Minister. If noble Lords opposite do not believe that, they may wonder why my noble friends and I do not accept their assurances as often as they might like.

  305
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the care and courtesy with which he presented the Government's case. I am delighted, too, that he thinks that we shall still be debating the Bill when he and I are in that great debating chamber in heaven: that will imply that the Bill has not yet gone through your Lordships' House. The noble Lord's contributions from the Front Bench over the years have won him the respect of the House even though the cases he presents to the House are not always as welcome on this side of the House as they might be. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord to hear that I am a little disappointed with his answer.
  The main argument put forward by the Minister is that the amendment is unnecessary. I accept that the situation is obscure and highly unlikely ever to occur; but it is still theoretically possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, conceded. During the course of the Bill, I have been intrigued by the advice the House receives from noble Lords opposite and in particular from noble and learned Lords. In my commercial life, I am constantly advised by lawyers, both solicitors and learned counsel. When, for instance, an obscure issue is raised during a contractual negotiation which is dragging on—noble Lords know that such matters tend to do so on more than one occasion late at night, in the lawyer's office, I have said, "That's never going to happen. Leave it out". The lawyers always reply, "You're probably right but we should put it in to be on the safe side". I cannot remember an occasion when I have been advised otherwise.
  Here we are dealing here with the most important contract of all, the constitution: the contract between the British people and those who seek to govern them. Your Lordships seek to put a small but vital measure into an important piece of legislation in order further to protect the people. On the Government Benches opposite we have a full team of noble and learned Lords. I wonder if they would be advising the House in the same way if they were retained in their professional capacity. I rather doubt it.
  It is clear that your Lordships regard this as an important issue. I have listened carefully to the Government's response, and I am clear that they have not thought the matter through; neither do they take it seriously enough. Without damaging the Government's Bill in any way, I believe that this amendment solves a vital, if obscure, constitutional problem. More in sorrow than in anger at the muddle the Government are making of this Bill, I think it right to test the opinion of the House.
  4.53 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 283; Not-Contents, 177.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Abercorn, D.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Aberdare, L.

  Cross, V.

  Ackner, L.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Addison, V.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Davidson, V.

  Ailsa, M.

  De L 'Isle, V.

  Aldington, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Deedes, L.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Denbigh, E.

  Anelay of St. Johns, B.

  Denham, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Denman, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L,

  Denton of Wakefield, B.

  Arlington, B.

  Derwent, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Astor, V.

  Donegall, M.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Attlee, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  Dunleath, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Eccles, V.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Bathurst, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Beaverbrook, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Elibank, L.

  Bell, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Elles, B.

  Berners, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Elton, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Erne, E.

  Birdwood, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Blaker, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Blatch, B.

  Feldman, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Fisher, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Flarher, B.

  Brentford, V.

  Fookes, B.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Forbes, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Gage, V.

  Burnham, L.

  Gainford, L.

  Burton, L.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Buscombe, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Butterworth, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Byford, B.

  Gibson, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Glentoran, L.

  Caldecote, V.

  Gormanston, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Gray, L.

  Carew, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Halsbury, E.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L,

  Chadlington, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Harrowby, E.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Hastings, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hemphill, L.

  Chilver, L.

  Henley, L [Teller.]

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Hesketh, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Clinton, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Home, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Hood, V.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Courtown, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Howe, E.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  307

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Ironside, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Iveagh, E.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Johnston of Rockport, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Patten, L.

  Kelvedon, L.

  Pender, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Killearn, L.

  Perth, E.

  Kimball, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Piatt of Writtle, B.

  Kingsland, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Pym, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Radnor, E.

  Knight of Collingtree, B

  Rathcavan, L.

  Knollys, V.

  Rawlings, B.

  Knutsford, V.

  Reay, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Rees, L.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Renton, L.

  Layton, L.

  Renton of Mount Harry, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Roxburghe, D.

  Long, V.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Lucas, L

  St Davids, V.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  St. John of Fawsley, L.

  Luke, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

  Sandys, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  MacLaurin of Knebworth L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Mancroft, L. [Teller.]

  Slim, V.

  Marlesford, L.

  Somerset, D.

  May, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Merrivale, L.

  Stockton, E.

  Mersey, V.

  Strange, B.

  Middleton, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Swinfen, L.

  Monk Breton, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Monson, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Moran, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Tryon, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Waverley, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Nelson, E.

  Wise, L.

  Newall, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Woolton, E.

  Norrie, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Alli, L.

  Addington, L.

  Amos, B.

  Ahmed, L.

  Annan, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  308

  Avebury, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Bach, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Blease, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Judd, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  Lockwood, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Lofthouse of Pontefract L.

  Carver, L.

  Longford, E.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Ludford, B.

  Chorley, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Christopher, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  McNally, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  David, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Ezra, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Orme, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Paul, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Peston, L.

  Gilbert, L

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Glasgow, E.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Porter of Luddenham, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Grey, E.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Richard, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Russell, E.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Serota, B.

  Hayter, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Hoyle, L

  Simon, V.

  Hughes, L.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Stallard, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Strafford, E

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  309

  Tenby, V.

  Varley, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Warner, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Tope, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  5.10 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 47:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY
  (" .—(1) A member of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
  (2) Where an individual is disqualified under this section, the disqualification ceases on the day he ceases to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly.
  (3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we may turn our minds to a more limited subject. Amendment No. 47 proposes that:
  "A member of the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales or Northern Ireland Assembly is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords".
  In setting up a Scottish Parliament, the relationship between Scottish Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament has always caused a problem. Why should Scottish Members of Parliament discuss issues of health, transport, education and so forth as they relate to both Scotland and England, while English Members of Parliament cannot discuss those issues as they relate to Scotland? As your Lordships know only too well, that has become known as the "West Lothian question". As there was no answer to that question, the previous Scottish devolution Bill in 1978 collapsed.
  The trouble is that the Government have gone ahead and set up the Scottish Parliament, but have completely ignored that question. It is interesting to note that on the first page of the document Modernising Parliament: Reforming the House of Lords, it is stated that:
  "Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy. Britain needs a two-chamber legislature".
  The Government promptly set up legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which are one-Chamber. Therefore, only the Members of those Parliaments can pass Acts which do not go through the House of Lords, but which refer to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That does not happen in England.
  Despite the fact that with great virtue the document claims that we need a two-Chamber legislature, the Government promptly set up single-Chamber legislatures for those three parts of the United Kingdom. As your Lordships know only too well, the problems
  310
  have just started and we shall wait to see what happens. However, Members of, your Lordships' House can stand for the Scottish Parliament—and in my argument I include the Welsh and Northern Ireland Assemblies—can take part in Scottish affairs, can decide all the matters relating to Scotland and can then come to this House to discuss all the matters relating to England. English Peers have no such say on Scottish matters. In schoolboy language, "That's not fair".
  If noble Lords decide to stand for the Scottish Parliament, in which the English House of Lords has no participation, in order to run its affairs as they wish, in my view it is not right that they should also come down here and participate in the rough and tumble of English party politics. That is the reason why I have tabled Amendment No. 47. I believe that it is a jolly good amendment.
  Amendment No. 47 is even more important because it proposes that:
  "A person who is the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords".
  Your Lordships may wonder why the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales is written with a lower case "p". That is because the Bill refers to the "Presiding Officer" for the Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly with an upper case "P", but to the "presiding officer" of the Welsh Assembly with only a lower case "p". I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has a vigorous respect for all such things, will have discovered that Wales is not worth, as it were, "capitalising on"! He may decide to table an amendment at Third Reading to adjust that.
  A person can stand for the Scottish Parliament and be elected; then with all impartiality can act as Presiding Officer (a Speaker); and can then come to your Lordships' House and take part in the rough and tumble of party politics relating to English matters. Perhaps I may give the example of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He is not in the Chamber, but I warned him that I might refer to him. He began life as David Steel. He then became a knight, Sir David Steel, which was very good. He was then elevated to become a Peer, Lord Steel of Aikwood. He then decided to stand for the Scottish Parliament as Sir David Steel. I do not know why he did not stand as "Lord Steel"; perhaps he was ashamed of having the title. He was then elected as Presiding Officer when he will have all the impartiality which goes with being Speaker. He can then come down here and take part in deliberations on English matters such as education, roads, transport, health—matters about which we have no say as they relate to Scotland. And that is when he is an impartial person!
  It is unbelievable to imagine that a Member of the other place can be a political animal, be dragged to become Speaker and then become impartial. I cannot imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons going to the Scottish Parliament and setting about it in a party political manner. Yet that is what can happen with the presiding officers of the three Assemblies.
  I do not believe that that is right. I have nothing against the noble Lord, Lord Steel—or Sir David Steel, whichever he prefers—but I wonder whether when he is here he will sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches or whether he will be impartial and sit on the Cross Benches. If he is impartial, why does he want to come down here and participate in English matters? This is an important point. I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I do so with some temerity because today it was revealed in The Times that he is one of the most popular and best speakers in your Lordships' House.
  Noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
  Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, there are many excellent and distinguished Members of your Lordships' House who are Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, but it goes without saying that they are not Members of the devolved Parliament or Assemblies. It must be wrong for those who have chosen to devote their time and energy to that role to remain or become Members of your Lordships' House. What on earth will they do? No Scottish legislation will come to this House and it would be intolerable for them to intrude, take part in debates and vote on English legislation. After all, there are sufficient Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Members of this House who can adequately discuss the reserved powers, even after most hereditary Peers eventually go.
  The amendment highlights the fact that the Government have not thought through the consequences of devolution or addressed what has become known as the "English question". Already, Scottish MPs are grossly over represented in another place and unbelievably this will continue to be so probably until 2006 or 2007. That is simply because the Government skulk behind the Boundary Commission, which could easily have put forward recommendations to alter some 70 constituency boundaries in time for the next general election. That is hardly a gargantuan task.
  The White Paper on reforming the House of Lords hints that some Members of the devolved institutions should be sent here. I noted a speech of the right honourable Member for Hartlepool, Mr Peter Mandelson, who approved of that. In a pretty cynical speech on 2nd February (col. 766 of Hansard), he said that the "fissiparous effects" of devolution—his words not mine—required some much needed glue. At least he did not call for a sticking plaster, only much needed glue, to keep the UK together.
  By failing to weigh the implications of devolution, and ignoring the English question, the Government have done their best to crack, if not smash, the foundations of the Union. I find it pretty ironic that the likes of Peter Mandelson are now worrying about the need for glue to stick it together. The Government need to be fair to all parts of the Union, not just Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They need also to be fair to England. That is why I strongly support my noble friend's amendment. I could not agree more with what he
  312
  proposes in his further amendment disqualifying the presiding officers of the Scottish Parliament and the national assemblies from membership of this House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, these are interesting amendments. They have opened up slightly wider issues, as regards some of which I do not want to follow my noble friend.
  My noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned the White Paper. I do not believe that in any future changes to the composition of this House, people should be sent by the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, by the European Parliament, to this House to somehow represent any of those bodies. That is not a sensible way to proceed. It is not clear, constitutional thinking. My noble friend and I are certainly in agreement on that score.
  However, I do not believe that anybody should be prevented from standing and being elected, if that is the wish of the electorate, for more than one tier of government. I have no problem with somebody standing and being elected to the European Parliament and the House of Commons; to the European Parliament and the Scottish Parliament; to the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I have some questions about whether they would be able to do the two jobs properly, but that is not for me to judge, unless the person was standing in a constituency in which I had a vote. If the electorate wants to vote for somebody and does so knowing that that person is already a member of another parliament, that is entirely for the electorate to judge. I am clear about that.
  Indeed, some of our noble friends are Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. My noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas was successful in being elected to the Scottish Parliament. On the Government Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie was successful. On the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood—I shall call him that despite the suggestion by my noble friend—was also successful. I shall return to him in more detail when I consider the second amendment. To show a balance around the House, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has been elected to the Welsh Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has been elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is perfectly fair. I would not debar them from coming here at all. It is perfectly reasonable that they should stand. The electorate obviously knew that they were Members of this House and elected them.
  Equally, a number of Members of Parliament of the other place—all the Scottish National Party Members, two Liberal Democrat Members and six or seven Labour Members—stood successfully for the Scottish Parliament. Two or three stood, one rather controversially, for election to the Welsh Assembly. I have no problem about that. They should be allowed to sit in both Chambers if that is their desire and if they have made that clear to the electorate. I believe that five of our number have been elected to the European Parliament. It is perfectly reasonable that they should sit here and in the European Parliament.

  313
  Therefore, as far as concerns Amendment No. 47, I cannot agree with my noble friend, except in the very limited part of his speech, but not his amendment, that these bodies should not be allowed to nominate representatives to sit in the interim House or the future House.
  Amendment No. 48 deals with the position of the presiding officers of the three devolved bodies. Here, I believe my noble friend certainly has half a point. I want to underline my agreement with that half. Interestingly enough—perhaps this is a positive reflection on your Lordships' House—two out of the three presiding officers are Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is the Presiding Officer of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood is the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I apologise; it is three out of three. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas is the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly. It is a huge reflection and credit to your Lordships that we have produced these men. I suppose that in two cases out of the three it actually gives the Liberal Democrats some responsibility. I have to say that in Scotland, judging by the fuss over the invitation list for tomorrow, they are not doing it very well. However, I cannot complain too much because I received an invitation. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and I shall attend tomorrow to watch the opening of the Parliament.
  I have no problem with those noble Lords being here as Members of this House. I do not suppose they will attend very much. However, it is right if they do attend, and wish to speak, that they may do so obviously on their own behalf or even if they wish to make a point relevant to the Parliament or Assembly they preside over. That is perfectly fair. It is a channel of communication between this United Kingdom Parliament and the devolved parliaments.
  Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for giving way. Perhaps he would allow me to refer to the fact that some of those Members who are presiding officers may well have difficulties in attending both institutions. I have here a copy of the record of the Welsh Assembly from a debate on 22nd June. Having given up the chair to his deputy, the Presiding Officer participated in the debate. At page 36 he stated:
  "It is impossible for any Member to be a full Assembly Member and to be a Member of the second House in Westminster. It is important that we say that unanimously to the Commission".
  I wonder whether my noble friend would take that on board?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am very interested in that remark from one of the presiding officers. I presume that that means we shall not be seeing him in this Chamber again which, if I guess
  314
  correctly who it is, is rather a pity. However, that is something with which the presiding officers will have to deal. It is interesting that, according to the press, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has decided that he wants to be called "The President of Scotland" and not "The Presiding Officer". I think that is a little pretentious. I have no problem with him being called "The Speaker". Indeed, I tabled an amendment proposing that. However, I believe that "The President" is a step too far.
  My noble friend Lord Ferrers has a valid point. He says that when these three gentlemen come here, they should do what they do in their own parliaments and assemblies; that is, to stand clear of party politics and sit, like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on the Cross Benches. Perhaps it is slightly out of date, but Dod's tells me that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Democrats in your Lordships' House. I believe that has now changed and he has resigned from that position—
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. That position has now changed. My noble friend Lady Williams was elected some little time ago. The noble Lord must catch up with developments.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not wake up every morning wondering what has happened inside the Liberal Democrat Party. That would, perhaps, keep me awake all night. However, I am glad to hear the noble Lord's comments. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is absolutely right. However, he should consider the next step, as should his noble friend, Lord Alderdice; that is, that when they come to this House they should sit on the Cross Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, has made it quite clear that he is no longer actively part of the Liberal Democrat Party in Scotland. Clearly, he has slightly moved aside in your Lordships' House. I think that they should both go to the Cross Benches.
  That said, that is as far as I can go with my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The matters of who should be elected to parliaments ought to be left to the good sense—perhaps in the case of one where they elect persons to different parliaments, the not so good sense—of the electorate.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I indicate the attitude that my noble friend the Leader of the House and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton and I wish to adopt; that is, having looked carefully at the Companion, we intend to take its guidance that
  "Arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report".
  It is perhaps as well for me to indicate that intention because we have a good deal of business to get through today.
  As I said in Committee, we specifically considered the questions of dual mandates in our debates on the Scotland Bill, the Government of Wales Bill and the

  315
  Northern Ireland Bill. Those Acts, as they now are, make express provision that Members of your Lordships' House are eligible to be Members of the respective devolved bodies. It is only a short time since we decided that and put specific provision in the relevant Acts.
  It is true that the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Steel, are a credit to the life Peers in this House, since all of them were elected for their presiding positions. It was a lower case "p" and a lower case "o" in the case of the National Assembly for Wales because we are notorious for being a good deal more modest and shy than Members of the Parliament and the Assembly in the other two jurisdictions.
  When we passed the Bills into law, we did not say that a person should be able to stand only as an independent; we did not say that if the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, were elected in Cardiff he would be ineligible to hold certain offices. As to the question of where such Members should sit and how they should conduct themselves in this House, that is entirely a matter for their individual decision with regard to what is proper behaviour in this House.
  I cannot accept these amendments. By and large, I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it does not surprise me that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, cannot accept these amendments because he has not accepted any so far, so that is par for the course.
  I understand the noble Lord's arguments in relation to Amendment No. 47. I can see that it may be thought right that people should be able to leave your Lordships' House. go to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly and then come back here. But his answer in relation to the lower case "p" was, if I might say so, lower case "pathetic". He obviously had not realised that there was a distinction between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Government's Bill. It is obviously a "cracking" and insulting mistake. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will see that it is corrected at the next stage.
  When we come to the business of the Speakers of those Assemblies, we come into a different game. Those people are there as impartial people. Why should a Speaker come to your Lordships' House and participate in all the matters relating to England which their Parliaments have not discussed when they were Speakers of those Parliaments? It is neither right nor fair that they should participate in this House from their party Benches.
  It is true that the noble Lord. Lord Elis-Thomas, is a Cross-Bencher, but he was a Cross-Bencher to start with. It may be that the other two noble Lords will want to sit on the Cross Benches, but there is nothing to insist that they should do S.D. They may well sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
  I "Question" with a big "Q" whether it is right for an impartial Speaker to participate in your Lordships' affairs. I draw the analogy with the Speaker of the
  316
  House of Commons. Can one imagine the Speaker of the House of Commons standing for the Scottish Parliament and participating in the rough and tumble of politics in Scotland and then coming down and being impartial in another place'? That is fundamentally wrong.
  From that point of view, I should like to test the opinion of the House, but not in relation to Amendment No. 47. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 48:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  DISQUALIFICATION OF PRESIDING OFFICERS OF SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT AND NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDING OFFICER OF NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES
  (" .—(1) A person who is the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
  (2)Where an individual is disqualified under this section, the disqualification ceases on the day he ceases to be the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly or the presiding officer of the National Assembly for Wales.
  (3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.").
  The noble Earl said: I beg to move.
  5.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 48) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 165.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Abercorn, D.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Clinton, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Cross, V.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Bathurst, E.

  Dacre of Glanton, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Belstead, L.

  Deedes, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Denman, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Blyth, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Boardman, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Erne, E.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Exmouth, V.

  Burton, L.

  Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

  Buscombe, B.

  Fisher, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Caithness, E.

  Gainsborough, E

  Caldecote, V.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Carrick, E.

  Gisborough, L.

  Cavendish of Furness, L.

  Gray, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Hankey, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Hayhoe, L.

  317

  Hesketh, L.

  Newall, L.

  Holmpatrick, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Iddesleigh, E

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Inchcape, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Jopling, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B,

  Kenyon, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Pender, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Plumb, L

  Kinloss, Ly.

  Rathcavan, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Rees, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Knutsford, V.

  Sharples, B.

  Lang of Monkton, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Long, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Tebbit, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Torrington, V.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Trumpington, B.

  Morris of Kenwood, L.

  Tryon, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Waddington, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Addington, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Alli, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Amos, B.

  Dunleath, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Bach, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Geraint, L.

  Blease, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Gladwyn, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Glenamara, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Burns, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Carlisle, E.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Grenfell, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  David, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hughes, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  318

  Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Puttnam, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Redesdale, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L,

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Judd, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Russell, E.

  Kirkhill, L.

  St Davids, V.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Serota, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Shaughnessy, L.

  Longford, E.

  Shepherd, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Simon, V.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  McNally, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Marsh, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Tope, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Varley, L.

  Newby, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Warnock, B.

  Ogmore, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Whirry, L.

  Orme, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Paul, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Peston, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.43 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 49:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  RETENTION OF ANCILLARY RIGHTS
  (" . Any person who is the holder of an hereditary peerage and who would but for this Act be entitled to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House shall be entitled to continue to exercise the same rights of access to, and use of, the House of Lords and any premises occupied by that House to which he would have been entitled but for the passing of this Act.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, we referred to this amendment the other day. It is an amendment which would allow hereditary Peers to continue to come here and use the facilities of the House once this Bill has been passed. I believe it is fair to say that not many will do so. I also believe that if there is to be a reform of this nature, it would be a pity if it were done without decorum. I believe that it is an indecorous way of going

  319
  about things to say to people who have been in this House for many years that they are to go and may never enter the place again.
  It also raises other problems. As was mentioned previously, if you happen to be a successful Foreign Secretary in the House of Commons, you come up to the House of Lords. If, like my noble friend Lord Carrington, you have been a successful foreign secretary in the House of Lords, you will no longer be allowed to come into the House, not even to have a cup of tea. I believe that that is disgraceful, and I do not believe that your Lordships individually would ever wish that to happen.
  It also raises a problem of what would happen in the case of Privy Counsellors. If you are a Lord Justice of Appeal, you are a Privy Counsellor; you are allowed to come here and sit on the steps of the Throne. If you are a hereditary Peer and a Privy Counsellor—and I should declare an interest in so far as I am one, but that is not the point—once this Bill is passed, you would not be allowed inside the Chamber again. Does that mean that you cannot sit on the steps of the Throne, which is one of the rights of a Privy Counsellor? If being a Privy Counsellor means that you can enter the building and sit on the steps of the Throne, does it mean that as soon as you move off the steps of the Throne you may not go to wash your hands or have a cup of tea, but that you have to find your way out of the front door as quickly as possible? If that is so, that is also pretty indecorous.
  In that context, what happens with elder sons? They are allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne. Does it mean that elder sons will not be allowed to sit on the steps of the Throne? At the moment, as your Lordships know, Bishops and such people are allowed to come back and use the facilities of the House. It seems to me quite extraordinary that your Lordships' hereditary Peers should not be able to do so. I believe that that is wrong.
  I know that there are some people who say that this is a matter for the House to consider and that it ought to be considered by the Privileges Committee or the Procedure Committee. I do not take that view. I feel that if an Act of Parliament says that people should be removed, that Act of Parliament should also say "but they can use the facilities of the House". However, I see that there is an argument for saying, as some people do, that it should be a matter for the Procedure Committee.
  I wrote to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees and told him that I hoped he would propel this idea through the appropriate committee so that it could consider what should be done. I was surprised to have an answer today in which he said that he had no plans to put this to a. committee and that it ought to be left to another Parliament at a later date. I do not believe that that is good enough. There is a problem. I understand that the Government want to get rid of hereditary Peers, to use the charming expression used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
  However, there is a problem. Are people never to be allowed to come back here, whatever the circumstances—Privy Counsellors or not—and however good a service they have given? If that is a problem,
  320
  someone has to resolve it one way or another. Either it ought to be resolved by an amendment or it ought to be resolved by one of the committees of the House. I do not say that I would be more than happy, but I would be happy, if whoever is to respond to the amendment could confirm that. I expect that it will be the noble Lord, Lord Williams, although I see that perhaps it may be the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. In that case, I may well get a different answer. I would be satisfied if he would agree that there is a problem here and that it ought to be resolved by one of the committees of the House. If he says no, and that there is no problem at all, I might take a different view. I beg to move.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who I understand will reply, will seriously consider the suggestion that my noble friend made in his closing remarks. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will know, I have raised this matter with her privately. I have also written to the noble Lord, Lord Boston, about the matter. The Minister is looking as if I have said something that is quite wrong, but I make these points because I regard this as a very serious issue.
  I do think—I speak as a life Peer—that this is very difficult for hereditary Peers, many of whom have been Members of your Lordships' House for many years and whose families have certainly been here for possibly hundreds of years. Ninety per cent of them have been told that they are going; just like that. Some have said this afternoon that they find it rather painful. I believe I should find it very painful if someone just addressed me in those terms. But I am not a hereditary Peer, so it does not apply.
  However, I take my noble friend's point about what is becoming to the House of Lords. Indeed, the practice of this Chamber and its civilised behaviour have distinguished it from other Chambers. Even though this particular amendment may not be quite right, I really believe that one of the committees of the House should consider the matter to see whether what I have suggested could be allowed; namely, something like dining rights or the opportunity to come in on a given number of occasions during the year for a meal, or indeed the right to use the Chapel and the Crypt, although that is a somewhat different issue. Nevertheless, it is something to which people attach importance. I think that these issues deserve to be looked at with care and consideration.
  As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, it may well be the case that no hereditary Peer ever wants to set foot in the House again, but that would be their choice. However, to say that none of them can do so under any circumstances seems to me to be something which is not really worthy of the House of Lords and, if I may say so, not really worthy of the Ministers. They should seriously consider this matter. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will tell us that it is the Government's intention that this will be considered by one of the committees of the House.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, we appear to be going round and round the mulberry bush on this

  321
  question of "club rights". Quite frankly, that is what it is all about. That is not to say that I am unsympathetic to hereditary Peers in this matter, but I am totally opposed to this provision being put on the face of the Bill. It seems to me that the pleadings are now becoming completely undignified. There are channels involved, but I do not think that they can be exercised until after the Bill becomes law.
  We must recognise in this House that the Labour Government, despite some people's interpretation of the manifesto, have extended a great deal of sympathy by accepting the Weatherill amendment. They thought that that would get the Bill through in a dignified way. However, we are now finding that noble Lords are totally betraying that Weatherill amendment and raising the same issues time and time again.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am very strongly in favour of the hereditary Peers who are not members of the 95 continuing to enjoy what are called the "ancillary benefits" of being a Member of your Lordships' House, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, and, if I may say so, very movingly by the noble Baroness, who is a life Peeress and former Leader of the House. But, having said that, and despite feeling very strongly that that should be so, I presume to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, that this is really not a matter for legislation, particularly if it can be dealt with in some other way.
  As the noble Earl said, the retired Bishops continue to enjoy the "ancillary benefits" of your Lordships' House. As far as I know, there is nothing in any Act of Parliament which says that they may do so. The noble Earl mentioned the Procedure Committee, but I rather think that it would be a matter for the Offices Committee. In my respectful submission, it would be far better dealt with by a favourable answer from the Offices Committee. I very much hope that it might consider the matter and consider it favourably before Third Reading. If that can be done, I presume to think that it would be better if this amendment were not pressed to a Division.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, before today—indeed, before a moment ago—I did not know that my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lady Young had written to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. I, too, have written to him and, like my noble friends, I have had what I regard as a wholly unsatisfactory reply. I think it is a matter of great regret that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, who has been replying in such an unsatisfactory fashion to so many noble Lords, including a number of Privy Counsellors, has not bothered to be here to listen to the debate. That is a matter of very considerable regret.
  However, I also think that there is a respectable case for saying that the matter ought to be considered by one or other of our committees, rather than writing such a provision on the face of the Bill. But the noble Lord,
  322
  Lord Boston of Faversham, has turned his face against that and he is the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House—
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord or indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Young, actually mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, that they intended to name him and to criticise him in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has just done. I am sure that he would have been present had he been given notice that these personal remarks were going to be made.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I have said anything offensive, naturally I withdraw it at once. However, I did not receive the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, until an hour or so ago. Therefore, I have not had an opportunity to tell him that I was going to mention his name. In any event, the noble Lord, Lord Boston, is an Officer of the House and he must have been aware that this matter would be raised; indeed, the amendment has been tabled for some while. However, be that as it may; if I offended the noble Lord, or indeed transgressed the rules, I apologise and withdraw whatever I said which may have been offensive.
  I believe that it is right for the relevant committee of this House to consider the matter urgently—it is to be hoped before the Summer Recess and certainly long before the Bill, if it is to become law, passes on to the statute book. It is a matter of wide concern to a number of Members of your Lordships' House and it is a matter of regret that it has not yet been found possible for the relevant committee to convene and consider the issue.
  I believe that it would be right for the Offices Committee—if that is the right committee, which I fancy it is—to consider the matter urgently. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is able to give an assurance that that will happen, I shall of course take a different view. I am not certain whether it is the Government's view that the committee should consider the matter now or after the Bill becomes law, but the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has clearly expressed his view on this matter. I regret that very much.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I think that we should pause to consider in a more general and wider sense what we have been doing over the past several weeks, and what we shall be doing possibly over the next several weeks for all I know. We are expelling from this House a considerable body of people, many of whom have been here for many years and many of whom have given substantial and considerable service to this House and to Parliament as a whole. I support the Government in doing this. I have been described as being agnostic with regard to expelling the hereditary Peers. That is true, but I know that the arithmetic is wrong and it has to be put right. This is one way of doing it. However, as we are doing something which clearly must be extremely painful to a substantial number of our colleagues we should pause and think

  323
  perhaps of being merciful. It is not too difficult to be merciful to one's opponents when they are defeated; or it ought not to be. A small thing is being asked for here. It is requested that hereditary Peers should be allowed to utilise some of the facilities of this House after they have ceased to be full Members of it. I do not think that is a terribly awful thing to ask.
  I recall that when I ceased to be a Member of another place—by popular demand—I was still allowed to use certain, admittedly limited, facilities in that other place. I did not use them because I felt that if I turned up there I would feel rather like Banquo's ghost and not wholly welcome there. As we are taking away from people something which they value, we should not take away everything. We should give them something to soften the blow. Like my noble friend who has spoken, I am not sure whether that measure should be put on the face of the Bill. Perhaps this matter should be decided by a committee or by my noble friend Lord Boston. I do not know about these things. However, it should be done somehow. What I really seek from my Front Bench is a demonstration of mercy and a hand offered to our colleagues which they might grasp. That would alleviate the passage of the rest of this Bill. I hope that my noble and learned friend will take note of that—although I do not know that he will.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, I rise to seek guidance from the Government Front Bench because I can see a real problem here. Am I not correct in thinking that the eldest sons of Peers have the right to attend the State Opening of Parliament? Am I not right in thinking that the eldest sons of Peers have the right to sit on the steps of the Throne? Am I not also correct in thinking that they are able to do so not because of any resolution of this House but because of custom? If that is the position, they cannot be deprived of what they have now as the result of a meeting within the House of some committee and a determination by that committee. It seems to me that unless this matter is addressed we shall be faced with a confusing situation—it is for others to judge whether it is just or unjust—where the sons of Peers can sit on the steps of the Throne, but Peers cannot. As I say, there is a problem here which needs to be addressed. I agree with the speech made by my noble friend Lady Young. I really think that we ought to recognise the service given by hereditary Peers over the years. We are not asking for anything very great here.
  But quite apart from that, I should like some advice as to where we are going here because I think that we shall end up with some extraordinary situations if we just sit back and say, "We do not have to do anything for the time being".
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, there is an even jollier irony. All those Irish Peers who are no longer representatives can sit on the steps of the Throne and can use the facilities of the House but we old, ex-UK Peers, or GB Peers, or Scottish Peers, or whatever we are, will not be able to do so. However, the Irish Peers from the Republic of Ireland with wonderful names such as Malahide, McGillicuddy of the Reeks, or Clonmel, will be able to clutter up the steps of the Throne.
  324
  However, sensible people such as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, will be barred from the premises. I must admit that I nearly wept with joy at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. It was an awfully sweet speech. There is an element of decent behaviour and niceness here, and, for want of a better phrase, good manners. I think that in many ways the Government are keen on good manners. It would be a good mannered gesture to accept the amendment and it would do no one any harm.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I think that one part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has been overlooked. Those of us who have sat in the House of Commons have access to the buildings of Parliament as a right. I am perfectly entitled to go into the Members' Lobby and Central Lobby any time I like. Is the House to say that police are to be posted at the point of access from Central Lobby to this House to make sure that no ex-MP who is wandering about can get in here? It would mean posting policemen and all kinds of officials around, with or without guns in their pockets. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in his initial plea for good manners and mercy missed a technical point. This issue will cause difficulties. If we are to be kept out of here, despite former membership of the House of Commons, which gives us access to the dining rooms downstairs and the Central Lobby and so on, that will be a complicated situation to administer.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, the tone of the debate suggests that we are asking the hereditary Peers to leave rather a pleasant club. This is not a club; it is a place of work. Ancillary facilities are provided because we have to attend this place of work at lunch time, in the evening and at times when we should be able to eat on the premises, and so that we have a place to entertain guests. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that we should be a little kind and gentle in this regard but it seems to me that there are other ways of doing that rather than treating the facilities of the House as if they were the facilities of a club.
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, much of what I was going to say has already been said much better by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others. However, I want to make three points. First, I very much welcomed the splendidly civilised speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. I differ from him only in suggesting that the relevant word is not "mercy" but "civilisation". I point out incidentally that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill expressly state that
  "The removal of these rights does not prevent the House from deciding to grant some rights to use the facilities of the House to a hereditary peer under the exercise of its own authority".
  May I suggest to the Government Front Bench that that suggests to me some kind of an indication to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that he and the committees should be considering this matter, and indeed that the Government expected that to happen? I believe that it would be best for that to happen before Third Reading; otherwise there will be an extraordinarily difficult gap, and that would be wrong.

  325
  Incidentally, I take the point about refreshments. I have a splendid new suggestion; namely, let us take back the Pugin Room. There is plenty of space that end now. That would ease matters. I believe that were a decision to be taken with regard to dining rights, that would help to ease any pressure. However, I come back to the point that we are not talking about a club; we are talking about a place where people have lived, worked and devoted themselves to service for many years. They are entitled to decent, civilised and honourable treatment by those of us who are staying. It is not a question of mercy; it is not a question of clubs; it is a question of civilisation. I have great faith in this House and I hope that even though this amendment may not be quite right, definite commitments will be given by the Government Front Bench that the matter will be considered by the committees of the House and that some proposals will be made. A clear indication has been given in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill issued by the Government.
  Finally, it will be much, much easier for the servants of the House—the Attendants and all the others who have served us and worked for us these many years—if they do not have to say one fine day, "I am sorry, my Lord, you cannot do that". The matter needs to be sorted out. We need some express privileges decided and offered—and we should offer them without any question of mercy but as recognition of a good job well done.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand the very strong feelings of my noble friend and others who have spoken during the course of this short debate. In Committee, I was struck by the strength of feeling on the other side of the argument. It is true that the House is not a club; I deprecate the phrase "club rights". The phrase suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of "ancillary benefits" is much better.
  As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale said, the other place extends privileges to former Members; we, in turn, extend privileges to retired Bishops. The service of some noble Lords to this Parliament is enormous. For example, my noble friend Lord Ferrers is a Privy Counsellor; he was for many years a Minister; he is a former Deputy Leader of this House; he entered this House in 1954. There are others even more senior. I wonder if the Leader of the House will give orders to the Doorkeepers to bar my noble friend from the premises in November. Will he be sent to queue at St. Stephen's entrance? Will he have to wait his turn while the Pass Office conducts security checks? That is an unthinkable scenario. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, agrees; he is right so to do. Is it the Government's view that no privileges should be extended to former Members, except retired Bishops?
  It is no good the Government saying that this is a matter for the new House. They will be the Government in the new House of Lords and they will have to make their view known in that new House. I will come clean with my view. I believe that certain privileges should be accorded to former Members. Does the Minister agree? Or does he not want to see former Members hanging
  326
  around? Even if he cannot give the Government's view, perhaps the Minister will share his personal opinion with the House.
  This is not a matter to be determined on the face of the Bill; these decisions should not be placed in the hands of another place. However, that the matter should be addressed—and addressed promptly—I have no doubt. I have suggested a way in which this could be done and carried forward. I very much hope that the Government will support that suggestion. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said, this issue is causing unnecessary ill-feeling. The churlishness behind being ready to look at the matter now is demeaning to the House.
  We took a decision on the rights of retired Bishops when the right reverend Prelates were present in the House. We should not use the presence of hereditary Peers as a bogus pretext for deferring a view on the oldest element in our House. I very much look forward to a response from the Government.
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, we have had this debate on a large number of occasions during the course of the passage of the Bill through the House. Indeed, we have discussed the matter once already on Report during the debate on an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. We are now debating it for a second time at Report stage. It would be wrong in those circumstances to go through the details in the debate today. I should say that if those who took such pleasure from the eldest son sitting on the steps of the Throne had been listening the last time we had this debate, when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, moved his amendment, they would have heard that the only eldest sons, according to custom, who can sit on the steps of the Throne are those eldest sons of Peers who sit in this House. That completely dealt with the conundrum that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, found so jolly.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, my conundrum concerned the Irish Peers, not the eldest sons.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Earl may know, that is the resolution of 1806—which he would have heard, had he been listening, when the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, was moved on the last occasion.
  As far as concerns the matters to which the amendment refers, I think everyone agrees that they are not matters for legislation but for this House to determine in whichever way it thinks appropriate. It will be for this House to determine; not both Houses to determine.
  The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would allow not only people who have sat in the House to enjoy certain club rights but their heirs and successors as well. In 1957, the then Marquess of Salisbury said:
  "This House is not a club; it is a place for legislation."
  That must be the starting point for the resolution of this issue. It is not for the House to resolve it in the course of legislation; it should be resolved at the appropriate

  327
  time. I think that the appropriate time for the House to resolve it is not now but once the new House is constituted. It is for the new House to decide the appropriate privileges to give.
  In those circumstances, we think the amendment is misconceived, is not in the right form and is not a matter to be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, what is his authority for the proposition that it is only the sons of Peers who sit here who are entitled to sit on the steps of the Throne?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Companion is the authority.
  Lord Waddington: My Lords, what is the authority for that proposition?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has a better source than the Companion, no doubt he will tell me.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could he reply to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Ferrers about Privy Counsellors? Can they sit on the steps of the Throne when they are former hereditary Peers?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as far as concerns privileges in the future, those matters should be decided by the House and not in the course of legislation.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am disappointed with the noble and learned Lord's reply—not only with what he said but, if I may say so, with the manner in which he said it. He displayed no sympathy for this very real problem; I am not saying sympathy for hereditary Peers. He said that this is a matter for the new House to consider. I do not think that it is. When the Government are producing a Bill such as it is, with radical effects, it is quite right that the effects should be considered by your Lordships. It is, all very fine for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity—who has been here for all of two years—to say that it is fairly undignified—
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that we are all a little exhausted by the very personal references being made this afternoon. I referred earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He then explained that he had not had time to acquaint the noble Lord, Lord Boston, with what he was going to say about him personally. Presumably the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may say the same.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Lord Privy Seal seems also to be fairly touchy. I told the Chairman of Committees that I would refer to this. I see nothing wrong with that. I did refer to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity—as one does refer to speeches of other noble Lords—and he did say that he thought it was fairly undignified and that, as the Government had given
  328
  the Weatherill amendment a run, we ought therefore—not his words; my interpretation—swallow the rest. I do not think that that is so. I think that what upset the noble Baroness was my reference to him having been here for all of two years. That is not particularly insulting; it is merely a fact.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right; I have been here two years. But I am here because I am qualified to come here by what I have done, rather than by who I was born to. As far as concerns good manners and civilised behaviour, it is a two-way Floor; they should come from that side of the House as well.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am beginning to agree with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. This is becoming a little personal on the part of the noble Lord.
  There is a problem here. I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted that there is a problem and have just kicked it into the long grass and said that it is for the new House to consider. I do not think it is. When your Lordships are considering a Bill that will have very radical effects, it is right that we should consider what the effects of that Bill are. I do not disagree with the noble and learned Lord if he says that it is not right to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. There are plenty of people who would use that argument. However, it is right that it ought to be considered and it ought to be considered by the appropriate committee.
  I wrote to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees. He said that he was not considering doing so at the moment. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord did not feel it appropriate to ask the Lord Chairman of Committees to consider the matter earlier. I think that he should. I think that the noble and learned Lord is wrong. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 50:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
  (" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be known as "members of the Selected Chamber".").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps we may be able to lower the temperature a little. Amendment No. 50 is joined with Amendment No. 74. They are coupled together. Amendment No. 74 changes the name from "House of Lords" to "Selected Chamber" and Amendment No. 50 says that people should be known as "members of the Selected Chamber". This will no longer be the House of Lords with its different composition and the different character of people. It will be a selected Chamber. I think it will be right for it to be so called and I think it would be correct that those people who are members of it should be called Members of the Selected Chamber. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 has been grouped with Amendment No. 50. I have written to my noble friends on the Front Bench, to the noble and learned Lord the Minister who is to reply and to my noble friend Lord Ferrers to say that we want to decouple it.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment for two reasons. The first is a serious historical reason why it should be opposed and the other is a purely aesthetic one. Our constitution has evolved over the years. The Bill as it now stands is completely different from how it was when it first came here. The Government, in spite of slight stroppiness over access rights and one or two other things, have behaved with considerable good sense throughout the proceedings on the Bill. That is my serious reason.
  My not quite so serious but in some ways more important reason is that we could not possibly have the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, not called Lady Jay. There she is. She looks just like the best 18th Century Duchess of Devonshire and we could not under any circumstances not have her called the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, because she is the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, intends Members of your Lordships' House to be called Members of the Selected Chamber and also Members of the Lords. In Committee a number of attempts were made to change the name of your Lordships' House and the style of address for Members of the House. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wanted Members of this House to be known as "members of the Appointed Chamber" and styled as "Lords of Parliament". We did not agree then and we do not agree now. As was said in Committee, there is no reason for change. Even after this Bill becomes law there are nearly 100 hereditary Peers among us who will remain in the House of Lords. This place should therefore continue to be known as the House of Lords. Members of the transitional House will be Members of the same Chamber of Parliament, carrying out the same functions, with the same roles and responsibilities, terms and conditions as they presently have. The majority of them will be the same individuals. There is quite simply no need to change the name used to describe them. To change our style of address for the short period before the second stage reform gets under way would be unnecessary and confusing. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if I am in order to speak, and I am not entirely certain that I am—
  Noble Lords: No.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that was a good way of shutting up my noble friend. I did not frankly think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would accept the amendment. It is funny how the Government want to change everything except the style and the title. The fact is that it is a selected Chamber. There may be 100 Peers, and we keep on being told that that still may not
  330
  come to pass. There may still be 100 hereditary Peers but they will all be selected. It will not be the same as the House of Lords as it used to be. However, I do not see a great head of steam over this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 51:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED CHAMBER: STYLE
  (" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the Selected Chamber of Parliament shall be styled as "Members of the Lords", with the initials "ML" appended to their name but without reference to their rank in the peerage.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a different kettle of fish altogether. We have already discussed this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that I referred at Committee stage to "Lords of Parliament". That is perfectly true. I have altered the amendment this time to describe them as "members of the Lords". That should please the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps he is not replying to the amendment.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am.
  Earl Ferrers: The noble and learned Lord is to reply. Ah, a change of bowling. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, was to reply because he did so last time.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the same bowler but a different batsman.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no doubt that the ball will get caught anyhow.
  I put down this amendment to try to help the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal because—I am mindful to rehearse the fact again just to remind your Lordships—back in August she wrote an article in the Daily Telegraph. It stated:
  "Baroness Jay, the new Leader of the Lords, wants life peers to be stripped of their aristocratic titles and called MLs—Members of the Lords. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, she said she was keen to remove the elitism of the names used in the Upper Chamber. 'I am not sure that I would not like to move to a situation where you had ML after your name, Member of the Lords, rather than being called Baroness Jay of Paddington', she said. She went on to say, 'I would not mind not having the title although some of my some of my colleagues might think it terribly sad to get rid of them'."
  She then said that it was important to create a way of differentiating between Peers who are born with their titles and those who have won a seat in the Lords on their merit, which of course would include the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity.
  The amendment seeks to put into the Bill exactly what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House wants. I therefore thought that it would be good to have it down and to help her.
  During the course of the debates on the Bill we have listened to the hereditary Peers being vilified and told that they have no place in the constitution and that they are undemocratic. All that was before Weatherill came in and then the Government rather changed their tack

  331
  because they said that some hereditary Peers are desirable. The fact is that those in another place have always disliked the House of Lords because they feel that when they pass a Bill the House of Lords should accept it, and of course they become upset when we do not accept it. Therefore, the Members of the Commons have always disliked Members of the Lords, and none more so than Labour Members of the House of Commons.
  The curious thing—I have had occasion to say it before—is that they all queue up to come here. They do come here and the curious thing daily is that, having come here, they have, as I have suggested once, acted rather like cuckoos and tried to chuck out of the nest the very eggs that have given the place its character, its style and possibly its attractiveness. The hereditary Peers are, after all, the people who have over the years given the place the character, the courtesies, the practices, the ambience and the civilised behaviour. We are now going to get rid of all of them and all the life Peers will say, "We do not want hereditary Peers here at all but we are quite happy to be called Lords and take all the trappings of being a Lord". I began to think that that was a little strange. If you are against everything, why is it that you then come up and take on the mantle of what you have cast off?
  Therefore, it seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was actually entirely right over this: that you ought in fact to put "ML" after your name and not call yourself "Lord". My noble friend Lord Onslow said that she is glorious as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and of course she is. She might be Margaret Jay, ML, and she might be Mrs Michael Adler, ML. That is not quite such a glorious title.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Earl Ferrers: Of course it is a glorious title, but in a slightly different way. After all, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would be perfectly happy to be called Falconer ML. He does not want to be called "Lord" or anything like that. But what will happen when a Prime Minister asks someone to serve in the Upper House? He will say, "Will you go and serve in that Upper House? You have to be there every day; you have to"—as your Lordships may know, particularly if you are a member of the other party—"sign in and sign out when you have arrived there so that they know what is happening; you have to be there most clays to vote; you will not receive any payment but you get a hit of expenses; but you can call yourself a Lord". Then, of course, they will all say, "Yes, we would love to go to the House of Lords". But if you say, "Will you go to the second Chamber? You will not be paid; you have to be there the whole time; you have to vote; and you cannot call yourself a Lord either", no one will want to go. Of course they will not. So why do they all come—because they want to call themselves Lords; and, if I may suggest it, because their wives like to call themselves Ladies.
  In this great egalitarian day and age, I think it is quite right that people who are life Peers who will be Members of this great, new body that will be far more
  332
  democratic than ever was the one that preceded it, of which we happen to be the lucky Members, should be called "members of the Lords". For once, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is right. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, my noble friend goes through the most delightful moods—between self-immolation and teasing; and I think we enjoy both very much. In the days of unegalitarianism one used to hear the phrase, "It takes three generations to make a gentleman and clogs to clogs in three generations". I do not know how many generations the noble Earl thinks it takes to make a Lord. Presumably, if there were logic in his amendment—I do not suppose for a moment that he assumes there is because it is based on the rather amusing words used by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House in the Spectator or Tribune article, whichever it was—he would feel that hereditary Peers of the first creation should never have been called "Lord" and, indeed, that life Peers, since 1958, should never have been called "Lord". I should be interested to know at what stage he thinks the blood changes sufficiently for the epithet to be added.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may—
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is slightly too hasty. I wonder whether the House would agree that few more beguiling amendments have come before the House than this one. Perhaps the most entertaining part of our depressing proceedings in Committee was when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, suddenly expressed a deep sense of the value of continuity and tradition with regard to the past and the future of this House. That was, as noble Lords may remember, when it was suggested that the titles of the peerage should be separated from the right to sit and vote in the House.
  If I may paraphrase the noble Lord and indeed other noble Lords opposite, "No, we see no need to change. We like being called 'my Lord'. We just want the older Lords to be tipped out of here". Yet there was one exception to that somewhat contradictory position, and that was the principled position taken by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. In her interview, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers indicated, she expressed her distaste for some of what she felt was the flummery surrounding the House. In a modern era a modern title should suffice and the idea was floated that Members of your Lordships' House should be known simply as Members of the Lords. That inspired idea was floated in the air by the noble Baroness and it has today been plucked down from the air by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It is inevitable that at some stage the title "Lord" must be separated from membership of this House. Equally, as I have said, I see some merit in keeping the name of the House of Lords itself. The simple description "ML", parallel to that of "MP" for another place, as proposed by the noble Baroness and my noble

  333
  friend is logical. I congratulate my noble friend on his amendment and I would be very surprised if the noble and learned Lord the Minister did not accept it.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, so beguiling is the amendment that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has broadly repeated the same speech that he made in Committee for those among your Lordships who missed it on the first occasion. The Companion suggests that arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report.
  In answer to a previous amendment on Report, I made the point that it seems sensible, if we continue to be called the House of Lords, that we continue exactly as before. My noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington has authorised me to tell the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that she will be writing in a personal capacity to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to put her own suggestion to him. In the meantime, the sensible course is to continue as before. I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment for the second time.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is in a bellicose mood. He is always telling one to stop making speeches, that they have been made before and that they must not be repeated. Of course I made the same speech as I made before because, rather like the noble and learned Lord when he comes to answer, he says the same thing as he tends to think that he is right. The reason I said what I said is that I altered the amendment. I altered the amendment to make it even more gracious to the noble Baroness. I thought that your Lordships might therefore not know the complete reasoning behind the amendment.
  I was surprised that the noble Baroness put up her junior to speak, if I may so describe the noble and learned Lord, although not in an offensive way. The noble and learned Lord knows perfectly well that in his profession a junior is very senior and is a capable and able person. The noble and learned Lord is very senior, very capable and very able. The fact is that I moved the amendment in order to try to help the noble Baroness to get through what she obviously wants.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to say it again: that the Government think that what the noble Baroness wrote was a whole lot of "All my eye and Betty Martin". The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was not certain quite what that meant as it was Latin. I looked it up in Fowler's Dictionary of English Prose. "All my eye and Betty Martin" is all nonsense, bosh and rubbish. I suppose that that is what the Government think of the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay.
  I think that the noble Baroness was right over this. I come back to the same point. The reason people will come here in the future when they will not be paid, when they will receive only a small amount of expenses and when they will have to be here the whole day is that they will be able to call themselves "Lord" and their wives will be called "Lady". I think that is a bad reason. Therefore, I fear that we must have a vote on the amendment in order to test the opinion of the House. I
  334
  think it would be quite fun to see all the noble Lords go through the Lobby to call themselves "Lord" and to see which way the noble Baroness goes. I beg to move.
  6.38 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 153.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Ailsa, M.

  Kintore, E.

  Amherst of Hackney, L.

  Kitchener, E.

  Annaly, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Knutsford, V.

  Bathurst, E.

  Liverpool, E.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Blyth, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Boardman, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L

  Moyne, L.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Nelson of Stafford, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Newall, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

  O'Cathain, B.

  Fisher, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Gray, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Hankey, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Torrington, V.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Inchcape, E.

  Tryon, L.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Kenyon, L.

  Wise, L.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Chatteris of Amisfield, L.

  Addington, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Alli, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Amos, B.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Bach, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  David, B.

  Blease, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Donoughue, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Carew, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Exmouth, V.

  335

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Newby, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Glenamara, L.

  Nichol, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Gordon of Stralhblane, L.

  Orme, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Paul, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Peston, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Grantchester, L,

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Grenfell, L

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Rea, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Richard, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Russell, E

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Serota, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Simon, V.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Strange, B.

  Judd, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Thurso, V.

  Ludford, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L [Teller.]

  Tope, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  McNally, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Varley, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Warner, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Winston, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.48 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 52:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF LORDS
  (" . The maximum number of persons entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House is 659.").
  The noble Lord said: I hope that this amendment will go with the grain of government thinking. It has been joined with Amendment No. 55, in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. The only thing that
  336
  distinguishes the two amendments is the numbers: my amendment has a maximum of 659 and the maximum number in the amendment of my noble friend is 830.
  The principles behind the amendment are twofold. The first relates to the specific number and the second to the notion of an overall limit.
  So far as concerns the specific number, it does not take a great brain to recognise that the figure of 659 was drawn from the number of Members currently in another place. I readily admit, however, that the recent list of life Peers makes that figure no longer realistic.
  There are, as I understand it—or were, before the announcement in June—499 life Peers, and 26 Bishops. If we add to that the 92 so-called Weatherill Peers and the new list of 38, which derives from the list of 33 working Peers and the five life Peers whose names appeared in the Honours List, we arrive at a figure of 655.
  Clearly, a margin of manoeuvre of four is inadequate when it is considered that the Government have the principle of overall parity between themselves and the Official Opposition in mind, and will have to appoint between 30 and 40 life Peers to match the 92 Weatherill Peers. I see the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal nodding. So it is clear from the figures that we are talking about a cap of somewhere between 700 and 725, or perhaps a slightly higher figure, to allow both for the principle of parity which the noble Baroness has explained to the House on several occasions, and to give the Government an overall margin to make a modest number of new life Peers.
  I readily accept, therefore, that the specific number in my amendment is inappropriate and, for that reason alone, shall not move it this evening. However, I urge upon the Government in general, and the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal in particular—I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble Lord in order in speaking to an amendment that he does not intend to move at this stage?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, justifiably, makes a fair point. I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I do intend to move it. I apologise. He is quite right to intervene and I beg the pardon of the House.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Acton, is a stickler for procedure in the House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Peston.
  What is important about this amendment is the notion of an overall cap on numbers in this House. We have had, on a number of occasions from the Government Front Bench, an undertaking that the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister is keen to limit his powers of patronage in relation to this House. A number of related undertakings of an informal nature have already been given in that respect.

  337
  Therefore, it is my submission that the Prime Minister and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House should have no difficulty in accepting an overall cap on numbers. It seems to me to correspond with the Government's wishes. With an overall cap, it will be impossible for the present Government, or any future government, to manipulate numbers in this House in order to obtain a particular result. If the Government really mean what they say about their wish to limit their powers of patronage, it is difficult to see how they can have any difficulties with this amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley is grouped with this one. It is therefore appropriate that I speak to it. Our amendment is also a serious attempt to define a limit to the number of Members in this House. Otherwise, it is on an exponential curve, depending on which government is in power, with unlimited patronage, to be able to create as many new Peers as they want in order to see their business through.
  On 11th May, the noble Baroness Lady Jay said:
  "Let us say that we have agreed that x will be the number … That is a guarantee of the overall ceiling".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; cl. 1194.]
  What the Government have not said is what x should be. There have been rather confusing statements on what it is likely to be. Therefore I hope that this time we shall receive a more satisfactory answer.
  In our amendment I have put forward a figure of 830. That has been carefully calculated. I have sent my workings to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I have also given them to my Front Bench. I was about to place them in the Library for the convenience of the House when the new list of life Peers came out, which distorted my figures, so I thought it best not to do so.
  The question of Conservative and Labour Peers is fairly easy to address because the idea is one of broad parity. I disagree with my noble friend about the precise figures. I think it more likely that 64 Labour life Peers will be needed to bring the number up to parity with the Conservatives when the Weatherill amendment is taken into account—which not all of us have accepted as the right solution to the future of this House.
  The Cross-Benchers are more of a wild card. I calculated that their influence would be reduced from 28 per cent of the House to 17 per cent. Then, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, confounded my figures even further. On 22nd of this month, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, he said (at col. 896) that the Government's intention was to keep the Cross-Bench Peers at about 26 per cent.
  I then come to the Liberal Peers. My noble friend Lord Kingsland did not mention them, but they seem to me to be the party that should bear the best in terms of new creations, if statements in the Labour Party manifesto and answers to questions put to the Government are correct. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated in a Written Answer on 9th June
  338
  (col. WA 157) that the number of Liberal Peers would be proportional, and referred to the manifesto. It states that the number of Peers should be proportional to the number of votes cast at the last election, and the Liberal Party received 17 per cent of the vote. So, in my figures, I allowed the Liberals 17 per cent in the revised House, which brought them an increase of some 90 Peers—hence my figure of 830. I also had to include the other parties which received 7 per cent of the vote at the general election. They, too, were to be represented according to the Government's manifesto. That was my serious attempt to arrive at a figure of 830. Clearly we need to set a limit. I do not want to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Kingsland said on that point, as he put it far better than I ever could.
  What concerns me is what exactly the Government mean when they refer to proportionality with regard to the Liberals. That is one of the unanswered questions. I reiterate a point that I have made previously. In the revised Chamber, unless a cap is set on the numbers, the ability of the interim reformed House to ask the executive to think again will be seriously reduced.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should be grateful if he could help me. I am more than slightly confused. Is he putting forward the figure of 830 or is he not?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, when I tabled the amendment, that was the closest I could get to an accurate number on the information I had received from the Government, both in this House and through Written Answers. I have now said that that figure is wrong because of the new list of life Peers. As the noble Lord knows, four Conservative life Peers were created in the last list, which means that, to match those for broad parity, on top of my total there need to be a further four Labour Peers.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, is the noble Lord therefore saying that this is in effect a probing amendment at Report stage?
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, far from it. There are two strands to this amendment. One is the need to set a limit. I thought that it would be helpful to the House to work out, to the best of my ability, what that number should be. I have tried to explain to the House. I am sorry if the noble Lord has not fully understood me; that is entirely my fault. I sought to put in a figure as close as I could to what I think would be the realistic figure, given what I have been told so far.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I think it is probably still in order to address noble Lords as "my Lords", although pace the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, some of us have titles which we think are rather superior to "Lord".
  We have strayed yet again into the debate which I hope we shall have next year and beyond on constructing the new House of Lords. Something is clearly bewitching noble Lords opposite in that they

  339
  would rather debate that matter than the Bill before your Lordships' House, a point which has been made several times.
  It is clear, in my judgement, that when, next year, we get on with the business of constructing the new House, we must talk about its size. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will find that he will have no difficulty persuading noble Lords on this side that we must have a view on that matter. It happens that, in my view, the numbers we are talking about are not very sensible; I would go for a much smaller Chamber. However, I do not think that this is the occasion to discuss that matter.
  The only point I want to make is the singular inappropriateness of the number 659. It is one of a class of numbers—namely, the prime numbers—which one would not choose in setting up a legislative assembly because of the difficulty of dividing it. I know that the amendment refers to "the maximum number"; none the less, I utter this word of warning: when the time comes, we should accept a number which has many divisors. Six hundred is the kind of number I have in mind. The noble Lord said that he would not test the opinion of the House on this matter. I should like to encourage him to come back to topics of this kind next year or the year after; I shall certainly want to do so. I hope that he will agree with me in due course that we should go for a number with many factors so that we can divide the parties and the Cross-Benchers in a sensible way.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I recall that on 11th May we considered Amendment No. 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others which proposed a new clause. The figure contained in that amendment was 615. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, explained carefully how that figure had been reached. Few Members of your Lordships' House agreed with him. I put the figure higher than that; the noble Lord, Lord Desai, added in the Bishops; I think it was the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who said that the figure should be 630; and my noble friend Lord Newby also came up with some good figures. We all knew that we were not very good at mental arithmetic, and it was a jolly but rather pointless occasion. At the end of the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, agreed that he must have got the figure wrong. That is where we left the matter.
  We now have another amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and others. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said that they have got it wrong again and that 659 is not the figure to which we add up.
  I should like to go through all the figures which I believe the House should consider.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord that I freely admitted that I had got the figure wrong; but, at the time the figure was selected, we did not anticipate that there
  340
  would be such a long list of new political Peers. It quite took us aback. We chose a figure quite innocently but arithmetically mistakenly.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, again I find this very good fun, and we all enjoy it, but the noble Lord could have withdrawn the amendment and put another in its place. He had aeons of time to do so.
  I shall read out the figures but not explain what they are: 174; 179; 51; about 130; 92; 26 and eight. 'They do indeed add up to 659 or thereabouts. But, as the noble Lord said, that does not allow anything at all for balancing, which the noble Lord indicated was the policy of his party. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, helpfully said, these figures do not allow for the important consideration of proportionality as it applies to members of this party.
  In the debate last Tuesday, the noble Baroness. Lady Jay, the Leader of the House, reiterated the Government's position about proportionality. She said nothing new but defined again what the White Paper said. I have not heard anything at all from the Conservative Benches about proportionality. I should be pleased to give way if the noble Lord would like to rise to tell me what his party's policy is. If he is not going to rise and tell me whether he supports the figures in paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 and paragraph 19 of Chapter 3 of the White Paper, is he prepared to tell the House whether he agrees with proportionality as defined in the White Paper?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I listened to, and subsequently read very carefully, the speech of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on the last occasion. As I recall, she was not prepared to go further than to talk about general parity between the Government and the Official Opposition. I am simply repeating what she said.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, that is not the case. If the noble Lord looks at Hansard, he will see that the noble Baroness referred to proportionality. The word "proportionality" was mentioned in her speech last Tuesday and it is the word which appears in the White Paper. I was asking the noble Lord whether, on behalf of his party, he would declare that it was the policy of his party to accept proportionality as well as a rough parity between the two main parties in the transitional House.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I do not want to extend that debate. If the noble Lord means proportionality in the sense that the numbers in this House should reflect the most recent numbers in a general election, my response—I say this without authority—would be emphatically "No". The whole purpose of your Lordships' House is to provide a counterpoint to another place. If it simply mirrored the political forces in another place, there would be no point in having your Lordships' House.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am grateful; that is a very positive statement and a major

  341
  advance. Although it was a very unsatisfactory reply, I now recognise the importance of having this short debate.
  I shall not bother the House further with the figures which would be necessary to achieve broad parity between the two principal parties in terms of numbers and proportionality for Members on these Benches. I simply remind the House that the problem has been greatly aggravated by the Weatherill amendment, which has added a disproportionate number of Peers to the Conservative Benches. The total effect is likely not to be 92 further Members of this House but something like 150 if the point about broad parity and proportionality is carried through.
  However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I do not think we should bother ourselves about these figures. Whatever they are, they are rather smaller than the figure of 1,290 with which we have apparently lived very happily for many years. I do not believe that we should consider any other fixed figure for the transitional House. I would rather look ahead, when the time comes, to stage two. In those circumstances, I share the view expressed by others that a House of 200 or 300—perhaps 350—would be about right. The Commons is far too large today and should not have more than 500 Members, and your Lordships' House should be rather smaller.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like many noble Lords and others outside your Lordships' House, I suspect that the interim House that we are creating by virtue of this Bill will last rather longer than has been suggested. Be that as it may, it is right that there should be a cap on the size of the House. My noble friend Lord Kingsland suggests one figure and my noble friend Lord Caithness suggests another. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, suggests a rather smaller figure. However, there must be a figure. I hope that the Government accept that principle. If they have a figure in mind I daresay that a manuscript amendment to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland will be allowed so that the matter can be settled.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I and I am sure my noble friend Lord Caithness agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that it is much better to have 600. I would rather have 300, but that is neither here nor there. As my noble friend points out, the Government have put on record that the House should be made up as they have said and its composition will be our figure of 830. I should like the Leader of the House to explain how the figure can be less than 830, bearing in mind her past comments.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with an upper limit in principle. However, does the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, agree that even 659 working Peers would give us one of the largest upper Houses in the world? We do not have 659 working Peers at the moment. I believe that that answers the point raised by the noble
  342
  Lord, Lord Rodgers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, could confirm that the proposal would make this one of the largest Chambers.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Kingsland. I strongly believe that we should define the upper limit of the membership of your Lordships' House. I tabled a similar capping amendment in Committee. I have taken the liberty of looking at the bicameral systems of other countries, such as Canada, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium. In those cases one finds that the numbers of the upper houses are either half, or in some cases one quarter, of those of the lower houses. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and others who believe that the ultimate revised Chamber will have a lower number.
  Lord Islwyn: My Lords, the noble Lord quotes other countries and suggests that their second chambers have lower numbers. Will he take into consideration population? Our population is far greater than that of the countries he cites.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comment. However, my point is that the numbers in the upper houses in proportion to those in the lower houses are always lower by half or a quarter. I found one exception, Italy, whose population is almost precisely the same as the UK's. In that case there are 315 members in the upper house and in the lower house. That is less than half the present number. I do not think that that detracts from the argument that the interim House should have a cap on its numbers. We have an opportunity to ensure that the future House has a better framework, not one that for ever worries the Opposition that the government of the day will get their way by flooding your Lordships' House, or a revised version of it.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, since the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, appears at the top of the amendment, perhaps I may ask him and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, whether, if they decide to bring this matter back at a later stage—it having turned into a probing amendment at Report stage, which I find astonishing—they will put down on paper their final figure and stick to it.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I am anxious to probe further—with all apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Acton—the question of the proportionate creation of Liberal Democrat Peers. I hope that my noble friend will succeed in obtaining further information from the Leader of the House. At Report stage I tabled an amendment to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Kingsland that dealt with the appointments commission. I hoped at that stage to discover why the amendment did not provide for the commission to report on criteria related to the nomination of Liberal Democrat life Peers. When I saw that my noble friend had increased the cap from 615 to

  343
  659 I hoped that between the two figures I might find the proportionate creation of Liberal Democrat Peers. However, that seems to have disappeared into thin air.
  If my noble friend on the Front Bench is listening, perhaps he can say where he finds the proportionate Liberal Democrat creations and what he meant when he said in reply to my amendment (before I had moved it) that,
  "it would be wise not to resile from what I might describe in this case as the robust common sense of the Government's proposal".— [Official Report, 22/6/99; col. 825.]
  At the moment, I am not aware of the Government's proposal.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not very good at figures and, listening to this debate, it does not seem to me that a lot of other noble Lords are much better either. What puzzles me—perhaps it is a ridiculous puzzle—is that if there is to be a cap of any number a decision must be made on the principle as to how to arrive at the maximum. If one has a maximum and all the time one has more life Peers entering the House that maximum is a floating figure that is not definable. To me, the whole matter appears to be almost beyond definitive resolution, unless from time to time the question is referred to the usual channels, a Standing Committee or whatever to arrange what is right. Perhaps I am wrong but, listening to the debate, I do not see how, on any logical basis, there can be a cap.
  With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, quite unwittingly he did my noble friend Lord Caithness an injustice. My noble friend was referring to the numbers in this House of Lords, and the use of that term includes the transitional House. We are not concerned at all with the successor House.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I do not speak to the figures, which do not appear to be very relevant. I would prefer a maximum of 600 Members of what is called the transitional House. I have a simple solution. If we scrapped the Weatherill clause—noble Lords will be aware that I was not madly in favour of it to begin with—there would be 92 fewer Peers and we would get very much nearer the 600. Without intending to upset my noble friends, I had it in mind to table an amendment to remove the Weatherill clause. I believe that that is a sensible way out of the problem, particularly as noble Lords opposite do not appear to be able to understand their own figures. I shall not move an amendment at this stage because I should like to hear my noble friend Lady Jay reply to the debate, if that is possible.
  Lord Marlesford: My Lords, the amendment contains a serious point—unlike the previous amendment. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said, the new House is likely to last a considerable time. It is not for the Opposition to give a figure. It is perfectly legitimate for my noble friends to press for a figure which should be on the face of the Bill. I realise that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be unable to produce a figure tonight.
  344
  The life peerage system began in 1958. Therefore on an actuarial basis over the next few years there is likely to be a considerable diminution in the number of life Peers. That may enable the figure to be lower than it otherwise would be.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have to regard this debate as somewhat unsatisfactory. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, was kind enough to discuss privately with me his concerns in general terms. I was happy to do so. But for the Front Bench of the Opposition and another noble Lord to put down amendments at Report stage, the substance of which they state in their opening sentences to be incorrect, is rather strange.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was slightly irritated when we pointed out at Committee stage that his figures were wrong. However, as has been pointed out, he was sensible enough to say that he knew his sums were wrong but that it was a probing amendment to consider the general principle. We discussed the general principle at some length. The Government's position on the general principle is unaltered. The noble Lord has tabled an alternative amendment which his noble friend says is again inaccurate for the reasons he explained clearly. The noble Earl has also suggested that his figures are inaccurate. To be honest, I am not sure what we are discussing. We are discussing points made by several noble Lords about the need, as my noble friend Lord Peston rightly put it, to think about the longer term. He also helped us greatly by trying to achieve a substantive number which was appropriately divisible in the way he described.
  The noble Lords who moved and spoke to Amendments Nos. 52 and 55 seemed to suggest that they are unworthy of consideration. In those circumstances, my position is somewhat extraordinary.
  However, for the purposes of the record, if nothing else, let me say that it is true that the Government accept that there are potentially 519 life Peers in this House, 27 Law Lords, and 26 Bishops. To those figures, as has been mentioned several times this evening, 92 excepted Peers will be added as an integral part of the agreement by which we achieved Clause 2—although, as my noble friend Lord Barnett said, that is not necessarily immutable if he were successfully to move an amendment to take out the clause.
  However, let us agree on the figures as they stand at present. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, reminded us that the Government have stated explicitly in their White Paper—I repeat it again, as was noted by the noble Lord in previous debates—their pledge to a proportionate creation for the other parties. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that those numbers add up to something over 700 on the existing predictions of numbers. So the suggestion that we should stop at 659 is as inappropriate as he suggested. For that reason alone the amendment runs counter to the whole of the Weatherill agreement. On that basis alone, it would be unacceptable.

  345
  The noble Earl stated that his figure is more generous. But the 830 referred to would require an extra 140 life Peers. I assume that the purpose of achieving the target which he states is theoretical is to do what has been discussed again in different contexts today; to challenge the rights of the Prime Minister and to seek to create a statutory framework around the scope of patronage. Even if all those 140 extra life Peers were Labour Peers—and that would run counter to every commitment we have given, and every commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Government in the course of these extremely long-drawn-out proceedings—the number would be 360. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that that is still less than an overall majority in this House.
  Again we are in very theoretical realms. In a sense we are achieving nothing. Noble Lords are probably exhausted by my repeating the commitments in the White Paper, the manifesto and speeches on this Bill. But as there are noble friends on this side of the Chamber who are somewhat exhausted by the arguments from the Benches opposite, I intend to repeat the commitments. I shall do so quickly. These are the commitments on which we believe that the power of the Prime Minister should not remain unfettered and on which we have given explicit undertakings. We have said in the White Paper that no political party should seek a majority in this House. There should continue to be a significant independent Cross-Bench element. Respective party strengths should at the most, and over time, reflect the votes cast in the preceding general election and for the time being only broad parity between the two main parties is sought, with the proportionate creations of life Peers which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, mentioned today.
  We have said also that there should be an independent mechanism for identifying Cross-Bench Peers. On the basis of our proceedings at an earlier stage, I understand that those rules are now so attractive to the party opposite that they want to see them in statute. We did not see them abiding by them in their previous period of government.
  As my noble friend Lord Peston stated clearly, and he was supported by other Lords, we are talking here about a transitional House. We are talking about a House much of whose membership is already fixed for life. We are talking about a House where there is no provision for retirement or resignation. Noble Lords complained in earlier debates when they sought to make a different point that the House, as it results from the Bill, will be too small to carry out its functions properly. Which argument do they stand by tonight? We on this side of the House do not think that that is right.
  We believe that the numbers I have described are more than adequate to fulfil all the functions of the second Chamber in the appropriate way for the transitional period. But let us suppose that they are right. Let us suppose that it proves necessary to increase the nominal size of the House, taking into account the
  346
  principles I have outlined yet again. A statutory limit on the size of the House which would allow enough headroom to accommodate that possibility would also provide the headroom for an unscrupulous Prime Minister—this bogeyman who sits at the corner of all our debates—to fill the House with a disproportionate number of his or her own supporters. And once that ceiling was reached, it would still be open to the Prime Minister of the day to adjust the numbers in his or her party's favour. So a ceiling high enough to accommodate legitimate options would have to be high enough to accommodate illegitimate options, and, frankly, we should be no better off.
  As I have said before, I do not think that an amendment on these lines would improve the Bill. I do not think that the amendment would deliver the intended results. I cannot conceive a scenario where any amendments with such positive, precise figures would achieve the intended results. The figures on the amendment are wrong, as the movers admitted.
  The amendments add nothing to the pledges that the Prime Minister and the Government have made, although I realise—it has been said on many occasions today—that undertakings by the Prime Minister and the Government are regularly disregarded by your Lordships. I of course do not accept that position. I repeat what my noble friends on the Front Bench have repeated several times today. I ask the House to take this issue seriously. Arguments deployed fully in the Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. That is in the Companion.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should be grateful if she would answer the specific point I raised. I found her answer disappointing because I indicated well over a week ago to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, how I calculated my figures. For the noble Baroness to say what she did was out of line with what is normal in this House. I remember as a Minister regularly answering amendments of the party of the noble Baroness where the principle of the amendment was what mattered. I come back to this principle of the definition of "proportionate". What does the noble Baroness mean?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is Report stage.
  7.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, but I am speaking to an amendment that has been grouped with this one, which I shall not have another opportunity to do. The noble Baroness did not answer the question.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl has already spoken.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I have indeed spoken, but I did preface what I said before the noble Baroness answered. Will she answer the question I

  347
  asked her? What does she mean by "proportionate" for the Liberal Democrats? Is it proportionate to the numbers appertaining to the House as it is now, or is it proportionate to the number of votes at the general election?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have made that absolutely clear this afternoon and on many other occasions. Perhaps for the record the noble Earl would care for me to read out the section in the White Paper which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and by my noble friend Lord Peston and others who have contributed. Let me read it again. Paragraph 7 on page 32 of the White Paper says:
  "We set out in our manifesto the broad principle which we believe should govern the appointment of life peers but our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrat and other parties would be maintained throughout the transitional period"
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to say first of all, in answer to my noble friend Lord Coleraine and in response to what the noble Baroness has just said, that one of the reasons why it is essential to have a cap on the number of Members of the House is the principle of proportionality. If the proportions of the parties in your Lordships' House are adjusted every time there is a general election, there will be no limit on the numbers. They will simply go up and up. This is an additional reason for having a cap.
  I should also like to make it clear to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal that there is no intention whatsoever by the Opposition to call into question the sincerity of the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister in respect of his intentions with regard to this House; but I share the doubts of many of your Lordships that the arrangements which are likely to ensue as a result of the passage of this Bill will be short term.
  History suggests that they will be far from short term. If that is so, no doubt in the course of time one government will follow another and, constitutionally, in my submission it will be highly desirable to have a specific restraint on the behaviour of governments to appoint Peers to your Lordships' House in such a way as to ease the passage of business in another place.
  It is for that reason, above all, that I think it would be prudent to have an overall cap. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said that she did not think it would add anything. If she does not think it would add anything, I would in turn say that it certainly would not subtract anything from the position of the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister—and for that reason, although I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall also reflect upon reintroducing it at Third Reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I think this will be a good moment to break for dinner. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In doing so, I suggest that Report stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Selection in Education
  7.33 p.m.
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are prepared to accept that some selection in education has value.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the problem we are discussing tonight has bedevilled English education for the past 60 years. Let me give your Lordships an example. In 1938 the Association of Education Committees, in evidence to the Spens Committee which was meeting that year, spoke in this way. They said that there had been a concentration on grammar schools as compared to other schools, particularly those providing courses leading up to the work of advanced technology.
  One of the problems of the Board of Education was that though it developed grammar schools it deliberately did down technical schools. The Association of Education Committees went on to advocate the development of technical high schools. After 1902 the English state, later than any other state in Europe, provided grammar schools which served about 15 per cent of the most able age group. Nothing was provided for the rest, and they left school at 14 and were expected to seek apprenticeships or other forms of training.
  There were some technical schools. They were in short supply and mainly existed in certain cities. Hence, before 1914, selection meant privilege for a clever few and nothing for the rest. That is a fact that we must face and that is the background of this debate tonight.
  The problem was not unique to this country. In France the academic Lycée dominated education and the same was true throughout most of Europe. Only in Germany did schools other than the academic enjoy similar prestige. This debate is occurring against the background of history, and the fact is that the meanness of the right, if you like, of my party, and the ideology of the left, your party, meant that we attempted to solve this problem universal to Europe in a different manner from our continental neighbours. This is the core of what I am presenting to your Lordships tonight. We got rid of selection and put all pupils in area comprehensives. We forgot that selection really means placing pupils in schools and colleges which best suit their interests, abilities and aptitudes. We forgot that this is not wrong in itself, but it is wrong if it only satisfies one element of ability, those who have one particular ability, which in England was academic.
  This universal problem was solved by our continental neighbours in a different manner. I repeat, in order to drive the point home, that it was a universal problem. In Germany, Holland and many other countries they

  349
  solved the problem by giving equal prestige to schools other than the Gymnasium—the grammar school—and by creating and fostering technical and other schools, as well as establishing highly respected and free standing—note the word "free standing"—vocational qualifications. The result in Germany, Holland and Austria was that selection was not then seen as passing or failing. I accept the criticism of the English system of selection as it existed in the 1940s, 1950s and up to the 1960s.
  What it meant as far as they were concerned was providing different training for different abilities. It may be of interest to your Lordships that when East Germany was united with the west, all the states apart from Berlin abandoned their comprehensive system and took over the West German tripartite system.
  In France and the Latin countries, Spain and Italy, schools are comprehensive up to the age of 16, when pupils again separate selectively. They go either to an academic lycée or quasi-vocational institution each with their own separate examinations. It is the baccalaureate professional in France and the academic baccalaureate. The same is true in Spain and Italy.
  I turn to our system; the result of the great revolution of the 1960s. It is the method we followed to deal with the universal problem. If we are honest, we must admit that the results of our answer to the problem have not been as successful as theirs. Independent schools cater for about 8 per cent of the population. I speak from being involved in them for many years. They are mainly non-selective, only 40 or 50 being selective. Apart from the need to pay the fees, anyone can go to them. We must worry about a system where 72 per cent of pupils in independent schools achieve A to C grades in mathematics. They are from schools such as Milton Abbey, which I govern and which takes pupils of all ability. However, in comprehensive schools 32 per cent achieve A to C grades in mathematics. As regards French, 62 per cent of pupils in independent schools pass at grades A to C compared with 20 per cent in comprehensive schools. Those figures are for 1994.
  Our continental neighbours, who have largely adopted selective systems, do better. In 1992–93, a survey was conducted of their intermediate examinations. It is published in a book by Michael Sanderson about academic education compared with industrial performance. The survey showed that in England and Wales 27 per cent of pupils passed at A to C grades compared with 62 per cent in Germany. In Northern Ireland, which still has a selective system, more pupils from families in Social Class III M-V, which is the manual worker class, were accepted for higher education; 38 per cent compared with 23 per cent in England. I hope that the Minister will not argue that Northern Ireland has a culture so different that we cannot compare it. I should like the Minister to comment on these figures which are a reflection of the policy we followed in the 1960s.
  It is that, not political ideology, which has lead me to put forward the debate tonight. I beg the Government to reconsider their dogmatic views on selection. Ideology is a bad guide to performance either in politics or in
  350
  education, as history has often shown. Our neighbours show us that selection does not mean pass or fail, as I accept it did in England in the 1930s. It provides institutions which best suit the different abilities and talents. If we are to realise that and to follow our continental neighbours, that means allowing schools to specialise and choose pupils for the specialisations which best suit their talents. Above all, it means restoring technical schools in every area.
  I do not want to bore your Lordships with history. Germany led the world in technical schools, from the Sunday schools of Saxony which became technical. I can assure your Lordships that in late Victorian England we were well on the way to matching them. Then we destroyed it all. We destroyed it, first, with the Board of Education after 1902 and then we annihilated them in the 1960s. I beg the Government to think practically about that.
  During my brief period on the Front Bench when I dealt with the Education Bill, I realised that the Government seem to have an affection for specialist schools. Yet I am puzzled—and I should like the Minister to comment—about how their dogmatic views on selection will enable them to decide which pupils will benefit from the specialist schools. There has been talk of language schools, science schools and mathematics schools.
  Surely, selection is demanded. It need not be as it was in the 1930s and 1940s. We could refine it and produce a model like Germany where going to different schools is not seen as passing or failing but as enhancing opportunities for all. At present, we do not seem to be fulfilling the potential of many of our young people and the results speak for themselves. Good structures produce high standards. Attachment to ancient dogmas based on a vanished past is no guide to a successful future.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I have been lenient with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, but I must warn all noble Lords, apart from my noble friend the Minister, that no noble Lord may speak once the clock shows "3".
  7.46 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, it is always fun to be in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I enjoy it. However, tonight I have reservations about some of the things he said. He was more accurate about what happens in Europe than he has been previously. I do not believe that he was entirely accurate about Northern Ireland. However, I was glad to hear his condemnation of selection. Selection leads to rejection, which is what we had before the change to comprehensive schools. The noble Lord was also wrong in suggesting that comprehensive schools had not been a success and he quoted figures. But he did not explain the way in which the pass rates at A to C grades have risen since comprehensive schools took over. That is the success story.
  I am pleased to say that we have had commitments that we shall not return to selection—to the 11-plus—which is a relief. However, some of us fear that

  351
  specialisation, which has been allowed, can bring us desperately close to selection, with all its social implications. The Secretary of State has said that he would expect schools with specialisms to share their expertise with other schools in a local network; that they could promote expertise throughout a community. Could the Minister tell us whether specialisms will make up an element of admissions policies? I hope that that will not be the case.
  With a co-operative network of schools, surely children could gain the benefits of the specialisms while being enrolled in any school in the network. That would allow admissions policy to be based on other rules which would be less open to abuse. One sees the tendency to selection if specialisms are allowed to continue entirely in one school without others being involved in it. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance as to that.
  7.48 p.m.
  Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for asking this Question. I believed that the time has come when we ought to drop the word "selection" because to those of us who lived through the 1950s and 1960s it suggests a permanent distinction between the apparent sheep and the apparent goats. It was a bad system. If we dropped the word and concentrated on what the Government are obviously understanding—namely, the differentiation and diversity of educational provision—we could forget the poor record of the past and examine the development of the specialist schools.
  It is quite clear that though there are very specialist schools such as music schools, ballet schools and the dramatic school in Croydon, there is a kind of specialist school growing up from the technical colleges which concentrates on a commitment to hard work, both on the part of parents and children and the provision of an environment in which clever or less clever children are allowed to be ambitious, whether in sport, music or technology.
  In the past the real problem has been the difficulty that ambitious children have in showing their true colours. They have lived in an environment in which it is despised to work and absurd to express an interest in a subject. I am afraid that this has had an even worse effect on girls than boys. Girls are still supposed to be attractive and not know too much.
  The provision of an environment which we could call specialist if we wanted to but which encourages children and expects an enormous amount of commitment, both of the children and their parents, provides for the real needs of a wide range of children. I warmly congratulate the Government on being able to perceive that this is a new way forward. In my view, it would be far easier to follow this and encourage the specialist schools by not talking about selection any more.
  Of course the children who go to such schools will be the children of parents who are interested in
  352
  education. That means cutting right across all kinds of class divisions. People will have a choice of whether to send their children to specialist schools. But, when they have done so, I believe we shall see an enormous improvement in the commitment and standards reached by those children. I should like to make clear that this is a new way of looking at differentiation for children's education. If we could put an embargo on the word "selection", we should do ourselves a very great favour.
  7.52 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I declare an interest in that my children went to comprehensive schools. They were ambitious. Their teachers were ambitious for them. For 30 years I have been a supporter of comprehensive education. I am as strong a supporter today as I was then. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that that makes me a member of the "Left", which is the first time I have ever been referred to as such.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has asked the Government a Question. My noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will answer it. I can only answer for myself. By "selection" I assume we are talking about entry into secondary education, as that is what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to. Is selection of any value? My answer is "No, tout court". Is it of any value when we are discussing so-called specialisms within schools? (Here I am being disobliging to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.) My answer again is "No". Selection is inefficient. The overwhelming evidence is that we are unable to select satisfactorily both generally, for academic purposes, and specifically within the context of the specialist schools. I refer to the "aptitude concept" which my right honourable friend invented in the past year or two.
  I therefore remain, without any doubt, an opponent of selection for entry into secondary education. I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lady David that the comprehensive schools of this country have been a success. The original, earlier mixed structure was a failure, as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, said, to a large extent.
  One of the difficulties in discussing this issue is that many commentators confuse the problem of comprehensive schools with the problem of the inner cities. I do not doubt that there is a problem in some of our inner cities. That is a problem of economic deprivation and poverty. It is a social problem, not unconnected with the economic problem. It leads to family breakdown. I have little or no doubt that in any approach to education family support is of enormous importance. However, it is not to do with selection or comprehensive education; it is to do with the way we run our lives and how we neglect in certain cases our fellow human beings.
  I should like to ask my noble friend what is again a disobliging question. However, I must ask it because this is my only chance. We are not likely to have a similar debate at this time. I thought that this party was committed to the abolition of selection in secondary

  353
  education. As far as I am concerned, "selection is selection is selection". Can my noble friend tell us whether there has been any diminution of selection in entry to secondary education in our country in the two years since our Government were elected?
  7.55 p.m.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pilkington for asking this important and central question to education. Delighted as I am to see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is to reply, perhaps he could explain why the Minister for Education is unable to be present. That would be helpful to the House.
  I take a different view from my noble friend. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, I see a great deal of selection being practised by the present Government. After all, we have selection for music schools, ballet schools, various drama schools and art of one sort or another. We have specialist language schools, which were first developed when we were in Government. I am very pleased to see that they are being continued. I believe there are to be schools for mathematics.
  That all seems to me a highly desirable development. Whether we call it "specialisation" or "selection", children are being chosen for a particular kind of education to suit their needs. A number of Government Ministers believe in education selection. I would have thought that the Prime Minister was a prime example of that. I think we all agree with him. He has chosen what he regards as the best schools for his children. I have no doubt that they are very intelligent children and will do well. Of course, Mrs Harriet Harman chose a grammar school for her son. I even see that Mrs Jeremy Corbin has joined the ranks. It is never too late for a sinner to repent. That is a very interesting development.
  I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, should say that he saw no value in selection. I believe that the Government have said that £60 million (I may not have the figure right) will go into sport. I do not know whether that will go to every school to encourage everybody to be good at sport or to encourage people who are talented in sport and who do extremely well. However, as the Secretary of State has decided that compulsory sports will no longer be necessary for those over the age of 14, I can only suppose the money is going to help talented or prospective sports people to do well. Good luck to them. That is selection of another sort. It is simply finding proper ways to encourage people to develop their talents.
  The noble Lord, Lord Peston cannot just say that only the inner city comprehensives have problems. The problem which the Government have identified, and which we identified when we were in Government and which has so far defeated governments of both parties, is what do we do with the least able? They are the ones who are doing so badly in the system. They are not receiving the teaching they should. They are leaving school without qualifications. They have no commitment to getting a job. They therefore become dependent upon the welfare state and get themselves
  354
  into trouble. There is no use in making excuses for all of that. We need to address ourselves to dealing with those children whom the education system has failed. We should find an answer to that problem. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, pointed out some examples of success with the least able.
  8 p.m.
  Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on initiating this important debate. All parents want the best in life for their children. Obtaining the best education one can for one's children is surely the key responsibility for every parent. But over the many years that I have listened to, and sometimes participated in, the national debate in relation to education, standards and how to raise them, I have come to realise that those debates often take place with two sides talking about the same subject in totally different languages. The reason they talk in different languages is because they have totally different educational experiences and different aspirations about the education they seek and receive.
  That is what I call the "95 per centers" and the "5 per centers"—although the noble Lord. Lord Pilkington, and I may disagree on the percentages. Those of us in the 95 per cent were educated in the state sector, myself in an excellent comprehensive in my native city of Bradford. We are ordinary folk who come from families who have always seen education as the way to get on in life, to get a good job and, in our turn, to try to ensure that our children have a better life and perhaps more opportunities than our parents and ourselves.
  The problem for the 95 per cent, until the general election, was that our education system was in the hands of those who, by and large, experienced education only in the non-state sector; that is, the ones in the 5 per cent. Frankly, many of them had no real understanding of, and I am afraid that some of them did not even care about, the aspirations and needs of the majority. What a relief now to have a government who are concerned about the standard of education of the many and not the few, my children among them I am glad to say. We now have a government who put education at the centre of their programme.
  This is too important a subject for political point-scoring. We need to look to the Government's record and what they are doing for the 95 per cent. The Government's aim is clear and unequivocal. They aim for every state school to be, and to be seen to be, good enough so that each and every parent will be happy to send their children to it.
  8.1 p.m.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, my concern lies mainly with those kids whose intelligence is not principally academic, but finds itself in one of two areas. I refer first to those who understand and work well with people. They are the foundation of a successful entrepreneurial and industrial society and we do not look after them well in schools. I refer also to those kids who become disenchanted by what is going on in school—even in primary school; let alone in the early years of secondary

  355
  school—because the curriculum is so biased towards the academic system with which we have all grown up and which those of us who have been to state schools or grammar schools have seen in action.
  We need to find a way of looking after those children better. I look at many schools during the course of the year and it is my experience that schools which specialise in looking after that sort of child—those which are broader; which have more of a direction in which to lead those children—do better for them. It is difficult to combine that in any sensible way with pursuing high academic ideals in the way that grammar schools do.
  I heard the noble Lord, Lord Peston, express a distaste for selection. He said, "I don't think it works. It always produces idiotic results. We get people who are disappointed by not getting into a school for which they are probably not suited anyway and it is not a pattern to which we should return". But I applaud what the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said about differentiation. That is the right road to go down. We should be offering parents and children the choice of different kinds of school. It should be a parental choice; it should not be the choice of the school. Schools should not be choosing children; parents and children should be choosing schools—and we should be offering them a good choice.
  That is what happens in the private sector. Not everyone wants to go to Winchester. But in the private sector there is a whole range of schools which suit different kinds of children, and parents spend a lot of time and money finding out which school is best for their kid. I do not see why that should not happen—or something as close as we can get to it—for the rest of us.
  8.3 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, in the few minutes available I will concentrate on an illustration from a famous school to which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, rendered never-to-be-forgotten service over a long period of years. I refer to Eton College.
  When I went to Eton 80 years ago it was non-selective. I do not say that people who are now said to have what are called "learning difficulties" actually got in, but everyone else could. There is no doubt that once there the boys met people of all sorts, of all intellectual calibres. I am not referring to the college, where the 70 so-called "tugs" were assembled, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and later the noble Lords, Lord Denham and Lord Hurd. But the college was an exception. The rest of the other 1,000 boys—there are more there now—used to go to school, meet each other and mix with all kinds, except in classes. The classes were separate from the rest of the life. The clever boys were in the clever classes and the stupid ones in the stupid classes.
  That was the way it was. It worked well academically. It also meant that the boys had a social life. To put it in a sentence (and that is all I have got!) it may be said that it is relatively easy to do that in a large boarding school. I may be asked how we can apply that principle in a day school. I suggest only that one could learn from
  356
  the experience of Eton. One could work together with ordinary people all one's life, except in classes; and then one works with one's intellectual equal.
  8.5 p.m.
  Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Pilkington for introducing the debate this evening. I shall not talk about selection for entry to a secondary school.
  A few weeks ago in your Lordships' House there was a stimulating debate on sport. During that debate the Government Deputy Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said,
  "We are determined that our top sportsmen and women should receive world class backing to give them every chance of achieving international success".—[Official Report, 9/6/99; col. 1476.]
  In other words, the Government—I congratulate them on this—clearly accepted that selected athletes will be given the coaching and training they need. I have just come from watching top-class athletes competing at Henley—highly selective crews rowing their best. It has clearly been the responsibility of their coaches to select the most promising crews and then train them to the utmost of their athletic ability. I could make the same point about ballet dancers. Imagine the horror of Swan Lake if all-comers were accepted for the corps de ballet.
  My question to the Government this evening is this: is not there a place for academic selection for those students who are academically gifted and in their sphere deserve world-class backing?
  Let me make it clear that I speak tonight as the chairman of a large comprehensive school. I am fiercely proud of it. I am especially proud of the help, coaching and training which are given to those of our students who have difficulties with their studies; those who have "special educational needs". We also have students with other kinds of special educational need—a need to be helped and coached to fulfil their outstanding academic potential. I should like to have an assurance from the Minister that there will be money to pay for special academic coaching for the academically gifted as is planned for the athletically gifted; but it must be earmarked.
  8.8 p.m.
  Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I anticipated a radical and liberal few words from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, because he asked a cunning and I felt deceptively simple question; that is, whether the Government,
  "are prepared to accept that some selection in education has value".
  But the noble Lord shattered my expectations. He took us for a bit of a wander down memory lane. He took us via some examples of continental Europe—a continental Europe I thought it was now de rigueur for the Opposition to be critical of.
  However, there are some facets of selection in education which have value, and I hoped the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, would lead us into some of those. I offer one or two examples, by no means an exhaustive list, of selection areas which have value. It is of value, for example, to select schools in areas where there are

  357
  large numbers of pupils with diverse mother tongues, as exist in many of our inner cities, in order to focus upon those schools in greatest need specialist English language teaching skills—a scarce resource. That is a form of selection in education which I believe has great value and a great need which is currently not fulfilled. It is equally of value to select areas of great deprivation, social deprivation, physical deprivation, the areas to which good teachers tend not to go because of poor physical conditions, and to select them and provide additional education resources for them in order to break the cycle of deprivation.
  Therefore, I very much welcome what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, in order not to get too hung up on the word "selection". While I agree with my noble friend Lord Peston about the usual sense in which this word is used, I believe that there are areas of selection which are extremely valuable educationally. I regret that my expectation that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was going to lead us into some of those areas has remained unfulfilled.
  8.11 p.m.
  Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, for missing the first minute of his speech, which started rather sooner than I had expected. I was going to begin by offering my answer to the question that he poses to the Government: of course, some selection has some value for some people in some circumstances. In other words, the answer is that "It depends". It is as simple as that.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he presented the question and the way in which he spoke. We have had an all-too-brief but excellent debate, some very good points having been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has many times made continental comparisons in our education debates. I am very glad that he spent a little more time developing that point because I believe that he hit on a crucial difference. He is quite right that selection exists in the way that he described in many continental countries. The key difference between those countries and our country is that it has never been, and certainly is not now, as divisive in those countries as it is in this country. One key reason for that is because continental countries, particularly Germany, value their technical and vocational schools at least as much as their academic institutions. In this country we have always worshipped academic education—we still do—and undervalued the less academic, the non-academic, the technical and vocational.
  The noble Lord referred to "succeed or fail" as belonging to the 1930s. I have to tell him, speaking from a borough where we still have full selective education, that it is still a question of succeed or fail. It ought not to be, and we all say that it ought not to be, but the reality is that it is. Many children who fail the 11-plus or fail to get into a grammar school regard themselves as failures. Their parents have put so much store on their succeeding in getting into that school that, when they do not do so, they inevitably feel that they have failed.
  358
  The noble Lord made comparisons between comprehensive schools and independent schools. We have no time to develop that point. However, I thought that they were enormously invalid comparisons. I accept that in a sense many of the independent schools are, as he put it, "all ability, except for the ability to pay". That is a fairly crucial difference, not only in relation to wealth, but also because it defines the nature of the home background from which the children come. It refers to the motivation of the parents, the children, and the teachers. Most, if not all, independent schools generally have much smaller classes and so on. It was an invalid comparison.
  I, too, am looking forward to hearing the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. As he knows, I share his view about opposition to selection because it is such an imperfect means of education. If I understood him correctly, he asked the Government whether they were still committed to the abolition of selection and, indeed, what progress has been made over the past two years. We are shortly going to hear from the latest in a succession of government spokesmen who attempt to tell us what they see as the difference between selection by ability, to which they remain resolutely opposed, and selection by aptitude. We went through this in the School Standards and Framework Bill. I do not believe that anybody told us what the difference was and how the provisions on it will be applied. I believe that tonight is this Minister's first attempt to come up with a satisfactory definition. I greatly look forward to hearing what that difference is and how the provisions will be applied.
  8.15 p.m.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords. I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pilkington for this debate and for the way in which he introduced it. For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, both my noble friend and I were educated completely within the state system; two of my children were educated wholly within the state system, and my other two children, when we were an Air Force family moving from posting to posting, spent a short time in prep schools but spent the whole of their secondary education in the comprehensive system. So such experience is not the preserve solely of noble Baronesses opposite.
  I share the disappointment of my noble friend Lady Young that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, once again is not answering such a debate. I always understood, as did my colleagues when we were Ministers on the other side of the Chamber, that parliamentary business was the very first call on our diaries.
  We have heard yet again, depressingly, arguments for a monolithic melting pot for all our children, irrespective of aptitude and ability. What is important for our children is that they should receive an education according to their need, their aptitude and their ability. However, "selection" is the word that dare not speak its name as far as the Government are concerned.
  What is so hypocritical is that selection by interview and/or examination has been enjoyed by the very Ministers of this Government who are denying that same

  359
  choice and opportunity to others. My noble friend Lady Young has already mentioned the Prime Minister, Harriet Harman, Mr Kilfoyle and others, who have all taken advantage of the selection process for their children. Indeed, there is a considerable anxiety on the part of a number of parents who feel extremely disadvantaged because the Prime Minister's daughter was selected by interview for a place at a highly popular school in London.
  Can I ask the Minister why it is that such opportunities are denied to all other children and whether there should there be any disquiet about the mention of individuals? I defend my right to do so on the ground that the Government have been responsible for denying these choices to other parents' children.
  Will the noble Lord the Minister also confirm that selection by test, examination and interview is taking place in our grammar schools, in our specialist schools, in our city technology colleges and our Church schools? Another question for the noble Lord the Minister is whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish all forms of selection, other than, of course, selection on the ground of religion.
  My noble friend has given pertinent statistics to make the case for selection. He chose Northern Ireland as an excellent example, where all children do better than their counterparts in England and Wales. I know that I am not permitted to ask a question of the noble Baroness, Lady David, but I know also that my noble friend Lord Pilkington has checked his figures on Northern Ireland with an expert who has produced a learned piece on that country. Therefore, it would be interesting to know why the noble Baroness believes that the information he gave was incorrect.
  If children are to be educated according to their need, their aptitude and their ability in order to deliver a differentiation, somebody has to "pick" the children, "choose" the children, "select" the children. Whatever the word is, we should not be afraid of it. But some form must be used to determine the appropriate provision for children. The Government should be expanding opportunity, diversity and choice for all our children, the highly academic and children at all other levels of aptitude and ability. I support wholeheartedly the case put by my noble friend.
  8.19 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on a characteristically honest and analytical speech. The fact that he spent the first five of his 10-minute speech attacking selection, shows what an honest man he is; indeed, I admire him for it. In response to those noble Lords who have asked where my noble friend Lady Blackstone is, the answer is that she is hosting a function arranged a long time before this debate was tabled for the University for Industry, which is her prime responsibility within the department. Therefore, I apologise on her behalf, but I believe noble Lords know that I took a very active part in this section of the school standards and framework legislation last
  360
  year and I did not hear any complaints at that time. However, I shall wait for the complaints after I have finished my speech.
  I want to respond to the fundamental question which the noble Lord has raised and I have to answer it in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, answered it. Of course, by definition, we cannot say that there are no circumstances in which any kind of selection for any purpose for any pupil in any part of the country would not be legitimate or proper. My noble friend Lord Peston is a purist on these matters. Indeed, both he and I have been allies in that way for far more than the 30 years since we were members of the Haringey association for the advancement of state education.
  Clearly the issue before us tonight is about the circumstances under which the Government believe that selection might be appropriate and those under which we very firmly do not believe that it is appropriate. I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the Government have not changed their views since the school standards and framework legislation was debated about a year ago. Indeed, I can quote in evidence the Prime Minister from his speech to the National Association of Head Teachers at the beginning of this month, when he said:
  "People don't want to go back to a system which divides 11 year olds into successes and failures. I know there are people who still support that system but I personally meet people for whom rejection at 11 was the most devastating thing that had ever happened to them as children and stayed with them for the rest of their lives".
  That is the Prime Minister's view and it is good enough for me.
  In our manifesto we made it clear that we do not believe in selection by academic ability. We believe that academic selection is divisive and that it divides children into successes and failures. We want every child to reach his or her full potential, so we have ensured that there will be no new grammar schools. Again, our commitment on grammar schools was entirely clear at the time that the school standards and framework legislation was debated. They are an established feature of the education system in some areas; indeed, there are some 160 of them. Therefore, existing grammar schools will only have to remove their selective arrangements if local parents vote in favour of change. At present, LEAs cannot propose ending selection at the majority of grammar schools. From September, they will be unable to do so at any grammar school.
  In answer to the question of the noble friend Lord Peston on progress, I can say that the first year in which ballots could take place was curtailed by the delay in the passage of the school standards and framework legislation. We do not know, but we do not expect there to be a significant number of ballots, if any, in the period which ends on the 31st July. Two grammar schools in Bristol have already gone comprehensive of their own volition and with the support of their local authority. However, if I may put it this way, I think that the "season" for ballots will be in the next academic year rather than this year, although there have been inquiries to the agency about the threshold numbers which are appropriate.

  361
  However, we have not ruled out partial selection by academic ability where it already exists. If local communities are happy with such arrangements, they should be able to continue. But where they have created difficulties and have not been supported by local parents, we have enabled the adjudicator to rule out these arrangements following complaints by another admission authority, or parents, if he considers that they are not in the best interests of parents and children in the area.
  I am rather glad to say that a great deal of this debate has been about the question of selection by aptitude and ability. Indeed, much of it has been semantic rather than real. The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, did not want to use the word "selection" and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would prefer to call it "differentiation". I am not terribly interested in the difference between words, just as I have to say that some of the distinctions which are made between aptitude and ability do not hold water.
  The Government have a very clear view on the difference involved: the difference is that as regards aptitude, which is applied to very specific specialisms—for example, modern languages, the performing arts, the visual arts, physical education, sport, design, technology and information technology—we could identify potential capacities to succeed. But that is very much not dependent on prior or current education achievement. Where that happens and where these schools exists (there are something like 400 of them), up to 10 per cent of children can be chosen on the basis of their aptitude for that specialism. The Admissions Code of Practice is clear on that point and we are not opposed to that kind of differentiation, to use the preferred word of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
  Of course we recognise that there is a risk if this goes too far—and I refer now to the point made by my noble friend Lady David—as one would be losing the ability to have adequate teaching in those areas in all the other schools, which are not specialist schools. That must be a constraint on specialist schools.
  We want all pupils to realise their full potential and all schools, whether comprehensive or selective, to meet the needs of their most talented pupils. I am responding here to the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke. We are developing a national strategy to improve the education of gifted and talented children, concentrating initially on pupils at secondary schools in the "Excellence in Cities" areas, which are the six largest conurbations.
  Every school will have a trained co-ordinator for gifted and talented pupils who will be responsible for implementing an effective whole-school policy, including a teaching and learning programme for able pupils. Schools will form local support networks to help spread good practice and provide a wider range of study support activities for able children. We are developing world-class tests, initially in maths and problem solving, so that the most able can compare their performance with the best in the world. Similarly, we are providing guidance to help primary teachers—again, this was a point raised in the debate—to meet the needs of their
  362
  most able pupils. That does not mean that we reject the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who has consistently expressed his concern for the less-academically able pupils. I admire him for that. He did so throughout the passage of the school standards Bill. However, it means that those criticisms of our provision for the most able pupils are really not well justified.
  I do not agree with the noble Baroness's interpretation of what I said about top-class athletes. I really think that there is a difference between training people to win matches or races and training people for the wide range of activities which comprise adult life. I do not believe that anything that I said in a debate on sport can be transmuted to education as a whole—
  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as the Minister only has three minutes left to speak, could I beg him to comment on the 27 per cent compared to the 62 per cent figure in Germany, and only 20 per cent of pupils getting A to C grades in French? That is indeed a worrying situation for a state system.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords. I had just about reached the point where I was going to say that I would respond to some of the points raised in the debate. Perhaps I may start by utterly rejecting the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—and, I am afraid, of my noble friend Lord Longford—that independent schools can somehow be called comprehensive—
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I never said so!
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought that my noble friend said that Eton, 80 years ago, did not select by ability.
  The Earl of Longford: Yes, my Lords; but I did not say that it was comprehensive.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept my noble friend's correction. However, if the definition of "comprehensive" for this purpose is not "selected by ability", which I think has been the theme of the debate, there is, nevertheless, some validity in my point. Of course that is not the case. Academic ability depends not only on innate ability but also on all kinds of social factors, as we know perfectly well from education statistics gathered in every country in the world over many years. The idea that performance in independent, fee paying schools—what are laughingly called public schools—can be compared with that in comprehensive schools does not hold water. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, made that clear.
  I was asked particularly about Northern Ireland. I am sure that the statistics that have been given with regard to the social origins of those who get into university are valid. However, I believe it is also true that the gap between the achievements of the lower and the higher deciles in Northern Ireland is greater than in this

  363
  country. It is also true—the noble Lord ought to recognise this—that Scotland which has a completely non-selective system has high academic achievement.
  As regards exam results, my noble friend Lady David discussed that point effectively and pointed to the rise in examination results both at GCSE and A-level over the period during which comprehensive schools became prevalent in this country. We must recognise that although, as I said, some forms of selection for some purposes—for example, in particular subjects within schools—may be justifiable, we shall never go back to the abstract concepts of intelligence which were dreamed up or calculated by Sir Cyril Burt, whose memory is somewhat tarnished, and which achieved a quite unjustifiable scientific plausibility in this country in the years after the war. Those concepts are utterly unacceptable. The concept whereby—the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, recognised this—it was possible to say to a vast majority of the children of this country, "We have assessed you on a single scale at the age of 11 and you are failures" is a concept to which we shall not return.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, do children who do not get into the Oratory or into St Margaret's in Hammersmith and Fulham also feel that they are failures because the education they receive is not as good?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall certainly not answer questions about individuals. I never have done and I do not think that the noble Baroness should ask such questions.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.35 p.m.]

  House of Lords Bill
  8.36 p.m.
  Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 53:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  PEERAGE CLAIMS
  (" . Nothing in this Act affects the power of the House of Lords to entertain a petition from a claimant to an hereditary peerage to succeed to that peerage or the provision made by that House for such a petition to be referred to the Committee for Privileges.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the Bill as presented to your Lordships' House is to eliminate hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. But it is not—and never has been, as I understand it—the declared aim of the Government to have eliminated the hereditary peerage itself. So long as there is a hereditary peerage there has to be some way—a legally authoritative way—of determining disputed rights of succession or contested claims. Hitherto these disputes
  364
  have been determined in the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House, where the authority of noble and learned Law Lords has been available to guide your Lordships' House.
  The Crown is the fount of honour. But the Crown has delegated the role of determining questions of a claim to a title, or proving succession to a title, to your Lordships' House. This amendment touches on a matter which is important to the integrity of the hereditary peerage. It affirms that present arrangements should remain intact. We hope for a categoric assurance from the Government that they have no intention of advising the Crown on, or proposing to the House, an alteration in present procedures. If they have, it would be helpful to your Lordships' House to have some insight into their alternative thinking now for members of the hereditary peerage. I beg to move.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance. We have no intention of changing any of the rules of succession and inheritance of the hereditary peerage. We do not intend to remove any of the rights or attributes which do not relate to membership of Parliament. I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has expressed this matter. I can assure the House that this amendment is not necessary because the Bill does not affect the rights of either the House or the Committee for Privileges in this matter. They will continue to have their present jurisdiction in relation to all hereditary peerages, just as—I hope to add this as a word of comfort—they retain it in relation to Irish peerages, even though the latter have no right to be Members of this House.
  Lord Kingsland: I thank the Minister for his extremely helpful and constructive reply. In those circumstance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Viscount Torrington Viscount Torrington moved Amendment No. 54:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  COMMEMORATIVE MEDAL
  (" . The Secretary of State shall petition the Sovereign as to the striking of a commemorative medal to be awarded to peers who have received a writ of summons to attend the present Parliament and who become disqualified by this Act from attending any Session of Parliament after the Session in which this Act is passed in right of an hereditary peerage.").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Liverpool, I must at the very outset admit—for those of your Lordships who have not yet twigged—that it is a device to raise a slightly more serious subject.
  While some of your Lordships who may possibly be forced into early retirement by the passing of the Bill may enjoy or appreciate a long service medal, there is the bones of a case for something just a little more tangible or at any rate more useful. The connection between that and the medal of the amendment is simply that medals struck and awarded on the Sovereign's orders can, and sometimes do, I understand, carry an entitlement to a pension or stipend.
  As far as I know, this subject has not previously raised its head in our formal debates on the progress of the Bill. I know that it has generated a little heat outside this Chamber and to give it an airing today might, as it were, clear the air a little. There is an argument which usually runs along the following lines. Since Peers receive only expenses and not remuneration, if they lose the right to sit in the House they no longer incur the expenses of coming here, and therefore they are not in need of any compensation for loss of their rights to sit here. I believe that is a slightly disingenuous argument.
  I wish at the outset to get away from the use of the word "compensation", whether for loss of rights to sit, loss of office or whatever. Yes, of course, there is a respectable argument that hereditary Peers are losing a valuable right, a right which, if assignable, could command a very substantial value. Lloyd George proved this in the early part of this century in spades double vulnerable, and I think there have been one or two cases since. There is even an arcane argument which runs that the right of hereditary Peers to sit in the House is a form of real property.
  I do not wish to advance either of those arguments, I promise your Lordships. Even I can see that to advance the idea that the taxpayer should, in effect, have to buy back rights from people who are perceived—not always correctly—as members of a wealthy and privileged class is clearly an argument which will not go very far.
  My proposal is that those who are being forced into premature political oblivion by the passing of the Bill should perhaps be entitled to some modest recompense for past services in the form of a little assistance, where needed, for the future. As I pointed out in Committee a short while ago when my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare raised the idea of a compulsory retirement age for life Peers, the Labour Party's own evidence to the Royal Commission shed some interesting light on this matter. That evidence, in paragraph 6.10, states:
  "The Labour Party is not in favour of a retirement age for existing life Peers who were appointed for life and who may have organised their affairs accordingly".
  In my opinion, in coded language that means that many life Peers probably have not made very effective pension arrangements and probably expect to rely on their attendance allowance to maintain, or at least supplement, their lifestyles. I asked the other day, if life Peers have organised their lives that way, is it not reasonable to expect that many hereditary Peers have organised their lives in the same manner. Clearly it would seem that the Labour Party believes that its life Peers must be financially protected but that the Tory hereditaries can be thrown to the wolves.
  The ending of the right to attend and the loss of allowances that go with it will in quite a few cases lead to dislocation and the need for expensive rearrangement of Peers' personal affairs. Some will need to sell London flats or houses, the outgoings on which have been funded by the overnight allowance; others will have to seek employment for which they have no particular skills or suitability; yet others will simply have to accept a greatly reduced lifestyle, being past employment age.
  As I have frequently heard admitted on the Benches opposite, many hereditary Peers have given distinguished service to this House, and thereby to the country, out of a sense of duty over many years. Accepting that duty, that obligation to serve, which hitherto went hand in hand with the right to a seat, has often been a burden and a restriction on the proper development of an alternative career. Now these same people are about to be unceremoniously slung out, with their financial receipts reduced and their source of day-to-day intellectual interest cut off. I particularly mention "intellectual interest" because your Lordships are noted for your longevity. I am sure that it is a sense of continuing involvement, however peripheral, in the great affairs of state which accounts, at least in part, for that longevity. It is quite conceivable that some of your Lordships will die younger than they otherwise might as a result of the Bill. I will not push the point, but it is a possibility.
  Members of the other place live with the ever-present possibility that their political careers may be long or short. Either way, as I understand it, they earn the right within a single Parliament to a pension entitlement. Peers are awarded no such consideration.
  All of those points seem to suggest that some form of readjustment allowance, relocation expenses, terminal bonus, modest pension—call it what you will—based perhaps on length of service, for forcibly retiring hereditary Peers would not be unjustified. My amendment does not set out to say what it should be or try to quantify it; it merely provides a conduit through which some modest largesse could be delivered. Those Peers who are particularly wealthy could give it to charity; those who are in need of it will at least have some recompense for their past services.
  If adopted, my amendment will do the Bill no harm whatever. At worst, from the Government's point of view it would cost a few pounds to run up some cupra-nickel discs with the polite version of "Good riddance" on the back. Much better, it would provide the Government with a chance and a way to show a little magnanimity in victory and that they have a caring heart; to be merciful, as the noble Lord. Lord Howie, said earlier on the subject of ancillary rights.
  Of course the easiest and most painless way to deal with this matter would be simply to leave all Peers here and adopt the format of the 1968 Bill or the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. Sadly, I feel that the latter is too mathematically complex, even for my noble friend Lord Ferrers—I am sorry that he is not in his seat—and too much of a sensible British compromise for the Government Front Bench; it is insufficiently cataclysmic or macho. But it has merits and should be considered. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, to which I have added my name. I support his speech in totality.
  I wish to focus on his point about recompense. It is important that we understand why we, as hereditary Peers, attend the House. We do not attend because we

  367
  have an hereditary Peerage; we attend because we are summoned by Writ. That Writ is sent under the seal of the Queen's most Excellent Majesty and is personally addressed to us by name. I should like to read the wording of the main passage of the writ because it is important. It reads as follows:
  "Whereas Our Parliament for arduous and urgent affairs concerning Us the state and defence of Our United Kingdom and the Church is now met at Our City of Westminster We strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and the dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament with Us and with the Prelates Nobles and Peers of Our said Kingdom to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid And this as you regard Us and Our honour and the safety and defence of the said Kingdom and Church and dispatch of the said affairs in nowise do you omit".
  I quote that because at the age of 24 I was in receipt of that summons; that is 31 years ago. I took that Writ most seriously. It came from the highest authority in the land. It may not therefore surprise your Lordships to know that I regarded it as my duty to attend this House. There were privileges and duties and this was a duty which I believed it was incumbent upon me to discharge.
  The point I want to make is that I do not know where my career would have gone if I had not responded to the Writ. To say that I could possibly have landed up being chairman of ICI may seem preposterous to some noble Lords and I might actually agree with them. I did respond to the Writ: my life took a course as a result of that. In fact, there are many noble Lords who attend this House on a regular basis to whom this point applies equally.
  I think my noble friend's argument that some recompense should be provided to those hereditary Peers who will be denied a place in this House if this legislation passes is wholly relevant. Indeed, I think a good case could be made to the Court of Human Rights at The Hague. I await with interest the Minister's response to this amendment, which I support completely.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, I hope I shall not disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, too much by not talking about points they have just raised in respect of the Writ of Summons, on which we have had at least five debates which must have lasted at least 10 hours, and the other questions relating to recompense which are not mentioned at all in the amendment. I shall speak to the amendment.
  I have an admission to make. This amendment has split the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Some of my colleagues are very hard hearted and believe that the principle by which people who do not stand for election or get defeated in election then receive a medal is alien to the tradition of British democracy. I do not support that contention. However, although having considerable sympathy with the concept of striking a commemorative medal for those hereditary Peers who will no longer be Members of your Lordships' House after autumn, I feel that I must enter a caveat. I could not support a proposal to strike a medal for those who are no longer here unless a similar medal, possibly in several classes, were struck for those Members of your Lordships' House who have sat through the debates on this Bill.
  368
  In my view, there is an overwhelming case for having a special class of medal struck for those very few Members of your Lordships' House who have voted on every Division called by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Those Members of your Lordships' House who were not here at 1.15 in the morning when we voted on an amendment as to whether there should be an "a" or an "an" in the Bill in relation to the phrase "hereditary Peer" may not realise why I feel so strongly on this issue. I hope therefore that in responding to this debate, the Government look not only in detail at the terms of the amendment, but will consider the points which I have made in terms of extending its scope to deal with those of us, life and hereditary Peers alike, who have sat through the entire deliberations on this Bill and helped to develop a more modern constitution in this country.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I too rather share the view that a medal would be a nice thing. I am not so concerned to support the financial proposals that I have heard raised, but I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that a medal in different classes would be appropriate. Speaking for myself, I rather fancy one with oak leaves and something to hang around my neck. I think that would look rather good.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the contributions of my noble friends Lord Torrington and Lord Liverpool range rather wider than one might have suspected from the subject matter of the amendment. I hope that the Government will reflect on the content of those speeches. Meanwhile, as to the question of a commemorative medal, for the first time in my life, I find myself in sympathy with the views expressed by the Liberal Front Bench and I think the medal ought to be confined to those who have served throughout your Lordships' many debates during the Committee and Report stages. I am quite sure that both of my noble friends would receive medals of the highest class as a result of their own contributions.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, in responding to this amendment, it is quite clear that the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool, are not aware of that injunction in the Companion which says that a debate should be relevant to the Question before the House. The Question before the House is the issue of a commemorative medal and, as I understand it, the intention is that those hereditary Peers who are to be excluded will receive this medal. This question of the pension, stipend or whatever was then introduced. I do not think I could have put the answer to the question about expenses any better than did the noble Viscount: that is, if the costs are not incurred, the expenses will not be paid. It is as simple as that and I think that is the attitude that the Revenue would take.
  I was also intrigued by the idea that the hereditary peerage has an assignable value. How would you handle it? Would you auction it at Sotheby's?
  Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I never suggested that it had an

  369
  assignable value; I was merely asking whether it had an assignable value. Perhaps Lloyd George gave us some idea of what that assignable value might have been.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, my noble friend has just said that they could pawn it. I am not entirely clear whether noble Lords want the money or the medal or both. That is something we shall have to find out.
  We have made it clear on a number of occasions that we greatly value the input of some hereditary Peers to the work of your Lordships' House. However, we do not think the effect of this amendment is the right way in which to show our gratitude to those among us who will be leaving at the end of this Session; certainly not in the form of a pension or a stipend. I was interested in the remark about the loss of the day-to-day intellectual interest of your Lordships' House. That has been particularly marked during the passage of this Bill, I have to say.
  I think that there are many among us who would think it unfair that medals should be handed out to all who leave this House under the provisions of the Bill. It would be invidious to name names but there are some Peers, hereditary and indeed life, who in the previous Session failed to attend your Lordships' House for even a single day, despite the injunction in the Writ of Summons asking them to be present, which was read out. There are also Peers who not only attend regularly but also contribute effectively to the work we undertake in this House. This amendment will, of course, give all such Peers a medal and presumably a pension, irrespective of their attendance level and, more importantly, irrespective of their contribution to the effective running of your Lordships' House.
  What of the hereditary Peers who will remain in your Lordships' House? What should they get besides the "Iron Cross with Bar" that all of us should get from sitting through this Bill? It seems that the 92 who stay will not be entitled to a commemorative medal although I have to say that I doubt very much whether this factor will have them refusing to stand for election.
  We should really take this seriously. I could not help wondering what the inscription on such a medal might be. Reflecting on the number of defeats this Government have suffered since the election, your Lordships should be interested to know that, in the first Session, the Government were defeated 38 times. On the votes of life Peers, they would have been defeated five times. In this Session, the Government have been defeated 15 times. On the votes of life Peers, they would have been defeated once. So, the defeats since the election have been roughly three times the level of defeats of previous Conservative governments. I think the appropriate inscription might be, "Conservative hereditary Peers rampant on a Government Chief Whip couchant".
  The sentiment behind this amendment is kind but misplaced. Of course there should be something to mark the departure of the hereditary Peers, but it is not as though we are removing their peerages. Those hereditary Peers who will leave once this Bill becomes law will retain their peerage. I would argue—I am sure
  370
  they would agree—that that, rather than a medal, shows far more clearly the service that they and their forebears have given to the nation. I would therefore ask the noble Viscount to withdraw the amendment.
  Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I was about to say I think it is an achievement to have split the Liberal Democrats, but then the Liberal Democrats came about as a result of a number of splits, so that perhaps is not such a great achievement.
  I was hoping for, and I suppose I have just had, some warm words from the Government, but clearly they have a cold heart. I should like to thank my noble friends and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I had slightly hoped that perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would have replied to this debate because I have been considering what my ideal medal would look like. I was thinking in terms of a nice piece of ribbon attached to something about the size, for those of you who are old enough to remember it, of a silver thruppenny bit, something that was called a "tickey" in my South African upbringing. Naturally, on the obverse side would be her Majesty's head. On the other side, I thought we needed a nice device, something heraldic, possibly the Royal Coats of Arms. I think it is called the Privy Seal. Then I began to think that perhaps the Keeper of the Privy Seal, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, herself might have made a very attractive "tail" for this medal. However, I fear that it is not to be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 56:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  STYLE OF DISQUALIFIED PEERS
  (" . The expressions "Lord of Parliament" and "Peer of Parliament" shall not include any person who is disqualified by Section 1 from attending, sitting or voting in the House of Lords.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have been told that we need to get on a little. I shall therefore not move Amendments Nos. 56 and 57.
  [Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
  9 p.m.
  Lord Rotherwick Lord Rotherwick moved Amendment No. 58A:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  HEREDITARY PEERS TO RETAIN RIGHT TO USE CHAPEL OF ST MARY UNDERCROFT
  (" . Hereditary peers who cease to be members of the House of Lords by virtue of this Act shall retain their right to use the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns those hereditary Peers who will have to relinquish their rights to use the Crypt Chapel if and when the Bill becomes an Act. To approach the Crypt Chapel, one goes through Westminster Hall. One has no need to go into any other areas of the Palace of

  371
  Westminster. The Members of your Lordships' House who utilise the Crypt as a private sanctuary and for christenings and weddings have done so for many years. Many of your Lordships' families have used the prescribed hereditary rights for generations. That is the main difference from the rights that are used by Members of another place.
  The Crypt Chapel is in the authority of the Lord Great Chamberlain. I suspect that it will not be possible to put the amendment on the face of the Bill. I suppose that I should apologise for bringing the amendment forward at this stage. Perhaps it would have been more fitting to have brought it forward at the Committee stage. However, I think there is merit in having a small discussion on it. I hope that the Government will see fit to offer some sympathetic words and not give that as a reason for a short answer.
  I have brought forward the amendment in order to clarify the consequences for hereditary Peers if and when the Bill becomes an Act and to gain perhaps a small amount of support and sympathy from your Lordships for that dilemma. I am optimistic that your Lordships will slim some compassion and express a feeling of sympathy for those hereditary Peers. It is to be hoped that their expression of feeling will be such that they will wish to see the retention of those prescribed rights of access to the Crypt for religious worship and for the continuity of their families who have worshipped there for generations.
  The future reformed House, I suspect, may well wish to say something on this matter at a later date but I think it is important to stress that if the hereditaries were allowed to continue to use the Crypt Chapel it would in no way infringe on any accesses, rights or privileges in the rest of the Palace of Westminster. I have also taken the opportunity to approach various appropriate authorities of the Crypt Chapel. They have indicated that there would be little difficulty in its ability to accommodate the present practice. I shall listen with interest not only to what other noble Lords have to say on the amendment but also to the Government's response. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I have to declare an interest. My three children and my three grandchildren have all had religious services in the Crypt Chapel and it is very much my desire that my son and my grandson, if not myself, should continue to have the opportunity.
  As my noble friend said, this is in the gift of the Lord Great Chamberlain. The only thing I would ask the Government Front Bench to offer is a statement that they would not intend to impede the Lord Great Chamberlain in his desire to accommodate those hereditary Peers who wish to use the Chapel for their services.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, there is a great deal of merit in this amendment. One can understand the argument that dispossessed Peers, so to speak. would crowd out the Library, the bars and the dining rooms if
  372
  they were allowed to continue to use them, but that argument does not apply to the Crypt Chapel. I shall be interested to hear the Government's response.
  The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I support the amendment. As I said when we were debating Amendment No. 54, I have had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House for 31 years. It has also been my privilege regularly to attend services in St Mary Undercroft. I very much hope that the Government will be able to look with some sympathy on the amendment, despite the fact that this is in the gift of the Lord Great Chamberlain. I hope that I shall not be denied being able to seek spiritual guidance in St Mary Undercroft and being able to use it as a place of sanctuary and as a place for quiet reflection and worship.
  Lord Annaly: My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill since the Second Reading debate. I wish simply to add my words of support to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. At the same time I declare an interest in that my father, after my mother had died, married a second time in St Mary Undercroft in about 1960. I had a sister who was christened there. After my father had died, I led one of my sisters up the aisle of St Mary Undercroft. So I declare three interests on that score.
  If one happens to live in a village and have connections there one can make arrangements to have one's children christened or whatever it may be in the village church. This is a slightly different situation from the Library, restaurants and other facilities. I hope that the powers that be, in the form of the Government or the Lord Great Chamberlain if it is his prerogative, will consider this matter favourably.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, although we do not think this matter should appear on the face of the Bill, we think that the principle behind it is laudable and hope that noble Lords opposite, both Government and Back-Bench, will do everything they can to ensure that when it comes to dealing with the arrangements of former hereditary Peers, should we reach that stage, this matter will be dealt with with the utmost sympathy.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that however sympathetic any of us might be to the thought behind the amendment it is out of the hands of Parliament. The Chapel of St Mary Undercroft is ecclesiastically part of the Royal Peculiar of Westminster Abbey, as has been said. It is located physically within the Palace of Westminster. Control of its use is the responsibility of the Lord Great Chamberlain. It is nothing to do with the House of Lords or indeed the House of Commons. In practice, the Chapel and access to it are managed by Black Rod, in consultation with the Speaker's Chaplain. This is not a matter for legislation to decide, or indeed for the Government to express a view on. It is for the authorities of the Palace of Westminster. If there were to be a proposal for any change in the arrangements, it would be a matter for the Lord Great Chamberlain to discuss with the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Lords.

  373
  For those reasons, we obviously cannot accept the amendment. We understand the thought behind it, but it is not a matter for this Bill or this Chamber.
  Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who supported my amendment. I suppose that I should also declare an interest, in that I am a godfather to the grandson of my noble friend Lord Clanwilliam.
  I detected a slight hint of sympathy from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and I hope that if various mechanisms take place at a later stage others of your Lordships will express sympathy then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 58B:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  CONSTITUTIONAL BILLS: VOTING RIGHTS OF HEREDITARY PEERS
  (" . Section I shall not apply in respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a constitutional bill or a bill including constitutional provisions, and any person who was the holder of a hereditary peerage and who was entitled to a writ of summons to attend that House on the day before this Act comes into force shall continue to be entitled to sit and vote on such proceedings.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg the House to reflect on our responsibilities—I say this as a Cross-Bench Peer—as politicians, not party punching politicians. Many Peers have sought legal advice from counsel and counsel's opinion. Some of your Lordships have already received that advice. I am sure that they are aware that it was obtained as a result of private finance. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, talks of the legal advice given to the Government. Where is it? As it has obviously been financed by the public, surely it should be in the public domain.
  I do not think the House will find the rationale for my amendments—we are considering Amendment No. 58C with Amendment No. 58B—at all obscure or surprising, since they follow the logic of comments from most parts of the House over past months. Most of us started on these reforms with the intent of arriving at a more legitimately balanced House, as part of a Parliament that can represent the people in controlling the executive. Probably most of us think that we are not achieving that, least of all with the Bill as it stands.
  Let us make no mistake. This is not a party matter of a compromise to be agreed through the usual channels, however strangely used, that is not negotiable, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thinks—and says throughout. If that were true, the whole House would be compromised. For the argument is between Parliament and the Executive, and what executive ever relishes a parliament that can control it? Nevertheless, any government, like every man, can become wise only by taking into account what others say and believe.
  In the Bill we have to deal with the interim House, and it may be a very long interim. So of course the ideal would be for the interim House to mirror the House as we hope it will become so far as it is in our power—
  374
  that is, without legislation—to achieve it. But legislation should at least not stand in the way of that, especially as the Bill does close out both now and for the future the best that the House has shown itself capable of. That is why the watchword of this House has for so long been "No stage one without stage two". Have we now truly forgotten ourselves?
  We must take into account the contributions of my hereditary colleagues, especially in the developing system of committees in the field of government. This development, ranging from Europe to science and technology, interest rates, deregulation and so on, has been the startling but undramatic achievement of the House over the past decade. No one can seriously maintain that a suggested limit of 90 hereditary Peers could do anything but damage that. In fact, the compromise is worse than having no hereditary Peers at all. To have none would be plainly seen at once as the work of a self-serving Executive.
  This House must not unduly hamper the Government in getting their proper business through. On the other hand, it cannot allow the Government, for their own convenience, to dismember Parliament. All Peers have a duty to ensure a better successor House. Therefore, I have proposed two new clauses which I hope will be seen as a fair compromise between this House and the Government. The clauses do not hamper the Government in getting their business through, unless it is business related to constitutional matters. Perhaps I may remind the House that we spent 18 days debating the Scottish devolution Bill; 10 days on the Bill to set up the Welsh Assembly; eight days on the Northern Ireland Bill; eight days the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill; two days the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill; and we have dedicated our time, thought and effort to the Jenkins voting system in five separate debates.
  Of hereditaries, only the Cranborne-Weatherill 90—if they do not make the Bill hybrid—stay both to sit and to vote on ordinary business. Under my proposals, other hereditary Peers will be unable to vote at all against the Government on non-constitutional matters. So the Government will have for the first time the chance to see what the life Peers really think of them, unmasked by any hereditary vote. That should be revealing and salutary.
  But hereditary Peers should always be able to attend and speak. They will have the chance to show what the power of logic can do, even unsupported by a vote. The duty to "advise and counsel" is what this House is here to perform. But conversely, the House should remain as it is in the interim for the purpose of ensuring its effective successor—in a Division if need be. Sadly, we have all learnt that this is not a listening Government. The overall result of the new clauses would be a better balanced interim House, better able to build on the best of what we already have and to hold the Executive to account.
  The Executive is not compelled to listen to Parliament as things are if it does not want to. It merely repeats itself, throughout. As a Cross-Bencher and independent, I can now reveal one hereditary right to which throughout our debates no one has yet referred. It is this.

  375
  Every government inherits from their predecessor, of whatever colour, the interest to evade or weaken the power of Parliament if they can. It is that hereditary interest—to evade and weaken the power of Parliament—which, above all, this House must continually eject. All governments are "born to rule"—but only through a Parliament that can control them.
  Amendments tabled previously—and perhaps I may mention to the Minister that I have still not received the Standing Orders for the Weatherill-Cranborne amendment in Clause 2, for which I asked on 25th May—have had similar underlying aims. I refer, for example, to those tabled by noble Lords who want, before the legislation takes effect, a referendum on reform proposals and/or a sight of they Royal Commission's findings. One good way at least of achieving those and further aims is embodied in the new clauses. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg t o move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord wished us to approach these amendments as parliamentarians and not as party politicians. I accept that. Let me try to do so. As I understand the two propositions, all existing hereditary Peers should continue to have the right to sit in this House and participate in debates, but that on constitutional matters, however they may be defined, not only should they have the right to sit and debate, and argue and present their point of view; they should also have the right to vote. I cannot accept that. The object of this reform which the Government have set their hand to, presaged with great precision in the manifesto upon which we won the last election, was not to ameliorate the position with regard to the anomaly of the hereditary Peers' parliamentary rights but to remove it.
  I can perfectly well see that, if I were in the position of the noble Lord as a hereditary Peer, I should be saying that, by my contribution, my argument, my powers of persuasion and my force of character, I should be able to persuade all those who had a vote that they ought to do what I urge them to do. I do not know—I have never been in the position of a hereditary Peer—but I suppose that, if I were, when it comes to infringements of the constitution of the country it is only the hereditary Peers that can be relied upon to behave with independence and propriety in order to safeguard the constitution, the Monarchy and the Crown—I nearly said "the Empire": I am sure that a few decades ago that would have figured in the speech too.
  With great respect, what the noble Lord proposes may seem to him a reasonable compromise between the existing position of the hereditary Peerage and extinction, but from my point of view—and I hope I am speaking in as parliamentary way as he would like me to—we have not come here in order to produce a compromise for the hereditary Peers but to remove their constitutional and parliamentary rights to participate as hereditary legislators in the United Kingdom. I cannot accept what the noble Lord urges.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has done the House a great service in bringing forward these amendments. He is right in much of what he says. But, sadly, the noble
  376
  Lord, Lord Richard, has laid out what the Bill is about: it is to remove the right of the noble Lord, of myself and of many others to sit and vote in this House. Therefore the arguments that the noble Lord has put forward so cogently have fallen on deaf ears. I suspect that the Government will repeat, more or less, what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. It is because the Government are so stubbornly refusing to consider the case for "no stage one without stage two", about which they have been remarkably consistent over the course of the past two years, that I think these amendments are dcomed to fail. I, for one, regret that.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, perhaps I may first say to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that I am sorry that he has not discovered the draft Standing Orders in the Library of this House; they have, in fact, been available since 31st March and have obviously been read by a number of your Lordships.
  I know that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has taken an assiduous interest in the Bill. Having been slightly cross with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, earlier when he made personal remarks about other people's attention, I hesitate to say that some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord would suggest that he has been equally inattentive. II is certainly the case that the principle and burden of these amendments have been discussed on Second Reading and in Committee and the principle has been discussed many times in ancillary debates on other amendments.
  I recognise that the noble Lord has taken account of comments which were made in earlier debates on his and other amendments and has changed his proposal to one that includes only existing Members of this House and not their heirs. However, in my view and that of the Government, it suggests in principle that there is a danger to our fundamental constitution if the hereditary Peers do not continue to be Members of your Lordships' House in such great numbers as they are at present. This does not address two of our fundamental problems with the present situation and the proposals we are putting forward, as my noble friend Lord Richard put it so elegantly a few minutes ago.
  To follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I do not need to repeat my own arguments on this subject; I can simply quote from the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who, in debate on a similar amendment put forward by Lord Renton of Mount Harry on 29th April, raised the issue:
  "as to how sensible it is to imply that any group of people outside the membership of either House of Parliament should have a reserved constitutional role which acts as a sort of guardian for Parliament … this is the sort of question which properly belongs in Parliament … I find it constitutionally odd that Parliament itself should not be trusted to perform one of its central functions in its control of government".—[Official Report, 29th April 1999; col. 466.]
  That is, current Members of the Houses of Parliament. I agree entirely with the noble Viscount: Parliament is the guardian of our constitution.
  As I am sure the noble Lord is aware—I shall not weary the House by repeating our arguments on this particular point—the Government also reject the

  377
  implication that only hereditary Peers, whether current Members of your Lordships' House or those who will not be excepted Members of your Lordships' House in the transition, can be trusted to be independent. The amendment contains the fatal flaw, which was pointed out last time this matter was discussed, that it does not define what is a constitutional Bill, let alone one that contains constitutional provisions that are supposedly the subject of these particular exceptions to the terms of the Act. The amendment is fundamentally at odds with the scheme of the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Richard explained; and, with the commitment to which Clause 2 gives effect, the amendment is doubly at odds. I urge the House to reject it.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will forgive me if I deal briefly with Amendment No. 58C. It proposes that hereditary Peers should retain the right to sit and speak in this House but vote only in the circumstances described in Amendment No. 58B. We have debated the idea of the so-called "two-Writ system" many, many times but, beyond debate, it is one of the very few issues that have been put to the vote. The House has already decided twice that it is not interested in this approach. It decided it once positively on the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on 27th April, and it decided it again, by implication, on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, on 11th May when the House voted overwhelmingly to include what is now Clause 2. This approach really is exhausted, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the very few noble Lords who have spoken to my amendments, most of whom are on the Government side. It is sad that, predictably, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is inflexible in his approach to this matter. None the less, everyone has the right to an opinion, and I respect that. I must correct one observation of the Leader of the House. I did not ask for the draft Standing Orders—I was well aware that they had been available since March—but the Standing Orders.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Standing Orders have not been agreed because the Procedure Committee that has been summoned to consider them has not yet met. I understand that arrangements are being actively pursued through the usual channels to do that, but the Standing Orders per se cannot appear until the Procedure Committee agrees them.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, perhaps if a letter had been sent to me to explain that, I would not have brought up the matter this evening.
  I did raise the constitutional question to some extent. I spoke about the various elements of devolution and election in relation to particular parts of the United Kingdom, once upon a time, and with regard to Europe. Perhaps the Leader of the House will forgive me for correcting her on that.
  378
  My amendment promotes the idea of reform as proposed by Her Majesty's Government. It does not disagree entirely with the amendments to Clause 2 which were moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and my noble friend Lord Weatherill, but it amends fairly an amendment which was passed by about 300 Peers. Nearly 1,000 did not take part in that mandate. It strikes me how similar those figures are to the proportion of the electorate who gave the present Government a majority of 179 in another place.
  Just as the majority, almost 70 per cent, should have attended the polling booths at the general election, I feel that this House should not feel embarrassed if asked to "adjust the helm" just a little further for the sake of this country and others affected by our Parliament's constitutional practices.
  The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and passed by a majority in excess of 100, related to guarding our constitution. Amendment No. 58B relates closely to the same matter: a balanced constitution and a fair Parliament. I understand the comments on the amendments standing in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 58C not moved.]
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 58D:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 1: NON-VOTING PEERS
  (" .—(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 2, at any one time no more than 90 peers by succession shall be excepted from section 1 by this section in accordance with Standing Orders of the House, and they shall be entitled to sit but not to vote in the House or in any Committee of the House.
  (2) Standing Orders shall provide that the 90 hereditary peers so excepted shall consist of the following categories—

  (a) no more than 2 peers elected by the Labour hereditary peers;

  (b) no more than 42 peers elected by the Conservative hereditary peers;

  (c) no more than 3 peers elected by the Liberal Democrat hereditary peers;

  (d) no more than 28 peers elected by the Cross-bench hereditary peers; and

  (e) no more than 15 peers elected by the whole House.

  (3) A person may be excepted from section 1 by or in accordance with Standing Orders made in anticipation of the enactment or commencement of this section.
  (4) Any question whether a person is excepted from section 1 shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is more modest than Amendment No. 58C to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, spoke. It allows 90 hereditary Peers to remain in the interim House with the right to sit and speak in the House or any Committee, but not to vote.
  This is not a matter which has been disposed of in earlier debates on the Bill, nor in Divisions, whether actual or implicit. At the cutting edge, the amendment is intended to include the right to move amendments and

  379
  to ask for the opinion of the House or any Committee but to exclude the right to give voice on "Question put", or to take part in Divisions.
  There is a parallel here with the procedures already adopted in this House over the past decade when a Public Bill is referred to a Select Committee called a Public Bill Committee. The right to speak, but not to vote, on legislation is not a new concept.
  The amendment envisages that the speaking Peers will be elected by the same electoral colleges as will elect the Weatherill 90 and in accordance with Standing Orders to be made by the House. There is the crucial distinction of which I am much aware. I am in no position to prescribe the Standing Orders. I cannot gridlock the House. There is a certain amount which can and should be on the face of the Bill, including the substance of this amendment which, if agreed to by the House, would, in accordance with the advice of the Clerks, make the Bill prima facie hybrid. But if I seek to press the amendment, I shall surely be met by some such rejoinder as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor uttered on an earlier occasion at col. 818 of the Official Report of 25th May. He said:
  "So far as this Chamber is concerned … whether the relevant provisions are in the Standing Orders or on the face of the Bill makes no difference. However, there is the signal advantage of having these provisions in the Standing Orders; namely, that it excludes the possibility of the other place not only having views on these subjects—which it certainly does—but also having the opportunity to assert different views".
  There is also the problem of hybridity which dogs the amendment. If I do not press the amendment today, it will be because of this matter and because I wish to test feelings on various aspects of the concept of speaking Peers—that has not yet been addressed—and because I shall have decided to bring back an amendment at Third Reading which would commit the House to include speaking Peers but would leave the detail to be worked out by the Procedure Committee and the House itself.
  When I was young there were tales of a bird, until quite recently thought to be extinct, the mugwump. It had the unique characteristic that it would sit on the fence with its mug on one side and its wump on the other, and it would magnificently keep this up for months at a time.
  The last time that we had a full debate on the matter of speaking Peers was in Committee on the 27th April. My noble friend Lord Ferrers moved his amendment to keep all hereditary Peers here on an hereditary basis for the interim House but without voting rights. All that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had to say from my Front Bench (col. 271) was that my noble friend Lord Cranborne had made some very interesting points on the issue of sitting and voting, speaking in an earlier debate, with which he, Lord Strathclyde, speaking as a former Chief Whip, had every sympathy.
  Perhaps I may ask my noble friend some questions. Others on these Benches may be as interested as I am to hear his replies. Does he agree that to have 90 speaking Peers is in no sense at all an affront or an alternative to Weatherill? However, it is sometimes described in that way. It is in fact a supplement. The
  380
  proposal would supplement Weatherill without affecting the political balance of the House. The fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not dealing with this debate tonight is surely an indication that this amendment has nothing to do with Weatherill, because the Weatherill amendment is the particular baby of the noble and learned Lord whom I once referred to elsewhere as the Pied Piper.
  Does my noble friend agree that there is a bank of experience among hereditary Peers which would be of value to the interim House? The 42 Weatherill Peers to be elected from these Benches would most desirably, from the point of view of those on these Benches, be committed to the House on a full-time working basis. Other hereditary Peers would not wish or would not be able to assume that commitment, perhaps because they are elder statesmen, perhaps because they are relatively young and work full time, perhaps again because they would only wish to participate in regard to their particular concerns and interests and from their special parliamentary experience. Does my noble friend see no advantage in having these people here? These are important questions.
  Before I conclude, may I add that at present I hold no particular brief either for elections or for any particular form of election of speaking Peers. The method of selection I presented in this amendment is really no more than a convenient and familiar starting point. In my opinion it also makes sense. With that, I beg to move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, until the noble Lord spoke I am bound to say that I had not appreciated the full flavour and grandeur of the amendment that he is proposing. As I understand the position, if this amendment were to be carried there would be 90 so-called Weatherill Peers who would be elected by their various constituencies and who would have the full rights that hereditary Peers have at present in the House. In addition to that there would then be another 90 to be elected from the same electorate. I am not quite sure whether the electorate would then include the 90 that had already been elected or whether it would not, but there would be another election from the same electorate which would produce another 90 hereditary Peers who would continue to sit in the House but who would not have the right to vote.
  If the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, were to be accepted, we would end up by having 180 hereditary Peers permanently in the House, 90 of whom would have the right to vote and 90 of whom would not have the right to vote. I see the noble Lord is shaking his head in agreement. I am obliged for that. If that is seriously being suggested tonight, I can only repeat, but I will not for the sake of brevity, what I have said on a number of other occasions. It would seem to me to run totally contrary to the purpose and the objectives of this Bill. As such I would find such proposals profoundly and totally unacceptable.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree in principle with a great deal of what my noble friend, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has said in support of his two amendments

  381
  moved just now. I did not rise to support him because I thought there was not the slightest chance of his amendments being accepted. However, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, are very much more modest and I think that they do deserve serious consideration.
  It is not always appreciated what a tiny proportion of our time we spend in this House trooping through the Division Lobbies. Many a week goes by without a single Division taking place. But during those weeks a great deal of work is done both in the Chamber and in Select Committees. A great many novel or insufficiently understood ideas and propositions are expounded, some of which are subsequently taken up by the Government or one of the Opposition parties. Non-contentious drafting errors in Bills are drawn to the Government's attention. Penetrating Questions, Starred and for Written Answers, are tabled and asked. Voting is only a small part of the constructive work which this House does. Indeed, tonight, some Members of the Government Benches may believe that voting is very far from constructive.
  Noble Lords who have been Members of this House for a few years know in their hearts, even if they will not admit it openly, that if only 92 hereditary Peers remain, a great deal of expertise will be lost to Parliament. Permitting an additional 90 hereditary Peers to continue to contribute verbally, although not otherwise, would ensure that Parliament would continue to benefit from that expertise without upsetting the political balance.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Coleraine challenged me to answer a few questions and I am delighted to be able to do so. First, perhaps I may say that if I were sitting on the Government Front Bench, seeing this kind of amendment would immediately urge me to rush along to whoever I had to obey and recommend acceptance of it. It deals with so many of the objections which have been made by noble Lords opposite during the course of the debates. It is very humble in its attempts to deal with the problem that a number of Peers who have enormous experience and knowledge outside this House will be excluded and that experience and knowledge will be lost. That is the answer to the question which my noble friend asked me.
  Furthermore, the proposal is not an alternative to the Weatherill amendment. It is a complement to it and can work side by side with the amendment, which is now Clause 2. The comments I made at an earlier stage related to the general principle of the entire hereditary peerage returning to sit but not to vote. As a former Chief Whip, I would have found it tiresome to listen to many Peers speaking on an issue and delaying the vote. But under the terms of this amendment, there would be so few sitters but not voters—"Coleraine Peers", if I may christen them that—and I believe that it is acceptable.
  382
  It would be nice to hear the Government suggest that this may be a way forward. I do not know the answer to the question of hybridity, but no doubt the Minister will have a reply. I hope that we shall hear a positive reply.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, urged me to rush along to the person I have to obey. I have done that and she told me not to accept the amendment! It is interesting that the passionate support which the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gives to the amendment does not extend to calling on his troops to vote for it. But we have become used to that during the past weeks.
  As always, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, put his points most moderately, courteously and persuasively, but he failed to persuade me. He suggests that there should be another 90 Peers in addition to the Weatherill Peers who would be entitled to speak but not to vote. Bearing in mind that we spent eight days in Committee on a one-clause Bill, I thought that there might be some attraction in stopping them speaking and just letting them vote! I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, was putting his two questions to me. Obviously he was putting them to the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, so I need not trouble to answer them.
  This is now at least the eighth time—one forgets; time goes so quickly when one is having fun—that we have debated the idea that there should be some Peers with different voting rights to other Peers. We have had at least 16 different amendments. That is in addition to the rather truncated debates we had on Clause 2 and other alternative schemes. It is right to say that after all this time we have decided very few things. We have decided two at least: first, that the House does not wish to see a two-Writ system, which is what the noble Lord, in effect, contemplates; and, secondly, that the House does not wish to alter the numbers in Clause 2.
  I therefore cannot support the amendments. I invite the noble Lord—as I believe he has indicated—not to put them to the vote.
  9.45 p.m.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his response to my amendment. He called it a humble amendment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to it as having a certain grandeur. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, realised that I was trying to double the number of hereditary Peers in this House for the period of the interim Chamber.
  As regards the suggestion that the amendment is contrary to the intention of the Bill, nothing could be more contrary to the intention of the Bill than the Weatherill amendment. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that possibly the reason my noble Leader did not invite his friends behind him to join me in the Division Lobby was that he sensed I would not divide tonight. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Norrie Lord Norrie moved Amendment No. 58DA:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  CONSULTATION WITH CROWN DEPENDENCIES AND OVERSEAS TERRITORIES
  (" . Before the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed the Secretary of State shall confirm to both Houses of Parliament that full consultation about the impact of this Act has taken place with the relevant authorities in the United Kingdom Crown Dependencies, in Britain's Overseas Territories and in the countries in which the terms of the Statute of Westminster 1931 may apply.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 58DA I shall speak also to Amendment No. 63A and its listed schedules and Amendments Nos. 78A to D tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
  In my previous speeches on the Bill and with my noble friend Lord Chesham I introduced the matter of the Commonwealth in relation to a reform of this House. I do so again because of the concerns about the apparent lack of consultations with the 53 governments of the Commonwealth states. I have widened the amendment to take into consideration the needs of the United Kingdom Crown dependencies and Britain's overseas territories. I do not believe that their views will be taken fully into account.
  For Commonwealth states, the purpose of the amendment is to reflect the spirit and intent of the Statute of Westminster and the various Acts following that Statute so that this Bill does not become law until consultations with all the Commonwealth states, Crown dependencies and overseas territories have been concluded.
  The amendment is introduced also in recognition of the courteous and friendly understanding by which each nation respects the laws of others, without prejudice to its own rights and interests; that is the Comity of Nations. It is also designed to uphold the constitutional rights of those hereditary Peers who are citizens of the Commonwealth states other than the United Kingdom as well as those of the Crown dependencies and Britain's overseas territories.
  There has been some acrimony in the debates, both in and out of Parliament, about the effect of the Bill on the sovereign's hereditary rights. Much of that focuses upon the effect of the Act upon the sovereign's rights and titles. Some Commonwealth citizens in authority now complain about the pressure exerted on them to extract consent to the changes that the Act would make to the sovereign's rights and titles.
  There seems to be a weaving of webs—of distraction and confusion—about the interpretation of simple facts. However, I cannot regard pronouncements made by Ministers as given law. Therefore I continue to challenge and differ with them. I see that the lack of support for many of the amendments proposed, designed to improve the Bill or to acknowledge existing laws and international commitments, allows the Government seemingly to ignore the legal rights of Commonwealth states and citizens. Perhaps I should be content to leave these matters to the courts.
  However, perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention to some basic facts about the Commonwealth. It has a population of 1.7 billion; that is one-third of the world's total population. The composition of its peoples is overwhelmingly not Caucasian. This Parliament is representative of less than 3.5 per cent of the Commonwealth population, yet it now legislates on matters concerning more than 96 per cent of the Commonwealth peoples who are certainly ethnic majorities. That is not a democratic credential for the Bill.
  In my speech at Committee stage, I stated that this Bill purports to remove the sovereign's hereditary right to create hereditary Peers with rights to attend this House. It is clear that the sovereign's right to create hereditary Peers as they now exist, will not be precisely the same if this Bill is enacted into law.
  Allow me to draw an analogy to illustrate my issue by use of a question; namely, that as citizens we are generally all entitled to leave our unencumbered property and possessions to whomever we wish. However, if Parliament enacted a law which changed that right by saying that we may not leave our property to a political party, would that right be precisely the same after such a Bill was passed, as it was before? The answer is clearly "No". Thus, removing from hereditary Peers the right to attend and sit in this House, also removes the sovereign's right to create a hereditary Peer who has such a right. The former right is not the same as the latter. Thus there would be a change to the sovereign's hereditary titles and rights. That being so, we must look to the statutes which protect the sovereign's rights; in this instance, to the Statute of Westminster 1931.
  Several eminent counsel have advised that this Bill cannot be lawfully presented for the Royal Assent unless and until the consent to the changes to the sovereign's titles have been given by the Commonwealth states. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, will wish to expand on that matter. It has been well argued that the sovereign's hereditary title as Duke of Lancaster has been changed by the Act because as a Royal Duke, the sovereign is barred from attending and sitting here. That surely is a change to the sovereign's title. That dukedom's rights would no longer be what they were before the Act. Thus a specific hereditary right of the sovereign will be removed by the Act.
  The Statute of Westminster 1931 is of immense and profound importance in our constitution. It represents, indeed enacts, a solemn promise made by our United Kingdom Parliament and a former sovereign not to legislate unilaterally on matters touching upon the Crown and the succession. The Government have not reported to Parliament, despite requests in this House, concerning any discussions, consultations or dialogues with any Commonwealth country concerning the effects of the Act. It is claimed that there is considerable disquiet among Commonwealth countries about this Bill. If that is unfounded, surely the Government can assist to allay concerns and fears by reporting to Parliament about their dialogues with the Commonwealth concerning this Bill. I ask that for a second time.
  It is of equal importance to recognise that this Bill seeks to remove specific rights of Commonwealth citizens who are hereditary Peers, and in so doing it also seeks to legislate for states such as India, Canada and New Zealand. That being so, the Act would breach the Commonwealth principle of equality between nations incorporated in the Indian Independence Act 1947. That is just one example.
  Both amendments provide recognition for the "comity of nations", designed to ensure proper respect for the constitutional rights of those hereditary Peers who are citizens of Commonwealth members other than the United Kingdom. The Commonwealth has a proper and legitimate interest in the Bill. As one example, for the 16 Commonwealth countries of which the sovereign is also head of state, their interest is that the Act would remove their sovereign's hereditary rights and those of the heir.
  There are many hereditary Peers who live in the Commonwealth and who are citizens of Commonwealth states. This Parliament, by its own enactments, does not have the power to legislate for the removal of the rights of Commonwealth citizens without their consent. So, from the heroic island of Malta to the solitary St. Helena; the far-distant Pitcairns; the rich prairies of Canada and the teeming cities of the Indian sub-continent, all Commonwealth members are equally to be involved in consultation and consent. That is an enormous but dutiful task to be accomplished. To proceed further with this Bill in its present form without seeking and obtaining the consent of all Commonwealth members would be an affront to those sovereign states.
  It is already regarded as yet one further stealth manoeuvre away from the Commonwealth towards a so-called more democratic and perfect Union, an exclusively European one upon which British voters have recently thrown doubt, to say the least. The stealth is revealed as a step into the new Euroland and away from the Commonwealth, to the members of which we owe so much.
  Are we really confronted by the spectre of a Government who are so determined to exercise their parliamentary majority and pass laws clearly in violation of international obligations? What example would this give to other states about violating international obligations and laws? What example would it be to our fellow citizens?
  Finally, I am most conscious of my oath of allegiance to our sovereign. It is my personal belief that by supporting this Bill without amending it as I am proposing, I would violate that sworn oath which requires me to uphold the rights and titles of the sovereign and her heirs and successors. If my amendment is not accepted, the Act will change and diminish the sovereign's rights. That being so, I will keep my oath to uphold those rights, and I recommend the same view to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, it will be well nigh impossible to match the speech presented by
  386
  the noble Lord, Lord Norrie. He has certainly set me a difficult task, but it is not insurmountable. The task is to remind your Lordships of the significant passages in the Coronation Oath, Letters Patent, the 1926 Report on the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of that year and the 1931 Statute of Westminster II.
  We have been reminded that we have seven hereditary peers who are Canadian. We also have, as a matter of interest, four New Zealanders, 11 Australians and several others from the other countries that your Lordships will see. From St. Lucia, we have one; from South Africa, four; from Zimbabwe, one. That is just to add a few. I am delighted to see the number of life Peers who represent the culture, the ethnic feelings, the beliefs and the talents of the Commonwealth countries so closely associated with the monarchy.
  On 2nd June 1953, Her Majesty the Queen laid her hand on the Holy Gospel and solemnly promised to govern the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon (as it was then known), and of the possessions and other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective law and customs – the Comity of Nations.
  Whether we be hereditary or life Peers, the opening lines of our Writ of Summons reinforce the dignity and the status of our monarch:
  "Elizabeth II by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other Realms and Territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith".
  The noble Lord, Lord Norrie, spoke of the number within the stated Comity of Nations—53. As your Lordships will see, these are listed in Schedules 78A. B, C and D. At the 1926 Imperial Conference, it was stated,
  "We think it should be placed on record that the Constitutional Practice is that legislation by the Parliament of Westminster applying to a Dominion should only be passed with the consent of the Dominion concerned".
  This was the basis for Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1931, which provides:
  "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof—.
  Our foreign policy, our defence policy and our policy relating to international trade are promoted by our monarch and debated in our Parliament (in this House) and take account of views expressed by Commonwealth Peers; Peers from the Comity of Nations. How can that Comity of Nations have any confidence in the monarch's position, her sovereign status as stated in the Coronation Oath, when Her Majesty's Government propose agreements, legislation, which are tantamount to contradicting her Oath, and ours for that matter?
  During the previous government's tenure of office it was proposed to share the governance, the sovereignty of Northern Ireland, between Dublin and Westminster. No one knows what will happen to the sovereignties of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man with a

  387
  Government who surrender so much to Europe: corpus juris now replaces habeas corpus; the pound sterling is an endangered species.
  We admire the way that the Gurkhas volunteer as members of Her Majesty's forces and the way that the Government have safeguarded and guaranteed financial support to the families of the Gurkhas recently killed in Kosovo. Nepal is not part of the Commonwealth.
  Please let us riot forget what our Commonwealth friends—that Comity of Nations, our family—did for our monarch in the last two World Wars. Please let us not surrender our long-term friends piecemeal. To avoid conflict within the Commonwealth as a result of failure to consult before presenting the House of Lords Reform Bill, exacerbated should the Bill be passed, Her Majesty's Government must surely consider re-phrasing the Coronation Oath, revising the Statute of Westminster II and reviewing the Oath of Allegiance taken by every Peer.
  I should like the House to remember the lines of J.M. Edmonds who, when reflecting on our commitment to the Commonwealth, said:
  "When you go home tell them of us and say, for their tomorrow we gave our today.
  Went the day well? We died and never knew, but, good or ill, Freedom, we died for you".
  The monarchy, the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth are the living history of us all and the heritage that assures our future. All Members of this House, as an integral part of Parliament, are to a large measure their custodians. That living history this House must continue to protect. I support the amendment.
  10 p.m.
  Lord Newby: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, sits down, perhaps he could answer a question which might clarify his amendment. If a parliament of any of the members of the Commonwealth set out in later amendments, say, in subsection (1A) of Amendment No. 63A—that is, Commonwealth countries of which the Queen is not head of state—put down a resolution opposing the Bill and stating that it should not come into force, is the noble Lord really saving that, on a wet Friday afternoon in Vanuatu, Kiribati, The Gambia or Fiji, there may, so to speak, be a Private Members' debate on the Bill? That is implausible but not impossible. We know from what the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has said that there is considerable disquiet on this issue across the Commonwealth. But is the noble Lord really saying that if the Kiribati Parliament passed a resolution that it wished this Bill not to pass, this Bill should not pass?
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I can probably help the noble Lord—he is quite right to ask me that question—by asking him to read Hansard tomorrow. He will understand that I was talking about the courtesy—the diplomacy most of all—of alerting all of the nations in the schedules of what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government on such matters as a constitutional change of this nature. I hope that will help the noble Lord to a degree—I can see that it will not
  388
  help the noble Lord the slightest bit—and of course I quite understand that there are certain dominions which are quite respectful (in fact most respectful) of this Parliament. They will obviously not try to interfere, but they should be alerted to what we are doing. That is why I read out the Statute of Westminster et al.
  Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I rise to support these amendments because they re-emphasise the importance of the Commonwealth, the United Kingdom Crown dependencies and British overseas territories. Perhaps at this stage I should declare an interest because I was born in Malta more years ago than I care to reveal to your Lordships. I commend these amendments to the House.
  Viscount Waverley: My Lords, consultation at any time is always a useful and worthwhile step. In this case, with so much at stake, I believe that it is an absolute imperative. A way forward must be identified which commands the wholehearted support of all sides.
  The issues are indeed complex—I refer in particular to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norrie—and raise in my mind unanswered questions. If the Statute of Westminster relates only to those territories named as dominions in 1931 there might be no case to answer. If, however, the relationship since 1931 with our dependencies, realms and the wider Commonwealth has so evolved as to create serious knock-on effects in capitals across the Commonwealth, clearly we have a duty to scrutinise closely and to consult.
  What are the implications for the realms, for instance, those independent countries where the Queen is head of state, whose final court of appeal is the Privy Council and whose legislation is closely, if not inextricably, linked to ours? Clearly changes for us must signify changes for them at least. This is not to suggest that any kind of veto power is inherent in our relations with the Commonwealth family. Rather I believe that in the interests of maintaining and fostering the vital "partnerships" which Britain has carefully developed over the decades, one can do no less than to support the calls for consultation—always with Britain's best interest in full view.
  Lord Chesham: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie has mentioned my name in connection with this group of amendments and I am grateful to him for that. I am slightly surprised to note that when we are discussing something like the Commonwealth we do not have a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister present. I think that perhaps that is an indication of the Government's attitude towards it. I believe that the Government have been totally discourteous as far as the Commonwealth is concerned. I cannot understand why the Commonwealth countries were not consulted—that is not too difficult a task—unless the Government believe that the Commonwealth is not important. I do not believe that it is too late for consultation to take place. I ask the Government to take steps to repair the damage that is being caused by their attitude.

  389
  There is conflicting legal advice as to the requirement for consultation; however, common decency should require the Government to do so.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I wish in a few words to support from my heart the amendment. This is not a question of "the Act shall not pass"; it is a question that the Act should not pass before there has at least been consultation with the Commonwealth. The question was asked but the difference is fundamental. All one is asking for is consultation. Having served alongside forces of the Commonwealth, I feel that that is something for which one should be entitled to ask. The Government should take this on board. The speech of my noble friend Lord Norrie was reasoned, well researched and worthy of the serious attention of the Government. I ask that that is given.
  There are occasions when a government—any government—seem to forget or omit something of consequence in the drafting of a Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will remember, that happened during the human rights legislation. I tabled an amendment on the ecclesiastical aspect, which had not been considered. That matter was resolved amicably and went to sleep. Then I tabled an amendment on the impact on the Armed Forces. I was not supported by my own Front Bench; I never am. I do not expect to be; I am an independent Conservative. In the result, I received a letter from the Ministers and they set up the very kind of court which I had hoped and expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, might perhaps be set up.
  The point is not whether one won or succeeded, or whether one was supported by any political party, on a question such as this. It is not a political question; it is not a question for a political party. The point is that in the drafting of a Bill any government can fail to appreciate a matter of fundamental importance. I respectfully ask the Government to take the speech and the amendment of my noble friend on board.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I expect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, having heard what has been said, is rather wishing that he had asked a Minister from the FCO to come and answer this particular debate.
  I commend the tremendous amount of work and research that my noble friend Lord Norrie has put into this subject and the eloquent way in which he introduced the amendment. He made a plea to the Government—perhaps "plea" is too strong, but certainly a request—that the questions he posed should be answered. He gave the impression that they have not been answered before. Perhaps I may urge on the Government Front Bench that I fully endorse the questions of my noble friend Lord Norrie. If he does not get a proper reply, I suspect that he will want to bring the matter back at Third Reading. I do not know whether or not noble Lords opposite want that to happen, but that is what I suspect my noble friend will do.
  Amendment No. 58DA asks for something very simple, an element of consultation with the countries of the Commonwealth. If, as my noble friend Lord
  390
  Campbell of Alloway pointed out, a mistake has been made in the drafting of the Bill, the Government do not necessarily have to accept the amendment to put that right. They could simply give a commitment to consult. I can see that there is no harm in doing so.
  10.15 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have had this debate on a number of previous occasions and the same points have been raised again. They obviously cause concern so I will go through each of the points and indicate what seems to me to be the answer to them legally. I should also make it clear that there is obviously no intention on the part of this Government to do anything in any way to undervalue the Commonwealth or to insult it. Any suggestion to that effect is, with the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, completely misconceived.
  Perhaps I may deal with the three points that have been made which are said to give rise to legal confusion and on which apparently the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, has the advice of eminent counsel that they require consultation with the Commonwealth countries.
  First, Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster, which is the foundation of these amendments, says, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, said:
  "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof—.
  This Bill, if it becomes an Act, does not extend to any dominion. The fact that certain Members of this House may have dominion citizenship does not mean that this Act extends to that dominion.
  I give two examples which demonstrate the point. We pass Acts in this country which affect the criminal law. They will affect Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians in this country. We do not consult the dominions about that. We are not required to by Section 4.
  Another example is that we make laws in this country about the ownership of property in this country. The fact that there is an Australian citizen in Australia who might have a right under that law in relation to property in this country does not lead us to consult these legislatures before we pass those Acts. There is no difference between those situations and this situation. Therefore, Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster does not provide the foundation of the case which the noble Lord has sought to put.
  A secondary point has been raised. It is said that there is a debate between lawyers—eminent counsel—about what is meant by the word "dominion" in Section 4. According to Section 10 of the Act:
  "The Dominions to which this section applies are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Dominion of New Zealand and Newfoundland".
  As far as I am concerned, that is pretty clear. Despite that, the amendment refers to 13 countries and 16 provinces and states. I cannot think what possible debate

  391
  there could be about the scope of Section 4 though I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, that eminent counsel has advised that there is some debate about what this means.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. It is an important point as regards Section 4, but the House may have noticed that I did not take that point. I am not an eminent counsel. I am taking the point of the fundamental relationship between the Commonwealth and our country and I am asking only for consultation. I am not interested in legalistic arguments. I am arguing on the basis of a relationship which is of enduring importance.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments are based on the Statute of Westminster. The noble Lord is suggesting that we consult our friends in the Commonwealth about changes to the composition of the second Chamber in our legislature. Are there other allies that we would consult as well? With the greatest of respect, it is a matter for this country to decide. It is not a matter on which we should consult our allies, take into account their views and then proceed. With the greatest respect for the sincerity and passion with which the noble Lord put forward his point of view, I think it is misconceived.
  Perhaps I may go on to the legal position on which the two noble Lords rely. Their last point relates to the position of Her Majesty. I assume that the position is that they are relying on the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster because there is no other part on which they could rely. It states:
  "it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well as of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
  The Bill, as is obvious, does not affect the succession to the throne; nor does it affect one jot the Royal style and titles. Her Majesty's title as Duke of Lancaster is not affected in any way by the Bill. I should say in parenthesis that that title is not the title which gives Her Majesty the right to sit in the House.
  I have dealt with all of the points raised in relation to the Statute of Westminster. With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, Lord Norrie and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, both of whom have carried out immense research in relation to it, I suggest that there is nothing whatever in the points they have made in relation to the Statute of Westminster. There has been no disrespect to the Commonwealth in relation to the passage of the Bill. There is no legal requirement with regard to any of the matters that they have raised. With the greatest respect, I suggest that they withdraw the amendment and do not proceed with it at Third Reading.
  Lord Chesham: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, does he not understand the difference between courtesy, disrespect and a legal requirement?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I have explained what the legal position is and I have explained what is our position as a matter of substance in relation to the passage of the Bill. With the exception of what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said in his speech, until now the position has always been put on the basis of the Statute of Westminster. That is how it has been argued. With the greatest respect, there is no foundation for the amendment in that. Equally, I have dealt with the arguments advanced that we should consult our Commonwealth colleagues in relation to something which, in my respectful submission, affects only this country.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned my name. By leave, may I ask him whether he will accept that I accept wholly his analysis that it is for us to decide? All that I am suggesting is that it would be reasonable and appropriate to consult. That is all.
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not out of order.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords. I accept that the noble Lord accepts my legal analysis of the position.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, if the Government are not prepared to insult, why will they not consult?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thought that I had explained painstakingly to the noble Lord why there is no legal obligation to consult and why, separately from the legal position, we take the view that it is not appropriate to consult. I could deliver my speech all over again—
  Noble Lords: No!
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: But I detect that the House would not be enthusiastic in that respect.
  Lord Norrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining that yet again, but at this stage I reserve the right to bring the matter back on Third Reading, if I have to do so. I am in consultation with High Commissions, and I should like to see what they say about it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 [Repeals]:
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 58E:
  Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert—
  (".—(1) The enactments mentioned in Schedule (Amendments) are amended as specified there.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 59:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
  (" . From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be known as "Members of the Interim Chamber" and shall be styled as "Member [surname]" in any proceedings of the House.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment was, for very good reasons, decoupled from Amendment No. 50, and the House was notified of that. Many of the arguments that I was going to deploy were used on Amendment No. 51 by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Therefore, I can be very brief. I do not expect any great response from the Government, because we divided on that amendment.
  I say only that the reason why my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley chose the interim House was to remind those who will be in the successor Chamber that it is the hereditary Peers who are going this time, but on the next occasion it will be the life Peers. If the Government really believe that a long time is being taken with this Bill, they will find when it comes to the stage-two Bill that they have a considerably longer programme ahead of them because of the number of life Peers that will need to be appointed on a working basis in order to fulfil what the Government have said.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, again, this is an amendment about names. I said last time that we are the "House of Lords"; let us keep on calling ourselves that.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 60:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  SALARIES OF MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER
  (" . The salaries payable to the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be payable only to those office holders who were eligible to receive a salary on the day before this Act comes into force.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I may not be quite as brief as on the last amendment, but I shall be brief. We had a very good discussion on this amendment in Committee, when I was particularly taken by what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, although his amendment was more restrictive as to future emoluments than is this amendment, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
  I seek a little further clarification from the Government as to exactly what their intentions are. As I understand it, at present the only salaried Peers are Ministers with departmental responsibilities, and they are funded from the departmental funds. The Opposition Leader and Chief Whip are funded from the Consolidated Fund, and the House pays a percentage of the salary of the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman and Deputy Chairmen of Committees.
  Without question, there will be a larger regular attending House than we have now. I have no doubt that the time of the Back-Bench part-time Peer is coming rapidly to an end. The number of life Peers that will have to be created to fulfil the Government's commitments which we discussed earlier will mean that regular attendance will increase. Already it is quite difficult to find somewhere to sit in order to take part in Question Time if one is not here immediately after Prayers. Many of the debates are now so long that it is becoming increasingly difficult to try to do something outside the House and take part in the work of the House. Even debates at Committee stage, which were normally long lasting until the matter had been fully discussed, are being arbitrarily curtailed.
  Yesterday, those of us who served on a committee found trying to find the appropriate committee room rather like playing musical chairs. That was because of the number of committees sitting, which meant that we were moved from one committee room to another. Those problems will only get worse.
  In Committee, in response to Amendment No. 73, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the fact that we should need to examine the facilities of this House to enable it to operate in an effective way. Clearly, those facilities are already stretched by the number of regular attenders, and will be stretched considerably more in the future.
  This House is cheap to run in comparison with another place and the European Parliament. Many of us do not wish to see costs increased as a result of further salaries being paid. I should like confirmation from the Government on that point. I beg to move.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my Amendment No. 71 is coupled with this one. It makes a slightly different point. First, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks of my noble friend Lord Caithness. This is an inexpensive House to run—I shall not say "cheap". The average cost per Peer is something like £35,000. That is 10 per cent of what an MP costs, at £350,000; and an MEP costs nearly £1 million. So the taxpayer receives extremely good value from this House. Last year, some 4,000 amendments were sent back to another place, and most were agreed.
  What is the Government's view on the longer term financing of the interim House? When I say "longer term", that is not to interfere with a possible stage two House. At what stage will they wish to involve the Senior Salaries Review Board in regard to the salaries, expenses and allowances paid to the groups mentioned by my noble friend?
  The point behind this is that, as 50 per cent of the active House will be leaving, a certain amount of pressure will be brought to bear on those who are left behind. Since most Members of this House are, by definition, part-time, what adjustments will be necessary to compensate Peers for possibly giving up more lucrative work outside this House in order to do the valuable work of this place?

  395
  I shall be grateful to hear the noble and learned Lord's response, both to this point and to my noble friend's amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can tell my noble friend Lord Caithness that there is not the slightest likelihood of the Government accepting this amendment—first, because they do not accept amendments of this genre; and, secondly, because it is obvious that in due course Members of this House will be paid. Otherwise the Government would never get anyone to do the work. What will happen is that they will be paid, they will want more secretaries and research assistants, and then bigger premises, and so on and so forth. What is a very inexpensive Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde described it, will become an expensive parliamentary building. I should be interested to hear from the noble and learned Lord who will reply whether it is the intention in due course to pay Members of this House.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I have taken the view for many years that the great value of Back-Benchers in either House is that they are not whole-time Members, but they bring to the work of the House the experience that they gain outside in various occupations—in the professions, in business, in farming or whatever else it may be. If Members of this House are to become salaried whole-timers, the value of the work of the Back-Benchers will be diminished. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I totally support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Renton. I hope that the Back-Benchers will never be paid anything more than their attendance expenses. We should get the wrong sort of people. They would not be worth the light.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the concerns raised by these two amendments are similar and our response to both is effectively the same. Noble Lords have made it clear that they believe that the existing system of remuneration works perfectly well for the present House and will continue to work in the transitional House. We agree. The Government have no intention of making any changes in this respect for the transitional House. This is not the appropriate moment to change the financial arrangements of the second Chamber. The Bill as it stands leaves those arrangements completely untouched. In the light of what I have said about the Government's intentions, the amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, appear to me to be unnecessary.
  The question of remuneration is one for the longer term. The Royal Commission, in the consultation paper it issued in March, sought views on this specific issue. The Labour Party, for its part, made clear its views in its submission to the Royal Commission, as was explained in Committee. In the context of the wider examination of the role and functions, as well as the composition, of the fully reformed House, obviously it
  396
  makes sense to look at remuneration, and the Labour Party therefore welcomes the Royal Commission's interest in those matters. But in the shorter term, the Bill does no more than remove hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. The role and functions of the House will remain unchanged in the transitional phase, and so will the terms and conditions of its Members.
  With those assurances, and bearing in mind that redundant provisions give legislation a bad name, I hope that the noble Earl will agree to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for his reply and for further clarifying the Government's position as set out in Committee. As was pointed out by my noble friends who were kind enough to support my amendment, as long as there are part-time Back-Benchers who can contribute fully to this House, and as long as the House is organised to enable them to do that, I think the noble and learned Lord need have no fear. My fear is that the Bill will alter the composition of the House and drive out the part-time Back-Bench Peer. It is through the revised composition of the House that pressure would be put on the Government to pay salaries, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out.
  I am grateful for the statement on government policy as regards the interim House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Perth The Earl of Perth moved Amendment No. 61:
  After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
  DECLARATORY
  (" . Nothing in this Act affects the power of the House of Lords to veto any bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to know that I shall be brief on this amendment, which was grouped with Amendment No. 46. There was a long debate on the two amendments and Amendment No. 46 was passed by a considerable majority.
  Both amendments are concerned in different ways that the life of a Parliament should not exceed five years without the House of Lords so agreeing—if the House of Lords uses its power of veto on this point. I know that my amendment is not watertight but it provides time for public opinion and the all-powerful media to focus on what is happening. The amendment provides for a statutory declaration written into the Bill which, it is to be hoped, would make the government of the clay hesitate and think again before trying to extend a Parliament's life.
  I look upon Amendments Nos. 46 and 61 as one and the same; they provide a belt-and-braces defence against an unknown future—perhaps another Cromwell. I absolutely accept the word of the Government that they have no intention to seek to extend the life of a Parliament. That has been made clear in writing by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for which I am grateful, and in

  397
  other ways. Remembering the passing of Amendment No. 46, I very much hope that the Government will also accept Amendment No. 61, which is linked with it.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is of very great value and guidance. It may well be that he does not intend to divide the House upon this matter tonight, but if the amendment can be regarded by the Government as valuable guidance for the future the noble Earl will have performed a good service. The amendment is much wider in effect than Amendment No. 46; indeed, I would have voted for it had there been an opportunity at this late hour. It is very important that the Government understand that it is the will of the House within the terms not only of Amendment No. 46 but Amendment No. 61 that there should be no attempt to extend the life of a Parliament.
  Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I spoke in opposition to Amendment No. 46 and voted against it. On the other hand. I support this amendment. If it is the intention of the Government—as I vaguely suspect it may be—to reverse their defeat on Amendment No. 46 at a later stage, I very much commend to them Amendment No. 61. I suspect that whoever is to reply to the debate will say that the amendment is unnecessary because it already exists in law. In technical terms, I accept that that answer would be correct, but there is no great harm in occasionally enacting something that is merely declaratory of present law. There is undoubtedly suspicion, whether or not justified—I do not believe that it is—that the consequence of this Bill may be to make it easier for the Septennial Act, which is now quinquennial, to be repealed. That suspicion may be fortified by the reversal of Amendment No. 46 either at a later stage or in another place. I commend to the Government the idea that if they accepted Amendment No. 61 nobody could be suspicious of their intentions if thereafter they deleted Amendment No. 46. It may be unnecessary, but it is wholly desirable and totally harmless.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, this amendment is much neater, more easily comprehensible, and therefore much more user-friendly so far as concerns the general public, than Amendment No. 46, which was passed earlier today by a majority of 106. Unlike Amendment No. 46, this amendment is not open to the objection that it creates two classes of Peer. I trust, therefore, that it will be accepted without hesitation, but if by some mischance it is not I hope that my noble friend will press it to a Division.
  10.45 p.m.
  Baroness Strange: My Lords, as always, I wish to support my noble friend, kinsman and clan chief.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that the arguments on Amendment No. 46 and on this amendment are disparate. Let us not go into the details.
  398
  On Amendment No. 46—and the question goes to both amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked a perfectly reasonable question: "Why, suddenly, do you, the Conservative Party, ask for a fundamental constitutional safeguard when you did nothing for 18 years, and now the Labour Party have arrived on the scene?" I think that is the question he asked. I longed to answer it but there was not time and no one wanted to listen.
  The answer is quite simple. Although we did nothing for 18 years, at least we did nothing. What the Labour Party has done is to upset totally the constitutional apple cart with devolution, this Bill, and no doubt other things. There is a new drive to alter the whole constitutional structure. It is because of that that I respectfully suggest that it is reasonable to ask for a fundamental constitutional safeguard along the lines of these amendments.
  I accept that the arguments in support of both amendments are disparate, but I support the argument on this amendment.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, noble Lords on the Government Front Bench will be relieved to hear, I trust, that I shall not engage in a robust defence of Amendment No. 46, although it well deserves it. Nor shall I rise to the fly so deftly cast over me by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. I simply say that the Opposition believe that Amendment No. 61 happily complements Amendment No. 46; and we shall be very pleased if the Government will agree to include that on the face of the Bill—as a declaratory statement but one that the Bill thoroughly merits.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot support any of my noble kinsmen in this House because I have none. But I have an argument, which may sometimes be of greater assistance.
  Quite simply, this amendment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, accepted, has no effect. It simply declares that the Bill does not affect the power of the House of Lords to veto the amendment or suspension of the Septennial Act, as it originally was. Since the Bill says nothing about powers, self evidently the Bill as it presently stands does not affect your Lordships' powers.
  It is not true that apparently meaningless expressions in legislation are always necessarily harmless. They are not. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, asked for a fundamental constitutional safeguard. One can have that, as I said earlier, in a written constitution which is not able to be amended except with certain majorities. But a bare statement of the self evident, such as this, is neither fundamental, nor a safeguard, nor particularly constitutional.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he did not feel able or inclined to defend Amendment No. 46. I paraphrase what he said. The amendment has been

  399
  described as a belt and braces provision. If Amendment No. 61 were the braces alone, the trousers would fall down, because it is utterly and completely valueless.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not the convention in this House to accept amendments in the same grouping as the first amendment which has been agreed?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, my Lords, and that is why the noble Earl, Lord Perth, scrupulously developed this theme and his argument on Amendment No. 61, which is different. That is why I have responded in this way. The noble Earl was correct and I am correct.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I thank all those who have supported my amendment. It may well be that it has no effect in the sense of having a statutory right or preventing something happening in relation to the duration of a Parliament. However, it will undoubtedly ensure that people think again. "What is all this about?". If Parliament wants to extend its life, it is important that the country as a whole and the media know what is happening. The amendment is designed to achieve that.
  Even if the amendment has no effect, in the light of the support that I have received I should like to test the opinion of the House.
  10.51 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 61) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 83.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Annaly, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Berners, B.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Monson, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Carnock, L.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Coleraine, L.

  Perth, E. [Teller.]

  Craigmyle, L.

  Renton, L.

  Cross, V.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Ferrers, E.

  Shannon, E.

  Gray, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Strange, B. [Teller.]

  Kinnoull, E.

  Swansea, L.

  Kintore, E.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wise, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Blease, L.

  Addington, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Bragg, L.

  Alli, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Amos, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Bach, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Berkeley, L

  Chandos, V.

  Blackstone, B.

  Christopher, L.

  400

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Judd, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract. L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  David, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris. L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Newby, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Rea, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Richard, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Hampton, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Simon, V.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Simon of Glaisdaie, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Hughes, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L. [Teller.]

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Whitty, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
  11.1 p.m
  [Amendment No.62 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [commencement and transitional provision]:
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 64A:
  Page 2, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("Sections 1 to 4 (including Schedule (Amendments) and the Schedule)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords. I must inform the House that if Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 66A.
  Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 2, line 3, after ("shall") insert ("not").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 65, with the leave of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 66. I understand that some of my noble friends may want to speak to Amendment No. 66A at the same time, bearing in mind the strictures of the Chairman of Committees with regard to my amendments and the ones that follow.
  These amendments are not tied to a specific date but require the commencement of Clause 1 to be deferred until after the Royal Commission has reported. I believe, as do many others, that this Bill is being brought into

  401
  force with too much haste, without time being given to consider the implications both for this House and the other place.
  The effects of the Bill will not only touch on this House; they will inevitably lead to a change in the relations between the two Houses of Parliament and that change needs to be carefully thought through. The Government have not suggested that any such consideration has taken place; certainly, we have heard no suggestions as to what the future legislative relationships are likely to be. Are we not entitled to be given some idea of how things are likely to develop? It must be right that, having set up the Royal Commission, the Government should allow time for due consideration to be given to its recommendations before doing anything so fundamental as turning out so many of your Lordships who have served so well over so long a time.
  I understand that the Government envisage a Joint Committee of both Houses being set up to consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission. When is that to sit? How long will it take? Perhaps consideration should be given to delaying the operation of this Bill before those reports are available. I beg to move.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps the Minister who is to reply to the debate will be good enough to remind the House on how many occasions we have debated this specific issue. Is it four, five, six or a great deal more?
  I will say one thing to the Leader of the House: when the interim House comes into operation, one urgent matter which should be put before the Procedure Committee is a measure to prevent episodes of this sort taking place again and again. It is an abuse of the procedures of this House and should be opposed with all the energy at our command.
  Lord Boardman: My Lords, with regard to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, it is strange, or perhaps not so strange, that those Benches do not appear to be interested in what is going to happen at the end of this contretemps. They are going on blindly. In Amendment No. 66A, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I are both inquiring as to what future lies ahead. The amendment is designed to allow Parliament to obtain a view of what is proposed for this House before this House is constitutionally radically altered. It is a logical move. Frankly, we all want the same thing. We want a House of Lords which is sensible, rightly composed and has the right powers. I am sure that that is the ambition of us all. We may have different thoughts about how it may be achieved, but that is our ambition.
  The Royal Commission will put suggestions to us. The intention of my amendment is that when the Royal Commission has done that, a Joint Committee will be set up—that proposal appears in the Labour Party manifesto and other documents—to look at the Royal Commission's proposals. When it has looked at these proposals and recommends that this Bill, which will
  402
  become an Act, should take effect, the trigger will be pulled. We shall move on to stage two, in the knowledge of what is before us and the prospects that lie ahead.
  I suggested a Joint Committee of both Houses. That suggestion was not part of my amendment previously but did appear in that of my noble friend Lady Blatch. I believe that it is sensible and right to have a Joint Committee of both Houses that can take a balanced view of the issues and a balanced view of the Royal Commission's findings and can say, "You now have the proposals before you; go ahead". The amendment provides that when this Bill becomes an Act, it will not take effect until the Joint Committee has seen the Royal Commission's report and has said "Fire!"
  I believe that the amendment is sensible; I believe that it will avoid the messy period of an interim House, which presents many complications and many uncertainties. It would be very nice to do what many of us have always wanted to do; that is, to get on to stage two without waiting too long for stage one. Yet we meet stage one, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has previously stressed to me, which implements the manifesto commitment relating to the alteration in the number of hereditary Peers, although a limited number of hereditary Peers will remain in the House.
  I therefore hope that the Government will see the merit of a delay while the Royal Commission looks at this, after which the Joint Committee can say, "This is all right for you all to look at", and we can then pull the trigger to enable the Act to take effect. We have been looking at this problem since 1911 without finding a solution. We can now provide the House with an opportunity to look at the Royal Commission's report, pull the trigger and say that this Act will now take effect. I beg to move.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, not for the first time we are entering into the argument on whether to have one or two stages. I recall a number of speeches made over the past six months during which this matter has been before us at one level or another. One speech that I will always remember was the cogent argument of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who reminded the House that he had an important position in the government in 1968 when they attempted to do that which Members opposite are urging should be done on this occasion. I am a little suspicious in thinking that this amendment is intended to achieve the same end. In 1968, the then Mr Callaghan said that he was convinced that they were wrong in trying to do everything.
  The main principle to which Members on this side of the House cleave, as I believe do many people outside the House, is that it is constitutionally and morally wrong to have a legislative Chamber which contains Members who are here not as a result of what they did but of what their ancestors did. I am not being offensive; it is a statement of fact. What we have seen today and on other days are the efforts of those who profess to want to take the two stages together but who, in my view, do not want any stage at all. They are using this opportunity to try to delay.

  403
  Let us look at the practical aspects involved. The noble Lord, Lord Boardman, says that we all want to get on to stage two and that there is not much difference between us. I can tell him that, if both he and I sat down with a piece of paper, we would probably come to substantially the same view as to what the second stage should contain. The Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, may very well produce the same recommendations and the Joint Committee may well recommend to us what we should do.
  We may, individually, have a view on what the second stage should contain but rather than contaminate the freedom of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and of the Joint Committee—or, indeed, of anyone else—by prejudicing what recommendations are made and by telling them what we want at the beginning, the Government have said, "Let those who have a view express it unfettered by saying in the back of their minds, know what the Government want, but there is going to be a battle on the Royal Commission, and in other ways'".
  I sincerely say to my noble friends on the other side of the House that I recognise that they are trying to use the opportunity, which they are entitled to do both parliamentarily and procedurally, to delay the implementation of stage one. I say to them very kindly that if they are really serious about having a better House of Lords or second Chamber, better shaped in their view and in that of others, the best way to achieve that is to agree not to oppose the implementation of stage one. I can assure them that Members on this side of the House will support them in getting a better stage two.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for myself, although I think I do include my noble friend, I can say that there is no question of opposing the implementation of stage one. The Government have entered into a so-called, "free-standing", as they call it, stage one, process, without any idea so far as to what will follow. That seems unbelievable not only to us on this side of the House but also to many people outside. Indeed, I was interested to meet some strangers only last week who were in the Gallery Listening to our debate. They simply could not believe that the Government had embarked on this kind of constitutional change without at least a strategic view about what should follow.
  Perhaps I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris Greenwich, who was, not for the first time, exasperated. Indeed, it is entirely characteristic of him to be in a bit of a lather about such matters. I can tell the noble Lord that the reason we have a First Reading, a Second Reading, a Committee stage, a Report stage, a Third Reading and then a Bill do now pass stage as regards each of the Bills that we consider, is so that arguments can be made and revisited. It also allows new points to be introduced and enables the Government to do what we had to do when we were on that side of the House when the very same people, including the noble Lord, who complained today about procedures, produced amendments, withdrew them,
  404
  brought them back, argued about them again, withdrew them again and, indeed, brought them back on Third Reading.
  However irksome I might have found it as a government Minister, I always felt at the end of the day that the arguments had been tried and tested and that we had been called to account. We had to defend the arguments. I have no conscience whatever in ensuring that the present-day Ministers defend their arguments. In this particular case, I do not think that they defend them terribly well.
  Time and again, the noble Baroness has talked about this so-called, "free-standing", one-off, Bill. Yet, at the same time, we are constantly being reminded that there is to be a stage two and that stage two will follow on from stage one very quickly. If that is the case, neither the amendment in the name of myself and my noble friend Lord Boardman nor indeed that in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne poses any threat whatever.
  If, as some of us are predicting, stage two will last rather longer, I believe that our amendments act as an impetus to make sure that the House addresses the importance of thinking through properly the formulation of the composition, powers and role of a second Chamber more quickly. Either way I believe that one of these two amendments—I have no strong feelings whether it is my amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—should be accepted.
  Further, if we take the noble Baroness at her word—I have no reason to doubt her word—the Royal Commission will report within about 10 weeks of the end of this parliamentary year. We do not know exactly when the parliamentary year will end but we know that there will certainly be an overspill if we are to cope with the business of the House that is yet to come before us, unless we are to sit in August and September. We know that there is a narrow gap here. We are not talking about great delays. If the Royal Commission is to report by December, the Joint Committee could do its work in January and could report by early spring and both Houses would have an opportunity to express a view about the work of the Royal Commission.
  Therefore I do not believe that these amendments prejudice the Bill at all. The Government know that they will get their Bill in its present form. We are simply talking about the implementation of stage one when at least a strategic view is taken about the powers, roles, function and composition of the second Chamber in stage two. I support my noble friend and I support my amendment. I would not go to the barricades to say that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne should not be accepted. However, I think the Government would do well to take one of these amendments seriously.
  11.15 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, this is not the first time that I have heard this argument; I think it is about the seventh so far. I am reminded of the Congressman in America who was sitting through a long, filibustering debate. He turned to his neighbour and said, "But everything has been said". His neighbour replied, "Yes,

  405
  but not everyone has yet said it". With great respect, that is what is going on here. There is nothing new to be said on this amendment. We have heard it all before and indeed we have heard it all from the same people.
  As the argument has been raised again I wish to make three brief points. First, the Labour Party's strategy for the reform of the House of Lords could not have been more specifically set out before the election. We said that we would do it in a number of stages. We said that we would have a freestanding Bill which would result in the removal of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. That is what we said. We then said that there would be a public consultation exercise either in the form of a joint—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, insists upon shaking her head at me. The previous time she did that, I said that the only effect of that is that her head shakes. With great respect—
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government have not delivered their manifesto pledge. They are not removing in stage one the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote in this House.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness is now nodding her head at me while standing up. I should have thought she would be pleased. As I understand the position, the Benches opposite stood up and cheered the Weatherill amendment. If anyone has the right to complain about the Weatherill amendment it is this side of the House, not the Benches opposite.
  What are we presented with tonight? Let us look at this amendment. The amendment suggests that this Bill, which was telegraphed in advance as a freestanding reform to be followed by subsequent reforms—I trust that there is no argument about that, not even from the noble Baroness—should not be introduced until,
  "the date fixed by a resolution of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which is appointed after the Royal Commission on the reform and composition of the House of Lords has reported".
  Let us suppose we went along with what has been suggested. Let us just think what would happen. The Royal Commission reports, the Joint Committee reports, and then what would happen? The noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, the Conservative Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would all say in this House, "You must not remove the hereditary peerage from this House until you have implemented the proposals of the Royal Commission. What is the point of doing it in two stages? We now know what will happen; let us do it in one gulp rather than in two". This is a transparent recipe for delay. I do not accept for one instant the somewhat lofty proposals which are put forward as the motives for this set of amendments.
  We have debated the matter, I think, seven times before. I do not have anything particularly fresh to say about it; I hope the House does not have anything particularly fresh to say about it; I hope it will come to the same conclusion tonight as it did on the last occasion.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is all very well for the noble Lord to refer to the Labour Party
  406
  manifesto and so on, but that was the basis upon which the Government supported the Bill—until they made a massive U-turn in total breach of the manifesto. After that, to have to listen today about the manifesto commitment and the will of the people is really, with respect to the noble Lord, a bit rich. He knows as well as I that the wish of two-thirds of the people is that there should be no stage one until they know what on earth is going to happen. The Government said, "We have a manifesto commitment, so we can override that"—and then they took a U-turn. They said, "Never mind. We like the Weatherill amendment; it suits us for various reasons. We have drafted it to our instructions and now we will do a U-turn". All right, one has to accept it. The House has accepted it. I have never accepted it; I defer to it.
  I support the amendment. I have never masked my opinions or my own personal views. I am not using it for some novel or strange purpose. I commend to the House the way it has been presented by my noble friend; I could not have presented it better. However, I maintain that the Government should defer to the wishes of the people. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that this argument was raised, explored and defeated on my referendum amendment; it was fully explored at the Committee stage; it requires no repetition. I defer to the House, but I still think that the argument is right—and I am sure that the people think the argument is right. The Government should defer to the wishes of the people. I support the amendment.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. I am one of the few Members who have not before taken part in this discussion, but I have looked back to see what my noble friend Lord Boardman said. There are not many people, in either House, with such a wealth of parliamentary experience as my noble friend. I respect the fact that he has consistently argued the valid, logical point that when one is dealing with a large constitutional change every effort should be made.
  We have now gone a long way with the Bill. It started probably as a monster and has got better and better. We are now getting towards some conclusions—which is good—but when it is possible that the Royal Commission will report even before the Bill reaches the touchline, it seems rather strange that we cannot stop, hold back and not let the Bill come into force until the constitutional changes have been properly examined. I see no harm in that.
  I was disappointed with the skilful, dazzling Welsh words used by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on the last occasion. In dismissing my noble friend's amendment, he said that the Bill was a desirable objective. I am sure that that came at the end of a long discussion. I am sure that he did not mean it in any wrongful spirit though it was said in a slightly dismissive way. The truth is that the Bill is a desirable political objective which is not really worthy of constitutional change of this nature.
  Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is sometimes necessary to return to an issue four, five or six times simply in order to obtain a proper response from

  407
  government. It strikes me that, when it comes to the quality of Ministers, the Government are better served in this House than they are in the other place. In the other place, Ministers quite simply do not answer questions. In this House they quite cleverly do not answer questions. During the passage of the Bill, the Government have hardly responded to any of the points I have raised and I am not living in any great optimism that it will be any different this evening.
  I rise strongly to support Amendment No. 66, which strikes me as eminently reasonable. The amendment does not prevent the Government from getting their Bill nor, to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, does it prevent there being a two-stage process. It simply allows Parliament to lead the country and to see what is proposed for the second Chamber before this measure takes effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord Graham, claimed that this was a delaying amendment. Any delay deriving from this amendment is entirely the fault of the Government. They could have appointed a Royal Commission two years ago. We could by now know the proposals for stage two. The fact that we do not should be laid at the door of the Government. It is not the responsibility of this side of the House. We know where we are moving away from but I think it is eminently reasonable to argue that, before we make the move, we should know where we are going. I think that responsibility rests on the Government to explain why that is not a reasonable claim to put forward.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that one aspect of the debate has puzzled me and it has perhaps been encapsulated most in the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, seemed to take the view that there was something wrong in trying to amend the Bill because it was against the principle of the Bill and the whole philosophy and concept which lay behind it. This seems to ignore the fact that many of us believe that this is a thoroughly bad Bill anyway. Whether it was in the Labour Party's manifesto or not is a matter of total irrelevance. Many of us believe it to be a bad Bill and we want to amend it and improve it in every way we possibly can.
  The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, seemed to be exasperated that we were spending so much time in returning to arguments that have been deployed and developed before. That is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, exactly what the proceedings of this House are about. We have stages of the Bill which enable people to come back to arguments which may have been deployed before and may have been dismissed before, but to put them forward again in the hope that they may throw some new light upon the proceedings and give people an opportunity again to express their views.
  It is understandable that it may be irksome for some people to sit late at night and hear arguments deployed again and again. Of course it is irksome. The whole system of conducting the parliamentary business of this country can sometimes be irksome. When we are involved in a constitutional transformation—a constitutional revolution—of the kind which the
  408
  Government are now proposing, I do not think we should be too worried about sitting late at night once or twice and even hearing arguments deployed once or twice or even three times.
  I believe we would be very unwise indeed if we were to think that what we are doing with the Bill was a waste of time or pointless. We have, as one noble Lord has said, improved the Bill enormously already. We have in Clause 2 caused the Government to make a complete U-turn and to do something which was in direct conflict with their manifesto commitment. I believe there is much more that can be done to amend the Bill and I hope that we shall not shrink from doing it because we have been kept up late on a few nights debating the issue.
  I support the amendment. However, I want to make the point that all that we are doing in this House on the Bill is very, very necessary if we are to discharge our proper responsibilities as the Upper House of the British Parliament.
  11.30 p.m.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I was going to hold my fire until we reached my amendment but I cannot resist supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has just said. I am disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who, after all, as a former Leader of your Lordships' House has held one of the highest offices in the land, should descend to such comments as that there are those on various sides of the House who want to filibuster and delay the Bill. That really is the most terrible accusation to make. The Bill will have enormous consequences but what it proposes is tied up in a few pages. The Government cannot in a few pages summarise and bring together all the ramifications relating to the Bill.
  Amendments have been moved about noble Lords being able to host charity events. What about all the parliamentary activities that go on? What about the Parliamentary Golfing Society? What about one of the oldest cricket clubs in England: namely, the Lords and Commons Cricket Club? Will Peers be eligible? Such points have not been addressed. They may seem to be de minimis to those who wish to get the Bill through but they nonetheless should have been addressed. If noble Lords wish to produce amendments in order to try to have these matters addressed, it is only fair and right that they should do so. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, feels that there is an element of filibustering. As far as I am concerned, there certainly is not.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, so many eloquent and pertinent speeches have been made in the debate on this amendment that it has made my task very easy. At various stages of the Bill members of the Opposition Front Bench have given full support to the principle that lies behind the three amendments in this group. The Opposition support the amendments this time for, among others, the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boardman.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his

  409
  extremely brief response. Does that mean that if these amendments are put to a Division the Opposition Front Bench will support them?
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we shall wait to see what happens.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have to say that it is one of the elements of repetition in the discussions on the Bill, which is of some frustration to my noble friends, that noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench are inclined regularly to explain to your Lordships how enormously important they find the measure proposed to them and how much they support the underlying principle of it but that they do not intend to support it in the Lobbies.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way with her customary courtesy. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition Front Bench has been entirely consistent in its approach to the matter. If the noble Baroness wishes, the Opposition Front Bench will vote on every amendment with which it agrees. I am sure that she would not wish for that. So do not tempt us too much!
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: Well, my Lords, that was an interesting intervention which I am sure will be noticed by all hereditary Peers who sit in the House at present and presumably wish to continue to do so under the regulations of the transitional House which have been agreed by Clause 2 of the Bill. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, were present, he would be interested to hear that intervention.
  I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, as he directly asked me how many times I had personally debated this issue, that I agree with him. I think it is seven. We have debated this issue on every single occasion on which your Lordships have considered these points. I accept what the noble Baroness says, that it is legitimate to bring back points at different stages. However, I would re-emphasise to the noble Baroness, since she tried to draw a contrast between her behaviour in government and the behaviour of the Government Front Bench at present, that the Companion of the House states that, as we have repeated on several occasions in the course of debate this afternoon—the noble Baroness may not have been present all the time, and there is no reason why she should have been—arguments fully deployed in Committee of the Whole House should not be repeated at length on Report. The Government Front Bench has stuck courteously but firmly to that guidance in the Companion. We intend to continue to do so.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the noble Baroness suggesting that I have breached the rules of the House? Is she suggesting that the length of time I took to make the points this evening was also in breach of the rules of the House?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. What I am suggesting to the noble Baroness is that the
  410
  Government Front Bench does not have to repeat at length arguments which it has deployed at Second Reading, in Committee, in debates on the White Paper, at the earlier stages of Report and so on. I shall reply to the points which have been raised in a new form on this group of amendments, and not to the Second Reading debate points which have been made on several occasions by noble Lords who have contributed this evening.
  With regard to Amendments Nos. 65 and 66, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has changed his wording from that of the amendment he moved in Committee. He has dropped his insistence that the findings of the Royal Commission should be accepted by resolution of your Lordships' House before the Bill comes into force. I am afraid that although he has made that change in response to some of the points we made in Committee it does make the amendment any more acceptable to the Government.
  The amendment now does not require your Lordships' House to debate the findings of the Royal Commission, nor even to agree to them. The Royal Commission's report must merely be laid before the House, and that would be the trigger, as I understand it, for the Bill to take effect; it would take effect whatever the Royal Commission said. Several noble Lords responded vigorously when it was suggested that simple delaying tactics were their motivation, and such tactics seem to be the motivation here, because if it does not matter what the Royal Commission says in order to trigger the stage one Bill, then it really is not relevant whether or not the Royal Commission has reported.
  This is simply a delaying tactic in terms of the implementation of the Bill. It could mean, for example, that the provisions of the Bill would take effect in mid-Session. We have heard today at great length, and I think with genuine concern, from noble Lords around the House that they feel there is disruption to their lives. The amendment could mean that laying the Royal Commission's report before the House on, say, a Wednesday would immediately trigger implementation of the Bill, and all the hereditaries would be out on Thursday. I cannot imagine that that was really what was intended in terms of easing the transition from one stage to another, but that is the effect of the amendment.
  The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is equally unacceptable, for the simple reason that, as I am advised, it is impossible for a Joint Committee of both Houses to provide for the commencement of an Act of Parliament. The amendment is therefore technically defective.
  As I have said, we have been round this course on six, now seven, separate occasions. The Government wish and intend, and have pledged themselves, to proceed with reform of your Lordships' House in two stages. We intend to continue on that course. We do not accept that we need to delay in doing so. As my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton pointed out in the course of his remarks on the amendment, it is not sensible to do that, for all the reasons which those who spoke about their experience in earlier attempts at reform have expressed most eloquently.

  411
  One noble Lord referred to the comment of my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn at an earlier stage that the Bill was a desirable objective. The Government stick precisely by that position, and we seek to move ahead with it as quickly as we can.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like most respectfully to ask her whether she could reconsider the charge she made that the amendment is a delaying tactic to delay implementation of the Bill. Does she accept that if the Royal Commission reports by December, January or February, concern about time really cannot be fairly considered as a delaying tactic? Certainly, it is not my intention to indulge in that.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I should always accept the contribution of the noble Lord in regard to his own intentions and motivation, as I hope he would equally with me. I was not making the broad point that this was a delaying provision, merely that that would be the effect. Whether or not it would substantially delay is a point that we could discus more generally. I was responding to the precise points of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, which, because they do not require any consideration of the Royal Commission's report but simply that it should be laid before your Lordships, have the effect only of creating a time difference between the implementation of the Bill at the time that the Government would wish to see it and the time proposed in the amendment. Therefore, all the proposal achieves is to delay implementation.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. It is not my intention to inject significant delay into the process. The reason why I changed the terms of the amendment that I moved at an earlier stage to the terms that I have placed before the House today was to respond to the points that had been made by Ministers when we discussed the matter in Committee. I am sorry that I have not gone far enough.
  As to the point made by the noble Baroness that the Royal Commission report might be laid before the House on a Wednesday and the Bill come into force on the Thursday, it would of course be in the hands of the Government as to when the Royal Commission report was laid before the House. It could be done sooner or later, as the Government preferred, once it was in their hands. I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not think that that would be a good way to proceed.
  I resented the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I care for this House. I care for the institutions of Parliament. I am sorry that the noble Lord appears not to.
  Lord Harris of Greenwhich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down in a paroxysm of feigned anger, or indignation, is he aware that the noble Baroness read out the terms of the companion? The speeches that we have heard this evening are totally contrary to the spirit
  412
  of the Companion. If the noble Lord is worried about the reputation of this House, he might at least at some stage read the Companion himself.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I hope that I may be allowed to respond. My anger is not feigned; it is genuine. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if either Amendment No. 66 or Amendment No. 66A is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 67 or Amendment No. 67A.
  [Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
  Lord Boardman Lord Boardman moved Amendment No. 66A:
  Page 2, line 4, leave out from ("force") to end of line and insert ("upon the date fixed by a resolution of a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which is appointed after the Royal Commission on the reform and composition of the House of Lords has reported.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that this. debate had taken place seven times. This amendment came up in Committee. I kept careful note of the points that were made from various parts of the House, and I withdrew it. Amendment No. 66A was therefore constructed to take account of the previous debate. It is only the second time that the amendment has appeared on a Marshalled List.
  I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in that debate. They were unanimous in their feeling that an amendment of this nature is necessary. I am deeply sorry that the Government do not appear to have taken any notice of that. We are looking towards the future of this House—a future in which we all share a belief. It would be a tremendous advantage if we had before us the findings of the Royal Commission. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has preferred to remain blind to that. It is all too often the trend of this Government that they start something without looking forward to see where the objective may lead. It is an unfortunate trend, and one that I regret.
  In view of the importance of this issue and the fact that I do not want to raise it again, I beg to move and I believe it is right that I should now test the opinion of the House.
  11.44 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 66A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 81.

  Division No. 5

  CONTENTS

  Annaly, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Attlee, E.

  Caithness, E.

  Berners, B.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Carnock, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Chalfont, L.

  Boardman, L. [Teller.]

  Chesham, L.

  413

  Coleraine, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Cross, V.

  Norrie, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Northbrook, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Gray, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Kenyon, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Kinnoull, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

  Monson, L.

  Wise, L,

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Addington, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V,

  Hayman, B.

  Alli, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Amos, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Bach, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Blackstone, B.

  Blease, L.

  Judd, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L,

  Levy, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Burlison, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

  Carlisle, E.

  Carter, L. [Teller.]

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Newby, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  David, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Rea, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Richard, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Sawyer, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Falconer of Thornton, L.

  Simon, V.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Goudie, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Tordoff. L.

  Hacking, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Hampton. L.

  Uddin, B.

  Hanworth, V.

  Whitty, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  11.55 p.m.
  Viscount Mountgarret Viscount Mountgarret moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 2, line 4, leave out ("Session of").
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 68 because the amendments are intertwined.
  At the risk of incurring the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, the amendment is in some way a delaying factor. I recognise that the Government have a mandate to introduce such legislation as is necessary during the lifetime of this Parliament. But I do not think that the manifesto went so far as to state that these measures had to be introduced by the end of the second Session of
  414
  Parliament. I see little difference between the first, second or third Sessions, or however many Sessions one wishes. The reference is to Parliament. Therefore to terminate the hereditary element in your Lordships' House by the end of this Parliament would be entirely in keeping with the election manifesto.
  I tabled similar amendments at Committee stage. At the risk of incurring your Lordships' wrath, I have to say that I was ill on the day that they were called. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, kindly made reference to the fact that I was not present. I wish to make some points which are not repetitive; and I ask the indulgence of the House.
  If the Act were to come into play at the end of this Session of Parliament, it would be interesting to know when that will be. With the number of amendments being debated, I smell a rat or two. I have a suspicion that this Session of Parliament could go on for some time in order to get the Bill passed. It is a matter of regret that we do not have a fixed date for the end of Sessions of Parliament—but that is another matter. If the Bill is enacted at the end of this Session of Parliament there will be a period of time when noble Lords who are not entitled to attend this House will not be represented effectively in Parliament. That is a point which should be borne in mind.
  My underlying concern relates to the Writ of the sovereign to noble Lords to attend this Parliament. It says nothing about attending this Session of Parliament. I understand and accept that Parliament is omnipotent. Parliament can, and from time to time does, control—if that is the right word—the sovereign. It calls the sovereign to account and keeps the sovereign within the bounds of our accepted constitutional procedure.
  Having said that, and I have said it before in your Lordships' House, if one wields such tremendous power, that power should be exercised with courtesy and discretion. Otherwise the only way that one can govern is by consent. If one does not govern by consent one cannot govern unless it becomes a dictatorship where one dictates what will happen.
  The people of this country have accepted the way in which our Parliament, sovereign and constitution work. I am not sure that people would rest content if the heat were turned up and respect for the sovereign were undermined. There is the question of a precedent which may be created.
  I am concerned that in enacting the Bill by the end of this Session of Parliament instead of at the end of this Parliament, we shall be going against the command of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Writ to your Lordships. That is not satisfactory.
  I want quickly to refer to something which happened about 15 years ago: the abolition of the Greater London Council. The Conservatives were in power and we got ourselves into a terrible muddle because they said that the Bill would be enacted 11 months after the local elections in May. Councillors were to be elected for only 11 months before everything was abolished. The Government then said, "Look, it is the most frightful waste of money to have all these elections and therefore we will make appointments.". That did not go down too

  415
  well simply because the appointment of councillors would have been politically tainted and where there were Labour elected councils, for some reason a Conservative majority would have replaced them. That was totally undemocratic and I said so at the time.
  I came forward with a suggestion which The Times kindly called the "Mountgarret amendment". I have it here, but I shall not bore your Lordships. I said, "Surely, the sensible thing to do is to allow the existing councillors to continue in office for another 11 months until the thing is disbanded and we can all get on.". The long and the short of it was that, broadly speaking, the proposal was accepted.
  I feel the same about this amendment. Why not allow our present composition in this House to continue until the end of this Parliament instead of rushing this Bill through at the end of the Session? I try, but I simply do not understand why. I shall be interested to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and to know whether she can tell me why it is so necessary to kick us out on the street in July or perhaps November. On that basis, I beg to move.
  Midnight
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said that he hoped he would not incur my wrath. Of course, he does not. I remember well that he was not present in Committee to move then the amendments which he has moved tonight, so of course he is entitled to move them. But let us be under no illusion: the issue has been discussed previously on a number of occasions. Whether the Bill should take effect at the end of the Session or at the end of the Parliament is not a new issue for the House, although the advocacy of it by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, is a Few factor in our debates.
  What is the effect of the amendment? There is nothing about waiting for the report of the Royal Commission, for the Joint Committee to report or anything of that kind. It is straight, pure delay. During the previous debate, noble Lords heard me say that the effect of the amendments moved by the noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Boardman, was delaying and they thought that I had bitterly offended them all personally by saying that. There can be no other description of this amendment other than that it seeks to delay the implementation of the Bill from the end of the Session to the end of the Parliament. It is a very short, very simple issue.
  I thought it just a little rich of the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, to complain that we have not put the proposal in the manifesto. For months we have been sitting here listening to torrents of abuse poured on the manifesto from the other side. The first was that the manifesto does not matter because no one reads it. It is said that only 2 per cent of the population pay any attention to it and apparently 70 per cent of the population disagree with it. Although we were elected on it with a somewhat substantial, indeed comforting, majority, now the noble Viscount says, "Ah, you can't do this because it isn't in the manifesto". There seems to be a slight inconsistency in the general approach, if I
  416
  may put it in that way, without dreaming of trying to offend the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. This is a delaying amendment. As such, I cannot support it
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is always fun to listen to. It is interesting to note that when he says, "We've heard all this time and time again", he then makes another similar speech and we have to listen to his speeches time and time again. It is rather like a gramophone record on which the same old music is played. The noble Lord may find it rather boring listening to us, but we are fascinated to listen to him, even if it is a little repetitive.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may remind him that some records are more worth listening to than others, and more often.
  Baroness David: Oh, get on with it!
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, in this case at any rate, being rather unfair. The amendment tabled by the noble Viscount Lord Mountgarret, and Amendment No. 68, might have the effect of delay, but there is a real issue behind it. As your Lordships may know, a Motion has been tabled in my name to refer the question of the status of the Writ of Summons to the Committee for Privileges. It is the view of the Opposition Front Bench that there is genuine doubt about the legal effect of the Writ of Summons.
  A Noble Lord: No!
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, perhaps I may finish what I was saying. There is genuine doubt in the view of the Opposition about the status of the Writ of Summons. Therefore, there may well be great weight behind these amendments tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret. It would be wrong to say that they simply reflect an intention to delay, even though they may have that effect.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, said that the purpose of the amendment was to bring about delay. I entirely recognise what he said. It had the virtue of clarity and, in that particular context, absolute brevity. I quite understand his point. He wants delay because he would prefer that the Bill, as an Act, had effect at the end of this Parliament rather than the end of this Session. That is really the purpose and the point of the amendment; to leave out the words, "Session of". We do not want delay beyond the inevitable delay that has subsisted since 1911. I cannot enlarge upon that.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, that is not a very good argument put forward by the noble Lord. 'Too much play is put on the word "delay". The fact is that delaying, if that is the word which the Labour Party wish to use, enables the sovereign's writ to be honoured. That is far more to the point. It is with that that we are concerned. I have heard nothing to persuade me that it is anything but entirely correct to wait until the end of this Parliament before the Bill is enacted.

  417
  Having said that, I have listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It would be far better for a layman such as myself to try to bring these points to the fore at this stage but to allow experienced and professional politicians to put their point, with the assistance of everything they have at their disposal, to the Committee for Privileges. I can only say, from the bottom of my heart, that I wish them well.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, for giving way. I have a sense of resistance to the description of being a professional politician. I regard myself as very much a part-time politician and hope that the noble Viscount will accept that.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It was a bad description. He is an experienced Member of your Lordships' House who understands the workings infinitely better than I, though I have been here for a long time. I am rather like the Bourbons; I have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 67A:
  Page 2, line 4, leave out ("it") and insert ("this Act").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 68A:
  Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("unless it has been issued to a person who, at the end of the Session, is excepted from section 1 by virtue of section 2").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain a little of the purport of this amendment. I have looked at it. I do not expect her to speak at any great length, but a little clue as to what it means would be greatly appreciated.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment at an earlier stage of the Report proceedings. I can briefly explain to the noble Lord that Amendment No. 68A ensures that an excepted Peer, identified as such by the end of this Session, will not need a new Writ of Summons. His current one will remain valid. However, any Peer who is excepted after the end of this Session of Parliament needs to receive a new Writ of Summons.
  418
  There is no reason to delay this amendment until Third Reading. It is internally consistent with the Bill, including Clause 2, and it is necessary to keep it in the Bill to maintain that consistency. Not to have it in the Bill would leave the Bill in an inconsistent mess?
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, does that mean that the Bill is in an inconsistent mess?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I said precisely the opposite. I said not to have the amendment in the Bill would leave the provisions around the excepted Peers in an inconsistent mess. I thought that was clear.
  Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I too can ask a question. Has the noble Baroness taken advice on hybridity, given that similar classes of Peers are being treated differently in the course of this Bill and with the introduction of this amendment?
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have taken a great deal of advice on this subject and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn replied on several occasions to points made about this.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords. I must point out to the House that if Amendment No. 69 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 70.
  [Amendments Nos. 69 to 73 not moved.]
  Clause 6 [Interpretation and short title]:
  [Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 74A:
  Before the schedule, insert the following new schedule—
  SECTION 4(1)
  ("SCHEDULE
  AMENDMENTS
  Peerage Act 1963 (c.48)
  1. In section 1(2) of the Peerage Act 1963 (disclaimer of certain hereditary peerages) for the words from "has" to the end there shall be substituted the words "is excepted from section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 by virtue of section 2 of that Act".
  Recess Elections Act 1975 (c.66)
  2. In section 1 of the Recess Elections Act 1975 (issue of warrants for making out writs to replace members of the House of Commons whose seats have become vacant), in—

  (a) subsection (1)(a), and

  (b) paragraph (a) of the definition of "certificate of vacancy" in subsection (2),

  for the words "become a peer" there shall be substituted the words "become disqualified as a peer for membership of the House of Commons".
  3. In Schedule 1 to that Act (certificate of vacancy), for the words "has become a peer of Parliament" there shall be substituted the words "has become disqualified as a peer for membership of the House of Commons".").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must point out that if Amendment No. 76 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 76A and 78.
  [Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 76A:
  Page 3, line 4, column 3, leave out from ("1") to ("(3)") in line 7.
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must point out that if Amendment No. 77 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 78.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 3, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert ("Section 5").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
  [Amendments Nos. 78A to 78D not moved.]
  Preamble:
  The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I must point out that if any of Amendments Nos. 79 to 80A are agreed to, I must put those matters differently.
  [Amendments Nos. 79 to 80B not moved.]
  In the Title:
  [Amendments Nos. 81 to 83 not moved.]
  Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 84.
  Line 4, after ("Commons;") insert ("to establish an Appointments Commission with functions in relation to the conferment of life peerages under the Life Peerages Act 1958;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon one that was moved and carried earlier. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past midnight.

  River Danube: Environmental Restoration
  River Danube: Environmental Restoration
  Serbia: Aid to Farmers
  Serbia: Aid to Farmers
  Serbia: Refugee Criisis
  Serbia: Refugee Criisis
  Badgers and Tuberculosis
  Badgers and Tuberculosis
  Meat Hygiene
  Meat Hygiene
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Tuberculosis in Dairy Cattle
  Tuberculosis in Dairy Cattle
  Calves' Brains
  Calves' Brains
  Milk Marketing Board: Residual Funds
  Milk Marketing Board: Residual Funds
  Over Thirty Months Scheme: Fraud
  Over Thirty Months Scheme: Fraud
  Fresh Meat Directive
  Fresh Meat Directive
  World Trade Organisation
  World Trade Organisation
  Small Business Service
  Small Business Service
  Northern Ireland: Murders by Persons Previously Convicted of Homicide
  Northern Ireland: Murders by Persons Previously Convicted of Homicide
  Fluoride: Definition
  Fluoride: Definition
  Incapacity Benefit
  Incapacity Benefit
  Sentencing Advisory Panel
  Sentencing Advisory Panel
  Human Rights Act: Compatibility of Legislation
  Human Rights Act: Compatibility of Legislation
  Public Authority Decisions: Publication of Reasons
  Public Authority Decisions: Publication of Reasons
  Turkey: Country Assessment
  Turkey: Country Assessment
  Scotland, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  Scotland, Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  Police Budgets and Numbers
  Police Budgets and Numbers