Sitting of 3 March 1999

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

EMU (Economic Convergence)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
9.33 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for the opportunity to present this Adjournment debate. It was very clear from the Prime Minister's statement on the euro last week that we are moving into new terrain in the debate on Europe. The pace is accelerating, and I think that it is important that as many hon. Members as possible are able to contribute to the argument.
Mr. Eric Forth: There are not many here today.
Dr. Cable: Perhaps 9.30 am is a little early for some of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues—and maybe for some of mine, too.
In the past week, we have identified several areas of concern about where the new Government process is leading. Some of us have talked to our local business communities—I spoke yesterday to my local chamber of commerce—and I think that the reaction to the changeover plan in general has been rather positive. However, there are questions about what that plan will mean.
There is a new formula in terms of the months involved in the changeover—the X + 4 + 30 + 6, as I think we must learn to call it. The question is what is X: how long will it be before the changeover process begins? As the Minister knows, the Liberal Democrats have long argued that that period should be as short as possible because of the need for an early political mandate.
Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A minute ago, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) mentioned as an aside that 9.30 am is a bit early for our colleagues to attend the Chamber. As that remark will go into the Official Report, I should also point out that the number of Conservatives in the Chamber exceeds the combined number of hon. Members from all other parties.
Madam Speaker: I am really not into the numbers game. There are sufficient hon. Members present to carry on the debate.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. We should also place on record that that is the first time that that has happened this Parliament.
Madam Speaker: At least I am always here.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are always
994
anxious for the factual record to be correct, so it should be placed on record that, during consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam in Committee, the Conservative presence—as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) well knows—was invariably greater than that of Labour.
Madam Speaker: I can see that many hon. Members have a good sense of humour. We are starting the day very well.
Dr. Cable: Conservative Members have made their point about the quantity of Conservative participation in the debate, so I hope that that will be matched by the quality of their speeches—judging from experience, I rather doubt it.
My second introductory point relates to the concern expressed by business about how precisely the changeover plan will work given uncertainty about the lead-in time. However, an even bigger issue has begun to be raised in some of the testimony to the Treasury Select Committee in the past week. As the Government have moved ahead with their business preparations, the macroeconomics underlying the Government's approach to entry have been left behind.
I refer the House to the comments of two witnesses who appeared before the Committee. The Governor of the Bank of England acknowledged openly that there was a potentially serious conflict between his goals, as currently defined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pursuing domestic inflation objectives and those that he would have to pursue if he were seeking economic convergence. He made it clear that, until he received a fresh mandate from the Treasury, he could not begin to address that problem.
It was also clear from his testimony yesterday that the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, Lord Simon, had great difficulty defining what a future competitive exchange rate would be when we join EMU. That is also a great concern to much of manufacturing industry. Major areas of economic policy have not yet caught up with the speed of the Government's actions in terms of business preparation. I shall try to focus on some of those issues in this debate.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the vehicle for joining EMU that the Government have set in motion may have a gearbox but it also needs a steering wheel. It is all very well to say that we must achieve economic convergence, but the Government must make it clear how economic convergence will be achieved and sustained. Today, I shall offer a series of specific and pragmatic proposals as to how the Government might take that aim forward.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech. Is there not a strange dichotomy in this situation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not allowed to interfere with the independence of the Bank of England, and the euroland nations are not entitled to interfere with the central bank. However, our Chancellor is able to speak to the governor of the central bank and suggest that he should increase interest rates in euroland because the bank is currently effecting competitive devaluation of the euro for short-term gains in Europe.
Dr. Cable: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I believe that the model of independence that

995
has developed in the United Kingdom is very satisfactory. I think that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were bitterly critical of that structure when it was introduced a year ago.
I shall address the point for which the hon. Gentleman provided a cue. The first issue that we need to deal with is the extent to which the position of the Bank of England might now need to be changed. I start from the assumption—Liberal Democrat Members strongly believe this, as I am sure do Government Members, and perhaps we even have a convert on the Conservative Benches—that the Bank of England's independence is desirable and its creation was a valuable step forward.
Despite many reservations among Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches and Labour Back Benches, many of the fears about that independence have not been realised. It is difficult to believe, for example, that a politically inspired series of interest rate cuts by the Bank of England over five months would have been accepted by the markets. The experiment has been extremely successful so far and we are anxious that the spirit of independence should be retained whatever changes to arrangements take place.
It is clear, however, that the Bank of England now faces the dilemma of how to take into account European convergence. The Bank's terms of reference now state that the objectives of the Monetary Police Committee are to consider inflation and other Government objectives, but the Bank is making it clear that those objectives do not, at this stage, include European convergence. There is a large blind spot about how to address that issue.
I have a modest suggestion for the Economic Secretary, which involves a series of steps that the Government might now begin to take. When the Chancellor introduces the Budget next week, he should modify the terms of reference within which the Monetary Policy Committee operates and instruct it to take convergence into account. That does not necessarily mean immediately shadowing an exchange rate or any other objective, but the committee should monitor economic convergence and begin to discuss the problem with other relevant Departments, especially the Minister's own.
It is important that the Bank of England's independence is maintained in that process, but at some point we must confront the dilemma that the objectives of convergence may well involve moving interest rates in the opposite direction from that of domestic inflation. Over the next few months, for example, the objective of convergence might best be achieved by cutting interest rates to bring down the pound. On the other hand, a recovery in the United Kingdom economy may require interest rates to go up. That dilemma must be resolved, and it can be done only by using the Treasury's fiscal policy.
A careful process must evolve whereby monetary and fiscal policy can be considered together without compromising the Bank's independence. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and suggest how she and the Government expect the process to work. It is difficult to believe that it can simply be left until the next Parliament, so we suggest that the process may be set in train whereby the terms of reference of the Governor of the Bank of England are modified to allow him to begin to take convergence into account.
996
The second issue on which I want to focus—the role of sterling and the exchange rate—is potentially much more difficult, but it must be addressed.
Jacqui Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his suggestion that the only way in which to achieve convergence criteria is directly to target them is contrary to what was discussed in the Select Committee yesterday and to the clear statement from Lord Simon that the Government's current policies on the Bank of England's independence and long-term fiscal stability are precisely those that should lead to convergence? Does not he accept that it is not necessary to have a strict objective of convergence, but that it is important that we put into place the policies that will achieve that aim?
Dr. Cable: The hon. Lady has helpfully put her finger on the underlying fallacy in what the Government are trying to achieve, which helps me to make my point more strongly. I understand current Government policy to involve, as she says, pursuing a series of objectives which will hopefully land us at precisely the right exchange rate when it is politically convenient to enter EMU.
Theory and practice do not add up. It has been clear in the past few months, and for a much longer period before that, that foreign exchange markets do not work as the Government believe them to work. Government policy holds that, providing that interest rates are gradually cut to European levels over the next few years, the British exchange rate with the euro will gradually glide down to a convenient rate, but we know that foreign exchange markets do not work in that way. The Governor of the Bank of England admitted that last week, when he said that he was perplexed about what was happening to the exchange rate and did not understand the mechanism. That was a confession not of incompetence but of a lack of understanding.
Mr. David Ruffley: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Liberal Democrats have an exchange rate objective, and if not, why not?
Dr. Cable: Yes, I shall suggest how we might pursue an exchange rate objective, and that is the purpose of this part of my speech. I shall suggest not that we should pursue a single interest rate, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman wants me to say, but that we need a policy commitment on the exchange rate. He is right to imply that there is a basic point of logic in this matter, and I shall try to suggest how that objective might usefully be pursued.
The problem remains—this reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—that the Government are hoping that interest rate cuts will gradually glide to a level that will enable British manufacturers to be competitive indefinitely, but we know from the workings of foreign exchange markets that that simply does not happen. There is a danger that, without a more proactive policy, we shall be landed with an exchange rate that is totally uncompetitive and inappropriate.
In those circumstances, the Government may well have fulfilled all their five tests and have the political mandate from a referendum, but we would have the wrong exchange rate. One lesson that we should have learned

997
from the period of the exchange rate mechanism—our analysis of that corresponds with the views of some Conservative sceptics—is that if we are entering such a project, the exchange rate must be right.
How do we then resolve the problem—I am responding to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley)—of having an exchange rate objective? It cannot be done simply be sticking one's finger in the air, picking up an exchange rate and saying that it will be appropriate for ever. That would be absurd, and I do not begin to suggest it. However, we must do more than take the totally passive approach adopted by the Government.
There are two elements to the issue. First, the Government must widen their imagination and think in terms of broad bands, within which the exchange rate can fluctuate, rather than single points. We remember that in the old ERM, there was potential for fluctuation by 15 per cent., which gave a good deal more freedom of manoeuvre than the previous Government allowed themselves. Bands would make the problem of fluctuation more manageable.
The second step that the Government could take—they could do so now—would be to begin consultation with industry, academics and politicians of different parties to try to establish what would be a comfortable, sustainable competitive exchange rate or range of rates. Within this Parliament, there has been one example of the Government dealing rather neatly with such an economic problem, when they had the task of fixing a minimum wage. That is interference in the market and could have gone badly wrong, but the Government took soundings, did economic analysis and came up with a recommendation that was detached from them but which they could none the less adopt.
I suggest that the Government should now initiate consultation and reports on relative prices, technical measures, purchasing power parity and a sustainable exchange rate, about which there are many studies. They could then come up with a recommendation for an appropriate level or range of exchange rates. That would have several advantages. It might, for example, influence the market, although we do not know that. It would certainly be very reassuring to British industry, which would know that the Government were seriously concerned about the stability and competitiveness of the exchange rate and were not leaving it to pure chance. Most important, it would provide the Government with some political ammunition—when we eventually have to set the exchange rate within EMU, it will be a political process decided partly by the level that other members of the European Union think appropriate. We would be seen to have undertaken a proper scientific exercise, looking carefully at what exchange rate range was appropriate for the UK. That is the kind of early process that the Government could helpfully set in train. It would involve not setting a fixed objective but setting in train a process of creative thinking about the problem.
Mr. Forth: Has the hon. Gentleman thought what the result of that process might be? Let us suppose that the process took place and that there were agreement on the ideal exchange rate from the UK's point of view, if we were ever stupid enough to adopt the euro. Would not that signal to our partners what our negotiating position would be? What does the hon. Gentleman think would be
998
the reaction if our partners did not allow us to join at anything like that rate but insisted on one that could damage the UK's interests?
Dr. Cable: The second point is the crucial one. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman's problems with it. Surely it is right that the British should signal in advance what we perceive our national interest to be. In the case of the exchange rate, it is not an uncompetitive one such as we have had in recent months; nor is it one that is provocatively cheap, which would trigger domestic inflation. It seems perfectly right that we should be transparent about this.
I am also effectively suggesting—it may be surprising to hear this from a Liberal Democrat—another test of convergence. That test should be the exchange rate. We believe strongly that EMU would benefit Britain but, equally, we believe that it should be done the right way and at the right exchange rate. It would be disastrous to enter in the wrong way and at the wrong exchange rate. I am suggesting a hurdle, or test, which the Government have not yet set themselves but which they should satisfy. If that were done, there would be a much greater prospect of our meeting our negotiating objectives in Europe and of our carrying British public opinion, especially industrial opinion, with us. I am therefore suggesting another test that the process of convergence would have to meet, and I am not inhibited in doing so.
Mr. Ruffley: Does that mean that the Liberal Democrat party is advocating shadowing the euro?
Dr. Cable: No, I am not suggesting that we shadow the euro. I did not mention shadowing the euro, and the Government have ruled it out. I am suggesting that we establish a process to define explicitly what an appropriate band of exchange rates would be when we eventually enter the EMU mechanism. It could take place through a gradual process of crawling, through shadowing or many other ways. All I am suggesting is that instead of there being an empty core at the heart of the Government's economic policy, we address the issue explicitly for political and economic reasons.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember the pain caused to people with mortgages and businesses in this country when, yes, the Conservative Government tried to shadow the deutschmark and to remain in the exchange rate mechanism? Does not he remember that when we entered there were DM2.95 to the pound, and that the rate then dropped before regaining that level? Does he accept that it was not the rate that was wrong but the system?
Dr. Cable: We shall simply have to disagree on that point. It was the rate that was fundamentally wrong. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue relating to the third aspect on which I make a suggestion to the Minister, which is how we deal with the problem of mortgages. Before the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) jumps to his feet, I hope that he will allow me to finish this point. I have been fairly generous in allowing interventions.
How we handle mortgages and the housing market is important. It has been brought home to me clearly in the discussions that I have had with business that the

999
Government have not focused as clearly as they should have on what the changeover plan should be. It was clear from Lord Simon's address yesterday to the Treasury Select Committee that the Government have scarcely begun to think about it. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed as part of the changeover.
The problem, as critics of EMU point out, is essentially that if there is a common interest rate across Europe, we encounter the potential one-size-fits-all problem. However, that is not a fixed item; it can be dealt with, and we can try to manage it. Clearly, manufacturing industry is less sensitive to interest rates if companies are dependent on equity and have securitised bonds and do not rely on buying on short-term interest finance. In the housing market, the one-size-fits-all monetary policy could be dealt with if house purchasers were much less dependent than they are today on variable interest mortgages.
If we are to join EMU, there is a broad national interest in trying to make sure that the British housing market is much less dependent on variable interest rate mortgages. We can see from the Irish example, which involves a similar housing market structure to that of the UK, that, unless we address this problem, there is the potential to enter a period of booms and slumps, which is avoidable.
Why have the Government not tackled the mortgage issue in their changeover plan? I suspect that the reason is that it is not in the interests of the banks and building societies that they do so. If we move to a system of fixed interest mortgages, the banks then carry interest rate risk, which they do not at present—they simply pass it on to their customers. It will require a powerful Government initiative to make that change.
I suggest that the Government begin to think of opening discussions with banks and building societies about how rapidly they can move to a system based predominantly on long-term fixed interest mortgages rather than variable mortgages, and perhaps to think about how the regulatory system has to change to accommodate that.
Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he has been exceptionally generous in accepting interventions. He suggests a palliative to deal with the problem of mortgage rates and their variability, but it simply does not meet the needs of the case. Why does he think it desirable that national Parliaments should, under the terms of the treaty and the terms of entry into EMU, be permanently deprived of the right to make representations to the European central bank about its conduct of monetary policy and the level of its interest rate?
Dr. Cable: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, were we to be part of EMU, Britain would participate in the management of the European central bank. That is how the system works. I believe, as I am sure Labour Members believe, that the European central bank could profitably develop in various ways. For example, it could learn from the idea of pursuing a more symmetrical monetary policy objective and from British experience. However, the fundamental issue of sovereignty is one about which I disagree with the hon. Member for Buckingham. That is a fact of political life.
1000
How could the Government adapt the mortgage system so that the housing market was less exposed to the difficulties caused by booms and slumps which could arise in a unified monetary union? As I suggested, the first step is to be much more proactive in talking to the providers of mortgages about how they change to a different system. Another step could be to examine the way in which the regulation operates. There is no reason why regulators of building societies and banks should not require building societies and banks to offer their customers—not only new customers but existing ones—a comparable mortgage on a fixed-rate basis. Whatever the mechanism, it is clear that the Government have to be a little more positive than they have been so far—there is not a single word in the changeover plan about how to handle the problem.
Largely thanks to interventions, I have spoken for rather longer than I wished. Nevertheless, there is a great deal more to be said on this subject. Many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I look forward to hearing them.
9 59 am
Mr. Denis MacShane rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. MacShane: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing this debate. It is appropriate that the House continues, on Wednesday mornings and via other Adjournment debates, to consider this very important issue. It is an issue about which the British people have not been properly informed—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The ovation has gone on long enough.
Mr. MacShane: I shall try to limit my remarks to 10 minutes, in order that Tory hon. Members may relax after their excitement simply because I rose to my feet, and compose their thoughts to get their speeches ready to persuade the British people that their interests do not lie in Europe, and that the cause of little England, isolationism and xenophobia is alive and well in the Conservative party.
I am not quite sure which Conservative party is in front of me. I understand that the shadow Chancellor's position is that Britain is prepared and likely to enter the euro in six or seven years' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Ah, I see that that is not so. Well, in 10 years' time? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] No, not in 10 years' time. In 20 years' time, perhaps? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I see; not at all. We have the party of no never, no how. I remember a campfire song like that from my youth. I do not know where the rest of the Conservative party is. Perhaps those hon. Members do not choose to take part in such a debate.
Last week, we saw the Conservative party as the party of tax harmonisation. I attended Trade and Industry questions, during which the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), one of the nicest euro-sceptics—there are some nice ones among that pretty rotten bunch—demanded that the Government instantly harmonise duty on diesel with the rest of Europe. Before my very eyes, the party of no never, no how became the party of fiscal harmonisation.

1001
We have a significant problem with tobacco and alcohol smuggling. I grew up on that wonderful Kipling poem:
"Brandy for the parson, baccy for the clerk …
Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!"
That was about smuggling in the 18th century.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Which school did the hon. Gentleman attend?
Mr. MacShane: St. Joseph's primary school in Wealdstone, if the hon. Member is really interested.
There is a serious problem of many people, especially young men, becoming mini criminals by participating in smuggling. I say in all candour to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they can double or triple the number of Customs and Excise men, put them on horses, give them mobile phones, or do whatever they like, but as long as the wide differences in duty on diesel, tobacco and alcohol remain, we shall continue to face such serious problems.
Smuggling is just one aspect of the debate about our relationship with Europe. I make no secret of my views; they are that Britain should be a full and leading member of the European Union. We should take advantage of the single market for economic reasons. I find it at best a semantic contradiction to claim that one can be part of a single market, but stay for ever out of the euro.
The Chancellor has laid down economic tests that are in the nation's interest. The Prime Minister has promised that triple lock of decisions in the Cabinet, Parliament and then, most importantly, in a referendum of the people, on whether we enter the euro. Leading up to the referendum, it is essential that debate is informed and intelligent. Achieving that will be quite difficult, given the behaviour of those who are passionate in their belief that Britain should be permanently disconnected from Europe.
I had some experience of such a belief this very morning. Yesterday, Le Monde, a French newspaper, published an article of deep unoriginality that I wrote, in which I described the Prime Minister's historic statement in the House on Tuesday last week, pointing out that preparations are being made for a transfer to the euro, and arguing—I believe this very strongly, and continually take this message to European capitals whenever I am lucky enough to visit them—that, if Europe is to move forward, it must substantially reform its labour market to increase flexibility and the spirit of entrepreneurship and enterprise. I wrote that Europe, too, must learn from the dynamism of the United States.
Mr. Laurence Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: I mean no discourtesy, but I would rather finish my speech to allow other hon. Members to speak.
I do not propose to read the article, which was in French, into the record, although I would be happy to hand out copies of it. It is deeply banal, yet I was woken at midnight because the Daily Mail, which described me as a senior aide—chance would be a fine thing—has said that I have revealed the Prime Minister's secret plan to take Britain into the euro. I was then telephoned by the Financial Times, the Press Association and The Star
1002
in Sheffield, which are all getting excited about an article that is in no way odd—I mean off-message. It corresponds entirely with the Government's position.
It is a paradox that I do not think that I could get such an article published in any paper in this country. In the 1930s, the editor of The Times confessed in his diary that he spent every waking moment keeping anything hostile to Nazi Germany out of the paper. I sometimes think that some of today's editors spend every waking moment ensuring that anything positive about Europe is kept out of their papers.
The discussion with the British people about the euro presents a serious problem—even in many of our so-called pro-European papers, such as The Guardian and The Independent. Many of their most distinguished commentators are hostile to economic and monetary union. Hamish McRae, whose writing I admire, was very critical of EMU in The Independent yesterday. Anne McElvoy is another such hostile commentator. The Times has seconded two of its excellent columnists, Mary-Ann Sieghart and Janet Bush, to David Owen's last great attempt to find a successful niche in British politics. As someone who is broadly in favour of the euro, the fact that David Owen is against it is the best news that I have received all year.
The proposal that we should have nothing to do with the euro and Europe does not add up. I tested that idea in two ways in my constituency. The first was of course during the election campaign, when the editor of The Times wrote an article in which he said:
"Don't vote for this dangerous man",
and Sir James Goldsmith placed advertisements everywhere, which read:
"Don't vote for this dangerous pro-European, MacShane".
As a result, my majority went up. It tripled from when my by-election opponent was the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb), who campaigned in favour of capital punishment and held my majority down. He fought the general election in a safer seat, campaigning against the euro, and my majority rose.
In my constituency, we organised a fascinating experiment among the Rotherham Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise, local business, the local training and enterprise council and the college of information.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. MacShane: I have not taken interventions from Conservative Members, so I shall not do so from my hon. Friend. I would like to end my remarks soon so that others may make speeches.
During the Rotherham euro week, there was dual pricing in Tesco and all the shops, and we distributed questionnaires on the euro in schools, eliciting 3,000 responses. The week went down very well. The Rotherham and South Yorkshire Advertiser, a fine and excellent journal, published its price in euros for the week. To begin with, the people of Rotherham sensibly asked, "What the heck's going on with this Mickey Mouse money? This is a bit silly". But, by the end of the week, they were enjoying it. Since then, seminars that the chamber of commerce has organised on the euro have

1003
been flooded with applications from representatives of small businesses who want to learn about it. There is a hunger for information.
The British economic community has been told a lie for the past 10 years: that Europe was none of its business, that everything that happened in Europe was negative, and that nothing emanating from anywhere in Europe was of any help to it. However, the plain fact is that we sell more to the tiny Netherlands than to all the Asian market. If any of our businesses increase sales to almost any mature European market by just 0.1 per cent., they will make more money for the United Kingdom than massive export wins that are paid in devalued Asian currencies. The European market will expand. Anyone who travels to Prague, Budapest or Warsaw will see the strength and confidence of those economies and their desire to join the euro.
I appeal not for debates in the House, but to the press to allow an informed, unhysterical, pro and anti debate. The antis have many of the finest writers, some of the best speakers and command a disproportionate amount of space in the debate. But there are three reasons—the three S's—why the euro matters: stability, security and society.
As the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned, the euro will bring stability, with a stable inflation rate and stable interest rates, instead of the peaks and troughs that allow none of our businesses or house buyers to plan properly. It will provide security in the new global world economy, where fluctuations of currencies—the holy grail of the part of the Conservative party that is present in the Chamber—can deeply destabilise economies.
Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: No. I am coming to the end of my speech.
It is essential that we search for economic security for the British people because they are the ones whom we represent.
Finally, yes, there is a European project for a society that seeks, perhaps imperfectly, to include all in it. As the French Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin says, yes to the market economy, no to the market society.
I wonder whether Conservative Members who read The Wall Street Journal and get many of their ideas from that excellent newspaper read the wonderful article by Charles Murray a few weeks ago that described what was happening in the United States: the break-up of families, the creation of an underclass, the exclusion of millions of people from health care, the need for the American model to be based on an ever widening gap between top and bottom.
I admire much in the United States. I am pro American. We must learn from its dynamism and creativity. Tomorrow, I will publish a pamphlet on ownership, which pays tribute to innovative forms of ownership in the United States, if I may get a modest plug in for another publication, but the European model, with its idea of access to health, education and housing for all, is one which we should stick by. That is another buttressing reason why I unashamedly say that Britain's future lies in Europe.
1004
If the British people in a referendum say yes to the euro, that will be good for Britain. I welcome the referendum debate because we need a great debate to drain once and for all the anti-European poison that has been injected into the British body politic by too many of the anti-Europeans in the Conservative party who are in the Chamber.
The great talents of those in that historic party who are in the Chamber—I see an array of future volcanoes waiting to burst into life—will be allowed to find expression only when they realise that our nation's future is inextricably linked to Europe, and that Britain must lead in Europe, instead of being an offshore island that is isolated from the future of the 21st century.
10.14 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate and, perhaps even more, congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on a stocking filler of a contribution: it filled in for the reluctance of his colleagues to make any contribution to the debate. I for one am much more enlightened about the South Yorkshire press than before he spoke.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: May I just start my speech before taking interventions?
The most remarkable thing about the debate on the very important subject of EMU is that it has taken a Liberal Democrat Adjournment debate to get that discussed in the Chamber. Last Tuesday's announcement was described in The Independent, about which we have heard much already, as
"a momentous day for our island race."
"Blair turns up"
it went on to say. In that announcement, the Prime Minister referred to the whole euro project as "an intensely political act." He reassured us that the Government had
"resolved the political issues in favour of the principle of joining"—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 181.]
yet we have had one short statement from the Prime Minister and questions lasting just 67 minutes in total in the Chamber on that most important subject.
On the continent, a different debate is going on. Speaking to the European Parliament in January, Joschka Fischer said that the introduction of the euro was an essential counterpart to making political union the goal of the European Union. He said:
"The introduction of a common currency is not primarily an economic but rather a sovereign and thus eminently political act",
yet our Prime Minister tells us that he is interested only in the economic advantages.
Joschka Fischer went on:
"Political union must be our lode star from now on. The EU would suffer an institutional heart attack unless it moved to full political integration."
In November, Chancellor Schröder said:
"Only through the further development of a political union would we succeed in forming a Europe that is close to its citizens."

1005
The debate in Europe is on an altogether higher plain, where everyone openly views the euro as merely a rung on the ladder to full political integration. That is what the debate here should be about, yet we have had just 67 minutes in the House to scrutinise the decision of the Prime Minister and Government to rush in with the changeover plan.
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend wisely points out the fact that, on the continent, it is recognised that the European single currency is principally a political project. Would he also care to reflect on the frankness and candour of the former Spanish Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, who said in May 1988 that the single currency was the greatest abandonment of sovereignty since the foundation of the European Community? He went on to say that it was an instrument for the project of European integration. Does not that tell us all we need to know?
Mr. Loughton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right; he is much more able at remembering quotes. The same goes throughout the continent, but not in this country.
The euro changeover plan would mean the withdrawal of sterling notes and coins in the space of just 34 months. The Prime Minister set out clinically and methodically, with no regard for the sensitivities of the British public, the details of the plan. It involves an enormous upheaval and enormous cost for industry, business and the people of the UK, but the Government cannot quantify or publish the figure—they cannot even quantify the estimated cost of the plan for Government Departments. However, on the balance of probabilities, Britain is unlikely to join the euro in the foreseeable future if a yes in the referendum remains an unassailable component of the Government's intentions.
Poll after poll shows that a great majority of the British public are against giving up sterling, despite the Government's softening up exercise, spending £7.5 million, so far, of public money on an advertising campaign, and trying to lull the public into thinking that joining the euro is little more than a convenience—they will not have to change their currency at Thomas Cook when going on a booze cruise to Calais, and it will lead to the importation of cheaper cars from the continent. As we know, that is just the tip of the iceberg.
A total of 315,906 people have so far called The Sun to voice their opposition to the euro. The comprehensive British and social European attitudes poll that was conducted last November, the most comprehensive opinion survey of its kind, which was funded by the Government, showed that only 55 per cent. of the UK public support even membership of the EU, down from 77 per cent. in 1991. The poll concluded that a majority of the British public would not cede Britain's national decision-making powers to the EU on a single policy, from agriculture to pollution.
What if a referendum comes up with a no vote? What preparations and what resources are the Government directing now to meet that much more likely eventuality? The Government seem mesmerised by preparing almost exclusively for the euro. What about the rest of the world? It is a fact that only 18 per cent. of this country's gross domestic product is down to the EU. The rest of it is in the UK and further afield overseas. Yet 100 per cent. Of
1006
British industry, British business and the British people will bear the costs of preparing for the euro, as advocated by the Prime Minister last week.
We are constantly reminded that it is in no one's interest if the euro fails, and I certainly agree with that. Equally, and perhaps more so, it is in no one's interest if the dollar fails. The dollar is the currency of 80 per cent. of the world's financial transactions. It is the currency of 60 per cent. of the world's commercial transactions.
We are often accused—we almost heard it a short time ago from the hon. Member for Rotherham—of being little Englanders. However, the siege mentality of Europe and the EU is quite breathtaking. The United States is virtually singlehandedly playing the role of the importer of last resort to salvage the problems in the far east, and is constantly complaining that Europe is not pulling its weight.
We are told that TINA is back—there is no alternative. Last Tuesday, the Prime Minister said quite clearly:
"Our intention is clear: Britain should join a successful single currency".
We have joined effectively in all but name, regardless of all the problems and uncertainties surrounding our joining up.
In his statement last week the Prime Minister alluded to this. He said:
"Of course we believe that the common agricultural policy needs reform … levels of unemployment in Europe are … too high … long-term structural reform is necessary."—[Official Report, 23 February 1999: Vol. 326, c. 179–931.]
But, regardless, Britain should join a successful single currency.
In January, the German Foreign Minister said that qualified majority voting posed no threat to the Germans as Germany would always be able to assemble a blocking minority of EU Members to stop any proposals that they did not like. Therefore, they would be in favour of abolishing the veto. But, regardless, we are told, Britain should join a successful single currency.
In January also the spokeswoman of the SPD in Germany, Ingrid Matthäus-Maier, told British Members of Parliament that forcing Britain to accept tax harmonisation would be the price for joining the single currency, even though it has been estimated that this could increase the UK tax burden by about 20 per cent. But, regardless, Britain should join a successful single currency. That is despite the threat to the eurobond market in London from the harmonisation of withholding tax, which will inevitably overnight drive the eurobond market to Zurich and New York, as it did in reverse back in the early 1980s, under a draft directive of article 100, with the loss of thousands of jobs in the City. The eurobond market supports $2,000 billion-worth of lending to corporates world wide.
The Government's failure to realise that financial markets especially are global and that local controls cannot be imposed in isolation is quite breathtaking. But, regardless, Britain should join. That is despite Oskar Lafontaine openly admitting his intention to shift the burden of taxation on to companies, mobile capital and environmentally polluting activities and encouraging the harmonisation of Europe to sustain each country's capacity to tax capital and preserve employment.
In the UK, we have learned the lesson that mobile capital moves when taxed. The success of the London financial markets is down to the knowledge that capital

1007
can be moved out at the flick of a switch when things get rough. The Government are constantly boasting about reducing tax rates on companies, in contrast to the higher corporate tax burden in Germany. In the UK, the social security charges on employers account for about 6 per cent. of their GDP. On the continent, the average is double that—12 per cent. However, Oskar Lafontaine was referred to in The Daily Telegraph last month, in an article entitled, "Tony Blair and I march in step on Europe".
Chancellor Schröder also admitted that the true purpose of tax harmonisation is to staunch the investment flight from Germany rather than setting its own house in order by reforming punitive tax rather than the regulatory system.
If Britain were to be dragooned into this process, the public sector would most likely grow from about 40 per cent. of GDP at present to as much as 49 per cent. All the gains made by successive Governments over the past 20 years would be reversed. The plans of the Finnish, who take over the presidency of the European Union later in the year, are to table formal proposals to modify the treaty of Amsterdam to further tax harmonisation. But, regardless, we are told, Britain should join. That is despite all the talk of harmful tax competition between EU states. That is a paradox if ever there was one.
German companies are continuing to invest in the UK rather than in Germany. Foreign companies invest eight times more in the UK than they do in Germany. Mr. Henkel, the head of the German chamber of industry, said only last month:
"We should not try to eliminate competition between EU countries. We should not forget that Europe competes against North America, South America and Asia. We will not be able to survive this competition if we are all following the German example."
Let us not forget that the UK has created more new jobs in the past six years than the whole of the euro zone put together. In Germany, unemployment last month rose to 4.45 million, about 11.5 per cent. It is predicted to stay above 4.1 million for the rest of this year. The response of the largest union in Germany, IG Metall, has been to put in a 6.5 per cent. pay claim. Last week, Allianz, Europe's largest insurer, threatened to move its key businesses out of Germany if the German Government pressed ahead with tax reforms targeting insurance companies. But, regardless, according to the Prime Minister, Britain should join.
Despite attempts to grab the United Kingdom's rebate of £2.1 billion under Mr. Lafontaine—it is referred to as a correction mechanism, apparently—regardless, Britain should join, despite the continuing furore over EU fraud and the missing £3 billion, despite the very real threat of deflation within the euro zone and despite the German attempts to devalue the euro and influence the European central bank—only this week the euro fell to a new low. That was over what was described in the Financial Times as
"policy disarray as Oskar Lafontaine again tries to influence the ECB so early on."
That theme was taken up by the International Herald Tribune, as no doubt the hon. Member for Rotherham will have seen in scouring the press. An article entitled, "Initial
1008
lustre of new money begins to fade for Europe" ended with a comment from the Federal Reserve head, Alan Greenspan that the
"euro will be an interesting experiment. It has not yet been tested"—
obviously—
"It is going to take years before there is really significant tests on that system."
But, regardless, apparently, Britain should join.
Despite all the uncertainty, despite all the threats of harmonisation to the UK plc, despite all the structural weaknesses in the EU and despite the fact that we just do not know where the experiment is leading, the Prime Minister has decreed that we should move up a gear and make haste to join this untested experimental currency as soon as the minor irritation of a referendum is out of the way. Regardless, Britain should join a successful single currency.
If the changeover plan was instead an Ealing comedy, it would be called, "Carry on Regardless".
Mr. Gardiner: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and particularly for doing so at the precise moment that he did, because that was his 18th use of "regardless". I swore that if he reached 17, I would intervene.
In fact, the conditions and tests that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid down ever since he assumed the role of Chancellor, and the tests which were reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement to the House only last week, make it clear that it is not the case that Britain, regardless, will join the single European currency. It is even acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman that it would only be regardless in joining a successful currency. That is not to make any sense whatsoever. It is to make a tautologous statement—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must make a brief intervention, not a mini-speech.
Mr. Loughton: I think that the hon. Gentleman should reread the Prime Minister's statement and the subsequent questions last week. I was determined to beat the Chancellor of the Exchequer's record for mentioning prudence or financial prudence some 17 times in his Budget last year, and I have done it by a margin of one.
There is little sign of economic convergence between the United Kingdom and Europe; there is every sign of economic divergence. The "one size fits all" policy of the euro zone will lead to serious strains in Ireland, for example. In the past two years, Dublin house prices have risen by 82 per cent. The cost of living in Ireland is soaring; in response, interest rates have been halved. Company profits in Ireland are under pressure as companies become uncompetitive. It is a recipe for boom and bust, if ever I saw one.
The truth is that the Government have made up their mind, and are working on ways of getting round the minor irritation of the fact that the British people do not agree. Slowly but surely, we are being spoon fed the mantra of inevitably in the exercise.
Just last week, in The Spectator, Bruce Anderson said that the "inevitably of gradualism" is the Government's policy. It is changeover by stealth. All that guff about

1009
"if the economic criteria are right" is subterfuge. As far as the Government are concerned, it is a matter, not of "what if", but of "what when". I fear that such arrogance, in prejudging a referendum, is becoming all too much a hallmark of the Government.
Last Tuesday, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) welcomed the truth that the Government had crossed the Rubicon, albeit only by the "tiniest millimetre"—which any study of classical history would show to be something of a paradox. Nevertheless, from my study of the late-Roman republic, I was reminded that the phrase was made famous, in 49 BC, by Julius Caesar, who put himself above the law—some parallels may become clear—overturned Rome's constitutional framework, and became a dictator. He cared little for the democratic processes of the Senate, and attended the chamber rarely. By declining to stand down his army at the banks of the Rubicon, he challenged the authority of the Roman people, to promote his own personal self-embellishment and grand design for the map of continental Europe.
Mr. Bercow: Brutus.
Mr. Loughton: Candidates for Brutus may well be in the Chamber later today, on the Treasury Bench.
Five years of civil strife ensued across most of mediterranean Europe, culminating in assassination of the arrogant tyrant—at the hands of his erstwhile allies—while on a rare visit to the now emasculated senate.
The imperial age followed. The constitution of the republic was lost for good. Parliamentary accountability, such as it was in classical Rome, never recovered, as power was vested in the body of the emperor.
The Prime Minister may have more of a Napoleon complex than a Julius Caesar complex. Nevertheless, I trust that, last week, in crossing his Rubicon—as it was described—the Prime Minister has not unleashed a repeat of history.
10.32 am
Jacqui Smith: After hearing the speech of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), I fear that—not having had the benefit of a classical education, unlike some Conservative Members—I might be at a bit of a loss on that matter. However, I hope that I do have an understanding of economics, which is probably more relevant to this debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) for initiating the debate, and welcome the opportunity of discussing the issue. I welcome especially the opportunity of considering the Government's performance in meeting the criteria that will have to be met if we are to achieve convergence. I share the Government's wish to achieve that aim, as I believe that membership of the single currency will bring significant economic benefits to the United Kingdom. The Government appreciate those benefits.
I also hope that the debate might give us some opportunity to consider Conservative Members' views on the benefits and future of the single currency. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham gave us only a lengthy reiteration of all the old
1010
Conservative scare stories about Europe, and paid very little attention to the arguments on economic and monetary union.
Many of the untruthful scare stories promulgated by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham have nothing to do with the single currency. If the stories have any basis in reality, which is questionable, they would have more to do with membership of the European Union than of the single currency. Are we therefore to assume, from what we have heard today from Conservative Members, that they have gone even further and are actively—
Mr. Alan Clark: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, I shall not be taking any interventions.
Are they actively advocating withdrawal from European Union?
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Jacqui Smith: No, I shall not. Is that the Conservative position? Perhaps the Opposition spokesman will tell us.
Mr. Alan Clark: The hon. Lady has asked a question. Will she give way?
Jacqui Smith: No. I should like to finish my speech, so that the Opposition spokesman will have an opportunity to clarify the position.
The hon. Member for Twickenham asked whether we should establish further convergence criteria, and whether the Government are taking sufficient action to meet the current criteria. It might be worth while—as it is the subject of the debate—to review the Maastricht convergence criteria that will have to be met if we are to join EMU. An analysis of those criteria shows that the Government, in their stabilisation policies, have already met the criteria. Perhaps we should put a tick against those criteria.
As hon. Members have already made clear, however, the Government have decided that the Maastricht criteria are not the only ones that shall be considered in judging whether entry to the single currency is in the best interests of the United Kingdom economy. Although the point seems frequently to get lost in Opposition scare stories, that is the most important criterion in deciding whether entry to the single currency would be beneficial for the UK economy.
We should therefore consider the five tests that the Chancellor has set himself, and whether—as the hon. Member for Twickenham asked—the Government are taking active measures to ensure that the criteria are met.
The first criterion is sustainable convergence. It is a crucial test, and I shall deal with it later in my speech.
The second criterion is whether the UK economy is sufficiently flexible to cope with economic change. If we pool some of our economic sovereignty in Europe, thereby altering our ability to change monetary policy, it is important that we should have sufficient economic flexibility. The Chancellor has already placed emphasis on the supply-side of the economy—on productivity and

1011
new deal measures—to increase economic flexibility, so that, if we do enter a single currency, we are able to cope with economic change.
The third criterion is the effect of entry on investment. The hon. Member for Twickenham said that he had spoken to business people in his constituency about the issue. Very many other hon. Members have had similar discussions in our constituencies. The very strong and clear message that I have received is that business not only wants economic stability—which the Government are delivering—but is concerned about jeopardising investment opportunities if we do not at least seriously consider joining the single currency.
Many businesses in my constituency, for example, depend on Rover Longbridge for business. As a large manufacturer, Rover's attitude to the euro demonstrates that large business thinks that entry to the euro is very important to their long-term stability and investment plans.
The fourth criterion is the impact of entry on the financial services industry. Before 1 January 1999, many people said that the euro's beginning would cause economic meltdown and chaos, and that the project was impossible. In our Treasury Select Committee visits to the City and in other contacts with the City, we have learned that the City has coped well with the euro, although other opportunities could be realised by full membership.
The final criterion is whether membership will be good for employment. I have already touched on the measures that the Government are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom economy is sufficiently flexible to meet the criterion.
Convergence is very important. Ireland has shown the difficulties that arise from joining without sufficient convergence. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Twickenham, the question is whether an explicit convergence target is necessary. I argue that it is not. Bank of England independence and a long-term approach to fiscal policy that will enable us to converge are more important.
I am disappointed that there has been no elucidation this morning of the Conservative position, although I still hope for some. There are important questions that need answers. Do the Conservatives believe that Britain should not join regardless of the economic considerations?
Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady continually to pose questions to the Conservatives and refuse any attempt by those of us who are present to elucidate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely in order. How the hon. Lady makes her speech is a matter for her.
Jacqui Smith: I am not sure whether that intervention suggests that the right hon. Gentleman does not have confidence in his Front Benchers' response on the issue.
There has been speculation in The Daily Telegraph on whether the Leader of the Opposition is going to sack the former Chancellor and the former Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps we shall hear some comments from the Front Bench. Is the Conservative policy to rule out membership
1012
for 10 years, for six or seven years, or for ever? Are they concerned about the economic interests of the country? We need to know. The Government's position has been made clear. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I look forward to some elucidation from the Opposition Front Bench.
10.41 am
Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on obtaining the debate. This is one of the most important issues—if not the most important issue—facing the country, although one would not think so from the sparse attendance on the Labour Benches. I welcome the fact that we are debating the issue, but we believe that a one-and-a-half hour Adjournment debate on a Wednesday morning is wholly inadequate for an issue of such importance. Several of my hon. Friends sought to question the Prime Minister on the issue last week and were unable to do so. My hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) have sought to speak in the debate today, but there has not been time. I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House for a full debate in Government time as soon as possible.
It is not just in this place that there should be a full debate. There may well be a referendum on whether it is in the interests of this country to join a single currency. There is already considerable discussion about that. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that there are constitutional as well as economic issues at stake. It is important that they should be spelt out.
I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 185, which calls on the Government to publish a White Paper on the constitutional, economic and political implications of joining a single currency. That motion has been signed by more than 100 Members of Parliament, including Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. Does the Economic Secretary accept that the political and constitutional implications are as important as, if not more important than, the economic ones? Will she undertake to publish a White Paper setting them out?
Such arguments were noticeably absent from the Prime Minister's statement last week, which, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, contained virtually no hard information. However, it confirmed the Government's wish to abolish the pound and join the single currency. The Prime Minister's much-vaunted love affair with the pound turns out to have been simply a marriage of convenience to get him past the general election. At the first opportunity, he has ditched sterling in favour of the euro. Of course, we are told that the final decision will be subject to a referendum, but it is clear beyond doubt that the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats are committed to taking us into a single currency. Only the Conservative party is opposed.
Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on whether the Conservative party's fundamental objection is constitutional? If it is, does that rule out the economic considerations? If his party has decided that joining the single currency should not be countenanced on

1013
constitutional grounds, why does he refer to economic arguments, which must be spurious and surplus to requirements?
Mr. Whittingdale: We have repeatedly made it clear that there are constitutional and economic problems with joining a single currency. That is why our manifesto for the next election will state that the next Conservative Government will not go into a single currency during the next Parliament. We have spelt that out time and again.
We have discovered that the Government are preparing to spend taxpayers' money to promote the cause of joining the single currency before and during a referendum campaign. The recent report of Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life explicitly said that taxpayers' money should not be used to influence the outcome of any referendum on UK membership. One of the key recommendations was that the Government should remain neutral and should not distribute literature at public expense—even purportedly factual literature—that set out or otherwise promoted their case. Yet already the Treasury officer of accounts has written to Departments saying that it is reasonable to spend money that is considered necessary to enable the general public to make an informed decision when they vote in a referendum. Will the Minister assure us that the Government will accept the recommendation of Lord Neill's committee and that taxpayers' money will not be used to produce literature promoting the Government's view?
The issue does not stop there. A recent health service circular advises NHS bodies that they should not enter into contracts with a supplier who has no plans to introduce euro-compliance into their software. The health service is to be forced to place orders not with the most cost-effective supplier, but with those who are euro-compliant. That will result in better value contracts being rejected and money that the health service desperately needs being wasted to satisfy the Government's obsession with joining the euro.
Last week's statement purported to set out details of the national changeover plan, but many fundamental questions remain unanswered. One of the most basic questions, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton), is how much it will cost. The Government appear incapable of answering. The Prime Minister glibly referred in his statement to tens of millions of pounds having to be spent to make departmental computer systems euro-compatible, but there appear to be no detailed estimates. How much will the Government spend over the next three years on making the public sector euro-compliant? It is not good enough for the Prime Minister to say in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) on Monday that it depends. We are talking about public money and Parliament has a right to know. It is clear that the cost to the economy as a whole of changing to the euro will run into billions of pounds.
Much has been made of possible savings in transaction costs, but they are likely to be wiped out for years to come by the cost of conversion. Again, there is hardly any mention of that in the Government's document. Instead, businesses are being urged to commit massive resources to preparing for the changeover, when it is highly possible that it may never occur.
The Government's document is also silent on another key requirement. Article 121 of the Amsterdam treaty states that it is a requirement of membership that the
1014
fluctuation margins provided for must be observed by the currency for at least two years before joining. That was one of the conditions for first-wave entrants. The European Commissioner has said that if and when the UK decides to join, we shall have to comply with the same conditions. The Prime Minister said last week that it was not his policy to shadow the euro. How does he intend to meet the condition so that we shall be in a position to join? The Economic Secretary understands such matters better than the Prime Minister does. Will she tell us whether the Government intend to instruct the Bank of England to seek to influence the exchange rate to shadow the euro, as the treaty requires? How does that square with the Bank's inflation remit, as the hon. Member for Twickenham asked?
Let me deal briefly with another key requirement for membership that the Government have set—economic convergence. We have already seen the fudging of the Maastricht criteria to ensure that all the first-wave applicants were successful. Will the Minister assure us that there will be no fudging of the Chancellor's five economic tests? If that is the case, how will she judge whether cyclical convergence has taken place? The Government's own document states that, over the past decade, the United Kingdom has become increasingly out of step with Germany, while the United States and United Kingdom cycles have been relatively synchronised. Has the Minister any evidence that is changing? Given the facts, how can the United Kingdom possibly be in a position to join in five years' time?
All those questions must be answered, but the Government have ducked them all. Instead of answering, they are trying to create the impression that entry is inevitable.
We have already observed the Government's skill at raising taxes by stealth; now they are trying to take us into a single currency by stealth. The truth is that a single currency would be against our economic interests, and against our national interest. That is not just our view. We now know that it is the view of the last Labour Chancellor; it is the view of the former leader of the Social Democratic party, which was allied with the party of the hon. Member for Twickenham, and—as every survey has shown—it is overwhelmingly the view of the British people.
10.51 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on his success in securing the debate, and on his thoughtful speech. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) on his witty contribution, which was, as he pointed out, entirely on-message. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) made an intelligent speech, especially from the perspective of the business community. It was also interesting to hear a contribution—albeit somewhat confused—from a representative of the anti-European Conservative party.
The issue of British participation in the single currency is the most important issue with which the country is likely to deal for a generation. That is why, on taking office, the Government resolved to end the indecision and divisions that have isolated us from the debate in Europe, and sidelined our national interest. That is why,

1015
in October 1997, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government's clear policy, a policy reiterated last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We intend to join a successful single currency if it is in the country's economic interests. That remains our policy.
The hon. Member for Twickenham suggested that the Government should instruct the Monetary Policy Committee to take convergence into account, even if that meant, in certain specific circumstances, having to pursue a target contrary to the inflation target that is the committee's remit. Let me draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the success of the new monetary framework that the Government have created. It has delivered falling long-term interest rates—they are now only 0.5 per cent. higher than those in the euro zone—and the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years.
We believe that the primary objective of the Bank of England must remain the delivery of price stability, as is clear from the inflation target that we have set for it. That is the Bank's responsibility, that is what British interest rates are intended to deliver, and that is what they should continue to deliver. It would be extremely foolish to confuse that inflation target with a different target, whether by reference to a general convergence target or, more specifically, by reference to an exchange rate target or exchange rate zones. That would remove the predictability and transparency of our new monetary policy framework, and would undoubtedly reduce its effectiveness.
Similarly, if—as some have suggested—we tried to shadow the interest rates of the European central bank, it would mean accepting a monetary policy that was right for the euro zone, but not right for the United Kingdom; and that would lead to more instability, not less.
The hon. Member for Twickenham referred to the structural differences in the housing market. Differences indeed exist in the housing market, and in the nature of housing finance: we pointed that out in the Treasury report on convergence. I stress, however, that the trend in the British housing market is now towards a much greater use of fixed-rate mortgages, whose advantages the hon. Gentleman rightly emphasised. The fact that 50 per cent. of new mortgages are being taken out at a fixed interest rate reflects the lower inflation expectations and the consequent lower risk now associated with fixed-rate mortgages. It also illustrates the success of our monetary policy framework.
Mr. Alan Clark: I thank the Minister for giving way. That contrasts with the behaviour of some of her hon. Friends.
1016
In her lucid and articulate exposition of the reasons for not shadowing the euro, the Minister defined precisely the reasons for not entering the euro. Was that a slip on the part of whoever wrote the speech for her?
Ms Hewitt: The reason why we should not shadow the euro, and the reason why we should seek to shadow the interest rates currently set by the European central bank, are exactly the reasons why we should not enter the euro at this stage. To do so would not be in Britain's interests, because it would mean setting an interest rate designed for conditions in Europe, not those in Britain. That is why we will enter a successful single currency only if there is a sustained and settled period of convergence, and if doing so would be good for the British economy and British jobs.
Mr. Bercow: Why does the Minister say that the Government do not propose to shadow the euro, when they have signed the treaty of Amsterdam, article 121 of which specifically requires that shadowing? The Chancellor's advisers know that; Gavyn Davies and the responsible European Commissioner know it. Does the Minister not know? If she does not, why does she not admit it?
Ms Hewitt: The condition required for entry into the euro is a period of exchange-rate stability, and our policy is for a stable and competitive exchange rate. We shall not achieve that by targeting a particular exchange rate; we shall achieve it on the basis of sound economic fundamentals. That is why our economic policy is designed to secure low and stable inflation, steady and sustainable growth, and sound public finances.
The Luxembourg European Council stated that, in general, exchange rates should be seen as the outcome of other economic policies. That is precisely the Government's view, and that is why we are not pursuing the suggestion of the hon. Member for Twickenham.
I am sorry that, given the time allowed and the number of interventions, I have not been able to deal with all the points that have been raised; but I assure the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) that it is far more sensible to spend now, in preparation for possible entry to the euro. As Derek Wanless, the head of NatWest, has said, the longer the time that we have, the less it costs, because the costs of preparation for a possible eventuality are built into the on-going project.

British Film Industry
11 am
Mr. Tom Clarke: I begin by declaring an interest, as already recorded. Specifically, since 15 February this year, I have been non-executive chairman of Spring Studios. More generally, my interest in film goes back a long time. Since the House returned from the summer recess, I have been trying to obtain this debate because of that long-standing, passionate and professional interest in film.
Before I came to the House in 1982, I had spent most of my working life as an executive with the Scottish Film Council, and I had the privilege of serving later as a governor of the British Film Institute, under the chairmanship of Lord Attenborough. It was with real delight, therefore, that I heard that the House would have a chance to discuss the future of the British film industry.
I look forward to speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and especially from the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, whom I congratulate warmly on her appointment. She used my parking space for many years and, in the unlikely event of my driving in London—something I have never done—and thus spreading terror throughout the metropolis, I am sure that she would reciprocate.
The House will know that the Government's review of the film industry, "A Bigger Picture", was published in March last year. It was co-chaired by Stewart Till, president of Polygram Filmed Entertainment, and myself. If I may say so, it was described by the Financial Times as
"the most comprehensive review of the film industry in over 30 years."
It was, I believe, a testament to the excellent work done on the review by all who contributed to it.
We had an expert team to work with us on the review—a team which covered every aspect of Britain's film industry and film culture, with every kind of company, from the smallest independent to the largest corporation, drawn from every part of Britain. The findings of the group were eagerly awaited not just in the UK, but in Europe and across the Atlantic. The review group was set key objectives by the Government, which were announced in Cannes days after the election by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The crucial challenge was how to ensure that the flow of quality British films reached our audiences. Specifically, one of the key objectives was to double the market share of British films. Thankfully—and in full accord with the new Labour style of government—the objective was realised during the months in which the report was compiled. The share of domestic box office taken by British films did double—in large measure due to the extraordinary success of films such as "The Full Monty". However, that vintage year also contained "Shooting Fish", "Mrs. Brown", "Bean", "The Borrowers" and "Brassed Off'. Speaking personally, I had a high regard for "Brassed Off', which deserved even more success. That may be because my father was a miner rather than a stripper, and I still have many ex-miners in my constituency.
By March 1998, as the review indicates, the audience share for British films had risen to 23 per cent. However, with the most recent figures showing that it is down to 14 per cent., there is a danger of boom and bust—a worry
1018
for my Front-Bench colleagues. Evidence of our talent became apparent again when, this year, "Elizabeth" received seven Oscar nominations, and "Shakespeare in Love" received 13. In this week's BAFTA nominations, the films picked up 28 nominations between them.
All that is welcome, and it confirms what we already know—that our movies are capable, without compromising their individuality, of attracting huge audiences at home and abroad. The successes show that we have real genius in this unique area where culture and commerce meet. I have always believed that we can build on those talents to a far greater degree, and produce a truly creative, integrated and robust British film industry.
Despite our talents and their considerable success, we must acknowledge that that success is precarious. There is no doubt that we have some of the most gifted film makers in the world, but we do not have enough of the structures in place—something which is crucial in today's modern, global enterprise economy. We must ensure that we sustain and improve on our success, year on year.
Despite our recent achievements, we are, to say the least, in the questionable situation where there is no guarantee that revenues from British success stories will be reinvested in the production of more British films. We need only look at the excellent "Four Weddings and a Funeral", which is still the biggest-grossing UK film world wide. Its producer, Duncan Kenworthy OBE—as of yesterday—made a sterling contribution to the review. We wish him well with "Notting Hill", the film he has just completed. I am sure that he will continue to inspire others to invest and support this creative industry.
We desperately need the modern companies and business skills that could enable more of our film makers to make bigger and better pictures that get on more screens in Britain and around the world. Far too often, the vision of a renaissance of our film industry has been waved before our eyes, only to be replaced with broken dreams and dashed hopes. Plainly, the industry in Britain has structural weaknesses which prevent it from reaching its full potential, as a comparison of the US and UK industries demonstrates.
The US film industry is undoubtedly extremely successful. However, when we share the same language advantage as the US and when our film makers are acknowledged to be some of the most creative in the world, we must ask why the British film industry does not perform as the American industry does. "A Bigger Picture" showed that there are massive differences in structure between the US and UK industries.
The US industry is dominated by distribution-led integrated companies, where the processes of development, production acquisition and distribution are financed and carried out by a single entity. They believe that vertical integration is the right approach. By contrast, the UK industry is fragmented, and sometimes gives the impression that it lacks the ambition to change. The production process is separate from the distribution process, which is dominated by big US companies. In Britain, most producers have no close relationship with their distributor, and often have to sell all their rights for their films to be distributed.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's flow, but I cannot resist interjecting at this point to confirm one contrast

1019
between the US and British film industries: the US film industry is willing to take far greater poetic licence. I have in mind the new US film about the alleged capture of a German submarine by Americans who, supposedly took hold of the Enigma machine, thus shortening the war by enabling the code breakers to do their work.
I wonder whether, even at this late stage, representations might be made to the American producers to allow a walk-on part to my constituent, the then Royal Navy Sub-Lieutenant David Balme DSC, who actually captured the Enigma machine from the U-110 seven months before America even entered the war.
Mr. Clarke: I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's little speech. He will understand if I do not respond in detail, as this is only a short debate and others want to speak.
Mr. Robin Corbett: May I quickly pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's work as films Minister? On the point about distribution weakness inhibiting the success of British films, has our mutual friend Barry Spikings had any success in Hollywood with the American film distribution companies in trying out new arrangements with Britain and the rest of Europe, on a partnership basis, to make it easier for films made in the European Union to be shown in our own countries?
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to our mutual friend Barry. He is, indeed, working away on those projects in the United States.
We cannot complain about American investment and integration or even about the huge American influence in Britain's cinemas. The Americans have cracked it and we should welcome their investment. The United States can see the attraction in investing in Britain, but we do not invest with the same enthusiasm in our indigenous industry.
Mr. David Chidgey: Is not the problem that we simply cannot attract sufficient investment in the production of British films to get beyond the critical mass that would enable our films to attract worldwide distribution and get the return on the investment that would bring growth to the industry?
Mr. Clarke: That is absolutely right. That was the main thrust of "A Bigger Picture". Frankly, until we reach that point, I do not believe that we can claim success for our film industry.
It is perhaps no surprise that the average budget for wholly British films produced in 1997 was less than £3.5 million, compared with more than £18 million for the overseas films made in the United Kingdom. The comparison highlights the bizarre situation of the British film industry. After all, if overseas—usually US—companies can, rightly, see the potential of investment in Britain, why is domestic confidence so much weaker?
The film policy review group had that in mind when it examined the underlying structures, and it soon became obvious that we need to encourage the emergence of a distribution-led industrial process, with firms capable of attracting major private investment, and greater integration between production and distribution. If we are
1020
to create a modern industry that is successful at every stage, from initial development of a script through production to marketing and distribution and, finally, exploitation by television or video, every part of it must come together and play its full role in building the conditions for success.
It was my belief during the review, as it is now, that the long-term interests of the British film industry and of the small independent production groups within it rests in collective action to address the needs of the industry as a whole. A great start in the process of all sectors coming together was my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's welcome announcement in his first Budget of tax reliefs for film production.
That announcement was excellent, and demonstrated the Government's will to assist the film industry, but if we are to get anywhere, Government actions must be matched by all who benefit from our film industry. In "A Bigger Picture", we proposed that, to complement the Government's fiscal initiative, the whole industry be invited to contribute on a co-operative and voluntary basis to an all-industry fund to improve the development, distribution and marketing of British films.
If enhanced, those activities will benefit the whole industry, and I still believe that they should be funded at least in part by the industry itself. After enormous consultation and debate, it was estimated that a voluntary contribution of as little as 0.5 per cent. of the film-related revenue of approximately £3 billion a year would raise about £15 million a year. With that funding, we agreed, there should be a significant increase in the size and prospects of the British film industry, to the benefit of all, which would more than outweigh the relatively small cost.
Some of the other measures recommended in the report are already being implemented. I hope that the House will recognise that the scale of what can be achieved will be greatly increased if the industry is prepared to underpin the Government's strategy with its own investment. That is an essential ingredient of success.
In effect, we faced a choice. We knew that we had identified desirable policy objectives, and we could either introduce the first Films Bill since 1985 or seek to bring everything and everyone with us, here and abroad, with a something for something principle, in which I still believe.
After all, should not those who benefit from films contribute to the investment in them? Are we to suffer from chronic lack of investment while our wiser, but no more gifted, competitors race ahead? In that spirit, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether progress is being made on the fund, which is a key element in the package. Considering the difficulties, has the action committee explored the scope for an alternative that will achieve the aims of the original proposal?
The fund would complement the work of the Arts Council of England, which has considered committing £100 million of lottery money to film over the next three years. I am sure that the House would agree that it is right to continue to support the British film industry, and I believe that the Government have set the policy options.
A further consideration that we identified was the need for significant progress in the development of links between the City and the industry to create long-term investment opportunities. That was the reasoning that helped to establish the film finance forum, which was to

1021
consider specific proposals and might improve the industry's investment potential, one of its primary tasks being to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of front-end tax relief schemes for investors to encourage the creation of well-capitalised, integrated distribution entities.
It would be helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister could tell the House about the progress of the finance forum. I am sure that she has kept the Treasury informed of the industry's views about the beneficial effects of the 100 per cent. tax write-off for production. Can she give us any information about the Treasury's thinking on further tax reliefs for the industry? Has there been further dialogue, for example on the £15 million cut? Given that the ad hoc working party that was set up in June 1998 by the film action group, which I briefly chaired, has presumably reached some conclusions on distribution tax reliefs, can my hon. Friend the Minister enlighten the House on what those might be?
A debate about the British film industry would not be complete without mentioning the role of the country's highly skilled broadcasters. It was the view of the group, and still is the view of many to whom I have spoken in the industry, that our terrestrial and satellite broadcasters should stand up and take more responsibility for their obligations to the British film industry. After all, broadcasters use film. They should make a contribution to the success of film.
When I met broadcasters, including Channel 5, Granada and BSkyB, there was an obvious synergy in the training and development of writers and actors which, with convergence, is bound to increase. It is a shame that there may be some broadcasters who object to contributing to the fund, as great care was taken to ascertain the views of the broadcasters during the review and afterwards in the action group. It simply is not on for some to suggest that they were not consulted. They were involved as much as every other section of the industry. That said, it would be wrong not to mention the BBC, with whose help "Mrs. Brown" was a major success, and Channel 4, which has recently made an excellent contribution to the industry. I understand that the ITV network has signalled that it wants its companies to invest more in film and we look forward to seeing the fruits of that £100 million investment. Some broadcasters still play a minor role, and, in all candour, I had expected satellite and Terrestrial broadcasters to be more vibrant as we move into the digital age.
The development of the industry depends heavily on film industry training and that point cannot be overemphasised. An adequate supply of skilled professionals is the only sure way to service a growing industry and to keep labour costs competitive. If the success of the industry in Britain is to be sustained, we need to emphasise the requirement for training, both for this and the next generation of the work force behind the camera, and in scriptwriting and development. We also need to encourage Skillset, the national training organisation for film and television, in its sterling work. In that context, it defeats me to understand why—if I understand the position correctly—the national film and television school has been largely sidestepped in consideration of structural issues.
I found it almost unbelievable that, before the review, in an industry with an annual value across all media in
1022
the United Kingdom estimated at more than £3 billion, the then independent production training fund raised as little as £90,000 a year. That represents a minuscule proportion of the value of the industry to this country. For that reason, a skills investment fund has been established. Producers of British films will be asked to contribute 0.5 per cent. of the production costs of their films up to £10 million and 0.25 per cent. for any costs above £10 million. For two years, the contributions will be voluntary. Because the group felt so strongly about the need for increased financing—and I agree—if the trial period was unsatisfactory, the Government would consider whether proper action needed to be taken. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm that that is still the position.
Training should be seen as the responsibility of all sectors of the industry that rely on the quality of British films produced. I take this opportunity to ask my hon. Friend what discussions she has had on the skills investment fund and what plans she has to progress the crucial policy area of voluntary arrangements should they be proving elusive.
Obviously, the commercial appeal of films is central to their box office success. In that area, the group tried to set up an action plan to help the industry increase the marketability of British films and, equally, the attractiveness of films and the cinema for the British public. We recommended the establishment of a film marketing agency which would promote a generic interest in film, based on a permanent audience research capability, providing the sort of information that the British Audience Research Bureau provides for television and staffed by marketing professionals. Such a proposal would make it possible to determine the attitudes of the actual and potential audience for film, enabling the industry to respond to or even anticipate consumer demand, as television does.
The report also recommended that more should be done to help independent producers get their films shown at the major film markets. I understand that the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television has agreed to take this on. I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made on the setting up of a film marketing agency and the PACT initiative on overseas marketing. Can she update me on how we are to launch script development in the absence of voluntary arrangements for the all-industry fund? It is often said that one can make a bad film from a good script, but one cannot make a good film from a bad script. Will my hon. Friend also update us on the script development scheme that has been proposed by the Arts Council? Will such a scheme include previous box office success in the criteria?
Some believe that the British film audience is less adventurous than some of its counterparts abroad, and that it should be a longer-term goal to create what is called a more cine-literate—although I do not much like the word—population, through education in its wider sense at all stages and at all levels. It was for that reason that we proposed the setting up of a working group to draw up a strategy for film education. Not only would this have education benefits for generations to come, but it would provide social and economic benefits. A broader range of film makers, distributors and exhibitors would be able to find an audience and to survive in the marketplace. What discussions has my hon. Friend the Minister had with

1023
ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment on that important matter and on whether the BFI's plans for it have now matured?
In terms of the UK industry and the worldwide marketplace, the UK has a real advantage. Because of its language, the Hollywood production companies find it relatively compatible with the work environment that they require and, even more significantly, our films have the ability to find an audience outside the local marketplace. arious measures were implemented, such as the setting up of an office in Los Angeles, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any plans to visit it in the near future. I recommend that she should.
Closer to home for me, the Scottish contribution to the British film industry continues to be extremely important. We have film-making talent in abundance up there, although I am too modest to include my own little effort, "Give Us A Goal", in that category.
The lack of structure of the industry in the whole UK, however, has a detrimental impact on Scottish film production. I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the relationship between Scottish and UK film institutions. The British Film Institute, British Screen and the British Film Commission appear to have a mixture of British and English responsibilities, and I urge my hon. Friend and her counterpart in Scotland to clarify that situation as soon as possible, not least because of the setting up of the Parliament in Scotland this year. It would be helpful if dialogue was known to be taking place this side of that Parliament's taking up its duties. As a Scot, I would welcome clarification.
It is important that the changes recommended for the British film industry should be seen within the objectives of creating a self-sustaining European audiovisual industry that is able to win a greater share of the European market. The European Union's audiovisual seminar at Birmingham during our presidency last year was a great success. Excellent work is being carried out in Europe by Commissioner Marcelino Oreja, whom I met a few weeks ago in Brussels, not least in his policy, which I wholly commend, of encouraging the development of centres of training and excellence.
In Britain, it was proposed that the film finance forum should make it a priority to develop plans to encourage the growth of European investment vehicles to lead private money investment in a slate of films attached to the distribution entities. What is the Government's position on the proposals in Commissioner Oreja's document, "The Digital Age", particularly those relating to the securitisation fund?
"A Bigger Picture" was largely silent on structure in the British film industry because we knew that the comprehensive spending review would produce proposals. The review was followed by a document containing a section titled, "Film—What happens now?" In another document from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—"A New Cultural Framework"—I read:
"Work will start immediately with existing film bodies in preparations for the establishment of a new body, with input from Lord Attenborough."
Lord Attenborough is one of Britain's most respected film makers, and I am pleased to see that he is involved in such an important initiative. Perhaps the Minister can comment on the current status of that work.
1024
Film means many things to different people. For some, it is an industry, for others an art form. Many see it as an aspect of creative Britain. However, there is no doubt of film's enduring qualities, and its ability to adapt to changing demands from the most basic broadcasting to digital television. The audiovisual industry faces a challenge, but it is more than capable of taking it on. What is abundantly clear is that there is no limit to the role that the industry can play as we approach the millennium. The future can be a glowing one. Given a fair wind, and given the determination to succeed, that glowing future is well within our grasp.
11.34 am
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I express the House's gratitude to the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for giving us a rare chance to consider the film industry, of which he has been a luminary for many years. Many people respect his personal contribution both in and out of Government and Parliament. He has given us a wide-ranging conspectus, and I shall not seek to follow that. Most of us will wish to hear what the Minister will say to the points that he has raised, and my contribution will be more of a declaration than a main theme.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to emphasise that the boom in the British film industry is remarkable. Its international recognition since 1990 has been enormous—18 per cent. of all Oscars, 15 per cent. of prizes at Montreux and 15 per cent. of prizes at the Monte Carlo television festival have been awarded to English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish feature films and television programmes.
The box office grosses have also been staggeringly impressive: "Four Weddings and a Funeral" took $256 million; "The Full Monty" took $249 million; "Bean" took $234 million; "The English Patient" took $230 million; "Sense and Sensibility" took $134 million; and, "Trainspotting" took $74 million.
These are extraordinary achievements. The United Kingdom is today second only to the United States as a source of films for the international market. We want a springboard for growth and development. Although we have the great advantage of the English language, other challenges exist. There is important new activity in European countries, including Germany, Poland and Spain as well as France, and that is making an impact on the film market while enjoying considerable Government support. Some countries provide much more strategic capital investment than we provide, and we must be clear about what processes we may initiate to ensure that the success that we have enjoyed continues and that we are not squeezed out of our relatively good current position.
On the debit side, it is important to recognise that our structural problems remain acute. During the period that I have already mentioned, we have seen the disappearance of several companies—Thorn EMI, Screen Entertainment, Rank, Goldcrest, Handmade Films, Virgin, Palace Pictures, Helmdale and Embassy—that were engaged in production and distribution. All of them had access to money, but all of them have gone.
As the Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television has pointed out, we have enormous talent in our new breed of producer—gifted people such as Tim Bevan and

1025
Eric Felner, Nik Powell, Steven Woolley and Duncan Kenworthy. Fifteen years ago, we had companies, but today we have the people.
Mr. Chidgey: Is not it a fact that the British film industry has traditionally been a cottage industry, working from film to film on an almost ad hoc basis? It is incredibly difficult to match the power of the American studio system which sees film making as a business, not just an art.
Mr. Maclennan: That is true, and that is the challenge. There is no straightforward answer, but some answers can be made to the questions put by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston.
The case for investment in the industry is strong given the growth of the business world wide, and especially the growth in English language film making, which has enjoyed a growth rate of between 11 and 15 per cent. since the mid 1980s. With the further growth of pay television services, the introduction of digital television and digital video disc, and the growth of other world markets in Latin America, the far east and central Europe, we can anticipate a market for the product. If the investment can be delivered, there should be a major return on it.
The Government have recognised those facts and taken some significant steps to which we must properly pay tribute. Early on, they granted the long-requested 100 per cent. tax relief on film production in the year in which expenditure is incurred. Its absence had been a major drawback for the corporate consortium investor. Like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, I want to know what is happening about the removal of the £15 million cap. That remains a live issue. On the eve of the Budget, we cannot expect to learn what the Government have in mind, but it is important to use this opportunity to press for the issue to be tackled.
Another issue is the withholding tax system, under which all payments, including transport and other expenses, are taxed at basic rate at source. That continues to add up to 20 per cent. to the cost of employing a foreign actor in the United Kingdom. Given the need to cast American actors to help the prospects of film distribution in the United States, the Government should address that. If they made known their calculations of the effect of increased production on the economy, we might learn that withholding tax would yield more.
Many British films are largely financed by the major American studios. Fox financed "The Full Monty". "Shakespeare in Love" is similarly a largely American-funded picture. While the American giants control the market, it continues to be difficult for smaller film makers to make their mark. We have no major studio of our own. In the longer term, the Department should consider the feasibility of the incentives—export incentives, tax credits and other funding mechanisms—that were used by the United States to boost the fortunes of American studios in the early 1970s. In the meantime, we must consider the problems of film making as they stand.
We welcome the forthcoming establishment of British Film and hope that it will bring together the various strands of strategic thinking, allowing a policy for the whole industry with adequate financial support and investment from the centre. It will operate in devolved
1026
Britain, and it is important that national institutions such as Scottish Screen play their part on the basis of participation, not mere consultation.
The British Screen Advisory Council calculates that total lottery funding will need to be at least £35 million per annum and that grant in aid support must be maintained at the present level, at the very least. The funding must be put on a secure medium-term basis, with resources committed by the Government for three years. That will allow adoption of a strategic plan to ensure the best use of funds.
I am concerned about distribution. British films are hard pressed to get on British screens. As long as ago as 1994, the British Film Institute asked the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to investigate unfair practices in British cinemas. Although the commission seemed sympathetic to the case, it considered that it could not examine film supply more generally. Have the Government considered whether that regulatory approach could be reconsidered?
PACT, which represents 1,400 British film and television making companies, proposes that British Film should earmark a fund to underwrite some of the marketing costs incurred by distributors of UK qualifying films. The Government could consider a tax shelter mechanism targeted at the independent distribution business to attract new entrants and consolidate the strength of those who are still in it.
The distribution of British films in America will remain a problem for the foreseeable future. It is exceedingly difficult for most British films to secure distribution there, without which it is difficult to succeed. That is recognised by Government and industry. It is good that, through the lottery, subsidy can be spent on the development of projects and film distribution, as well as on film production.
Our industry could be a world beater. In artistic and technical terms, there is no doubt that it is so recognised. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston was correct to emphasise the importance of training. We do much work on individuals who are valued throughout the world. They tend to be sucked out to Hollywood where their skills are recognised. We must guarantee film training throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. We must do all that we can to ensure that the products of that training can work in our studios.
We must ensure that the tax burdens that draw film makers away from production in Britain are lifted and that the tax incentives used to lure film makers from abroad examined. Most of all, British Film and its brother organisations must encourage and promote public and private partnerships to invest in film making and distribution in the United Kingdom. I conclude by again thanking the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston.
11.47 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for calling this much-needed debate. As Minister of State at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, he advanced many useful ideas on the film industry with great expertise, due to his lifelong commitment and great devotion to, and vast knowledge of, films and their production. His contribution is much appreciated throughout the industry.

1027
I was not expecting to speak, so I have not had the time that I would have liked for research on a subject for which I have such enthusiasm. I will therefore concentrate on matters that I know well from personal experience over what may be too many years. The production and showing of British films do not only generate money for the Exchequer and provide employment for the many skills and talents in the industry; the spin-off in wealth generation can go well beyond that. British films, particularly those celebrating our way of life, such as "Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Mrs. Brown", "Brassed Off', "The Full Monty" and "Shakespeare in Love"—which I have not had the opportunity to see yet—and the imaginative use of location work promotes tourism, both from abroad and domestically. My constituency is a microcosm of that. The Keighley and Worth Valley railway, of which I am a vice-president, has attracted many film and television producers to use the various locations, from industrial heartland to the magnificent Pennines above Haworth and Oxenhope, in such films as "Yanks" and the much loved "The Railway Children".
I shall be a little self-indulgent, because my interest in "The Railway Children" stems from the fact that I fear that my claim to fame will never be as the Member for Keighley or as the wife of Bob or mother of John but as an extra on that film. Hon. Members will have difficulty spotting me. I had dark hair in June 1970 when we had four wonderful weeks of sun—amazing for the Worth valley. So also was my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), as he and his sister Jane, aged six and four at the time, dutifully waved their flags in the presentation scene when the Old Gentleman William Mervyn presented gold watches to
"the saviours of the iron road",
as only William Mervyn could. That scene was on Oakworth station platform. The crossing keeper's house was Perks cottage, now a successful bed-and-breakfast establishment organised by a friend of mine, Councillor John Cope, and his wife Patricia.
For 29 years Keighley and the Worth valley area's hotels, shops and cafes have benefited from that one film. So we can see that a great deal of money can be generated for the country as a whole from the films that we produce.
Before I leave the subject of "The Railway Children", I pay tribute to the man who was behind the camera throughout the eight weeks of production, especially at Oakworth and in Oxenhope. The real stars of that film were the railway engines, not Jenny Agutter, William Mervyn and the others. The railway engines were brought to life by cameraman Arthur Ibbetson's use of the camera. "The Railway Children" was the first film directed by Lionel Jeffries. As it was his first film, he did not have a great deal of expertise in film making, but I feel that Arthur Ibbetson carried him through, such was his expertise. Arthur died last year and that is why I am mentioning his name so much.
Arthur lbbetson started his career as a clapperboy on "Brief Encounter", made largely at Carnforth. He was the lighting cameraman on 30-odd films, including "Whistle Down the Wind", "The League of Gentlemen", and "A Countess from Hong Kong". In "Where Eagles Dare", he was able to demonstrate his expertise in the use of day-for-night shooting. For "Anne of the Thousand Days",
1028
he received an Oscar nomination, and rightly so. I am not sure what the position is regarding the film school, but I hope that it and other organisations will continue to produce skilled people such as Arthur Ibbetson for the benefit of our film industry.
I shall go outside Britain to demonstrate how there can be a spin-off from film production. A few weeks ago, I was in Strasbourg for a meeting of the Council of Europe. I talked for the first time to a colleague, a socialist Member of Parliament for the centre of Vienna. I said that I knew Vienna well because I had seen "The Third Man" about 10 times, although I had never been there. I asked what was left of Vienna at that time. She said that "The Third Man" was a growing source of tourism. Apparently, the little cabins on the big ferns wheel can now be hired for functions such as children's parties, and they are very popular. I asked her about the cemetery, which is still there. I asked her about the wonderful railway station, too. I am afraid that that has gone. I also asked about the wonderful shots of Harry Lime being chased in the sewers.
My colleague told me that there were now guided tours of the sewers. Hon. Members will be relieved to learn that sewage is no longer carried down them; they now form a culvert for a river. The tourism industry is linking on to the film and providing guided tours along an underground walkway.
When Carol Reed made "The Third Man" in 1949, he demonstrated to us all and, I hope, to younger film makers of today, that it is possible to have the audience on the edge of their seats with excitement and spellbound by what is going on without using gratuitous violence, blood and gore. He used shadow and atmosphere to generate enthusiasm in his audience.
I shall try to be brief because I know that others want to speak, but I wish to put in a plug for Bradford. "Billy Liar" and "Room at the Top" were made there, and we are now proud to have the national museum of photography, film and television, which I think is the only place in the world where one can see all forms of film projection, including Imax, 3-D, cinemascope and cinerama. On Friday, the Bradford film festival begins, to run for two weeks. I am sure that it will be of great benefit to our industry. In a few weeks, we shall see the reopening of the museum, which has been completely refurbished. I am sure that many hon. Members will want to see the museum.
I am afraid that my cinema-going is now dominated by my grandchildren. The most recent film that I have seen is "A Bug's Life". I am sure that Conservative Members will not agree with me, but for me the film expressed the philosophy of "the workers united will never be defeated." I am not sure that Conor and Robert thought that, but I did.
During the general election in Keighley, I was ably assisted by Lord Dickie Attenborough, who has already been mentioned. He came up to campaign for me, and he was wonderful. He did that not because he thought that I was wonderful but because he felt that a Labour Government would have a greater understanding of and give greater support to the British film industry. So I shall finish by saying that I hope that we do not let the British film industry down and that we do what Dickie Attenborough hoped that we would do.
11.57 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). She referred to Oakworth. I had the honour to live in Oakworth for some 16 years. I have fond recollections of the Worth valley railway and of the hon. Lady's late husband in connection with the film industry. My family's claim to fame is that we supplied extras to "Yanks", which was also filmed there. My late uncle Bob ate successive bowls of rice pudding to act as a backdrop to one of the Rank charm school films.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on obtaining the debate. He was a distinguished Minister for the film industry. He spoke at great length of the needs of the industry, but he left out something which I know—he is a great enthusiast for films and the media. He made only one mistake and it was a fatal one. He succumbed to the curse of the Cannes film festival, which as hon. Members may know is as fatal—perhaps the Minister will understand this—to the interests of British film Ministers as the Tutankhamun curse is to those who wish to dig up ancient Egyptians.
The right hon. Gentleman demonstrated characteristic courage in the debate. Today is virtually the anniversary of "A Bigger Picture", a publication which laid out the Government's action plan. For most of the right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech, he was doing the monitoring for the Government. There are certain things that we want to know have happened. On page 6 of the document, the various recommendations are listed. It is a matter of regret that the first of the so-called radical plans—the all-industry fund—disappeared without much lament in November last year. The fund was described as the linchpin of the British film revival. Without that linchpin, many of the other items in the 12-point plan have come to naught.
The right hon. Members for Coatbridge and Chryston and for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) both referred to the July 1997 Budget, the first to be presented by the Government, which introduced the 100 per cent. write-off for films with a value of less than £15 million. I am not aware of one film that has benefited from that, although, if I am wrong, I shall be happy for the Minister to correct me on that point. Perhaps the reason is that it has taken 18 months for the regulations to be prepared. The Government might want to make amends—possibly next week—and they could do so by lifting that £15 million cap. There are still strong reasons for the measure, because it was introduced to protect our studios and our skills base and to attract to our economy inward investment that would otherwise have been directed elsewhere—notably to Ireland.
However, it is true that there has been something of a boom in current production. I have the honour to be chairman of the all-party group on film; recently the noted film critic Barry Norman appeared before the working group. He told us that in the early 1980s he and Lord Puttnam speculated on the future of the British film industry in the 1980s and the early 1990s. They confidently predicted that cinemas would virtually disappear, except from our major cities. Barry Norman said with pleasure that they had been proved entirely wrong.
There has been a huge growth of multiplex cinemas and, most interestingly, that growth has been almost wholly supply driven. The more cinema screens there are,
1030
the more people are prepared to go to the cinema. Perhaps, to misquote Kevin Costner in "Field of Dreams", "If you build them, they will come".
I deliberately quoted an American film because we are sometimes in danger of being too nationalist about the British film industry, and of adopting the more restrictive views of the French. As the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross pointed out, we have enjoyed the growth of English language films largely because of America. The more people go to the cinema and get into the habit of seeing films, the more they will see British films. As has correctly been pointed out, there is a steady growth in the number of English language films available and great enthusiasm for them in central Europe and the far east. That has nothing to do with the British film industry, but is related to the culture of Coca Cola, McDonald's and MTV.
As has been said, other things make this a good time to be involved in film production, especially the growth of video and the deregulation of terrestrial television—first in western Europe and then in central and eastern Europe—which offer many new channels for the use of film. If we add to that the growth in satellite television, digital television and digital video disc, we see that there are many ways in which those engaged in film production can receive additional returns on their money.
There are two particular factors that will help the British film industry. The first is the marketability of commercial, well put together English-language films. Hon. Members have referred to "The Full Monty"; that film grossed $35 million in the United States, and "Trainspotting" grossed $16.5 million. All the successful films of the past few years—"Four Weddings and a Funeral", "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Secrets and Lies"—were produced with budgets of less than £3 million.
The second factor is that there is now more openness and friendliness from the US majors. That is not for wholly altruistic reasons; it is because there is a degree of nervousness about the creative process in Hollywood and a need to alleviate production costs. The growth of markets, the appetite for well-produced, low-budget films and the openness of the major companies make this a good time to be engaged in the British film industry.
There are, however, a number of problems, including the decline of the independents, referred to by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. Most of the risks for independent film makers are passed on to distributors; the distributors' share, from which they take acquisition and marketing costs, is only about 27 per cent. of ticket sales and there has been an enormous decline in the number of those companies. Perhaps that is why the number of films produced in Britain has fallen: in 1996—only a few years ago—128 films were produced here, but now only 91 films are in production.
The world is starting to open up for the British film industry, but whether we refer to film as a cultural or an educational experience, we should recall the words of John Ford to the House Un-American Activities Committee. He was undoubtedly one of the greatest geniuses in the film industry in the 20th century, but he told the committee that his name was John Ford and he made westerns. That was an enormous understatement. What he meant was that no matter how artistic or educational a film might be, the strand running through all

1031
films that make it—from those of the Lumière brothers, through those of David Lean and John Ford and "Star Wars"—is that they entertain and have a good narrative. I believe that the British film industry now has a good narrative and I am sure that all Members of the House wish it success.
12.7 pm
Mr. David Lepper: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate and, as other hon. Members have done, on the work that he has done over the years to develop policy to support and encourage the British film industry. I am sure that his all-embracing and trenchant analysis this morning will be taken to heart far beyond the rather small audience in this place. I also declare my own interest—which is in the register—as a trustee of Lighthouse Media Training, a company based in Brighton which trains the new generation of film makers to whose importance hon. Members have referred.
Hon. Members will be aware of the part played by Brighton—the area which I represent—in the history of the British film industry. If things had been slightly different in about 1906, we might now be referring to Brighton rather than Hollywood as the centre of world's film industry. History moves on, but Brighton has retained that vital connection with the film industry over the years. Only a few weeks ago, some of us had the pleasure of joining Lord Attenborough for the 50th celebration of the first showing of "Brighton Rock". The image of Brighton that has developed through the cinema has helped to make the town the tourist attraction it is. If hon. Members want to explore that early film history, I draw their attention to the excellent southern regional film archive, supervised by Frank Gray, and the exhibitions at Hove museum.
I do not want to dwell on the past; I want dwell on the present and the future. This morning, although my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) alluded to it, we have not heard much about the importance of our film industry to our regional economies. I come from the south-east region—the Government office of the south-east region—which includes Pinewood and Bray studios and we are fortunate that the southern screen commission is based in our region. The commission is one of the network of 24 regional film commissions, based on the model developed by the New York film commission shortly after the second world war, to co-ordinate the industry in their areas and to attract location shooting. Gerard Rosenberg, the screen commissioner based in Brighton, estimates that in the first year of its existence—1996–97—the commission succeeded in attracting about £6.5 million in additional production spending to the region.
Many people who work in the media live in the Brighton area. Some figures suggest that Los Angeles is the only place in the world where a higher proportion of the population are employed in the media. While I cannot vouch for the reliability of those figures, a great difference is that media workers in Los Angeles, by and large, do not have to leave Los Angeles unless they are working on location. However, media workers who live in the Brighton and Hove area must often go elsewhere to work as film or television technicians. It seems to me that the
1032
network of regional film commissions can play a vital role in attracting location filming to the country's regions—my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley estimated the knock-on benefits to the local economy, including the spin-offs in terms of attracting tourists.
The authors of "A Bigger Picture", which has been referred to many times this morning, set out a specific role for the regional film commissions, referring to them as sources of up-to-date information about the industry and for the industry. The document talks about working with the industry in the regions and about the role that regional film commissions can play in training the next generation of film makers. The document also contains the important statement:
"The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will work closely with the British Film Commission and the UK Film Commission Network to assure the future role and funding of regional film commissions".
I conclude my brief contribution by asking the Minister to describe what she believes to be the future of regional film commissions—particularly working in conjunction with regional development agencies. Perhaps she will comment specifically on the promise, which I believe is made in "A Bigger Picture", of Government support for the film commissions.
12.13 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate this morning about an industry that has real cultural, historic and economic importance. The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge and understanding of the film industry are exceptional. He was the driving force behind the report of the film policy review group, "A Bigger Picture". It is a matter of regret that that report did not receive a proper airing in the House at the time of its publication, so today's debate is especially welcome.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who is a real film buff, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who followed in a family tradition. One of the central reasons for our continued success in obtaining Oscars and British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards is the creative genius of our people and their love and appreciation of acting and the theatre.
Turning to the current state of the industry, we must examine several areas this morning. The new umbrella body of the film industry, British Film, will begin in April 2000 distributing approximately £27 million of lottery money each year. It will seek to develop a strategy for the industry. However, British Screen will maintain its private sector status and the British Film Institute will retain its charitable status, pursuing educational and cultural objectives. It is unclear what relationship the British Film Commission will have with British Film.
I realise that we are a year away from the target date, but it is difficult to understand at this point exactly what roles these bodies will play and to what extent the proposed new structure will be streamlined and produce clear benefits. I hope that the Minister will expand on those interconnecting corporate relationships when she responds to the debate.
One of our greatest national success stories is our film skills base. For many years, British individuals have scooped awards for technical skills all over the world.

1033
That is a remarkable achievement. However, the Minister will know that there is considerable and genuine concern in the industry about the future of training in this country, which appears to be under pressure. I understand that Lord Puttnam has expressed his anxieties directly to the Secretary of State. This is the seed corn for the future of the industry, but only 32 students are currently taking film and television freelance training courses.
I shall give an example of the difficulties being experienced. In the field of creative writing, the Television Arts Performance Showcase—TAPS—has said that it can remain open for only another two months without some form of Government or lottery funding. It has been one of the most successful developers of new talent in the film and broadcasting industries.
The Government responded to this type of problem by founding Skillset, which was established with a training remit to all media industries. However, many of the training opportunities provided by Skillset are on the technical rather than the creative side of the industry. Do the Government consider that a more flexible approach to funding criteria may be appropriate?
In July 1997, the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced a 100 per cent. tax write-off on expenditure on the production of films up to £15 million. Will the Minister indicate for precisely how long that write-off has been guaranteed? I am not clear about that point. Will the Minister also confirm to the House how many new films have been made under section 48 legislation? I fear that she already knows the answer: sadly, it is none. The reason is that the statement of practice was issued some 18 months after the write-off was promulgated in July 1997. Its implementation by the Treasury has, regrettably, been a fiasco.
Meanwhile only one large production is currently being filmed in this country: the new James Bond film at Pinewood. We have a high cost structure in the United Kingdom. Why does the Minister think that we are unable to attract large productions to this country? The spin-offs are obvious. Has she discussed with the Treasury the £15 million cut-off and whether that is the right level for this tax concession? Tax rules for employee travel expenses were introduced in April 1998, to undisguised dismay in the industry. It is estimated that the majority of the industry's employees work as freelancers on short-term contracts of typically a few weeks' or months' duration.
Herein lies the irony: the Treasury has given a tax write-off concession for production, but has hurt the people employed in the industry. Under Treasury rules, producers must gross up expenses payments in order to allow for income tax and national insurance. That occurs only if the film is being shot in the United Kingdom. If it is being filmed in Ireland or France, the producer will not have to gross up expenses, so costs are much less. Despite assistance from Treasury officials, that remains a considerable problem.
I would also be grateful to hear the Minister's views on how the working time directive will impact on film making in Britain. I was disappointed that, in a written reply to me on 22 February, the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), indicated that no specific assessment had been made of the impact on film making. Our concern is obvious. What discussions has the Minister
1034
had with the Department of Trade and Industry about minimising any potential damage that the directive may cause?
Let us turn briefly to the role of the lottery in funding British films. The emphasis thus far has clearly been on the production side. There must be a balance between commercially viable films and culturally significant productions. Several films produced with lottery money have not been box office successes, to say the least. I understand that box office receipts cannot be viewed as the sole and exclusive criterion for judging a film's success, but there must be an appropriate balance. After all, it is the people's money and there is always a risk of lottery fatigue—which may have started already.
I know that the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston will agree that the success of American films is substantially due to the structure of their industry, which invariably includes production and distribution. We simply lack a vertical approach. I hope that British Film will tackle that problem. However, I point out to the Minister that there may be an imbalance in the provision of lottery funding in favour of production rather than distribution. Ultimately, of course, the market will determine the success or failure of a film, no matter what the Government or lottery distributor may want.
This is a wide subject and I have sought only to touch on issues that are now of concern to the industry. We make brilliant films such as "The Full Monty", "Chariots of Fire" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral", and we feel proud of their success. When our actors and actresses triumph, we share their delight, and we salute the quality of our technical expertise here and abroad. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston has done a great deal to highlight the industry and to seek to put it on a more sustainable path, away from the rather roller-coaster ride that it has always had. However, the jury is out on the future of the industry.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to participate this morning, and I look forward to the Minister's response to the issues that have been raised.
12.21 pm
The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): In the short time left, I shall try to deal with as many points as possible. First and foremost, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) for securing the debate and bringing to the House his knowledge, expertise and enthusiasm for the film industry, which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any of us to match.
I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend's achievement in bringing to a successful conclusion the film policy review, "A Bigger Picture", which now underpins Government film policy. His was the most thorough and imaginative review for many years. It was a partnership with the industry, and working with his co-chairman, Stewart Till of Polygram Filmed Entertainment, my right hon. Friend managed to secure broad agreement to a blueprint for the future development of the British film industry. I have the privilege of implementing that blueprint, and I thank him for giving me that opportunity.
I shall briefly refer to some of the contributions to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) mentioned all the connections that her

1035
constituency and the surrounding Pennines have with the film industry. She referred particularly to the spin-off in tourism. She will know—if I may refer to this, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that the tourism strategy that we produced on Friday specifically mentioned that relationship and the benefits to the local and the national economy.
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) referred to his family connection with "Yanks". There cannot be any hon. Member who does not have such a connection. I thank him for his contribution. He referred to the curse of Cannes, and I assure him that I am well aware of it.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to the way in which we competing with other countries in attracting film makers. He is right—New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and the Isle of Man are all passionate about that. We must match their enthusiasm and I hope that we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) referred to the recent 50th anniversary celebrations of "Brighton Rock", which starred our noble Friend Lord Attenborough, and Brighton's links with the industry. He referred particularly to the role of the regional commissions, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their excellent work in facilitating film making in their areas. Following the departmental spending review, we are closely examining the relationship that they will have with regional development agencies and other regional structures because, as he rightly said, that is very important.
I shall do my best to answer the questions of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). He referred to the structure of British Film, although I am not sure that the organisation will be called that because we have not yet made a final decision on that. He asked what roles the various bodies would play. We are concerned to make sure that the new body brings together the cultural and industrial sections of British film and we shall, I hope, make an announcement very soon. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Attenborough's contribution to that process, for which we are grateful.
I shall try to deal with most of the hon. Gentleman's questions, but if I do not, I will write to him. On the working time directive, I understand from colleagues and friends in the industry that they are relaxed about the directive and do not expect it to present them with huge problems, but of course we shall keep an eye on that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston set out clearly the objectives of "A Bigger Picture", and I reassure him that we have made substantial progress on many of its proposals.
Many hon. Members have referred to a continuing dialogue with the Treasury. I assure them that that dialogue is continuing, and a fax will be winging its way to the Treasury this afternoon to emphasise the importance of the current tax concession. We want to examine how that is working, and if I have time, I will deal with that. Various hon. Members mentioned that there was no evidence that British film had benefited from the concession, but I can tell the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that I have lists, provided by Ernst and Young, of films that are being produced or are about to be produced which have benefited from it. Ernst and
1036
Young told me the other day that it has a number of investors who are investing in British film precisely because of the concession.
Mr. Pickles: Will the hon. Lady place the list in the Library?
Janet Anderson: I certainly shall place the list in the Library and give the hon. Gentleman the information that he needs.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston mentioned cine-literacy. That is important, and we are having discussions with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment about it. We shall also need, as he rightly pointed out, to clarify the relationship with our Scottish colleagues following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
On the Oreja report, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, I reassure him that we broadly agree with the recommendations, but we are waiting for the more detailed proposals from the European Commission, which we shall study very carefully.
Overseas earnings by UK film companies reached a record level of almost £700 million in 1996 and 1997. British films captured their highest share of the home market for many years—23 per cent. in 1997, which was almost double their share in 1996. We know that in this country there is an intense interest in the whole world of film, and cinema admissions and takings are at their highest levels. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston in congratulating all those who have been involved in the success of British film, particularly Duncan Kenworthy, who recently received the OBE. I join my right hon. Friend in wishing him well with his forthcoming film, "Notting Hill".
It will be difficult to fit all my points into the remaining time, so I shall try to concentrate on the main issues. The fundamental problem identified in "A Bigger Picture" remains; the UK industry is fragmented and there is a problem in the separation of production and distribution. Indeed, some now believe that our attention should be turned away from production and towards distribution, and we understand that view. That is one of the reasons why we have been working with the industry to implement the recommendations of the film policy review. Our commitment to film was demonstrated in the Chancellor's first Budget. I mentioned our discussions with Ernst and Young, which will shortly announce plans fully to finance and produce its own £30-million slate of feature films in this country. I say to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar that that is evidence that the tax incentive is working.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Chryston mentioned the need to work together. The action committee, which I continue to chair with Stewart Till, brought together everyone in the industry, including those from video and broadcasting, which is very important. A British Film Office has been established in Los Angeles. The Film Finance Forum, to improve links with the City of London, is up and running, and progress reports are encouraging. Film Export UK, a new trade association, has been established to help to promote the international sales of British film, and the film education working group has been set up.

1037
I have very little time left, so I shall briefly mention the all-industry fund and the skills investment fund. We undertook a cost-benefit analysis on the all-industry fund, which demonstrated—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the debate in the name of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).

Noise-induced Hearing Loss
12.30 pm
Mr. Mark Oaten: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of war veterans who suffer from noise-induced hearing loss as a direct result of their service and who are campaigning to get their war pensions reinstated for this disability. I must make it clear at the outset that it is certainly not my intention to attack the Government; I simply want to keep the issue alive, perhaps push the Minister slightly if I can, and probe the Government's current thinking on the issue.
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), for the courtesy that he has shown me in the past couple of days, and especially for giving me as much warning as he could of the Government's announcement yesterday that they have, sadly, rejected some new medical evidence in this connection. At best, that has made today's debate topical; at worst, it probably means that my researcher had a very late night last night.
I know that the issue is of concern to many hon. Members. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), who is in the Chamber, tabled an early-day motion which has received cross-party support from, I think, upwards of 60 Members of Parliament. Certainly, many of our constituents are concerned.
When I take up such issues for war veterans, I sometimes feel guilty that, as a young Member of Parliament, I have very little idea of what it must have been like for them to go through the wars in which they fought. These days, we regard war as very much a high-tech affair involving computers, and we assume that the loud noises and their impact have been greatly reduced. To a large extent, that is true. It is only by watching films such as "Saving Private Ryan" that I can begin to understand what it must have been like to experience what many of our constituents experienced.
I spoke to a constituent, Major Cassidy, who has retired, who told me of his experience of being in the armed forces for 47 years. When he joined the Army and first began firing rifles and using tanks, there was absolutely no noise protection. In fact, it was only when the Army adopted a great new invention—cotton wool—that any protection techniques were put in place. I understand, however, that even that proved counter-productive.
Let me give some background to the issue. Originally, the war pension regulations were interpreted in such a way that claimants would be compensated if, when leaving the services, they suffered a 20 per cent. loss of hearing as a result of excessive noise encountered during their service. In addition, those who had suffered lesser but notable hearing loss would be entitled to a rising increment in benefit over time as they, too, approached the 20 per cent. level. At the time, it was clearly acknowledged that noise encountered during their military service made premature deafness much more probable.
In 1996, the Conservative Government decided to introduce new medical evidence. They believed that that evidence showed that further deterioration in hearing loss was due to other factors, such as getting old, and had nothing to do with the individuals' exposure to noise

1039
during their service. As a result of that medical evidence, the regulations were changed. That decision has meant that people person can receive a war pension only if they are deemed to have reached the qualifying level of deafness at the point at which they left the service. That qualifying level is set at 50 decibels. Many experts believe that that level is too high anyway. Indeed, the Irish Republic has a qualifying level of just 20 decibels.
The result of the change introduced by the previous Government means that very few veterans now qualify for the war pension for deafness. In fact, more than 90 per cent. are turned down because they fail to reach the qualifying level. The Royal British Legion estimates that that means that around 8,000 new claimants a year are denied the pension. As a result of the change, the Treasury reckoned that it would save around £35 million a year.
When the change was announced, there was, quite rightly, a storm of criticism. Indeed, at the stormy Prime Minister's Question Time on 5 December 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition—now the Prime Minister—described the changes as "shabby and mean-minded". Similarly, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), then a shadow Defence Minister, stated that the change ran against
"all conventional medical evidence and is a smokescreen to save money."
It would be cheap and churlish of me to throw those remarks back at the new Labour Government without acknowledging that they have kept their election promise to review the situation. I commend the Government on having always been open to the issue. They seem to accept the fact that it is a source of controversy and that new medical evidence could dispute the change to the regulations made by the previous Government.
Indeed, an independent review, chaired by Sir Kenneth Calman, the chief medical officer, was set up not long after the new Government took office. It concluded, as previous reviews had, that current medical evidence showed that increases in hearing loss after service were not due to initial noise exposure during service, but there was certainly controversy about its findings. Some believe that the terms of reference of that inquiry were restricted to a narrow consideration of the effects on hearing threshold levels, so that the contentious issue of how that relates to hearing disability was excluded. They argue that, because of that remit, the existing regulations were always likely to be the outcome of the process.
Mr. Brian Cotter: I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has many constituents who are in the 15 to 20 per cent. category of hearing loss. It seems unfair that they are ruled out although they are close to the 20 per cent. threshold. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I, too, hope that the Minister will respond to that point. There is certainly a sense that it is rather "mean-minded", to quote the Prime Minister, and calculating to have to differentiate between those who have reached a 15, 20 or 30 per cent. threshold.
To their credit, the Government have been prepared to pursue the issue and have considered new medical evidence. A further review has been undertaken. It included
1040
the work of Professor Davis, whose two recent papers called into question the current terms of reference and suggested that further research was needed. Yesterday, the Government announced that, based on the new research, they had concluded that the further evidence
"does not meet the standard required to raise a reasonable doubt",
and they were rejecting the current medical evidence.
I shall not go into detail on the findings or question the medical background to them, but I ask the Minister to look carefully at the detail and conclusions of that work. Paragraph 5.7 of the conclusions states:
"Longitudinal studies in humans may finally resolve the age/noise interaction question but only if they have large numbers and well characterised populations, followed for an adequate period. Such undertaking in relation to a topic which is subject of an International Standard will need very careful consideration."
The medical evidence that the Government have considered and the review itself raise some serious doubts. I put it to the Minister that that section alone suggests that we need to keep an open mind. It certainly suggests to me that the scientists are saying that they cannot be sure at this stage and that a longer period of research is needed.
The point that the Government should take on board is that today's pensioners do not have the time to wait for such research. A five or 10-year period of research means that today's war pensioners will not see a successful outcome. Surely it would be right for the Government to act now and to give those pensioners the benefit of the doubt. It will be of no comfort to them if, in five or 10 years' time, new research proves that they were right, because they will not be around.
I remind the Minister that, under the Irish scheme, the qualifying level is much lower. Critically, the Irish Government's decision was based on the very same medical evidence that our Government used to come to their conclusion. That suggests that their stance is too rigid.
I urge the Minister to remember the human perspective. It is often very easy to get bogged down in complicated medical evidence, but in this case it is important to remember the difference between hearing impairment and hearing disability. I press the Minister to note that thousands of war veterans who suffer from noise-induced hearing loss have what should be described and known as a disability, not a hearing impediment. The thousands of veterans who suffer from noise-induced hearing loss fought for our country and deserve a great deal more from Governments. They should, in the circumstances, be given the benefit of the doubt, and extra help in their old age. They deserve a better deal.
I hope that the Government will give a commitment to keeping an open mind, as I have acknowledged they have to date on this issue, and will review new research as it comes along. Would it not be better for the Minister to announce today that he is prepared to reinstate the pension until the review is completed and the Government can be definite about the fact that the new research has ruled out the possible link? Although the Government have kept their election promise to review the research, their response to the issue has been too cautious, too rigid and, perhaps, as the Prime Minister said, "mean-minded".
12.40 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on securing a

1041
debate on this very important issue, and thank him for his kind remarks at the start of his speech. The last time that I spoke immediately after him in this Chamber was following his maiden speech—I do not know whether he recalls this—when he had a majority of two. Now, his majority is more than 20,000, so he clearly knows how to build support for his cause and those he advocates. I stand warned of the persistence that I am likely to face on this issue. He marshalled the arguments well, and I shall do my best to respond to them.
I shall start by referring to the issue with which the hon. Gentleman concluded: the human dimension. I pay tribute to all the men and women who were killed or injured in service in the armed forces. Members of my generation must remember at all times that the democratic liberties that we enjoy in this country—and our freedom in the House as Members of Parliament—were secured by the sacrifices of earlier generations in two world wars. I also recognise the vital role played by ex-service organisations, such as the Royal British Legion and the Royal British Legion Scotland, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain.
As the hon. Member for Winchester knows, yesterday we made public the outcome of the further review of the evidence on the relationship between age-related and noise-induced hearing loss. We received the report only on Friday, but wanted to make it available before today's debate.
The conclusion of the further review is that there is no new reliable evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that hearing losses due to noise and age are more than additive. The legal standard of proof required in this field is reasonable doubt. The same conclusion was reached last year by the expert panel. Before I turn to the points raised by the hon. Members for Winchester and for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), it may be helpful to put the review in context.
The war pension scheme makes provision for a pension to be paid for any disablement attributable to, or aggravated by, service, whether in time of peace or war. The basic war pension is set at a higher rate than the social security equivalent—industrial injuries disablement benefit. In addition, the war pension scheme provides a wide range of allowances which may be paid in addition to the basic disablement pension. Those allowances are available in respect of such things as increasing age, reduced or lost earnings capability, and care and mobility needs. The scheme provides pensions for the widows and children of people who die as a result of their service.
To illustrate the advantage, a single, severely disabled war pensioner could receive more than £400 a week. Under the nearest comparator, the industrial injuries scheme, a person similarly injured at work would receive £55 a week less. A person with a similar disablement that is unrelated to employment, who receives incapacity benefit and disability living allowance, receives just over £165 a week—almost £235 less than the war pensioner.
All war pensions and allowances are tax free. They may be paid on top of the ex-service man or woman's earnings in civilian life, and on top of the state retirement pension. They may also be paid in addition to the pension paid under the Ministry of Defence armed forces pension scheme.
1042
Some people question the preference given to war pensioners. I do not; it is wholly right that the sacrifice of those injured or killed in defending the country should be specially recognised. But such preferential treatment must depend on a clear link between disablement and military service. That is why, under the war pensions scheme, a pension is paid only for disablements that arise from service. It is not paid for disablements that arise from other causes, including natural processes, such as ageing. That rule dates from the very start of the scheme.
There can, of course, be many causes of hearing loss. Often, several types of loss are present in one person. We must view each separately because they are different medical conditions. Some hearing loss may be due to service, such as exposure to noise. Other loss has nothing to do with service; for instance, most people suffer from hearing loss as they get older.
More than half of all living ex-service people served as conscripts during the second world war or in national service. That means that they left the forces at least 35 years ago. The very youngest are close to retirement age, but most are considerably older. The average age of a war disablement pensioner is over 75. Anyone in this age group will be starting to feel the effects of time, and may suffer from diseases that we expect to find in a person of pension age, regardless of whether he or she was once in the armed forces. Considering whether such a disease might be due to experiences in service more than half a lifetime earlier can make deciding claims difficult. We must maintain the integrity of the scheme, and that means insisting on the link to service.
When we came to office, the Government immediately set up a review. The hon. Member for Winchester made comments about pledges made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition. We promised a review and, as soon as we were elected, we set one up. It considered the evidence on hearing loss, and involved a range of eminent experts. We quickly communicated the outcome of that first review to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions—the advisory body on the subject. My right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Hollis, the Minister with special responsibility for war pensions, met representatives of the Royal British Legion and the Royal British Legion Scotland to brief them on the matter.
The independent experts told us last year that hearing loss due to noise damage does not get worse after leaving the noise. They also said that hearing loss caused by noise does not increase as age-related loss is added to it.
Mr. Oaten: Does the Minister acknowledge that the most recent study has suggested that we need more time to clarify the research, and that, until we have a five-year or, perhaps, 10-year study, we cannot be absolutely sure about the outcome?
Mr. Bayley: I do not accept the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman draws from the latest study. The latest study reviewed a wide range of evidence, including 56 academic, independently reviewed papers, which have been outstanding for some time, certainly since the last review; two new papers by Mills and Miller, which were written in the past year and published in referred journals; and two papers from Professor Davis, a statistician and eminent scientist working at Nottingham university's

1043
Institute of Hearing. Professor Davis's papers reflected work in progress which suggested that, when the research was completed, a different conclusion could be drawn. One needs to set that against the bulk of the evidence—50 or so papers that point in an alternative direction.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked me whether the Government would give a commitment to keep an open mind. We certainly will. When the studies in which Professor Davis is engaged are published in refereed journals and his research is complete, we will look at that evidence. If it changes the balance of opinion, or suggests new lines of inquiry, we will follow those.
Mr. Oaten: If, in two or three years, different evidence came through and the Government decided that, on the balance of that evidence, they wished to change their view, would they consider retrospective payments to pensioners who, in the intervening time, had not received the payments? Would it not be easier to give them the benefit of the doubt now, rather than face the potential retrospective element when future evidence is considered?
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman gives an interesting hypothetical example, but he will understand why I am not drawn to it. The overwhelming bulk of scientific evidence—all the evidence apart from the new work by Professor Davis—points in one direction. A clear scientific conclusion is drawn from that evidence: hearing loss as a result of age is no more than additive to hearing loss that was caused earlier through exposure to noise. We must base our policy on the scientific and medical evidence. Of course we keep an open mind. We are aware of Professor Davis's work. We will look at that work and review the body of knowledge when his work is completed and formally published.
The review that was published yesterday involved an exhaustive search of the literature and was conducted by asking eminent experts, including those on the review panel last year—one of whom, of course, was Professor Davis—for their advice on the existence of any relevant evidence, and by carefully scrutinising that evidence. The conclusion of the further review is that no new evidence changes last year's findings by the expert team. I realise that that may be a disappointment, but we can, and should, proceed only on the basis of scientific evidence.
The hon. Member for Winchester raised several specific points. As he knows, in 1993, the war pensions scheme was amended to introduce a 20 per cent. "cut-off" below which an award would not be made for noise-induced hearing loss. As he told the House, previously, a lump sum gratuity was paid for losses at that level. The change brought the war pensions scheme more into line with the rules for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme.
There are still considerable advantages in war pensions. For example, a claim may be made at any time and regardless of length of service. Under the occupational deafness scheme, the individual has to have worked for 10 years at least in a noisy occupation and the claim has to be made within five years of leaving that occupation.
1044
The 20 per cent. "cut-off" was part of a package that included extra cash for war pensioners. As a result of it, from 12 April 1993, almost 250,000 war pensioners gained up to £5 a week on top of the usual uprating for the most severely disabled. It was the lower ranks who gained the most.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked me to consider whether 50 decibels is the right point at which to trigger a war pension. Fifty decibels is the point at which a person starts to have trouble following conversation in a noisy environment. We believe that that level, which has been used for a long time, is appropriate when we consider the percentage level of disability that is used in relation to other injuries and conditions.
Mr. Cotter: I wonder why—we have a close example—the Irish Government have taken a different stance on the decibel level.
Mr. Bayley: I imagine that all Governments use different standards. I have not looked at that aspect of the Irish scheme. I will look at the point and write perhaps to the hon. Member for Winchester.
I was asked why one should establish a cut-off, not just for hearing loss, but for any injury, at the 20 per cent. level. We could say that we would have a difficulty whether the cut-off was 15, 20 or 25 per cent. We could have the same argument about someone just above or below any of those cut-off points, but the reason why the 20 per cent. level is chosen is because it is used elsewhere in legislation, particularly in relation to the industrial injuries scheme. It seemed sensible to use that level as a benchmark.
The hon. Member for Winchester asked us to reinstate pensions until the position was clearer. I must be frank with him. Before the general election, we believed that the position was unclear because thorough reviews had not been made public. Since the election, we have conducted two thorough reviews of the scientific evidence, and it is clear—I make the point in relation to the Irish scheme—that, under the international standard used for medico-legal purposes, lower-level hearing losses of the sort that we are discussing are not eligible for compensation.
Therefore, although I will look at the Irish scheme and write to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that the changes that were introduced in 1993 brought British war pensions scheme practice into line with the rules for occupational deafness under the industrial injuries scheme.
When we came to office, we promised to undertake a review. That was done promptly and on time. One of the conclusions of the review was that there should be a further study. That has now taken place. It has confirmed the results of the first review.
Both reviews were undertaken in a totally professional manner, were informed by eminent experts and considered all the relevant evidence on the subject. We closely monitor medical and scientific evidence on any matter that may affect entitlement to a war pension. Of course, we will continue to do so for injuries relating to hearing loss.
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester for raising the matter. It is important. I am particularly glad that the timing of the debate was closely linked to the publication of the review report.

Health and Safety Executive
12.58 pm
Mr. George Galloway: The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and I go back a long way. We share a strong commitment to health and safety at work and a sense of horror at some of the casualties that have been inflicted by careless or negligent employers on the battlefield which so much of the British industrial landscape has become. Almost 20 years of attrition against trade unions and the rights of workers to refuse hazardous employment conditions, and deregulation posing as a bonfire of red tape, have, in reality, represented the burning down of standards that responsible government and representative trade unionism took the best part of a century to construct.
I applied for this debate after reading the award-winning journalist, Seamus Milne, in The Guardian, and later in the "Big Issue", on the manslaughter of Simon Jones, a 24-year-old man who was killed on 24 April 1998 on his first day as a casual worker at a privately owned wharf at Shoreham docks. However, Simon was no dock worker. Driven by the jobseeker's allowance scheme, he was sent to his death by a company called Personnel Selection. This company undoubtedly failed in its statutory duty to ensure its client's suitability for the job to which it was sending him and to provide the written terms and conditions of the job.
The company sent him to the docks and into the hands of a cowboy company called EUROMIN, of ultimately Dutch ownership—and with a low reputation even in the jungle that is the deregulated dock industry, 10 years after the abolition of the dock labour scheme, for whose retention some of us—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I included—fought tooth and nail in this place. We warned then that casualisation kills. Simon Jones is just one of the mute witnesses to that truth.
Simon was taking a year off from Sussex university when he was killed. He died, almost decapitated by the grab of a crane, only two hours after starting work, and after only a two-minute briefing on what the job entailed. That two minutes was meant to equip him with the skills of a stevedore, one of Britain's five most dangerous occupations.
The reality in some of Britain's docks, illuminated by the case of Simon Jones, is like a still from Elia Kazan's epic film "On the Waterfront". Simon was put to work in the hold of a ship called the Cambrook, hooking bags of cobbles on to chains which had been welded to the inside of the crane's open grab. There was no need for a grab for that sort of cargo and the chains should have been attached to a hook instead. However, changing back and forth between hook and grab costs time and money.
With Simon and his workmate, Sean Currey, was just one crew member, a Pole who spoke no English, yet he was acting as banksman, guiding the crane driver. The banksman is supposed to communicate with the driver and monitor what is happening in the hold. Not only did the banksman not speak English, but even his hand signals were foreign to the crane driver. Moreover, from where he was standing he could not even see into the hold.
The grab and chains were brought in too low over the hold and the grab was accidentally closed on Mr. Jones's head. Only the chains prevented it shutting completely.
1046
Sean Currey, who had nightmares for months afterwards, was asked later to clean the blood and remains of Simon off the bags of stones so that they could be sold. He was sent home for the day without pay for refusing to do so.
The general manager of EUROMIN, James Martell, was arrested by the police after the accident but released without charge. Last month, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to charge EUROMIN or Martell with manslaughter because of insufficient evidence. Under pressure from Simon's family and their admirable campaign, the CPS is reviewing that decision and a final ruling is expected this week.
I have to tell the House that, according to Sean Currey, Mr. Martell—who is, in legal terms, undoubtedly the controlling mind of this company's UK activities—laughed out loud when told that he could face prosecution. Martell, who has not so much as sent two lines of condolences to his victim's family, has the blood of Simon Jones on his hands. Martell's contempt for the laws of health and safety in this country, his greed and hunger for profit and his negligence and carelessness slaughtered a young man just as clearly as if he had pushed him off the dock with his own hands.
In a way, Martell was right to laugh, because the chances of his ever being properly held to account were and are laughably small. Life is cheap on the British waterfront and in many of the privatised and deregulated sweatshops of which the previous Government boasted. That is the true legacy of the Thatcher era.
The average fine levied upon employers following fatal industrial accidents is less than £2,000. Unbelievably, it is cheaper to be fined for having caused the death of an employee than to take the necessary precautions for the avoidance of that death. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said on the BBC last year:
"I am absolutely outraged at penalties that perhaps are as little as £2,500, which I believe are derisory and insulting when awarded in the case of death or serious injury".
The whole House will welcome the Government's massive increase of 17 per cent. in expenditure on the Health and Safety Executive, which will produce an extra £4.5 million this year. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said at the time:
"I would be the first to say I think these significant increases are not enough."
The Government themselves admit that the money that we plan to spend on health and safety enforcement is not enough and that fines levied upon killer companies are often derisory and insulting. The question that needs to be asked and answered therefore is what more we can do and when we will be able to do it.
According to Gary Slapper, law director of the Open university, official figures for deaths at work massively underestimate the real number. Dr. Slapper argues that about 20 per cent. of such deaths present good prima facie cases for charges of manslaughter against the employers responsible, but such charges are rarely brought. Twenty per cent. would translate into about 90 prosecutions a year—that is two every working week. That contrasts with the actual rate of two prosecutions every 30 years.
The new offence of corporate killing, on which the Government are consulting, would be a step forward in cases where criminal negligence by employers causes deaths at work. It would allow companies to be fined at a much higher level than that allowed for breaching existing

1047
health and safety law. However, I believe that even high fines are not a sufficient deterrent for many rogue employers. Some would merely put their companies into liquidation rather than pay the fines. For others, even high fines would represent a scintilla of the high profits generated in part by the reckless cutting of corners.
I believe that only the imprisonment of directors of companies found to be responsible for such negligence would have a deterrent effect. After all, people are not fined for committing manslaughter outside the work place; they go to prison, sometimes for several years. As Professor Charles Woolfson from Glasgow university in my constituency put it, "When one goes down, the others sit up."
On the basis of an exhaustive three-year study, Dr. Slapper believes that many more charges of manslaughter could be brought, even under existing legislation, were it not for the fact that the prosecuting authorities are more lenient towards those engaged in business.
The Stephen Lawrence campaign has been a real inspiration to those campaigning in the memory of Simon Jones. Although in the five long years of the Lawrence campaign Stephen's family have failed to obtain justice for their dead son, they have exposed the truth about institutional racism to everyone. The Simon Jones campaign hopes to be equally successful in ensuring that the truth about casualisation—that it is killing people for profits—is equally widely understood.
The Thatcher era proved to be a killing field for innocent victims of corporate failure, from Occidental's towering inferno of Piper Alpha, in which 160 workers perished, through the King's Cross fire, the Clapham and Putney rails disasters, the sinking of the Marchioness and the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise in the Zeebrugge disaster. Altogether over the past few years there have been more than 500 fatalities in major incidents and more than seven times as many individual deaths. In virtually all of those, management failure was deemed to be a central cause of the incident.
A study of 739 deaths in the building and civil engineering industries during just four years from 1981 to 1985—the depths of Thatcherism—concluded that, in 70 per cent. of cases, positive action by management could have saved lives. Studying a range of industries in the early 1990s, the HSE concluded that management was primarily responsible in 54 per cent. of cases, and that, in 70 per cent. of cases,
"positive management action could have saved lives".
Most deaths through industrial negligence go virtually unreported. However, involvement with the Simon Jones campaign has shown me that such incidents not only destroy the lives of the victims, but tear apart the lives of their families and friends.
For some reason, workers in Scotland are a third more likely to die in workplace accidents than workers in the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1996–97, almost 30 Scottish workers died at work and another 12,000 were injured, more than 2,000 of them seriously. Last October, there was the case of Raymond Stevenson, a 28-year-old father of two who was overcome by toxic fumes and fell into a sludge pit that he had been ordered
1048
to empty. Paisley sheriff court levied pitifully small fines on the contractor and the site operator. The fatal accident inquiry report noted that safety issues
"were matters of little or no importance to senior management".
In 1997, Alan Dale, a 30-year-old married man, died of suffocation, buried alive at the bottom of a 29 ft deep bin containing concrete dust that he had been ordered to remove. The sheriff at the fatal accident inquiry, at Glasgow sheriff court, said that the tragedy could have been avoided if suitable rescue equipment had been available on site. The company was fined £1,000. Last year, John Curry, aged 37, was crushed to death when a tool rack fell on him, on Shell's Tern platform in the North sea. The company was fined £3,000.
William Veetch, a father of three in Cumnock, Ayrshire, died after being pulled into the rotating drum of a huge washing machine for washing coal. The company was fined £1,500. One of Mr. Veetch's sons said:
"I just cannot believe my Dad's life is worth just £1,500."
None of that should be construed as an attack on the Health and Safety Executive. For years, it struggled to civilise Britain's industrial landscape, while starved of the necessary resources and operating in an atmosphere of thinly disguised hostility from Tory Governments who saw the executive's activities as just another burden on business. Now, that atmosphere has been dispelled by the Labour Government and a substantial increase in funding is forthcoming. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will agree that far more has to be done.
The HSE has a target of investigating one in five serious accidents in the workplace. I do not understand why its target should not be to investigate every serious accident in the workplace. Currently, however, the HSE is able to investigate only one in 20 serious accidents at work—only 5 per cent. of accidents that often involve the maiming, crippling or blinding of employees, and almost all of which mean that the victim will never work again. Thus, because of current investigation levels, more than 48,000 serious accidents every year go uninvestigated.
The Government should propose a clear timetable for progress in meeting the HSE target of investigating 20 per cent. of serious accidents in the workplace, and be ready to fund the level of inspectorate that meeting that target would require. The Government should reconsider the appallingly low level of fines levied in cases of serious accidents under current safety law, and speed the day when the new offence of corporate killing is added to the armoury of the law.
The Crown Prosecution Service should announce that Simon Jones's manslaughter will not go unprosecuted. EUROMIN and its bloodstained general manager, James Martell, must stand trial for the negligence that caused his death.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) on securing this debate. He has always been a good soldier in the cause of workplace safety. I pay tribute to him not only for securing this debate, but for the many occasions throughout his political life, even before he was elected to the House, on which he has raised issues of workers

1049
health and safety. I have listened with interest to the points that he made and assure him that—as he is fully aware—I and many of my colleagues in Government share many of his concerns.
I want first to respond to my hon. Friend's understandable concerns about the recent tragic death of Simon Jones. Nothing that I or any of my parliamentary colleagues say could make up for the loss to his family and friends, who have suffered deeply because of his death. As we are all aware, deaths at work cause immense distress. Anyone who has—as I have—witnessed someone being killed in the workplace will live with that memory for the remainder of his life. The loss of a young life such as Simon's is an appalling waste. My sympathies, and those of the Government, go out to his family.
On the day of the accident, health and safety inspectors visited the site to begin an investigation, and have since made several more visits to gather evidence about possible breaches of health and safety law by various parties. The company involved, EUROMIN, is a small one, importing aggregates and building materials. As my hon. Friend said, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of a large Dutch company. Worryingly—as he also said—apparently the only person with any authority in the United Kingdom is its general manager, Mr. Martell. As one would expect, the Health and Safety Executive has worked closely with Sussex police, who have investigated possible manslaughter charges against the company and, of course, its general manager, Mr. Martell.
A report has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service, for it to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a prosecution for manslaughter. Contrary to what has been said, the CPS decision is still awaited by my Department. My understanding is that a decision has not yet been taken. If the CPS decides that the evidence would not support a prosecution for manslaughter, the Health and Safety Executive could—indeed, would—consider taking legal action under health and safety legislation.
I also advise my hon. Friend, and other hon. Members interested in the matter, that health and safety investigators have issued enforcement notices. Inspectors issued two prohibition notices preventing use of the excavator involved in the accident. For the benefit of hon. Members who may read the debate in Hansard, I should say that prohibition notices may be issued on the spot by inspectors if they believe that a work activity or a process poses a serious risk to workers. Failure to comply with a prohibition notice is a breach of the law.
In this case, health and safety inspectors also issued an improvement notice on provision of information, instructions, training and, of course, supervision. The issuing of improvement notices means that the inspectors require employers or other duty holders to take action to improve health and safety standards within a specified time scale. Compliance with those notices is regularly checked by HSE inspectors.
The Department of Trade and Industry has looked into the conduct of the employment agency involved. The employment agency standards inspectorate can take action under the legislation governing the conduct of employment agencies. The inspectorate gave serious consideration to the case, but unfortunately it concluded that there was no realistic possibility that a charge of
1050
breaches of the relevant regulations could be sustained. The DTI will shortly issue a consultative document on revised regulations governing the conduct of employment agencies. Any lessons learned from the Simon Jones case will be taken into account in the review.
My hon. Friend mentioned penalties. My colleagues and I are working hard to ensure that those guilty of breaking health and safety law are appropriately punished. The Law Commission has recommended replacing the existing law of involuntary manslaughter in England and Wales with new offences by individuals of reckless killing and killing by gross carelessness, as well as an offence of corporate manslaughter.
The Government are considering how best to take forward the Law Commission's recommendations. I would support the introduction of such offences. The Crown Prosecution Service recently charged Great Western Trains with seven offences of manslaughter through gross negligence, following the Southall rail crash. The case is scheduled at Ealing magistrates court on 25 March. The magistrates are expected to refer the case to a higher court.
I assure my hon. Friend that, when appropriate, the HSE will not hesitate to prosecute those who break the law. The number of prosecutions by the HSE has risen in recent years, from 1,500 in 1996–97 to 1,700 in 1997–98 and an estimated 1,900 this year. The HSE does not set targets for its enforcement activity, but it forecasts that the current level of prosecutions will be at least maintained. In recent years it has secured a success rate of 75 to 80 per cent. for the cases that it has taken action on under health and safety law.
The recent Howe judgment in the Court of Appeal said that fines for health and safety offences were too low and emphasised the seriousness with which breaches of the law should be considered. The judgment said that fines must be large enough to bring home to management and shareholders that they must provide a safe environment for all their workers.
There are already encouraging signs that the judgment has had an effect in recent health and safety cases. An NHS trust was recently fined four times the average amount following a death on its property. In passing sentence, the judge said that the Howe judgment was helpful in determining the fine. More recently, significant fines were awarded in the Heathrow airport tunnel case. The firm involved was fined a record sum in excess of £2 million.
The Government strongly support the work of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. We are determined to give health and safety a higher profile than it had under the previous Administration. We are determined to raise the level of safety awareness and to drive up standards in every workplace.
Employees and the public rightly expect high standards of health and safety protection. Accidents at work and occupational ill health are neither inevitable nor acceptable. A healthy and well-protected work force is not only right, it is good for business and good for society. I want and expect industry to regard decent health and safety standards as the gateway to their prosperity.
We have a solid foundation from which to progress. The commission, the executive and the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 have delivered significant improvements in standards of health and safety at work

1051
over the past 25 years. Our rate of workplace fatal injury is now lower than in all other European Union member states. Our unique tripartite approach to health and safety is widely acknowledged at home and on the international stage. However, we cannot afford to be complacent. Workers continue to suffer serious injury and ill health—and death, in the case of Simon Jones. There is still much to be done and we shall do more.
The Government are showing their strong practical commitment to the commission and executive by increasing their resources. We have already provided an extra £4.5 million to support their running costs in 1998–99. The budget will increase by £13 million in 1999–2000 and by a further £23 million and £27 million in the following two years. That extra funding will allow for an increase in HSE staff over the next three years of between 300 and 400 over provisionally planned levels. It will also enable the HSE to increase the resources devoted to front-line inspection work by about 30 per cent. next year compared with this.
As a result, the HSE will be able to make many more regulatory contacts, significantly enhancing its efforts to prevent accidents. It will be able to carry out more accident and incident investigations, for which my hon. Friend called. Accident investigations and enforcement work are relatively time-consuming activities for inspectors. The HSE receives up to 170,000 referrals in a year.
The extra resources will mean that next year the HSE can investigate over 10 per cent. more incidents compared with the current year. That is in addition to the continuing work being carried out on railway and nuclear safety. The enforcement of the new directive on the control of major accident hazards—COMAH—which covers the petrochemical industry will demand greater HSE involvement. Last Monday, I spoke at a conference to launch the new COMAH regulations, which I signed this week.
The new resources for the HSC and HSE will enable them to take forward new initiatives to improve health and safety standards. Only last week, Ministers met the chairman and members of the commission to discuss its strategic plan for the next three years. We fully agree with that strategy. The plan will represent a real return on the new investment that we are making in health and safety.
Over the next three years, efforts will be focused on several key issues, including improving performance in important risk areas. Over the years, there has been a steady improvement in health and safety, but there are still problem areas and certain industries need further action. The Government are fully behind the commission's efforts to reduce accidents in construction and agriculture, not least because the construction industry's safety record is the second worst of any industry. That must be improved. We are also determined to restrict the use of asbestos.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin for the sterling work that he does on health and safety. I promise to write to him at the earliest opportunity about the issues that he has raised in this important debate.

Road Congestion (West Kent)
1.30 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I am glad of the opportunity to raise this matter, and grateful to the Minister for listening to what I have to say.
About a year ago, when some of us raised the question of the A21 and traffic congestion in the west Kent area, the Minister for Transport in London chose to give us a short lecture on the integrated transport policy. We understand the need for such a policy, and, in many respects, we sympathise with its objectives; but I hope that today we shall be able to deal specifically with the acute problems experienced by those in west Kent and areas to the south, caused by traffic congestion and the inertia in regard to transport policy—inertia that is blighting the area. This is the No.1 issue in west Kent. It is the No. 1 issue for residents and businesses in the area. It affects families, including people taking their children to school; it affects economic development; and it means serious blight for areas south of west Kent as far as Hastings, which is a relatively deprived area.
In response to a recent survey of businesses in the Tunbridge Wells area, no fewer than 39 per cent. of people said that they were considering moving because of the extent of the traffic congestion, while 92 per cent. said that they saw an urgent need for upgrading of the main trunk roads and the A21. Further delay in the improvement of trunk roads in the area will lead to acute problems. It will mean more and more rat-running through local villages—Speldhurst, Southborough, Pembury, Goudhurst and Horsmonden—which is blighting lives, and affecting areas of acute environmental sensitivity. It will also affect areas to the south, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle).
Safety considerations are also important. In a moment I shall refer to the great dangers on the A21, but other areas will be affected, notably Colt's Hill. Kent county council's inability to finance—because of lack of Government support—a link road or bypass is blighting the lives of local residents, and what is effectively a country lane is carrying some 13,000 vehicles a day, more than a quarter of which are lorries. That is serious.
This is not just a business issue; it is not just a transport issue. It is an issue which affects human lives. I, like others, have received thousands of letters on the subject. Elizabeth Romaine of Bishops Down Park road in Tunbridge Wells writes:
"As a new driver I avoid the A21 for the simple reason that it is a death trap. As my grandparents live on this stretch of road, I have witnessed for 17 years many accidents that could so easily have been avoided."
Another letter—a very interesting letter—came from the head teacher of William Parker school in Hastings, who is a resident of Tunbridge Wells. He writes:
"Frankly it is scandalous that such a main artery to the coast should be of such poor quality. The drive is beautiful, yet slow and dangerous, especially at night. Now, like many Tunbridge Wells inhabitants, I avoid the Castle Hill section for journeys north, but only add to Southborough's traffic congestion."
That is a very good illustration not just of the pain that is felt, but of the blight that is afflicting surrounding villages.

1053
We fully recognise the need for any road improvement to be seen in the context of an integrated transport policy. Such improvements must not be viewed in isolation; they must be viewed in relation to bus services, park-and-ride schemes and railway schemes. At present, however—I am thinking of the conurbation of Pembury, Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells, and the routes to the south—no road improvement is taking place, apart from the Lamberhurst bypass. That has been given the go-ahead, for which we are deeply grateful. The integrated transport policy, however, has been translated into no policy at all.
Mr. Charles Wardle: I am glad that my hon. Friend is focusing again on problems in west Kent and the area to the south. The A21 runs into east Sussex, and links with the A259.
Does my hon. Friend recall that on 16 February, in a helpful letter, the Minister for Roads and Road Safety, Lord Whitty, said that it had not yet been decided whether the access to Hastings study would be included in the first tranche of the national studies programme? Until that study has been completed and the report has been submitted, the Secretary of State will not be able to deal with representations on the A259 schemes relating to Hastings, Bexhill and the Pevensey marsh, and no work can be started on those schemes for a minimum of two years after that. All those schemes were included in the Conservatives' road building programme, but the timetable applying to the studies programme is now uncertain.
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Time is now of the essence. I have the Minister's letter with me, and it is obscure about the timing. It seems that, whatever happens, it will happen some years from now. We accept that there will be a further review, but today we seek clarification in regard to its timing and purpose.
The fact remains that, so far, there has been no road improvement in the area. Nor has there been any rail improvement: it is well known that the Connex service has deteriorated over the past two years. Moreover, there has been no improvement in bus services. I am at a loss to identify a single bus service that has been added in the last couple of years. All that we have is a £380,000 grant for Tunbridge Wells borough council to put bus and bicycle lanes on the A26. Undoubtedly that money will prove very useful to the white paint industry, but it has done little to lessen traffic congestion. When I visited Arriva, the bus company, recently, I was told that since the bus lanes had been put in, not one extra bus had run on the A26, and there had been no increase in passenger traffic.
That illustrates something. It does not illustrate the fact that bus lanes are a bad idea; it illustrates the existence of a catch-22. Until the roads are improved and scope is created for park-and-ride and inter-modal connections, painting white lines on the A26 will not make any difference. In other words, without an integrated transport policy we cannot have road improvement, and without road improvement we cannot have an integrated transport policy. We are going round in circles.
In fact, the position is worsening. The roads review identified the A21 as a red spot area. At present, 100,000 vehicles are entering Tunbridge Wells each day between
1054
7 am and 7 pm, and it is estimated that a 4 per cent. increase in that traffic—which is very likely in the next few years—would cause an extra 2.5 km of traffic jams.
The heart of the problem lies in a short stretch of the A21 at Castle Hill, about 2.5 miles long. It is the connection at the dual section at Pembury, between the main entry to the industrial estate and the heartland of Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge. It is also a vital part of the arterial route to the south coast. At present, the first part of the A21 is dualled, while the second part is a single lane; then there is a dual bit, and a single lane; then, with the Lamberhurst bypass, there is another dual bit; then there is another single lane, and then another dual bit. It is go-stop, go-stop, go-stop. Every bit of the investment that has been made in the past is being under-utilised as a result of the subsequent bottlenecks.
This is the main route between Tunbridge Wells, Tonbridge, Pembury and Hastings, and it plays a vital role in providing access to amenities. Tunbridge Wells is a huge schools area: literally thousands of kids go to school there every morning, and have to sit in traffic jams for inordinate lengths of time. We hope to build a new hospital, but the site of the hospital will depend on the road. The emergency services are very worried about delays: ambulances may have problems in dealing with blue-light emergencies. The traffic generated by the hospital will pose a problem unless the road is improved.
At the last count, some six planning developments on the industrial estate were awaiting news of those improvements, some of which will have to be put off. We are talking about a stretch of only two and a half miles. There are many other local issues, but that section of road is the key to unlocking an improved and integrated transport policy for the area.
It is not a new issue, and there have been reviews in the past, including the 1992 public inquiry, and the Weald and Downs design, build, finance and operate programme, which was cancelled at a cost, we believe, of £6 million compensation to the contractor. Incidentally, the whole scheme costs £21 million—meaning that it need only have cost £15 million. A lot of money has been wasted, and we are getting review fatigue—as, I am sure, are the Government.
We understand that we must go through the next stage, but we need some specificity on timing, and a guarantee that the issue will be considered. We believe that the case is very strong, and that it was strong on the evidence submitted to the roads review. The document summarising the outcome of the review, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England—Understanding the New Approach to Appraisal", listed the statistical analysis conducted on each trunk road.
The Minister for Roads and Road Safety said that he felt that the case for Castle Hill was not strong, but analysis of his own data suggests that of all the A roads analysed in the report, the Castle Hill stretch of the A21 was the most stressed. That means that the volume of traffic in relation to the volume that the road was designed to bear was the worst of all the roads examined. The road had the fourth highest death rate of any A road analysed, and the sixth highest recorded accident rate. It had the seventh highest number of vehicles travelling on it per day of any A road—yet many of the A roads ranking far below the A21 were given the go-ahead. I hope that the

1055
Minister can explain why, despite the strength of the Department's own analysis, other road schemes were given preference.
The Minister for Roads and Road Safety has said that if a dual-lane road were adopted—as opposed to a three-lane road—it would cost between £14 million and £15 million, giving the scheme the 11th highest cost-benefit ratio of any A road analysed. In other words, the economics of the scheme are strong on the data presented.
More seriously, we find on analysing the figures that there are some baffling flaws in the evidence, suggesting that the review has relied on outdated data or sloppy analysis. First, the journey time delay at peak times of the day at Castle Hill was estimated and quoted at only three and a half minutes. Locally, that figure is regarded as risible. Every morning and evening, people are waiting in long queues for between eight and 15 minutes—not three and a half minutes. Therefore, the economic benefits of the scheme—which were already strong—have been fundamentally underestimated.
Secondly, the environmental detriment of the scheme does not appear to be supported by any worthwhile analysis. We recognise that there may be an environmental downside, but there is an upside as well. The most alarming section—although no great weight has been attached to it—refers to one of the environmental detriments being that damage might be done to the great crested newt. I am sure that the Minister will join us in our sympathy for the great crested newt, but we have no evidence of its presence on the route of the scheme. I do not know whether officials have any evidence. No one locally has any evidence. Quite simply, we have been neutered by the great crested newt.
We were disturbed to hear from the Minister for Roads and Road Safety that very few representations had been received in favour of the scheme. That came as a staggering declaration to local people—most particularly because a petition of 8,000 signatures was handed to the former Minister for Roads and Road Safety outside this House immediately before the trunk roads review was completed. In other words, 8,000 signatures were as nothing, and considered not worthwhile representations.
Anybody with local knowledge will know that this is the No. 1 issue, and that it is not contentious. There will be some objectors to any road proposal, but local support is overwhelmingly in favour of the Castle Hill scheme at every level of the community, including local government, the county council and regional government. There is near unanimous support, and the strength of feeling is high. However, the sense of frustration is enormous. We have been delayed and delayed, and we find ourselves now confronted with another uncertain time scale.
I would like some assurances from the Minister. If he cannot give them today, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to explain the position. We accept where we are, and that we are to consider the access to Hastings study—yet another review. Incidentally, the A21 is only partly to do with access to Hastings. It is part of the picture, but the surrounding conurbation is as big as Hastings in aggregate, and the use of the road is not just to do with access to Hastings.
1056
Will the Minister reassure us that the access to Hastings study will be in the first round of reviews, and will start as soon as possible? Can he tell us the dates on which he hopes to get the review off the ground, and when he hopes to have a report? Can he reassure us that the review will be able to consider not just road improvement as it affects Hastings, but road improvement as it affects towns along the route to Hastings? In other words, can we take into account the specific major congestion problem in west Kent caused by the bottleneck on the A21 at Castle Hill?
Can we consider the benefits to the communities in Pembury, Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge of road improvement in that area, recognising that further benefits to Hastings are incremental to that? Even if the access to Hastings study concludes that little can be done further south, can we have a reassurance that that stretch of the A21 will be improved if the analysis proves that that is the right thing to do? We are strongly convinced that it will.
Will the Minister undertake to publish the background to the fatally flawed analysis in the document, so that local people have the ability to respond and to make corrections to the analysis? There is no downside for the Government—or anybody else—in being open about the underlying assumptions. Can he reassure us that, in the study, there will be adequate representation of the communities along the road down to Hastings—particularly the residents of Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge?
We are asking the Minister to focus specifically on an acute problem—a serious issue for those who live in that part of west Kent and to the south. He must recognise the severity of a problem which affects everybody's daily lives in the area, and which is a major blight on economic development and on the environment. We are asking for clarity on the way forward, recognition of the need to get the next review completed and for a start in getting on with improvements to the roads.
1.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on securing this debate on a matter of great interest to him. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), whom I have known for many years in this place, on his contribution. He has always taken any opportunity available to him to refer to the transport infrastructure in his area.
It is both interesting and useful to hear at first hand about the impact that congestion is having on the economic and environmental well-being of west Kent. The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out that that sometimes concerned the great crested newt—which some may have failed to appreciate. It is also useful to have the case for road and other transport infrastructure improvements in west Kent set out so strongly and clearly in their community, environmental and economic context.
Good communications are central to the economy and to our quality of life. As a trading nation—which is especially relevant to Kent—we need efficient transport links with our international markets and a transport system at home that functions effectively. Estimates vary, but the costs of traffic congestion to the nation are substantial, amounting to billions of pounds a year.

1057
I would like to set the situation in west Kent in its wider regional context. As the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said, it is not a matter of one particular road: one must consider the whole economic and environmental structure of an area in dealing with such an important matter.
Transport infrastructure in the south-east is a strength, not a weakness. I know that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that, having spent his previous life outside the House being concerned about traffic flow and congestion. The range and quality of the region's international connections, its closeness to mainland Europe and its generally good transport connections to London benefit business and promote foreign and domestic investment. The region has the highest density of rail network in the country, which is an opportunity on which we must build. That is not to say that there are not some problems that we need to tackle.
The environment-transport interface, which is important throughout the country, is especially prominent in the south-east—excuse me for a moment, I seem to have a frog, or perhaps a great crested newt, in my throat—where population density is among the highest in the country outside London, development pressure is strong, levels of car ownership and use are high and about a third of the land area is designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty, 7 per cent. is green belt and about a tenth is urban or suburban.
West Kent has its share of designated areas—the Kent downs and High Weald areas of outstanding natural beauty—and historical sites, including Chartwell and Hever castle. Major roads in the south-east are the most heavily used outside London and nearly a quarter of the motorway network in England is in the south-east. Again, west Kent has its share. Eight in 10 households in the south-east have a car, compared with seven in 10 in the United Kingdom as a whole. The figure for Kent is just above the national average.
The region has one of the highest population densities in the country outside London, and household projections show it generating a higher number of additional households than any other region. In common with other regions, the trend in the south-east has been towards increasingly dispersed travel patterns and journey lengths. People living in the south-east also travel further than the average for the country as a whole—on average 8,100 miles a year, compared with a United Kingdom average of 6,500 miles. In 1997, 15 per cent. of the UK's road freight of 1.74 billion tonnes originated or was unloaded in the south-east.
Having outlined the scale of road use in the region, I would like to discuss the situation in west Kent, as I know that the hon. Gentleman is deeply interested in my getting to that point. As he said, on various parts of the trunk road network motorists suffer serious congestion and queuing. We are in that situation because past transport policies focused on road building, which is precisely why we announced a new direction in transport policy in "A New Deal for Transport", published last year.
The hon. Gentleman referred to congestion at some locations on the A21, notably at North Farm roundabout,
1058
Castle Hill and between Pembury and Lamberhurst. In particular, he asked that the Tonbridge and Pembury scheme be speeded up and considered separately from the access to Hastings study, but I have to remind him that the scheme was remitted to the study because we were not convinced that, taken to public inquiry, it represents a sustainable solution to the problems.
There are outstanding questions about whether dual three-lane standard is appropriate and we have concerns about the effect of the scheme on the landscape. I know that the hon. Gentleman is also concerned about that. We need to investigate further whether, and if so to what extent, the scheme contributes to the regeneration needs of the Hastings area. That is why it is right to consider the scheme as part of the access to Hastings study.
On present trends, and without action to implement "A New Deal for Transport", traffic is forecast to grow by more than a third on all roads over the next 20 years and by more than half on trunk roads. Few would suggest that such traffic growth should be accommodated by new road building programmes. All Kent Members would be horrified if that were to be the case.
That level of growth represents millions of additional and longer journeys. The impact of that amount of traffic growth and congestion on people, the environment and the economy would be substantial and adverse. The tranquillity of the countryside would be further eroded and the rush hour would become longer.
Mr. Norman: We know that road building cannot go on for ever, but does the Minister fully appreciate the fact that improving the relevant stretch of the A21 is crucial to creating the other integrated transport schemes, such as park and ride and access to stations, that would allow us to get traffic off the roads, and that the dualling will take traffic that is currently rat-running through the villages off those village roads and put it on the main trunk road where it should be?
Mr. Meale: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am aware of the Tunbridge Wells area, although I have no elderly relatives, who seem to represent the shareholding population of the UK. I am well aware, from letters received in the Department, of difficulties with rat-running. I hope to deal with that a little more when I come to more localised responses to his queries.
The cost to business would soar if traffic growth were allowed to continue unchecked, and there would be grave damage to the environment and to our health. Transport—along with skills, site availability and housing—has been identified in the competitiveness strategy for the south-east as the highest priority for the region.
If sustainable solutions are not found, the economy will respond by losing activities that require better access than is currently available, becoming less flexible and competitive, and its potential for growth will become increasingly constrained. I believe that most people realise that the way in which we travel is changing our environment for the worse. Light pollution and noise from transport have changed much of our countryside. Road construction and car parking have made heavy demands on land, and climate change is one of the greatest environmental threats facing the world today.

1059
That is why we are delivering the integrated transport agenda set out in the White Paper, which marked a turning point for transport policy in this country, setting out for the first time in 20 years a strategic framework for extending choice and delivering a transport system that is safe, efficient, clean, fair and available to everyone. It is clear that there is widespread support for the overall aim and objectives of our policy. Indeed, I am much encouraged by the work that is going on throughout the country to turn the objectives into reality.
1060
The hon. Gentleman raised an awful lot of issues about certain junctions and side roads and requested dualling. I know that he has already met my noble Friend—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

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

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Denzil Davies: If he will make a statement on the impact of Agenda 2000 negotiations on the European Union structural funds. [72453]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The Agenda 2000 negotiations include preparing the European Union for enlargement and providing for simpler, fairer and more accessible European structural funds programmes.
  Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will have heard and read the figure of £1.5 billion to £2 billion as the possible amount that Wales would receive if it obtained objective 1 status. Can he confirm that such a figure is ring-fenced, or will it be affected by the current deadlock between the French and Germans in the negotiations? Will my hon. Friend clear up a slight mystery by confirming which is the lead Department involved in the negotiations on the structural funds? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office or the Treasury?
  Mr. Hain: On the latter point, all three Departments are involved and the Welsh Office is taking a close interest. The negotiations as they are proceeding in Brussels at the moment are slow, but we hope that the issues will be resolved within the next month.

  Meningitis
  Mr. David Amess: What meetings he has had with the National Meningitis Trust. [72454]
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What recent meetings he has had with the Meningitis Research Foundation. [72458]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): While I have not met the trust or the foundation personally, my officials have had regular contact with them over recent weeks. I have also invited both organisations to nominate representatives to join the group that we recently set up to examine meningitis in Wales. Both groups were represented at the first meeting. I can promise swift action on any recommendations that come from that group. In the longer term, the issue will be one which the National Assembly will wish to pursue.
  Mr. Amess: There have been more reported cases of meningitis recently than there have been for 50 years, and 45 of those cases have been in Wales. As the father of young children, I empathise with those parents who are concerned when their children become ill about what the possible circumstances of that illness might be. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what tangible
  1062
  support the Government are giving to the National Meningitis Trust, which is currently beleaguered by telephone calls from concerned parents?
  Mr. Michael: I understand the concerns that parents have in such circumstances, for personal reasons. My son had meningitis when he was a university student and for a few days we were very afraid, until we got the news that it was not life threatening. I understand the emotions of people in Pontypridd, for instance, which has seen a large number of cases. However, it is difficult to discover anything tangible that can be identified as linking cases and can lead to preventive and prophylactic action as appropriate. That is why we established a group, which is chaired by a distinguished medical expert, to consider the evidence. Although the available evidence suggests a statistical issue rather than something that can be identified as the cause of the cases that have occurred, we want to go further—for the very reason the hon. Gentleman mentioned—because we need to do everything we can to identify anything that could explain the number of cases that have arisen in a specific area at a specific time.
  Mr. Winterton: The Secretary of State's responses are highly satisfactory, as far as they go. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) with his children, I have an interest because of my young grandchildren. However, my interest lies not only in my own family, or with what has happened in Wales. There has also been a meningitis outbreak in Macclesfield, and both the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation have been overwhelmed by approaches from anxious parents. The two charities receive some Government assistance, but is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to give additional funds to take the charities through a period during which the demands on their voluntary helpers and paid staff are so dramatically heavy?
  Mr. Michael: I understand the pressures that are resulting from people seeking information. It has put pressure on the public services as well. However, in seeking to deal with queries from the public and to provide the help that they need, we must consider the outcome of the work of the group to which I have already referred. If public information and co-operation with the voluntary sector are proved to be necessary, we shall consider acting on the recommendations of the group's report. For now, however, that issue is not at the forefront. The priority is to establish what can be done to identify links on which we can act.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: My right hon. Friend will know that during the recent outbreaks, particularly that in the constituency of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), there was a great deal of scaremongering and ill-informed comment. The situation was not helped by certain people who used it for political purposes, which is much to be regretted. Will my right hon. Friend make available sufficient resources for a proper education programme to be developed in schools? The latest outbreak is one of half a dozen in recent years, and the public need to be educated if we are not to have such scaremongering again.
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. Comments were made that were unhelpful, but some were inspired by

  1063
  genuine concern among parents and others. One problem is that dealing with meningitis is not easy. If it were simple to identify a specific strain, action would have been taken long ago. Steps taken include the establishment by the health authority of an outbreak control team, in which experts from the communicable disease surveillance centre and the Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales were involved along with voluntary organisations. I kept in close contact with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd, as did the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).
  The way in which the public services responded was entirely praiseworthy. They tried to make sure that information was made available as quickly and fully as possible to schools, and there was excellent co-operation between the education and health services. However, we must apply all tests to find out why the number of cases that emerged did so, as we are seeking to do with the advice and help of all available experts.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: We welcome the inquiry, but, to return to what the Secretary of State said earlier, is an appraisal being made of the usefulness of the recent diagnostic invention that can identify strains of the disease?
  Mr. Michael: Yes, that is one of the issues that the committee is considering.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has a deep concern about meningitis following his personal experience, as does the hon. Member for Pontypridd, because of what happened in his constituency. However, Wales has the second highest incidence of meningitis in Europe, and we seek swift action from the committee that is considering that dreadful disease. The group has met once. When will there be some positive guidance for parents who are deeply concerned by the outbreak so that they may be reassured? No one wants to create a panic, but proper reassurance and guidance must be given to the parents.
  Mr. Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for way in which he made his point. I assure him not only that we will act swiftly on recommendations that come from the group, as I promised earlier, but that the group is tackling its job with a sense of urgency and hopes to report by the end of May. That will be the starting point for action. Longer-term actions are being taken in respect of identifying vaccines. We are not in that situation yet, but that work, with the short-term identification of anything that we can do, will be given the urgency that he seeks.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding matching funding from the Treasury for objective 1 funding. [72455]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Once the European Commission and member states have agreed the new structural fund arrangements, the Government will consider the distribution of European receipts for wider programmes. In these discussions,
  1064
  I shall ensure that the interests of Wales are pursued vigorously. I hope that Plaid Cymru will support me in that endeavour rather than asking questions that it knows to be premature.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that stricture, but I have listened carefully to his public response on this issue. He has been remarkably coy. For us to assist him, now that he has discounted the reply that the Economic Secretary gave some months ago and says that the situation is different, does he expect the Treasury to be able to give extra cash under objective 1 funding?
  Mr. Michael: Yes. The reply of the Economic Secretary was used in a reprehensible way by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. It was a letter that referred to the current situation, as Opposition Members acknowledged during exchanges last week. The reply to the hon. Gentleman's question is the one that I gave earlier. Once the European Commission and member states have agreed the new structural fund arrangements, and we know the dates and figures and so on, the Government will consider the way we meet the requirements of the European Union. The British Government have met those requirements, and I am certain that my Government colleagues will co-operate fully in trying to ensure that we get the best possible deal for Wales within the decision made by the EU.
  I must say gently that the hon. Gentleman's party was not originally optimistic that we would succeed in getting objective 1 status. We are on the verge of succeeding in that, and I hope that we will have his support in ensuring that we get the best for Wales.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: What are the figures? Are there proposals to cut the structural funds in the European budget savagely? If so, will the Government oppose them?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend knows that the impact of enlargement, with the new countries that were not in the previous round, means that there are considerations that make it difficult to predict figures until we get to the end of the process. The discussions that are going on were mentioned earlier. We maintain a close interest in them and are very optimistic that we will have a positive outcome. We can then get on with the discussion necessary within government to turn the decision into practical action.
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Has the Minister considered where he would find the resources to match fund initiatives in areas of Wales that may qualify for objective 2 status?
  Mr. Michael: There is much confusion between additionality and matched funding, which makes simple answers difficult. I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the things that we are doing is considering the strategy for developing the economy of the whole of Wales during objective 1 status and also trying to ensure that there are opportunities for areas outside objective 1 status, which have their own needs, to ensure that the overall strategy works. I assure him that that is at the forefront of our minds.
  Mr. John Smith: I hope that the whole House will support my right hon. Friend in his bid

  1065
  for objective 1 status, but I, too, am concerned about areas outwith objective 1, such as the coastal strip of Cardiff, the Vale of Glamorgan, and Cardiff international airport, which is a valuable strategic asset for the whole of Wales and requires development support.
  Mr. Michael: Yes. My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that, outside objective 1 areas, other communities in Wales have needs. Our aim is to do the best for the objective 1 areas that are objectively those in the greatest need in terms of low GDP and high unemployment, but also to be conscious of the needs of other areas in discussions on assisted status and in our economic strategies throughout Wales. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes.
  Dr. Liam Fox: In the interests of clarity, will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he has already had with the Treasury about potential matched funding, should this fortuitous situation come about? Should not such money be available from the Treasury, and would such funding be an appropriate use of funds within the Welsh block?
  Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman is playing the tune that I asked Plaid Cymru not to play. He is asking questions that cannot be answered until we get to the point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will have discussions with the Treasury. Both my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary are aware of the likely impact of a decision to give objective 1 status to large parts of Wales. There will then be discussions within the Government. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is the way in which these matters proceed, and they will. I shall make sure that we get the best possible deal for Wales in those discussions.
  Dr. Fox: Does not that answer betray everything about the Secretary of State's position? It is a perfectly simple question. Has he already had discussions with the Treasury or not? That is hardly a difficult one for him to answer, but he could not give a commitment either on behalf of the Government or on behalf of the Welsh Assembly that it would be appropriate to use the Welsh block. He is not free to make that commitment, should he become the leader of the Welsh Assembly, because he does not have the ability to do so. Nor is he free from the collective responsibility of the Cabinet, which would enable him to be free from Treasury decisions. He is in an unworkable position and he cannot do what he initially said in response to the question that he would do. He cannot pursue Wales's interest vigorously because he has to pursue the interests of the Labour party first.
  Mr. Michael: That rather confused question betrays the cynicism and opportunism that the hon. Gentleman brings to the Dispatch Box. He knows full well the way in which the discussions take place. He and his colleagues tried to cast doubt on the Government's ability to get the NUTS 1 boundary agreed in order to achieve objective 1 status. His cynicism then is followed through by his cynicism now. We will make sure as a Government that the best possible agreement is reached to enable the decisions that are made in Europe to flow through to action in Wales in the best interests of Wales.
  Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister will be aware that my constituency is one of the poorest in
  1066
  Wales, with some of the highest levels of unemployment, the lowest incomes and the worst health problems in the United Kingdom. He will also be aware that the future of the constituency is to a great extent dependent on obtaining objective 1 status. While I understand that my right hon. Friend cannot make a statement today about matched funding, is it possible to estimate the kind of moneys that would come from Europe should we obtain objective 1? Lots of figures are being bandied about.
  Mr. Michael: Figures as high as £2 billion have been bandied around, but I have to stress that those are guesstimates rather than estimates until we have the final decision and until decisions are made on when the money will come forward. We want to make sure that the opportunity of objective 1 money is used strategically so that it changes the economy for the long term. We must not be in the position that money has come in, we have used it, and we have not changed the economy of Wales. I am certain that that will be one of my hon. Friend's priorities.

  Lucas-SEI Work Force
  Mr. Richard Livsey: What progress he has made in finding alternative employment for the work force of the Lucas-SEI factory at Ystradgynlais in the upper Swansea valley. [72456]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The nine-point action plan that I announced on 1 February is being taken forward actively and, so far, job referrals have been made to about half the Lucas work force. Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  Mr. Livsey: I know that the Minister and his Department have been working hard on this issue, but I am sure that he appreciates that only 30 of the employees of Lucas-SEI have found work. It is a serious situation. The leaflet that I hold in my hand was produced by the overseas trade services department of the Welsh Office. It says:
  "It's not too late to take the plunge into Poland."
  An event is taking place on 10 March that is aimed at Welsh investors. Would it not be better if those Welsh investors invested in the upper Swansea valley instead and provided jobs on the Ystradgynlais site, where there are many women, but 500 of them cannot leave their community to work? They have no transport, they have children at school, and they have a sore need for employment.
  Mr. Hain: I pay tribute to the role that the hon. Gentleman has played with me in advancing and protecting the case of the Lucas workers. However, he fundamentally misrepresents what the export mission is about. As a Government, we should support Welsh businesses, including those in the Swansea valley, that want to export to Poland and elsewhere in the world; we should protect jobs, increase growth opportunities and strengthen those businesses. That is what the mission organised by the Welsh Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is about. It is not in conflict with the attempt to rescue the

  1067
  situation in the Swansea valley; it complements that effort, because it strengthens Welsh businesses that want to sell their goods and services abroad.
  Mr. Alan W. Williams: Although I feel every sympathy for the 700 people—a large fraction of whom live in my constituency—who will lose their work at Ystradgynlais, may I express my strong support for my hon. Friend's handling of the problem? Regrettably, it was necessary to deal with it in a hard-headed way, in that the jobs went to Poland to people paid only about a quarter of the wages paid here. Is there any possibility of that multinational company bringing alternative work to Ystradgynlais? Obviously, we must redouble our efforts to bring other work to that area.
  Mr. Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I have held discussions at the highest levels, in America and Britain, with the company and its new owner to try to secure the future of the site for the Swansea valley and to provide alternative job opportunities. However, the message from Lucas-SEI deals a savage blow to the Swansea valley, because the jobs that are being created in Poland and Slovakia pay only a quarter of the wages that were being paid in south Wales. That shows that the Government's strategy of driving the Welsh economy upwards to a high-skill, high-quality economy is the only one that will safeguard jobs in the future.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a lesson to be learned about the importance of lower levels of regulation and social cost, and especially—in relation to the Polish example—about the transformation of an economy that can be wrought by capitalism?
  Mr. Hain: I realise that the hon. Gentleman stumbles into Welsh debates with a certain amount of clumsiness, but I must point out to him that the lesson of the Lucas fiasco is that the Tory strategy, pursued in Wales for 18 bitter years, of attacking the work force and closing down jobs does not work. The only strategy that will work is to drive up the quality of the Welsh economy so that it is a high-skill, world-class economy in which people want to invest. People will want to remain operating in Wales because we in Wales have the best work force and the best economy.

  Carers
  Ms Julie Morgan: What plans he has to help carers in Wales. [72457]
  The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The national strategy for carers was launched on 8 February, and outlines the Government's new co-ordinated approach to ensure that the needs of carers are addressed. It prepares the way for the work of the Assembly in that sphere of activity. Our aim is to provide improved information, care and support for carers throughout Wales, and to give carers the quality of life that we believe they deserve.
  Ms Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. What would he say to the hundreds of carers who are
  1068
  meeting in Llandrindod Wells today about the future availability of respite care? As he is aware, respite care in Wales is currently dependent on where one lives. How will he ensure that affordable respite care is available to all carers throughout Wales, especially in view of the announcement about England?
  Mr. Michael: Yes. The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), met social services representatives at the end of last week, and we are actively discussing the matter with them. We are pursuing the integration of health and social services so that people receive proper standards of care in all areas. The review and reform of the health service that I described to the House last week are very much a part of that process.
  Mr. John Bercow: What specific, new carer-friendly employment practices does the right hon. Gentleman envisage? Does he suppose that, on the whole, they will be spread through exhortation or via legislation?
  Mr. Michael: I think that they will be spread through partnership. We are working closely with the health service and local authorities in Wales—bodies which were once at each other's throats as a result of the divisive reforms of the health service introduced by the previous Government. We are working hard to ensure that the health service, local government and voluntary organisations co-operate in the best interests of carers whose needs are great—and whose needs are respected on the Government Benches.
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I assure my right hon. Friend that the national carers strategy is particularly welcome in Wales. However, concern has been expressed about the allocation of resources for respite care. Some £140 million has been devoted to respite care for local authorities in England. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that a proportionate amount will be allocated to Wales?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend may be labouring under a misapprehension because Wales and England use different systems. Money allocated to local authorities in Wales is unhypothecated. That is why I referred to the discussions that my hon. Friend is having with Welsh local authorities, social services departments and the Welsh Local Government Association. We want to do our best for carers, but the allocation in Wales is different because the method is different.

  Meningitis
  Mr. James Gray: What new guidelines have been issued to schools, universities and general practitioners following the outbreak of meningitis in south Wales. [72459]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The chief medical officer issued a letter to all doctors in Wales on 20 January 1999 to remind them about the importance of early recognition

  1069
  and prompt intervention in meningococcal infection. Helplines and advice are made available to local people by health authorities when an outbreak occurs. In addition, bilingual leaflets containing advice on recognising the signs and symptoms of meningitis are widely available. This information is targeted particularly at new mothers and university and college students.
  Mr. Gray: I thank the Minister for his reply. None the less, is he concerned that conflicting messages may have been sent to parents in Wales? On the one hand, they have been directed to use accident and emergency services only for emergencies and, on the other, they are naturally concerned about the meningitis crisis. Should the Government not make it absolutely clear to all parents that, if they have the slightest concern that their children might be suffering from meningitis, they must contact the nearest accident and emergency unit as soon as possible?
  Mr. Jones: There is clearly cause for concern whenever an outbreak occurs, and special advice is provided at the time. It would normally be appropriate for parents to consult their GPs, and Welsh GPs have received up-to-date advice about how to act promptly when signs of meningitis are identified. That procedure has worked in the case of outbreaks in Wales. I know that parents have been hugely concerned, but local authorities and particularly teachers acted promptly and gave of their own time to ensure that parents were well informed and that action was taken immediately.

  Unemployment Rates
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If he will make a statement on the percentage of the population currently unemployed in (a) Gwynedd and (b) Wales. [72460]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): In January 1999, 7.8 per cent. of the population of Gwynedd were unemployed and the figure for Wales was 5.9 per cent.
  Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that both those figures are far too high? Does he accept also that, if we achieve objective 1 status for the west of Wales—which includes Gwynedd—and the European Union gives its highest priority to the problems of that area, the United Kingdom Government should do likewise in reviewing the assisted area map and give the whole of the objective 1 area in Wales top-level priority?
  Mr. Hain: We are giving the whole objective 1 area of Wales top-level priority. Because of the Labour Government's achievements, we have the chance of delivering one of the best boosts that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, west Wales and the valleys have ever had, by drawing down European funding.
  Since Labour came to power, 300 youngsters in the right hon. Gentleman's area have been given the chance of a job with training under the new deal and £7 million of regional assistance has been provided to companies in his constituency to bring in 1,000 new jobs or safeguard existing jobs.

  The Prime Minister was asked—

  Engagements
  Mr. Christopher Gill: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 March.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): Today, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I was also briefed on the hideous murders of eight tourists in Uganda. The high commission is seeking to establish the facts, and we are obviously in close consultation with the Ugandan authorities. The House will know that four of the dead—Joanne Cotton, Martin Friend, Mark Lindgren and Stephen Roberts—were British, and the thoughts of the whole House will be with their friends and families, to whom we pledge to do all in our power to bring their killers to justice.
  Mr. Gill: Given that his Secretaries of State for Wales are partial to forbidden fruits, what steps will the Prime Minister now take to ensure that moments of madness involving beef on the bone do not, in future, constitute an offence? Will he now revoke the ridiculous and discredited ban on beef on the bone, or is it the case that his European puppet masters will not let him?
  The Prime Minister: I thought for one moment that we would get through a question from the hon. Gentleman without a hit on Europe, but I was mistaken. On beef on the bone, I gather that the event to which his question relates was designed to promote the Welsh beef industry, and I can only say that it had considerable success. The ban is in place because, as he knows, the chief medical officer has given us what he terms his strong advice that there should be further tests. Obviously, we shall lift the ban as soon as that is consistent with medical advice.
  Ms Julia Drown: Is the Prime Minister aware that this Sunday will mark 300 days until the new millennium? Is he aware also that in those 300 days, the level of debt repayments from poor countries will mean that the lives of millions of children in Africa alone will be lost? I congratulate the Government on their good work on debt relief, including today's announcements, but, as the millennium approaches, will my right hon. Friend agree to consider the outright cancellation of the debt of those poorest countries that are committed to tackling poverty, so that we can take a lead in ending that unnecessary loss of children's lives?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises an issue of concern to millions of people in this country and throughout the world. She will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced the millennium target for debt relief of £50 billion to the world's poorest countries by the end of 2000. That is right, and we shall lead the campaign internationally to cancel as much debt as possible. She will know also that the new Labour Government have increased the overseas aid budget by

  1071
  the largest amount ever, and after years of that budget declining as a percentage of our national income, it is now rising for the first time in two decades.
  Mr. William Hague: I associate the Opposition with the Prime Minister's remarks about the tragic events in Uganda.
  On a subject closer to home, the Prime Minister may recall that he and I received a letter from Mr. Nelson, an NHS patient who has been told to wait 80 weeks to see a consultant in a trauma and orthopaedic clinic. Will the Prime Minister confirm that people waiting in that manner, of whom there have been many more in the past two years, do not appear in the waiting list figures that were published yesterday?
  The Prime Minister: The waiting list figures are published and calculated under this Government in exactly the same way that they were under the previous Government. Partly as a result of providing money over and above what the Conservatives promised for the national health service, we are bringing waiting lists down.
  Mr. Hague: The figures are calculated in the same way and they reveal that waiting lists are longer under this Government after two years, and that the real scandal is the number of people, such as Mr. Nelson, who are waiting to be on waiting lists. That figure is double what it was two years ago. Is not the truth that there are now nearly half a million people waiting for hospital appointments as a direct result of managing the national health service for the sake of appearances rather than patients? Are not the Government now just spinning the figures and playing with politics instead of serving the patients?
  The Prime Minister: No. First, I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation that we are indeed calculating the figures in precisely the same way as the last Government, as his shadow health spokesman has been saying the opposite month after month. Secondly, we have brought down health service waiting lists after years of rising lists. As for the number of out-patients, I can give him the latest figures. During the third quarter of 1998–99, 68,000 more were treated than in the previous quarter.
  Mr. Hague: I will give the right hon. Gentleman the figures, too—468,000 people waiting for hospital appointments compared with 248,000 only two years ago. The Government calculate the figures in the same way, but they have moved people who would have been on waiting lists to waiting to be on waiting lists. The chairman of the British Medical Association consultants committee himself said:
  "If all you are doing is shortening your waiting times for operations and waiting lists to see a consultant are going up, then your proper waiting list is getting longer."
  Should not the Prime Minister stop spending £150 million on dragooning GPs into new bureaucracies and concentrate it on this instead, and reduce the real waiting lists in our health service?
  The Prime Minister: No, because the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. Not merely are we
  1072
  treating more out-patients than before, but we are treating several hundred thousand more in-patients; so in respect of both in-patient and out-patient lists, we are treating more people. In addition, from 1 April, the Government are going to introduce £21 billion extra spending in the national health service, having sorted out the mess left behind by the Tories. That £21 billion is opposed by his party, and described as reckless and irresponsible. That is why this country will trust us, not him, with the health service. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Was it on purpose or by mistake that the oil pipeline between Iraq and Turkey was hit?
  The Prime Minister: I am sorry; I did not hear the first bit of that question.
  Madam Speaker: Nor did I. This is a very noisy House; it ought to be a little quieter. Mr. Dalyell, let us have your question again.
  Mr. Dalyell: Was it on purpose or by mistake that the oil pipeline between Iraq and Turkey was hit by a missile or bomb?
  The Prime Minister: No, it certainly was not on purpose, but we do not yet even know the extent of the damage, if any. Let me explain to my hon. Friend again why it is necessary that we police the no-fly zones. In Iraq, it is necessary in order to protect both the Kurdish people and the Shia Muslims from the brutality of Saddam Hussein. If he wants to stop those patrols, he can come back into line with the United Nations resolutions, stop butchering people for whom he has responsibility, and start behaving like a responsible leader in the world.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdown: As the Serbs mass troops and armour on the Macedonian border and as Kosovo slips back into widespread conflict, will the Prime Minister give us his assessment of the realistic prospects for success at the reconvened Rambouillet talks, when they take place?
  The Prime Minister: It would be a brave person who predicted an optimistic outcome. On the other hand, we have made good progress in two ways. First, the framework for autonomy in Kosovo is now in place and agreed. Secondly, there is significant progress—not yet total agreement—on the idea of having an outside force in Kosovo in order to make sure that the agreement works. The implementation conference is on 15 March. I believe that there is every prospect that we may get the two sides in agreement. We will obviously do everything that we can in the meantime to make sure that that happens.
  Mr. Ashdown: But is it not the case that the west's attempts to find peace in Kosovo have been severely hampered by our reluctance to state clearly what it is we are trying to achieve? Is it not now essential that we recognise what everyone understands to be the truth, but which no one has yet dared to say—that the actions of the Serbs in Kosovo have removed from them the moral authority to govern Kosovo on the basis of 5 per cent. of the population, that the only sensible interim status for

  1073
  Kosovo is as an international protectorate, and that although independence cannot be a solution in the short term, it cannot be excluded as a long-term option?
  The Prime Minister: The way that we have set out is more practical. The right hon. Gentleman says that our objectives are not clear; they are clear. They are, first, to get agreement on the constitutional programme for Kosovo, which has now been agreed by both sides—that is why it is not very helpful to talk about a different constitutional settlement altogether—and secondly, to establish a force in Kosovo in order to police that settlement and make it happen.
  In the meantime, the two most important things in my judgment are, first, sending a message to Kosovo Albanians that they must avoid provoking new clashes, and that we are not going there in order to be their fighting force for independence—that is not our role—and secondly, our responsibility to say very clearly to President Milosevic that, if there is renewed repression in Kosovo, we remain ready immediately to take military action against him. Giving that clear message to both sides and making progress on the constitutional settlement are the best way forward. The danger of the way forward outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, which may have attractions for one side in the dispute, is that we would fail to get general agreement.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In view of this Government's important additional investment in science, engineering and technology, does my right hon. Friend welcome the launch last week of the Athena project, which aims to increase women's participation in science, and to retain women in science and progress them in scientific careers? Will he confirm that Departments that employ scientists will be at the forefront in implementing the project's aims?
  The Prime Minister: I confirm both those points. We welcome the project and the fact that it offers the opportunity to open up prospects for more women in science. Britain has the potential to lead the world in many areas of science and technology. We are working on ensuring that inventions and scientific achievements in this country are also exploited commercially in this country for the benefit of our future prosperity.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Where in the Labour manifesto did it warn that the effect of Labour policies would be to reduce the rate of economic growth from 3.5 per cent. to just 0.5 per cent. in less than two years?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may recall the recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said that that rate of growth was unsustainable—[Interruption.] It says that the only way in which to ensure proper growth in this country is to pursue the policies for economic stability that this Government have undertaken, such as Bank of England independence, which Conservative Members oppose, the sorting out of public finances, so that we do not have the doubled national debt that we inherited, and, of course, an end to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Boom and bust."] Boom and bust, exactly.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow
  1074
  (Mr. Dalyell), my right hon. Friend referred to accidental damage to the oil supply line from Iraq to Turkey, which carries oil under the United Nations oil for aid programme. Is he aware of the other, unofficial supply of oil between Iraq and Turkey, which is for cash? It is funding the Baghdad regime and supplying money to keep the Republican Guard in place. Given that it is in breach of UN resolutions, will he raise with his American counterparts the need to take military action to block that supply, which is carried by truck? Many of us believe that if that line is broken, the Baghdad regime will fall.
  The Prime Minister: One of the targets in the military action that we took before Christmas was precisely directed at ensuring that the sanctions regime was upheld. My hon. Friend's point is absolutely right and justified. We cannot say often enough that Saddam Hussein is able to sell as much oil as he wants for food and medicine for the Iraqi people. We will not allow him to get round the sanctions and use that oil money to build up a weapons arsenal.
  Mr. James Clappison: In his manifesto, the Prime Minister promised to promote saving, which is a key to growth in future. Why is it then that, under his Government, the savings ratio has gone down by a third?
  The Prime Minister: We are promoting savings and we are doing it, first, by introducing the pensions reforms that will allow people, many of them lower-income people, to save for the first time in years. As for pensions and savings, what most people remember are the pension mis-selling scandals under the previous Government, which we sorted out when we came in.
  Mr. Jim Cousins: On Monday, the treaty banning landmines came into effect—and I hope that we can all take some credit for the part that our country, our Prime Minister and our Foreign Secretary played in that—but Russia, China and the United States have not signed up to the treaty. We can be sure that, since Monday, more mines have been laid in the world than have been cleared. Can the Prime Minister assure us that Britain will not be a home to anyone who deals in landmines, or to any dirty money that is generated by selling them? No amount of laundering can wash the filth from profits that are made by planting landmines to maim women and to cripple children.
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know of the very strong position that we have taken internationally on that issue. We will continue to do so. Last week, we announced the destruction of the last of our land operational anti-personnel mines, which happened four years ahead of the deadline that was set in the Ottawa convention. We are also increasing our annual funding for demining-related activity. I can assure him that we will do all we can not merely to implement the convention, but to try to persuade all members of the international community to do the same.
  Mr. Martin Bell: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider the advantages of the political parties allowing their Back Benchers more freedom to speak their minds and to vote

  1075
  with their consciences, so that this place might become rather more the free Parliament of a free people, and rather less a rubber-stamp assembly.
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is in a party of one, it is obviously a fairly easy issue for him, but I happen to believe that we are perfectly entitled as a Government to put through our programme. What is important is that we do deliver that programme. That is precisely what we are doing.
  Mr. Barry Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the day that Wales elects its National Assembly will be a day of historic importance not only for Wales, but for the British state? Does he agree that what Wales must avoid like the plague is nationalism and separatism? Does he also agree that what my constituents are looking for are real jobs, better hospitals and improved school services?
  The Prime Minister: That is precisely what the £2.4 billion plans that were announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will deliver for Wales: better schools and hospitals. The new deal will deliver better jobs and the economic policy of the Government has delivered lower mortgages.
  Mr. William Hague: Three weeks ago at Question Time, the Prime Minister failed to answer a question asking by how much he had increased taxes in the past two Budgets. In fact, he said:
  "business tax has come down under this Government."—[Official Report, 10 February 1999; Vol. 325, c. 316.]
  The Confederation of British Industry says in its Budget submission to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that taxes on businesses are up by £5 billion a year, so who is the telling the truth: the Prime Minister or the CBI?
  The Prime Minister: Actually, the CBI has welcomed our reform of tax. [Laughter.] Yes, it has. If the right hon. Gentleman is talking about the reform of tax credits, of course, that will yield from the next couple of years onwards a £4 billion tax cut for business. I assume that it is his policy to reverse the policy now, in which case it will be interesting to know how he pays for it, but it is under this Government that corporation tax and small business tax are the lowest that they have ever been.
  Mr. Hague: Evidently, we have as much chance of getting a straight answer out of the Prime Minister as of meeting the Minister for the Cabinet Office in economy class, or of meeting the Secretary of State for Wales at a meeting of the Electoral Reform Society. The truth of what the CBI says is that the previous two Budgets resulted in an extra tax burden on businesses of more than £5 billion a year since Labour's election. That figure is not confined to the taxes that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned; it includes more corporation tax, more fuel duties, more stamp duties and lost dividend tax credits. Will he now acknowledge that his claim three weeks ago that business taxes have come down was complete and utter rubbish?
  The Prime Minister: No, I will not. As I have just said to the right hon. Gentleman, we have cut corporation tax. If we consider the figures, the tax burden will increase
  1076
  over this Parliament at or below the level predicted by the Conservatives in their last Budget. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is wrong. However, at the same time, we have managed to sort out public finances, to get interest rates at their lowest level for more than 30 years and to get inflation back under control, all of which the right hon. Gentleman's Government failed to do.
  Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister told the House that business tax had come down and it is an indisputable fact that it has gone up by billions of pounds. Contrary to specific election promises and contrary to every statement in the House, the Government have raised taxes on businesses by stealth and on the whole country by stealth. Before we debate next week's Budget, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started to tell the truth about the previous one?
  The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that the Government, by introducing the working families tax credit, will make 1.5 million families better off, some by up to £20 a week. Child benefit is coming in—an extra £130 a year to 5.5 million families—[Interruption.] Hon. Members think that it does not matter that these families are getting more money. National insurance has been cut, as has value added tax, corporation tax and long-term capital gains tax.
  As for the right hon. Gentleman's mention of the petrol duty fuel escalator, it is correct that there is such an escalator. Under this Government, it is 6 per cent., and 5 per cent. of it was introduced by his Government. If it is not now out of order to quote the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) to Conservatives, I shall read out what the then Chancellor said when he introduced the escalator. He said:
  "Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
  The other part of the business tax is the windfall tax. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to that, too.
  Mr. Hague indicated assent.
  The Prime Minister: There we are. So he is opposed to the new deal. So hundreds of thousands of young and unemployed people know that if they vote Tory, they will get put out of a job. It is this Government who are developing not only low interest rates and not only Bank of England independence, but £40 billion of extra spending, and the new deal is delivering jobs where the Tories delivered despair.
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the royal commission on its report on the problems of continuing care for the elderly, caused by the acutely difficult and unsustainable system left to us by the previous Government after implementation of the Community Care (Residential Homes) Act 1993? Does he agree that the sooner the Government are able to address the recommendations of the report, with all the resource difficulties that are involved, the more grateful the British public will be?
  The Prime Minister: We set up the royal commission and it says that it wants a full public debate on the

  1077
  proposals; I hope that that takes place. We need a solution that stands the test of time. It is worth pointing out, as I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge, that, in the meantime, it is this Government who have been breaking down barriers between health and social services. We are providing an extra £750 million over three years to promote rehabilitation and prevention. We have introduced the new strategy for carers, which is worth £140 million over the three years. We must have the debate on the royal commission's report. We will come out with the best affordable solution possible. If we can manage to do that, we will have undertaken a task for the country which was avoided for 18 years under the previous Government.
  Mr. Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister may have noticed recent newspaper reports that he is considering putting some money into the international manned space station. As much as he and I might like to compare notes on which of our colleagues we would like to put into orbit, does he accept that current moneys spent on space science and earth observation are very thinly spread, and that many excellent science projects could be backed by the Government if they were prepared to put further funds at their disposal, not least the Beagle 2 Mars lander project?
  The Prime Minister: I have a feeling that we might just agree on the people we would put up in space. I also accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. We shall make a decision on the matter in the near future. What is important is that the money that is available is put into science projects that will really bring a benefit to the United Kingdom. When we make the decision, we shall announce it, and I shall write to him.
  Miss Anne Begg: As you can see, Madam Speaker, as there are so many people on the Government Benches, more of us have taken to bringing our own seats.
  I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been able to see a copy of this morning's Aberdeen Press and Journal. If he had, he would have read that the oil price has dropped to $10.91 a barrel—which is obviously quite a concern to my constituents, as it may affect their economic well-being. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the low oil price blows a huge hole in the economic policies of the Scottish National party, and that the biggest threat to my constituents' economic future is the SNP plan to divorce Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister: Very little adds up with the SNP. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right in pointing out that the drop in the oil price demonstrates the importance of our having a balanced economic strategy to develop the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government have not merely delivered a lower unemployment level in Scotland, more jobs for Scotland and lower mortgages for Scotland, but—if we pursue the
  1078
  right stable economic policies—there will be a prosperous economic future for Scotland. That would not happen under separatism or with divorce.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Three or four weeks ago, the Prime Minister made great play and many soundbites about how the nation owed a debt to carers. I wrote to him about two of my constituents—one of whom is a carer, and the other of whom is her disabled husband—who are being made homeless at least in part because of a failure of his Government's Department of Social Security. When he wrote back, he told me that the money owed to them had been paid, but he did nothing and suggested nothing about how they could be prevented from being made homeless. How does he dare to claim that he cares about carers? When he answers that question, will he also tell my elderly constituent, Mrs. Hollanby—who is currently awaiting assessment of a glaucomatous condition—the difference between a pending list, a waiting list, and a waiting for a waiting list?
  The Prime Minister: On the first point—as I wrote to the hon. Gentleman, explaining the circumstances—we have done exactly what any Government would do in those circumstances. As he rightly said, it is not correct to suggest that the situation is all the result of the Department of Social Security. Secondly, on his other point, we are putting extra money into the national health service precisely to get the waiting lists down, after years of rising waiting lists under the previous Government. I remember that when the hon. Gentleman sat on the Government Benches, waiting lists were going up year after year, and he never said a word about them.
  Judy Mallaber: Yesterday, we heard from the Health Secretary that 140,000 qualified nurses no longer work in the health service. May I tell my right hon. Friend of a nurse in my area who wants to return to work after maternity leave, but who cannot do so because the shift patterns are incompatible with her child care needs? I welcome the Health Secretary's statement that he has now told health trusts to offer family-friendly policies. Does the Prime Minister agree that all Departments should lead by example in offering and encouraging family-friendly policies, and that getting people back to work is good for families, good for the health service and good for the economy?
  The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. The civil service is looking at how it can improve its flexibility in employing women with families, particularly younger families. My hon. Friend is right to say that a big problem in recruiting people back to nursing in the health service is the inflexibility of the present system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has pledged to change that. The child care tax credit and the additional money that we are putting into child care provision should also help. People must be allowed to balance the work that they need with the family that they love. That is the purpose of our policies.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you deprecate this House constantly being left out of the loop on legislation. The minimum wage legislation comes into effect on 1 April, but the House has not discussed the regulations until today. The Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation is being asked to amend the Minimum Wage Act 1998 by regulations. The amended Act is then being used to make regulations. The regulations that we are being asked to pass initially are ultra vires.
Where is the Committee to go if it discovers that it cannot make the regulations that are to come into force on 1 April because the legislation is defective? The Department of Trade and Industry announced that it finished its consultations in November. Surely the House should not be asked to bring in such important regulations, which affect almost every employer in the land and a large number of employees, without proper notice to allow employers can take the necessary action.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I support my hon. Friend in his point of order. At this late stage, owing to the lack of consultation, a children's charity providing holidays for children from deprived backgrounds may have to close because of the extra costs resulting from the regulations.
Madam Speaker: As both hon. Gentlemen know, when regulations are laid is not a matter for the Chair but a matter for the Government. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) is fully aware that I am not in charge of the business of the House. That is dealt with by the usual channels. He might approach them. As for his point about the Committee, the procedure is that in the first instance the matter must be resolved by the Committee. It is then open to the Committee to make a report to the House if it is not satisfied.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence—a Department which might be involved in the oil-for-food programme—to make a statement on how the destruction of an oil pipeline might affect Iraq's ability to take advantage of the programme?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not had any indication that any Department is seeking to make a statement on that. The hon. Gentleman was fortunate enough to catch my eye during Prime Minister's questions, when he put a short and succinct question to the Prime Minister—one that I rather approved of, because most questions are
1080
too long. I tend to approve of his questions. On this occasion, however, he might have extended his question a little and got a little more information.
Mr. James Paice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) asked the Prime Minister when an invitation would be issued to the European Commission to send inspectors to examine our facilities before beef exports could resume. The Prime Minister replied:
"We have of course invited the inspectors"—[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 386.]
That afternoon, I tabled a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food asking when the invitation was issued. On Monday this week, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that he would reply as soon as possible.
I have a copy of a letter to the director-general of DG XXIV at the Commission from MAFF's chief veterinary officer, which was faxed to Brussels at 5.04 pm on Thursday, issuing that invitation to the inspectors. I have spoken to the recipient, who confirms that was the first that he knew of the invitation.
It seems plain to me that the Prime Minister misled the House last week, and that a panic-stricken Government rushed out an invitation the next day. Agriculture Ministers clearly do not know what is going on. Will you, Madam Speaker, instruct the Prime Minister to come to the House, apologise for his answer to my hon. Friend and tell the House and the industry what is really being done about getting the beef ban lifted?
Madam Speaker: I have no authority to instruct any Minister, let alone the Prime Minister, to come to the House. Opposition Front Benchers had ample opportunities today to put such questions to the Prime Minister if further elucidation was required—which it seems to have been.

BILLS PRESENTED
  CROWN PREROGATIVES (PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL)
  Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. David Davis, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Derek Foster, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Audrey Wise, presented a Bill to make the exercise of certain Crown prerogatives subject to the assent of the House of Commons: 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 55].
  XENOTRANSPLANTATION
  Mr. Norman Baker presented a Bill to prohibit the transplant of living cells, tissues or organs from animals into humans: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 56].

Motor Accident Injury Compensation
3.36 pm
Dr. Desmond Turner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure compensation for persons injured as a result of road traffic accidents.
My Bill seeks to deal with problems that remain outstanding. First, it takes a long time to secure any compensation payments for people who have been injured in road accidents. Under the Bill, rather than waiting for years, road accident victims would receive interim compensation within three months. Secondly, all of us who drive cars and take out comprehensive insurance probably think that we are covered. We know that our passengers are covered—they can normally sue for up to half a million pounds—but, as the small print shows, cover is limited to £5,000 for all but those who are exceedingly lucky and have gold-plated policies. To those who, through no fault of their own, but as a result of an accident that cannot be pinned on anyone else, become vegetables for the rest of their lives, £5,000 is nothing in comparison with the cost of maintaining themselves and, perhaps, their families for the rest of what would have been their working lives. The cover, such as it is, is grossly inadequate. Thirdly, there is the possibility of total evasion of any responsibility for the consequences of an accident.
Let me give a simple example. Let us suppose that someone driving down the high street is unfortunate enough to suffer a heart attack, become unconscious and accidentally drive the car into a bus queue, killing half the people in it. As the law stands, that person's insurance company can deny all liability, because the person was not in control at the time of the accident, and therefore cannot be blamed. The whole culture of blame leads to a great deal of hardship—not, fortunately, for a massive number of people, but the results can be stressful and harrowing for individuals, groups of individuals and families who are caught out.
It has long been recognised that a serious problem exists. A few years ago, the Lord Chancellor's Department took that problem seriously enough to issue a report that considered ways of tackling it. One suggestion was the establishment of a no-fault compensation fund. That suggestion did not find much favour. It was the first solution that occurred to me, but, as soon as I discussed it with others, I realised that it would get nowhere. I have approached the matter by way of the conventional structure of insurance.
Two constituency examples illustrate the problems that I have in mind. In one case, a young woman, her husband, her sister and her sister's husband were driving home from the weekly supermarket shopping when they were in collision with a police van, which veered on to the wrong side of the road and hit them head on. All the family were seriously injured and laid off from work for months on end. The young woman driving the car lost her baby—which was due in a month's time—and had to be hysterectomised to save her life because of her critical condition.
For two months, the driver of the vehicle—who was to be prosecuted for dangerous driving—tried the automatism defence. He tried to pretend that instead of having simply fallen asleep at the wheel, he had suffered
1082
a blackout because of a previously undiagnosed brain problem. Had he succeeded, the insurance company would not have accepted any liability or paid any compensation.
Fortunately, the family were able to keep their home. They had no way of making their mortgage payments and ran into heavy mortgage arrears. They were able to keep their home only with the support of friends and family. In addition to suffering horrendous physical injuries, enormous physical stress and emotional trauma, they had enormous financial stress. It is those stress factors and inadequacies that I wish to remove.
The second example is of a man who, while driving along the motorway, fell asleep at the wheel. He ended upside down, and is now a paraplegic. He does not contest the fact that it was his fault, but he now requires a total 24-hour care package from the local authority, and he must be housed at the expense of the state. The costs to the state over his life will be probably about £1 million. If an insurance system equivalent to the one that I am proposing had been in operation, the costs would have been borne by insurance, instead of being picked up by the state.
I propose, first, that there should be interim compensation payments within three months of an accident and, secondly, that automatism should be eliminated as an excuse for evading liability in road accidents. To finance the system, there should be compulsory appropriate first-party cover in motor insurance. I have talked to the Association of British Insurers, which could live with such a system and would be happy to operate it.
Everyone has reservations about increases in insurance premiums, but they would not be outrageous—they would be of the order of 5 per cent., and up to an absolute maximum of 10 per cent. For that, people would have the peace of mind of knowing that they and their family were totally covered. We would not have a situation where everyone could walk away from an accident, leave a mess and deny liability.
I fear that the proposal does not have Government support. We are not at loggerheads—it is much more polite than that. However, there is difficulty, because the proposal is thought to be no-fault compensation. It is not. It is no different in principle from the way in which we regard the insurance of the car.
We are quite happy to deal with the bent metal through the insurance mechanism, but not the bent people. The Bill advocates dealing properly with the bent people. It will save enormous problems for the few—we hope—who suffer very badly. It is workable and cost-sustainable and I think that it will save considerable public expenditure.
The problem will not go away, and, even if I cannot persuade my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to lift his objections this Session, I hope that the Government will consider the matter seriously in the near future, so that we can resolve it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Desmond Turner, Mr. Michael Jabez Foster, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Ivor Caplin, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews and Dr. Michael Clark.

MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURY COMPENSATION
Dr. Desmond Turner accordingly presented a Bill to ensure compensation for persons injured as a result of road traffic accidents: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 March, and to be printed [Bill 57].
Orders of the Day

  House of Lords Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress 16 February].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Clause 2

  REMOVAL OF DISQUALIFICATIONS IN RELATION TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  3.46 pm
  The Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As it has been agreed that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, the remaining clauses should fall naturally into place as consequences of it. Clause 2 deals with the fact that, under the common law, confirmed in the case concerning Bristol, South-East in 1964 and my right hon. Friend who is now the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), peers are prevented from voting in elections to the House of Commons and from standing as candidates.
  The clause allows hereditary peers to vote in parliamentary elections and to stand for election to, and be Members of, the House of Commons. It is an appropriate response to their loss of the right to sit personally in Parliament by reason of their hereditary peerages.
  Some of the disadvantages, as well as the privileges, of peerage are tied to membership of the House of Lords. The excusing by right of peers from jury service, for example, is a statutory bar arising from their membership of the House. That will lapse with their loss of membership of the House of Lords.
  It was confirmed, however, in the case fought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, as he reminded us on Second Reading, that some of the attributes of peerage are found in the blood. The status of not being a commoner, and being therefore ineligible to have any direct connection with the House of Commons, is one of them, so it is necessary to overturn, by statute, peers' inability to vote, stand or sit. The rights will not flow automatically from the loss of membership of the House of Lords.
  That is the purpose of the clause and I do not think that anyone, in fairness, could object to it. I should add for the sake of completeness that clause 4(3) contains the transitional provisions needed to ensure that effect can be given to the clause by the time that the 2000–01 electoral register comes into force.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not dissociate myself in any way from the thrust of the clause, but a question arises on which I would appreciate the Minister's views. The hereditary peers will be allowed to vote at future general elections, but they are summoned to Parliament personally for the duration of the Parliament and, being at the present Parliament, they are deprived of the right to vote because they represent themselves. Is there not a serious constitutional anomaly concerning their

  1085
  civic rights if they are deprived of their right to sit in another place halfway through a Parliament and not at the end of it?
  Mr. Hoon: I was about to deal with that point. If the hon. Gentleman reads clause 4(3), he will see that we propose that the Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provisions as he considers appropriate about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections for the House of Commons or for the European Parliament. That provision is to deal with precisely the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes. It would allow the Home Secretary to make appropriate provision to allow those hereditary peers who have lost their right to sit in the other place to be included on electoral registers in time for them both to vote and stand before any subsequent general election. That is why clause 4(3) has been included in the Bill.
  Mr. Grieve: I follow the Minister's argument, but it does not get round the problem: the peers will be disfranchised for the remainder of this Parliament from having representation, either in the upper House by themselves, or in this House by virtue of having been able to exercise their right to vote at the general election. That would be a serious denial of civic rights to 759 people. I would be interested to hear the rationale behind the proposal, and the Minister's view on that point, which I have made on several occasions to the Leader of the House without getting a reply.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is making heavy weather of this. As a distinguished lawyer, he will know that it is not usually appropriate for Parliament to legislate retrospectively, which is what he suggests. If we were to remedy the problem that he describes, we would change the rules retrospectively and, if we did that, he would be the first to challenge us.
  Mr. Grieve: I was not suggesting that we should alter matters retrospectively. My point was that, to keep an equality of civic rights, the measure to deprive the hereditary peers of their right to sit should come into force at the end of a Parliament, when they can then vote for the election of a new one.
  Mr. Hoon: As I have said, the provision in clause 4(3), if accepted by the Committee and ultimately by the House, will allow transitional provisions to be made that will give the hereditary peers the opportunity to vote in any subsequent general and European elections. That seems to me to be an appropriate response to the problem the hon. Gentleman describes.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: In the event of the Government accepting the Cranborne proposition, will it follow that clause 2 would also have to be amended, or would any hereditary peers sitting as a result be disqualified from voting or being elected to this House?
  Mr. Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to speculate about an amendment that may or may not be accepted by the other place or by this House. It would not be wise for me to follow his speculation, but I would say that it is not clear—if such a proposition were to be
  1086
  accepted—whether those peers would sit by virtue of their hereditary peerages or as a result of some other mechanism.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I understood fully the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), but it does not get round the problem. Nobody is asking for retrospective legislation—rather, we are asking for fairness in legislation, although I can see the Minister scoffing at the mere suggestion that we might request that the legislation should be fair. The peers could not vote at the general election because they had representation in their own right in the other place. That will be taken away before the next election and they will have been denied their human and civic rights to vote for people to represent them in this House.
  Mr. Hoon: Is not the answer to the hon. Gentleman's problem the fact that the peers have been enjoying rights in the House of Lords since the general election and will continue to enjoy those rights unless and until the Bill is passed?
  Mr. Evans: The point at issue is the date on which the Bill will be enacted, and on which the hereditary peers will be denied their right to sit and vote in the other place. We suggest that the natural time at which that should occur would be the next general election when they could use their civic right to vote for representation in the House of Commons. That is fairness. The Minister must appreciate that the timing of the Bill's enactment as currently planned will mean that 700 or so peers who are not part of any arrangement by which some hereditary peers may sit as life peers after the Bill is passed, will have lost their right to vote for representation in this Parliament.
  No one denies the simplicity of clause 2, but questions arise because the Leader of the House has said that she is minded to accept at some stage an amendment tabled by Lord Weatherill or others in the other place that would allow a certain number of the present hereditary peers to remain after the Bill becomes an Act. Three questions arise, and I should like the Minister to deal with them.
  First, what will happen in the other place to those who will be among the 91, or any other number, who are retained?
  Dr. George Turner: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I have become used to the idea that hon. Members must address the business of the Committee as listed on the amendment paper. Must we endure hour after hour of "what ifs", or of matters that may arise at a later date? Would you make it clear to the Committee whether hypothetical questions such as those being put by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are properly the business of the Committee today?
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: On a point of order, Sir Alan.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Let me deal first with the first point of order.
  I have heard nothing out of order. The questions raised are matters of debate. I am concerned to ensure that points made are relevant to the Question before the Committee.

  1087
  There is, conceivably, some overlap between the points being made on clause 2 stand part and matters that we may reach when we consider clause 4. However, I am satisfied at the moment that all that has been said has been in order.
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have been led astray, so I should mention that we are in Committee.
  Mr. Evans: Thank you, Sir Alan.
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What happened to the other point of order?
  Mr. Evans: The point of order has been more than adequately dealt with. Labour Members like to close down debate whenever they can, but the House of Commons is here to scrutinise the Bill before us. If we cannot do so here, where can we do so?
  Mr. Tyrie: Has not the problem that we have just encountered arisen as a direct result of our having before the Committee a Bill which will almost certainly be amended in the other place? We are not being given the opportunity to debate what it is almost certainly the Government's intention to put on to the statute book.
  The Chairman: Order. This is not a debate about a debate. It is about clause 2.
  Mr. Evans: In that case, I shall add nothing to my hon. Friend's excellent intervention, Sir Alan.
  Clause 2 is about a certain number of people who will retain their titles, but lose their rights to sit and vote in the other place. However, a number of hereditary peers will receive sitting and voting rights after the Bill becomes an Act. However great that number may be, does the simplicity of the clause mean that those peers will have no right to vote at a general election because they are continuing to represent themselves in the other place?
  The second question relates to the number of peers who will be elected by other peers in the other place. A number of hereditary peers will help to elect a group of peers who will remain in the upper House for some indeterminate period of time. We do not know when stage 2 will come about. We are talking only about a transitional House, which could be with us for a long time. We simply do not know how long it will exist. There is the example of other changes, such as that of 1911. It took 88 years for us to get round to this reform. Who is to say that it will not be a further 88 years before we get round to the reform now proposed?
  4 pm
  Will the hereditaries who will be able to vote for other hereditaries to remain in the Lords be allowed to vote at general elections and or even stand for this House, even though they will have helped to elect legislators for the other place? That is a straightforward question, but it is one of the anomalies thrown up by clause 2. Such peers
  1088
  will be allowed to vote once for a group of people in the upper House and once for someone in this House. The Minister may say that that will affect only those who vote in the election for hereditary representatives. All hereditaries will be eligible to vote for the peers to remain in the upper House, but some may not take up their voting rights. Is the Minister about to say that peers who vote for legislators in the upper House cannot stand for this House or vote for legislators in the lower House? If they do not take part in the first election, will they have full rights? That would mean that they would vote only once, for Members of this place.
  The Minister and the Leader of the House think that this is a simple Bill, but it has not been thought through. As with many of the constitutional changes, the Government have not fully considered its effects. Will the Minister direct his attention to some of the anomalies raised by clause 2?
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is the first time that I have participated in a debate on the second Chamber. I have an interest to declare in that, in the fullness of time, I stand to inherit a hereditary peerage and could benefit from the provisions of clause 2 as drafted. I therefore have a personal interest in it, which I make plain. You will perhaps forgive me, Sir Alan, if I do not declare that interest in every debate in which I might subsequently participate.
  I wish to support what my hon. Friends have said, but first I want to tell the Minister that I broadly support clause 2. I have long thought that the second Chamber needed fundamental reform. I believe that we should start with functions. Its powers need to be substantially increased so as to be a check on this House. That can be done only if we are prepared to confer proper legitimacy on it. I favour a second Chamber that is wholly, or very largely, directly elected. The consequence of that is that I support clause 2 as a natural corollary of my general position.
  I come now to the personal point, which causes great concern. It is known that the Weatherill amendment—or is it the Cranborne amendment?—may well receive sympathetic attention from the Government. I would be deeply concerned if, as a consequence of creating a college of hereditary peers capable of electing 91 or any other number of representative peers in the second Chamber, people such as myself who may wish to remain a Member of this House, but still take a peerage, would find ourselves disfranchised or disabled from doing so. That point was made by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The Government must address it, because people such as myself would be deeply distressed if the consequence of accepting the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment was disapplication of the provisions of clause 2 to persons such as me and one or two other right hon. and hon. Members.
  I have one other point in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said. There will have to be some amendment to clause 2 if we accept the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment. Once we create a college of hereditary peers who elect representative hereditary peers to sit pro tem in the other place, unless we disqualify that group—those who are in the electoral college—we shall have given them two votes. We shall

  1089
  have given them the ability to vote within the electoral college for representative peers as well as to vote for people in this House.
  Mr. Tyrie: It could not happen to a better group.
  Mr. Hogg: That may be so, but the question whether it is democratic is one to which the Committee must turn its attention.
  So I have a personal interest that I do not seek to conceal. I do not wish to find myself unable to take advantage of clause 2 should I decide to do so. There is a serious problem. It cannot be resolved finally today, but I hope that the Minister of State will understand the force of the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross and I have made and that he will deal with the problem should the Cranborne amendment be moved and accepted.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I agree with a great deal of what he said. I was interested by his choice of words in his initial remark: he said that he was one of those who would benefit from the Bill. Anyone who believes in democracy will agree with him. He will be relieved of the duty to go and sit in another place. He will be able to continue sitting and speaking in a democratic Chamber chosen by the people of a constituency and to be accountable to them. The things that go to the heart are the things which we value most in our democracy.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will benefit, it follows that those who are left in the other Chamber—the life peers chosen not by heredity but by patronage—will be at a distinct democratic disadvantage. The clause discriminates against life peers if we believe, as I do and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does, that to sit in a democratic Chamber is an advantage, a benefit and a precious right. The condemnation of people in the other House to be the only people in our democracy who are not part of it is something which the House ought to consider before it proceeds with the Bill.
  Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I think that the Bill is a fine and historic piece of legislation. I agree specifically with the clause in so far as it advances the argument. However, it has the unfortunate consequence of, probably inadvertently, disadvantaging life peers. Hereditary peers gain enormously from the clause, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. They become electors. They become eligible for election. They can be chosen by vote. They will sit in this House, which is about as great a privilege as anyone can have in our democracy. But the life peers will not be chosen by the people and be accountable to them. They will be chosen by oligarchs. They will be chosen by the few—oligos. That is an extremely sad and wrong position for them to be in. It is extraordinary for this House, as a result of a reform taking us into the 21st century, to be creating a new oligarchy—that is what the new electoral college will be, and that is wrong. It can be put right. The Bill is not the end of the story.
  I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister replies he will emphasise that when the royal commission looks at the next stage it will be able to correct the inadvertent
  1090
  defects and consequences of the clause and the Bill. If he does not, and if the royal commission decides that the second Chamber will not be part of our democracy, because it is not directly and democratically elected but chosen by oligarchs, that will be wholly wrong and we should be extremely wary of that. In my view, and that of many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, we shall have reformed one enormous defect of the other place—its hereditary principle—but not the other great defect, which is that the second Chamber is neither chosen by, nor directly accountable to, the people of this country. It is not part of our direct democracy.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give the Committee some reassurance that Lord Wakeham and the royal commission will give that matter serious consideration. One of the commission's options, as laid out in the White Paper, is to consider a directly elected Chamber that would avoid any taint of oligarchy. Only then can Members of that Chamber benefit in the way that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham rightly tells us he, too, will benefit.
  Mr. Grieve: I endorse most of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) and the remarks about the long-term issues that the Committee must address. We are concerned with stage 1—we hope that it will be a stage 1 and not, as I greatly fear, a prolonged stage during which we become bogged down considering what should happen next. It is an interesting reflection of the bizarre way in which we are going about the process that we end up with all those small but important points, such as the one made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). If the Weatherill amendment were to be accepted—as we have been told that it will—we would end up with the potential anomaly of Members of the House of Lords having two votes.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that what we have been told is that the amendment will be accepted if the Government get their way and succeed in parliamentary blackmail against their lordships?
  Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. Perhaps I was presuming the success of the blackmailing tactics that the Government might employ. Based on the words of the President of the Council, I must accept that there is an intention, in certain circumstances, to accept that amendment. In that case, a number of bizarre constitutional anomalies will be created, whereby certain hereditary peers will be given the right to elect representatives in both the other House and this place unless an adjustment is made.
  I should like to drag the Minister back to the point that I made in my intervention. It is only a small point, but the Government seem to have made a notable attempt to slip away from the central thrust of the matter and not to address my point properly. When the Bill is passed, there will be a most peculiar anomaly: hereditary peers who did not have the right to vote at the last election, because they had the right to represent themselves for the duration of the coming Parliament, will lose that right halfway through that Parliament without ever having had any right to influence the formation of the House of Commons. It might be said that the numbers are so small and

  1091
  insignificant in relation to the total electorate that that does not matter; or that, even if it does matter, the Government have decided in their wisdom that it should not matter, because they consider it to be an accident and that they cannot make an omelette without breaking eggs. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the Committee if that is the case.
  I can recall a number of results in the last election that might well have been different if the total number of hereditary peers living in particular constituencies had had the right to vote—for example, Winchester, which is stuffed full of hereditary peers and where, after the first count, the majority was only two. The matter is not completely academic.
  A principle is involved. Not long ago, we incorporated the European convention on human rights, which has a specific clause about the need for fairness in elections and for the legislature to reflect the will and the expression of the will of the electorate. We are breaking that convention and I want to know why it is so necessary to do so in the middle of a Parliament, whereas the proper procedure would be for the changes to come about at the end of a Parliament. If we did that, we could roll stages 1 and 2 into a single process. We could establish the clear principle that the hereditary peers will go by legislating now on stage 1 and then move on to stage 2.
  I have raised a legitimate point, and I would like an explanation of why certain people's civic rights will be discarded arbitrarily by this legislation.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: Several interesting points have been raised in this discussion—notably by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who has just spoken. It should be possible to deal with the fairly minor anomaly of losing a position in the House of Lords as a result of the hereditary principle and then having the right to vote in a democratic election. If my memory serves me correctly, peers of the realm appear on electoral registers so that they may vote in local authority and European elections. Therefore, it should be relatively simple to amend the process, as the procedure and the lists are already in place.
  On the point about how many hereditary peers may be affected, I believe that there are some six or seven peers in my division—some of whom may be life peers. While I am never over-confident about election outcomes, just as the law does not take account of trifles, we should sometimes be bolder in our analysis of how things turn out. That issue can be dealt with.
  I could not follow—it may be my fault—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), who said that life peers would be disadvantaged by the present proposals. I cannot understand why that should be so. If life peers are to remain in the upper House—I believe that the upper House should not comprise any peers at all, but that is a matter for another day—they will presumably have chosen to go to that place. In that sense, they are in a different position from hereditary peers, who are there as a result of the consequences of history and their ancestors.
  Mr. Fisher: Is it not true that life peers chose to join an hereditary House that comprised a vast majority of
  1092
  hereditary peers? Many life peers chose to move to the upper House in an attempt to dilute the influence in another place and act as a democratic restraint upon an hereditary House. Many would not have chosen to go to the other place if they had known that it would be democratically elected in the future. Many life peers came from this place and a lifetime of representing and being accountable to people. They benefited from and cherish democracy, and they went to the other place only as a second-best option when their time had passed here.
  Mr. Hurst: That may be so in part—it is not possible to read the motives of each appointment to the upper House over time, or to say whether people went to the other place to dilute the influence of hereditary peers or as a last resort because their careers were slipping. It is difficult to analyse the reasons at this stage. In any event, if hereditary peers are removed, by numbers alone the upper House will become more powerful because of the nature of those who then constitute it. If men and women go to the other place as life peers, and hereditary peers disappear from the Chamber, the influence of the former group will be much greater.
  Mr. Hogg: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about life peers—they have made a choice. However, the hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind the fact that Ministers have adopted a different approach regarding hereditary peers of the first creation, of whom there is at least one in the House of Lords at present, the noble Lord Whitelaw. As I understand it, he is able to take advantage of clause 2—although he has chosen to be an hereditary peer—whereas the great class of life peers cannot. There is already a distinction.
  Mr. Hurst: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I am sure that my Front-Bench colleagues will have noted his concerns, which may be dealt with in detail when the Bill returns from the House of Lords. In many ways, our debate on this clause is hypothetical, because we are assuming that certain changes will be made in the upper Chamber, and that they will be accepted when the Bill returns here. It is not for me to suggest whether we are straying from the confines of the matter before us, but in many ways we are speculating about what may occur.
  Those points may be dealt with in due course, but I remain unconvinced by the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that life peers will be disadvantaged. I should have thought that they would be advantaged by the current proposals if we then moved on to having an elected upper House, which I trust we would not. If we took that course, it might be open to them to disclaim their life peerages.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been of assistance in pointing out to the Committee something that I must now emphasise. Although it is possible to anticipate certain changes, there will be a proper place to deal with them in detail, and the Committee might deny the House the opportunity of doing so at the proper length and in the proper detail if too much is said now. If certain changes are made in the other place, they will come to

  1093
  this place and there will be an opportunity for debate and amendment, so I am not minded to allow this debate to run on endlessly.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Bearing in mind what you have just said, Sir Alan, it strikes me that nothing could illustrate better the difficulty in which we find ourselves than the comments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). We seem to be debating a clause on the assumption that it will end up being different, and that gives the debate a rather unreal quality. However, we must deal with that.
  We seem to be saying that under clause 2, hereditary peers would be able to vote for candidates for the House of Commons, stand as candidates for the House of Commons and, if there were an election in the upper House, vote for their equals to become members of a category that we have not yet defined and which may or may not exist. We are now considering the possibility of hereditary peers taking part in a series of democratic processes that are oddly unrelated.
  Making sense of the Bill, giving it coherence and setting it in the context of what we believe to be stage 1—never mind any stage that may lie beyond—is proving rather difficult for me and, I suspect, for most hon. Members present. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) illustrated that point well. We shall now be asked to approve of the clause although we have the strong suspicion that it will be irrelevant sooner or later. That is an unusual position in which to put a Committee. We usually legislate in good faith and respond to what the Government of the day or hon. Members have to say about a Bill on the assumption that what we see is what we will get, but here we are faced with the odd situation of being pretty certain that what we see is not what we will get. We shall end up with something different.
  Dealing satisfactorily with that question is a difficult proposition. We shall be guided, of course, by you, Sir Alan, and you will keep us on the straight and narrow. However, because we shall be kept on the straight and narrow, and the problem will recur throughout our deliberations on the Bill, we must ask ourselves how valid or legitimate our deliberations can be given the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the Government's threat or promise—I am not sure which it is—about what may or may not happen when the Bill leaves here and goes to the other place. That question is left hanging over us.
  I have another difficulty on which I would be grateful for guidance from the Minister. I am left wondering whether the Minister is absolutely satisfied as to the propriety of the procedures set out in this clause, and in the Bill so far as we know it, should there be an election at any time between now and the expiry of the five-year fixed maximum term of this Parliament.
  It is possible to conceive of circumstances in which an election called by the Prime Minister might intervene at one stage or another of the proposals on which we are deliberating.
  Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend is making a serious judgment, and he is right to do so. The transitional arrangements, which are set out later in the Bill, and which would, if enacted, give hereditary peers the right to
  1094
  vote in elections, are permissive, not mandatory. If we want to ensure that, if the Bill is passed, hereditary peers have a right to vote and so on, the provisions that we will address later need to be mandatory rather than permissive.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I shall of course take into account what he says, although I will not pursue it at this stage, Sir Alan, because you might take a rather dim view of my doing so. I hope for guidance from the Minister at this stage, as this point will become relevant later.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us where he feels the calling of a general election by the Prime Minister would leave the Bill, in whatever stage we had reached in our deliberations of it or with regard to stages 1 and 2 or whatever. I say that with particular reference to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in respect of safeguarding the rights of Members of the present upper House when they might be being changed by the Bill. We would want to make sure that they would still be validated in the event of an election being called, perhaps unexpectedly, for reasons that none of us can know now, perhaps not even the Prime Minister. It is an important point.
  It is peculiar to our electoral arrangements that the Prime Minister has the power to call an election at any time. As soon as we start—
  The Chairman: Order. I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Essentially, what he is saying is more suitable for a Third Reading debate rather than for the clause 2 stand part debate, because of its wide applicability.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Sir Alan. I shall not pursue the matter, but I was making my point in the context of the words "voting at elections". I have probably made my point sufficiently, and the Minister has understood it. I may return to the issue at a later stage, as you suggest.
  All I wanted to say is that we are in difficult waters, so it is especially important that the Minister should guide us at this stage and explain how he sees matters developing. In that way, we might have a better context in which to conduct our subsequent debates; we might be better informed and, I hope, reassured that nothing in the Bill will create difficulties not foreseen by the Government and not covered either by subsequent amendments or by the text of the Bill itself. They are the reassurances that I seek at this stage, and I look forward to the Minister giving them.
  4.30 pm
  Dr. George Turner: I shall make two points. First, I am surprised that the Committee wants to waste time now discussing business which might properly be conducted later. If we were earing complaints from the Opposition that the Government were not giving sufficient time to discuss something which was before the Committee because it had been moved as an amendment in another place, I should have considerable sympathy with them because I do not think that constitutional changes should be made without proper debate. However, what we are achieving—
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Sir Alan. Will you confirm that we cannot conceivably be wasting time

  1095
  unless you were to tell us that we were doing so, and that this is a legitimate debate, and will continue to be so for as long as you are guiding us and permitting it to continue?
  The Chairman: The right hon. Member slightly anticipates me. I was hoping that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) was not inadvertently implying criticism of the Chair for allowing this debate to take place. Clearly, all that I have heard has been in order. I have given the Committee a ruling on the limits of this debate, but it is a perfectly legitimate debate.
  Dr. Turner: I was not disputing your ruling, Sir Alan; I was trying to support the one that you have just made. You suggested that, if we prolonged this debate, it may prevent time from being allocated to a more appropriate debate. I was simply urging through you, Sir Alan, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to waste too much time on such a hypothetical matter.
  Opposition Members are seeking to protect the privileged few, who for many years, as well as the first two years of this Parliament, have been able to vote on legislation without having been democratically elected. I know that many Labour Members believe that an end to such privilege cannot come too soon. Any injustice that results in a lack of representation in this House, but not elsewhere, for only one half or two thirds of a Parliament is minor indeed compared with the privilege that many families have enjoyed for centuries.
  Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has done an injustice to what has been said from the Opposition Benches. I can only assume that he has not been listening very carefully. I do not particularly blame him for that. I, for one, am not defending the hereditary peerage. I want an elected Chamber. I know that that is the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), as it is of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who will seek to catch your eye, Sir Alan. To argue that we are seeking to protect entrenched interests in the other place is to misunderstand what has been said in this debate.
  Dr. Turner: My mother used to say, "Watch and see what they do, as well as what they say." Opposition Members have been in favour of reform of the other place for 80 years, but it has not happened yet. I want to ensure that it happens in this Parliament. Those who seek to delay such reform are, like their party for most of this century, seeking to protect the privileged few. This House needs to get on with the Bill, and agree this clause.
  Mr. David Winnick: Conservative Members say that they are not defending the hereditary principle, but during the 18 years—let alone before then—in which they were in government, not a single step was taken to do away with it. How have they suddenly become so radical?
  Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend answers his own question. I have heard very little from Conservative Members about their great concern to reform the other place.
  Mr. Martin Linton: On the alleged disfranchisement of hereditary peers for part of this
  1096
  Parliament, does my hon. Friend agree that they knew at the election that their right to vote and sit in the Lords may be abolished? Indeed, they have known that that was Parliament's intention since 1911, from the preamble to the Parliament Act. Did they not know that when they claimed their peerages? Have they not, since 1963, had the right to disclaim their peerages and stand for and be elected to the House of Commons?
  Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend's point is valid.
  The driving principle behind my strong support for this measure in our manifesto is that, without reform of the other place, and from what I have seen in the short time that I have been in this place, we would get but a fraction of our business through in the final two years of this Parliament, and therefore fail to deliver on our manifesto commitments. That was well illustrated in the past 12 months. The sooner that this Bill is enacted—and I support this clause as part of it—the better.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was concerned that the debate had been, if not constrained, certainly coloured by potential hypothetical amendments which may be introduced in another place. That is not so much anomalous as absurd and insulting, because such amendments were tabled by me and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson), and rejected by the Committee. That should be the end of the matter. It strikes me as odd that we should continue as though that had not happened.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out the injustice that hereditary peers would suffer, certainly for the remainder of the Parliament, if they were, in effect, disfranchised. The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) discounted that on the ground that their votes would have been unlikely to affect the result in any way. With the greatest respect, I do not think that that is the point.
  I know that the hon. Member for Braintree is something of an enthusiast for the British electoral system, of which we enjoy the benefits now, and has suspicions about continental intrusions into that system. One of the arguments which is advanced for such intrusions is that, if one casts a vote that is not for the winning candidate, it is, in effect, a wasted vote. I fear that, by discounting the votes of hereditary peers in that manner, the hon. Gentleman is playing into the hands of his enemies on the central question of the validity of our electoral system.
  The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) went even further and suggested that, as the hereditaries had known for some time that the reform was liable to happen, they could accept that jeopardy. In a democracy, it is important that the system should be seen to be principled and fair. The obvious remedy is to delay implementation of the measure until the end of the Parliament.
  Mr. Linton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, since 1963, hereditary peers could have voted in general elections or stood for election to Parliament simply by disclaiming their peerages?
  Mr. Swayne: That is true, but those peers had no wish to do so. It is absurd to say they should have done so in anticipation of a measure such as clause 2.

  1097
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that his potential support for a measure such as clause 2 was conditioned by his enthusiasm to see the other House strengthened, that that required an elected House, for which the clause was an important corollary, and that that was an argument for supporting the clause. I am rather persuaded by that argument, but I have reservations.
  One reservation is that perhaps we are projecting into the other House desires that should be focused on the House of Commons. By projecting those desires into the potential strength of another House, we may undermine the coherence of the entire constitution. I remain to be persuaded of the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Many Members—certainly many Conservative Members—have drawn attention to the independent nature of members of the hereditary peerage, but the clause would give those independent members a means of standing for the House of Commons, of improving the independent-minded nature of its Members and, therefore, the overall quality of Members' scrutiny. My view of that argument is that it will take a long time to take effect, whereas, very shortly, we shall be deprived of the independent views of hereditary peers in the other place. I prefer the principle that we should not change what we have before we know precisely with what we are replacing it. For that reason, I am against the clause standing part of the Bill.
  Mr. Tyrie: To take up some of the detailed points which have been made, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out that the transitional arrangements in clause 4 were permissive and not mandatory. I shall be grateful if the Minister will explain why that is so and why the arrangement cannot be made mandatory. Is this in any way connected with the possibility that another clause will be added in another place? This clause may be sitting here to enable the Bill to go through later, with the addition of the Weatherill amendment.
  Anomalies have been raised in respect of people finding themselves in a privileged position for a brief period in the other place if the Bill is passed. One way of dealing with that is to consider delaying implementation until the end of the Parliament, rather than the end of the Session.
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I have selected an amendment, which I expect to call later, about commencement and duration. I therefore counsel him not to refer to those matters now. It would be inappropriate to do so and it would not enable the hon. Gentleman to expand on them very much under a further group of amendments. I think that he is raising matters that should be left until later.
  Mr. Tyrie: May I point out, Sir Alan, that the anomalies derive from clause 2 and that there is an inevitable interaction between clauses 2 and 4 in that respect? It is inconceivable that we should discuss how to go about implementing clause 2 without considering the transitional arrangements. Such arrangements are integral to the problem. However, I shall not pursue the matter. I merely say that, if we were to follow your ruling to its
  1098
  conclusion, we would be required to debate part of clause 2 when considering clause 4, which I think would be equally messy.
  The Chairman: Order. On another interpretation, I would have to rule that we are debating the Bill as it is, not as it might become. There will be an opportunity, as there is in any bicameral system, for the House of Commons to face other proposals at a later stage. There is nothing new in that. I have allowed a stand part debate on clause 2 on the understanding that it is a general debate by virtue of being a stand part debate. Other details will be dealt with under my selection of amendments.
  Mr. Tyrie: Thank you, Sir Alan, for your ruling. As I said a moment ago, I was not intending to pursue the matter any further. However, I would be grateful to receive an answer from the Minister.
  Clause 2 will remove the common law disqualifications on hereditary peers to sit in the House of Commons or to vote in general elections. A more drastic approach that hereditary peers can take is to exercise their right to renounce their peerages under the Peerage Act 1963. That route was opened up—it has already been discussed this afternoon to a degree—after a struggle by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is not in his place, Alec Douglas-Home and Quintin Hogg, the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. They all decided that the House of Commons was a better place than the Lords to pursue a political career. In a way, this is a nobler place, because it carries democratic legitimacy.
  This is not a suitable opportunity to debate those matters, and I do not intend to do so. I merely say that the interim House may find itself so shorn of credibility and so evidently a patronage-dominated House that life peers feel the need to have the right of a disclaimer such as that which hereditary peers already enjoy.
  Life peers are to be discriminated against in one sense. They will be stuck in what may become a wholly neutered and irrelevant Chamber. Interim Houses have a habit of lasting a long time. Life peers had the choice of deciding whether to join the current upper House, but they have not had the choice of deciding whether to join a putative—probably severely damaged—rump of a House, which we shall have to know henceforth as the "interim Chamber".
  I ask Ministers to consider offering the right to life peers of moving from the Lords to the Commons by extending the disclaimer provisions of the 1963 Act. My new clause 22, would have that effect. Although it has not been selected, I should still be very interested to know whether the Minister thinks that the Government might view such a provision sympathetically.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is dealing with the interesting point, which was dealt with also by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), that the hereditaries should have got out when they were given notice to do so, in 1963 or whenever, and that they therefore should not feel aggrieved at not having been able to vote at the previous general election. If life peers are given the same power to get out, we will not know what the stage 2 House

  1099
  of Lords will look like. It could well be that life peers, too, are not only denied the right to vote at general elections but thrown out halfway through a Parliament.
  Mr. Tyrie: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that that would be iniquitous. Hereditary peers are given a one-off choice—they have one year—to renounce their peerage. The Government should certainly consider making some provision for the right to be exercised at any time, rather than for it to be restricted or time limited. I should be grateful if the Minister would address that issue also.
  Mr. Hogg: As we are in Committee, Sir Alan, I gather that it is perfectly in order for hon. Members to speak twice in a debate. I should like to ask the Minister—I ask now so that I do not have to intervene in his speech—for his interpretation on one point.
  On the right provided in clause 2(a), for hereditary peers to vote at elections, and the "transitional provision" right provided in clause 4(3), my understanding is that the clause 2(a) voting rights will come into effect automatically at the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed and that those rights are not dependent on the transitional arrangements provided in clause 4(3). If I am wrong about that, and the voting rights are dependent on the clause 4(3) transitional arrangements, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—and I—must be right in saying that the rights should be mandatory. Will the Minister tell us about the relationship between the two provisions?
  Mr. Hoon: The Committee should congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on setting the tone for this debate. His ingenuity in drafting questions suggests that he may have missed his vocation. Unfortunately, there are not many vacancies for mediaeval philosophers these days—but clearly he has a future in counting angels on pinheads.
  The hon. Member for Ribble Valley purported to ask me three questions, but he asked me only one. I had already answered the question from the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), but the hon. Member for Ribble Valley asked me the same one. I give him the same answer: it is not necessary for us to speculate now about what other amendments might be passed in another place. It remains to be seen whether we shall have a debate on those matters.
  Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Leader of the House has already said that she is minded to accept the Weatherill amendment when it is tabled in the other place? Does he accept that that is the Government's position?
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there will be an opportunity to debate such an amendment when and if it is passed. I am sure that he would not want to anticipate that debate today, or to spend unnecessary time in Committee considering the rather arcane questions that he asked.
  Opposition Members occasionally complain that the Government anticipate the results of votes and take votes for granted. Is that not what Opposition Members are
  1100
  doing by suggesting that that amendment will, at some stage or other, be debated in Committee or in the House? We are simply working on the basis of the text that is before the Committee. We hope that that text will come before the House, but that depends on the outcome of votes.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made some more thoughtful points. He referred sensibly to the situation that might arise in relation to a college of hereditary peers, but he answered his question by saying that he would seek to address the House should any further amendment be debated. I should prefer to leave the matter on that basis. It would be more sensible to wait until there was such an amendment—if there was one—before going into such details.
  I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of clause 4(3) and its relationship to clause 2(a). They do not depend on each other. However, I draw the opposite conclusion. The provisions in clause 4(3) should be permissive rather than mandatory, because we might not need them. Changes might not be needed in the electoral register, so it is more sensible to have the maximum flexibility available.
  Mr. Hogg: The Minister's point is fair to an extent. However, does he agree that, if there were a by-election before the end of this Session—which might happen—it would be important, if we were to do justice by electors, to make provision by transitional arrangements for the right to vote and to stand?
  Mr. Hoon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would consider that in such an eventuality, but we are getting into unnecessary detail which does not assist our discussion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) wondered whether life peers might be discriminated against by the provisions. I do not agree with him. The Bill is not about the rights of life peers, but about the rights of hereditary peers. Life peers will not leave the other place if the Bill is passed, so there is no reason to give them the right to vote in elections to the House of Commons. They do not need a Member of Parliament to represent them here because they can represent themselves. Moreover, they have made an informed decision to accept a life peerage, with all the benefits and penalties that that implies.
  Mr. Tyrie: Does the Minister accept that the benefits and penalties will be fundamentally altered by the reform?
  Mr. Hogg: The company in the Dining Room will be different.
  Mr. Tyrie: The company in the Dining Room will be completely different, and there will be many other changes besides. If the House is fundamentally changed, it should be right to give the life peers an opportunity to decide whether they wish to remain there. If the place is not being fundamentally changed, why are we going ahead with the reform?
  Mr. Hoon: I was about to deal with a point that the hon. Gentleman had raised. No one is forced to accept a

  1101
  life peerage. As we heard on Second Reading, there is usually a queue of people anxious for such preference. In those circumstances, we do not need to worry unduly about the position of life peers, not least because, if the Bill is passed, their ability to represent themselves in the other place will be strengthened. Instead of their voice being diluted by those of a large number of hereditary peers, they will be a far more significant element of the other place, so their position will be enhanced rather than weakened. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central will accept that.
  Mr. Fisher: I must have failed to make myself clear. It is not a question of the life peers leaving. They are being left outside our newly democratic constitution. That is why they will be at a disadvantage. The Government made it clear in the White Paper that this House has primacy. The life peers are being left by democracy, condemned to remain in an illegitimate rump. That is why they are at a disadvantage. That is not the contract that they were offered when they were invited to join that House. They were invited to become a member of a complicated and historic House. Many of them believed that they were going in to introduce some restraint in an hereditary system that they did not believe in. We are changing that hereditary system, but we are not giving life peers what we are giving hereditary peers: the right to move into the full sunshine of a democracy. I find it both baffling and unfair that life peers should be condemned to inhabit a democratic hulk.
  Mr. Hoon: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for life peers, but, as I said, they will be much more able to represent themselves once the Bill is passed. That is the underlying reason for the common law disability affecting peers. They have the right to represent themselves in the legislative process, and it is that legislative process that is important. That is why it is recognised that peers should not vote in elections to this part of the legislative process, which would give them two opportunities to influence the content of legislation. That is, I think, a proper response to my hon. Friend's fears.
  Mr. Evans: As has been said, several hundred peers who thought that they were going into a body of a certain kind will instead find themselves in a new transitional House. We do not know what stage 2 will involve. What is the major objection to allowing life peers who no longer wish to be part of that upper House, but wish to vote for Members here or, indeed, stand for election here, to do just that?
  Mr. Hoon: I have already answered that question. The problem is that, under the common law, peers have the right to represent themselves and are part of the legislative process sitting in the House of Lords. Allowing them to vote for Members of this House would, in effect, give them two opportunities to vote. Opposition Members have made that point themselves.
  Mr. Tyrie: That is not the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was making. His point was that life peers should be given the chance to leave the other place if they wanted to do so, because the place that they joined would no longer exist after the Bill was enacted.
  1102
  The Minister is right in saying that future life peers will know what they are getting in to; but existing life peers will not. Will he deal purely with the position of existing life peers? Why should they not be able to choose whether to remain in the other place, or leave and have the opportunity to vote and sit in this place?
  Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is expressing on behalf of life peers. I have received no representations along those lines; nor, I suspect, has the hon. Gentleman. I do not see that the choice exercised by those who have decided to accept a life peerage will be affected in any way.
  Mr. Winnick: Are we to believe that those who accepted life peerages did so on the basis that they would go to the other place simply because it was made up of life peers and hereditary peers? Surely the thought never entered their heads. They accepted life peerages because they considered it an honour, and wanted to contribute accordingly. Whether the House contained hereditary peers was irrelevant.
  Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend makes the point much more succinctly than I have.
  I sometimes think that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) must have become the hon. Member for Bizarre Constitutional Anomalies. He has clearly built that phrase into his word processor. He referred to the European convention on human rights, but did not seem to accept that his criticism of what we are doing would fall foul of case law against retrospection under that convention. It is clearly stated on the front of the Bill that it is compatible with the convention, an endorsement that is now necessary in the case of all legislation. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such a point.
  Mr. Grieve: I have never sought a retrospective element. I was concerned about the enactment of the Bill before the end of this Parliament, rather than at the end of the Session. There was no question of my seeking some retrospective application.
  Mr. Hoon: The way in which I understood the hon. Gentleman—it is still the way in which I understand him—was that to correct the problem, it would be necessary to legislate retrospectively.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the Minister agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would not have had to become the hon. Member for Bizarre Constitutional Anomalies if the Government had not created so many?
  5 pm
  Mr. Hoon: So far, I have not identified any. If I can be blunt, a simple and straightforward Bill is being used to try to find difficulties that do not exist. I accept that, in a Committee, it is perfectly proper for Opposition Members to seek to find difficulties. So far, they have been unsuccessful.
  Dr. Liam Fox: Does the Minister accept that a point of principle has been raised by my hon. Friend

  1103
  the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)? Hereditary peers were unable to vote at the last election because they were guaranteed a seat in this Parliament. Had they known that their right to remain in Parliament would be removed, they would have been in a different position. The fact that they are losing their rights halfway through a Parliament creates the anomaly. The way to get around that is not through any form of retrospection, but simply by not applying the measure until the end of the Parliament.
  Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that—that would simply delay the operation of the Bill, which we hope the House will accept. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would be no more fair than the situation arising when someone attains the age of 18 after a general election. They do not have the opportunity of voting for the period between becoming 18 and any subsequent election, yet there is no suggestion from the Opposition that that is in any way unfair. The position for hereditary peers will be precisely the same. They will lose the right to represent themselves in the other place if the Bill becomes law. By virtue of clause 2, they will then have the opportunity of voting and standing for elections for this place.
  If a gap or difficulty is created by the need to prepare electoral registers well in advance of any general election, that can be remedied by the operation of clause 4(3). That is a simple, straightforward and—above all—fair package. Opposition Members—particularly those on the Front Bench—have to say whether they would prefer another solution to clause 2, which is a fair way of dealing with hereditary peers.
  Dr. Fox: I am impressed by the elegant way in which the Minister comes up with some of his arguments, but the argument about someone attaining the age of 18 is not the same. In one case, we are increasing the franchise by allowing those who knew that they were to take part eventually to do so and, in the other, we are disfranchising those who did not know that they were to be disfranchised.
  Mr. Hoon: They should have read the Labour party manifesto a little more carefully.
  Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has, in part, picked up on the point that I wished to make. The parallel of the 18-year-old is not valid. However, the issue is not whether hereditary peers read the Labour manifesto—that is irrelevant. The point is that a class of people over the age of 18 are entitled to vote for election to this House. The only ones who are deprived of that right—apart from those disqualified because they are lunatics or felons—cannot vote because they are entitled to represent themselves during the currency of the Parliament.
  It is halfway through the Parliament—and not at its end—that the Government are intending to deprive those people of their power to represent themselves without giving them the power to vote on what happens in this Parliament between the time that they are disqualified and its end. I believe, therefore, that they should be removed and disqualified at the end of the Parliament.
  Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman made precisely the same point earlier, and I will not weary the Committee by responding precisely as I did then.
  1104
  I think that I have dealt with all the points that were raised. I considered carefully the points made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He is always anxious that I should deal in detail with his observations. I think that I have done so. I will not speculate on how precisely clause 4(3) will operate. That is why we have made it permissive. We may not need to use it, and that would be the best solution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

  REPEALS
  Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Forth: In the cause of trying better to understand the clause, I have had a look at the Peerage Act 1963, to establish what is affected by the schedule to which the clause refers. It would help me if the Minister were briefly to explain what the clause does and why.
  I am especially interested in the reference to section 2 of the Peerage Act 1963, which may touch on the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). That section is entitled
  "Disclaimer by members of the House of Commons and parliamentary candidates",
  and covers the eventualities in which there is an overlap between membership of the two Houses.
  That affects the matter of timing. Unless I am misreading the situation, which is entirely possible, because the Act is rather dense—no, nobody has risen to the bait—the provision may not be as relevant as it might be to my right hon. and learned Friend and to any other Member of Parliament who is in the fortunate position of being the possible inheritor of an hereditary title.
  The schedule deletes altogether sections 4 to 6 of the Peerage Act 1963, which refer to
  "Parliamentary qualifications of Scottish Peers, Irish Peers and Peeresses in their own right".
  For example, section 4 says:
  "The holder of a peerage in the peerage of Scotland shall have the same right to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords, and to sit and vote in that House, as the holder of a peerage in the peerage of the United Kingdom; and the enactments relating to the election of Scottish representative peers shall cease to have effect."
  That is to be repealed. What lies behind that? I may be the only one who has not understood, and if so I offer the Committee my apologies, but if others have shared my difficulty in grasping the relevance and impact of the schedule, it would be helpful for the Minister to give us some background.
  Mr. Swayne: I, too, have had the benefit of reading the Peerage Act 1963. I was able to follow the logic of the exclusions in the schedule, which flow from clause 2 of the Bill, save in one respect. It may show only my ignorance, but the
  ignorance of a member of the

  1105
  Committee is a proper concern for the Minister. My query relates to the extent of the repeal as it affects section 2, which states:
  "Where a peerage is disclaimed under this Act, no other hereditary peerage shall be conferred upon the person by whom it is disclaimed, and no writ in acceleration shall be issued in respect of that peerage to the person entitled thereto on his death".
  That provision will be repealed, and I hope that the Minister will explain why.
  Mr. Forth: I noticed that point as well, but I did not mention it because I did not want to make my comments any longer than was necessary. However, I wondered whether that was the very mechanism that had benefited Lord Cranborne and whether there was a sinister element in its repeal, given recent events.
  Mr. Swayne: I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up any doubt on that score.
  Mr. Edward Garner: I wish to ask the Minister a more fundamental question than the subtle ones that have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). Why does any part of the Peerage Act 1963 need to be repealed in the light of the Bill? If it does nothing else, the Bill will prevent holders of hereditary peerages from sitting, voting and speaking in the other place. It will specifically allow holders of hereditary peerages to vote in elections for this House and to become Members of Parliament. Someone who today sits in the other place could become a Member of this House and use, if they wanted to, their hereditary title. The Speaker would call—
  Mr. Letwin: Lord Speaker.
  Mr. Garnier: Yes, we could even have a Lord Speaker or Lady Speaker. That aside, the whole purpose of the Bill is to disable hereditary peers from taking part in the legislation of the other place and to enable them to take part in the legislation in this House. The Peerage Act 1963, in the long title, authorises
  "the disclaimer for life of certain hereditary peerages".
  The whole Act will become otiose, because by implication, it will be entirely repealed by the Bill. I hope that the Minister can deal with that point.
  The purpose of the Peerage Act 1963 was to allow successors to hereditary peerages—we remember the case of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), or Lord Stansgate as he was for a short time—and, presumably, unwilling peers to renounce their hereditary titles, which after all were awarded to their forebears and not to them, so that they could stand for election to this House.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Is it true that the Peerage Act 1963 would become otiose? What would happen if one of the Weatherill peers died towards the end of this Parliament? Would he be succeeded by his eldest son or would the other peers elect a new peer?
  Mr. Garnier: I do not know, but I would guess that the son of a Weatherill peer, as my hon. Friend called them,
  1106
  would be entitled to inherit the honour and the name, and be entitled to call himself the second or third Lord Leigh of Gainsborough, or whatever it might be. He would not, as a consequence of his father's death, be able to step into his shoes as an elected hereditary peer. I do not know whether the Government have yet invented a system for by-elections within that class of hereditary peers who will be members of the new House of Lords.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be extraordinary if the Government had invented any such mechanism, because they deny all knowledge of the proposal to which he refers?
  Mr. Garnier: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but for the very reason that the Government deny it, I would not find it in the least bit extraordinary. I have dealt, in interrogatory form, with the first part of the long title of the Peerage Act 1963. It continues:
  "to include among the peers qualified to sit in the House of Lords all peers in the peerages of Scotland and peeresses in their own right in the peerages of England, Scotland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom".
  By definition, the only people who are included in that class of peer are hereditary peers. Since 1963, no new life peerages that would fall within that description have been created.
  Mr. Hogg: Hereditary peerages.
  Mr. Garnier: Hereditary peers have been created, but there have been no new hereditary peers in the peerage of Scotland or any new creations of peeresses in their own right in the peerages of Scotland, England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, although life peeresses have been created, of course. I suggest that there are no peers in that class who would not already be caught by the provisions of the Bill and expelled from the other place.
  The long title continues:
  "to remove certain disqualifications of peers in the peerage of Ireland in relation to the House of Commons and elections thereto; and for purposes connected with the flatters aforesaid."
  Unless the Minister can provide me with some ingenious examples of peers of Ireland whose rights will be unaffected by the Bill, I suggest that clause 3 and the schedule are unnecessary.
  Mr. Swayne: I apologise to the Minister. When I asked my question a few moments ago, I read out correctly the part of the Peerage Act 1963 that confused me, but I misidentified it. It is section 3(2) that contains the exclusion that I wish to be explained.
  Mr. Hoon: Clause 3 is a simple, straightforward measure and part of a determined campaign by the Government to keep the statute book as simple and straightforward as possible. It introduces a schedule to the Bill. As a result of clauses 1 and 2, certain provisions of the Peerage Act 1963 will no longer be required—for example, those which require a peer to disclaim a peerage before he or she may stand for membership of the House of Commons, a point that the hon. and learned Member

  1107
  for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) reached eventually—and the schedule repeals those provisions. It is as simple and straightforward as that.
  Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister tell us which bits of the 1963 Act are required?
  Mr. Hoon: As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman goes straight to the point. Certain of its provisions are required, and I shall write to him in due course about them.
  Mr. Garnier: When the Minister writes to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), will he not only identify which parts of the 1963 Act are required, but provide a full explanation of why they are required?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall certainly do that.
  Mr. Hogg: Would the Minister put a copy of his letter in the Library of the House of Commons?
  Mr. Hoon: Of course.
  Mr. Swayne: I suspect that the Minister's explanation was written before the debate because he has made no attempt to address my specific question. I understand entirely that the exclusions follow from clause 2, except in respect of the subsection to which I drew attention. May I also expect a letter from the Minister?
  Mr. Hoon: Yes.
  Mr. Leigh: My intervention was brushed aside by the Minister and the Leader of the House. May I offer the Committee a scenario that could happen to one hon. Member of this House. Let us say that an hon. Member has a father who is an hereditary peer—I can think of at least one. Let us say that the father is elected to be a Weatherill peer. Let us say that the father subsequently dies before the end of this Parliament. At present, the situation is quite clear. If one's father is an hereditary peer and one is a Member of the House of Commons, one's office is immediately closed by the Serjeant at Arms and one is not allowed to sit in this Chamber. One then makes one's choice.
  Under the new arrangements, if an hon. Member has a father who is an hereditary peer, but not a Weatherill peer, there will be no problem. He will go on sitting in this House. However, what would happen if his father was a Weatherill peer? Would the hon. Member be allowed to make his choice between sitting here and being allowed to stand later for election as a Weatherill peer? If so, we should be giving that person—as I have said, I can think of at least one example of an hon. Member to whom this situation might apply—an entirely unfair position. He would be able to sit in this House, or to stand as a Weatherill peer.
  Mr. Forth: I am beginning to regret the brevity of my remarks. I had skipped over this matter. I pointed out that the deletion of section 2 of the Peerage Act 1963 took out
  1108
  the bit that referred to disclaimers by Members of the House of Commons and parliamentary candidates. My hon. Friend has picked up a point with which I failed to deal adequately. The deletion of the whole section, in a way that the Minister has not yet been able properly to explain, would leave us in a serious position.
  Mr. Leigh: That is part of the difficulty that we face. We know perfectly well that there will be a class of Weatherill peers, but the Government refuse to acknowledge that those peers will exist. They claim that it is a hypothetical situation. My point is perfectly justifiable. The Minister has argued that one cannot have one's cake and eat it, and that one cannot be a Member of the other House and be allowed to stand for this place. Why, then, should someone whose father happens to be an hereditary Weatherill peer be placed in the uniquely advantageous position of being able to choose, in his own time, whether to stay here or go to the other place?
  Mr. Hoon: I shall repeat my earlier mantra on whether or not there are to be amendments to deal with the arrangements suggested by Lord Cranborne. It may or may not occur, and we may or may not have the kind of debate that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred to.
  The hon. Gentleman has at least saved the taxpayer the cost of a first-class stamp, however, as I can now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I was right in my earlier comments.
  Mr. Garnier: He is sometimes right.
  Mr. Hoon: Every so often, that is so.
  Clause 3 and the schedule are a tidying-up measure. They reduce the size of the statute book. The hon. Member for New Forest, West was concerned about writs in acceleration. Our repeal ensures, for the avoidance of doubt, the removal of writs in acceleration, which might otherwise have been available had the provision been left in. This is a tidying provision arising from the 1963 Act, which dealt, as it had to, with writs in acceleration. Those writs will no longer be possible, because they apply only to hereditary peers, who will not have the right to sit. This is simply a means of ensuring that a piece of legislation that is no longer necessary is removed from the statute book, which I am sure the hon. Member for New Forest, West would welcome.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

  COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISION
  Mr. Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'Session of'.
  The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 6, in page 1, leave out lines 15 and 16.
  New clause 1—Duration of Act (No. 1) —
  '.—This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the Parliament in which it is passed.'.
  New clause 2—Duration of Act (No. 2)—
  '( ) This Act shall cease to have effect twenty four months after the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament announced in Command Paper 4183.'.
  New clause 10—Purpose of Act—
  '.—The purpose of this Act is to make interim provision for the membership of the House of Lords pending further legislation to substitute for that House a Second Chamber constituted on a different basis.'.
  New clause 13—Duration of Act (No. 3) —
  '( ) This Act shall cease to have effect and the repeals referred to in section 3 shall be ineffective when the present Parliament is dissolved unless a subsequent act has been passed affecting the composition of the House of Lords.'.
  New clause 18—Termination of Act—
  'This Act shall cease to have effect at the expiry of the period of three years beginning with its passing.'.
  Mr. Letwin: The intended effect of all the amendments and new clauses is the same, although they seek to achieve it by different means. The need for them arises from the shambles and the constitutional outrage being perpetrated by the Government. I do not use those words lightly; this is the least impressive example of major constitutional reform that has been engaged in in the entire English-speaking world. The Government have introduced a Bill—in particular, clause 4—without having the slightest idea of the medium-term and long-term shape of the arrangements that will replace what is being removed. The Government have admitted as much.
  Under those extraordinary circumstances, which historians who write the history of this patch of the Government's activities will find even more extraordinary than they seem to us to be, there is a need to try to introduce some semblance of constitutional propriety. The amendments and new clauses seek to provide that semblance. They do so by the simple expedient of asking the Government to alter the Bill so as to produce the effect that they say they wish to produce. It does not seem particularly outrageous to require that of a Government.
  The effect in question is to make the interim Chamber an interim Chamber, rather than its being what many Government Members have said they believe it will be—namely, a Chamber that will exist, if not in perpetuity, at least for a period comparable to the 88 years during which the current Chamber has existed under not wholly dissimilar circumstances. We do not want a five-clause Bill that contains not the slightest description of that Chamber—and on which the greatest of efforts have been made to prevent the Committee from debating the constitution of that Chamber—to produce an 88-year Chamber.
  Strangely, the Government do not want that either. We seem to agree on that matter. All we ask, therefore, is that the Government should ensure that the replacement Chamber cannot be more than an interim Chamber.
  There are two means by which that can be achieved. The Minister will have noticed that we are trying both.
  Mr. Hoon indicated assent.
  Mr. Letwin: We are never shy in trying to find means by which the Government may get themselves off the hook. The first means is to delay the effective introduction of the Bill until such time as, by the grace of God and
  1110
  Lord Wakeham and his colleagues, it will have been possible to define what the long-term Chamber will look like. The other is a sunset clause that would curtail the life of the interim Chamber, thereby presumably forcing some substitute to be constructed.
  5.30 pm
  It is a dangerous business for anyone, certainly for an Opposition, to speculate on the reasons why Her Majesty's Government, in all their might and with all the wise advice at their disposal, should so far have proved resistant to enacting as modest a measure as the implementation of their own stated desires in their own legislation. In the spirit of constructive opposition, rather than speculation, I offer the Minister four possible explanations of that bizarre reluctance.
  The first possibility is that the Government do not believe that they will be able to enact stage 2 because of the serious internal division in the Labour party which has become abundantly apparent from many admirable contributions.
  The second possibility is that the Government will not accept measures that would ensure that the Chamber was interim because they do not believe that they can enact stage 2, and do not intend that stage 2 should be enactable, given the royal commission and the Joint Committee, until after the next general election, which they believe they will lose. That view is not shared by most pollsters, but perhaps the Government know something that we do not.
  The third possibility is much more generous to the Government's acuity but perhaps less so to their motivation, so I advance it only tentatively. They may not wish to enact stage 2. They may regard the interim Chamber as semi-permanent. That would make abundant sense of their reluctance to accept amendments and is a coherent rational position. Alas, it is not one that they have ever announced. It would be interesting if, in his no doubt admirable summary, the Minister revealed that the Government had changed their mind and that the royal commission was the farce that its terms of reference—though not its membership—suggest it may be intended to be, and that they had not the slightest intention of implementing stage 2 during their tenure of office, before, or, as they may hope, after the next general election.
  The fourth possibility, Sir Alan—I am sorry. My goodness me, Mr. Winterton, there has scarcely been a more pleasurable moment than seeing you, alas not yet ennobled, in the Chair. In due course, you may gain a hereditary peerage of first creation and yet be able to sit in this Chamber and in the Chair.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Nicholas Winterton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is long overdue that I should be recognised.
  Mr. Letwin: The first three possibilities induced little enthusiasm among Ministers. I think the fourth is much the most plausible. I think that the four describe the universe of possibilities. The fourth possibility is, of course, that the Government have not the slightest idea whether the interim Chamber will be long, medium or short term. They hope that it might be short term but do not know whether the royal commission will produce anything acceptable or whether the divisions in the Labour party will prevent proposals from being accepted

  1111
  even it they are acceptable to the Government. They do not know whether they want a second Chamber in any event. They want to keep us in a sort of animated suspension. That is the interpretation that the British public are most likely to place on the Government's reluctance.
  That approach speaks well for the Government in some ways because it suggests that there is no deep and malign intent. However, it brings us back to the point, which the Government can rebut only by accepting some or all of the amendments and new clauses, that this is a constitutional outrage. To proceed with a Bill of this magnitude without, if my speculation is correct, the slightest idea of whether what is being created will last a long or a short time is genuinely irresponsible. When the history books come to be written, the Government will be held to account.
  Mr. Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that his points are made even stronger by what the Prime Minister said but a few days ago at a press conference when explaining his commitment to the retention of duty free—that one should not change existing arrangements unless one can see the nature of what will succeed them? If he was prepared to adopt that position with regard to duty free, why does my hon. Friend suppose that a different policy has been adopted on reform of the other place?
  Mr. Letwin: As so often, my right hon. and learned Friend makes a particularly acute point. The Committee can speculate that the reason why the Prime Minister has taken that view in one case but not in the other is that he believes that it is popular to keep duty free and popular with some of his Back Benchers to get rid of hereditary peers. In short, we, and constitutional change, are being governed by the Prime Minister's desire to do what he believes to be politically expedient. That is why I call this a constitutional outrage.
  Dr. George Turner: Has not the hon. Gentleman missed out the entirely honourable possibility that we were elected on a manifesto commitment to abolish in a single stage the hereditary right of peers to sit in the other place? Our manifesto spelled that out as a stand-alone commitment. Is it not honourable for the Government to deliver on their manifesto—or is that news to Conservative Members?
  Mr. Letwin: It is perfectly honourable. We do not question the legitimacy of the Government's seeking to abolish the hereditary peerage. They were quite properly plain about it in their manifesto. They received an overwhelming endorsement for that—and, alas, for many other policies—from the British public, and they are now enacting it. We do not agree with it, but we do not complain about its propriety. However, it would have been proper for the Government either to work out what they wanted do in the long run or to ensure, as they could by accepting the amendment and new clauses, that the interim Chamber thereby created was genuinely interim, as it was described in the manifesto. We do not question the validity of the Government's getting rid of the hereditaries. We question the creation of an interim Chamber for which the Government have made not the
  1112
  slightest reasoned case and in whose interim nature no one, including members of the Labour party, can have any confidence. This is a modest proposal. The Minister should relax from his partisan tactics and consider whether he can justify the idea of an interim Chamber being created without its being in some way curtailed and, therefore, interim. That is all that we ask.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister is trying to be popular with his Back Benchers. I am always pleased when that happens. Certainly, such policies win my approval, including the removal of hereditary peers from the Lords. That is an important gain for all Labour Members. It is only right and proper that the longer term should be given more consideration. There are bound to be divisions of opinion. Why should we apologise for that? Some want a fully elected second Chamber, as the Tories now want—or claim to want. Others, like me, have different views. What is wrong with that? The royal commission should consider all those aspects and there should be a proper public debate on its recommendations.
  Mr. Letwin: I do not have the slightest argument with the hon. Gentleman. He is right that it is appropriate that those long-term matters should be considered by a royal commission. So they will be, although alas not with the right terms of reference, not over the right period and not starting at the right time. The process could have started 21 months ago. The commission would have had 30 months to think about the matter. It did not start because the Leader of the House decided not to set it up. That is not our problem, although it will be the problem of the whole country, but we do not have the slightest disagreement with the hon. Gentleman that these things should be considered. Nor do the amendments and new clauses seek to prevent that occurring.
  We merely seek to ensure that at the end of the royal commission's deliberations, there is a long-term Chamber in place or, failing that, that the Act does not come into force. All that we are asking is that the passage of the Act be made contingent on the Government doing what they say they want to do.
  Mr. Swayne: If I understood correctly the intervention of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner), he suggested that simply abolishing the rights of hereditary peers was all that was required to meet the manifesto commitment, and that the question of an interim Chamber did not arise. That is a perfectly proper and honourable position to take, but it is inconsistent with the position that the Government have taken. The Government maintain the fiction that they are creating an interim Chamber. Therefore, there is a gulf between the Government and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk.
  Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend, as so often, moves us to the centre of the debate. As we go through the amendments and subsequent amendments before the Committee, we shall discuss the serious question of how the interim Chamber is to work. It is a question that, alas, the Government have not addressed. In not doing so, the Government have failed to resolve a number of serious practical questions about how the constitution will operate in the interim. The new clauses and amendments, alas, cannot in themselves resolve that problem.

  1113
  At a later stage, owing to the admirable selection of amendments and new clauses, we shall have the opportunity to discuss those matters. I shall not trespass on your good will by describing them now, Mr. Winterton. These new clauses and amendments seek to ensure that there is sufficient pressure, or else a sufficient pressure valve, to ensure that there is not an interim Chamber without a proper constitution for ever. That is the modest intent.
  The reason why we are so urgently concerned with that matter is that when the Government decided to get rid of the hereditary peers, they did not consider—this was the precise point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—whether the Chamber that they thereby created would be capable of doing the job for longer than a very short period indeed.
  There are severe problems with a Chamber that is the result solely of patronage, which is inevitably what the interim Chamber will be at first. From a sedentary position, the Leader of the House is quietly making remarks about appointments, commissions and Cross Benchers, but—
  5.45 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I would hate to mislead the hon. Gentleman. I was making the point that the peers are all there as a result of patronage.
  Mr. Letwin: Yes. That was my point. They will all be there as a result of patronage.
  Mrs. Beckett: No; they are now.
  Mr. Letwin: Indeed, but they will all be there as the result of the direct patronage of recent Prime Ministers. A larger proportion of them will be there as a result of the patronage of the present Prime Minister. But there will be rather few of them. There will be many fewer working peers than now, and they will have to do rather a lot. It is by no means clear to us how they will carry out their tasks. I do not believe that it is clear to the Government either. We shall discuss some of the details in subsequent amendments, but it is clear that if the onus of those tasks is placed on a small number of individuals with their relatively slight attendance for a long period, the problem will be aggravated to the point at which the process of legislation will be impeded.
  It is not in the Government's interest, let alone in the interests of parliamentary democracy, that the interim House should endure, with its admittedly temporary nature—this is the Government's admitted position—in the sense that it has not been constructed carefully or after due reflection but has simply had part of the previous Chamber removed. It will be a kind of teeth extracted House.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Wisdom teeth extracted.
  Mr. Letwin: The Government have an interest in ensuring that such a House with, as my hon. Friend says, its wisdom teeth removed, is not a long-term proposition.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is the hon. Gentleman not making the point that if the transitional House cannot
  1114
  carry out its functions because its Members are too lazy to attend, any idea that it could become the long-term solution is fanciful?
  Mr. Grieve: Would that it were.
  Mr. Letwin: From a sedentary position, my hon. Friend says exactly what I should have liked to say. I share entirely in the hon. Gentleman's ambition. The House proposed in the Bill will not be capable of doing its job. It is not in the Government's interests, our interests or the interests of Parliament that it should continue for long. We are in agreement. The new clauses and amendments seek merely to ensure that there is a logical consequence—namely, that it is does not do its job at all, under one arrangement, or, if the Government do not accept that, that it does not do its job for longer than a couple of years.
  If the Minister replies that two years is not quite long enough, we are reasonable men and women and we shall be happy to concede a longer period. We are trying to be practical. We have a common interest in getting it right. I urge the Minister to think about it. I know that he will not accept the amendments and new clauses tonight. Alas, that is the way in which this place works. We are discussing a serious matter. I hope that the Minister will go back and reflect on whether it would not be in the Government's interests to do something along the lines that we suggest. It would restore the faith of people who elected the Government and convince them that they are a serious Government engaged in serious constitutional change, and that when they say they are creating an interim Chamber, they will, indeed, ensure that it is interim.
  Dr. George Turner: The hon. Gentleman possibly does not recognise that many Labour Members do not think that the present House of Lords is doing a good job. I know many Labour Members who believe that simply removing the hereditary peers will make the interim Chamber a better place that is able to do a better job than the existing House. That does not mean that we do not want a second change, but I am convinced that Conservative Members and many others in this country would address the real issue in a different fashion if they were discussing both questions together.
  Mr. Letwin: I am genuinely surprised by the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It may be a sincere reflection of his lack of agreement with me about what goes on in the House of Lords. Or perhaps he has spent so much time attending debates in this House that he has not spent much time watching their lordships at work. Anyone who had the privilege to read or hear the recent debate on the White Paper in the House of Lords will know that the quality of debates in that House is very high. It is a House capable of performing its tasks. The interim Chamber will contain many of the same distinguished figures, but it will have about half the number of working peers. The burdens placed on working peers today are immense. The burdens placed on them in the interim House will be twice as great. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has considered what the workings of this country's constitution will be like if there is no limit to that increased burden.

  1115
  I think that it was on Second Reading that the President of the Council made what might, in the long run, be her most famous remark. When challenged, she said that nothing could be worse than the present position; that seems to be the doctrine espoused by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. I fear that, alas, history will prove them wrong. If the interim Chamber continues for long, it might well prove to be even worse. I do not mean that in a political sense, but simply in the sense that the Chamber will not be able to do its business properly.
  If the Government deny that proposition, it is open to them to revise their views and to take what I described as route 2—or route 3: they can argue that they do not want a final stage and that they will never have one, but will build a proper House from the interim Chamber; however, that has not been their proposition. Until now, their proposition has been that the interim Chamber will be merely interim. They admit that it will not do its work properly and that they do not like it, but nothing could be worse than the current position; so surely the consequence has to be that the Chamber must be temporary. They seem to have accepted that consequence, except in the Bill. We ask only that the Bill should reflect the Government's intention.
  No doubt, many hon. Members will say that I have already laboured my point and I do not want to detain the Committee, but I have one final plea to make. Even if the drafting of the amendments and new clauses, or the numbers included in them, do not suit the Government, I ask them not to put a flag in the ground that they cannot remove. On the contrary, I ask them to take the elegant position that there might be something wrong with the drafting—something that they cannot accept—and to come back with some equivalent that serves roughly the same purpose. If that opportunity is missed, a time will come when the Government, as much as the rest of us, live to regret it.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for introducing the group of amendments and new clauses. He has provided an important test of the Government's good faith. We now have the opportunity to find out what they think about the forms that we are considering—for example, what does stage I mean? Is it genuinely an interim stage that will be defined or curtailed in some way, or is it part of a subterfuge whereby stage 1 will be stretched out into the far future?
  I have one small question. It is self-evident that some of the new clauses, even those tabled by my hon. Friends, are contradictory. Therefore, will my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset ask you, Mr. Winterton, that they be voted on separately? They will all have different effects: for example, the Committee must decide whether we want the Act to cease
  "at the end of the Parliament in which it is passed",
  as new clause 1 states; or whether we want it to cease after 24 months as specified in new clause 2. Setting aside remarkable coincidences—although they are always possible—those two provisions will have different effects. Part of what we are discussing is the relative merits of different approaches and, for that reason, we shall almost certainly want the opportunity to vote on the new clauses
  1116
  separately. I leave it to my hon. Friend to make that request to you, Mr. Winterton, as I think that it would need to be he who did so, but I want to put down that marker so that the Committee can do justice to all the issues covered by the group of amendments and new clauses.
  Mr. Tyrie: As my right hon. Friend is aware, new clause 18, which I tabled, provides for a period of 36 months. I do not know whether he thinks that that is a sensible time, but the reason I chose it is that if we are to have a year for the work of the royal commission, it is only reasonable and sensible that there should be two years after that during which the necessary legislation can be passed. It is important that those who propose amendments should demonstrate that their proposals will provide sufficient time to enable sensible stage 2 legislation to be introduced.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand those remarks and explain more fully why he believes that three years is the option to be preferred.
  At this stage, my own view, for what it is worth—I speak tentatively because I have not yet heard the arguments of my hon. Friend—is that his three years is on the long side. My preference would be for the timetable to be as tight as possible, not because I am unduly suspicious of the Government—although I am—but because I believe that at this stage, we are surely able to set out for ourselves a timetable for the work of the royal commission and the deliberations that will follow that is much more demanding even than my hon. Friend's three years. That is my view, but perhaps my hon. Friend wants to persuade the Committee otherwise.
  On new clauses 1 and 2, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset wants us to have the option of a deadline that is either the end of this Parliament or 24 months after the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses. That deadline conceals a longer time scale that might approach the three years advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie). We seem to be considering an earliest possible limitation date at the end of this Parliament, followed by either the deadline in new clause 2 or that in new clause 18.
  Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and hope that he will recognise that we tabled this smörgåsbord of possibilities to show the Government that we had no fixed view on the precise time that should be offered. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) offers another possible view, and if my right hon. Friend has a particular preference on that menu—for example, the herrings rather than the mackerel—his view would weigh heavily with all of us.
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend does not often make a fishy point, but this might be one of those rare occasions. I am slightly disappointed that he is being so generous to the Government, unless—I will share his generosity for a moment—he believes that the Minister will, at some point in this debate, offer the possibility that one of those reasonable time limitations will be acceptable to the Government. Only in those circumstances will we receive the reassurance that we seek. Why do we seek that reassurance? It is because, so far, neither I nor my hon. Friends have heard anything that would suggest that the

  1117
  Government are serious in claiming, as they have sometimes done, that stage 1—as it has come to be known—will be only interim and temporary and will be followed by stage 2.
  To be reasonable, my hon. Friends are offering rather generous—indeed, overly generous—time limits, so let us take them as workable propositions. I shall not dissent unduly because, although I shall express my preference in a moment, I tabled no amendments and the implication is that I am prepared to accept one of those offered by my hon. Friends. We believe that the Government should be perfectly capable of coming to a proper conclusion about the second Chamber that will emerge within the reasonable time limits that we are offering in the new clauses. The Government envisage that the royal commission will undertake the substantive work of analysis, and there will then be a Joint Committee of both Houses which will enable the parliamentary part of the process to be undertaken. It strikes me that 24 months after the publication of the final report of the Joint Committee of both Houses is a more than adequate length of time for this important process.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Twenty four months would take us beyond the date of the next general election. If there were the kind of immobility on the part of the Government that the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, the issue would become a matter of contention between the three political parties in their manifestos for the next general election. Under the circumstances, it is not credible to challenge the good faith of the Prime Minister—who has staked his personal authority on this matter—by saying that the Government will not advance proposals for stage 2 if there is consensus by the next general election.
  6 Pm
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman invites me to express my utter faith in the Prime Minister, but I am reluctant to do so at this stage.
  Mr. Letwin: Did my hon. Friend understand the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) to say in his intervention that he interpreted the Prime Minister as saying that he would bring forward proposals for a fully fledged, long-term second Chamber if there were a consensus? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an extraordinary caveat when there is clearly no such consensus on the Labour Benches?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed. Comments such as that—uttered in good faith by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), I accept—add to the unease of Opposition Members.
  Mr. Grieve: May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)? His remarks are made in good faith because they are a precise reproduction of the words of the Prime Minister, with all the accompanying caveats. The hon. Gentleman has accurately reflected the Prime Minister's precise comments on this subject.
  Mr. Forth: I will leave it to the hon. Member for Pendle to decide whether he wishes his remarks to be categorised in that way. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a most important point by asking
  1118
  whether we believe it is proper—indeed, essential—to resolve the matter during this Parliament and to put in place the appropriate mechanisms that would define, and perhaps establish, the new, permanent stage 2 upper House by the next general election.
  There is no doubt that we face a serious dilemma: how do we see the relationship developing between the final, reformed upper House and the House of Commons? How will the interplay of forces leading up to the next general election for the House of Commons affect the final definition of the upper House? I share the view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg): I believe that we should have a properly and directly elected upper House. For that reason, it is particularly important to define as soon as possible, the relationship between elections to this place and elections to the upper House. That is why the hon. Gentleman's point is so important.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that—unless it is disavowed by his Front Bench—the hon. Gentleman's intervention represents a change in policy? The foreword to the White Paper does not mention consensus. It states:
  "New Labour in government will … carry out … longer-term reform of the House of Lords as a whole."
  Mr. Forth: Indeed—and it would probably be better not to intrude into this area. I am sure that it would be a most unusual experience for the hon. Gentleman if he and his Front Bench were to disagree on this matter.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice rose
  Mr. Forth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to elaborate on his views.
  Mr. Prentice: I am not entirely sure what the Prime Minister said—and I cannot recall the antecedents of the word "consensus". However, in the context of the royal commission that has been established and will report speedily by the end of the year, I am sure that most reasonable people would accept that, if a consensus emerged between and among the political parties, it would be possible to move towards stage 2 and reach an agreement on that by the end of the Parliament.
  Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman has added something very important.
  Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying that.
  Mr. Forth: I shall continue to do so as long as Mr. Winterton allows it. If the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues echo his comments—which he has made on his own behalf or on behalf of his party—that will introduce a new factor. I do not know what "consensus" means. I have always been very suspicious of consensus as a political concept: it is not something with which I have ever felt particularly comfortable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could discuss over a cup of tea exactly how consensus would emerge, how it would be defined and identified and how far any dissent from that consensus would be accommodated. We could discuss all of those things some other time. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the matter will be resolved in a timely fashion only if

  1119
  consensus—however that is defined—emerges, my unease is multiplied. I believe that that adds to the argument in favour of the new clauses that we are discussing.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I, too, am troubled by the word "consensus". It is usually achieved in one or two ways—although there may be more. The first involves some kind of deal brokered between party managers and the second, perhaps cleaner and more straightforward, involves a guillotine. Is that the way to achieve consensus?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend and I share the burden of having served in the European Parliament. He and I moved in an environment of consensus for longer than I wished—and perhaps for longer than he wished. We have experience of a political system that is based on consensus—which may be shared by the hon. Member for Pendle, I know not. That perhaps explains the unease with which I greet this new element that has been introduced into the debate—and my hon. Friend obviously shares my unease.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is perfectly right to refer to a time when he and I were Members of another place in Strasbourg, where consensus politics was practised—although I am not sure whether it was the same as the consensus perceived by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). Under that consensus politics, the spokesmen of nine or 10 groups would spend 24 hours working out a text to which all could agree, by which time the text would be completely meaningless.
  Mr. Forth: That is the danger. We cannot have anything that is meaningless when dealing with such crucial matters. In this group of new clauses, we are considering whether it is our duty to try to ensure, as far as we are able in this Committee and the House of Commons, that the process upon which we have embarked and upon which the Government have taken us will be completed properly in a way that may be anticipated and defined.
  Dr. George Turner: I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the speed of the process. However, one of the amendments seeks to involve existing hereditary peers in the debate about what will replace them, and the other two amendments seek to resolve any kind of unforeseen delay by bringing back hereditary peers. That is the effect of the amendments. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why bringing back hereditary peers or allowing them to be involved in the debate addresses his concern?
  Mr. Forth: It would concentrate the Government's mind rather wonderfully; that is self-evident.
  Mr. Grieve: Labour Members seem to have completely missed the point that nothing would prevent a subsequent Government from returning within the period and saying, if they so wished, that the interim arrangements should remain for eternity. At least the Government would have to come back to the House and state that that was their
  1120
  policy decision regarding stage 2. Under the present system, they need not say anything at all and the process may meander along for ever.
  Mr. Forth: Of course, my hon. Friend is right. We are trying to guard against incompetence or, worse, a deliberate attempt, which could be made only by the Government, to prolong the interim arrangements of stage 1 in a way that would be unacceptable not only to most of my hon. Friends, but to most Labour Members. I hope, therefore, that we shall find consensus on that matter as the debate develops. Who knows?
  I do not want to take up undue time.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I am almost as near cross as I could be with my right hon. Friend, because in the previous debate, he confessed to his colleagues that he had not sufficiently prepared his work and that he could have said a great deal more. I hope that he will not say that to us all over again.
  Mr. Forth: No, I assure my hon. Friend that I have covered most of the ground that I wanted to cover in the way that I intended.
  In conclusion, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that although I support the new clauses in his name and the names of other hon. Friends, I hope that he will ensure that at some stage we have the option of making a proper choice between the time scales in his new clauses, after we have had the debate to find out hon. Members' views. Unless the Government give us more assurances about what is in their mind and what commitment they are prepared to make, we should certainly press one of the new clauses so that it can form part of the Bill and we can reassure the people of this country that there is no possibility of this legislature having an interim upper Chamber that is not fully formed, fully supported or fully accountable.
  Mr. Winnick: I get the impression that the Conservatives have changed their ploy because it is not popular in the country, to say the least, to be seen to defend the hereditary principle. They have decided that that is out of the question because they know, as we do, that they are not likely to win much public support by doing so. They have therefore changed their tactics. Instead of giving the impression that they will fight tooth and nail for the hereditary principle, all the emphasis is now—as it has been during the Committee proceedings—on whether the second stage should happen sooner or later. That is purely a ploy.
  Mr. Letwin: I want to correct an impression. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have made it abundantly clear that we support the hereditary principle in the monarchy, where property is concerned and in other respects. We accept that there is great merit in the proposition that hereditary peers should not have the right to vote in the House of Lords.
  Mr. Winnick: Yes, but it is remarkable that not once during their time in office did the Conservatives take any action to undermine the hereditary principle. When the Bill becomes law and perhaps after a few years have elapsed, the Conservatives may want to give the impression to the country that it was they who did their

  1121
  best to get rid of the hereditary peers. They are quite capable of doing so, and the way in which they have claimed credit for the welfare state should give us cause for suspicion. [Interruption.] I do not know what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is saying from a seated position, but I know that at no stage in the previous Parliament or any other Parliament in which I sat during those ancient times have the Conservatives made any proposals to get rid of the hereditary peers. They might as well admit it because everyone knows that to be the case.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman ought to admit that it is slightly odd for a member of the current Labour party to complain about another party having adopted somebody else's clothes.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Winnick: I have made it clear that the Conservative party came to the conclusion that there is no point in defending the hereditary principle; there are no votes in doing so, and the party would be discredited at the next general election if it tried to do anything of the kind. All the Conservatives' emphasis is therefore now on stages 1 and 2. The gist of their argument is that it would be highly undesirable to implement only stage 1 and we should know about stage 2 and when that will be implemented.
  Angela Smith: Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming what appears to be a recent conversion by the Conservatives to not supporting the hereditary principle for the House of Lords? In its 1997 election guide, the Conservative party supported that principle.
  Mr. Winnick: Indeed, my hon. Friend makes a valid point, but we know how opportunist the Conservative party is. As Conservative Members would no doubt argue privately—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I remind the Committee that we are debating a specific group of amendments and new clauses, and we should not go wide of that.
  Mr. Winnick: I return to the point from which I did not want to depart—the argument about the first and second stages. No one knows what the royal commission will recommend. Indeed, we do not know whether there will be a consensus among its members. However, I have long thought that it would have been arbitrary of the Government to propose a long-term solution for the other place without having an inquiry such as that by the royal commission and, following that, a proper public political debate about what should occur.
  I do not for a moment accept that as a result of the elimination of hereditary peers—not literally, I am glad to say—in the first stage, it will be difficult for the other place to function, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) argued from the Dispatch Box. There may be problems, but he greatly exaggerated the possibilities, and serious problems will not occur. I am sure that the other place will be able to carry out its functions without the hereditary peers.
  Mr. Letwin: Has the hon. Gentleman read the list that has been compiled of the amount of time that Labour
  1122
  working peers appointed by this Administration spend in the House of Lords? If he does so, he will discover that one such noble Lord—to avoid embarrassing people who are not present, I shall not read out names—who is a major donor to the Labour party's coffers, has participated in none of the possible votes and has attended the upper House twice. There are many others who have attended for less than 50 per cent. of the possible time. That is in stark contrast to the high attendance of some of those working hereditary peers who will be removed. I do not criticise the noble Lords concerned—they are out there earning an honest crust.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I criticise the hon. Gentleman for something unforgivable—an overlong intervention.
  Mr. Winnick: The bulk of work is undoubtedly carried out by life peers.
  Mr. Letwin: No.
  Mr. Winnick: Yes, it is, and I could quote statistics, but I do not want to prolong the debate. Moreover, there is no doubt that, although their lordships may have to work longer hours, they will be able to carry out their functions properly in the first stage.
  I turn now to a serious point that was the subject of a leading article in The Times on Monday—the nature of the second stage. The hon. Member for West Dorset said that there were differences of opinion on the Labour Benches. Yes, there are, and why should there not be? Are we to believe that every Opposition Member now thinks that the second Chamber should be elected?
  Sir Patrick Cormack indicated dissent.
  Mr. Winnick: I see that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. There are differences on the Labour Benches, just as there are on the Conservative Benches.
  When we get to the second stage, I want—preferably on the basis of consensus, although that may not be possible—a long-term solution to the membership of the upper Chamber. That is why I am pleased that we are not rushing into the second stage and that we are having a royal commission. It is also why I argue strongly that, following the recommendations of the royal commission, we should have a full and proper debate—to some extent, that debate will take place within the parties themselves.
  I do not for one moment dispute that I am reluctant to see a fully elected second Chamber—not, I hope, because I have ceased to be a democrat, but because I am concerned about the powers of this House. I want us always to take the leading role, so I am bound to be concerned that a fully elected second Chamber, with all the legitimacy of a directly elected House, could challenge the role and authority of this place. Some hon. Members believe that that would be right, but I do not. All that I am saying is that we need to pause, have a debate and come to a conclusion in due course which will, in the main, meet the wishes of the vast majority of the Members of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Garnier: Is not the hon. Gentleman a little surprised that in the 18 years of thinking time that the

  1123
  Labour party had, it did not come to the House much earlier with definite ideas about stage 2? We still do not know what the Government think about stage 2.
  Angela Smith: The Conservatives did not do much thinking.
  Mr. Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) rightly says, the Conservatives did not do much thinking. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is conceding what I said earlier—there was no wish to change the composition of the House of Lords. We have heard from his mouth what we already knew.
  If the present Government came up with a blueprint and said that they were going to do away with hereditary membership of the House of Lords and rush into the second stage, I know what the reaction of Conservative Members would be. They would say that it was being imposed arbitrarily, that there had been no royal commission and that it was wrong that such a step should be taken.
  In effect, what we are doing is in accordance with what we said during the election. We said that we would remove the hereditary peers and then give proper consideration to the make-up of the second Chamber. What is wrong with that? What is undemocratic about that?
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting soliloquy on the Government's approach to the Bill, but we are dealing with precise amendments. Does he agree that those amendments allow for all the things that he is seeking, but also say simply that there will be a limit after which a decision on the final form of the second Chamber has to be made and brought to the House?
  Mr. Winnick: I do not believe that there should be such a strict limit, which is why I oppose the amendments and new clauses. I do not believe that it is desirable. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said in an intervention, if the amendments were carried, there would be a possibility that the hereditary peers could be brought back, which is just about the last thing that Labour Members want.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. However, what he says is not so, and he knows it. The amendments and new clauses would simply concentrate the Government's mind. The Government would have to come to the House for a renewal of the lease of the interim House, and this House would then decide. In a new Parliament, this House may take a very different view from the present one. It is very important that we do not lurch or drift, which is the Government's policy at the moment. Frankly, it is unacceptable with such an important constitutional issue.
  Mr. Winnick: If it is not desirable to lurch or drift, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, it is also not desirable to fix a wholly inflexible time limit which has no purpose whatsoever.
  When the party battles are over and this measure becomes law—this is not simply a party political point in support of my Front-Bench colleagues, although I support
  1124
  the line that they are taking—we must, in all seriousness, find a proper balance between the two Houses. If possible, we should reach a consensus between the three main parties about the make-up of the second Chamber. That would be more desirable than introducing legislation for the second stage in a controversial way, as we are doing in respect of hereditary peers. It is necessary to pause, as I have said, and give the royal commission time to make its recommendations.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the time that the royal commission has been given is indecently short?
  Mr. Winnick: No, I do not. I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman even about that. It is desirable that the royal commission should report as soon as possible. Judging by the arguments deployed by the Conservatives today, I should have thought that that was their point of view, too. Indeed, I believe that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) agrees that the time given to the royal commission is right.
  All in all, I believe that we are taking the right step. I have served in the House for a long time, and I am pleased that I sit on the Benches of a Labour Government who are at long last doing what no previous Labour Government have been able to do—remove the undesirable principle whereby people should sit in Parliament for no reason other than their ancestry. Once that is done, it will be possible—if there is good will—to move to the second stage.
  There is no reason why the amendments should be accepted. They are wholly inflexible and, as I said, they are simply a ploy by the Conservatives who know that they can no longer defend the hereditary principle.
  Mr. Maclennan: If one peers through the miasma of conflicting options and the spun arguments in support of them put to us by the official Opposition, one sees that, notwithstanding their contradictory nature, there may be a grain of concern which we should address in respect of the undesirability of the stage 1 settlement lasting indefinitely. On that there seems to be no division among the hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and no difference of opinion with the Government. Indeed, I venture to say that those who have expressed uncertainty about consensus have witnessed consensus on that point.
  It has been clear from the beginning that stage 1 is a phase of reform that is being embraced to improve the upper House, but it is by no means to be the last resting place for the second Chamber. I find it puzzling that the official Opposition keep coming back to the same point. They see no reason to accept the Government's commitment on this issue, but the Government's record on constitutional reform has not been one of delay, dither, uncertainty or unwillingness to take major, remarkable and almost revolutionary steps—quite the reverse. The record of this as yet rather short-lived Government is one of unparalleled readiness to change. Notwithstanding that record, why are the official Opposition hung up about the Government's commitment to consider a plainly democratic, representative and accountable second Chamber?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Letwin: If the right hon. Gentleman is right about the Government—he may be—does he accept that they ought to agree to some amendments, such as those before us?
  Mr. Maclennan: No, I do not, and for the following reason. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman has not told me which of his amendments he would prefer Liberal Democrats to attach themselves to. We listened to him at some length, but at no point did he say, "This is the one on which I propose to make my stand." When dealing with possible constitutional alternatives, a little clarity, certainty and perhaps even priority are needed.
  We should not embrace such a mechanistic device when proposing constitutional change. Indeed, it is odd that the Conservative party, which is noted for its interest in promoting stability, should seek to include in legislation something as unstable as any of the amendments that it has tabled, which would create massive uncertainty. Plainly, it would be fantasy to cling to what Parliament is legislating now, in the expectation that we could resurrect what it replaces. The idea that we could get rid of hereditary peers under the Bill and that, somehow, they might rise from their graves with their cerements around them and reinvent themselves as a legislature is extremely fanciful.
  Mr. Letwin: Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that all we are trying to do is to trigger a need, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said, for the Government to renew the lease. Is that not a reasonable device?
  Mr. Maclennan: I like the hon. Gentleman's word device; that I agree with. The proposal is a device—not a constitutional settlement—which we should not accept. It is a device for a debate—
  Mr. Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maclennan: I am dealing—I hope adequately—with the point made by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The proposal is a device to enable us to focus on the undesirability of our living with an all-appointed upper House. In so far as it is focused on that, it is a perfectly acceptable rhetorical way of proceeding—a sort of university debating society way of proceeding.
  Mr. Grieve: Is not the whole of stage 1, on the Government's admission, a device, because, they tell us, it will enable stage 2 to occur by removing the power of hereditary peers to block the consensus that they claim is available?
  Mr. Maclennan: There we part company. I do not go along with the view that the Bill in itself is not important. It is of great importance that we should abandon the hereditary principle in our legislature once and for all. I am not happy that there are threats to water it down later, although I understand why the Government are playing with that notion. I do not doubt for one minute, however, that, when the Bill is enacted, it will constitute an important improvement in our legislature. It will not
  1126
  make a perfect democracy—far from it—but it will have disposed of one of the most indefensible aspects, which undermines the strength of the upper House and its ability as a democratically legitimate Chamber to pronounce on the great affairs of state with authority, in a way that forces the Executive to pay attention, listen, act and respond.
  Even if there were to be no further change—that would not be desirable or likely—what is proposed is preferable to what we have at present. I hope that the interim period will not be extended. Therefore, to that extent, I go along with what I take to be the underlying wish of other Opposition Members that the Government announce, as early as possible, proposals for stage 2.
  Mr. Tyrie: The right hon. Gentleman said that the interim Chamber would be preferable to what we have at present. In that case, he clearly disagrees with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who said at his party conference in September 1995:
  "in Labour's hands, the House of Lords is no longer to be made democratic—instead, it's to be made the most powerful quango in the land … I would rather rely on the serendipitous opinion of the illegitimate progeny of past kings' mistresses, than the appointees of a modern British Prime Minister".
  Why have the Liberals abandoned nearly a century of belief in an elected House to get into bed with the Labour party in the hope—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) wishes to deal with the intervention, I hope that he does so only briefly, because it concerned the merits of the Bill as a whole, not time and commencement, with which the group of amendments deals.
  Mr. Maclennan: I certainly would not deal with that intervention at length, apart from saying that the Liberal Democrats are committed to this process because we have confidence that this is a facilitating measure, which will assist the process of reform which has eluded other Governments and parties more disposed to reforming the upper House than the Conservative party has ever been. Such reform defeated the Labour party in the 1960s; I was present during those dreary debates.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the right hon. Gentleman merely parading a guilt complex, because the most notorious sale of peerages occurred under Lloyd George?
  Mr. Maclennan: Lloyd George may have known my father, but I am not prepared to have the sins of my father visited on me.
  The Bill is justified, and should set up a Chamber that is more legitimate than what it replaces. Appointees on merit of a range of Prime Ministers over the past three decades are certainly to be preferred to the serendipitous accidents of emergence in the upper House to which the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) referred. Views would have been split if the proposition was that the Bill is the point on which we are all going to stand. We are not. This is the first step of reform.
  Yet again, I draw the White Paper to the attention of those who doubt that that is so. Governments cannot propose such changes more clearly than this Government

  1127
  have. In considering the timing of the successor Chamber, it is important to remember these words in the White Paper, which was published in January:
  "If there is consensus, the Government will make every effort to ensure that the second stage of reform has been approved by Parliament before the next election."
  That is where the word "consensus" comes from—the Government themselves. That is the right way in which to approach the matter: to seek consensus and, if there is consensus, to act as quickly as possible.
  I cannot guarantee consensus; if there is not a consensus, I hope that the Government will continue the process of reform, so that, at least by the next election, a scheme can be put before the country in the manifestos of the parties committed to it, which the electorate may ratify by their votes. At least then, in the early years of the next Parliament, the anomalies which we are undoubtedly creating will be short-lived.
  The choice seems to be straightforward: to have either consensus before the election, in which case a Bill could be introduced in the current Parliament, or for the parties to state clearly at the next election how they will democratise the upper House, with the decision being made by the people, to whom, ultimately, the upper House will, we hope, relate much more closely than the present Chamber can.
  Therefore, we should do no more than express our enjoyment and appreciation of the fun that we have had because of Conservative Members, and the hope that their pessimism is misplaced. I believe that it is. For those reasons, we should have no truck with any of the alternatives.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: I wish to make a brief contribution, and, in doing so, to pick up on some of the comments by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). He referred to the Bill as a constitutional outrage. As a Member of Parliament, I have received two letters on the Bill. I think that other Labour Members have had a similar response. That does not suggest that the Bill is a constitutional outrage. That is not the reaction of my constituents. By and large, it is not the reaction of people throughout the country.
  In previous Parliaments, when constitutional outrages were perpetrated on the British people—such as the abolition of the Greater London council and the introduction of the poll tax—many more letters were sent to constituency Members of Parliament. People rightly understood the difference between what was genuinely a constitutional outrage and what was not.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does not the hon. Gentleman's postbag just illustrate that the issue is not the people's priority?
  Mr. Rammell: No. My postbag shows that, having seen the explicit commitment in the Labour party's general election manifesto and seen the Government go ahead with great intent to implement that manifesto, the people are comfortable with what the Government are doing.
  The hon. Member for West Dorset referred to the quality of debate in the House of Lords in the recent discussion on the White Paper. I wonder whether he was
  1128
  referring to the contribution from one of the hereditary peers who argued that democracy was a relatively new invention that should be given time to bed down before the protection for hereditary peers was abolished. Some of the blithe statements from Conservative Members about the supposed quality of debates in the House of Lords and of contributions from hereditary peers need to be, and should be, challenged.
  Let me say deliberately and explicitly why the Government and I support two-stage reform and will not agree to the amendments. First, two-stage reform was in our general election manifesto. Most of us, I think, have a quaint notion that parties, once they are in government, should implement the commitments that they explicitly make in their general election manifesto. It is part of a process in which we believe: restoring faith in government and politics.
  Secondly, my party, the Government and I have learned the lessons of history.
  Mr.Grieve rose—
  Mr. Tyrie rose
  Mr. Rammell: I will continue with the point, and then give way.
  Three times this century, there has apparently been a consensus on reform of the House of Lords. The last time we had such a consensus, there was a 5:1 majority in the House of Lords for the abolition of the right of hereditary peers to vote. The first occasion was 88 years ago. However, on every occasion on which that apparent consensus existed, the reform was ultimately blocked by apparently reasonable people, apparently advancing reasonable arguments. Although in principle they supported the abolition of hereditary peers, they could not quite agree on what would replace them and on the nature of a reformed second Chamber.
  There is at least a suspicion on my part and that of some of my hon. Friends that some of those people never really wanted reform and used those arguments illegitimately to block it. The net result—we are still seeing it after 88 years—was that the vested interests of hereditary peers and of the Conservative party were maintained.
  Were we to agree to the amendments that the Conservative party has tabled, we would allow such disingenuous supporters of reform—if they exist—to say that they want change, but not to say quite how they would agree to it. If we agreed to the amendments, there would be a built-in incentive for filibuster, spurious objections and arcane parliamentary tactics to delay the second-stage debate and legislation. The time limit which is referred to in the amendments would then be introduced, we would come to the end of that period, and reform would not have been agreed.
  Mr. Grieve: I realise that the hon. Gentleman will not accept my word for it, but nothing could be further from the truth. The amendments are designed precisely to concentrate the mind. I fail to see—I will be interested to hear him deal with the matter—how they are incompatible with two-stage reform. In fact, they will ensure that the second stage comes about within a certain time.
  Mr. Rammell: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me if I do not have the greatest confidence in the

  1129
  conviction with which the Conservative party tables the amendments. We have heard much comment about concentrating minds. For the Government, but for the Conservative party in particular, carrying out reform in two stages genuinely concentrates minds, because we will then definitely have to create a reformed second Chamber.
  6.45 pm
  Caroline Flint: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from delaying matters, the amendments are about the desperation of the Conservative party to salvage some credibility in the whole debate about democracy? We are confident that we will reach the second stage, but, by tabling the amendments, the Conservatives are trying to claim some credit for making it happen. Will it not happen without their amendments?
  Mr. Rammell: Absolutely. That is a fair point. My hon. Friend has rightly described the attempt to create a cloak of decency to hide the fact that, throughout its history and certainly at the last general election, the Conservative party fundamentally supported the hereditary principle: it said so during the last general election campaign.
  The other objection to the amendments is one of fundamental principle. If hon. Members believe that the hereditary principle is fundamentally objectionable and that, therefore, the hereditary peerage should go, it is every bit as objectionable that those hereditary peers should be able to participate in the debate to determine who their successors and what the nature of the reformed second Chamber will be. Were we to agree to the amendments and introduce the timetable for the process by which the second stage had to be agreed, those hereditary peers would be able to participate and to influence the legislation on the reformed second Chamber.
  Mr. Letwin: I know that the hon. Gentleman is one of most intelligent Members in the House—I mean that genuinely—but either he has not read the amendments or I have misunderstood them. Why does he think that they will change the relationship between existing peers and the debate?
  Mr. Rammell: If we accept the Bill as it is drafted, hereditary peers will not be able to participate in the debate on reform of the second Chamber. If we accept one of the amendments, which sets a timetable that could mean a period of as little as 20 months between the passing of the Bill and the ceasing of its effect, it is possible that they will participate in the deliberations on the form and nature of the second Chamber. That would not be a legitimate role for hereditary peers in the House of Lords.
  I do not accept the Conservative party's allegation that, either through intent or through lack of proposals, the Government intend such a second Chamber to be a permanent solution. The time scales set out in the White Paper require the royal commission to report by the end of the year. Even if we do not secure reform and the nature of the second Chamber agreed within this Parliament, it is inconceivable that the Labour party could go into the next general election campaign without explicit and specific proposals for further reform of the second Chamber.
  1130
  That leads me to conclude that, this evening, we are seeing a smokescreen and delaying tactics. We should stick to our guns. We should recognise the delaying and blocking tactics for what they are. We should go ahead with what we set out in the Labour party manifesto at the general election, which was once and for all to do away with the entirely objectionable principle of hereditary peers.
  Mr. Tyrie: It is impossible to disagree more than I do with the last point made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). If ever there was a set of amendments and new clauses designed to accelerate rather than delay what happens to the second Chamber, it is this one. The amendments and new clauses are designed to put a time limit on the prevarication and debate that might otherwise indefinitely delay a decision on the second Chamber in the second phase of reform. That is the purpose and intention behind new clause 18, which is quite the opposite of what the hon. Member for Harlow has suggested.
  I shall return to the Liberals for a moment. I find it extraordinary that they should oppose these amendments and new clauses when they would inevitably and ineluctably hasten the speed at which we move to what the Liberal party has supported throughout its political life. Only a short time ago, I quoted the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who agrees exactly with that view. His view, as expressed a few years ago, was that to allow the Labour party when in government to go ahead with an appointed House could lead to indefinite delay or the non-realisation of what the Liberals have always stood for, which is an elected second Chamber.
  I find it extraordinary—almost beyond explanation—that the Liberals should have suddenly capitulated on this most fundamental area of constitutional reform, which they have espoused for more than half a century. They have completely washed themselves out. In effect, they are saying, "Oh well, we quite enjoy our meetings in Cabinet. We get the odd secret document. In fact, it is all enjoyable." This has been a pathetic exhibition of capitulation and non-opposition.
  Mr. Maclennan: There is nothing sudden about this. The agreement that the reform should take place in two stages, both of which would be conducted as speedily as possible, was entered into, quite some time before the last election, by the Liberal Democrat party and the Labour party. It was not a frolic of my own this evening. It is something that was ratified by my party at its conference.
  Mr. Tyrie: So we now know that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was saying one thing to his party conference and another in secret negotiations with the Labour party. It is an extraordinary and dreadful story of a party selling out its principles for virtually nothing—for a mess of potage.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a remarkable precedent in Lord Jenkins's report, in that it seems likely that the Liberal Democrat party thought it had an agreement on that, too?
  Mr. Tyrie: The Liberal Democrat party thought that it would get all sorts of marvellous things out of the

  1131
  Labour party. In fact, the Labour Government have merely implemented the agenda they would have implemented anyway.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. That is all very interesting, but it has little to do with the commencement and duration of the Act, which is what the amendments and new clauses are about. I know that the hon. Gentleman has tabled new clause 18, to which, no doubt, he wishes to direct his remarks and the attention of the Committee.
  Mr. Tyrie: I have heard you make many apposite remarks, Mr. Winterton, in the Chair and elsewhere, and never was one more apposite than that. I shall return quickly to new clause 18 in particular, and to the group of amendments and new clauses in general.
  The key question is whether we shall be better off with the interim Chamber or by staying as we are. If we cannot find a stage 2, we should return to where we are now, which is at least with a House that has some experience and tradition of scrutinising the Executive. What sort of House shall we be left with if the Bill is enacted as it stands, without a sunset clause? There are two possibilities. One is that we would have a House more than ever dominated by patronage. The Appointments Commission is nothing more than a fig leaf. It affects only a small proportion of appointments, and when set against the dramatic increase in appointments that the Government have been pushing through, it is scarcely relevant.
  The average number of appointments each year over the past 40 years has been 22, yet the Government have been appointing an average of 66. That is packing on a grand scale and is in breach of all precedent. A House of patronage is not an attractive prospect. I have discovered, sitting in my place during these few days in Committee, that a good number of Labour Members have their doubts about patronage, too. An interesting amendment was tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). I think that he overdid it a bit. He said that patronage was the bane—I cannot remember his exact words—of British political life, as if there was something uniquely bad in the state of Britain that did not exist in other countries. I have in mind Roman and Belgian patronage—
  The Temporary Chairman: Again, this is very interesting, but it is not appropriate to quote what occurred in a previous debate. The issues that arise from the amendments and new clauses are very clear, and I request the hon. Gentleman to direct his remarks to them.
  Mr. Tyrie: A more likely prospect is that we would end up with a patronage House, plus a rump of 91 peers. We must ask ourselves whether that or the House of patronage is something that we would be prepared to carry on with indefinitely. The purpose of new clause 18 is to establish whether there should be a provision in the Bill to stop that situation continuing indefinitely.
  I believe that the interim House would leave power in the hands of the Executive to an unprecedented degree, such as we have never seen before. The interim House would probably be shorn of any ability to ask the Government to think again.
  1132
  It is clear that many people in the Labour party do not believe that. They consider that the interim House would be an improvement; that has been suggested in several speeches this evening. I respect and understand that interesting view, which is based on a deep dislike of the hereditary principle. However, I ask Members who have put forward that view to consider the point that the interim House would lack the tradition that the current House has on its side. At least as a body it has a system and a way of working. That has enabled it to get on with its job, which would be severely disrupted by the Bill.
  The interim House would be dominated by patronage. Nothing could be worse than a second Chamber completely dominated by the Executive; that would be worse than unicameralism. On that, I seem to have some Labour Members agreeing with me, including the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway.
  It is not at all likely that the interim House would want to move on to stage 2. One of the extraordinary pieces of implicit nonsense in an otherwise excellent speech by the hon. Member for Harlow was the notion that hereditary peers were in themselves a greater obstacle to reform than an interim House would be, and a greater obstacle to stage 2. The hereditary peers know that they have little legitimacy; they have always said that. The hon. Gentleman referred to a debate that took place many decades ago in which they said that. We must ask ourselves what motive the interim House will have to move to stage 2. What possible motive would it have for pressing for that?
  The lifers will be clinging on like grim death. As for the 91—if there are to be 91 of Cranborne's troops—they will be sitting on death row, and are hardly likely to be pressing for stage 2. They are likely to comply with the Executive on absolutely everything, except for the one thing that we need from them—sensible stage 2 reform. What is to be done about it? How can the interim House be made tolerable? I shall suggest some of the possibilities, but shall not allow myself, Mr. Winterton, to drift too far—to drift at all—from this group of amendments.
  7 pm
  In new clauses 17 and 20, which address the problem of patronage, I have already dealt with one possibility for ameliorating the interim House. However, those new clauses are only palliatives and will not tackle the problem more fundamentally. The best approach must be to have something in the Bill that forces the Government to get on with working up proposals for far-reaching reform.
  New clause 18, which I tabled, would be a vital guarantee of the Government's promise to deliver stage 2. Occasionally, Ministers mumble that they want to implement a real and substantive stage 2. Recently, they even said that they would like to get on with stage 2 more quickly. If that were the case, what have the Government to fear from new clause 18? What is wrong with this group of amendments? If the Government want to get on with the job quickly, this group of amendments could not possibly do them any harm.
  I strongly expect that the Government will oppose this group of amendments because their heart is not in far-reaching reform. They are not interested in it.

  1133
  [Interruption.] Ministers laugh. What evidence is there to suggest that the Government are interested in far-reaching reform of the House of Lords?
  I think that some hon. Members are interested in far-reaching reform. I have been greatly heartened by the number of Labour Back Benchers with whom I have had discussions who believe in an effective second Chamber and want far-reaching reform. However, I have heard from Ministers very little on the matter that is clear cut and not hedged with all sorts of mealy-mouthed words.
  I have heard scarcely anything from the Prime Minister to suggest that he wants a balanced constitution; I do not think that I have ever heard him use that phrase. While he is dispensing patronage on such a grand scale, can the Appointments Commission be anything other than a fig leaf for his power in appointing life peers to the interim House? Does the Prime Minister really believe in checks and balances in the constitution? I have never heard him say clearly that he does.
  The Prime Minister's actions on the Lords are sweeping aside all precedent. There was a long-standing precedent that there should be all-party consultation—or at least an attempt at it—before any Bill to reform the House of Lords was introduced in this place. On each previous occasion this century when House of Lords reform has been attempted, there has been such consultation, but there was none on this occasion. All-party consultation has not succeeded on every occasion, but at least there was all-party consultation in 1910, 1948 and 1968. On two of those occasions, legislation followed; on the other, as we know, it failed.
  As I said, the Prime Minister is also breaking long-standing conventions on the number of peers appointed from his own party: more than 50 per cent. of his appointments have been from his own side. No other Prime Minister has ever broken that convention. As I also mentioned, he is appointing far more peers—in unprecedentedly large cohorts—than any other Prime Minister.
  If the Government reject all the proposed sunset clauses, the truth will be out. Ministers will be showing that they do not really want to move to stage 2. They have already dragged their feet and been forced into appointing a royal commission. Initially, they hoped that the commission could kick stage 2 into the long grass; now, pressure has forced them to require it to produce its results more quickly. I think that it is still highly likely that the Prime Minister hopes that the royal commission will rubber-stamp a largely appointed upper House. I also think that many Labour Members, quietly, probably think the same.
  The problem for Labour Members is that they have given the game away too often. The Labour manifesto itself says that stage 1 should be an initial and self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform. The Government's White Paper describes stage 1 as a "stand alone" reform. Today, the same belief was expressed by some Labour Members.
  We thought that Labour Members definitely believed in at least something—getting rid of the hereditaries. I was astonished to discover that even that belief might be shelved, and that Labour Members might be asked to troop through the Lobby to support the Weatherill amendment.
  1134
  Lord Weatherill himself has made it clear that he does not want just stage 1 to be an interim House; he has said quite the opposite. In The House Magazine of 11 January, he said:
  "It's within the bounds of possibility that the Royal Commission may say this"—
  the interim House—
  "has been working well—let's leave it alone. That would preserve continuity … Surely a consummation devoutly to be wished."
  That was the view of one of the two tablers of the Weatherill amendment itself: to make the interim Chamber, if the amendment is accepted, into a House of perpetuity, and to forget entirely about stage 2.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: The royal commission has to report by the end of this year. It is therefore scarcely credible for that proposition to be advanced.
  Mr. Tyrie: Lord Weatherill is in quite a good position to assess what he thinks might be plausible. He made the proposition in public, as a reason why his own amendment should garner support in the House of Lords. I should have thought that that in itself was evidence that it might be a possibility. He is a former Speaker of this place and not politically naive; he is a pretty alert chap. That is what he thought might be the outcome of stage 1—stage 1 dragging on for ever and a day.
  Above all, we need a lever to force the Prime Minister to act on his promise to deliver stage 2 reform. The sunset clauses are such a lever. My new clause 18 would provide what the Parliament Act 1911 lacked. The 1911 Act, too, was intended only to be a temporary measure, but it did not have a sunset clause to force through further reform. We are having this debate, 90 years later, precisely because that Act had no means of forcing implementation of the stated intentions of its drafters—more permanent subsequent reform.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since it looks as if the hon. Gentleman will be speaking for the next 90 years, may I ask what is the point of the filibuster?
  Mr. Tyrie: I am trying to make a few points, and I am terribly sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks they are not real points. Perhaps, if he reflects on them a little, he will find the odd point that he has not heard before. He has been an hon. Member for a very long time, and was perhaps in the Chamber in the late 1960s for the previous major debate on the House of Lords. Nevertheless, although he has undoubtedly heard many of the points before, I think that some of them are relevant.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made an interesting point, with which I strongly agree, that, if the interim House were to turn out to be desirable as a permanent solution—if Lord Weatherill were to be proved right—it would be open to the Government, even if the sunset amendments were included in the Bill, to introduce another Bill to make the interim House permanent. Therefore, even if the Government accepted this group of amendments, but subsequently decided that they did not want stage 2, they would still be perfectly well protected. I can think of no reason for the Government, if they believe in stage 2, not to support at least one of the amendments in this group or to table a similar amendment of their own.

  1135
  Having said that, none of the options for improving the interim House that I have outlined today is my preferred option. There are many more sensible ways of reforming the Lords than this bizarre two-stage approach—which, in itself, makes necessary the sunset clauses. The way forward, of course, is to have a democratically elected second Chamber. Let us allow some fresh air—the fresh air of democracy—into the upper House.
  I believe that the Prime Minister is only paying lip service to the idea of an elected upper House. In the foreword to the White Paper, he attacks the hereditaries because they have "no democratic legitimacy". I agree that they have no democratic legitimacy, as do the hereditaries themselves. The Lords have said that many times over 80 years.
  Does the Prime Minister mean to deliver a democratic solution? Is he prepared to try to balance the constitution? Is he prepared to get his own control freak tendency under control? Is he prepared to allow a second Chamber that works to rise out of the destructive aspects of the Bill? If so, the Government should have nothing to fear from new clause 18. They should have everything to gain from it, because it would allay the fears of many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who want a second Chamber, but fear that the Government intend merely to neuter the upper House and leave reform at that.
  Mr. Hurst: I have been looking for a common thread in the amendments and new clauses. It can be summed up as: commencement late; duration short. I am fascinated by some of the amendments and new clauses. One amendment that has not been selected says:
  "This Act shall not come into force until a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament has studied the operation of the Canadian Senate."
  We are not told to what standard that study should be—O-level, A-level, degree or doctorate—so the amendment is imprecise, but I understand why the Conservatives are interested in the workings of the Canadian Senate. There is a fleeting reference to it on page 25 of the White Paper, saying that it was intended
  "explicitly to provide a conservative counterbalance to a potentially radical Commons."
  Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has got the wrong end of the stick. The Canadian Senate is a purely appointed body. It has come in for a great deal of criticism because it is toothless as a result.
  Mr. Hurst: If that is so, the intention of those who set up the Canadian Senate was not successfully implemented. All upper Houses throughout history in every part of the world have been set up, or allowed to remain, to slow down or thwart the will of democracy. It does not surprise me that one has to adapt to modern times.
  Another amendment suggests that we should study the New Zealand Parliament and the abolition of its upper House in 1950. I hope that other hon. Members agree that until New Zealand was foolish enough to change its voting system to something quite grotesque, it was, with a single Chamber, one of the most successful, enlightened and progressive democracies in the world. We claim to
  1136
  have founded the welfare state, but New Zealand was ahead of us in many particulars. I would welcome a study of the New Zealand system following the abolition of the second Chamber, but that is no reason to delay putting the Bill into effect.
  I do not propose to filibuster. I believe that that is primarily an American device, not so known to our constitution. We need to be clear soon about where we are going. Delaying putting the Bill into operation will not achieve that. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Conservatives' belief in democracy for an upper House, as was true of their forebears in 1911, but I doubt how quickly their proposals would go forward. Those in 1910 and 1911 were sincere in their commitment to democracy, but it took two general elections and the threat of the creation of 500 new peers to ensure substantial progress. Very little progress has been made since then. We need to begin the process by passing the Bill into law as soon as we can. Thereafter, consideration of what should replace the House of Lords—if anything—can take its course.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Leigh: In a night of several long speeches, hon. Members will be relieved to hear that I intend to make a short speech. I should like to put a different perspective on what we have heard.
  The Weatherill solution could well prove permanent and I support it. I realise that I am at variance with many hon. Members in that. The system that will emerge will be an orphan, because neither political party is prepared to claim credit for it. The Labour party will not claim credit for the Weatherill solution for the simple reason that it preserves the hereditaries, albeit fewer of them. The Conservative party will not claim credit for the Weatherill solution because it cuts the number of hereditary peers to 91. I believe that it is a good British compromise. It is entirely within our traditions and should be supported by hon. Members on both sides as a fair solution.
  It is not good for the House of Lords to have a permanent, inbuilt Conservative majority. That often results in the House failing to oppose bad legislation. The preservation of a limited number of hereditaries in the Weatherill solution is no bad thing, because it provides for the continuance of an independent element. Regardless of whether one supports it in principle, it will probably last because any other solution has so many enemies ranged against it on the old Foot-Powell axis that, as the Government have rightly determined, it would be bound to fall foul of the House of Commons. If the House of Lords was entirely elected, it would be a pale imitation of the House of Commons and would be controlled by the Whips, as this place is. If it was partially elected and partially appointed, the appointees would be there for life and would be independent of the Whips, but would lack the democratic legitimacy of the elected members and would be able to do what they liked. All the possible solutions are logical in their way, but any other will be rejected. The interim solution is justifiable.
  Those who support the Weatherill interim solution should have the courage to say so. That is why I support the amendments. The Government are entitled to abolish the hereditary peers because they put the measure in their manifesto and were elected. However, it is wrong for them to abolish the hereditaries without revealing their

  1137
  long-term ambitions. We all know that they have done that because otherwise it would be impossible to gain any consensus; we all understand that. Surely by the time of the next election the long-term solution should be clear to the British people, be it the Weatherill solution, a partially elected Chamber or a fully elected Chamber. Surely that is all that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is asking for.
  I am sure that Labour Members do not like the amendments. Why should they? They have been drafted by Conservatives and could result in the hereditaries being re-created in all their splendour—although it is inconceivable that that would happen. I should like to repeat a point that was made earlier in a non-partisan spirit. We know that the Government are not going to accept the amendments, but there is a serious intent behind them. I accept that the Government are well intentioned and that the Minister is a genuine radical, not just a cynic like me. He does not accept my arguments about the Weatherill solution lasting for ever. I accept that he wants a non-Weatherill, non-hereditary solution. He wants to do something.
  I merely plead with the Minister to make it clear to the British people when he decides the final shape of the Bill—or when it becomes an Act—that the matter will be finally determined in this Parliament. If he does that, when people vote in the next general election—or, hopefully, before that—the new constitutional set-up will be clear. That is all I ask.
  Mr. Grieve: I intend to be brief, because I have already raised some of the matters that I would have raised in my speech in interventions.
  I simply do not understand the suggestion by Labour Members that the amendments were designed to thwart the Government's entirely legitimate aim of getting rid of hereditary peers, which is their stage 1 ambition. They do no such thing. They enable the Government to achieve their aim: indeed, the point has been entirely and properly conceded by the mere fact of the Bill's having been given a Second Reading.
  I might add that it is true to the Conservative tradition that, having been reluctant to consider alterations to the form of the Upper House—because we have found it difficult to see how they could be implemented—we should be the most desirous of radical changes in the way in which the second Chamber operates, now that the logjam has been shifted and the principle of change has been established. I certainly am. I have tried to adopt a consistent approach to the Bill, and I intend to continue to do so.
  I think it was the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) who told us that we should be in no doubt about the Government's willingness to proceed to stage 2. There it was, in black and white, in the White Paper; it could be accepted without any difficulty. The history of the past 12 months, however, suggests that the Government have experienced appalling difficulties in wrestling with stage 2. I do not wish to be cynical about the Government's difficulties, because I think that they are genuine; but we have had to extract bit by bit even the concessions that made the completion of stage 1 possible. Without that, there would have been no royal commission a year ago. Certainly there was no talk of it, and there was no real suggestion that
  1138
  stage 2 would be taken further. The Weatherill amendments—which are at least a concession to the upper House, in that they imply that stage 2 will come—have also had to be extracted, in the teeth of massive opposition, and threats of opposition, to the Bill.
  I want stage 2 to happen, and given the fashion in which the House of Commons operates, there is no better way of ensuring that it happens than guaranteeing that the matter returns to the House within a set time. Sleeping dogs are usually allowed to lie, and nothing is easier for a Government than to say, "We have too much other legislation before us. The agenda is too full. We have no time in which to consider the matter, so we will put it off."
  A finite time limit is needed. After all, if such a limit is not observed, it will be possible to return to the status quo ante. I appreciate that that is anathema to most Labour Members, and I would not like it to happen; a time limit would guarantee that we applied our minds to the issue within that period. Once we have done so, if the interim Chamber has indeed commanded the most widespread support, we shall be able to ratify it. Heaven knows, that would involve a only one-line piece of legislation: it would not exactly interfere with a Government's future timetable. If that does not happen, we shall be forced to settle down and work out how the second Chamber should operate.
  It is clear that there are major divisions of view, which cross party lines. There are also legitimate issues for discussion. I am the first to admit—although I strongly favour an elected second Chamber, which should not be elected by Government and prime ministerial patronage; that is the key issue—that many questions must be dealt with. For instance, there is the question of keeping a range of expertise in the upper Chamber. I should like to discuss all those matters: they need to be discussed.
  If the amendment is not accepted, we shall be presented with a blank cheque allowing nothing at all to happen. Whatever view is held by Labour Members—whether they favour retaining the interim arrangements, opting for a radical second Chamber or abolishing the upper House entirely—by voting for the amendment and those grouped with it they will guarantee that the matter will return to the House for further consideration. Without the amendment, there will be no such guarantee. That is why I feel so strongly that it should be accepted.
  Mr. Swayne: I had intended to detain the Committee for some time, but I now see little point in doing so. The speech that has silenced me is that of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). He pierced the heart of the issue when he pointed out that Labour Members simply did not trust us.
  The amendment, and those grouped with it, were tabled largely because we are not persuaded of the Government's good intentions in respect of pursuing the agenda for phase two. That is certainly true of me. The amendments are, as it were, an engine to ensure that the matter is dealt with. The hon. Member for Harlow said that, from his party's perspective, the amendments are seen as proof of our own lack of good intent to pursue phase 2, and as merely providing a means whereby the status quo ante can be returned to after a period of filibustering, havering and scuppering of reform.
  Following that impasse, I am not sure what the way forward is. I can only say that I believe the amendments to be important. They are particularly important in respect

  1139
  of the historical perspective. For 80 years, this issue has been bedevilled by an inability to concentrate the mind of the Executive on the question of reform. The amendments provide the necessary perspective—with the exception of new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). I hope that he will explain the new clause to us, because it mystifies me.
  It seems to me that new clause 10 falls into precisely the same error as the Parliament Act 1911, in that it makes a statement of intent. The 1911 Act made a statement of intent, but it has not been implemented in 80 years. I fear that any kind of statement of intent would be no more effective in this Bill than it was in that Act. The other amendments and new clauses, however, give us a range of options for providing the focus that is proper to the issue. It is undoubtedly the case that the focus of Ministers will change—as, indeed, it has already changed—but we are told that this is a matter of urgency. It was not a matter of urgency 20 months ago; it was not a matter of urgency in the first Session of this Parliament.
  Other things will happen. The Government may lose their extraordinary run of good luck, and, like most Governments before them, become captive to events. They may have to react to events, and have to dominate their agenda very differently. In that case, this issue will be lost sight of; and that is why the amendment should be accepted.
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Garnier: I shall be brief, because all the Conservative speeches have been excellent. I particularly commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie).
  The dangers of clauses 4(1) and (2) are highlighted—as are the advantages of the amendments—by what follows in subsequent subsections. There we see the Government giving a Secretary of State powers to make an order for
  "such transitional provision about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections to the House of Commons or the European Parliament as he considers appropriate."
  Clause 4(4) goes further, allowing the Secretary of State to modify—another word for amend—
  "the effect of any enactment or any provision made under an enactment."
  If we are to allow this Government or the Secretary of State to have those powers to tinker with the constitution in a way that he sees fit or appropriate, the sooner we get the Bill time-limited, the better. Whether it is a 24-month, a 12-month or a 36-month limit—or a sunset clause, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)—the sooner we get such a clause bolted on to the Bill, the better. If there is a constitutional outrage, it is to be found in the Secretary of State being given powers to tinker with the constitution by statutory instrument. I find that obscene. For that reason alone, I hope that my hon. Friends will pursue these amendments.
  Dr. Fox: One of the difficulties of the amendments has been that this is the precursor of a precursor Bill. It is a
  1140
  precursor because we are getting only an interim House, because we are not moving to stage 2 and because we know that the Government will alter the content of the Bill in the other place. Indeed, the Leader of the House has stated that that is the Government's intention.
  Several points were made on clause 2 this afternoon concerning anomalies in the Bill, caused by the way in which it will be enacted. The Bill will be brought in halfway through the Parliament, and the question of the disfranchising of hereditary peers was mentioned. The amendments seek to avoid that by bringing the Bill into effect at a time different from the one the Government want. Labour Members have said that this will tie the hands of the Government. Any Government wanting to come forward with a real stage 2 proposal would be glad to have their hands tied in that way.
  The amendments do not thwart, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said—augment the position of anyone who wants stage 2 reform. That is all we seek. We have been consistent in saying that we did not want stage 1 reform without knowing what stage 2 was to be. The amendments propose to put into the Bill something that guarantees that we will not move forward until we know the final position. Amendment No. 5 proposes to bring the Bill into effect at the next general election, and we intend to divide the House on it.
  Our intention is to avoid having the interim, unwanted, halfway and unnecessary House. It will be an interim House—but between what and what? We currently have an interim House—it has been there for 88 years. By that reckoning, our great-great-grandchildren will be back here in 2087 to discuss what should happen to the Chamber that the Bill proposes.
  The Bill proposes that the royal commission and the Joint Committee should agree on a proper stage 2 proposal without considering something that nobody wants and which does not do what is required. That is one of the points that we have made. The interim Chamber does not represent an improvement on the government we have. Any substantial change in our constitution should represent an improvement on the way in which we are governed.
  The proposal will not bring the Executive better to account than at present. It is not the House of Commons that is too powerful, but the Executive. When the House of Commons fails to do its job in bringing the Executive to account in a proper bicameral structure, we need a second Chamber which is willing to do that and which has that authority.
  That is why I found the speech of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) rather strange. The Opposition are trying to strengthen the upper House to control the Executive—not the reverse. The Government's proposals will weaken the upper House's ability to call the Government to account. That cannot be right. We are accused of being suspicious. Why? We genuinely doubt the Government's motives, and their willingness to move to the second stage. We believe that the first stage will be what we get in terms of reform. We want to know the end product—that is perfectly rational.
  We believe that the Government's intention is to kick the matter into the long grass, and we have perfectly reasonable grounds for that suspicion. We have had to drag the White Paper and the royal commission out of the Government—neither was offered at the outset. It was

  1141
  only when the Government were faced with huge opposition—not least in the other place—that they were willing to grant these reforms. Why should we not doubt that they genuinely want reforms that will create a different locus of authority in this Parliament—something that might bring the Executive to heel?
  We all know the real debate—we have been having it for 88 years. Should we have a second Chamber, as the hon. Member for Braintree legitimately asked? If so, should it have more or less power? If more power, what should these powers be? If it is more powerful, how should it be composed? Should it be appointed, elected, or a mixture of the two? We all know the arguments well enough to be able to move straight to the second stage without an interim Chamber that no one really wants, and which is composed in a way that is entirely opposed to the Government's manifesto. It will be a hotch-potch, cooked up to suit Labour Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) asked perhaps the most legitimate point of all. He said that the Government are asking us to accept a change to our system of government without telling us what that change will be. That is the most unacceptable thing of all. They say that they want stage 2—this is their chance to prove it. By accepting the amendments—and by tying their own hands—they will make it clear.
  Any alternative proposed by the Minister will reinforce our suspicions that we will never see stage 2, and that the Government's intention is to provide a pliant halfway House full of yes-men with no power to stop the Government doing what they want. With the House of Commons already under the control of the Whips, there will be little to bring the Executive to account. That cannot be a healthy democratic structure.
  These amendments give the Government a chance to propose a properly structured stage 2 reform. They will have the support of the Opposition should they choose to do that, and we will co-operate fully in the royal commission. We wish to see stage 2 completed. What we find unacceptable is that the Government—for party political reasons and reasons of convenience—should try to gerrymander our constitution.
  Mr. Hoon: We have debated the two amendments and five new clauses together because they all deal, in one way or another, with the question of whether reform should proceed in one stage or in two, or whether attempts should be made to force the process into one stage or to provide a legal commitment to the second stage. Having heard two speeches from Conservative Front Benchers, we do not know which they would prefer.
  We have had a great deal of sound and fury, particularly from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who talked about constitutional outages. He referred to an 88-year Chamber—harking back, I assume, to the 1911 Act. Had he analysed the constitutional history of the other place properly, he would have referred to 1958, not 1911. The 1911 proposal did not deal directly with the composition of the other place. The 1958 one did.
  On Second Reading, I referred to comments made at that time by Conservative Ministers, who were proposing reforms that would lead to the greater efficiency of the House, and therefore to the better working of Parliament,
  1142
  bringing the House more abreast of the times. That was to be a reform in relation to composition, without dealing with the fundamental questions.
  Despite what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) may say, Labour Members want both stage 1 and stage 2. That was set out clearly in our manifesto. The amendments and new clauses are a fairly obvious attempt to delay the removal of the rights of hereditary peers to sit and vote. It is perhaps significant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said, that Conservative Members now limit themselves to attempting merely to delay the reforms and do not oppose them outright.
  Dr. Fox: If it is such a point of principle and the Government want stage 1 as an end in itself, as something that they promised in their manifesto, why has the Leader of the House already said that the Government will accept the Weatherill proposals, which are the complete opposite of what was in the manifesto?
  Mr. Hoon: I will deal with that point in a moment. We are discussing the means, not the ends in themselves. In 1958, the then Lord Chancellor pointed out that there had been no fewer than 10 unsuccessful attempts over a period of 100 years to change the composition of the House of Lords. He said that they were all unsuccessful because someone had forgotten that the best can so often be the enemy of the good.
  The Government want both stage 1 and stage 2. The amendments and new clauses will not help us to achieve that. We have made it clear, in a White Paper and elsewhere, that we are committed to reform of the composition of the House of Lords. The first step, as was made perfectly clear in the manifesto, is to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote.
  Mr. Tyrie: Are the Government also committed to a democratically elected second Chamber?
  Mr. Hoon: That is clearly a matter for the royal commission to advise on, for both Houses to resolve, and for further debate. We have said how that debate can take place.
  Our ambition is to remove the rights of all hereditary peers. The point about the so-called Weatherill or Cranborne proposals is that there will be a great deal of enthusiasm behind me at the Dispatch Box for ensuring that the interim arrangements, if they are approved, are indeed only interim arrangements. Government Back Benchers will expect the Government to deliver the manifesto promise to remove the right of all hereditary peers to vote.
  Mr. Letwin: To allay our suspicions, what is the Government's timetable for the implementation of phase 2?
  Mr. Hoon: We have had a great deal of discussion about consensus. If there is consensus, and we move quickly through the royal commission and the Joint Committee, there is no reason why measures could not be introduced before a general election. That is a perfectly possible timetable; it is set out in the White Paper and it could be achieved. It clearly depends on achieving consensus.

  1143
  We have been debating this for a very long time, not just 88 years, because the Parliament Act 1911 was the culmination of a long period of debate about the role and composition of the second Chamber. The royal commission will have plenty of material to be going on with, and there is no reason why it should not review that material and reach a judgment fairly quickly.
  Mr. Leigh: The Minister knows perfectly well that there is no consensus. The Government must govern. Will he give a commitment that the nature of stage 2 will be clear to the British people by the next general election?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Hoon: I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the possibility of achieving consensus. In the most recent example of efforts to reform the second Chamber, in 1968, there was consensus. The Conservative party accepted the results of the various discussions and withdrew from supporting the proposals not because it opposed them in principle, but for a completely different reason. Consensus was reached fairly quickly in 1968. Why should not the royal commission do the same this time?
  We are debating resolving the question of eliminating from our further discussions the issue of hereditary peers, and there is no need for us to debate the second stage in that context. We want to concentrate the discussion on the future, not the past, and ensure that we have a properly informed debate without the role of the hereditary peers interfering in it as it has in the past.
  Many Conservative Members have referred to the fact that we have not been able to have a proper debate about the future composition of the House of Lords, simply because the issue has been confused by the context of the hereditary peers. It is important to resolve that question once and for all. That is what the Bill will do.
  Amendment No. 5 is designed to delay the removal of the hereditary peers until the end of the current Parliament, and we have made it clear that it is important not to delay that long. Amendment No. 6 is presumably intended to be consequential on it, but it could have separate effects. It is designed to prevent the cancellation of existing writs of summons, which run the length of the Parliament.
  Amendment No. 6 would import uncertainty to the Bill because it is not certain that without the provision peers would still be able to claim that their writs entitled them to a seat. There is a danger that it would operate separately, in that if amendment No. 5 were to be rejected and No. 6 accepted, a peer would have the right both to sit and vote in the House of Lords and to seek election to the House of Commons. I assume that those who tabled the amendment did not intend that.
  New clause 1 would provide for the Act to lapse automatically at the end of the Parliament in which it is passed. In that case, unless further legislation had been passed in the meantime, the House of Lords as it is today would be recreated, and hereditary peers would once again become Members of the House of Lords. There are various objections to that. It would promote considerable
  1144
  uncertainty, but above all else the new clause is unacceptable because it would give those opposed to reform an incentive to delay the second stage and restore the status quo ante. We cannot support that and I doubt, in reality, that it can really be the Conservative party's intention.
  New clause 2 would provide for the Act to lapse automatically two years after the proposed Joint Committee reported on the outcome of the royal commission's work. Again, unless further legislation had been passed in the meantime, that would mean that the House of Lords would be recreated. Hereditary peers would become eligible for membership of the House of Lords, but would lose their right to vote or stand in parliamentary elections, although in the mean time they could quite legitimately have been entered on the register of electors.
  If the trigger point fell just before the next general election—possibly during the campaign—the effect on those hereditary peers who had been selected as parliamentary candidates would be far from clear. If it fell in the middle of a parliamentary Session, the effect on legislation already before the House of Lords is also not clear. The Bill provides for its coming into force after the end of the Session, precisely to avoid such problems. New clause 2 is confused and should be rejected, if for no other reason than that it is legally and politically uncertain in its effects.
  New clause 13 provides that the Act will lapse and the provisions of the Peerage Act 1963 will be reinstated if a further Act has not been passed in this Parliament dealing with the composition of the House of Lords. Again, it is far from clear, because it does not define precisely what the trigger Bill might be. For example, would a Bill amending the Life Peerages Act 1958 so as to allow for a retirement age or a disclaimer of titles count? Such uncertainty is obviously unsatisfactory, and the new clause should not be accepted.
  New clause 18 would provide for the Act to lapse three years after Royal Assent. The Bill provides for its substantive provisions to come into force at the end of the Session in which it is passed. That is precisely to avoid problems with legislation caught in mid-Session. The new clause would not avoid that danger and the Act could well come into effect in July or October 2002, right in the middle of a parliamentary Session, once again producing considerable uncertainty as to its effects.
  New clause 10 was briefly mentioned in today's debate. It would add nothing to the Government's existing commitment to progressing further with Lords reforms. It would have no legal effect and there is no good reason why the statute book should be cluttered up with extra material of no consequence. On that basis, it should not form part of the Bill.
  I repeat what I said at the outset: the Government are committed to stage 1 and to stage 2. If we do not definitively settle the question of the hereditary peers, we present ourselves with an obstacle to sensible debate and long-term reform. We have one party with a large vested interest in the status quo, and the very presence of the hereditary peers increases the temptation to look for difficulties, not solutions, in the reform of the House of Lords. The two-stage process is entirely consistent with

  1145
  British traditions of proceeding by evolution rather than by way of dramatic change.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 322.

  Division No. 85]

  [7.50 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Leigh, Edward

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Baldry, Tony

  Lidington, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bercow, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brady, Graham

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Maples, John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Butterfill, John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cash, William

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Chope, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paterson, Owen

  Cran, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Prior, David

  Day, Stephen

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Evans, Nigel

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Fallon, Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Flight, Howard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Soames, Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spring, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Garnier, Edward

  Steen, Anthony

  Gibb, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Gill, Christopher

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Syms, Robert

  Gray, James

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Greenway, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Townend, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tredinnick, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Trend, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Walter, Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Wardle, Charles

  Horam, John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Whittingdale, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Yeo, Tim

  Johnson Smith,

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Sir David Madel.

  1146

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darvill, Keith

  Allan, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Austin, John

  Dismore, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Bayley, Hugh

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Beard, Nigel

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Edwards, Huw

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Efford, Clive

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flint, Caroline

  Best, Harold

  Flynn, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Follett, Barbara

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Galloway, George

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gapes, Mike

  Brake, Tom

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burgon, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Burnett, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burstow, Paul

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Grocott, Bruce

  Caborn, Richard

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Casale, Roger

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Caton, Martin

  Harvey, Nick

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clelland, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hurst, Alan

  Corbett, Robin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Illsley, Eric

  Cotter, Brian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jamieson, David

  Crausby, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  1147

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Plaskitt, James (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rapson, Syd

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rendel, David

  Laxton, Bob

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Rooney, Terry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lock, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Love, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salter, Martin

  McCabe, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Sawford, Phil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonnell, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNamara, Kevin

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McNulty, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Snape, Peter

  Maxton, John

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Moore, Michael

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Stott, Roger

  Mudie, George

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mullin, Chris

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Oaten, Mark (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Osborne Ms Sandra

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  1148

  Truswell, Paul

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Willis, Phil

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wills, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Wallace, James

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Wareing, Robert N

  Woolas, Phil

  Watts, David

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Webb, Steve

  Welsh, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Letwin: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 1, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
  '(2) Holders of hereditary peerages shall be entered on to the electoral register at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed and at any time after the end of Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed the holders of hereditary peerages shall be entitled to vote in elections to the House of Commons.'.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'such'.
  No. 34, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'or the European Parliament'.
  No. 33, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'as he considers appropriate' and insert
  'in order to give effect to section 2 of this Act.'.
  No. 7, in page 1, line 23, leave out from 'enactment' to end of line 3 on page 2 and insert—
  '(5) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.
  Mr. Letwin: After the shock of that terrible defeat, let me move on to the next group of amendments.
  We have so far debated the great question to which clause 4(1) gives rise about the relationship between stage 1 and stage 2 and the Government's desire and ability, or otherwise, to move on to stage 2. This group of amendments deals with the remainder of clause 4. I can relieve the Leader of the House and the Committee by saying that we have no problem with the entirely anodyne and welcome aim of clause 4 to restore the right of hereditary peers, who will no longer be able to sit and vote in the House of Lords, to vote at parliamentary elections. Members on both sides of the Committee have waxed eloquent on the propriety of peers having those democratic rights, and we wholly subscribe to the view that they should. There is nothing between the Conservatives and the Government on that aim.
  The problem, however, is the way in which clause 4 seeks to achieve that aim in subsections (2), (3) and (4). I doubt whether Ministers intended to do anything improper or unusual in the drafting of clause 4. The Leader of the House may find my remarks surprising, believing that the drafting was not out of the ordinary. I suspect that the genesis of those three subsections was

  1149
  that people who are learned in these matters—the Government's legal service and the parliamentary draftsmen—sought to achieve the aim given them by the right hon. Lady to restore the rights of hereditaries to vote. They produced clause 2, and they were told to produce some transitional provisions.
  Alas, in carrying out their task, they have displayed just about every constitutional and juridical vice possible. None of those vices is unprecedented, but the clause is a textbook case. It is a sort of Christmas tree on which have been hung all the ghastly presents passed down by draftsmen past. If we are not careful to say something about that—or, better still, to do something about it—those presents will become subject to the hereditary principle; they will be handed down to the next set of draftsmen and they will appear in other Bills, in which their effects may be much wider, in circumstances in which the aims are less laudable than those of clause 4.
  First, let me deal with a minor point. I apologise in advance to the Leader of the House in case I have made an error. If so, I shall be happy to be corrected. I believe that clause 4(3) contains a technical defect, in that their lordships already have the right to vote in European elections. The provision of that right is therefore unnecessary. That is a minor point, and I do not seek to criticise anyone or to pay much attention to the point. My other points are more serious.
  Subsection (3) also contains the widest possible order-making power. It states:
  "The Secretary of State may by order make such transitional provision … as he considers appropriate."
  That may appear to be a perfectly normal piece of drafting, but the final words are there for one purpose and one purpose only—to give the Secretary of State the widest possible latitude in designing the order. That is the opposite of what Parliament ought to seek to do in passing primary legislation: we ought to constrain the powers of the Secretary of State as far as we can.
  In case the Leader of the House or any of her hon. Friends intends to leap in to tell me that previous Governments, including those of my own party, have been guilty of taking wide order-making powers, I am happy to admit that there has been that tendency. However, I do not wish—and I hope the right hon. Lady does not wish—to repeat the sins of the past. Now is as good a time as any to try to put matters right. Clause 4(3) is an example of the worst kind.
  If that were all, because such powers have been so frequently taken, and although I have made it my practice on every possible occasion since my election to the House to point such matters out, I must admit that my case would not be strong. Alas, clause 4(4)(a) contains the next ghastly legislative vice—the famed Henry VIII clause. The Secretary of State will not only be allowed to make such provisions as he considers appropriate. He will be allowed to
  "modify the effect of any enactment or any provision made under an enactment".
  Who knows how judges will see such powers now that they have multiplied out of all proportion? I attach some significance to the fact that the powers are being built into a major constitutional Bill that will attract the attention of the courts and the constitutional commentators.
  Taken at face value, clause 4(4)(a) allows the Secretary of State to do by order just about anything to just about any previous enactment so long as he—and this is
  1150
  the test—considers the action appropriate. We would not want that if we were starting with a clean piece of paper and considering what primary legislation a responsible House of Commons should pass.
  I regret that that is not the end of the matter. Having given the wide powers, including the Henry VIII provision, clause 4(4)(b) adds the third vice of which we have seen all too much—and again in the context of a major constitutional Bill. As the Secretary of State was being given the widest possible powers, including the power by order to modify an enactment—something dreadful that has crept into our legislation—one might have thought that there would have been an attempt to create an element of constitutional or juridical decency by allowing the House of Commons to vote the thing in before it became an order. Not a bit of it! Clause 4(4)(b) provides for the order to be made by negative resolution. We all know what that means: on the whole, such orders go through on the nod. I do not say that these provisions will, because they are matters of great moment. Someone may pick them up and they may be debated. However, there is no point in negative resolution procedure unless the Government want to weight things in favour of their going through on the nod.
  This is a major constitutional Bill that does something of importance in conveying a democratic right to a set of people, but it is done in a way that exhibits each of the three tendencies—the negative resolution procedure; the power to repeal and change Acts by order; and decisions being governed only by an appropriateness test—that have most bedevilled primary legislation over the past five, 10 or 15 years. Those tendencies started their sorry journey into legislative history 20, 30 or 40 years ago. If they were absolutely necessary, I suppose that we could understand it, but they are not.
  Amendment No. 22 is designed to resolve the problem cleanly and clearly. It would put straightforwardly into statute provisions equivalent to the admirable clarity of clause 2. It would compel the entry into the electoral register of the names of those who need to be given democratic rights, with no orders, no negative resolutions and no Henry VIII clauses. That would end the need for the rest of clause 4. We cannot see the slightest reason why it should prove inoperable or why the Government should resist it.
  In fact, this is where the whole thing begins to be interesting rather than merely a sorry tale. We have much scratched our heads asking ourselves why, given that the Leader of the House did not ask for it to be done in this way, it was done in this way. Why did all the learned, clever people employed by the Government to think these things through choose to display in a major constitutional Bill all the vices in a compact Christmas package? Perhaps it was oversight, but we doubt it. On reflection, we think that there is a reason, which has to do with the ghost in the machine that we see in the whole Bill and to which we have often alluded.
  8.15 pm
  We think that the problem is this. I should be delighted if the right hon. Lady told me that I am wrong. So far as it goes, clause 2 is fine. Unfortunately, in another place, after the Government have perhaps accepted the Weatherill amendment, clause 2 will cause some difficulty. Hereditary peers will not be disqualified from voting, but they will

  1151
  have a rather remarkable franchise. They will have the right to elect not a Member of Parliament but a Member of the upper House—by rumour, 90-odd such Members. They will have that right not as part of a constituency of 60,000 or 70,000 electors but as one of 500 electors. Under those circumstances, the Secretary of State may wish to do all sorts of things to make transitional provisions that do not allow those who are in one way or another taking part in the Weatherill election to take part also in a normal democratic election, such as one to the House of Commons. We have no idea whether that is the case because we—I assume like the Leader of the House—do not know what the Weatherill amendment contains or may contain. Perhaps it will not even be moved.
  Mrs. Beckett: I may be able to save the hon. Gentleman much tortuous thought. He and his colleagues seem to have spent much time anticipating all sorts of Machiavellian Government behaviour that does not exist. There is a simple reason for the provisions: our desire to be as helpful as possible in giving people who will lose their rights to sit in another place their proper rights as citizens at the earliest point possible, even if that should come at a time inconvenient from the point of view of the normal construction of an electoral register. It is no more or less than that.
  Mr. Letwin: If that is the sole reason, as it may be, the right hon. Lady will have no difficulty in accepting amendment No. 22 because it compels inclusion in the electoral register. The criterion would be fulfilled as a matter of law. If the right hon. Lady thinks that it will not work, it would be interesting to know why.
  I continue to believe that there is a subtext. It is likely that there will be a considerable mess when we get to the Weatherill amendment in respect of ensuring that the right people get, or do not get, the right to vote in parliamentary elections. I do not know how that will be resolved. I know that the right hon. Lady—if, as I suspect, she is being straight with us about not knowing what the Weatherill amendment will look like—cannot know how that will all come out. There is at least an appearance that this provision creates latitude and discretion to try to deal with that problem. If she says that that was not the intent, I am delighted to hear it. If it is not, she should subscribe all the more readily to amendment No. 22, in which case the problem that I think may have existed in the minds of those who drafted the provisions will not apply. If it turns out that I am right about the reason, we shall have the bizarre position that the cause of these juridical vices is, as we have repeatedly said, another sort of outrage: the outrage of parliamentary blackmail.
  I know that the Leader of the House maintains—I think, perfectly sincerely—that there is nothing wrong with the Government wanting to get their business through smoothly and being willing to make a major concession to do so. As with many such things, it depends which end of the telescope one is looking through. To us, the very same thing is differently described: it constitutes a statement by the Government that part of the constitution would be right if their lordships had behaved themselves, but wrong if they had not. That is the wrong way in principle to go about constitutional reform. If I am right that at least part of the cause of the elaborate and horrible
  1152
  procedure in clause 4, with the three vices that I mentioned, is the process that I have described as parliamentary blackmail, we have an unfortunate case of one vice begetting another.
  If the Leader of the House wholly denies that chain of logic, that is marvellous. She can then surely accept amendment No. 22, because it clearly puts the onus on anyone who wants to obey the law—as returning officers and the whole of local government will want to—to ensure that hereditary peers are put on the register. I have to say that, in that event, if and when the Weatherill amendments are accepted, it will be necessary to amend both clause 2 and clause 4. I doubt whether the Leader of the House will deny that. Then we will have a clean amendment of clean clauses. That is how the thing ought to run. When the Bill comes back to the House after the amendments have been moved in the other place, we shall be able to see whether the process that it inaugurates is workable and sensible. We have not been able to debate the Weatherill amendments in advance because we have not seen them, but at least we shall be able to do so ex post.
  Mr. Grieve: I wait with great interest to hear what the Leader of the House has to say, but I find that the thrust of amendment No. 22 is straightforward. The amendment provides in statutory form the objective that appears to be desired by all parties in the House. It will be right for hereditary peers, as the amendment says, to be
  "entered on to the electoral register at the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed and at any time after the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed the holders of hereditary peerages shall be entitled to vote in elections to the House of Commons."
  What is the harm in spelling that out?
  Clause 2 says:
  "The holder of a hereditary peerage shall not be disqualified by virtue of that peerage",
  but thereafter the power is reserved to the Government to decide when the clause will be introduced. What is the rational logic of that and what is the drawback to amendment No. 22?
  I am perfectly prepared to accept what the Leader of the House said. One of the reasons for introducing legislation by statutory instrument—heaven knows, we have heard this on countless occasions in proceedings on various bits of legislation, including the Henry VIII clause in the Human Rights Bill—is to ensure that something which needs to be done and which everyone agrees ought to be done can be done swiftly when the occasion arises. But if one knows precisely when the occasion will arise because it is clear that it will arise when a particular event happens, why on earth is the occasion not written into the Bill? I wait with great interest to hear from the Leader of the House why that is not so. On any analysis, I cannot see that amendment No. 22 could cause the Government any difficulty.
  Mr. Letwin: Would my hon. Friend like to remedy a deficiency that I now see in my speech by outlining what he sees as the timetable for enactment and entry on the register?
  Mr. Grieve: If the legislation contained the amendment, upon enactment, as the amendment states

  1153
  perfectly straightforwardly, at the end of the Session of Parliament in which the Act is passed—assuming that we are operating on this year's time scale, it would be at the end of October in the hiatus before the state opening—the names of hereditary peers would be entered on the electoral register to entitle them to vote in elections to the House of Commons thereafter.
  One has to say, and I think my hon. Friend has said it, that the only potential problem might be the Weatherill amendment. The Government have told us not just once but repeatedly that we are not allowed to second-guess the Weatherill amendment. It is apparently a non-event. We have to assume that it will never happen. It is just one of those possibilities—a twinkle in the corner of the right hon. Lady's eye, but nothing more than that. If that is the case, being logical—I hope that I am being logical in applying a legal mind to the matter—amendment No. 22 must be correct.
  It can hardly be surprising that when we are told by the Government that our amendment is not necessary because they prefer to make the provision under their powers to make statutory instruments, we ask why.
  Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in the amendment, but I wonder whether there might not be a problem with it. There are certain categories of people who are excluded from privilege of voting, including people with certain mental conditions and people in jail. Amendment No. 22 would have the no doubt inadvertent effect of repealing those requirements so that hereditary peers, albeit criminals languishing in jail or people suffering from a mental condition, would be empowered to vote. I do not think that that would be sensible.
  Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I can see that the amendment might produce that mischief, but the way to correct it is for the Leader of the House to say, "We accept the thrust of the amendment and on Report we will introduce an amendment of our own to do exactly that." All that she would need to add would be "subject to the normal disqualifications" or some other phrase that the genius of the legal draftsmen would have little difficulty in providing. While I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point, therefore, it does not deal with the reason why the provision has to be made by ministerial decree.
  Mr. Letwin: I want to put it on the record that what we heard from the right hon. Gentleman was absolutely fair cop; that we have made an error; and that the remedy is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are, after all, the Opposition, and we do not have all the facilities that the Government have for drafting legislation or amendments. One of the purposes of the Committee is to enable us to suggest ideas that might be good. In this context, we think that the amendment is a very good idea. So why are we not to be allowed to have it? I do not understand why the right hon. Lady has already hinted that we shall be denied it.
  Surely a central approach to all legislation is that we should at all times endeavour to deal with matters by primary legislation. Only if there is some compelling reason why they should be dealt with by statutory
  1154
  instrument should we so deal with them. Heaven knows, I am a member of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. One only has to see the wretched burden that is foisted on our shoulders on a weekly basis, often poorly drafted because it has been badly scrutinised, to know that it is much better if properly drafted primary legislation is introduced. On that basis, I commend amendment No. 22 to the House because it is a most desirable amendment. I shall need a lot of persuading by the Leader of the House that we should approach the matter in some other way.
  The other thing that the Government cannot get away from is that in some way a sword of Damocles is being held over the other place. I accept that the Leader of the House will say, "No, of course there is not; that is ridiculous." However, when we see something left to the discretion of a Minister which should not be, because it affects the constitutional rights of Members of the other place who will be deprived of their constitutional rights, it behoves us to spell it out in black and white that, on losing the right to represent themselves in the other place, they will acquire a straightforward right to vote in elections for Members of the House of Commons. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the right hon. Lady will tell us that she is willing to think again on that point; I cannot see any legitimate reason why she should do otherwise.
  8.30 pm
  I do not intend to take up the Committee's time on the other amendments, other than to say a word about amendment No. 32, which is extremely short. Although it would only leave out the word "such" in line 17, it is one of those small amendments that has a compelling purpose. Clause 4 provides that:
  "The Secretary of State may … make such transitional provision about the entitlement of holders of hereditary peerages to vote at elections",
  but surely that should read "transitional provision", not "such transitional provision". Why is the word "such" there? The only possible purpose for its being there—at this stage, conspiracy theories begin to surface in my mind—is to limit in some way the entitlement of the Leader of the House in making that transitional provision. The clause should deal with a transitional provision and no more than that. I await with great interest to hear why that word is there.
  From past experience of serving on Committees—not necessarily in the Chamber, but upstairs as well—it strikes me as extraordinary how all sorts of funny words creep into legislation, when there is absolutely no reason why they should appear. I remember that in the case of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, we had foisted on us a provision forbidding the playing of "musical or other instruments", which raised strange ideas in my mind as to what other instruments might be played in a public procession.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Drums.
  Mr. Grieve: I think that a drum would probably qualify as a musical instrument, but I shall not be diverted from my main purpose, which is to try to ensure that the Bill before us is comprehensible and straightforward.
  The main issue remains that we should proceed by way of primary legislation unless there is a good reason not to do so. There is no good reason in this case. It is well

  1155
  within the wit of the House of Commons to provide in the Bill for the rights that hereditary peers will be entitled to when they cease to have the right to represent themselves in the upper House.
  Mr. Swayne: The issue before us is one for which I have a great deal of enthusiasm. The matter has been thoroughly dealt with by my hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), so I shall not detain the Committee by repeating what they said. However, I shall say that the issue is of monumental importance, for it is the question of the way in which we are governed. It is for that reason that I sought election to Parliament.
  This country is being deluged and wrecked by poorly drafted and poorly thought through secondary legislation—some 2,300 such instruments every year, almost 20 for every parliamentary sitting day. From having sat on various Committees, we all know the level of scrutiny that it is possible to give those instruments. It is a nonsense, given that we have in the House an effective and well-oiled machine for passing primary legislation. We should therefore confine ourselves, in so far as it is possible, to enacting primary legislation. Of course, it would give us far less time to deal with such legislation if all the consequent detail of those enabling measures had to be dealt with in each Bill. We would have less law, but that would be to our great benefit because we are over-governed.
  It is a matter of great regret that the dreadful principle of enabling legislation, which so pollutes our polity, is now, through this Bill, to be brought to the very heart of our constitution. That a constitutional Bill should contain order-making powers—Henry VIII clauses—is deeply regrettable and offensive. For that reason, I have great enthusiasm for the amendments, especially amendment No. 22. The Committee's attention has already been drawn to the specific respect in which the amendment is defective, but there is a speedy remedy available, and I hope that the Leader of the House will indicate that it is her intention to deal with it, or at least to give good and plausible reasons why she will not do so.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Have we not had an illustration this evening of how scrutiny can work in this House? In searching out the defect in our amendment, it might not have been the sole intention of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) to illustrate the value of having a proper debate in Committee, but in so doing he has applied proper scrutiny to the amendment. However, we are being denied the opportunity to scrutinise the Government's detailed proposals.
  Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has done the Committee and, indeed, Parliament, a singular service by drawing to our attention the importance of such scrutiny. After all, that is what Committee stage is for.
  Throughout the Committee stage, we are constrained by the opacity of the real agenda behind the Bill and by the monstrous notion that everything is to be changed by an alleged amendment that might or might not be moved in another place. An almost identical amendment,
  1156
  tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), has already been rejected by the Committee, so it strikes me as absurd that our subsequent debate has been constrained by that hypothetical future amendment.
  Mr. Letwin: Although the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has done us a real service, since acknowledging to him that his was a fair cop, we have had an opportunity to reflect further and we are no longer quite so convinced that amendment No. 22, as drafted, would override the existing provisions. It might be a matter of intention. I hope that either my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) or the Leader of the House will enlighten us on that point.
  Mr. Swayne: With respect, that is what the Leader of the House is for, in her capacity as occupant of the Treasury Bench during this debate. I hope that she will take the opportunity at least to say that she will consider the amendment and that a similar or identical amendment will be tabled on Report. I have noticed that, during these debates, the right hon. Lady has a habit of moving her lips silently, denying the Committee the benefit of hearing her words.
  Mrs. Beckett: Be grateful.
  Mr. Swayne: Perhaps we should be. On that, I shall conclude my remarks, so that we may hear what the right hon. Lady has to say all the sooner.
  Mr. Forth: Here we go again—I think that that is the appropriate phrase to use at this point in our proceedings. I shall resist the temptation to refer to the fact that we are considering clause 4, as that would probably be inappropriate at this stage. That thought crossed my mind when the Leader of the House intervened earlier effectively to say, "Trust me". That is a touching request, but one that I find rather easy to resist. We cannot proceed on that sort of basis in an area this important and this uncertain.
  The amendments are important because they highlight an extraordinary part of the Bill. Before I commence my brief analysis of clause 4, subsections (3) and (4), I must make it clear that when we are operating in an environment of such uncertainty, it is perhaps inevitable that the Government should want to build a degree of flexibility into the Bill. For that reason, the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) have not yet persuaded me totally. He seeks a clean, simple solution, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). However, I think that there must be some flexibility in legislation of this kind, especially given its background.
  As we have often said, we do not know what stage 1 will be or how long it will last. We do not know what might happen to the Bill in another place. No matter how much my hon. Friend would like to see it, it may be a little unrealistic to seek to nail down the Bill at this stage.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is bad for an Act to contain bad provisions on the ground that one bad feature necessitates another? Surely the remedy lies in improving the first bad provision.
  Mr. Forth: Of course that is so—if we enjoyed the certainty and predictability of knowing where we were

  1157
  going and where we would end up. Everyone would like to know that. Unfortunately, we are not in that position. This Bill must be considered in light of the fact that we do not know what lies beyond it or where it is taking us. Nevertheless, I am prepared to concede—as I am in a generous mood, which, uncharacteristically, is not shared by my hon. Friends—that a degree of flexibility is required at this stage. However, I then turn to the provisions of clause 4—which are the subject of the amendments before us—
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, but I do not follow the logic of his argument. He said that there may be changes later in another place—I fully accept that point, which has been discussed at some length. However, there is surely no reason why the Government should not introduce a contingent amendment that would bring the Bill back into order. I cannot see any reason not to correct the Bill today.
  Mr. Forth: That is an interesting and rather persuasive argument. If we were to do what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has suggested, the Bill would become more certain and predictable in the context of our current knowledge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) points out, it would be possible for the Government to return to the Bill during subsequent legislative stages, and, in light of the knowledge that pertained then, introduce changes to make it more relevant. My hon. Friend is correct in his analysis, which may ultimately persuade me to support the amendment.
  I draw the attention of the Committee and my hon. Friends to clause 4(3), which contains a succession of phrases that should alert all hon. Members and make them feel uneasy and nervous. The clause states that our old friend the Secretary of State
  may by order make such transitional provision … as he considers appropriate."
  That is a double dose of the sort of uncertainty and unlimited powers that we have learned to feel nervous about. That is bad enough, but clause 4(4) says that an order
  "may modify the effect of enactment or any provision made under an enactment".
  That is about as broad as it gets. The clause gives the Secretary of State total flexibility, which would apparently enable him to do whatever he thought appropriate at the time. It sets no limitations and gives no direction or guidance. Therefore, it provides no certainty, no guarantees and no encouragement as to what might happen. The provision is completely open-ended.
  If we combine that with the legislation's existing provisions, it strengthens one's feeling of unease. We are now entitled to be thoroughly suspicious of what has prompted the Government to include those sorts of provisions in the Bill and what they think might or might not happen or might go wrong in the future. That is worrying at this stage.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given that there is an element on the Labour Benches who believe in class warfare, is not my right hon. Friend alive to the risk that the Government could modify the arrangements to
  1158
  discriminate between one class of hereditary peer and another? For example, they might discriminate against viscounts or dukes and make alternative arrangements for mere barons.
  Mr. Forth: I suppose that that is possible. Normally, I should have said that it is unlikely, but as my hon. Friend has pointed out, such is the dislike—that is a moderate word in this case—of the hereditary peers on the Government Benches that one might believe that any such action is possible. The provision not only gives no protection against such action, it would positively allow it. We should, at the very least, seek reassurances about that from the Leader of the House when she replies to the debate.
  As if things were not bad enough, clause 4(4)(b) refers to
  "a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out a moment ago, when one allows for orders to be made by statutory instruments—a procedure with which we are familiar—no amendment may be made. Under that provision, a measure comes before the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
  Mr. Letwin: My right hon. Friend may be aware that tonight the House will be asked to nod through a statutory instrument that contains an egregious flaw precisely because it could not be amended in Committee.
  Mr. Forth: I am aware of the motions on the Order Paper. We shall be asked to approve those and I hope that the House will be aware of difficulties in that provision and take a view on that matter. My hon. Friend's point illustrates very well the difficulty in which we may find ourselves with the Bill. Clause 4 contains a succession of phrases such as "may by order", "as he considers appropriate", and
  "may modify the effect of any enactment",
  leading, finally, to
  "shall be made by statutory instrument",
  so that the only protection left in the Bill is that the House can take or leave any measures that are proposed.
  That is no protection at all because, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has just pointed out—I know that he feels strongly about this and is knowledgeable about the subject—we have on today's Order Paper a measure that has gone through the very process outlined in the Bill, and which is defective, yet the House can only accept or reject it. That is not good enough. I do not like to criticise the procedures of this place, above all places, but I regret to say that it is a flaw in our procedures. That will be compounded by the provision in clause 4(4)(b).
  Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a great deal of difficulty. I am now persuaded, largely thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West, that the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, which I judged too quickly and too harshly earlier, would make an appropriate alteration to the Bill at this stage. However, I think that my hon. Friend and I would agree that if the amendment were subsequently overtaken by events of which we now know little or nothing, we would accept that the Government

  1159
  would want to reconsider the provision and make further changes. That, in itself, would hardly be a satisfactory approach because amendments may be made in another place and the Bill may return here in a completely different form, in which case all our deliberations, which we are taking very seriously, would be as nothing. That is hardly a satisfactory state of affairs, but it is regrettably the position in which we find ourselves. I am persuaded—in fact, I have persuaded myself during my brief contribution—that I should support the amendment, but with the reservations that I have outlined. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us more reassurance than we have had so far so that we may proceed in a more orderly way.
  Mr. Maclennan: I have listened to the debate with interest and not without sympathy because, on the face of it, clause 4 does appear to be a Henry VIII clause. Naturally, I am rather unhappy to see that in a Bill of such importance. However, there are some difficulties with the amendments and new clauses. I alluded tentatively to a couple that sprang to mind, but I see some others.
  One problem is the age of majority for voting purposes. Amendment No. 22 appears to waive the requirement to have attained the age of majority. It may be thought that the peculiar abilities of the hereditary peers mean that that is not of great significance. After all, this House has in the past provided a special distinction for women. Before the flapper vote was introduced, women were not allowed to vote under the age of 30, so the courts might take the view that Parliament had intended peers to be able to vote at any age.
  Mr. Grieve: I am absolutely fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Even if it were true that the proposal would not be open to judicial interpretation by taking into consideration the restrictions that exist for ordinary mortals, simply adding an extra sentence saying that the provision was subject to the relevant clauses of the Representation of the People Acts would solve the whole problem, would it not?
  Mr. Maclennan: Well, yes, but that is the point—so many further matters have to be taken into account that it might be better to proceed by way of subordinate legislation and spell out what has to be considered.
  Amendment No. 22 states:
  "Holders of hereditary peerages shall be entered on to the electoral register".
  That imposes a duty, but it is not specified on whom. It also puts peers in a rather peculiar category.
  Ordinary mortals are entitled to vote only once they appear on the electoral register, having complied with the registration process by submitting a form that they have filled in, showing where they live and that sort of thing. The amendment involves a duty, but it is not specific; nor is it placed on a specific person. Although the intention behind the proposal is meritorious, the method proposed is defective. However, I look forward with great interest to hearing why the Government are proceeding as they are, and I do not want to postpone that enjoyment any longer.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has certainly enjoyed himself this evening. He referred earlier to having a frolic. We do not usually associate him with frolics, but he certainly disported himself with oratorical eloquence. However, this is a serious amendment, and I urge the Leader of the House to treat it seriously.
  For the purpose of this argument, I urge hon. Members to accept that the Government are saying that the House of Lords has to be reformed because its legitimacy is defective. That is the premise on which the Bill is based. If we accept that, it is most extraordinary that a Bill of this nature should have at its heart a Henry VIII clause. There is no more illegitimate device—I am delighted that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is nodding—than the Henry VIII clause, which gives a Secretary of State draconian powers. If the Government are trying to claim that, by this Bill, they are improving our constitutional and parliamentary system, why in the name of goodness do they put a Henry VIII clause at the centre—especially when there is no justification for such a clause?
  We are not dealing with emergency legislation. We all accept that, on occasions, the House must, with great reluctance, give a Secretary of State wide and sweeping powers. We have done so, from time to time, in connection with Northern Ireland and other emergencies. I always find that a difficult pill to swallow, but I can sometimes accept that the national interest demands that I do so. That is not so in this case. The Leader of the House will have to put up a very good defence if she is to persuade us that it is.
  I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who moved the amendment so eloquently. He said that he had always had grave misgivings about Henry VIII clauses. He has not had the good fortune to be in the House for very long, and we have not had the good fortune to benefit from his sage counsel and wise advice for very long. Some of us who have been hon. Members for a long time have rebelled against such clauses, even when introduced by our own parties. I cannot for the life of me see the justification for such a clause. Perhaps the Leader of the House will say that it is to enable writs of acceleration to be given, so that peers may be put on the electoral register very quickly, but that is not a substantial argument.
  The interesting and somewhat mischievous point raised by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross does not hold water. He argued that, in effect, we would be giving the franchise to legions of lunatic, criminal or infant peers, who would swamp the electoral register, destroying at a stroke—or, perhaps, three strokes—the principles on which it is based. He knows, and I know, that that is arrant nonsense. If, at the time of enactment, a noble lord happens to be languishing at Her Majesty's pleasure—that has happened before; the Leader of the House must not become too hoity-toity about it—is anybody seriously suggesting that that criminal lord, or perhaps somebody detained elsewhere in a straitjacket, would immediately have the franchise conferred on him, and that the removal of one disqualification would automatically lead to the removal of another? Of course it would not.
  Even if the Leader of the House, who is renowned for her desire to play safe on all occasions, thought that such a contingency posed a risk, all she would have to do is

  1161
  add to the amendment words similar to those suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—"subject to the Representation of the People Act", and so on. None the less, that is not a particularly valid argument. It was an Aunt Sally, suggested with mischievous eloquence and elegance by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.
  If, by any chance, the Leader of the House is not minded to accept amendment No. 22—I believe and hope that she is, because it does not detract one iota from the purport or intention of the Government's Bill—I draw her attention to amendment No. 7. That amendment does at least mean that we have some safeguards. It states:
  "No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
  That is something of a safeguard. I hope that the Leader of the House will accept that it is valid.
  We seek to ensure that wide-ranging and unnecessary powers are not bestowed on the Secretary of State—the emphasis is on the word "unnecessary"—that there is a strict limitation on precisely what the Bill does, and that that is clear and unambiguous. After all, that should be the aim of legislation. It should be understandable to all those to whom it applies. Some of the snide comments by Labour Members about hereditary peers show that some extra comprehensibility should commend itself to them.
  9 pm
  Mrs. Beckett: At the outset of the debate, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that nothing on aims divided us and that it was a matter merely of how the aims that we shared were given effect. For once, he and I are wholeheartedly in agreement.
  The hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on another matter. He kindly said that he was positive that the Government were acting in good faith. I return the compliment. I am sure that the Opposition are also acting in good faith in feeling that their amendments will improve the Bill. However, the suspicion—which is perfectly natural; I would never attack an Opposition for being suspicious of a Government's motives—with which he has viewed what the Government are doing, as well as his initial confidence in the drafting of the Opposition amendments, is misplaced.
  I do not deride the hon. Gentleman for that. We have all had experience in the House of tabling an amendment, feeling confident that it was impeccably drafted and that we had foreseen all its implications, only to discover on wiser advice that that was not quite the case. We are all trying to get to the right outcome. That is a good basis on which to begin the debate.
  The amendment of the hon. Member for West Dorset is intended—his remarks confirmed it—to ensure that, after the passage of the Bill, those who lose their right to sit in the House of Lords have equal treatment with other citizens. The amendment also explores the Government's intention and seeks to put that intention, as he understood it, correctly in the Bill.
  I have no quarrel with the intention that lies behind the amendment—that the House should clearly understand what the Government are seeking to do. As I say, we all know that it is not easy to draft amendments that have
  1162
  exactly the effect that one desires, but I hope that I can reassure Conservative Members that the Government are genuinely seeking to do what those Members want, and that the Opposition could even withdraw their amendments.
  The underlying aim of the method that the Government have chosen to give hereditary peers the same voting rights as any other citizen is to maintain the maximum amount of flexibility. That is so that nothing in the Bill inadvertently delays or impedes the granting of those rights. The last thing that the Government want is that, by trying to draft the legislation in just the right way and by placing everything in the Bill, we hold up people's right to vote or, indeed, to be candidates for election to this place. No one on either side of the Committee wishes that to happen.
  Hon. Members have put great stress on amendment No. 22. It would give someone the right to be added to the electoral register. The first part of the amendment would add hereditary peers, deprived of the right to sit in the House of Lords, to, for example, the register that would run, if the Bill were to be passed at the end of the Session, from now until February 2000. It would not add them to any subsequent register. I presume that that is the aim of the second part of the amendment. That, unfortunately, as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) wisely observed, has the inadvertent effect of also enfranchising an hereditary peer who would normally be barred on other grounds of a general application, such as age, incapacity or imprisonment or being a life peer.
  It is to avoid listing grounds for disqualification and all the other territory that would be involved in getting the proposal exactly right that the Government took the path that is reflected in clause 2. I say openly to Opposition Members that we considered putting something like the amendment in the Bill. It was only the process of exploring the necessary detail so that we could be absolutely confident of getting the procedure right that persuaded the Government that it might be wiser to take the course that we are now pursuing.
  Amendment No. 32 paves the way for amendment No. 33, which I fear is also defective. The power that it cites relates to clause 2, but it is not a power to give effect to the clause. I am advised that, in consequence, it would be an impediment to implementing the clause, which I am sure was not intended.
  Amendment No. 34 raises the separate issue of European elections. I think that the hon. Member for West Dorset was slightly suspicious because he could not immediately see any reason why a reference to the European Parliament should be needed. He said correctly that, at present, hereditary peers have a right to vote in European elections because their disqualification relates only to voting for the Westminster Parliament, of which at present they are Members in perpetuity. It rests on that basis.
  However, the reference to the European Parliament in clause 4 is intended to assist those hereditary peers who are resident overseas and to put them on exactly the same basis as any other citizens who are resident overseas, who enjoy rights to vote in European parliamentary elections on the basis of their right to vote in Westminster elections. It would be possible to address the issue by other means, but that would be more administratively tedious. It would

  1163
  duplicate another procedure and cause greater difficulties for the group involved. I repeat, we are anxious to ensure that everyone who ceases to sit as an hereditary peer has the same rights as any other citizen who is in the same circumstances. As it happens, the amendment would prevent a simple method of securing equal treatment from being implemented.
  Finally, we come to amendment No. 7. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) correctly says that the amendment does not propose to change the Government's procedures as identified, but proposes an affirmative rather than a negative procedure in respect of the power to make the necessary provisions. Again, that is not the end of the world.
  The Government have gone for the negative procedure to be helpful. We wish to provide maximum flexibility to give effect to these rights at the earliest possible date after Royal Assent. Hon. Members will be aware that the affirmative procedure requires an instrument to be laid while the House of Commons is sitting. None of us can predict precisely the circumstances in which all this procedure may come into effect. For example, so as to include hereditary peers in a register being prepared in, say, November, it might be to the benefit of sensible administrative practice and to the individuals involved for such an order to be made between the end of one Session and the beginning of another. That might get individuals on to the electoral register in the simplest and speediest way, in a way that might not be possible if the House of Commons happened not to be sitting.
  The Government's overall approach has been taken in a wish genuinely to be helpful. This is all on the record so that right hon. and hon. Members can turn to it should they in any way be concerned that things are not working out as we hope they will. However, the power is tightly defined. There are only a limited number of ways in which it can be exercised. The fact that we are talking of a transitional power might have been overlooked. Although I understand, of course, all the anxieties about Henry VIII powers, attacks on those powers are usually based on the fear that rights will be taken away. In this case, we are proposing a transitional power which will not remove, but add to, people's rights.
  The power has been described in the debate as completely open-ended, but it is not. It is a transitional power to deal with a transitional situation. I say, with great respect, that our short debate, to which hon. Members have brought ingenuity and skill, has admirably illustrated the nature and scale of the problems with which the Government were trying to deal—by retaining maximum flexibility in dealing with the matter in secondary legislation.
  I assure the Committee that the only reason for the proposals and for the way in which they have been made is to create the maximum opportunity to deal with the proper concern that no one who might be removed from the House of Lords should lack the normal right of any citizen to participate in elections to this place or, should they wish to stand for election to this place, be excluded from doing so for any longer than absolutely necessary.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Lady made a conciliatory speech, and said that she appreciated the
  1164
  sincerity, good faith and all the rest of it that lay behind the amendments. Although we are grateful for that, her argument did not sway us. It was not a powerful argument. We are considering a Bill that is paving the way for major constitutional change. There is no guarantee of how long the new House will last, or of whether it will become a permanent House or a semi-permanent House or be swept away within a year or two; we do not know. I shall not and I cannot—as I would be ruled out of order—seek to rehearse those arguments again in the debate on this group of amendments.
  We are considering a major constitutional change, and the Government are taking draconian powers to themselves. I should have thought that the right hon. Lady would instinctively be against Henry VIII clauses. It is really not the way to legislate. The Government are taking more power for the Executive, and taking power away from the House.
  I held out to the right hon. Lady the olive branch of amendment No. 7. I asked her whether, if the Government could not accept amendment No. 22, which we wanted them to accept, they could at least accept amendment No. 7. Had they done so, as an earnest of their good faith, we should have been moderately content. We would at least have been encouraged and have felt that they were moving in the right direction.
  Mrs. Beckett: I tell the hon. Gentleman, very gently, that I realise that he is making a point of principle. However, we are seeking to enfranchise people—most whom will be Conservative supporters—at the earliest possible date. If he were fortunate in persuading the Committee to support the amendment, it is not the Government who would lose out.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It is not only the road to hell that is paved with good intentions. Although I accept, again for the purpose of this argument, the Government's good intentions, I believe that good intentions do not justify bad practice. The Opposition believe that Henry VIII clauses are bad legislative practice and should be resisted whenever they are inserted in legislation. We believe that it is wrong that there should be so much secondary legislation. We believe that it is wrong that so many things should be subject to negative rather than affirmative resolution.
  For all those reasons, although I accept the right hon. Lady's good intentions, I urge the Committee to resist the Government's bad practice and to vote for the amendments.
  Mr. Swayne: The right hon. Lady's remarks were deeply depressing, not least because she is the Leader of the whole House. Hon. Members complain continually that the Press Gallery is empty and that the House is held largely in contempt by much of the population. The reason is that the House has given away to the Executive many of its powers to make law. What is said and done in the Chamber is of little importance. It is deeply regrettable that the deluge of secondary legislation, which is swamping our body politic, should be extended to the making of our constitution.
  Question put, That the amendment be made: —
  The Committee divided: Ayes 125, Noes 315.

  Division No. 86]

  [9.15 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Leigh, Edward

  Baldry, Tony

  Letwin, Oliver

  Beggs, Roy

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bercow, John

  Lidington, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brady, Graham

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Butterfill, John

  Maples, John

  Cash, William

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chope, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Norman, Archie

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paterson, Owen

  Cran, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Prior, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Duncan, Alan

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Ruffley, David

  Evans, Nigel

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Fallon, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Flight, Howard

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spring, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Steen, Anthony

  Gale, Roger

  Streeter, Gary

  Garnier, Edward

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gibb, Nick

  Syms, Robert

  Gill, Christopher

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Green, Damian

  Townend, John

  Greenway, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Walter, Robert

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Wardle, Charles

  Hammond, Philip

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hawkins, Nick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Wilkinson, John

  Horam, John

  Willetts, David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Hunter, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Sir David Madel.

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Key, Robert

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Ainger, Nick

  Austin, John

  Allen, Graham

  Barnes, Harry

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Barron, Kevin

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Battle, John

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bayley, Hugh

  1166

  Beard, Nigel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ennis, Jeff

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Fisher, Mark

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Flint, Caroline

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Flynn, Paul

  Benton, Joe

  Follett, Barbara

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foulkes, George

  Blizzard, Bob

  Galloway, George

  Boateng, Paul

  Gapes, Mike

  Borrow, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brake, Tom

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Goggins, Paul

  Browne, Desmond

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burden, Richard

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burnett, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Grogan, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hanson, David

  Casale, Roger

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Caton, Martin

  Harvey, Nick

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hill, Keith

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cotter, Brian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Crausby, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Kidney, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Laxton, Bob

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lepper, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Efford, Clive

  Levitt, Tom

  1167

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rogers, Allan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rooney, Terry

  Lock, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Love, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruane, Chris

  McCabe, Steve

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Salter, Martin

  McDonnell, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sheerman, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNulty, Tony

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  MacShane, Denis

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Singh, Marsha

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meale, Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Soley, Clive

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moore, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stringer, Graham

  Oaten, Mark

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wallace, James

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watts, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Radice, Giles

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rammell, Bill

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rapson, Syd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  1168

  Willis, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wills, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Woolas, Phil

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

  INTERPRETATION AND SHORT TITLE
  9.30 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 2, line 4, after 'peerage', insert—
  'means members of the peerages of Scotland, England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom other than those created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 or the Life Peerages Act 1958, and '.
  The amendment is simple and clear. We tabled it for one reason only: in the Bill, the whole aim of which is to remove the voting and sitting rights of hereditary peers, there is no adequate definition of what an hereditary peer is. In their desire to produce the shortest Bill possible, the Government have cut every corner in sight. I hope that they will be able to accept the amendment without hesitation, to allow the Committee to move on to the more substantive new clauses. If there is some technical deficiency, I hope that the Minister will point it out and promise to remedy it and table a Government amendment. It is nonsense that in a Bill dealing with the hereditary peerage there should be no adequate definition of that phrase.
  Mr. Forth: On reading the amendment and the Peerage Act 1963, the question arises my mind whether reference should be made in the Bill to peeresses in their own right, as in that Act, which takes care to make reference also to Scottish and Irish peerages, and whether there might be a problem if no such reference is made. We have to be careful to cover all the possibilities.
  When I take visitors into the Lobby of the Lords, I always draw attention to the quaint notice that goes through all the categories of peers, mentioning peeresses in their own right. That important category should not be excluded.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Surely the word "hereditary" means any title inherited, whether the inheritor is male or female.
  Mr. Forth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, and I am almost reassured by what he says. I will be fully reassured when the Minister tells me that my anxiety is completely unfounded.
  Mr. Hoon: Notwithstanding the eloquence of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), I shall have to disappoint him yet again.
  There is no doubt what is meant by the phrase "hereditary peerage". We do not anticipate that it will lead to legal proceedings, challenging what is perfectly straightforward English, and there is no need for any further definition. There is no ambiguity. The problem

  1169
  with the amendment, certainly as drafted, is that it attempts to define hereditary peerage negatively, by reference to what it is not, and that is no greater help to a precise definition than what is contained in the Bill. The Bill has the merit of being in plain English. It is clear to everyone what is meant by hereditary peerage and to introduce such an amendment would produce the ambiguity and difficulty that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to avoid.
  Mr. Grieve: I seek clarification on the position of that small category, hereditary peers of the first creation who hold peerages that may pass down by right of heredity. What is their precise status? They are peers, not by hereditary right but through having been created peers themselves. It is only for their successors that the hereditary right exists. How does that square with the definition of hereditary peers in the Bill?
  Mr. Hoon: It is not necessary to go into the definition to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, because those peers are clearly hereditary peers. The peers of first creation have been told that they will have the opportunity, should they be interested, in taking a life peerage to put them into the same position as other members of the life peerage with the ability to participate in proceedings in the other place. That is an elegant solution to the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises.
  I was about to say that I recommend to the Committee that it reject the amendment.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: We are not absolutely persuaded by the Minister's reply, but the Committee has other business to move to. In the light of the Minister's reply, we shall have further discussions and a similar amendment may be tabled in the other place. However, for the purposes of this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 9

  SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BOARD
  '(1) The Secretary of State shall ask the Senior Salaries Review Board:

  (a) to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords; and

  (b) to detail the costs of their recommendations.

  (2) The Secretary of State shall lay the final report of the Senior Salaries Review Board before each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Evans.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Evans: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in title, line 2, after 'about', insert
  'the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords and'.
  Mr. Evans: I am delighted to move new clause 9, although I fear not as eloquently as my hon. Friend the
  1170
  Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) would. I shall give it my best shot. The new clause deals with pay and salaries, which are a vital issue. We have in mind the interim House of Lords and, dare I say it, the second stage, should it ever materialise—perhaps in my dreams rather than in reality. Even if we do not get to stage 2, we should consider how we treat those who will sit in the transitional House, what sort of work we need them to do and whether we intend to give them the full support that they need. It is not worth while delaying this discussion until we get to stage 2.
  The debate is long overdue. We have only to consider the work of those who sit in the House of Lords to appreciate the conditions under which they work and the pay—I use the term loosely—that many of them receive. Much has been said about the peers, especially the hereditary peers, in Committee and during the debates we had on the White Paper. I exclude the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office from this accusation, but other hon. Members have been rather dismissive of the contribution of the hereditary peers. It is a shame that some of them, especially the newer Members, have not taken the opportunity to go down the Corridor and listened to some of the debates in the second Chamber. Most people who know anything about the House of Lords speak highly of the debates held there and the high level of contributions made by many peers who are expert in their fields. We should be grateful for the service that both hereditary and life peers have given over many years, not only in the Chamber, but in the Select Committees.
  I went to the other place briefly today where I spoke to one peer about the conditions in which they work. Seven peers were crammed into the same room, and I asked whether each of them had a desk. He chuckled, and said that when they were elevated to the peerage they could put down their names for a locker. Many peers are still on the waiting list even for a locker, never mind a desk or the use of a lap top computer, although some of them do use those. The conditions in which they work are extremely primitive, and we should reconsider them, irrespective of any changes that take place.
  To see the value of the House of Lords, we need only consider its cost in comparison with the cost of the House of Commons and the European Parliament. Research shows that the House of Lords costs £39 million, and the cost per member is £37,000. For the House of Commons, the cost is £241 million, which is £366,000 for each Member. The European Parliament—a great institution that stands alongside the Millennium dome in my mind—costs £607 million, which makes £948,000 a Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap at the price."] I am not sure whether the MEPs get it all themselves, although I suspect that somehow or other they do.
  Those figures prove the great value that we get from the House of Lords. We get it on the cheap, but we should not do so.
  Dr. George Turner: Can the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on how recently the conditions have become so dreadful in the other place? Why is there a sudden urgency for improvement that did not exist for a long period—18 years, perhaps? Is it just coincidence that the matter is being debated now, or has something happened since this Parliament began to change conditions there?
  Mr. Evans: It was never a priority for the previous Government, and I should apologise for the fact that we

  1171
  did not get round to change during the 18 years of Conservative Government or the five years during which I was a Member under that Government. During those five years, I would rather have considered the salary and conditions of the House of Lords than many of the pieces of legislation that were debated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name one."] Do not tempt me.
  It is appropriate to bring pay and conditions up to date while we are discussing the House of Lords Bill. No one can dispute the fact that we cannot carry on expecting the other place to do an increasing amount of work in the new quangocracy in the reconstructed transitional House—and in the second stage—without paying its Members sufficiently well to do their work.
  Mr. Bermingham: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the second Chamber should become a Chamber in which Members attend every day rather than leaving the atmosphere of the second Chamber as it is at present? The House of Lords currently collects the talents of many people whose feet are in the real worlds of industry, trade unions and so on in which they receive adequate compensation as directors, judges and goodness knows what else.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have people of all the talents in the second Chamber, which is different from the method by which we get people into this Chamber. We are denuded here of expertise over a wide field: an examination of the professions of Members of the House of Commons suggests that we have narrowed ourselves to certain professions, perhaps including the profession represented by the hon. Gentleman, which is over-represented compared with the representation of other professions.
  Continuing a second Chamber on a shoe string will restrict membership to a narrow band of people. If we want a wide range of people, we must ensure that they have full support. I do not know whether the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) realises that ordinary Members—I am not talking about the Lord Chancellor—who are not on £150,000 a year get £78 for accommodation if they do not live in London. They get £34.50 for subsistence and £33.50 a day for secretarial assistance. That does not add up to an awful lot of money. If the hon. Gentleman wants the fresh blood that is desperately needed, he cannot expect them to carry on like that.
  Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman forgets the reality of the other place, which contains many people with pensions or secondary incomes—often tertiary incomes. Many are still active in commerce, the law and many other professions. That is why Prime Ministers have been able to appoint such a wide diversity of people, far wider than the diversity here. I recognise that in the 18th or 19th century, this place was talked of as a place of shopkeepers. Perhaps he may know something about that.
  Mr. Evans: There was a time when Members of Parliament were not paid. They had to be drawn from
  1172
  people of a certain background: those who could afford it. We have rightly changed that. We should pay regard to the people in the other place who do not have private incomes and who devote themselves to the second Chamber.
  I have visited the Lords regularly over the past few weeks and it is far more packed with peers listening to and taking part in the debate than ever this Chamber is. This is one of the busiest days that I have seen for a long time; I suspect that hon. Members knew that I would speak. Everyone accepts that current pay and allowances cannot continue. Members of the Lords get an attendance allowance. If they do not attend the Chamber, they do not get paid.
  What sort of Chamber do we want in the interim and second stages? The House of Lords spends 58 per cent. of its time revising legislation, and 38 per cent. of that is scrutiny. The 2,000 amendments a year that go through the other place, and its scrutiny of European Union documents, have been mentioned before. It may not be well known that 1,200 documents are placed in the Lords, a third of which are referred to Sub-Committees for detailed scrutiny. The European Communities Committee is divided into six Sub-Committees. Much scrutiny is rightly given to such EU documents.
  It is not only a question of the business that we do here. We know about the debates that take place in the other place. It is not only the European committees and other Select Committees such as the Science and Technology Committee. There is other vital scrutiny in the debates of the House of Lords. If we want to continue that in the transitional Chamber and in the second stage, we must ensure that its Members get the proper pay and conditions. That must include secretarial assistance, because £33.50 for a secretary is outrageous. How can we expect anyone to pay such money when we are talking about the minimum wage?
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: You did not support the minimum wage.
  Mr. Evans: That is even below the minimum wage.
  It is not appreciated that most peers do not even get free postage.
  Mr. Hoon: They have no constituents.
  Mr. Evans: The Minister must appreciate that for many peers, the United Kingdom is their constituency. People who hear peers taking part in our legislation write to them. They expect replies, and we do not assist them with their postage.
  The Lord Chancellor is on £150,000 a year, and he had to put through his House of Lords postage using his ministerial rank to invite people to the Groucho club for a private function. If he, on £150,000, cannot afford the postage, how do we expect ordinary Back-Bench Members of the House of Lords to pay it?
  There is a serious point in all this. We need to have a look at what is going to happen. When the hereditary peers go, we will expect the life peers to take up that work. If they do not, the work simply will not get done. We need to attract people to attend more regularly. I know that the Prime Minister has talked about expanding the number of life peers. I hope that a great number of them

  1173
  will be Cross-Benchers. We have to make membership of the House of Lords sufficiently attractive to get people to go there.
  Surely we want a second Chamber that will be effective. The White Paper says that the functions of the transitional second Chamber will not be changed. I hope that the Government are not saying as a threat that, unless the House of Lords behaves and is compliant, in stage 2 the Chamber will be denuded of its functions. Surely, in this day and age, when a lot more power has drifted over many years to the Executive, Back-Bench Members from all parties, including the Labour party, want to bring the Executive to account as much as we possibly can and to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised by the other place. For that to happen, there must be sufficient Members of the second Chamber who have proper salaries and allowances to pay staff so that they can do an effective job.
  When the Minister responds to the debate—whether it is tonight or tomorrow—please will he at least give an assurance that the Government will not kick this into the long grass until they consider stage 2? It is a problem that will exist in the transitional House and it needs to be sorted out now to ensure that we have an effective second Chamber, for however long it exists.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall cut out the hon. Gentleman's speech and use it on all those occasions when Conservative councillors attack councillors of other parties for daring to pay for any research or secretarial assistance out of the funds of local authorities that dispose of extremely large budgets. This is an amazing amendment from an amazing source. It is premature to set up a salary system for the interim House. It has, if not an indeterminate membership, a large membership ranging widely between those whom the hon. Gentleman has fairly said do a great deal of work—virtually a full-time or more than full-time job—and those whose attendance is more occasional, or regular, but of limited span each day.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Beith: No, I intend to be very brief. It is a very wide-ranging House and certainly not one to which we could simply apply a salary system. We will have to consider salaries when we create a second Chamber of determinate size. We need to consider a salary system in that context, not as a mechanism for a temporary Chamber which has much of the character of the existing second Chamber, but will simply have the hereditary peers removed from it.
  Mr. Forth: The right hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. I am not sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) covered it too adequately. It relates to inter-related issues that should be dealt with. In fairness to my hon. Friend, his amendment would allow it to be dealt with, but perhaps not necessarily in the way that he outlined. The new clause makes provision for
  "the Senior Salaries Review Board … to review the salaries and expenses paid to members of the House of Lords",
  which must be desirable.
  1174
  I assume that the House of Lords, as it would be were the Bill to become an Act—the interim House, which would contain either no hereditary element, or that hereditary element about which we are not allowed to speak and about which we do not know—would still consist of about 500 Members. So far, so good. However, I also assume—I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley will intervene to clarify this point—that whether or not we are talking about that new House of Lords performing a role similar to that of the existing House of Lords, based on a combination of either—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Forth: Certainly.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are dealing with the House of Lords minus the hereditary peers? The word "interim" does not appear in the Bill at all. Therefore, we are considering a House of Lords that will have substantially fewer Members, because 40 per cent. of those who regularly attend now will no longer be there; consequently, the work load on those who do attend will be enormously greater. That is the reason for tabling the new clause, which was moved so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). I am sure that my right hon. Friend will concede that that is a point of immediate importance.
  Mr. Forth: Yes, of course I accept that. However, it gives rise to several consequential questions which it is important that we recognise at this stage. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley envisage that the Members of that altered upper Chamber will be expected to be full-time rather than part-time? Will the moneys that might be paid to them be based on attendance, or on a contribution beyond mere attendance? I think that we will come later to an amendment that touches on that question, so I do not want to go into it at this stage.
  These are important matters, because we are now beginning to explore how we envisage that the upper House will change in nature or in activity following the removal of some of its most dedicated and active Members. The key question is whether we can believe, or reasonably expect, that with a dramatically reduced number of Members of the sort who have made such a contribution in the past there will still be the sort of quality of scrutiny, debate and deliberation in the upper House that many of us have come to take for granted.
  Mr. Evans: The intention behind the new clause is to enable the SSRB to consider the sort of work that the upper House will do. In this House, those who sit on Select Committees do more work than some hon. Members who do not. It would be up to the SSRB to consider the work of the Members of the House of Lords and to make its recommendations accordingly.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification.
  I believe that my hon. Friend has, rather uncharacteristically, made an omission in his new clause;

  1175
  however, he referred to it in his speech, which makes me doubly curious. It relates to the matter of accommodation. The accommodation available to Members of the other place is not only inadequate, but effectively non-existent. I remember from the time I arrived here in the early 1980s the complaints made about the inadequacy of accommodation for Members of this place, but Members of the other place have far greater reason to complain. So would it not make the new clause more complete, more relevant and more effective if it contained reference to the question of accommodation and asked that the SSRB should consider the matter and assess the extent to which the availability of accommodation was a material element in the ability of the upper House effectively to discharge its responsibility in the way that we expect?
  Just as it is legitimate for us to consider whether we want full-time or part-time Members, we should consider whether payment or reward should be based on contribution or attendance, and whether it will be necessary to persuade—
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 11.

  Division No. 87]

  [10.1 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Allan, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Allen, Graham

  Best, Harold

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Boateng, Paul

  Austin, John

  Borrow, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Battle, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Beard, Nigel

  Burden, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Burgon, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Burnett, John

  Beggs, Roy

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  1176

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chidgey, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Coleman, Iain

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Illsley, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Livingstone, Ken

  Flint, Caroline

  Livsey, Richard

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Follett, Barbara

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lock, David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCabe, Steve

  Galloway, George

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Goggins, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  1177

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Maxton, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

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

  Miller, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moore, Michael

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morley, Elliot

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stott, Roger

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Oaten, Mark

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Olner, Bill

  (Dewsbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pearson, Ian

  Temple-—Morris, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pollard, Kerry

  Trickett, Jon

  Pond, Chris

  Truswell, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tyler, Paul

  Purchase, Ken

  Wallace, James

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Radice, Giles

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rammell, Bill

  Watts, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Webb, Steve

  Raynsford, Nick

  Welsh, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  White, Brian

  Rendel, David

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Willis, Phil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wills, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wood, Mike

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Salter, Martin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. David Hanson.

  NOES

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  1178

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, John

  Mr. Desmond Swayne and

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 11.

  Division No. 88]

  [10.12 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainger, Nick

  Cooper, Yvette

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Corbett, Robin

  Allan, Richard

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cousins, Jim

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cranston, Ross

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Austin, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cummings, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Battle, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Beard, Nigel

  Darvill, Keith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Davidson, Ian

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Benton, Joe

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Best, Harold

  Dismore, Andrew

  Blackman, Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Drew, David

  Borrow, David

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burden, Richard

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burgon, Colin

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fisher, Mark

  Caborn, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flynn, Paul

  Caplin, Ivor

  Follett, Barbara

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Chaytor, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chidgey, David

  Foulkes, George

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coleman, Iain

  Grocott, Bruce

  1179

  Grogan, John

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Gunnell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Maxton, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Meale, Alan

  Harvey, Nick

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Healey, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moore, Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hill, Keith

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mountford, Kali

  Hope, Phil

  Mudie, George

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mullin, Chris

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Oaten, Mark

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Illsley, Eric

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Olner, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jenkins, Brian

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pendry, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Pike, Peter L

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Radice, Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rammell, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lepper, David

  Rendel, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Livingstone, Ken

  Ruane, Chris

  Livsey, Richard

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lock, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Love, Andrew

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sawford, Phil

  McCabe, Steve

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McDonnell, John

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Singh, Marsha

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  1180

  Snape, Peter

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Tyler, Paul

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wallace, James

  Stevenson, George

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Watts, David

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Webb, Steve

  Stott, Roger

  Welsh, Andrew

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  White, Brian

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Willis, Phil

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winnick, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. David Hanson.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

  Randall, John

  Bercow, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Grieve, Dominic

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Mr. Eric Forth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 40.

  Division No. 89]

  [10.24 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Ainger, Nick

  Battle, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe

  Austin, John

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry

  Best, Harold

  1181

  Blackman, Liz

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Blizzard, Bob

  Goggins, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Borrow, David

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Grogan, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gunnell, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Hain, Peter

  Burden, Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Burgon, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Healey, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hesford, Stephen

  Casale, Roger

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Caton, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chaytor, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Clapham, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clelland, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jenkins, Brian

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cousins, Jim (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cummings, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kidney, David

  Darvill, Keith

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davidson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Laxton, Bob

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lepper, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Doran, Frank

  Linton, Martin

  Dowd, Jim

  Livingstone, Ken

  Drew, David

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lock, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Love, Andrew

  Efford, Clive

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McCabe, Steve

  Ennis, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fisher, Mark

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McDonnell, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flynn, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Follett, Barbara

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gapes, Mike

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  1182

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meale, Alan

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stringer, Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pike Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield) W

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Radice, Giles

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Welsh, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, Nick

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wills, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Woolas, Phil

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. David Hanson.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Amess, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Beggs, Roy

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bercow, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Burnett, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Chidgey, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Livsey, Richard

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Moore, Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Oaten, Mark

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Öpik, Lembit

  Harvey, Nick

  Randall, John

  1183

  Rendel, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wallace, James

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Webb, Steve

  Sanders, Adrian

  Willis, Phil

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

  Swayne, Desmond

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Eric Forth and

  Townend, John

  Mr. Gerald Howarth.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 25th February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill]

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
  That the draft Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.—[Mr. Hill.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Cystic Fibrosis
  10.35 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: I am presenting this petition on behalf of the Cystic Fibrosis Research Trust and its supporters, who request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Health to introduce legislation to exempt all adults with cystic fibrosis from prescription charges. The supporters point out that the cost of introducing the proposal would be minimal—less than £100,000 a year. The petition has been signed by 4,500 people.
  The petition
  Declares that people with cystic fibrosis have a chronic medical condition that requires continuous essential medication. It is estimated that the cost of giving free prescriptions to those adults with cystic fibrosis who are currently not so entitled would be minimal, at less than £100,000 per year.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to introduce legislation to exempt all adults with cystic fibrosis from prescription charges.
  And the Petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Spaceguard Project
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.36 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: I have a big problem with asteroids—
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): What?
  Mr. Öpik: Asteroids. And so has the rest of the human race. Unless we do something to stop it, sooner or later an impact with an asteroid or a comet will lead to the end of most life on Earth.
  My grandfather, Ernst Julius Öpik, was a professional astronomer in Estonia and then at the Armagh observatory in Northern Ireland. He specialised in comet and meteorite impacts on other bodies. His work led to an asteroid being named after him by the astronomer Eleanor Helin. I guess that I may have to move to Öpik's asteroid out in space one day if I lose Montgomeryshire for the Liberal Democrats.
  Last year, when NASA stated that an asteroid was coming towards the Earth, I mentioned to a journalist that I hoped that it was not Öpik's asteroid, prompting him to write an article with the headline "MP to Blame for the End of the World". He at least saw the serious side of the debate.
  The impact hazard comes from so-called Earth-crossers. They intersect the Earth's orbit. If we wait long enough, one will certainly hit us. Earth-crossers are leftovers from the early days of the solar system. Think of the solar system as a cosmic building site. When God made the planets, he had a lot of bits left over. When he had finished, he did not sweep them up. They range in size from dust particles to objects hundreds of miles across. They float about in space between the planets, sometimes crashing into them.
  Small crashes happen all the time. Rocks that burn up in the atmosphere without hitting the ground are called meteors or shooting stars. Every shooting star is a tiny bit of space dirt, just a few millimetres or centimetres across, which ends its life in a bright streak as it evaporates in the Earth's atmosphere. For a dust particle, I guess that that is a pretty cool way to go.
  Bigger crashes are not as common. Objects that reach ground level are called meteorites. They range in size from a few kilogrammes to much bigger objects. On 9 October 1992, a 12 kg meteorite fell in Peekskill, New York, punching a hole in the rear end of a car parked in a driveway and coming to rest in a shallow depression beneath it. It went all the way through the car and on to the road. I would love to have seen the driver's insurance claim. Apparently, she sold the car to a museum for a handsome profit.
  Even bigger crashes are less common, but far more explosive. On the evening of 30 June 1908, a small comet-like object exploded in the atmosphere above the Tunguska river valley in Siberia. It had the explosive power of 10 million tonnes of TNT. It flattened trees for 20 km in all directions and killed hundreds of reindeer. If the Tunguska object had entered the atmosphere over Westminster, everything within the M25 would have been destroyed.

  1185
  We can expect two or three such objects to collide with the Earth every century, but it gets really scary when the objects are 500 m in diameter or bigger. An object 1 km wide hitting land would destroy an area the size of Germany, raise enough dust to affect the climate, destroy the ozone layer and freeze crops owing to the darkness of what we often call a nuclear winter. For various reasons, an ocean impact would be even worse: it would create tidal waves called tsunamis on a hemispheric scale, and would kill a large proportion of more complex life forms—including us.
  The explosive effect of an object 1 km wide is about 100,000 million tonnes of TNT. Anything larger than that—wider than 1 or 2 km—is called a global killer. That means that the impact of a 10 km object would wipe out seven of every 10 life forms on Earth. Devastation on such a level is almost beyond comprehension, but we know that it has happened before, and it will definitely happen again.
  How big is the risk? There is plenty of evidence on our doorstep that this is not millennium madness. Every year, about 50,000 tonnes of space rock hit the Earth. In the half-hour of this debate, more than 2.5 tonnes will descend on us from space. The big ones are hanging out there, of course, but most of that is made up of specks of dust and small meteorites.
  In 1930, three meteorites landed in Brazil, causing shock waves which could be felt in La Paz, Bolivia. At midnight on 10 August last year, we nearly lost the cosmic lottery: an asteroid 1.6 km wide passed within six hours of the Earth. In space terms, that is very close. It equates to the Leader of the Opposition standing at the Dispatch Box, throwing a marble at the Prime Minister in a fit of pique, and missing his head by 2 mm. That is a sobering thought.
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: He would have lost his marbles.
  Mr. Öpik: I think it unnecessary to point out that, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition has already lost his marbles.
  Had that giant rock hit the Earth, we would not be here to discuss it. A dust cloud would have enveloped the globe for months, and would have stopped photosynthesis. Plants would have died. The shutdown of world agriculture would have certainly put the talks on the common agricultural policy in the shade!
  The blast would have been followed by a wave—a tsunami—that would have risen to 4 km in shallow coastal waters. The summit of Ben Nevis would have been more than a mile below water. Much of human achievement would have been lost, and survivors would have been left scavenging for life, every day a dark, cold fight for existence.
  The most recent big impact occurred next door. Five years ago, a few visitors dropped in on a neighbour of ours, Jupiter. Fragmented comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 crashed into Jupiter in 20 pieces in one week in July 1994. The impacts produced Earth-sized scars in the Jovian atmosphere. That was an example of what we call "streams"—when a series of objects impact one after the other, in quick succession. With an expectation of one such impact every 1,000 to 2,000 years, the Jovians might have taken a relaxed view of the chance of being hit more
  1186
  than once. In fact, they were hit 20 times in one week. That was bad luck for the Jovians, but a good lesson for us. Of course, no one actually lives on Jupiter, but a lot of people live on Earth.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: By courtesy of the British Geological Survey, I had the good fortune to have dinner, after a lecture that he had given, with the late Eugene Shoemaker, who died tragically in Australia. His considered opinion was that the position merited some action, because it was as dangerous as the hon. Gentleman makes out.
  Mr. Öpik: I know that the hon. Gentleman is very interested in the subject. He is right to draw attention to the extraordinary contribution made by Eugene Shoemaker, who, in the last 10 years, created an atmosphere in which the whole question of asteroid and comet impacts could be taken seriously.
  Here on Earth, the biggest evidence of global killers comes from 65 million years ago. This is a subject that Eugene Shoemaker often discussed. An asteroid 10 km wide fell on Chicxulub in the Yucatan peninsula, in Mexico. It extinguished about 70 per cent. of life on Earth, and wiped out the dinosaurs. On average, such events are expected to occur every 30 million years or so, but, as with buses, you wait for ages and then 20 come along at once—as the Jovians found out.
  There is other evidence. The moon is cratered simply because of such impacts. Interestingly, the moon itself was probably caused by the impact of a Mars-sized object hitting the Earth, with the moon splashing out from our planet about 4,500 million years ago. Our solar system is not peaceful—we are living in a cosmic shooting gallery, where planets and other bodies are still colliding.
  When will the next global killer strike the Earth? The next major impact could be 100,000 years away, or it could be two minutes away. Unfortunately, we do not know where all these things are, so we will be caught by surprise if one of the unexpected, untracked and undetected objects comes our way. We could have as little as 20 seconds warning before being incinerated in the catastrophic aftermath of the impact and explosion. That is not enough time even to say the Lord's prayer.
  Mr. Sanders: Someone will page us.
  Mr. Öpik: My hon. Friend is being optimistic if he thinks that he will be paged by our Chief Whip in such an eventuality.
  Even though the impact represents the greatest environmental danger there is—far greater than an all-out nuclear war—until recently, the subject has been regarded as a joke. When I originally asked about the threats, we contacted the Ministry of Defence, which said that it was really a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The DETR passed us on to the Home Office, which suggested the Department of Trade and Industry.
  In desperation, we asked the Library for advice. Having listened to our asteroid story and heard of the level of devastation that a reasonably large object could cause, there was silence, before the librarian asked whether we had thought about contacting the Archbishop of Canterbury. Impacts are part of science, not religion.

  1187
  They are a part of cosmic life, as well as ours. The new element is that we homo sapiens are the first species on Earth not only to appreciate the dangers, but to be in a position to do something about them. We have the technology to avert this brand of Armageddon.
  Mr. Sanders: Is my hon. Friend familiar with the recent film "Armageddon"? Does he see the solution as being to send Bruce Willis up to the asteroid to drill a big hole and to let off a nuclear weapon which disperses the asteroid? Is that fantasy land, or the kind of preventive measure that we will have to take?
  Mr. Öpik: Following their earlier performance, I suggest that we consider asking for volunteers from the official Opposition for that role. However, if the Minister gives an unsatisfactory response, we might ask him to volunteer. The serious point that my hon. Friend makes is right. Although the science, in places, is a bit shaky in "Armageddon", the concept is spot-on.
  The impacts are part of science, but they are also part of economics. It is surprising that one is twice as likely to be killed by an asteroid impact as in a plane crash, and it is six times more likely that that would happen than dying by tornado. As for beef on the bone, the chances of dying from food poisoning, including BSE, are one in 3 million—100 times less likely than being killed by an asteroid impact. Unfortunately, we cannot ban asteroids. If we could, it would make a far bigger practical difference to public health than the current ban on beef on the bone. That is food for thought for all of us.
  With the odds as they are, by doing nothing about asteroids and comets, we are all taking part in a great cosmic game of roulette. These flying roulette balls have a completely different effect, depending on size. As I have said, the smallest objects are shooting stars, which cause little damage. However, with the 1 km-wide objects, we must do two things—track and divert. We must track them, so we know what is coming towards us, and divert them to avert Armageddon.
  We have the technology to track the objects, but we are tracking only about 10 per cent. of them. We cannot save the world if we see these objects too late. Ideally, we want a few years' notice of a potential impact. We could then nudge them into a modified orbit using rockets or nuclear explosions, as in the films "Armageddon" and "Deep Impact", or we could use a more exotic solution involving solar sails. The nudge need only be small because, in cosmic terms, Earth is a small target—it is easier to miss us than to hit us. A little tap to divert the orbit soon enough will mean that life goes on as the rock flies by.
  There are about 2,000 near-Earth asteroids and possibly a similar number of extinct comets not yet found and not bright enough to be discovered with existing instruments. Objects less than about 10 km across can be diverted in principle, as long as we have years, or perhaps decades, in which to plan. Larger objects, and even the 1 km long-period comets, are harder to deal with because we have less warning, but they constitute only a small part of the threat, or actuarial risk.
  The blockbusters show the way. As the films show, there are a few enlightened people beyond Hollywood who are trying to deal with the problem in a serious
  1188
  fashion. The Spaceguard Foundation is an international organisation which aims to track all large Earth-threatening objects—all the global killers—and its work could be crucial to our future.
  According to NASA, the estimated cost of setting up six telescopes and a global network comes to about £36 million, with roughly £6.25 million a year running costs. That would be spread among various countries, with none paying more than £5 million towards set-up, and perhaps about £500,000 a year running costs. The United Kingdom has important expertise and people who can make a real contribution to the international effort.
  Governments internationally should establish formal recognition of Spaceguard and the United Kingdom should establish a national centre to contribute to the international effort. Armagh observatory is a world-renowned centre of excellence, considered one of the best centres of minor planet astronomy anywhere. It is the right place for our Spaceguard centre to be located, and perhaps the Minister will consider visiting it.
  To set up the centre and the feasibility study group would cost about £4.56 million over 10 years; that is less than £500,000 a year, and would provide an important first step to the larger project. For comparison, that is less than 2 per cent. of the cost of the millennium dome. McDonald's has given £12 million sponsorship to the dome, which is more than the entire cost of UK participation in Spaceguard over 10 years. That is an amazing statistic.
  Impacts of objects of about 1 km across represent a greater cost than £100 million in human life alone. Any insurance company must take seriously the opportunity to detect a danger for £1 million a year to save possibly £99 million a year. It is only because it is unusual to think about the space threat that action has not already been taken.
  Diverting the objects that are heading towards us is more expensive, but I have to believe that if we find something coming towards us the human race will be sufficiently focused to work together to divert what would literally be a global catastrophe.
  In the past, asteroid impacts have had something of a giggle factor. Those talking about them have been seen as cranks. At last, we have a Minister who takes the issue seriously. He has been well advised by his experts to do so. Some hon. Members may have been laughing about it, but one does not see many dinosaurs laughing about it these days.
  One is more likely to die in an asteroid impact than to win the national lottery, unless one does the lottery for 100,000 years, in which case one will probably both win the lottery and die in an asteroid impact, although I suspect that only Glenn Hoddle is in a position to find out.
  I ask the Minister not to commit the Government to massive expenditure, but simply to arrange meetings between his Department and experts such as Professor Mark Bailey, who follows my grandfather in being director of Armagh observatory, Major Tate from Spaceguard UK and many other international partners in the field.
  I am sure that such meetings will underline the importance of serious UK involvement. This is not idle scaremongering. I do not set myself up as Parliament's Nostradamus any more than I set up the Minister as the

  1189
  Government's Bruce Willis, set to save the world from global catastrophe; although one never sees the Minister and Bruce Willis in the same room at the same time.
  The last time a huge asteroid hit the Earth, it wiped out the dinosaurs. We are next in line for extinction. I am sure that new Labour does not want to be responsible for wiping out humanity and allowing the cockroaches to inherit the Earth. We have come too far to let it all end in a searing moment of heat and light and the long dark winter which would follow.
  For once in our history as a species, let us think long term and make a plan to ensure that civilisation can continue to flourish and that life in all its wonderful diverse forms can still inhabit an extraordinary place called Earth.
  10.55 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) on raising this subject. I thought his speech was an excellent example of a clear and interesting explanation of some good science. It is not easy to explain physics and astronomy, but the hon. Gentleman showed tonight that they are not beyond popular comprehension. He presented the subject with some seriousness, spiced with wit, and made a marvellous speech to get science debated in the Chamber and, perhaps, outside it, more urgently than it has been in the past.
  I am more than willing to give the hon. Gentleman the commitments that he sought tonight. First, I will take the subject seriously, because we should, and secondly, I will follow up the matter with my colleague Lord Sainsbury who, as Minister for Science, is responsible for space matters at the Department of Trade and Industry. I should be happy to have meetings with the hon. Gentleman, the people at Armagh and officials to take the debate further. I would also be more than happy to find the time to visit the Armagh observatory, which is funded by the Government through the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council—PPARC. I take every opportunity to visit Northern Ireland for family reasons and I should like to visit the observatory and see some of the work that it does.
  In recent weeks, we have discussed biotechnology and we now have the ability to observe activity at the cellular level, deep inside. We have also developed our capacity to reach far out into the universe and we should not ignore what we find. Indeed, we should try to deepen our understanding. Many of us enjoy the sight of a shower of shooting stars on a clear spring night and the brilliance of a comet against a summer's day. Indeed, astronomy brings many youngsters into science. However, within the beauty of the universe there lurk unseen dangers. The, dangers that we see, we should take seriously.
  As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, dangers exist and threats come from things that are prosaically known as near-Earth objects. Part of my job as a Minister is to steer a course between the panic of the immediate moment and deep complacency. Somewhere between those two parameters, we should take the matter seriously. I wish to make it clear that the chances of the Earth being hit by any large near-Earth object during our lifetime is remote, but that is not an excuse and such events have happened in the past. Over geological time, it is probable, if not statistically certain, that similar events will occur again.
  1190
  The hon. Gentleman outlined the two principal types of near-Earth objects, comets and asteroids, which are some of the ancient remains of the earliest years of the formation of our solar system, more than 4 billion years ago. Asteroids pass very close to the Earth's orbit around the sun and there is evidence that some have hit the Earth in the past. Most of them, the smaller space debris called meteors, are too small to survive the rapid passage through the atmosphere and burn up with the trail of light that we know as shooting stars. However, larger asteroids have occasionally crashed to Earth, creating craters and the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them. It is clear that the Earth, with other planets and moons in the solar system, has been pelted, over geological time, by asteroids ever since its formation.
  Scientists estimate that there are currently some 2,000 near-Earth objects of more than half a mile in diameter. On average, an object of those dimensions may be expected to hit the Earth only once in 100,000 years. Others have expressed that risk as being one chance in 25,000 that the average individual would be killed in an asteroid collision. That is not much higher than the risk of being killed in an aircraft collision, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. The reason for that is that although near-Earth objects impact rarely, they could have a large effect on our globe, its environment and people. The frequency of impacts is far lower than that of aircraft accidents.
  I am grateful to NASA for some of the information that I have managed to glean. NASA states:
  "Such global catastrophes are qualitatively different from other, more common, hazards that we face daily, given that these common events occur much more frequently but affect fewer people. No individual person should worry about being struck by a comet or asteroid. The daily threat to an average person from disease, car accidents, home accidents and from other natural disasters is much higher."
  We recognise that, as NASA puts it,
  "the Earth orbits the Sun in a sort of cosmic shooting gallery … it is only recently that we have come to appreciate that impacts by NEOs pose a significant hazard to life and property".
  It is necessary, therefore, to ask what we should do, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) suggested.
  NASA states:
  "It is entirely feasible that we could divert a large asteroid or comet from its orbit using existing technologies. The potential response depends on the lead time. If we can predict the event long in advance, by at least 10 to 100 years, then conventional rockets and explosives would probably be adequate, even for bodies as large as a half-mile."
  In a sense, the suggestions in the film referred to by the hon. Gentleman are not as way-out and wild-eyed as people might suggest.
  I cannot respond in great detail to the hon. Gentleman's remarks on the Spaceguard project, but I understand that it involves certain groups monitoring asteroids. The Spaceguard Foundation was set up in 1996 by astronomers in a working group of the International Astronomical Union to promote and co-ordinate activities for the discovery, pursuit and orbital calculation of NEOs at an international level, to promote studies of their physical and mineralogical characteristics, and to promote a ground network, for discovery observations, and for astrometric and physical follow-up.
  Spaceguard UK complements the Spaceguard Foundation but with a national emphasis. The Government's British National Space Centre held a

  1191
  meeting with interested parties, including Spaceguard UK, and has since been in contact—close contact, I hope—with Spaceguard. The Government are sympathetic to the aims of the project, and Government-funded work is contributing to all the aims, both nationally and through international co-operation.
  The UK Schmidt telescope based at the Anglo-Australian observatory at Silent Springs mountain in Australia has been taking large-format glass-plate photographs of the night sky for 25 to 30 years. The photographs are stored in the Schmidt plate archive at the royal observatory at Edinburgh and are an ideal database for follow-up work on detected asteroids that can improve orbit calculations. There is a continuing programme to digitise the photographs and to make the data easily available on the internet to astronomers worldwide.
  To understand better the trajectory and possible threat of asteroids, research is needed into asteroids themselves. The key matters to be understood are the materials, their shape and their structure. Data may be obtained by looking at the distribution and variation of infra-red spectra.
  The UK infra-red telescope on Hawaii has been extensively used to study asteroids. Additional studies will continue with the new 8 m Gemini telescopes. The UK is contributing to that £110 million project, and twin instruments are located in Hawaii and Chile. They are at the cutting edge of technology, and they will allow British astronomers to be at the forefront of most areas of ground-based astronomy, including asteroid studies.
  We are also funding our share of the mission and instruments for the European Space Agency's important Rosetta mission, the third cornerstone mission in the Horizon 2000 programme. Those instruments will study the detailed composition of the comet Wirtanen by landing on it and taking samples.
  The European Space Agency is mounting a study to produce a system for the co-ordination of worldwide capacity in NEO research, and it plans to run a pilot project to demonstrate the operation of a system to co-ordinate observations and communicate results.
  1192
  The British National Space Centre is participating in work aimed at keeping near-Earth space as free as possible of man-made space debris and at tracking debris once it is identified. That information provides input to collision calculations that enables orbit changes to protect systems such as ERS-1 and ERS-2. Key groups involved include those at Queen's university, Belfast, and Queen Mary's college, London.
  The British National Space Centre is working with fellow members of the interagency debris co-ordination group to agree a procedure for the re-entry of risk objects. The group includes NASA, the European Space Agency and the Russian Space Agency, and it is collaborating on measurements of the debris environment and improvements in the prediction of re-entry events.
  To consolidate the work of the International Astronomical Union, the European Space Agency, NASA and many others, an international workshop on monitoring programmes for asteroids and comets is planned this June in Italy. It is proposed that after that event, there will be a second United Nations meeting on the subject to build on the work and take it forward seriously at the highest international level.
  I am grateful, as I hope are other hon. Members, to the hon. Gentleman for raising this subject. I hope that the debate will be more widely read than by those who have been able to attend. The hon. Gentleman presented a piece of science rather brilliantly. I strongly agree that the issue has to be approached with the best international collaboration. I note carefully his proposal for a centre based at Armagh. My colleagues and I stand ready to discuss the matter further with him. Our understanding of this subject is developing. The Government welcome such positive input. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the matter can be treated seriously. He dealt with the topic with the wit and flair that communicates the problem beyond a narrow band of interest. He has done something for the popular communication of science, for which I thank him.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Railway Improvements
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a)new stations were opened and (b) miles of track were restored to use for passenger services in each of the years between 1985–86 and 1997–98.[73170]

  Dr. Reid
  The table shows the number of new stations opened in each of the years between 1985–86 and 1997–98. Statistics from 1994 onwards were supplied by Railtrack, which was established on 1 April 1994 and privatised on 20 May 1996.

  Year

  Stations opened

  1985

  19

  1986

  4

  1987

  6

  1988

  23

  1989

  15

  1990

  20

  1991

  6

  1992

  15

  1993

  14

  1994

  16

  1995

  10

  1996

  4

  1997

  3

  1998

  8

  The British Railways Board has no central record of annual mileage of track restored to use for passenger services. Since 1994, Railtrack have restored 37 miles of track to passenger use.

  PCV Licences
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures his Department has taken to facilitate speedier delivery of PCV licences via the DVLA in Swansea. [73096]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All applications for vocational (lorry and bus driver) licences are given high priority by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The current service standard target is to deliver 95 per cent. of licences to applicants within 9 working days of receipt which includes postage time. The Agency is currently bettering this target by one day. The remaining applications—which are subject to conduct investigations by the Traffic Commissioners or medical consideration by the Agency's doctors—are normally cleared within 20 working days.

  Applications can be submitted in multi-batches by training organisations and special provisions exist for licences to be collected from the Agency.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his current estimate of the total cost of constructing the Jubilee Line extension; and if he will make a statement on the changes since his previous estimate. [73001]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport's current estimate of the total cost of constructing the Jubilee Line Extension is £3.2 billion. The estimate referred to in my response of 4 November 1998,Official Report, column 567, was based on a cost review undertaken in August 1998 before the completion date was revised and a three-phase opening strategy adopted.

  Local Government Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list for each (1) unitary authority, (2) shire county, (3) shire district, (4) metropolitan district and (5) London borough council(a)the real terms percentage increase in standard spending assessment between 1997–98 and 1998–99, (b) the real terms percentage increase in Revenue Support Grant between 1997–98 and 1998–99, (c) the value of reduction grants received in 1998–99, (d) the real terms percentage increase in non-domestic rate income between 1997–98 and 1998–99 and (e) the real terms percentage increase in total external support between 1997–98 and 1998–99; [73643]

  (2) if he will list for each (1) unitary authority, (2) shire county, (3) shire district, (4) metropolitan district and (5) London borough council (a) the real terms cash increase in standard spending assessment between 1997–98 and 1998–99, (b) the real terms cash increase in Revenue Support Grant between 1997–98 and 1998–99, (c) the real terms cash increase in non-domestic rate income between 1997–98 and 1998–99, and (d) the real terms cash increase in total external support between 1997–98 and 1998–99. [73644]

  Mr. Prescott
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The real terms percentage difference between the data for 1997–98 and 1998–99 has been deflated by the GDP deflator, and expressed in terms of the 1998–99 equivalent. "Total External Support" has been defined as the sum of Revenue Support Grant, income from Non-Domestic Rates and Damping Grants. The data used for 1997–98 refer to the RSG calculated using the Adjusted 1997–98 SSAs.

  The 1997–98 SSAs have been adjusted for: Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 1998; the Personal Social Services SSA have been adjusted to include the indicative Special Transitional Grant for Community Care; and the Education SSA have been adjusted to include the deduction for nursery vouchers.

  No adjustments have been made for the changes detailed in The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997/1998: Amending Report 1999.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each (1) unitary authority, (2) shire county, (3) shire district, (4) metropolitan district and (5) London borough council(a) the real terms (i) percentage and (ii) cash

  731
  increase in standard spending assessment between 1998–99 and 1999–2000, (b) the real terms (i) percentage and (ii) cash increase in revenue support grant between 1998–99 and 1999–2000, (c) the value of reduction grants that will be received in 1999–2000, (d)the real terms
  (i) percentage and (ii) cash increase in non-domestic rate income between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 and (e)the real terms (i) percentage and (ii) cash increase in total external support between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [73645]

  Mr. Prescott
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  The real terms percentage difference between the data for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 has been deflated by the GDP deflator, and expressed in terms of the 1999–2000 equivalent.

  "Total External Support" has been defined as the sum of Revenue Support Grant, income from Non-Domestic Rates and Damping Grants.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list for each (1) unitary authority, (2) shire county, (3) shire district, (4) metropolitan district and (5) London borough council the real terms cash and percentage change between (A) 1997–98 and 1998–99 and (B) 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in (i) standard spending assessment and (ii) revenue support grant for(a) education services, (b) social services, (c) highways maintenance, (d) police services and (e) fire services; [73352]

  (2) if he will list for each (1) unitary authority, (2) shire county, (3) shire district, (4) metropolitan district and (5) London borough council what percentage of the real terms cash change between (A) 1997–98 and 1998–99 and (B) 1998–99 and 1999–2000 in (i) standard spending assessment and (ii) revenue support grant has been ring-fenced for (a) education services, (b) social services, (c)
  highways maintenance, (d) police services and (e) fire services. [73353]

  Mr. Prescott
  A table showing the real terms cash change figures together with a table showing the real terms change figures expressed as a percentage of total standard spending assessment for the education block, the personal social services block, the highways maintenance block, the police block and the fire block have been placed in the library.

  The 19897–98 SSAs have been adjusted for: Local Government Reorganisation on 1 April 1998: the Personal Social Services SSA have been adjusted to include the indicative Special Transitional Grant for Community Care; and the Education SSA have been adjusted to include the deduction for nursery vouchers.

  No adjustments have been made for the changes detailed in The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98: Amending Report 1999.

  Although Standard Spending Assessments are determined for individual blocks of services, there is no obligation on authorities to adopt a similar pattern of spending; the SSAs are not ring-fenced.
  732
  Revenue Support Grant is a block grant which is not determined for individual services. It is not ring-fenced.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each (1) unitary authority,(2) shire county, (3) shire district, (4) metropolitan district and (5) London borough council their proposed Band D council tax rates for 1999–2000. [73379]

  Mr. Prescott
  The information requested is not yet available. The tax setting legislation gives Shire County Councils until 1 March to set a budget and issue a precept on their billing authorities for the year ahead. The other authorities listed have until 11 March to set a budget and council tax rates. In both instances, the authorities are required to inform me of their decisions within 7 days of taking them. As a result, my department intends to publish a Statistical Bulletin in the week beginning 22 March giving the council tax rates at each band that have been set for 1999–2000.

  Hushkitted Aircraft
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the threat of retaliatory measures against Concorde flights from Britain to the US following the imposition of environmental measures to ban hush-kit aircraft from the 1 April 2002 in Europe. [73971]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have received representation from British Airways. The European Union draft Regulation on Hushkitted aircraft, which has passed its second reading in the European parliament, has not yet been adopted by the Council of Ministers.

  Warcop to Appleby Railway Line
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the section of railway line from Warcop to Appleby in Cumbria was sold; to whom; and for what price. [73951]

  Dr. Reid
  The railway line from Warcop to Appleby was transferred to Sustrans for a nominal sum in May 1998 for use as a cycle path as part of the National Cycle Network. The transfer is subject to arrangements for shared use of the line with the Eden Valley Railway who are acquiring part of the trackbed from Sustrans.

  Paved Areas (Chewing Gum Removal)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated annual cost to local authorities for the removal of chewing gum from paved areas; and if he will make a statement. [73895]

  Mr. Meale
  Information on the cost to local authorities for the removal of chewing gum from paved areas is not collected centrally. The total cost of street cleansing for the local authorities in England 1997–98 was £342 million.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each notifiable authority in England the band D council tax for 1999–2000 and the change over that for 1998–99 in(a) cash and (b) percentage terms. [73928]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested is not yet available. The tax setting legislation gives major precepting authorities until 1 March to set a budget and issue a precept on their billing authorities for the year ahead and other authorities until 11 March to set their budgets and council tax rates. In both instances, the authorities are required to inform the Secretary of State of their decisions within 7 days of taking them. As a result, my department intends to publish a Statistical Bulletin in the week beginning 22 March giving the council tax rates that have been set at each band for 1999–2000.

  Gas
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry over the potential for carbon emission reductions which could be achieved by extending until 2002 the powers of the Director General of Gas Supply to set standards of performance with regard to the promotion of the efficient use of gas. [74284]

  Mr. Meale
  Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry regularly discuss matters in which both Departments have an interest, including energy efficiency. These discussions are informal and private.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what total level of investment in domestic energy efficiency he estimates will be required between now and 2010 in order to meet(a) the Kyoto 12.5 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction target and (b) a 20 per cent. target. [74288]

  Mr. Meale
  Our UK Climate Change Programme Consultation Paper discussed and invited comment on how the UK could meet its climate change objectives, including possible contributions from domestic energy efficiency. The Government are now considering responses and will develop and consult further on a new climate change programme for the UK in the light of this process.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recognition will be given within planning projections for new housing over the next two decades to requirements for socially rented housing; and if he will make a statement. [74189]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The latest household projections published in 1995 identify the number of households expected to form over the period 1991–2016 but not the tenure of the housing they might occupy.

  Welsh Highland Railway
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date he received the report of the inspector into the application by the Ffestiniog Railway company to re-open the Welsh Highland Railway between Dinas and Porthmadog; and what was the average time taken by ministers to make a decision of such reports in the past three years. [74298]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Inspector's report following the public inquiry into the Welsh Highland Railway was received on 22 April 1998. In those five Transport and Works Act cases where decisions have been taken by the Secretary of State in the last three years following a public inquiry, the average time has been between 12 and 13 months from receipt of the Inspector's report. Four reports are currently before the Secretary of State for determination in addition to that for the Welsh Highland Railway. These reports were received on 6 October 1997, 2 February 1998 (interim decision letter issued on 8 September 1998), 6 February 1998 and 23 February 1999.

  Housing Stock (Local Authorities)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which have successfully completed a large-scale voluntary transfer of their housing stock to date. [74156]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Seventy-seven local authorities have successfully completed eighty-four large scale voluntary transfers of all or part of their housing stock to date. A list of those authorities is set out in chronological order.

  Chiltern DC

  Sevenoaks DC

  Newbury DC

  Swale BC

  Broadland DC

  Bedford BC

  Medina DC (now part of Isle of Wight Unitary Authority)

  Rochester upon Medway CC

  South Wight (now part of Isle of Wight Unitary Authority)

  Mid Sussex DC

  East Dorset DC

  Tonbridge & Malling BC

  Ryedale DC

  South Bucks DC

  Christchurch BC

  Suffolk Coastal DC

  Tunbridge Wells BC

  London Borough of Bromley

  Surrey Heath BC

  Breckland DC

  Rushmoor BC

  North Wiltshire DC

  Spelthorne BC

  East Hampshire DC

  Hastings BC

  Eastleigh BC

  Wyre BC

  735

  Walsall MBC

  Manchester CC1

  Stratford DC

  West Wiltshire DC

  Cotswold DC

  South Staffordshire DC

  Lichfield DC

  South Oxfordshire DC

  Eden DC

  London Borough of Lambeth1

  London Borough of Bexley

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  Hambleton DC

  West Dorset DC

  Havant BC

  Epsom & Ewell BC

  Hart DC

  South Shropshire DC

  Leominster DC

  South Ribble BC

  Hertsmere BC

  Penwith DC

  North Dorset DC

  Wychavon DC

  Mid Bedfordshire DC

  Thanet DC

  Vale of White Horse DC

  Cherwell DC

  Basingstoke & Deane BC

  Malvern Hills DC

  Maldon DC

  Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

  Kennet DC

  Congleton BC

  Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council1

  Liverpool City Council1

  Kerrier DC

  London Borough of Merton1

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets1

  West Somerset DC

  London Borough of Hackney1

  London Borough of Brent1

  Basildon DC1

  Stoke-on-Trent City Council1

  Tewkesbury BC

  Rother DC

  Wirral BC1

  Red routes in London by borough

  1992

  1995

  1997

  Miles

  Kms

  Miles

  Kms

  Miles

  Kms

  Barking and Dagenham

  4

  6.4

  4

  6.4

  4

  6.4

  Barnet

  19.1

  30.1

  19.1

  30.1

  19.1

  30.1

  Bexley

  8.6

  13.8

  8.6

  13.8

  8.6

  13.8

  Brent

  3.4

  5.5

  3.4

  5.5

  3.4

  5.5

  Bromley

  12

  19.3

  12

  19.3

  12

  19.3

  Camden

  7.1

  11.4

  5.5

  8.8

  5.5

  8.8

  City

  1.2

  1.9

  1.2

  1.9

  1.2

  1.9

  Croydon

  13.2

  21.2

  13.2

  21.2

  13.2

  21.2

  736

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council1

  South Somerset DC

  West Devon BC

  1denotes partial transfer.

  French Transport Strikes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the amount of compensation awarded to British transport companies affected as a result of French transport strikes; what proportion of overall claims have been settled; and what representations to the French Government he has made. [74437]

  Dr. Reid
  Some 1,200 British claims were made in respect of the 1996 French lorry drivers' strike. We understand that some 25 per cent. have so far received a favourable response. Precise figures are not available because claims were not dealt with centrally in France but were dealt with by Prefectures in the Departments in which blockades occurred. For the same reason, information about the amount of compensation paid is not available. We continue to work with the French authorities to secure the timely and fair consideration of claims.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received in respect of the performance of train operating companies. [72480]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since January, my Department and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising have received almost 400 representations on the performance of train operating companies.

  Red Routes (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current mileage of red routes in each London borough; what was the figure for each of the last five years; and what is the anticipated figure for 1999–2000. [73764]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The red route network was designated by Statutory Instrument in 1992 (SI 1992/1372). The breakdown by borough is given in the table. Since 1992 the SI has been amended twice (SI 1995/1130 and SI 1997/1001) to make small changes to the network in Ealing, Haringey, Hackney, Hillingdon and Lewisham and to correct minor descriptive errors. The programme for the implementation of the red route measures is set out in the Traffic Director's Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library.
  737

  Red routes in London by borough

  1992

  1995

  1997

  Miles

  Kms

  Miles

  Kms

  Miles

  Kms

  Ealing

  10.2

  16.4

  11.8

  19

  11.8

  19

  Enfield

  9.2

  14.8

  9.2

  14.8

  9.2

  14.8

  Greenwich

  15.8

  25.4

  15.8

  25.4

  15.8

  25.4

  Hackney

  8.9

  14.3

  8.9

  14.3

  9.5

  15.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4.4

  7.1

  4.4

  7.1

  4.4

  7.1

  Haringey

  7.6

  12.2

  7.6

  12.2

  6.1

  9.8

  Harrow

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Havering

  12

  19.3

  12

  19.3

  12

  19.3

  Hillingdon

  8

  12.9

  10.8

  17.3

  10.8

  17.3

  Hounslow

  17.7

  28.5

  18.3

  29.4

  18.3

  29.4

  Islington

  8.1

  13

  8.1

  13

  8.1

  13

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7.6

  12.2

  7.6

  12.2

  7.6

  12.2

  Kingston

  6.2

  10

  6.2

  10

  6.2

  10

  Lambeth

  15.9

  25.6

  15.9

  25.6

  15.9

  25.6

  Lewisham

  12.2

  19.6

  12

  19.3

  12

  19.3

  Merton

  4.3

  6.9

  4.3

  6.9

  4.3

  6.9

  Newham

  9.5

  15.3

  9.5

  15.3

  9.5

  15.3

  Redbridge

  11.3

  18.2

  11.3

  18.2

  11.3

  18.2

  Richmond

  7.7

  12.4

  7.7

  12.4

  7.7

  12.4

  Southwark

  9.3

  15

  9.3

  15

  9.3

  15

  Sutton

  10.4

  16.7

  10.4

  16.7

  10.4

  16.7

  Tower Hamlets

  12.2

  19.6

  12.2

  19.6

  12.2

  19.6

  Waltham Forest

  6.5

  10.5

  6.5

  10.5

  6.5

  10.5

  Wandsworth

  20.4

  32.8

  20.4

  32.8

  20.4

  32.8

  Westminster

  10.6

  17.1

  10.9

  17.5

  10.9

  17.5

  Total

  314.6

  505.4

  318.1

  510.8

  317.2

  509.4

  Bus Lanes (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the length of bus lane for each London borough; what was the figure for each of the past five years; and what is the anticipated figure for 1999–2000. [73765]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have placed the information requested in the Library.

  Cycle Lanes (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current mileage of cycle lanes in London broken down by borough; what were the figures for(a) 1989–90 and (b) 1993–94; and what are the expected figures for 1999–2000. [73823]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested on the length of cycle lanes for the years 1989–90 and 1993–94 is not available. This is before the work on the London Cycle Network commenced and therefore no central body existed to gather and co-ordinate the data. Approximately 190 miles of cycle network were in place when work started on the London Cycle Network in 1995–96; however, it is not known what proportion consisted of cycle lanes. The following table shows the existing lengths of the London Cycle Network on a borough-by-borough basis as at April 1998. The expected borough-by-borough figures for 1999–2000 are not yet available but it is anticipated that in total there will be 1,000 miles of the network in place by the end of this period.
  738

  Length of London cycle network as at April 1998

  Authority

  Mileage

  Barking and Dagenham

  13.7

  Barnet

  29.3

  Bexley

  4.5

  Brent

  12.5

  Bromley

  41.3

  Camden

  11.9

  City of London

  0.10

  Croydon

  30.4

  Ealing

  40.6

  Enfield

  8.6

  Greenwich

  26.6

  Hackney

  12.9

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  23.8

  Haringey

  13.3

  Harrow

  3.2

  Havering

  13.3

  Hillingdon

  29.0

  Hounslow

  33.7

  Islington

  11.9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  10.4

  Kingston Upon Thames

  30.8

  Lambeth

  7.8

  Lewisham

  9.3

  Merton

  21.7

  Newham

  14.1

  Redbridge

  18.5

  Richmond

  47.8

  Southwark

  25.5

  Sutton

  28.5

  Tower Hamlets

  14.9

  Waltham Forest

  30.6

  Wandsworth

  41.6

  Westminster

  19.4

  Total

  682.0

  Notes:

  1. There have been slight modifications to the network since 1997.

  2. The Traffic Director for London and the Highways Agency will also be making important contributions, along the Priority (Red) Routes and some Trunk Roads, to the provisions for Cyclists in London.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish legislation to establish the proposed Strategic Rail Authority. [74419]

  Dr. Reid
  If legislative time becomes available, we will introduce a Bill to establish a Strategic Rail Authority this session. If time does not become available, then we will publish a draft Bill later this Session, for introduction as a priority at a subsequent opportunity.

  Montreal Conference
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will consult the air transport(a) industry and (b) users prior to the Montreal Conference in May; and if he will make a statement on the position to be adopted by the Government at the Conference. [74412]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The International Civil Aviation Organisation will hold a Diplomatic Conference in May for the purpose of adopting a new convention intended to replace all previous instruments of the Warsaw Convention for International Carriage by Air. Officials from my Department have been involved in the development of the new convention and have formally consulted representatives of UK airlines, airline users and principal practitioners in international air law. The views received will be taken into account by the Government at the Conference.

  Rail Industry Subsidies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the subsidy arrangements for the United Kingdom rail industry. [74420]

  Dr. Reid
  We are determined to ensure that Railtrack has adequate incentives to perform effectively and efficiently, and to develop the network, meeting the needs of customers and funders. That could point to a proportion of Railtrack's access income being paid direct by the proposed Strategic Rail Authority, rather than via train operators. We have asked the Rail Regulator for a report on this matter.

  Within the overall context of our plans for the railway, financial responsibility for those passenger services that both start and end in Scotland will be transferred to Scottish Ministers.

  Rail Summit
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Rail Summit. [74418]

  Dr. Reid
  The Rail Summit was an important step towards our goal of creating within 10 years one of the best railway systems in the world. The passenger train operators and Railtrack share that aim and want to work together—and with government—to realise it.
  740
  At the Summit, the Government:
  announced they were prepared to renegotiate existing franchises and specified the criteria against which applications would be judged;
  introduced Sir Alastair Morton as the new chairman of the British Railways Board and head of the shadow Strategic Rail Authority;
  launched the consultation exercise which will lead later in the year to the shadow SRA's strategic plan for the railway;
  announced the start of work on a National Passengers Survey and on ways of measuring more accurately train operators' performance;
  promised legislation to regulate the rolling stock leasing companies if they do not voluntarily restrict their market power.

  The passenger train operators jointly promised that:
  on average, train services will be more punctual next year than they are now;
  by 2002, half the current rolling stock fleet will have been replaced or refurbished;
  by April next year, all stations in Great Britain will have passenger information systems;
  an additional £39m will be spent on measures to improve the security of passengers.

  The industry has given a commitment to work to deliver real improvements which are measurable year on year. There will be a second Summit in spring next year to review progress and maintain the momentum which was created on 25 February.

  Radionuclide Transfer (Departmental Report)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's report "An Assessment of Artificial Radionuclide Transfer from Sellafield to South West Scotland" by Professor Murdoch Baxter, dated March 1989 (reference DOE/RW/89/127. [73824]

  Mr. Meale
  Yes.

  A21
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will publish the evidence used by officials of his Department to conclude that the dualling of the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury road(a) will decrease peak time traffic delays by up to 3.5 minutes and (b) may affect the great crested newt; [74340]

  (2) if he will place in the Library copies of the full cost-benefit analysis for the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury dualling proposal. [74341]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Archie Norman, dated 3 March 1999:
  The Minister for Transport, Glenda Jackson, has asked me to reply to you about the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury dualling proposals.
  A copy of the full cost benefit analysis for the scheme is being placed in the House of Commons Library. This document was published at the time of the Public Inquiry in 1993 and includes the evidence used to conclude that the proposed dualling will decrease peak time traffic delays by up to 3.5 minutes.

  741
  A have asked for a copy of the Environmental Statement for the scheme to be sent to you. It was this document which noted that a pond occupied by great crested newts would be affected by the scheme. The document was published in 1992.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71271]

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

  One of the Department's main objectives is to widen and improve access for disabled people and other groups by embedding consultation and consideration of their needs in mainstream policies, and by means of the funding agreements being negotiated with its sponsored bodies. This includes the need to ensure that our policies and their outcomes comply with the law. This complements the guidance "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" which the Cabinet Office issued to all Government Departments in November 1998, and which was signed jointly by my right hon. Friends the Minister for Women, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary.

  The Department's Management Board monitors the Department's performance and that of its sponsored bodies and will publish information on the progress being made in this area, as will other Government Departments.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what provision has been made for the sale of(a) British and (b) other books at the Millennium Experience; [73087]

  (2) what provision will be made inside the Millennium Dome for the sale of books. [64808]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in discussion with a number of publishers through its licensing agency about the production of a range of Millennium Experience books for all ages. These books will be sold through high street bookshops, retailers and through other distribution channels. As regards the Dome, the aim is to provide a range of special edition Millennium Experience books, and other printed material to meet visitor needs. These will be available through the NMEC's own retailing arrangements in the Dome.

  Creative Industries Task Force
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the members of the 742
  Creative Industries Task Force; on how many occasions since its establishment it has met; who was present at each meeting; what its work in progress is; and what conclusions it has reached to date. [72905]

  Janet Anderson
  The members of the Creative Industries Task Force are as follows:Right hon. Chris Smith MP, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Chairman)
  Ministerial and official representatives of:

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  The Department of Trade and Industry

  HM Treasury

  The Department for Education and Employment

  The Minister for Women

  The Scottish Office

  The Welsh Office

  The Northern Ireland Office

  The British Council

  The Office of Science and Technology

  No. 10 Policy Unit

  DCMS officials

  Industry advisers:

  Lord Alli—Planet 24

  Richard Branson/Robert Devereux—Virgin Group Plc

  Janice Hughes—Spectrum Strategy Consultants

  Alan McGee—Creation Records

  Gail Rebuck—Random House UK Ltd.

  Eric Salama—WPP Group Plc

  Paul Smith—Paul Smith Ltd.

  Charles Allen1—Granada Group

  Prof. Stephen Heppell1—Ultralab

  Lord Puttnam (until July 1998)

  1Appointed January 1999.

  The Creative Industries Task Force has met seven times since its establishment in June 1997. Alongside these seven meetings, there has been extensive contact with individual Task Force members about specific elements of the work programme. Those present at each meeting were as follows:
  First meeting—8 October 1997

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  Geoffrey Robinson MP

  Peter Mandelson MP

  Richard Caborn MP

  Derek Fatchett MP

  Barbara Roche MP

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Joan Ruddock MP

  Sam Galbraith MP

  Tony Worthington MP

  Sir Robert May

  Waheed Alli

  Richard Branson

  Robert Devereux

  Janice Hughes

  Alan McGee

  743

  Lord Puttnam

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  Paul Smith

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials

  Second meeting—17 December 1997

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  Geoffrey Robinson MP

  The right hon. Derek Fatchett MP

  Mark Fisher MP

  Barbara Roche MP

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Sam Galbraith MP

  Waheed Alli

  Janice Hughes

  Alan McGee

  Lord Puttnam

  Gail Rebuck

  Paul Smith

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials

  Third meeting—18 February 1998

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  Geoffrey Robinson MP

  Richard Caborn MP

  The right hon. Derek Fatchett MP

  Mark Fisher MP

  Dr. Kim Howells

  Barbara Roche MP

  Joan Ruddock MP

  Sir Robert May

  Dr. David Drewry

  Waheed Alli

  Robert Devereux

  Janice Hughes

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials

  Fourth meeting—5 May 1998

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  The right hon. Tom Clarke CBE MP

  The right hon. Richard Caborn MP

  The right hon. Derek Fatchett MP

  Dr. Kim Howells

  Sir Robert May

  Waheed Alli

  Robert Devereux

  Janice Hughes

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  Dr. Ken Robinson, Chairman, the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education

  Stuart Till, Co-chair, the Film Policy Review Group

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials

  744
  Fifth meeting—16 July 1998

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  Geoffrey Robinson MP

  The right hon. Richard Caborn MP

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Barbara Roche MP

  Tony Worthington MP

  Win Griffiths MP

  Dr. David Drewry

  Robert Devereux

  Alan McGee

  Lord Puttnam

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  Stephen Carter, J Walter Thompson

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials

  Sixth meeting—26 October 1998

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  The right hon. Richard Caborn MP

  George Mudie MP

  Barbara Roche MP

  Peter Hain MP

  Janet Anderson MP

  Sir Robert May

  Lord Alli

  Janice Hughes

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  Kevin Kane, Scottish Enterprise

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials

  Seventh meeting—14 December 1998

  The right hon. Chris Smith MP

  The right hon. Richard Caborn MP

  Barbara Roche MP

  Kim Howells MP

  Sir Robert May

  Janice Hughes

  Gail Rebuck

  Eric Salama

  Mathilda Joubert, the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education

  Michael Trickey, Arts Council of Wales

  DCMS and other Government Departmental officials.

  Work on the Task Force

  The early work on the Creative Industries Task Force focused on mapping activity in the UK creative industries and assessing its economic value. The Task Force was responsible for the Creative Industries Mapping Document, which was published in November 1998. The Mapping Document has a practical application, besides providing a statistical analysis of the economic health of the creative industries.

  The Creative Industries Task Force has now embarked on an ambitious work programme for the next 12–15 months, building on the findings in the Mapping Document. There are three key strands to the programme:
  (a) a focus on generic issues which affect the creative industries such as the skills base, finance for creative ventures, export promotion and intellectual property. Sub-Groups, led by Task Force members, will look at these issues;

  745
  (b)an additional Sub-Group led by Richard Caborn will consider issues impacting on the creative industries at a regional level; and
  (a) a series of short, generally industry-related, inquiries will be carried out.

  Cumbria Tourist Board
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to retain a separate Cumbria tourist board within the north-west region. [73642]

  Janet Anderson
  Cumbria Tourist Board, as are other regional tourist boards, is an independent commercial organisation and determines its own boundary. We wish to see the arrangements for all regional bodies continue on a basis which fosters close and co-operative working to support successful and sustainable development.

  Sports Institute
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made on the establishment of the UK Sports Institute. [72101]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) on 1 March 1999, Official Report, columns 535–37.

  Television Licences
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will discuss with relevant departments a reduction of the cost of the BBC licence fee to pensioners dependent solely on the state pension. [74043]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The independent review panel currently considering the future funding of the BBC has also been asked to examine the structure of the existing concessionary television licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available. The panel has invited representations on a number of areas, including the concessionary arrangements, and will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the end of July this years. There will then be a period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations. It would not be right for the Government to preempt the outcome of the review.

  Films (Lottery Funding)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those films which have received lottery funding to date indicating(a) how much lottery money each received, (b) their total budgets, (c) their release dates, (d) the number of screens on which they opened and (e) their takings to date. [74239]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]There are no data available centrally on the numbers of screens on which lottery-funded films opened and the record of takings of these films is not fully tracked. Some 746
  data are available and I have today placed that information together with the other data requested, in the Libraries of the House.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Group on Older People
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 1999,Official Report, column 517, which Ministers are members of the ministerial group on older people from the various departments he listed. [73694]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Membership of the group comprises those Ministers who have particular responsibilities for policy areas which affect older people. It includes me together with my right hon. and hon. Friends the Lord Privy Seal, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham); the Minister of State, Department of Social Security; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton); the Minister for Transport in London; the Minister for London and Construction; the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng); the Economic Secretary; the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs; the Minister for the Arts; the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge); the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department; the Under-Secretary of State for Defence; the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith); and the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).

  Other Ministers with an interest in a particular subject may also attend meetings of the group from time to time.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will provide a breakdown in(a) numerical and (b) percentage terms of the ethnic origin as of 1 May 1998 to 31 December 1998, of civil servants at each grade; and if he will further break down those of ethnic minority origin at each grade in (i) numerical and (ii) percentage terms into (1) Indian, (2) Pakistani, (3) Bangladeshi, (4) Chinese and (5) other and mixed Asian. [73695]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Provisional information at 1 October 1998, from Mandate, the Cabinet Office's personnel database, is set out in the table. It is not directly comparable to the information in the recently published Equal Opportunities in the Civil Service Data Summary which is based on staff in post at 1 April 1998. The table excludes staff in departments who do not provide data to Mandate. However, both the Data Summary and the table show that 5.7 per cent. of all staff were from ethnic minority groups.
  747

  Ethnic origin of non-industrial Civil Servants1 in post by responsibility level2 at 1 October 19983

  Number

  SCS

  G6

  G7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total4

  White

  2,731

  3,757

  13,739

  17,771

  39,786

  82,502

  136,851

  51,828

  349,713

  Ethnic minority

  48

  107

  356

  406

  1,123

  4,445

  10,624

  4,117

  21,237

  of which:

  Black

  10

  24

  66

  74

  341

  1,644

  4,244

  1,588

  7,998

  Asian

  32

  65

  218

  258

  606

  2,381

  5,704

  2,329

  11,595

  Indian

  16

  31

  108

  102

  275

  1,192

  3,036

  1,177

  5,938

  Pakistani

  5—

  12

  24

  24

  48

  222

  642

  356

  1,329

  Bangladeshi

  5—

  5—

  5

  8

  12

  51

  224

  102

  405

  Asian-East African

  5—

  5—

  33

  57

  138

  497

  861

  253

  1,847

  Chinese

  5—

  5—

  18

  23

  36

  107

  189

  77

  455

  Other Asian

  6

  15

  30

  44

  97

  312

  752

  364

  1,621

  Other ethnic groups

  6

  18

  72

  74

  176

  420

  676

  200

  1,644

  Total6—

  2,779

  3,864

  14,095

  18,177

  40,909

  86,947

  147,475

  55,945

  370,950

  Ethnic groups as a percentage of responsibility1 level at 1 October

  Percentage

  SCS

  G6

  G7

  SEO

  HEO

  EO

  AO

  AA

  Total4

  White

  98.3

  97.2

  97.5

  97.8

  97.3

  94.9

  92.8

  92.6

  94.3

  Ethnic minority

  1.7

  2.8

  2.5

  2.2

  2.7

  5.1

  7.2

  7.4

  5.7

  of which:

  Black

  0.4

  0.6

  0.5

  0.4

  0.8

  1.9

  2.9

  2.8

  2.2

  Asian

  1.2

  1.7

  1.5

  1.4

  1.5

  2.7

  3.9

  4.2

  3.1

  Indian

  0.6

  0.8

  0.8

  0.6

  0.7

  1.4

  2.1

  2.1

  1.6

  Pakistani

  5—

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.3

  0.4

  0.6

  0.4

  Bangladeshi

  5—

  5—

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  0.2

  0.2

  0.1

  Asian-East African

  5—

  5—

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  Chinese

  5—

  5—

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  Other Asian

  0.2

  0.4

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  0.5

  0.7

  0.4

  Other ethnic groups

  0.2

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.4

  0.4

  Total6—

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  1Excludes staff in Departments who do not provide data to Mandate.

  2Responsibility levels are an approximate assignment of personnel to a level of seniority broadly equivalent to the former service wide grades. As departments restructure grades, it is increasingly difficult to assign certain posts to a precise responsibility level. This accounts for apparent fluctuations in the numbers and percentages at some levels.

  3Information at 1 October 1998 is provisional and may be amended.

  4Total includes staff with unknown responsibility level.

  6Staff who responded to departmental surveys on ethnic origin.

  7Less than 5 in group and less than 0.2 per cent. of responsibility level.

  Source:

  Cabinet Office—Mandate

  Next Steps Report 1998
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the 1998 Next Steps report. [75077]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government have today published the 1998 Next Steps Report, Cm 4273, which has been laid in both Houses. This Report brings together performance and trend data on 136 executive agencies and two departments operating on Next Steps lines.

  The Report shows that overall nearly 76 per cent. of targets were achieved and that, where comparisons can be made with previous years, performance against targets has improved in 52 per cent. of cases.

  With the introduction of Public Service Agreements (PSAs), Government have set out in precise and quantified form what improvements it is seeking to achieve over the next 3 years. Agencies will have a very important part to play in helping Ministers deliver those results. Agencies' objectives and targets are being
  748
  redefined to ensure that they reflect the Government's new objectives and priorities. The degree of challenge which is built in to the PSA targets will help to ensure that agency targets are themselves set at a sufficiently stretching level, encouraging agencies to be innovative and enterprising in tackling improvement.

  The Government will be publishing before Easter a White Paper on "Modernising Government" which will set out a vision for the future of public services. One of its main themes will be the need to increase co-operation across traditional bureaucratic boundaries so that public services can be delivered more cost-effectively and be better tuned to the needs of the user. Agencies, as the main service delivery arm of the Civil Service, will have a vital role to play in fostering this growth in co-operative solutions.

  It is essential that continuous pressure be applied to improve individual agency performance but this must be seen increasingly within the context of contribution to
  broader goals.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Relief
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with non-Governmental organisations about the relief of developing countries' debt. [74030]

  Clare Short
  In February, I met the directors of the voluntary organisations which comprise the British Overseas Aid Group (BOAG)—ActionAid, Oxfam, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD), Christian Aid and Save the Children Fund—to discuss debt. In December, I also met BOND, which represents the smaller NGOs. We agreed that poverty reduction remains our central concern, and that we need to develop and strengthen the link between debt relief and poverty reduction. The UK is pressing for this issue to be considered during the fundamental review of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which is now underway. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are holding a consultation meeting, including NGOs, in London on 5 March.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's role in drawing up the recent joint ministerial written statement on genetically modified food. [74280]

  Clare Short
  My Department was not involved in drawing up the recent joint ministerial written statement on genetically modified food which focused on concerns within UK and Europe.

  We will be publishing a paper later this month on our work relating to genetically modified organisms and how we propose to assist developing countries to strengthen their capacity to handle these important issues.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research has been(a) carried out and (b) commissioned by her Department into the economic impact of the growing of genetically modified crops on small-scale farmers in developing countries. [74283]

  Total DFID bilateral programme to Southern African countries

  £000

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Namibia

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Total

  1987–88

  7,302

  3,993

  1,421

  3,109

  2,487

  18,312

  1988–89

  6,886

  5,356

  2,129

  5,040

  3,099

  22,510

  1989–90

  7,113

  5,497

  2,056

  5,423

  2,764

  22,853

  1990–91

  6,916

  5,859

  1,706

  8,093

  2,733

  25,307

  1991–92

  8,963

  6,454

  2,366

  9,325

  2,943

  30,051

  1992–93

  7,199

  7,194

  3,637

  11,558

  3,296

  32,884

  1993–94

  6,123

  5,379

  2,979

  14,504

  3,087

  32,072

  1994–95

  5,247

  5,124

  3,569

  15,631

  2,574

  32,145

  1995–96

  4,005

  6,600

  4,148

  16,865

  2,086

  33,704

  1996–97

  4,247

  3,911

  4,092

  18,133

  2,733

  33,116

  1997–98

  4,115

  4,985

  4,482

  24,889

  3,447

  41,918

  750
  Clare Short
  My Department has not carried out any research into the economic impact of growing genetically modified crops on small-scale farmers in developing countries. However we have commissioned relevant studies from University of Birmingham and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, to assess the environmental and social risks of introducing new or transgenic plant types into the traditional pigeon pea seed production systems of small-scale farmers in India and, from University of Swansea, to undertake social and economic assessments of the potential impact of genetically male tilapia and transgenic tilapia on fish fanning in Philippines.

  The results of these studies will be published.

  Biotechnological Inventions
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the likely impact on(a) indigenous and (b) local communities in developing countries of EU Patent Directive COM (95) 661 as it relates to intellectual property rights in genetic resources. [74494]

  Clare Short
  The European Directive on the Legal Protection of Biological Inventions (98/44/EC) addresses which biotechnological inventions can be patented in Europe and does not affect national patent laws elsewhere.

  In reaching a Common Position by the Council of Ministers in February 1998, the UK made a statement noting that there had been no consideration as to whether the provisions of the Directive would be appropriate for other countries outside the European Union, in particular developing countries.

  Southern Africa
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the financial aid from her Department and its predecessor in each of the past 10 years to Southern Africa for(a) education and (b) health projects. [73912]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) does not provide financial aid in the form of budgetary support to governments in Southern Africa. Our partnerships in this region fund technical co-operation to build local capacity and make effective use of national resources.

  DFID's contribution to education and health over the last ten years in Southern Africa is as follows:

  751

  Education sector expenditure

  £000

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Namibia

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Total

  1987–88

  1,420

  345

  285

  130

  593

  2,772

  1988–89

  1,578

  654

  387

  292

  462

  3,373

  1989–90

  1,732

  669

  346

  2,530

  488

  5,765

  1990–91

  1,713

  939

  679

  3,769

  582

  7,681

  1991–92

  1,982

  1,219

  1,197

  4,269

  663

  9,330

  1992–93

  2,203

  1,112

  1,433

  6,466

  589

  11,803

  1993–94

  1,933

  785

  1,141

  5,557

  416

  9,832

  1994–95

  1,183

  616

  1,838

  5,103

  362

  9,101

  1995–96

  707

  715

  1,553

  4,231

  183

  7,390

  1996–97

  830

  978

  1,514

  1,850

  228

  5,399

  1997–98

  1645

  1560

  11,675

  14,872

  1300

  18,052

  Health and population sector expenditure

  £000

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  Namibia

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Total

  1987–88

  90

  53

  0

  0

  55

  198

  1988–89

  195

  73

  0

  467

  71

  806

  1989–90

  290

  303

  88

  1,033

  143

  1,857

  1990–91

  380

  553

  585

  1,452

  167

  3,137

  1991–92

  224

  323

  242

  630

  207

  1,625

  1992–93

  182

  230

  409

  1,229

  200

  2,250

  1993–94

  50

  114

  511

  1,263

  122

  2,060

  1994–95

  -6

  6

  338

  2,297

  41

  2,677

  1995–96

  -5

  16

  254

  1,482

  19

  1,766

  1996–97

  0

  26

  728

  4,043

  78

  4,875

  1997–98

  11

  1261

  1536

  13,712

  12

  14,512

  1Provisional

  PHARE and TACIS Programmes
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the future of(a) the PHARE programme and (b) the TACIS programme. [73278]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: (a) The European Commission has started consultations on new guidelines for the PHARE programme from 2000. We will be seeking to ensure the programme responds to the priority needs of countries preparing for accession to the European Union, addresses the quality of the transition process so that benefits are sustainable and brings benefits to all levels of society, includes effective measures to strengthen institutions and promote better public administration and draws from previous experience in ensuring funds are efficiently and effectively used.

  (b) The current Tacis Regulation expires at the end of this year, and a draft Regulation for the period 2000–06 is now under consideration. The draft is broadly acceptable, but it contains a number of new initiatives on which we are seeking clarification.

  Debt Repayment
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much debt each of the 10 most highly-indebted countries repaid in each of the last three years. [73618]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows (£millions) debt repayments received by the UK in the last three years from the 10 countries identified by the IMF as potentially eligible for assistance
  752
  under its Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative that have the highest absolute levels of debt.

  £ million

  Country

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998/February 1999

  Angola

  0

  0

  0

  Cameroon

  0.14

  1.70

  1.13

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.43

  0.11

  0.26

  DR Congo

  0

  0

  0

  Ethiopia

  0.15

  0.44

  0.56

  Kenya

  6.04

  8.00

  11.58

  Sudan

  0

  0

  0

  Tanzania

  24.00

  4.00

  8.17

  Vietnam

  1.05

  0.73

  0.85

  Zambia

  0

  1.84

  1.00

  Source:

  ECGD 1 March 1999

SCOTLAND

  Ministerial Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of expenditure on(a) ministerial pay, (b) ministerial domestic transport and (c) other ministerial expenses in (i) 1996–97, (ii) 1997–98, (iii) 1998–99 and (iv) 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [69263]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 19991 The table shows expenditure on Ministerial pay. The table also shows total non-pay expenditure for Ministerial offices. The amounts include travel and subsistence, office services and general administration costs for both
  753
  Ministers and the staff of their offices. It is not possible to disaggregate these amounts into the categories requested. Expenditure for 1999–2000 cannot be forecast at present since this will depend on decisions about the number of Scottish Ministers who form the incoming devolved administration and about the future structure of the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  £

  Ministerial pay

  Ministerial offices non-pay

  1996–97

  181,917

  934,305

  1997–98

  213,431

  1,075,115

  1998–991

  220,600

  1,207,000

  1Estimate

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many community psychiatric nurses there were in Scotland in each of the last three years. [73229]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the table.

  Community psychiatric nurses employed in the NHS in Scotland. Headcount and Whole Time Equivalent: at 30 September

  Community psychiatric nurse

  Number

  1996

  468

  1997

  507

  19981

  518

  WTE

  1996

  449.3

  1997

  484.6

  19981

  493.9

  1Provisional

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from payroll Information and Statistics Division, NHS in Scotland

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

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the last year in Scotland. [73233]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The number of individual patients with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses admitted to mental illness hospitals and psychiatric units in Scotland during the year ending 31 March 1996 was 2,482, of which 675 were admitted more than once.

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

  Departmental Spending
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give a breakdown of spending planned on other public services as set out in his answer of 17 July 754
  1998, Official Report, columns 336–40, in (a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–01, (d) 2001–02 and (e) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [74338]

  Mr. Dewar
  A detailed breakdown of the figures for 1998–99 to 2001–02 was placed in the library of the House of Commons on 10 November 1998.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his estimates of planned expenditure on Scottish roads for each of the years(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; if he will list for each of these years every project costing over £2 million over its project life; and if he will make a statement. [74241]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Expenditure on local roads is the responsibility of local authorities and details are not held centrally. The planned net expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in Scotland in 2000–01 and 2001–02, the latest year for which expenditure has been agreed, is £175.8 million and £186.2 million respectively. Our priorities are to maintain and repair the existing network and to meet the costs of projects contractually committed or announced. Project costs exceed £2 million on the A720, the M6, the A7 (Hawick Relief Road) and the A90 (Inchmichael Interchange). Further projects may be announced later.

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

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the causes of the increase in planned expenditure by Scottish Enterprise between 2000–01 and 2001–02; and if he will make a statement. [74243]

  Mr. Dewar
  The increase in the planned expenditure by Scottish Enterprise between 2000–01 and 2001–02 primarily reflects the phased introduction of a number of new training initiatives announced by the Government last year as part of the New Deal and a re-instatement of provision for the delayed Hyundai project.

  From 1 July the funding of Scottish Enterprise will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73492]

  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), attended the Brit Awards Ceremony on 23 February, as guest of the Director General of the British Phonographic
  755
  Industry Ltd., the representative body of the British Record Industry.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the subject areas within his Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73665]

  Mr. Straw
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the Library.

  Emergency Services (Integration)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards integration of fire, police and ambulance control rooms. [73500]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 13 January 1999,Official Report,columns 193–96. £7.8 million has been provided to the Department of Health under the Invest to Save Budget for pilot joint call handling centres.

  Police (Kingston-upon-Thames)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving police officers there were in the London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) at the latest available date. [73927]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police tells me that he is unable to give the information in the form requested, as records are not broken down by the number of officers policing the London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames. The nearest figures that can be provided are those for Kingston Division, which polices the London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames together with half of the Borough of Elmbridge.

  The relevant statistics are recorded within the Metropolitan police, twice yearly, at 1 January and 1 July. The number of serving police officers in Kingston Division on 1 July 1997 was 355. As at 1 March 1999, the number was 336.7.

  Electoral Procedures
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what issues are being considered by the Departmental working party on electoral procedures; when it will report to ministers; what account it has taken 756
  of the recent report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs (HC 768) of Session 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [74314]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My working party on electoral procedures is currently considering a wide range of issues, under the following broad headings:

  maximising electoral registration and voter participation;

  access by the disabled and homeless to the electoral process;

  rolling electoral registration;

  publication and sale of the electoral register;

  anonymous electoral registration;

  absent voting arrangements;

  polling station and count venue issues (including location, mobile and early polling stations, and security);

  automated voting/counting;

  days and times of polling;

  use of official poll cards, and publicity for elections; civics education and the electoral process; and the role of an electoral commission.

  The Government have welcomed the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into electoral law and administration as a valuable contribution to the continuing debate about improving participation in our electoral and democratic processes. The Committee acknowledged that my working party is the correct forum within which to take forward consideration of its proposals, conclusions and recommendations; and accepted that it would be difficult to give a full response while my working party continued to meet. I now anticipate that the final report of the working party will be published this summer, and that the Committee will receive its detailed response at around the same time.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Government expects to announce the outcome of its review of international human rights instruments. [75118]

  Mr. Straw
  I am placing in the Library a summary of the conclusions of the review.

  On 27 January, I signed the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. We shall also ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, without any reservation to preserve the use of the death penalty in wartime.

  We shall ratify International Labour Organisation Convention 111 on discrimination in employment.

  We intend to ratify the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as soon as Parliament removes inconsistencies in our family law provisions. We will seek a suitable opportunity to propose those changes. We are also considering whether legislation is necessary to enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Fourth Protocol to the ECHR.

  We shall look again at the rights of individual petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nationals Convention Against Torture and the Union Nations Convention on the Elimination of

  757
  Racial Discrimination once the Human Rights Act has been fully implemented. We have looked closely at the merits of adopting these additional rights, but have also taken in account the impact on the vital work of preparing for and implementing the Human Rights Act 1998. This is a major piece of legislation that demonstrates our commitment to the advancement of human rights.

  Fire Service College
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for reviewing the future role of the Fire Service College. [75119]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to securing best value for money through regular and systematic reviews of the services which its agencies provide and how these are delivered.

  In view of the continuing poor financial performance as a trading fund of the Fire Service College at Moreton in Marsh, I have decided to commission an immediate prior options review. This will consider the College's present and future role in helping meet the requirements for central training in the fire service. The review will evaluate the performance of the Agency and will also re-appraise the prior options considered before the College was established as a trading fund, taking account of developments since that time. Should Ministers agree that agency status remains the most appropriate option, the review will bring forward recommendations for future development and funding including any necessary revisions to the College's Framework Document.

  The review will be conducted by officials from the man Home Office working, among others, with Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate. Views are welcomed from all interested parties. The review is expected to report in the summer.

  Police Protection
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the annual cost of providing full police protection to an individual whose life has been threatened. [74477]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not the practice to publish this information as it provides an indication of the level of protection being provided.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the countries currently considered to be in upheaval for the purpose of determining asylum claims. [73889]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no country or territory currently subject to a declaration of upheaval under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996. Declarations were made in respect of Sierra Leone on 1 July 1997 and the Democratic Republic of Congo on 17 May 1998. These expired after three months.

  The purpose of such declarations is to ensure that people who find themselves in the United Kingdom at the point when there is a change of circumstances in their home country, of the kind envisaged in the Regulations,
  758
  are not disadvantaged in terms of access to income support and related benefits if they make an in-country asylum application with reasonable promptness. Three months is the period considered to be reasonable for this purpose. A declaration of upheaval does not, in itself, carry any implication for the determination of asylum applications from the country or territory concerned. The need for this procedure would cease to exist under the scheme of support for asylum seekers contained in Park VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers under the age of 18 years are currently detained. [73782]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At 14.00 on 1 March 1999 there were 2 people who are 17 years of age in detention; awaiting removal to Belgium in the near future. Another person in detention is claiming to be 17 years old but his age is in dispute.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the criteria for the detention of asylum seekers in Her Majesty's prisons; [73778]

  (2) what are the criteria for the administrative detention of asylum seekers who have not been (a) tried or (b) convicted of a criminal offence. [73779]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No one is detained solely because they are an asylum seeker. Detention is authorised only in accordance with powers set out in the Immigration Act 1971 as they apply to inadmissible passengers, illegal entrants or stowaways, people subject to deportation action or on grounds of national security.

  The principle criterion for detention is whether a person will comply with conditions attached to the grant of temporary admission or release. So far as possible, people are detained in discrete accommodation in Immigration Service Detention Centres or designated prison accommodation at Haslar or Rochester. But there are a few held in other establishments for reasons of geography, security or control.

  The exceptions may be those convicted prisoners subject to deportation action who may continue to be held in prisons at the conclusion of their sentence awaiting the activation of the deportation order.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been detained for over six months(a) in Her Majesty's prisons and (b) elsewhere. [73780]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relates to the snapshot of asylum seekers detained solely under Immigration Act powers as at 29 January 1999 for in-country applicants and 1 February 1999 for port applicants. 116 such persons were recorded as having been detained continuously for at least six months. The breakdown between those detained in prisons and those in other places of detention is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the provisions of Article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on protection for children seeking asylum. [74307]
  759
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The effect of Article 22 of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child is to confer on refugee and asylum seeking children all the rights set out in that Convention. The comprehensive provision in United Kingdom law for the care and protection of children applies in full to children who have been recognised as refugees in this country and to those who have sought asylum here, but whose claim has not been determined. Although the United Kingdom has entered a reservation which makes it clear that nothing in the Convention is interpreted as affecting the operation of our immigration and nationality legislation, our law is entirely consistent with the thrust of the Convention.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) names and (b) job titles of his Department's officials who read the Macpherson report prior to the oral statement of 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660–70, by the Minister of State. [74449]

  Mr. Straw
  In relation to the period before the publication of the Report, it would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way of the leak of parts of the Report to give these details. After publication, the Report was widely available, including on the Internet, and would have been seen by a large number of Home Office officials.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what response he made to the Metropolitan Police following their alerting of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to the unintended publication of sensitive information; [74421]

  (2)when (a) he and (b) ministers in his Department learned of the inclusion of sensitive information in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report; [74422]

  (3)if he was first contacted by (a) the Metropolitan Police or (b) the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry as to the existence of information intended to be kept in confidence which was contained in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report before the report was published. [74417]

  Mr. Straw
  Appendix 11 of the report into the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry contained detailed information which should have been kept in confidence. The Home Office was alerted to that at about 10.45am on 25 February by the Inquiry staff. They had been contacted by the Metropolitan Police. We immediately stopped further distribution of the Appendices volume. The Metropolitan Police urgently carried out risk assessments on those individuals affected and appropriate protection measures have been put in place. The police have established a 24 hour incident room in Eltham Police Station and Home Office liaison officer is posted there to assist local Members of Parliament.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy in alerting independent judicial inquiries to the existence of information, which is intended to be kept in confidence, in a report which is to be published. [74423]
  760
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what powers he had to inform the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry of the existence of the names and addresses of informants in Appendix 11 prior to publication of the inquiry report; [74424]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his powers in respect of removing the names and addresses prior to publication of the informants listed in Appendix 11 of the Stephen Lawrence report. [74425]

  Mr. Straw
  The responsibility for determining the content of the report of a judicial inquiry, including any decision to publish supporting material by way of appendices, falls to the Chairman and members of the Inquiry. My Department can advise, when requested, whether material should be withheld on security or other grounds.

  In the case of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, I undertook at the outset to publish the report of the Inquiry in full. Sir William Macpherson of Cluny has already said that he takes full responsibility for the original mistaken inclusion of an unredacted version of Appendix 11 in the report. Like Sir William, I am very sorry that the mistake was made. The copies of the report which are now on sale do not contain the original Appendix 11.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he took upon receipt of the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to ensure(a) the security of witnesses and (b) that any future (i) investigations and (ii) prosecutions would not be prejudiced by its publication. [74416]

  Mr. Straw
  The Inquiry was an independent judicial inquiry established under the Police Act. The contents of the Report were entirely a matter for the Inquiry, as its chairman has made clear.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the final report on the Lawrence Inquiry was first received by his Department. [74413]

  Mr. Straw
  Sir William Macpherson delivered the Report to me on the evening of Monday 15 February.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which officials in his Department were(a) responsible for liaising with the Lawrence Inquiry and (b) seconded to the Inquiry. [74415]

  Mr. Straw
  The Secretary to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry on secondment from the Home Office, was Stephen Wells. Further details of the staffing of the Inquiry secretariat are given in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.30 of the Report.

  Responsibility in the Home Office for liaison with the Inquiry rested within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. The Head of Unit, as listed in the Civil Service Year Book, is Paul Pugh. He has been assisted by Patricia McFarlane who has responsibility for Police Community Relations within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. Other officials have assisted as part of their normal responsibilities.
  761
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department who read the report of the Lawrence Inquiry between the time it was first received by his Department and its publication. [74414]

  Mr. Straw
  It would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way into the leak of parts of the Report to give these details.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his duties in respect of public interest immunity on the protection of the identity of informants in criminal investigations(a) in general and (b) in the case of informants named in Appendix 11 of the Stephen Lawrence report. [74426]

  Mr. Straw
  The question of public interest immunity arises in litigation, where it operates in appropriate circumstances to override the normal obligations of disclosure between the parties to the litigation. It does not arise outside legal proceedings.

  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), as Attorney-General, informed the House of the new approach to public interest immunity of the Government then in office in a statement made on 18 December 1996. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) informed the House on 11 July 1997, Official Report, column 616, that the present Government would follow the same approach to public interest immunity. Under that approach the question of public interest immunity is considered on an individual case basis. Public interest immunity is asserted by the Government only where Ministers believe that disclosure of the information in question would cause real damage to the public interest.

  I do not normally have a role in criminal investigations or prosecutions, which fall to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service respectively. The assertion of public interest immunity in a prosecution would normally be the responsibility of the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department received a copy of the Stephen Lawrence report prior to its publication. [74427]

  Mr. Straw
  Sir William Macpherson delivered the Report to me so that my Department could arrange its printing and presentation to Parliament.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what procedures the Macpherson Inquiry team used to vet all documents submitted prior to publication of their report; [74480]

  (2)how many documents were not published by the Macpherson Inquiry on the basis of their sensitivity; [74478]

  (3)what criteria the Macpherson Inquiry adopted to determine which documents should be published and which should not; [74476]

  (4)how many documents submitted to the Macpherson Inquiry were not published, and how many pages the documents contained. [74479]

  Mr. Straw
  I understand from the Inquiry that the seven documents taken from the evidence which were included for publication in the Appendices to the Report 762
  were chosen on the basis that they were subject to discussion in the body of the Report and that they had a wider general interest. The documents were approved and proof read by the Chairman, his Advisers and his administrative staff. All these documents had been in the public domain, in either complete or redacted form during the public hearings of the Inquiry.

  The Inquiry received about 30,000 documents containing a total of over 80,000 pages for Part 1 of its work. Many of these documents were duplicates because copies were submitted by more than one part to the Inquiry. About one third of the total was distributed to the parties of the Inquiry, subject to any redactions which the Inquiry considered necessary. Any redactions were agreed between the party submitting the document, the Inquiry's legal team and the Metropolitan police where necessary. This was done where confidentiality was clearly an issue or on the basis of a risk assessment.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department from which divisions of his Department he received submissions on the Macpherson report prior to the oral statement by the Minister of State on 26 February 1999,Official Report, columns 660–61. [74483]

  Mr. Straw
  It is not the practice to discuss the advice given to Ministers by officials.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) written and (b) oral contacts (i) he and (ii) his officials had with the Macpherson inquiry team from its inception to the receipt of the report by his Department. [74482]

  Mr. Straw
  My officials had numerous contacts with the Inquiry team throughout the relevant period, including in relation to the provision of Home Office evidence to the Inquiry. As for myself, I met Sir William Macpherson on several occasions, notably at the start and the end of the inquiry process.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure the removal of sensitive parts of the Macpherson report appendices from the Internet. [74485]

  Mr. Straw
  The full report from the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry and its appendices appeared on The Stationery Office's Official Publications website on the day the report was published. The entire volume containing all the appendices was immediately removed when the Home Office was alerted to the publication of sensitive material in Appendix 11 on 25 February.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet the costs of(a) relocation and (b) changing identity for those informants who were named by the Macpherson report. [74487]

  Mr. Straw
  Witness protection in London is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police. I will be discussing the costs of this operation with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what external legal advice he has taken on the liability of his Department for civil damages in the event of claims from informants whose names were published by the Macpherson Inquiry. [74486]
  763
  Mr. Straw
  I shall continue to obtain Counsel's opinion as and when necessary for the effective functioning of the Department.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) written and (b) oral contacts (i) he and (ii) his officials had with the Macpherson Inquiry team between receipt of the Inquiry Report in his Department and the oral statement by the Minister of State on 26 February 1999, Official Report, columns 660–61. [74481]

  Mr. Straw
  I met the Inquiry team on 15 February to take receipt of their Report. My officials had numerous contacts with the Inquiry team after that date to discuss the arrangements for publication. I spoke to Sir William Macpherson on 25 February to discuss with him the background to the contents of Appendix 11.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) names and (b) job titles of his Department's officials who (i) were seconded to the Macpherson Inquiry, (ii) assisted the Inquiry and (iii) monitored the progress of the Inquiry for his Department, indicating the dates they were engaged for each of the above purposes. [74484]

  Mr. Straw
  The Secretary to the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, on secondment from the Home Office, was Stephen Wells. Further details of the staffing of the Inquiry secretariat are given in paragraphs 3.28 and 3.30 of the Report.

  Responsibility in the Home Office for liaison with the Inquiry rested within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. The Head of Unit is Paul Pugh. He has been assisted by Patricia McFarlane who has responsibility for Police Community Relations within the Operational Policing Policy Unit. Mr. Pugh gave oral evidence to the Inquiry on behalf of the Home Office. Other officials have assisted as part of their normal responsibilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received to date from the permanent secretary in his Department on the leaking of the Macpherson report. [74475]

  Mr. Straw
  The permanent secretary will inform me of the outcome of the leak investigation in due course; I will inform the House of its conclusions.

  Schoolchildren (Sexual Assault)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions there have been for sexual assault of pupils in each of the last 10 years by(a) primary school teachers, (b) secondary school teachers and (c) support staff in local authority schools. [73381]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is not available. However, my Department's statistical record shows that the number of people barred from or restricted in their employment in the education service in each of the last 3 years as a result of a conviction or a caution for a sexual offence relating to children was:

  1996: 99

  1997: 71

  1998: 52

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Teachers
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many (i) full and (ii) part-time teachers there were in(a) schools and (b) further education colleges in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and what percentage of each had a postgraduate certificate in education; [71410]

  (2) how many (i) full and (ii) part-time teachers with no teaching qualifications there were in (a) schools and (b) further education colleges in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [71409]

  Mr. McFall
  The number of teachers holding the Post Graduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) or with no qualifications is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The total number of full-time teachers in schools and full and part-time teachers in Further Education colleges is as follows:

  (a) Schools

  (b) Further Education colleges

  (i) Full-time

  (i) Full-time

  (ii) Part-time

  1994–95

  19,730

  2,171

  3,205

  1995–96

  20,125

  2,156

  3,154

  1996–97

  20,642

  2,144

  2,780

  1997–98

  20,510

  2,064

  2,647

  1998–99

  1—

  1,974

  2,867

  1Figures on school teachers for 1998–99 are not yet available

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding has been provided per pupil in each type of school in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years; and what the planned funding levels are for the next three years. [71411]

  Mr. McFall
  The table details the funding per pupil based on financial allocations made to schools under Local Management of Schools formula funding arrangements:

  £

  Nursery schools

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Controlled grammar (excluding prep depts)

  1994–95

  1,832

  1,369

  2,241

  2,156

  1995–96

  1,888

  1,407

  2,281

  2,192

  1996–97

  1,925

  1,475

  2,340

  2,246

  1997–98

  2,026

  1,519

  2,381

  2,286

  1998–99

  2,071

  1,560

  2,457

  2,358

  £

  Grant maintained integrated primary schools

  Grant maintained integrated secondary schools

  Voluntary grammar schools (excluding prep depts)

  1994–95

  1,667

  2,524

  2,211

  1995–96

  1,683

  2,772

  2,323

  1996–97

  1,738

  2,929

  2,394

  1997–98

  1,700

  2,856

  2,437

  1998–99

  1,745

  2,894

  2,541

  765
  Detailed information on the planned funding levels for the next three years is not yet available.

  Prisoner Early Releases
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons given early release from prison under the Good Friday Agreement have been arrested or had their licences revoked. [71556]

  Mr. Ingram
  One person released under the Sentences Act has been arrested and charges with an offence but not in breach of licence conditions. He is remanded in custody till 25 March 1999.

  Educational and Library Boards (Funding)
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many education and library boards in Northern Ireland have(a) requested and (b) received additional funding in order to reduce class sizes to under 30 pupils in the past year. [71403]

  Mr. McFall
  (a) Requests for additional funding are initiated by individual schools.

  (b) All 5 educational and library boards have received additional funding to enable them to respond to such requests.

  Tourism and Commerce
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to promote Northern Ireland(a) tourism and (b) commerce through the Internet. [72955]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB), the Industrial Development Board (IDB), the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU) and the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) all have a web sites on the internet designed to promote Northern Ireland tourism or commerce.

  Tourism

  NITB's web-site (www.ni.tourism.com) contains detailed regional and product information. NITB is also working with new regional tourist organisations in Northern Ireland to develop a coherent approach to the development of their web-sites.

  Commerce

  IDB's web-site (WWW.idbni.co.uk) promotes NI as a prime business location for new inward investment and covers all aspects of IDB's operations. IDB is currently in discussions with the 26 district councils in NI to provide a hyperlink from their sites to the IDB site to further enhance investment and trade opportunities.

  IRTU's site on the NI Public Service Web (www.nics.gov.uk/irtu) provides information on the Unit's R&D support programmes.

  LEDU also maintain a site (www.ict.co.uk) and plan to exploit to the full ICT (Integrated Computer Technologies) as a key source of competitive advantage to small firms in Northern Ireland, which will benefit them commercially. This would be beneficial by way of making it easier to enter new markets and competing internationally.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools in Northern Ireland currently have facilities for receiving digital broadcasting services; and what estimate she has made of how many will have that capability by the end of(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [72920]

  Mr. McFall
  Information on the amount of equipment capable of receiving digital broadcasting service which schools have brought, or plan to buy, within their delegated budgets is not available, and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visitors to prisons in Northern Ireland were found to be in possession of illegal drugs in each of the last five years; and how many were referred to the police. [72913]

  Mr. Ingram
  Visitors can be refused access to prisons because of suspected possession of drugs. The information required is therefore not available in the exact format requested. The table shows the number refused access on suspicion of possession and those subsequently referred to the police. Central monitoring commenced on 1 April 1996.

  Financial year

  Visitors suspected of possession

  Visitors referred to police

  1996–97

  18

  10

  1997–98

  30

  20

  1998–991

  7

  5

  1to 31 December 1998

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to introduce education action zones in Northern Ireland. [72919]

  Mr. McFall
  I have no plans to introduce Education Action Zones in Northern Ireland. Alternative measures, including the School Support Programme, are already in place to help to raise standards in schools serving areas of social and economic deprivation. Following the Comprehensive Spending Review, additional resources are being made available to bring an additional 30 schools into the School Support Programme each year, and to provide extra support to other schools in socially disadvantaged areas.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71451]
  767
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The number of press releases issued by my Department its agencies and non-departmental bodies in the specified

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Lord Chancellor's Department and Court Service

  200

  240

  329

  305

  253

  303

  352

  335

  382

  Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct (ACLEC)

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Children Act Advisory Committee

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Council on Tribunals

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  1

  0

  2

  1

  Judicial Studies Board

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  3

  3

  Land Registry

  9

  5

  12

  14

  16

  13

  16

  18

  26

  Law Commission

  7

  13

  8

  15

  17

  26

  24

  18

  26

  Legal Aid Board

  12

  15

  4

  6

  6

  3

  8

  9

  10

  Legal Services Ombudsman

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  0

  1

  2

  Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  18

  27

  33

  16

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  12

  20

  24

  Public Record Office

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  3

  4

  6

  13

  Office for the Supervision of Solicitors
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with the Legal Services Ombudsman on the performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [73884]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor and I meet the Legal Services Ombudsman each year to discuss the main findings and recommendations of her annual report. Our next meeting with her is scheduled for June 1999. Our officials have more frequent contact with her, and they keep us informed of developments in the complaints handling procedures of the legal professional bodies in general, and of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors in particular.

  Access to Justice Bill
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the media interviews connected with their official duties which he and the Lord Chancellor have given since the introduction of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords]. [73886]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor and I have given press conferences, briefings and interviews on several different issues since the introduction of the Access to Justice Bill on 2 December 1998. The media organisations involved are listed:

  BBC On-Line

  BBC Radio 4—Law in Action

  BBC Radio 4—The World Tonight

  BBC Radio 4—Today Programme

  BBC Radio 4—Woman's Hour

  BBC Radio Wales

  BBC Westminster

  Channel 4

  Daily Mail

  Daily Telegraph

  The Economist

  Express

  Financial Times

  GMTV

  The Guardian

  Independent

  ITN

  Law Society Gazette

  768
  period is as follows. Agencies and non-departmental
  bodies which have not issued press releases during this
  period are not listed.

  The Lawyer

  Legal Action

  Legal Week

  Litigation Funding Newsletter

  New Zealand Herald

  News Direct

  Press Association

  Radio 5 Live!

  Radio Nottingham

  Sky News

  Solicitors' Journal

  The Times

  "Working for Justice"
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) of 16 February 1999,Official Report, columns 723–24, what was the cost to his Department of preparing, publishing and distributing (a) the booklet entitled "Working for Justice: a Guide to the Lord Chancellor's Department" and (b) the publication entitled "Modernising Justice: A Summary of the Government's Proposal". [73885]

  Mr. Hoon
  The cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of preparing, publishing and distributing the following publications in England and Welsh versions was as follows:

  (a)"Working for Justice: A Guide to the Lord Chancellor's Department": £38,300;

  (a)"Modernising Justice: A Summary of the Government's Proposals": £22,800.

  Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1969
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applications have been made to the High Court under the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, section 7, for a determination that a person has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism made by him under section 4 of the Act for each year since the passing of the Act; how any determinations have been made; and against whom. [73822]

  Mr. Hoon
  There have been no applications made to the High Court under the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, section 7, for a determination that a
  769
  person has acted in breach of the terms of a declaration against terrorism made by him under section 4 of the Act since the passing of the Act.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which companies have made representations to his Department in favour of the commercial exploitation of genetically modified foods; [70437]

  (2) how many representations his Department has received in favour of the commercial exploitation of genetically modified foods. [70438]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 February 19991 Regulatory responsibility for genetically modified food rests with MAFF. The DTI has not received any specific representations in favour of the commercial exploitation of GM foods.

  International Market Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the issues for discussion before the Internal Market Council on 25 February, indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72744]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]Every six months, at the beginning of an EU Presidency, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), outlines to the House meetings expected during that Presidency. Every month, she gives the House details of the items expected at meetings of the Council of Minsters during that month. After each meeting of the Internal Market Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry reports back to the European Scrutiny Committee on the business conducted at the Council. He will be reporting back on the 25 February Council in the coming days. The Government have recently extended arrangements for scrutinising Council business to include the Second and Third Pillars of the Treaty on European Union, as well as the First Pillar. The Government will continue to promote the interests of the United Kingdom at all meetings of the Council of Ministers. However, it has not been the practice of successive Administrations to indicate the position that Ministers propose to take in advance of Council.

  Post Office Employees
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if an employee of the Post Office on a short-term contract must serve a specified amount of time before being granted a long-term contract. [73244]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that there is no specified time period which short-term contract staff must serve before being granted permanent employment. Recruitment of permanent staff is undertaken in accordance with the needs of the business. Short-term 770
  contract staff may apply for such posts under the normal selection procedures applying to the recruitment of permanent staff.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the subject areas within his Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73675]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the plan are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to issue information from his Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73580]

  Mr. Wilson
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be made in light of the Government's response to the recommendations from the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums. The Government will announce their conclusion on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper and draft Bill before the summer recess.

  Nuclear Waste Reprocessing
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if mixed oxide fuel and the materials which will be returned to BNFL's customers abroad after reprocessing are capable of being modified more easily than spent fuel for use in nuclear weapons. [73560]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: Plutonium can be recovered from either spent fuel or from fresh Mixed Oxide fuel (MOX) only through a difficult chemical separation process requiring complex and highly specialised plant, equipment and skills. It is technically difficult to produce nuclear weapons using weapons grade material. It would be even more difficult to use reactor grade plutonium to produce a reliable weapon giving a predictable yield.

  The other materials recovered from reprocessing are Low Enriched Uranium and waste. Low Enriched Uranium cannot be used directly to construct nuclear weapons. While safeguards and physical protection measures continue to be applied to it, it is of limited sensitivity to proliferation. Waste contains only traces of plutonium and cannot be used to construct nuclear weapons.

  Cosmetics
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what labelling requirements apply in respect of the use of genetically modified ingredients in cosmetics; [73405]
  771
  (2) what controls exist over the use of genetically modified (a) maize and (b) soya in skin-care and cosmetics, with particular regard to the presence of antibiotics originating from marker genes. [73406]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answers 1 March 1999]The safety of cosmetic products is controlled by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, and all cosmetic ingredients have to be given on the label. All cosmetics are required to be safe under normal use. No specific controls exist for ingredients which may be derived from a genetically modified plant source and there are no specific requirements for manufacturers to mention this on the product label. However, the Regulations specifically prohibit the use of antibiotics.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the health implications of the use of(a) genetically modified soya and (b) genetically modified maize in cosmetic products, with particular regard to the presence of antibiotics originating from marker genes. [73404]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The safety of cosmetic products is controlled by the Cosmetic Products (Safety) Regulations 1996, as amended. The Regulations specifically prohibit the use of antibiotics, but no overall assessment has been made of the health implications of ingredients which may be derived from a genetically modified plant source.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage mobile telephone network operators to provide short messaging services across networks. [73808]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The introduction, by licence modification, of mobile number portability has provided an additional spur to the introduction of Short Messaging Services (SMS) interworking between domestic operators. I understand that arrangements are expected to be concluded shortly between all four network operators and that it is now only a case of working on the implementation, specifically technical protocols. The Government are confident that additional benefits, in terms of new inter-network services, will be conferred on consumers through the introduction of mobile number portability.

  With regard to international SMS interworking, it is dependent on the capability of the roamed network. UK subscribers already have access to short messaging services when in many overseas countries and discussions are ongoing within the GSM community to ensure that network interworking is secured more widely, particularly in Europe and Asia.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the conclusions of the review of the United Kingdom framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology. [74144]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: I am replying because of my responsibility for Co-ordinating Government Policy on biotechnology and genetic modification.
  772
  On 17 December 1998, Official Report, columns 644–45, I announced a review of the framework for overseeing developments in biotechnology and genetic modification.

  Ministers will consider this review, in parallel with the emerging conclusion of the Government's public consultation on developments in the biosciences, and expect to make a formal announcement on the outcome in Spring 1999.

  Domestic Electrical Goods
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the data collected by his Department on the prices of the goods subject to the Restriction on Agreements and Conducts (Specified Domestic Electrical Goods) Order 1998(a) before and (b) after commencement of the Order; [74135]

  (2) in what respects average unit prices for each of the categories of electrical goods subject to the Restriction on Agreements and Conduct (Specified Domestic Electrical Goods) Order 1998 have altered in each of the last five years in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [74137]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department does not collect this information.

  However, information published in the Office for National Statistics Business Monitor MM23 shows that retail prices of audio-visual equipment have fallen on average by 7 per cent. per year over the five years to 1998, retail prices for electrical appliances have fallen by 2½ per cent. per year and retail prices for toys, photographic and sports goods have fallen by ½ per cent. per year, compared with an average rise of 3 per cent. per year for all items index.

  It is the responsibility of the Director General of Fair Trading to keep under review commercial activities in the UK and monitor compliance with Orders made under UK competition legislation. The Restriction on Agreements and Conduct (Specified Domestic Electrical Goods) Order 1998 has so far been in force for only six months.

  Plutonium Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what kind of container will be used for the planned shipment by sea of plutonium MOX fuel from Sellafield to Japan; which company has manufactured the container; and what safety and security tests have been carried out on the container. [72961]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Containers for the carriage of MOX fuel are expected to meet the standards for Type B packages as laid down in UK regulations, which are based on the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a copy of which is in the Commons Library. No containers, as yet, have been approved by the UK for this transport.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the issues for discussion before
  773
  the General Affairs Council on 22 and 23 February indicating the position he proposes to take on each
  issue. [72742]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  Every six months, at the beginning of an EU Presidency, I outline to the House meetings expected during the Presidency. Every month, I give the House details of the items expected at meetings of the Council of Ministers during the month. After each meeting of the General Affairs Council, I report back to the European Scrutiny Committee on the business conducted at the General Affairs Council meeting. The Government have recently extended arrangements for scrutinising Council business to include the Second and Third Pillars of the Treaty on European Union, as well as the First Pillar. The Government will continue to promote the interests of the United Kingdom at all meetings of the Council of Ministers. However, it has not been the practice of successive Administrations to indicate the position that Ministers propose to take in advance of Council.

PRIME MINISTER

  Internal Market
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 522, what proportion of the reforms under the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market programme were criticised by his Government. [72626]

  The Prime Minister
  Initiation of reviews under the Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) process is a matter for the European Commission, taking into account suggestions from the Member States.

  The United Kingdom has fully participated in SLIM, being represented on at least one team in each phase, and submitting position papers with our views to all except one of the other teams. Specific recommendations for reform are put forward by each SLIM team as a whole.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister when he or his officials, his special advisers or Parliamentary Private Secretary first had access to a copy of the report on Sierra Leone as agreed by the Foreign Affairs Committee. [73632]

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) he, (b) his officials, (c) his advisers and (d) his PPS were first made aware of certain key conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Sierra Leone. [73703]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]: I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 23 February 1999, Official Report, column 231.

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister on what day and at what time(a) he and (b) officials working in No. 10 Downing street were informed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had received a leaked copy of the draft Foreign Affairs Committee report on Sierra Leone. [74155]
  774
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister when he knew that a copy of the draft report of the Foreign Affairs Committee's Sierra Leone inquiry had been sent to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the second week of January. [73573]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 26 February and 2 March 1999]: Officials in No. 10 were informed on the evening of Monday 22 February. I was informed the following day.

  National Changeover Plan
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what compensation will be available to businesses which invest for euro membership as part of the National Changeover plan if the electorate votes against membership. [74166]

  The Prime Minister
  The outline National Changeover Plan is a first step in planning how the United Kingdom would make the changeover to the single currency. A further plan will be published in around a year's time. British businesses must now focus on the impact of the euro on their business strategies and decide for themselves how they should handle it and what preparations to make. Any investment will ultimately be a commercial decision for businesses themselves.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his estimate of the amount of public expenditure which will arise in connection with the National Changeover plan for euro membership which will be incurred before a referendum on joining. [74167]

  The Prime Minister
  The cost of euro preparations would depend on the detailed approach that the UK took to the changeover. As I set out in my statement to the House on 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–96, further work on the changeover will be carried out over the next year. Prior to a referendum the key departments involved are Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Department for Social Security, where preparations may cost some tens of millions of pounds.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 386, on the lifting of the beef ban, on what date European Commission inspectors were invited to visit the relevant abattoirs; and when he expects (a) the visits to take place and (b) the final stages of the lifting of the ban to begin. [74154]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food held discussions with Commission officials in January and February this year on the content, practical arrangements and possible dates for an inspection visit. The inspection will also cover the arrangements for Date Based Export Schemes in meat plants and we are in close contact with their industry in ensuring premises are ready for inspection. We expect to confirm a date very shortly. After the visit, the Commission will produce their report and set a date for exports to resume. We will be encouraging them to act as quickly as possible, but the timetable for those final stages is a matter for the Commission.

  School Education Spending
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 382, on school education spending, if he will make a statement on spending on school education in Scotland (a) in the current financial year and (b) in 1997–98. [74152]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Education authorities in Scotland are budgeting to spend £2.438 billion in the current financial year, whereas they budgeted to spend £2.349 billion in the previous financial year. The budgeted figure is normally exceeded in practice. The provisional outturn for 1997–98 is £2.375 billion.

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

  Art Markets
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 382, concerning the EU Directive on the art markets, if he will list the conditions necessary to permit the United Kingdom to agree the Directive. [74151]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: At the 25 February Internal Market Council the Presidency noted there was a broad consensus in favour of the proposal but, in view of the difficulties of some member states, it noted there were some remaining issues to be settled. It therefore asked the Committee of Permanent Representatives to take forward this work with the aim of reaching early agreement. We shall be working with our EU partners on ways in which the impact of the Directive on the United Kingdom can be reduced. I appreciate their willingness to continue intensive examination of these concerns. I cannot, of course, say in advance of that examination what might be acceptable, though we will ensure we get the best possible deal.

  EU Reports and Recommendations
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will deposit in the Library a list of reports and recommendations submitted since 1 May 1997 by working groups operating at European Community level, indicating the status of follow-through activities. [74445]

  The Prime Minister
  Council working groups make reports and recommendations on legislative proposals from the Commission, which are then passed to the Council of Ministers for final decision. The working group reports are not normally published, but the legislation, once enacted, is published in the Official Journal and is also available on the CELEX database. This has been the standard practice for many years.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 March. [73763]

  The Prime Minister
  Today I have had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. I was also briefed on the hideous murders of eight tourists in Uganda.
  776
  Our High Commission in Uganda is seeking to establish the facts and we are obviously in close consultation with the Ugandan authorities.

  Four of the dead: Joanne Cotton, Martin Friend, Mark Lindgren and Steven Roberts, were British, and the thoughts of the whole House will be with their friends and families, to whom we pledge to do all in our power to bring their killers to justice.

DEFENCE

  Uranium (Health Tests)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made to collate the information his Department has about mechanisms which could be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. [69803]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I expect to publish a detailed paper setting out the Ministry of Defence's position concerning the testing of UK Gulf veterans for the presence of depleted uranium later this month.

  Armed Forces Personnel (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign nationals are currently serving in the UK armed forces; and which countries they come from. [72954]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table shows the recorded number of foreign nationals serving in the Army at January 1999:

  Nationality

  Army

  Total

  448

  Australian

  64

  Canadian

  64

  New Zealander

  55

  Zimbabwean

  41

  South African

  41

  Jamaican

  27

  Fijian

  19

  Indian

  13

  St. Helenian

  12

  Maltese

  10

  Trinidadian

  7

  Kenyan

  6

  Barbadian

  5

  Ghanaian

  5

  Pakistani

  5

  German

  5

  Others

  69

  The 'Others' category amalgamates all nationalities in the Army which have fewer than five people in the individual categories.

  There are also 244 Irish Nationals serving in the Army.

  The table shows the recorded number of foreign nationals serving in the Royal Air Force at February 1999.
  777

  Nationality

  Royal Air Force

  Total

  327

  Canadian

  41

  Australian

  37

  New Zealander

  32

  Indian

  26

  Pakistani

  26

  Jamaican

  23

  Kenyan

  20

  Zimbabwean

  16

  German

  12

  American

  11

  Maltese

  9

  Barbadian

  8

  Malaysian

  6

  Others

  60

  The 'Others' category amalgamates all nationalities in the RAF which have fewer than five people in the individual categories.

  There are also 155 Irish nationals serving in the RAF.

  Information on the number of foreign nationals serving in the Naval Service is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Meteorological Office Report 1997–98
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Meteorological Office published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72990]

  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. Mike Hancock, dated 3 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the issue date and production costs of the Meteorological Office's Annual Report for 1997–98. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Met. Office.
  Our 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts was published on 19 August 1998 and some 1400 copies were distributed externally to customers, suppliers and other interested organisations. The cost of production was just under £37K, broken down as follows:

  Printing: £14.6K

  Photographic: £0.5K

  Staff costs: £21.8K.

  You may be interested to know that the Report was actually laid before the House on 14 July 1998.

  Medical Supply Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Medical Supply Agency for 1999–2000. [72989]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  It is my intention to set key targets for this Agency in April this year.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many aircraft the RAF has lost in accidents in each of the last five years; and what was the cost of the aircraft; [72935]
  778
  (2)how many aircraft the (a) Army and (b) Royal Navy have lost in accidents in each of the last five years; and what was the cost of the aircraft; [73786]

  (3)how many (a) Army and (b) RAF personnel have been killed in aircraft accidents in each of the last five years; [73791]

  (4)what was the attributed cause of each (a) RAF and (b) Royal Navy aircraft crash in the last five years. [73787]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Education Funding
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the cash and percentage increase in funding for education in Wales in 1999–2000. [72461]

  Mr. Michael
  I have announced an extra £133 million for education and training in 1999–2000. This represents an increase of 7.1 per cent. on 1998–99. The main elements are £70.2 million in the local government revenue settlement, £23.5 million for further education and £15.5 million for higher education. This gives a sound basis for the Assembly when it takes over education responsibilities following the transfer of functions.

  Roads (Signing)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to promote clear signing on roads. [72463]

  Mr. Hain
  Monolingual traffic signs for use on roads in the UK are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. In order to ensure that bilingual traffic signs are designed to the same national standards, the Department has produced a full set of drawings which have been issued to all local authorities in Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions the issue of bilingual traffic signs will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Concessionary Bus Fares Scheme
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on his announcement of the half-price concessionary bus fares scheme. [72464]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government's commitment to introduce a statutory minimum standard travel concessions scheme for pensioners on buses has been very warmly welcomed throughout Wales. I am delighted to have been able to ensure that from April all unitary authorities in Wales will be in a position voluntarily to meet the proposed minimum, which is a maximum of £5 for a bus pass, and a discount of at least 50 per cent. on fares. I am keen to go further, and in consultation with the Welsh Local Government Association (WLGA) and bus operators will be drawing up plans to move to free concessionary travel for pensioner
  779
  on buses over the next two to three years. I intend to make this concession available to visiting as well as resident pensioners.

  Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly for Wales will be responsible for overseeing the administration of concessionary fares schemes by local authorities in Wales.

  Manufacturing Jobs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the number of manufacturing jobs lost in Wales in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [72465]

  Mr. Hain
  We have not received any, but support for the manufacturing sector in Wales remains a priority.

  Secretary of State (Devolution)
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the role of the Secretary of State after devolution. [72466]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

  I have replied to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), 4 February 1999, Official Report, column 749, and Welsh Office officials have provided oral and written evidence to the Select Committee for Welsh Affairs.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of rural bus services in Wales. [72468]

  Mr. Hain
  The future for bus services in rural Wales is brighter now than for many years. In the current financial year £2.25 million has been made available to local authorities in Wales under the Bus Subsidy Grant Scheme to boost rural bus services, increasing to at least £3 million in 1999–2000. In addition, local authorities will be free to decide whether to spend a further £2 million on either rural or urban bus services.

  This new money will secure 16 million bus kilometres next year, and allow authorities to increase by more than 60 per cent. the provision of socially necessary bus services compared with 1997–98. It will help to increase accessibility and mobility in the countryside, and to overcome problems of social exclusion.

  Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly for Wales will be responsible for determining the future of the Welsh Bus Subsidy Grant Scheme.

  National Assembly
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans the Government have to devolve further powers from Westminster to the National Assembly. [72469]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government have no plans to devolve further substantive existing powers to the Assembly, beyond those set out in the draft Transfer of Functions Order which was approved by the House on 24 February. In future, new legislation which gives 780
  powers to Secretaries of State in respect of England will need to specify what powers are to be given to the Assembly in respect of Wales.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the criteria under which candidates for the National Assembly can be disqualified. [72478]

  Mr. Michael
  Section 12 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 specifies persons and classes of person who may not also be members of the National Assembly for Wales.

  The draft Order-in-Council laid on 10 February proposes further disqualifying offices and employments taking account both of conflicts of interest which Assembly members might experience and the need to ensure that the impartiality of bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions is not being compromised.

  Market Towns
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to provide economic assistance to market towns in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [72470]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are committed to developing rural communities throughout Wales. Enhancing the economies of market towns is integral to this process.

  The WDA's Market Town Initiative assists local communities to influence the future of their towns in the face of economic change. Some £900,000 is being made available over a three year period to the ten participating towns in Mid-Wales and the Agency is currently assessing the possibility of extending the Initiative throughout Wales. Local authorities also have a key role to play through delegated resources such as Strategic Development Scheme and Local Authority Rural Scheme monies.

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

  Trade Mission
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for a trade mission to the United States of America. [72471]

  Mr. Michael
  The United States does not feature on the current Welsh Office trade mission programme. I shall be visiting the US on an inward investment mission later this month.

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

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty in Wales. [72472]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend recently received advice from the Countryside Council for Wales and hopes to make decisions on the future management and funding of Welsh areas of outstanding natural beauty in the light of this advice.
  781
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to advertise to recruit more nurses in Wales. [72473]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Advertisements were placed in Welsh national papers on 3 February. Advertisements in the Welsh language are due to be placed in Welsh language papers on 24 and 25 February. Wales does not have a recruitment problem for pre-registration nurse training and our campaign will concentrate on attracting returners to the NHS in Wales. Officials wrote to Trusts on 12 February to ascertain their individual needs.

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

  Bro Taf Health Authority
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources are being made available to the Bro Taf health authority following the outbreak of meningitis. [72474]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  No additional funding has been sought by, or provided to Bro Taf Health Authority. Each Health Authority receives an element of discretionary funding in its annual resource allocation which is for the Health Authority to spend according to their priorities in their area.

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

  Mineral Planning Guidance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has received on the mineral planning guidance consultation document (MPG3); and if he will make a statement. [72475]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have received over 40 representations which are currently being considered. In future, responsibility for planning and mineral planning policy in Wales will be a function for the National Assembly.

  Local Health Groups
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in establishing local health groups in Wales. [72476]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Good progress has been made by all Health Authorities in establishing Local Health Groups (LHGs).

  The majority of appointments to LHG Boards are complete and early meetings have been positive. Arrangements are in hand to appoint staff. Shadow LHG Boards and Executive Committees have begun to identify key work priorities, and are taking steps to address their specific training and development needs.
  782
  All 22 LHGs are on course to be operational as sub committees of Health Authorities by 1 April, as planned.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the progress that has been made by each health authority in establishing local health groups. [72481]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Each of the five Health Authorities in Wales has reported making good progress in establishing Local Health Groups (LHGs).

  The majority of appointments to LHG Boards are complete and early meetings have been positive. Arrangements are in hand to appoint staff. Shadow LHG Boards and Executive Committees have begun to identify key work priorities, and are taking steps to address their specific training and development needs.

  All 22 LHGs are on course to be operational as sub committees of Health Authorities by 1 April, as planned.

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

  Road Haulage Industry
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the contribution of the road haulage industry to employment in rural Wales. [72477]

  Mr. Hain
  The road haulage industry plays a vital role in the Welsh economy, in terms of both the distribution of goods and the employment opportunities it provides in both urban and rural areas. The Autumn 1998 Labour Force Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, showed that there were around 13,000 people in employment in the industry throughout Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly for Wales will take an extremely close interest in employment issues within Wales.

  Cattle Subsidies (Application Forms)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to review the application forms for sheep annual premium, suckler cow premium and the over thirty months scheme to prevent farmers being penalised for inadvertently making mistakes. [72479]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced in December that £16 million would be invested over the next three years in the Welsh Office's Agricultural Offices to revolutionise the service provided to farmers and speed up the payment process. As part of this we will be reviewing data collection processes. Welsh officials are working closely with producers and their representatives to find out precisely what improvements will deliver most benefit to farmers whilst retaining the necessary controls over expenditure.

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

  Police Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the funding allocations to police authorities. [72482]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Details of standard spending assessments for Welsh police authorities for 1999–2000 are included in the Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1999–2000 (HC 203). The report was debated and approved by the House of Commons on 11 February 1999. These represent an increase of £6.7 million or 3.9 per cent. over the current year.

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

  Police grant is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The allocations for 1999–2000 are set out in the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1999–2000 which was approved by the House of Commons on 4 February.

  Nurses employed by the NHS in Wales in the area of community psychiatry as at 30 September

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Number

  Wte

  Number

  Wte

  Number

  Wte

  Manager

  6

  6

  11

  11

  10

  10

  1st level nurse

  509

  491

  557

  528

  541

  508

  2nd level nurse

  23

  21

  19

  18

  14

  13

  Nursing auxiliary/assistant

  201

  175

  275

  180

  218

  176

  Total

  739

  693

  862

  738

  738

  707

  Note:

  The figures above may underestimate the actual position as some non-medical staff (1.5 per cent. in 1996, 0.3 per cent. and 0.2 per cent. in 1998) did not have a valid occupation code and have not, therefore, been assigned centrally to a staff group or grade.

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

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people discharged from hospital following a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses and subsequently taken to hospital by the police under the Mental Health Acts in Wales were refused admission in the last year for which figures are available. [73235]

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

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were admitted for a hospital stay more than once during the last year in Wales. [73234]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In 1998 there were 1,521 hospital spells in NHS hospitals in Wales where the

  Social and Economic Inequalities
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies of social and economic inequalities in Wales have been conducted or commissioned by his Department since May 1997. [69588]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Department has drawn upon expertise and ongoing research through the Social Exclusion Advisory Panel and other sources.

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

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community psychiatric nurses there were in Wales in each of the last three years. [73228]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is given in the following table.

  person had a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses. Reliable estimates of the number of people who were re-admitted are not available.

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

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the admission by diagnosis and order of admissions indicating the percentage changes over the previous year in numbers and rates per 100,000 population of patients suffering from schizophrenia psychoses in Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [73370]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number and rates of discharges from Welsh NHS trusts for the two latest years, 1997 and 1998, are shown in the following table. Information is given for discharges, rather than admissions, as discharge information is more complete. Reliable information on order of admission is not available. The figures represent only those patients admitted to hospital as inpatients or day-cases and will therefore not be an overall picture of all patients suffering from schizophrenia in Wales.
  785

  Patients discharged from Welsh Trusts with a primary diagnosis of Schizophrenia1

  Percentage change

  1997

  1998

  1997–98

  Diagnosis

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Number

  Rate

  Paranoid Schizophrenia

  825

  28.2

  885

  30.2

  7.3

  7.0

  Hebephrenic Schizophrenia

  58

  2.0

  56

  1.9

  -3.4

  -3.7

  Catatonic Schizophrenia

  6

  0.2

  9

  0.3

  50.0

  49.6

  Undifferentiated Schizophrenia

  39

  1.3

  39

  1.3

  0.0

  -0.2

  Post-Schizophrenia Depression

  3

  0.1

  6

  0.2

  100.0

  99.5

  Residual Schizophrenia

  329

  11.2

  246

  8.4

  -25.2

  -25.4

  Simple Schizophrenia

  37

  1.3

  29

  1.0

  -21.6

  -21.8

  Other Schizophrenia

  42

  1.4

  27

  0.9

  -35.7

  -35.9

  Schizophrenia, unspecified

  476

  16.3

  416

  14.2

  -12.6

  -12.8

  Total

  1,815

  62.0

  1,713

  58.4

  -5.6

  -5.8

  1Rates are expressed per 100,000 population

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

  Assembly Election
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made to measure the effectiveness of his Department's media campaign to encourage people to vote in the Assembly election. [73006]

  Mr. Michael
  We have set in place evaluation research which involves two telephone surveys of the general public in Wales, wave 1 took place in January 1999 and wave 2 is planned for May 1999. It has been designed to measure shifts in attitudes along key variables identified by the campaign messages (as identified by the agency Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury). The sample is 1,500 members of the general public constructed to be representative of the five EC regions and in terms of sex, age, social class and the proportion of the population who are Welsh speaking.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the companies which tendered for the contract to publicise the Assembly elections. [73007]

  Mr. Michael
  The following agencies tendered for the contract (a) Howell Henry Chaldecott Lury in partnership with Bell Pottinger Good Relations (b) Wight Collins Rutherford Scott in partnership with Golley Slater (c) Ogilvy and Mather in partnership with Mark Williams Associates (d) Euro RSCG Wnek Gosper in partnership with the Petersen Partnership.

  All the above agencies were approved and endorsed by the government's Advisory Committee on Advertising. Bids (a) and (c) were shortlisted for presentations to the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to issue information from his Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73584]

  Mr. Michael
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be made in the light of the Government's response to the recommendations from the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums. The Government will announce their 786
  conclusions on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper and draft Bill before summer recess.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the subject areas within his Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73672]

  Mr. Michael
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the House Library.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are his arrangements for monitoring the implementation of his Department's guidance on best practice in providing education for(a) those with learning difficulties and (b) children with autism spectrum disorders. [73647]

  Mr. Hain
  Local authorities and schools are responsible for ensuring that their respective duties for the provision of education to children with special educational needs (SEN), including children with learning difficulties associated with autistic spectrum disorders, are discharged in accordance with the legislation and the associated guidance issued by the Department, principally the 'Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of SEN' [ISBN 0 85522 444 4].

  Schools are subject to inspection by The Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales (OHMCI) which is responsible for evaluating and reporting on standards in each school to the Secretary of State. Inspections include an assessment of the provision being made for pupils with SEN, having regard to guidance issued by the Department.

  In 1996, OHMCI published a report entitled 'The Implementation of the SEN Code of Practice in Primary Schools in Wales' following a survey in primary schools during the two years following the introduction of the Code in 1994. A copy of its report was placed in the

  787
  Library of the House. More recently, OHMCI has carried out a survey of the National Curriculum in special schools. Its report will be published later this year.

  'Shaping the Future for Special Education—An Action Programme for Wales', published in January, explained that from September this year LEAs will be required to publish details of their SEN policies in their Education Strategic Plans. As part of the new arrangements for delegating funding to schools from 1 April, LEAs will publish notional funding figures for each school for the SEN provision they are expected to make within their delegated budgets; and publish details of the funding for SEN support services which the LEA will provide centrally. These arrangements will help to improve transparency and accountability. A copy of the 'Action Programme' can be obtained from the Library of the House.

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

  Autism
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the arrangements within the National Health Service in Wales for(a) the identification of individuals with autism-spectrum disorders and (b) the primary health care post-diagnosis offered to individuals and their families. [73629]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Primary care professionals are trained to watch out for the warning signs of this condition and to refer suspected cases to specialists in the secondary care sector. Post-diagnosis, the primary care team has a managing and co-ordinating role with other agencies in supporting autistic children and their families.

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

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will undertake the necessary preliminary work for the establishment by the National Assembly of a cross-cutting committee on sustainable development. [73777]

  Mr. Michael
  The promotion of sustainable development is a key priority for this Government and I am paving the way for the Welsh Assembly to play a leading and innovative role in this area of activity. Last month I hosted a National Conference on Sustainable Development. Its main purpose was to put together recommendations as to how the National Assembly for Wales should meet its duty under section 121 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 to make a scheme setting out how it proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to promote sustainable development. A report of the Conference is being produced which I hope will be of value to the Assembly.

  Section 121 provides that the Assembly may not delegate the function of making, remaking or revising the scheme. Thus this task cannot be delegated to a committee but must be agreed by the whole Assembly.

  When I addressed the National Conference on Sustainable Development and elsewhere I have made clear my view that the Assembly's sustainable development duty can best be achieved by each of the
  788
  subject committees having responsibility for integrating sustainable development into its area of responsibility.
  I would expect to task one Assembly Secretary with the role of "Champion" for sustainable development as a core part of his or her portfolio.

  Inward Investment Projects
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the inward investment projects his Department has announced in the past 12 months, giving the location, the expected cash investment and expected number of jobs to be created; and if he will make a statement. [74183]

  Mr. Hain
  During the last twelve months, Welsh Office Ministers have announced or welcomed the following projects, the vast majority of which are inward investment projects. A total of 25 companies bringing over 6,000 jobs is involved.

  Company

  Location

  Costs(£ million)

  Jobs

  Air International

  Blaina

  10

  100

  Autokuhler

  Tonyrefail

  3

  50

  Bank One

  Cardiff

  —

  1,000

  Cartoinvest

  Flintshire

  18

  140

  Cross Chemicals

  Llangefni

  4

  72

  Radun Controls

  Aberdare

  0.65

  50

  Engineered Plastic Comps

  Ebbw Vale

  2

  72

  Firstplus

  Cardiff

  10

  500

  Gyrus

  Cardiff

  2.5

  150

  Leaveland Shoe

  Pembroke Dock

  —

  154

  Legal and General

  Cardiff

  —

  1,050

  Moeller

  Cwmfelinfach

  4

  100

  O P Chocolate

  Merthyr

  1.5

  50

  PHS Group

  Caerphilly

  —

  80

  Tokai Rika

  St. Asaph

  6

  154

  Traxdata

  Dinas Isaf

  5.8

  171

  Ethnic Cuisine

  Llansamlet

  —

  60

  Karavale Enterprises

  Cwmbran

  10

  380

  International Rectifier

  Penllergaer

  30

  539

  Wall Colmonoy

  Pontardawe

  2

  70

  Toprak Ceramics

  Deeside

  38

  430

  International Telemedicine

  Cardiff

  0.95

  70

  Tomoe Valve

  Newport

  —

  100

  Cymru Country Chickens

  Llangefni

  10

  250

  Grundig Satellite

  Llantrisant

  4

  215

  Total

  162.40

  6,007

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

  Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the WDA to consider the prospects for industry; and if he will make a statement. [74181]

  Mr. Hain
  Since his appointment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has met with the Chairman of the WDA and other representatives of the Agency on a number of occasions, and will continue to do so, to discuss a wide range of issues concerning the work of the Agency and the Welsh economy. The most recent meeting with the Chairman was on 24 February.

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

  Concordats
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish concordats negotiated between the Government and the National Assembly for Wales.[72462]

  Mr. Michael
  Concordats will set out the working arrangements between the National Assembly for Wales and the Government and it will be for the Assembly and the lead Department in the UK Government formally to publish concordats when they have been adopted.

  Matching Funding
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on matching funds for financial reserves allocated to the National Assembly for Wales from EU structural funds. [72467]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Jones), on 3 March 1999,Official Report, columns 1063–64.

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

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost of meat inspection per animal in(a) large, (b) medium sized and (c) small abattoirs. [68129]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) charges for meat inspection and hygiene supervision are calculated on a "per hour" basis. As a consequence the MHS does not routinely calculate throughput based charges for individual abattoirs. The Agency did, however, carry out a one-off exercise to calculate unit costs for 1996–97. This exercise illustrated the difficulties in the calculation of unit costs. The MHS had reservations about whether the data accurately reflected the actual unit costs of any particular plant. This was due to a number of factors including the difficulty of gathering all relevant data for the exercise and the assumption made during the calculations.

  In addition, there are several reasons why unit costs may vary from plant to plant, notably differences in structure, differences in efficiency or operation and the application of the MHS charging policy at each premises, for example whether travel time is incurred. The data produced from the exercise are therefore open to wide interpretation and unsuitable for publication.

  Fishing Industry Initiatives
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 573, on fishing industry initiatives, which organisations within the British fishing industry put forward proposals for (a) the introduction of fixed quota allocation, (b) the limiting to registration and licensing of fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous
  790
  or permanently devoted engine power, (c) restrictive licensing for scallop dredging and (d) measures to assist the replacement or introduction of pelagic freezer trawlers. [68151]

  Mr. Morley
  As I explained in the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 21 January 1999,Official Report, column 574, changes in a number of areas were prompted by concerns put forward from within the fishing industry, in some instances from fishermen themselves and in others from their representatives, and arose in the wide range of contacts I have with the industry. The measures on fixed quota allocations, scallop dredging licensing and pelagic freezer trawlers were the subject of public consultations and details of the responses are available from the Ministry's Library. The measures to link the registration and licensing of fishing vessels to the declaration of maximum continuous or permanently derated engine power, which are necessary to comply with EU obligations, were foreshadowed in the statement I made to the House on 17 December 1997, Official Report, column 228, and were discussed with industry as part of the review of fishing vessel licensing.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies have been(a) commissioned by and (b) undertaken within his Department in respect of the specific safety of genetically modified food for consumption by (i) pregnant women and (ii) children in their first year. [72525]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department has not commissioned the specific research referred to. However, in assessing GM foods approved for sale in the UK, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes considers the safety of all consumers from the youngest to the oldest, including pregnant women. The Committee has concluded that GM foods already approved for sale in the UK are as safe as their conventional counterparts for all sectors of the population.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the United Kingdom testing regime which was applied to determine safety for human consumption of the genetically modified foods currently on sale in the United Kingdom; what changes have been made to the testing regime; and what plans he has to change the testing regime. [72946]

  Mr. Rooker
  All the genetically modified foods which are currently on sale were rigorously assessed for safety by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes under a voluntary scheme which was in operation prior to the introduction of the Novel Food Regulations in May 1997. Details of the regime operating at that time are contained in the ACNFP Annual Report for 1994, which can be found in the Library of the House. These foods have also been assessed by equivalent bodies in all other Member States.

  Since May 1997, all novel food assessments have been carried out by the ACNFP in accordance with guidance produced by the European Commission Scientific for Food, which applies to all member states. A copy of this guidance, which does not differ in any significant way from the regime operated under the voluntary scheme, may also be found in the Library of the House.
  791
  I have no plans to ask for any changes to be made to the EC testing regime at this time.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when genetically modified(a) tomato purèe, (b) rennet for vegetarian cheese, (c) soya and (d) maize were first licensed; and for how long each licence lasts. [73263]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers first cleared these products for food use on the following dates.

  GM Tomato puree (paste) February 1995;

  chymosin for vegetarian cheese (produced from a GM micro-organism) May 1991;

  GM soya February 1995;

  GM maize May 1996.

  These safety clearances apply on an indefinite basis but can be withdrawn at any time if this is judged, in the light of new information, to be necessary in order to protect human health.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money his Department has spent supporting the research and development of agricultural biotechnology since 1 May 1997. [72071]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 February 1999]: The Ministry spent £24 million on research on agricultural biotechnology in the 1997–98 financial year. Commitments to date for the 1998–99 financial year amount to just over £22 million.

  Forestry
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take, and on what timetable, to implement the results of the review of existing measures for protecting ancient semi-natural woodlands as set out in the Forestry Commission's England Forestry Strategy; and if he will make a statement. [72909]

  Mr. Morley
  We are currently considering the terms of reference and timetable for the review. In the meantime, we are planning to introduce arrangements requiring local planning authorities to consult the Forestry Commission over planning applications affecting ancient semi-natural woodlands and ancient replanted woodlands.

  Thames Chase Community Forest
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on soil testing to ascertain which trees would grow in the proposed Thames Chase Community Forest. [73616]

  Mr. Morley
  With a few exceptions, the soils in the Thames Chase Community Forest do not restrict the range of trees which will grow there and so soil testing is not necessary. The Forestry Commission has, however, carried out soil tests in the Thames Chase area as part of its national research programme to determine how different tree species grow on former industrial sites, landfills and similar areas.
  792
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in discovering which species of trees were growing in Essex in each of the last 10 centuries in connection with the establishment of the Thames Chase Community Forest. [73617]

  Mr. Morley
  We have not undertaken any specific work to discover which species of trees were growing in Essex in each of the last 10 centuries. Advice on species which are ecologically appropriate to individual areas is available from a wide variety of sources, including the UK Forestry Standard which we published last year.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research reports on rabbits he has received since May 1997 and the research studies currently in progress; and if he will make a statement on(a) the use which he intends to make of the research and (b) the main conclusions of the studies. [73322]

  Mr. Rooker
  A list of research reports received since May 1997, together with their main conclusions and the use that will be made of the results, is as follows:

  Irreversible immunocontraception for the control of wild rabbits—University of Sheffield.

  The contractor was unsuccessful in developing a fully effective technique. Further development is being undertaken as part of the project "Antigen delivery systems for the control of wild rabbits".

  2. Developing humane, environmentally acceptable and cost-effective methods of rabbit control—Central Science Laboratory (CSL).

  An effective multi-capture cage has been developed. A manufacturer will be undertaking small-scale trials this winter to assess the efficacy of the cage. If these are successful, negotiations on a licence for commercial exploitation may commence.

  An advisory leaflet for farmers on the cause of rabbit fending was produced.

  A safer and more cost-effective method of fumigating rabbit burrows, which is also safer for operators and the environment, has been developed. The method is currently being discussed with industry with regard to commercial exploitation.

  3. Modelling rabbit populations and designing integrated control packages—CSL.

  An existing mathematical model addressing the optimisation of control techniques was refined. The model was field tested and was found to be accurate except where myxomatosis was prevalent; at these locations, populations surviving after control were generally less than predicted by the model. The results from this project are being combined with those from the project "Predicting damage to crops by rabbits" under the new project "Developing a rabbit management expert system".

  4. Predicting damage to crops by rabbits—CSL.

  Results from crop preference trials involving winter wheat, winter barley, oats, rye, triticale, oilseed rape and spring barley showed that triticale and spring barley were least grazed. Comparing losses of winter wheat and spring barley suggests that at densities of rabbits greater than 10 per hectare (a fairly light infestation) it would be more profitable to grow spring barley. At levels below 10 per hectare, it is possible to grow winter wheat profitably.

  "No choice" feeding trials using constant numbers of rabbits gave estimates of financial losses of £2.40 per rabbit per hectare for both grass and spring barley.

  The results from this project should be regarded as interim. They are currently being refined in the project "Developing a rabbit management expert system".

  793
  The following research projects are in progress:

  Developing a visual scaring device to deter rabbits.

  Developing a method for assessing the size of rabbit populations.

  Developing a rabbit management expert system.

  Rabbit behaviour and population dynamics at fenced hot-spots.

  The impact of viral haemorrhagic disease on wild rabbit populations.

  Antigen delivery systems for the control of fertility in rabbits.

  Reversion of arable land to grass and Calluna health rabbit grazing aspects.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been his Department's expenditure on research on rabbits since May 1997. [73323]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Ministry's expenditure on research on rabbits for the period 1 May 1997 to 28 February 1999 was about £523,000.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; who they met; and what was discussed. [73466]

  Mr. Rooker
  The only official visit by Ministers or officials in the Department to Zimbabwe since May 1997 was made by a Principal Plant Health and Seeds Inspector who attended a COLEACP quality workshop in Harare on 20–22 October 1997 as a plant health expert. The aim of the workshop was to improve the quality of ACP horticultural products for export. The Inspector met a number of UK importers, Zimbabwe officials from their Ministry of Agriculture and Zimbabwe exporters.

  COLEACP is a liaison committee based in Paris and promotes the export of fruit, vegetables and flowers from African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.

  Calf Processing Aid Scheme
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many calves were slaughtered under the Calf Processing Aid Scheme in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) to date in 1999; and how much has been paid out under the scheme in each of the above years. [73489]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is as follows:

  Calves slaughtered

  Payments to operators (£ million)

  1996

  370,550

  38.3

  1997

  600,558

  54.3

  1998

  658,650

  51.9

  19991

  71,179

  4.4

  1To 22 February 1999

  Note:

  The number of calves is the number on which premium was paid in the relevant year

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to reply to the hon. Member for Ludlow's questions (ref. 68151 and 68129) tabled on 25 January 1999. [73622]
  794
  Mr. Morley
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have today replied to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow on 25 January (ref. 68129 and 68151).

  Bombay Duck
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had requesting Her Majesty's Government to ask the European Union to reconsider its decision to allow the import of Bombay Duck into the EU only if it has been processed in a recognised EU establishment; and if he will make a statement. [73655]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: My Department has received a small number of inquiries concerning Bombay Duck. None of these have resulted in Her Majesty's Government approaching the European Union about the current import conditions for this product. The need for all fishery products, including Bombay Duck, to originate from approved establishments is a key aspect of the conditions applying to EU imports from third countries. These measures have been established to protect public health.

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received regarding the genetic modification of Norwegian salmon imported into the UK. [74048]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: None.

  Fruit and Vegetable Exports
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the role of his Department in assisting the Commission to prepare EU document 98/1457. [73790]

  Mr. Rooker
  Commission Regulation 1457/98 is a routine measure to control the quantities of fruit and vegetable exported with the benefit of export refunds, and the expenditure on such refunds, in order to ensure compliance with WTO commitments. The powers under which the Regulation was made were the subject of the opinion of all Member States. The operation of the system is a matter for Commission competence.

  Beef Exports
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many abattoirs are dedicated to beef export. [R] [73797]

  Mr. Rooker
  One abattoir in Northern Ireland is dedicated to slaughtering cattle for export under the Export Certified Herds Scheme. The Date-based Export Scheme is not yet operational. The Commission must carry out an inspection of our procedures before setting a date on which exports may resume. We do not intend to approve plants for export until the Commission inspectors have reported on their findings.

  Pigmeat
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in monitoring the
  795
  compliance of British retailers with their undertaking to sell only pork and pigmeat products derived from pigs produced in the United Kingdom. [R] [73795]

  Mr. Rooker
  British retailers have given no such undertaking to the Government. I assume the hon. Member is referring to the undertakings given by the major supermarkets in respect of sourcing own label fresh pork, bacon, and other products from stall and tether and MBM free systems, and not labelling as British products produced or packed in this country using imported fresh pork. The British Retail Consortium is to survey its members to see how far they have got in meeting these undertakings, and I look forward to seeing the results of that survey.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will invoke EU Treaty Article 36 to prevent the importation of pigmeat which does not meet the same standards of production as required in the United Kingdom. [R] [73793]

  Mr. Rooker
  No; it is not possible to use Article 36 of the Treaty to impose higher UK standards on imports where EU law has been harmonised as it has been in the case of welfare standards for pigs. Furthermore, the UK ban on the use of Meat and Bone Meal (MBM) is not in place because there is a known risk to the health or life of humans or animals (a stipulation of Article 36) in feeding MBM to pigs. The MBM ban is in place to address the specific risk that, if pig or poultry feed were to contain MBM, there would be a real risk of contamination (accidental or deliberate) of ruminant feed with pig or poultry feed.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the volume of pigmeat imported into the United Kingdom is consistent with the number of pigs produced in other countries without sow stalls and tethers and without feed containing MMB. [R] [73796]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have made no such assessment.

  BSE
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available the latest progress report prepared by his Department on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [75017]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  A further Progress Report on BSE in Great Britain was placed in the Library of the House today.

  The Report outlines the measures which have been taken to protect public health since June 1998, including legislation on the slaughter of sheep and goats suspected of having transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, notifications to the British Cattle Movement Service, cattle identification and the compulsory cull of offspring of BSE cases supporting the Date-based Export Scheme for UK beef. It summarises the results of action to enforce existing public health measures, and reports the launch of the Cattle Tracing System. An update on the number of cases of nvCJD is included.

  There is also a section on the protection of animal health covering controls on animal feed.
  796
  The epidemiology section shows that the epidemic of BSE in the UK continues to decline. The number of clinically suspect cases of BSE reported in Great Britain has continued to fall and for 1998 was 23.5 per cent. less than for 1997 and 60 per cent. less than for 1996. A continued improvement is expected for the future. The section shows that 63 per cent. of UK herds with adult breeding cattle have never had a case of BSE. Furthermore 84 per cent. of beef suckler herds have never had a case of BSE. Reported incidence also shows that herds with more than four cases of BSE account for almost three quarters of all BSE cases, but represent less than one eighth of all herds.

  The section on the European perspective reports the EU Commission's agreement to the Date-based Export Scheme for lifting the EU export ban for UK beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996. It also covers the resumption of beef exports from Northern Ireland, permitted for meat from export certified herds.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to issue information from his Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73591]

  Ms Quin
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be made in light of the Government's response to the recommendations from the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums. The Government will announce their conclusions on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White Paper and draft Bill before the summer recess.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subject areas within his Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73663]

  Ms Quin
  The Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of the Treasury's Outline National Changeover Plan provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the House Library.

  Karura Forest, Kenya
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Karura Forest of Kenya. [74032]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 322, and the answer the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), gave on 1 March 1999, column 603.

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in respect of the Loizidou v. Turkey case under consideration by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. [74318]

  Ms Quin
  The case of Loizidou v. Turkey was last considered in the Committee of Ministers on 9 February, and will next be considered there on 30 March.

  Responsibility for implementing the judgment lies with Turkey. Turkey has confirmed its wish to uphold the authority of the European Court of Human Rights, but has informed the Committee of the difficulties which, in its view, flow from the judgment. We have made clear to Turkey the need to respect the Court's judgment. We have reminded Turkey in the Committee of Ministers of their responsibilities in this respect, most recently on 9 February, and will continue to do so.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the. Government of Turkey following the arrest of Mr. Öcalan; what assurances have been received regarding due process and legal representation; what representations he has made regarding the possible use of the death penalty; and if he will make a statement. [74191]

  Ms Quin
  We raised the subject of PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan's trial with the Turkish State Minister responsible for Human Rights on 17 February. We welcome the assurances of Prime Minister Ecevit that Mr. Öcalan will receive a fair trial and that his physical safety will be assured. With EU partners we have urged that Mr. Öcalan have access to legal counsel of his choice, and underlined our strict opposition to the use of the death penalty. We have also requested attendance at the trial by members of the British Embassy in Ankara.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact his Department has with the Polisario Front; and if he will make a statement on progress towards a settlement in the Western Sahara. [74200]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Foreign Office officials in both London and New York hold regular meetings with representatives of the Polisario Front; they have also visited the Polisario camps in Tindouf.

  In late 1998 the UN Secretary-General introduced a package of proposals intended to speed up the referendum process. These were accepted in full by the Polisario, Algeria and Mauritania, but Morocco sought clarification on several issues. Since then Morocco has signed the Status of Forces Agreement and has agreed to formalise the presence of UNHCR in the Western Sahara. The mandate for MINURSO has been extended until the end of March 1999 to allow for further discussions between the UN and the Moroccan authorities on the remaining outstanding issues.

  Eritrea and Ethiopia
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the recent unrest in Eritrea and Ethiopia and (b) the violation of the air moratorium. [74278]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Fighting between Ethiopia and Eritrea resumed on 6 February, with subsequent violation of the US brokered air moratorium of June 1998.

  A full scale Ethiopian attack on the disputed town of Badume was reported in the week beginning 22 February. The Ethiopian Government spokesperson announced on 28 February that their forces had captured Badume. Recent reports suggest that Ethiopian forces have now established defensive positions around Badume: within Eritrean territory.

  Eritrea accepted the Organisation of African Unity Framework Agreement on 27 February: Ethiopia accepted the proposals in November. The Security Council welcomed this in a Presidential statement the same day. We are urgently considering with our international partners how to support the OAU in obtaining a cessation of hostilities and full implementation of their proposals.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Ethiopian Government on their policy of mass deportation of Eritreans, and Ethiopians of Eritrean descent. [74279]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I, our Ambassador in Ethiopia, and officials in London have consistently told the Ethiopian government that we expect them to uphold their international human rights obligations, including in respect to the deportations of Eritrean citizens or Eritreans by descent, as a result of its border conflict with Eritrea.

  I raised the matter of human rights in Ethiopia when I met the Ethiopian Foreign Minister in Addis Ababa on 26 February. He assured me that the Ethiopians want a constructive dialogue with us on human rights. I shall pursue this assurance vigorously.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to appoint a British ambassador to Eritrea. [74277]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our Ambassador to Ethiopia is accredited as non-resident Ambassador to Eritrea.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the proposal that a neutral force should administer disputed territory on the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia. [74276]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in its Framework Proposals of 7 November included a recommendation that United Nations supported OAU military observers should supervise the redeployment of Ethiopian and Eritrean forces in Badume and assist the restored civil administration in that area.

  The UN Security Council has not yet discussed the issue of international peacekeeping on the Ethiopia/Eritrea border. But we are ready to consider support for a greater UN/OAU role, and other measures to promote a lasting peace.

  European Union Countries (GNP)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the latest figures for GNP per capita for each EU member state. [74168]

  Ms Quin
  A number of different organisations calculate GNP. For EU purposes the European Commission's figures are generally used. The European Commission's report of 7 October 1998 called "Financing the European Union", a copy of which was deposited on 26 October (Batch list 121) provides information for every year since 1982. For 1997 the GNP per head of population at current market prices was:

  Countries

  £

  Euro

  Belgium

  14,860

  (21,315)

  Denmark

  18,100

  (25,963)

  Germany

  15,614

  (22,397)

  Greece

  7,022

  (10,073)

  Spain

  8,251

  (11,835)

  France

  14,477

  (20,766)

  Ireland

  10,526

  (15,098)

  Italy

  12,144

  (17,420)

  Luxembourg

  24,549

  (35,214)

  The Netherlands

  14,233

  (20,416)

  Austria

  15,652

  (22,451)

  Portugal

  6,148

  (8,819)

  Finland

  13,811

  (19,811)

  Sweden

  15,044

  (21,579)

  United Kingdom

  13,411

  (19,236)

  The report also shows at Annex 8, Table 9, GNP per head of population at Purchasing Power Standards, compared with the EU average.

  Public Record Office Files
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the Public Record Office files FCO 8/710, FCO 8/711 and FCO 8/712 are closed; and if he will consider opening these files to the public. [74247]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  These files were retained beyond their due opening date of 1 January 1999 to allow time for completion of the review process. The files have now been cleared for release and will be opened at the Public Record Office by the end of March.

  Civil Service Code (Complaints)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all complaints made by officials in his Department under the Civil Service Code from 1 May 1997 to date, together with the reasons given for such complaints. [74332]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: No member of staff has raised with the Department a complaint under the Civil Service or Diplomatic Service Codes of Ethics since 1 May 1997.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners 800
  who will be on (a) income support and (b) other means-tested benefits in (i) 2000, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2020, (iv) 2030,(v) 2040 and (vi) 2050 on the basis of (1) unchanged policies, (2) unchanged policies except for an income guarantee linked to earnings and (3) full implementation of his proposed pensions reforms. [71180]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Proportion of pensioners receiving income support

  2000

  2025

  2050

  Income support linked to prices

  1 in 5

  1 in 10

  1 in 101

  Income guarantee linked to earnings

  1 in 5

  1 in 5

  1 in 3

  Full implementation of proposals

  1 in 5

  1 in 5

  1 in 4

  Notes:

  1assumes no change between 2025 and 2050.

  2. Projections to the year 2050 are subject to a high degree of uncertainty, given the number of assumptions that need to be made in making these estimates. Some of those who will be pensioners in 2050 have yet to begin work, and most are in their 20s and 30s.

  3. Estimates have been made by extrapolating estimates from the PENSIM model but these can only give a very broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future. The projections can be applied to estimates of the proportion of pensioners on Income Support, but not to other income-related benefits (such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit) as projections for these benefits would require many more assumptions to be made and would be surrounded by an unacceptable level of uncertainty.

  4. It is our policy that the Minimum Income Guarantee will be increased in line with average earnings over time and as resources permit. For illustration, the first line shows the estimated effect of increasing Income Support only in line with prices over time.

  Benefits Agency
  Audrey Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were employed by the Benefits Agency on the last day for which a figure is available. [73626]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Audrey Wise, dated 2 March 1999:
  The Secretary of Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many staff were employed by the Benefits Agency on the last day for which a figure is available.
  As at 31 January 1999, the Benefits Agency had a total of 74307 staff in post. In addition, there were 3934 staff employed on casual contracts.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  All Work Test
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Norwich, North constituency failed the All Work Test in the period 1995 to 1998. [73378]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Incapacity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  801
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 2 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many people in the Norwich North constituency failed the All Work Test in the period 1995 to 1998.
  The information is not available in the format you requested. The Benefits Agency (BA) does not hold information by Parliamentary constituency. The information provided below relates to the Agency's Norwich District.

  Customers failing All Work Test 1995–98

  Norwich District

  Nationally

  1995–96

  292

  66,367

  1996–97

  683

  112,046

  1997–98

  n/a

  104,339

  Information about those failing the All Work Test has not been available by BA Districts since 1997/98. The information supplied is taken from cases recorded on the Incapacity Benefit computer system.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many pensioners in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency will be eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee. [73376]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  As at August 1998 (the latest date for which information is available) there were approximately 17,000 pensioners in receipt of Income Support in the Barnsley and Doncaster local authority district. There were 1.65 million pensioners in receipt of Income Support across the country as a whole at the same date. Whilst we do not know the precise effect in each Local Authority area, across the country as a whole, in addition to existing Income Support recipients, we expect around 65,000 pensions will be newly eligible for the Minimum Income Guarantee as a result of the above-inflation increase in the income support rates in April.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred and are based on a 5 per cent. sample size.

  2. "Pensioners" for the purposes of this question are defined as single people aged 60 or over, or couples where one or both partners is aged 60 or over.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what official visits he, his ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73453]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Widows' Benefit
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women qualify for widows' benefit payments. [73753]
  802
  Angela Eagle
  The number of women receiving Widows' Benefits payments at 15 January 1999 was 266,100.

  The number of claims to lump sum Widows' Payment in the year ending March 1998 was 45,000.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates for Widows' Payment relates to claims made; a small number of claims may not be awarded a payment. Estimates for the ongoing weekly benefits relate to actual awards.

  2. A proportion of those who received Widows' Payment will also have qualified for ongoing benefit.

  3. Ongoing weekly benefit information provided by a 5 per cent. sample taken from the Pensions Strategy Computer System.

  4. Figures for ongoing weekly benefits include GB and overseas cases, and include women aged over 60.

  5. Widows' Payment information provided by Benefit Agency's Central data Unit.

  Supported Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many responses have been received to the consultation document on supported housing; what the timetable is for completion of the consideration of responses and publication of the new arrangements; and if he will make a statement. [74190]

  Angela Eagle
  We have received 522 responses to the consultation document "Supporting People: A new policy and funding framework for support services". We are currently considering comments made by stakeholders on the proposals, and these will help inform our decisions on the way forward. An announcement will be made shortly.

  CSA Computer System
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of data held on the current CSA computer system has been identified as being of poor quality as a result of the implementation of the data assurance strategy. [74226]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Rendel, dated 2 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency Computer System.
  We recognise that it is essential to have accurate data before it is transferred onto a new computer system. We have therefore endorsed and are implementing a Data Assurance strategy designed to identify poor quality data held on the current system and to recommend action to improve it.
  We have identified 24 areas of the Child Support Computer System to investigate the quality of information held. Early indications show that only a fairly small percentage of the data used in the specific areas investigated could be classed as poor quality.
  Until the investigation of all the 24 areas have been completed in November 1999 it is not possible to say what percentage of data held on the current computer system is of poor quality.
  It has always been our intention to have discussions with AFFINITY on the best ways to migrate cases from the current Child Support Computer System to ensure the integrity of the new system.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefits (Personal Advisers)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the estimated average salary for personal advisers will be under the Single Gateway to Benefit; [73992]

  (2) what the average cost of employing a personal adviser is under (a) the Single Gateway to Benefit and (b) the New Deal for Lone Parents, including training, office space, employers' national insurance contributions and other overheads. [73986]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: For the Single Gateway, the personal adviser role has been graded at Executive Officer or equivalent in the Employment Service, the Benefits Agency and in Local Authorities. A personal adviser's salary will reflect the pay rate for the job within their employing agency. Their position on that scale will depend on how long they have been in the grade, their levels of performance in previous years and their location. Their average salary (excluding ERNIC; superannuation and other costs) is estimated to range between just over £16,000 and just under £18,000. We do not yet know the total average costs, including ERNIC, training etc—one of the reasons for piloting the proposals is to determine the total cost of employing personal advisers.

  The average salary for personal advisers working on the New Deal for Lone Parents (including ERNIC and superannuation) is estimated at £20,783. The average cost of training, including travel and subsistence, is £4,337 per adviser. New Deal for Lone Parent advisers occupy existing space in Jobcentres and are considered part of the Employment Service's core business: no extra costs are incurred.

  New Deal and Single Gateway
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time allocated for an interview with a personal adviser under(a) the New Deal for Lone Parents and (b) the Single Gateway to benefit. [74349]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the New Deal for Lone Parents, the average time allowed for an interview with a personal adviser is one hour.

  Due to the diverse nature of the caseload and the individual requirements of clients, the length of time required to conduct an interview under the Single Gateway will vary from case to case. One of the reasons for piloting the Single Gateway is to gain an understanding of the average time needed to conduct meaningful interviews.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish details of the next phase of the reform of the Child Support Agency. [74344]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently considering responses to the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" and will bring forward our final proposals for reform in due course.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the habitual residence test following the European Court of Justice's judgment in the case C-90/97. [74350]

  Angela Eagle
  We are reviewing the operation of the habitual residence test and will bring forward our proposals for its future once we have considered the implications of the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Mr. Swaddling's case.

  New Deal (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of personal advisers currently working in the New Deal for Lone Parents. [74348]

  Angela Eagle
  814 personal advisers (full-time equivalent) are currently employed on the New Deal for Lone Parents. Twelve more advisers are undergoing training and nine further appointments are due to be made shortly.

  Register of Members' Interests
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice his Minister of State received from the department's permanent secretary regarding his shares declared in the Register of Members' Interests. [74391]

  Mr. Darling
  I am satisfied that there has been no conflict of interest between my hon. Friend the Minister of State's shareholding and his Ministerial responsibilities. To avoid any suggestion of a possible perceived conflict in future my hon. Friend the Minister of State will, however, be taking further steps in accordance with the Ministerial Code. Responsibility is firmly that of the Ministers concerned, and any advice to them is personal.

  Decision-making and Appeals
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will lay regulations under the decision making and appeals provision of the Social Security Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [74676]

  Angela Eagle
  [pursuant to his reply, 2 March 1999, c. 708–09]: Last year in the Social Security Act we laid the foundations for a new system for handling decisions and appeals in benefits, child support and vaccine damage claims. My right hon. Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security will be laying the main Regulations, which will provide the detailed legal framework for this new system, tomorrow.

  The new system for handling decisions and appeals is a major step to modernise the delivery of Social Security and child support as part of the Government's programme for welfare reform. The current system needs to change. It is confusing for claimants and staff. Putting mistakes right is complicated and claimants often have to appeal,

  805
  even when a mistake is obvious to all concerned. Appeals take far too long to be cleared—on average seven months—even where they have no prospect of success. These delays are unacceptable.

  The changes we are making will enable the Benefits Agency, Child Support Agency and Employment Service to provide a more helpful and accessible service to the public.

  Under the new system, decisions will continue to be based on the facts and the law, with a right of appeal to an independent tribunal. There will be clearer, simpler decisions and a programme to develop simpler communications for the public. There will be new arrangements for handling disputes, so mistakes are put right more easily without having to go to appeal. There will be one type of appeal tribunal, rather than five, with one unified set of rules and three, two or one member tribunals according to the issues raised by the appeal. Appeals, which have no prospect of success, will be resolved more quickly.

  The new arrangements will come into operation during the second half of this year. They will apply to child support from the beginning of June. For benefits they will be introduced in stages between July and November, to help maintain service to the public while the new arrangements start to operate.

  The Independent Tribunal Service will be replaced by The Appeals Service, which will encompass both the administration of appeals and the appeal tribunals. The administration of appeals will be undertaken from April 2000 by a new executive agency of this Department. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will set targets for the Agency, which will be published and reported on annually. The President of appeal tribunals and the panel members who hear appeals will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and remain independent of this Department.

  Benefit claimants and child support clients will receive full information about what the new system means for them as the changes come into effect.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many SPOTLIGHTS on benefit cheats have been carried out since May 1997. [73993]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: We have incorporated many of the approaches and techniques of "spotlight" into a programme of anti-fraud drives involving the Benefits Agency, local authorities, the Police and other agencies which target specific areas of fraud and abuse. Since May 1997 there have been no anti-fraud campaigns under the specific banner of "spotlight on benefit cheats". However, we have put more resources into the fight against fraud with the result that £1.9 billion has been detected in 1997–98 compared with £1.5 billion in 1996–97. As well as detecting fraud, we have tightened the checking of new Income Support claims so as to prevent fraud from entering the system from the outset. This will save an estimated £200 million in the current year.

TREASURY

  Beer Duty
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding progressive beer duty; and if he will make a statement. [67946]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have received representations about progressive beer duty from the Independent Family Brewers of Britain and the Society of Independent Brewers. Customs and Excise keep the structure of beer under constant review.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if decisions of the Inland Revenue General and Special Commissioners with regard to working families tax credit and disabled person's tax credit will be published. [67985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Most appeals in relation to Working Families Tax Credit will be dealt with by the Unified Appeals Tribunals. Appeals relating to employers will be to the General and Special Commissioners and these will be subject to the same reporting considerations as other tax appeals coming before the Commissioners.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and (b) other Liberal Democrat hon. Members concerning the working families tax credit. [68336]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: Treasury Ministers have received numerous representations on the subject of the Working Families Tax Credit from hon. Members and other interested parties.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what research his Department has commissioned on the national impact of the proposed working families tax credit on poorer income groups; [69851]

  (2) what research his Department has commissioned on the impact of the proposed working families tax credit on poorer income groups. [70215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have carried out extensive work on all aspects of WFTC and its implementation.

  Agenda 2000
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the relationship between the calculation of the British rebate under the Fontainebleau Agreement and the proposed system of co-financing of the Common Agricultural Policy in the Agenda 2000 proposals. [71647]

  Ms Hewitt
  Co-financing is one of the ideas explored in the Commission's Own Resources Report, but no legislative proposal has been formally tabled. The value of the rebate depends on the difference between the UK's contributions to the EC Budget and EC spending in this country.

  714 Certificates
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of each type of 714 certificate have been issued in each of the last three years. [74134]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of certificates issued in the last three years are as follows:

  Year ended 31 January 1999: 141,234

  Year ended 31 January 1998: 237,995

  Year ended 31 January 1997: 171,424.

  These figures include certificates issued to replace documents which have been lost or damaged. Certificates generally have a life of up to three years, so many certificate holders will have applied for just one certificate in this three year period.

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning the construction industry scheme. [74133]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has consulted widely and at length with the construction industry and other representative bodies, including the construction industry unions and the Federation of Small Businesses. Broadly the representatives welcome the new scheme, which is designed to reduce the level of tax evasion in the construction industry. Naturally, concerns have been raised by those subcontractors who may not qualify for gross payment certificates under the new rules. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 223, explaining the steps we have taken to address these concerns.

  Office of Fair Trading Report
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is planning as a result of the Office of Fair Trading report on vulnerable consumers and financial services; and if he will make a statement. [74174]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Director General's report is being studied by the policy action team on access to financial services, set up following the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bringing Britain together".

  South Korea
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that IMF support for South Korea is not used to subsidise South Korean shipyards.[74011]

  Ms Hewitt
  The UK strongly supports Korea's IMF programme, the benefits of which are now being felt as that country begins to move out of recession. A revived Korean economy will provide increased opportunities for UK exporters.

  There is no evidence that IMF support for South Korea has been used to subsidise the Korean shipbuilding industry. As a member of the World Trade Organisation, South Korea is bound by internationally agreed rules on the use of industrial subsidies. Furthermore, as part of its
  808
  IMF programme Korea has ceased the practice of trade-related subsidies. However, the UK remains watchful for unfair trade practices throughout the world.

  Banking/Credit Union Taskforce
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultation he has had with the Banking/Credit Union Taskforce following receipt of their interim report; what advice he has given regarding the focus for the final report; what is the timetable for publication; and if he will make a statement. [74177]

  Ms Hewitt
  I see the taskforce Chairman from time to time, to discuss progress. I expect the final report, due in the summer, to deal with the issues set out in the remit announced on 28 July 1998.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the method of setting exchange rates on entry to the euro for those who joined in January; and how the rate will be decided for the pound in the event of sterling being replaced by the euro. [74124]

  Ms Hewitt
  The rate at which sterling would enter the single currency would need to be consistent with economic fundamentals in the UK and compatible with sustainable convergence between the UK and the euro-area. This was the basis for the decision on the conversion rates of currencies which joined the single currency in January 1999.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he proposes to maintain relative stability between sterling and the euro for a fixed period before the national changeover plan comes into operation. [74120]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's policy is for a stable and competitive exchange-rate over the medium term. The Government's fiscal and monetary policy framework will help to deliver the macroeconomic stability needed for a stable exchange rate.

  European Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the gross and net(a) payments to and (b) receipts from the European Union per capita in respect of each member state in each of the last three years. [74119]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Commission document "Financing the European Union—Commission Report on the Operation of the Own Resources System" contains information on the net contributions of Member States for the years 1992–97 inclusive, and gives this figure in Mecus (million ecus) and as a percentage of GNP. This report has been deposited in the Commons Library.

  Public Trust Office
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department has made of the impact of the abolition of dividend tax credits on the investment income of the Public Trust Office with particular reference to funds held for disabled children arising from compensation awards. [73807]
  809
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]: The Government withdrew payable credits to remove a bias in the tax system against the retention of profits for investment. It is for the Public Trust Office to review the investments under its management and to make investment decisions in the interests of the beneficiaries in question.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his estimate of the number of people living in(a) Wakefield District and (b) West Yorkshire who will benefit from the introduction of a minimum wage; and what proportion of the employed population in each area this number represents; [74042]

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of people who will benefit from the introduction of a minimum wage, living in the Hemsworth constituency; and what proportion of the employed population this represents. [74038]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jon Trickett, dated 3 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on the number of people who will benefit from the introduction of the proposed national minimum wage (NMW).
  The precise information you request is unavailable. The New Earnings Survey (NES) collects information for the employee's work address, and so can only provide estimates for those who work, not live, in a particular area. The NES also provides estimates of the percentage of those earning below specified earnings thresholds, rather than numbers, because appropriate grossing factors for NES sample are not available at very detailed levels of disaggregation. The release of NES data is restricted to figures which are derived from a sufficiently large sample and which have an acceptable level of accuracy. Accordingly, no estimates for the parliamentary constituency of Hemsworth can be given.
  The available information, from the 1998 NES, is provided in the table below. It provides an historical position against the 1998 values of the proposed NMW, and makes no judgment on whether its introduction will have any effect on the number of jobs.

  Employees, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence. Hourly pay excluding overtime and shift pay (£), April 1998:

  Percentage aged 18 to 21 on all rates earning less £2.90

  Percentage aged 22 and over on adult rates earning less £3.50

  Hemsworth

  1—

  1—

  Wakefield Local Authority

  1—

  5.5

  West Yorkshire

  4.4

  4.5

  1Denotes that a reliable estimate is not available

  Building Industry Sub-contractors (Tax Owed)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to enable sub-contractors in the building industry earning less than £30,000 a year to spread the payments of tax owed in relation to different years after 1 April. [74395]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Building workers, as any other taxpayers, are expected to make proper arrangements to ensure their tax payments are made on time. Under 810
  existing arrangements, any person who has difficulty in making a tax payment can contact the Collector of Taxes to see whether it may be paid in instalments. Those arrangements will continue to apply to sub-contractors following the introduction of the new scheme.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of money to be invested in ISA schemes by 5 April 2000; [R] [74047]

  (2) how many non-PEP investors he now expects to open an ISA in the financial year 1999–2000. [R] [74046]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The Government are introducing the ISA to develop and extend the saving habit and ensure that tax relief on savings is fairly distributed. Half the population currently has less than £200 in savings. We are confident that ISAs will be attractive to significant numbers of new savers over the coming years.

  Home Insulation Materials
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on sales of home insulation materials covered by local authority grant schemes of changes to the VAT rate in the last Budget. [74067]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The extension of the reduced rate of VAT to certain grant funded installations of energy saving materials will have allowed more installations to be carried out within existing budgets.

  Customs and Excise are currently assessing the effect of the change to the VAT rate, and have already written to a number of local authorities, trade bodies and grant providers seeking their views.

  Personal Equity Plans
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much money is currently invested in PEP schemes. [R] [74045]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The latest estimate of the value of PEP funds is published in table 9.2 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1998", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Cancer Treatments
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of success in curing(a) lung, (b) breast, (c) testicular, (d) prostate, (e) ovarian, (f) bowel and (g) other cancers has been in the most recent period for which figures are available in (i) England, (ii) Wales, (iii) Scotland, (iv) Northern Ireland and (v) each other EU country. [74054]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  811
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 3 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent question on rates of success in curing cancers.
  It is not possible to say whether or not patients are cured—although when the relative survival curve "flattens off' the patients are dying at the same rate as the general population (same age and sex); and for most cancers five-year relative survival rates are often taken to be 'cure' rates.
  The rates of survival from cancers diagnosed in England and Wales were most recently published in ONS Monitor MBI 98/1, a copy of which is in the library of the House. The survival rates for Scotland were most recently published in Trends in cancer survival in Scotland 1968–1990, ISD Scotland, 1993, while the rates for European countries (including England and Scotland) were published in the volume, Survival of cancer patients in Europe—the EUROCARE study, IARC Scientific Publications no.132. These publications are also held in the House of Commons library. Survival rates are not available for Northern Ireland.

  Population Projections
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the changes in assumptions made in the latest sub-national population projections. [73915]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Drew, dated 3 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking about the changes to the assumptions used in the latest subnational population projections.
  The latest subnational population projections for English local and health authorities are based on the mid-1996 population estimates. These projections replace the previous set that were based on mid-1993 population estimates. The assumptions underlying the calculation of the projections are based on recent demographic trends and do not reflect the impact of future policies.
  The assumptions underlying these latest projections are slightly different to the 1993 set. The main differences are that the new subnational projections use more recent data on fertility, mortality and migration to produce the baseline assumptions for each local authority; and that they sum to the latest national population projections for England that are produced by the Government Actuary's Department. The main difference to these assumptions is that the level of net international migration is now significantly higher in the medium term.
  These data were subject to consultation with the local and health authorities and the assumptions were refined following comments received during this consultation exercise. Changes were made to the migration assumptions for local authorities if information was provided that indicated that the long term trends were unlikely to continue into the future. Other changes were made to address concerns raised about the quality and use of the internal migration data. Changes made as a result of the consultation for any one authority will affect the assumptions for all other authorities as the projections must sum to the national population projections. The ONS publication, 1996-based Subnational Population Projections, England (PP3 no 10), due out later this year, will explain this in more detail.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review the VAT status of credit unions, with particular reference to their ability to claim back VAT paid on purchases of goods and services. [73942]
  812
  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to review the VAT status of credit unions, including their ability to claim back VAT paid on goods and services.

  Construction Industry (Tax Evasion)
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of tax revenue due to the Exchequer which has been fraudulently evaded by subcontractors in the construction industry in each of the last three years. [74158]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that unpaid tax written off in respect of construction industry subcontractors is at least £50 million per annum. This represents only a part of the total, unquantifiable loss to the Exchequer of tax and class 4 national insurance contributions evaded by subcontractors in this industry.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal Entrants
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24-year-olds who had joined the New Deal had left for unknown destinations by 31 December 1998. [67480]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 25 January 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Damian Green, dated 3 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply direct to your question regarding the number of 18–24 year olds who have joined New Deal and have left for unknown destinations. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The latest available figures are for the end of December and were published on 25 February in the DfEE Statistical First Release. These show that of the 214,000 young people who had started New Deal, 25,680 had left the Gateway to unknown destinations.
  We have taken steps to make more effective links between different sources of information about people's destinations and we have been conducting monthly follow-up surveys of these clients. These have established that many of those who sign off benefit without stating their destination have actually found work. In December, for example, around half of leavers into unknown destinations, who have, on being contacted, divulged their destination, had actually found work.
  In addition to the monthly survey, we are also investigating changes to the Employment Service's IT systems in order to establish whether it is possible to capture better destination information initially.
  The latest figures to the end of December show that 19% of leavers from the Gateway leave for unknown destinations. This is lower than for other leavers from Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in his Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70774]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 569.

  Title

  Copies

  Cost £

  Publications for employers including:

  New Deal for Employers

  1,221,000

  197,532

  Starting Your Own Business

  155,000

  28,346

  New Deal Tackling Skills Shortages Meet your organisation's skill needs

  122,000

  18,362

  Public Relations Toolkit

  30,000

  41,856

  Employer Newsletter including Welsh copies

  585,500

  166,966

  Publications for young unemployed people aged 18–24

  New Deal for Young People aged 18–24

  1,021,000

  106,853

  Client Hotline

  20,000

  4,870

  Working with Children

  275,000

  41,004

  Your New Deal Guarantee

  275,000

  43,576

  Work with the Environment Task Force

  220,000

  52,229

  Work with the Voluntary Sector

  230,000

  41,146

  New Deal for young people with the Environment Task Force

  2,000

  9,250

  World Dance Organisation—New Year Leaflet

  10,000

  3,998

  Publications for unemployed people aged 25 plus

  A New Start (New Deal for 25 plus)

  380,000

  47,511

  Extra Help (New Deal 25 plus pilots folder) with insert sheet

  55,000

  24,987

  New Deal for Disabled People publications

  New Deal for Disabled People (Employers booklet)

  9,500

  4,156

  New Deal for Disabled People—Making the Right Choice

  30,500

  4,594

  New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People publications

  New Deal for Partners of Unemployed People (for claimants)

  80,000

  9,107

  New Deal for Partners—Towards a Better Future (client booklet)

  7,500

  6,997

  Publications that are for other, or multiple, target audiences

  What is New Deal?

  1,156,000

  125,009

  Design of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds

  161,900

  152,765

  New Deal for long-term unemployed people aged 25 plus (Design document)

  110,000

  42,064

  Design of New Deal Pilots

  114,000

  54,062

  Design of Self Employment in New Deal for 18–24 year olds

  44,000

  9,406

  Factsheets

  3,288,000

  148,491

  Operational Vision 18–24

  134,000

  52,509

  Operational Vision New Deal for long term unemployed people aged 25 plus

  124,000

  24,063

  Branding Guidelines

  5,650

  64,553

  Note:

  The quantities and costs shown are totals including all versions of the publication.

  Ofsted Inspectors (Hotel Accommodation)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) for how many nights Ofsted inspectors stayed in the Lumley Castle hotel during their recent inspection of Park View Community School; [73288]

  (2) what was the average cost per night for Ofsted inspectors who had to stay away from home in the last year for which figures are available; [73308]

  (3) if he will publish a breakdown of the costs incurred by Ofsted inspectors of inspecting Park View Community School in Chester le Street. [73309]

  New Deal Publications
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the publications issued since 1 May 1997 relating to the New Deal, giving the total cost per publication and the numbers of each publication which have been produced. [71493]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: The following table of New Deal publications shows the total cost of each publication and the number produced. The amounts shown include the cost for any updating and reprinting as necessary, and the production of ethnic minority language and Welsh bilingual versions.

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for HM Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Chris Woodhead to write to the right hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Internet Domain Names
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress is being made on assigning internet domain names to schools; and if he will make a statement. [73646]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Some 6,000 schools have Internet domain names. It is currently a matter for schools to agree Internet domain names with their Internet Service
  815
  or Access Provider. The Department is considering the current arrangements with Nominet, the UK Internet Names organisation with a view to deciding whether any changes are needed.

  Teachers' Pay
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning performance-related pay for teachers; and if he will make a statement. [73973]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The consultation period on the Green Paper "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change" and the companion "Technical Consultation Document on Pay and Performance Management" runs until 31 March 1999. Views have been invited on the performance management model proposed in those documents, including links between appraisal and pay. To date the Government have received over 16,000 responses on these and the other proposals set out in the Green Paper.

  Non-teaching Support Staff
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the pay levels of non-teaching support staff following the implementation of the Single Status Agreement in North Yorkshire. [73975]

  LEA Performance at Key Stage 2, GCSE A/AS Level

  Percentage of pupils achieving level 4 or above

  Key Stage 2

  English

  Maths

  Science

  Aggregate

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1998

  1997

  1996

  Middlesbrough

  58.6

  55.3

  52.4

  51.6

  56.5

  47.6

  65.4

  65.8

  59.8

  175.6

  177.6

  159.8

  Redcar and Cleveland

  61.4

  60.5

  52.6

  56.9

  62.4

  51.3

  68.7

  72.8

  62.0

  187.2

  195.7

  165.9

  Hartlepool

  60.2

  60.1

  48.5

  56.2

  62.7

  48.1

  67.1

  69.3

  52.8

  183.5

  192.1

  149.4

  Stockton on Tees

  62.9

  59.8

  52.6

  60.0

  62.2

  54.6

  71.5

  70.2

  61.3

  194.4

  192.2

  168.5

  England

  64.1

  62.5

  56.3

  57.9

  61.3

  53.2

  68.6

  68.1

  61.2

  190.9

  191.9

  170.7

  LEA Performance at Key Stage 2, GCSE and GCE A/AS Level

  GCSE

  GCE A/AS Level1

  Percentage of 15 year olds achieving 5 A1 to C GCSEs

  Average point score

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1998

  1997

  1996

  Middlesbrough

  27.5

  28.5

  26.9

  15.6

  13.6

  13.8

  Redcar and Cleveland

  38.8

  38.4

  37.6

  17.0

  16.8

  17.2

  Hartlepool

  34.6

  29.1

  31.9

  15.1

  13.1

  12.4

  Stockton on Tees

  40.0

  39.1

  37.2

  19.2

  16.6

  17.5

  England

  46.3

  45.1

  44.5

  17.8

  17.3

  16.8

  1Only those entering two or more GCE A/AS Levels

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses have been received to his Department's invitation to establish lifelong learning strategic partnerships, indicating how many responses identified a lead partner which was(a) a local authority, (b) a college of further education, (c) a training and enterprise council/chamber of commerce, training and enterprise and (d) none of the above. [74035]

  Mr. Mudie
  There has been a great deal of interest from local organisations who wish to become members of strategic Lifelong Learning Partnerships. These include local authorities, colleges of further education and training
  816
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has received one written inquiry from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) in addition to some 50 letters from members of the public.

  Education Standards
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of education standards since May 1997 for the boroughs of(a) Middlesbrough, (b) Redcar and Cleveland, (c) Hartlepool and (d) Stockton. [74012]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Statistics showing the standards of attainment by pupils in each local authority area are published in annual performance tables. A summary of recent results in the named areas are set out in the following tables. A sample of schools in each authority is inspected annually by OFSTED and reports published which include judgments about standards of attainment and the quality of education. A programme of inspections of all local education authorities is now being carried out by OFSTED, but none of the named authorities has yet been inspected. All authorities have just submitted for approval an Education Development Plan which includes a three-year programme for securing school improvement, and targets including those for pupil performance at ages 11 and 16 which will be monitored in future years.

  and enterprise councils. Government Offices are currently working with all the organisations who have expressed an interest, to establish boundaries and bring together organisations in strategic partnerships which meet the needs of the localities. Therefore, numbers of partnerships and information about lead organisations are not available at this stage.

  Education Business Partnerships
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the various education business partnerships by local education authority indicating the recent annual spending levels of each. [74026]
  817
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not collect this information. Education Business Partnerships operate on an independent basis.

  New Deal (Trainees)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many New Deal for Young People trainees were employed by the Employment Service on 31 January. [74218]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Damian Green, dated 3 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the number of 18–24 year olds who have been employed by the Employment Service under the New Deal initiative. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  As of 31 January 1999, the Employment Service had 240 New Deal for 18–24 year old employees in post.
  I hope this is helpful.

  School Organisation Plans
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the regulations on the preparation and implementation of school organisation plans will be published. [74147]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]: The Education (School Organisation Plans) (England) Regulations 1999 will be laid in the second week of March to come into force on 1 April.

  Age Diversity
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to evaluate the effectiveness of the code of practice on age diversity when it is published. [74975]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The evaluation will look in detail at employer policies and practices in recruitment and employment and the impact this has on age diversity in their workforce. After a competitive tendering exercise, we have commissioned an independent organisation, NOP, to carry out a large scale research project to help evaluate the effectiveness of the Code.

  An employer survey will involve telephone interviews with a random sample of companies employing 10 or more people. The sample will provide a good coverage of different industrial sectors, regions and size of employers. There will also be in-depth case studies in order to explore practices and attitudes towards age discrimination in employment in more detail and to discuss the issues with managers and workers at the establishment.

  In addition, a random sample of older people will be interviewed on their current situation and their employment experiences and on whether they have experienced any employment discrimination on grounds of age.
  818
  In order to provide a baseline against which to measure change, an initial survey of employers and individuals is being carried out prior to the publication of the Code. Two further surveys will be carried out, towards the end of this year and in late Autumn 2000 to measure the impact of the Code. The evaluation will be completed and findings published early in 2001.

  We will also be using the range of key labour market indicators that we set out in Annex E of Action on Age to monitor changes and trends in the labour market activity of older workers. These will be published annually in June.

HEALTH

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future arrangements for the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research at Porton Down. [72627]

  Mr. Dobson
  I have decided that the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR) will remain intact under continued Department of Health sponsorship at least until the next Quinquennial Review. CAMR is remaining in the public sector because of its strategic importance.

  Medicines (Testing)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the average cost of undertaking testing of a medical product preparatory to its assessment by the Medicines Control Agency. [73311]

  Ms Jowell
  None. The information needed to calculate this estimate is not available centrally.

  Cystic Fibrosis (Prescriptions)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the current number of cystic fibrosis sufferers in the United Kingdom and the annual costs of their prescriptions. [73316]

  Mr. Hutton
  Statistical Information on the numbers of people with cystic fibrosis is not collected centrally. However, according to the clinical guidelines for cystic fibrosis care published jointly by the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, the British Paediatric Association and the British Thoracic Society in 1996, there were an estimated 6,250 people with cystic fibrosis in the United Kingdom in 1994.

  Information for all prescriptions dispensed to people with cystic fibrosis is not available. Most drugs dispensed to people with cystic fibrosis are not specific to that condition. However, both pancreatin preparations and dornase alfa are specifically indicated for the management of cystic fibrosis. In 1997, the net ingredient cost of these drugs dispensed in the community in England was £5.0 million and £9.0 million respectively. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what financial incentives are being offered to clinicians and paramedical staff to reduce present waiting lists. [73883]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have provided significant additional resources to the National Health Service, linked to specific targets for reductions in waiting lists. It is a matter for local NHS bodies how best to deploy these resources, including the levels of remuneration payable to staff for the additional work carried out in meeting these targets.

  Spinal Treatment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that invasive procedures carried out in the course of spinal treatment should be replaced by safer practices. [73968]

  Mr. Hutton
  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the methodology of choice in the investigation of spinal conditions. However, we have no plans to replace invasive procedures entirely. For some patients unsuitable for MRI, invasive procedures may remain necessary. It is for clinicians to use their skills, knowledge and experience to weigh carefully the likely benefits of any treatment or procedure against the anticipated risk for the patient and, following discussion with the patient, to exercise their clinical judgment accordingly.

  Control and Restraint Technique (Nurses)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have occurred in the United Kingdom as(a) a direct and (b) an indirect result of the use of control and restraint techniques by nurses; and if he will give a breakdown by ethnicity of the deceased. [74339]
  820
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Norvic Clinic, Norwich
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths or injuries have occurred in the Norvic Clinic in Norwich as(a) a direct and (b) indirect result of the use of restriction techniques by nursing staff; and if he will provide a breakdown by ethnicity of the deceased. [74070]

  Mr. Hutton
  No deaths have occurred as a direct result of the use of control and restraint techniques by nursing staff at the Norvic Clinic in Norwich. A black Afro-Caribbean patient was pronounced dead on 31 October 1998 after an incident in which control and restraint techniques were being applied, but the Coroner's Inquest into that case has yet to be held.

  Between 2 November 1997 and 4 December 1998 there were 45 occasions when control and restraint techniques were applied by nursing staff. No injuries were sustained by patients as a result of those procedures. Four members of staff were injured during the incidents.

  Allergies (Children)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into allergic reactions in children. [74292]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's policy research programme and the National Health Service research and development programmes are supporting a range of research on allergies in children and adults and will continue to do so. The Medical Research Council, the main agency through which the Government supports biomedical and clinical research, by means of a grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry, is also funding relevant research, including the study of infections, immunity and inflammations, which will underpin work on allergies.

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

Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve
Miss Onora Sylvia O'Neill, CBE, having been created Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve, of The Braid in the County of Antrim, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness David and the Lord Flowers.
Lord Patel
Sir Narendra Babubhai Patel, Knight, having been created Baron Patel, of Dunkeld in Perth and Kinross, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and the Baroness Hayman.

Human Rights Act 1998 and the Judiciary
2.48 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What they consider to be the likely effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 on the public's perception of the impartiality of judges.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, the Government's decision to promote a Human Rights Act in their first legislative programme was strongly welcomed. The noble Lord is and was opposed to that, as he is entitled to be. The public will think that the judges, in deciding cases under the Act, are carrying out their traditional function of upholding the rights of individuals in a democratic society under the rule of law. The high public standing of our judiciary for impartiality will remain unchanged.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his very full reply. Was not the noble and learned Lord right when in an interview with The Times in December he said that increased public scrutiny of the background of judicial candidates was inevitable when the Human Rights Act came into effect and that media comment about judges' political and social values was bound to increase? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that if we do not move to some kind of parliamentary scrutiny of judicial appointments—which I certainly do not advocate—the press will carry out that scrutiny itself and begin to examine with minute care the political and social
1656
background of every candidate, perhaps forcing the Government eventually to a more open system of appointment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I accurately predicted the interest that the media and some sections of the public might have in the background of judges. But the country does not want judges to be appointed on political grounds. The country wants impartial judges and would be opposed to political hearings prior to appointment to subject judges' judicial track records or attitudes to appraisal by politicians in terms of the changing fashion for political correctness. I have no doubt at all that our higher courts should not be sculpted to conform to some notion of social gender or political balance.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord about his remarks on 8th February about the impartiality of judges and one particular case to which he referred. Certainly, I cast no aspersions on any Member of this House and do not intend to enter into matters that are sub judice. First, is it really possible to distinguish between an appearance of bias and a reality of bias? Surely, no third party can judge that. Secondly, on reflection, does the noble and learned Lord agree that his remarks would have been wiser had they been made after the Law Lords had concluded their hearing in the case relating to the extradition of a former head of state rather than making a judgment about an earlier decision relating to that same case? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that his remarks are in danger of possibly being interpreted as steering in one particular direction?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that they are incapable of being interpreted in that way. At the time that I spoke the House of Lords in its judicial capacity had come to a concluded view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, should not have sat. That matter was therefore concluded. I believe that I was both free and right to answer questions on that subject. The Law Lords made plain that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, was not affected by any actual bias. Anyone who knows that noble and learned Lord would not contemplate that he could be. There was, however, an appearance of want of impartiality because of an association, not financial but voluntary, with Amnesty. There is a clear and well-known distinction between actual bias and the appearance of it. The latter entails that justice must not only be done but must be manifestly and clearly seen to be done.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend assure me that the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated for several years in most western European countries? Has there been any indication of their judiciary being adversely affected in any way?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely correct. The European convention has been incorporated into the laws of the majority of our western

1657
European friends. There is no thought or public perception there that the reputation of their judiciaries for impartiality has been in any way impaired.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree that it is of great importance to the British people that British courts should have the power to enforce their rights under the European convention? Does he agree that British judges have a high international reputation for impartiality? Does he also agree that there is no reason to suppose that that reputation is likely to be damaged by giving them the power to decide questions under the convention?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree with all that, and I believe it to be consistent with what I have already said.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that cases before the European Court of Human Rights often involve delay and considerable expense, and that much of the delay and expense will now be reduced by the power of the people of this country to go before our own courts?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I emphatically agree with that too. A powerful argument for the Human Rights Act was to bring those rights home so that they could be enjoyed by our citizens in our own domestic courts without having to engage in delay on the long road to Strasbourg.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord confirm that it is the intention of the Government that one court, the Courts Martial Appeal Court, should hear all human rights cases brought by servicemen of all three services in order to ensure parity of treatment?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question. I shall write to the noble and gallant Lord specifically upon it.

Teaching Assistants
2.56 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many extra teaching assistants have been appointed since May 1997; whether there is a target for the number to be appointed; and what provision there is for the training of such assistants.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this information is not collected centrally. However, between January 1997 and January 1998 the number of teaching assistants in schools increased by about 6,500. There is no target for the number of teaching assistants appointed. The employment and training of these staff are determined by schools and local education
1658
authorities. However, funding for the recruitment of an additional 20,000 teaching assistants will be provided over the next three years.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at present, when there is much understandable concern about the shortage of teachers, the importance of teaching assistants tends to be forgotten? I am somewhat disappointed by my noble friend's reply although it is better than responses from the last administration. I welcome what has been achieved. However, since much more needs to be done, have the Government any objective or formula to achieve their aim?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot tell my noble friend that the Government have any formula. But we recognise the importance of teaching assistants, in particular supporting teachers in the teaching function in schools. The value of teaching assistants is their contribution in its own right; they are not substitutes for teachers or a response to problems of teacher recruitment. The Government have measures in place to deal with that issue. I acknowledge the value of teaching assistants and the work they do.
Lord Tope: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the extent to which this welcome funding initiative is likely to be undermined by the cost of implementing the single status agreement which harmonises working conditions between manual and non-manual staff, not a penny of which is being funded by central government. For instance, my honourable friend Phil Willis tells me that for his local education authority in North Yorkshire the £2.25 million cost of implementing the single status agreement is being met by a 24 per cent. pay cut for non-teaching staff, a loss of holiday entitlement and loss of other benefits for staff who are already among the lowest paid. Does the department monitor the effects of implementing the single status agreement? If so, can the Minister tell us about that? If it does not, does the noble Lord think that it should?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord asks rather a lot of questions. The context in which this must be taken is both in relation to the extra resources which the Government are putting into education and also, I acknowledge, the single status agreement—the harmonisation of terms and conditions between manual and non-manual workers—which is having an impact on teaching assistants in some parts of the country. The department is aware of that issue and officials will shortly be meeting with the local government management board to discuss it further.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, will the noble Lord assure the House that in the drive to recruit more teaching assistants, the Government will not replace teachers in schools where there is a shortage of teachers? In particular will he tell the House what the

1659
Government are doing to try to reverse the shortage of teachers and to recruit more bright young people into the teaching profession?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have referred to that. I am absolutely clear that teaching assistants are not to be seen as substitute teachers. They are there to support teachers in the important function of teaching in the classroom. As regards teacher recruitment, the Government announced a short-term package of measures in October of last year to deal with recruitment difficulties. Our Green Paper on the future of the teaching profession is designed to deal with many of those issues and to attract high-quality people into the profession.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House how many teaching assistants recruited in the past year have been bilingual? How many of these assistants are in place in areas like Tower Hamlets, Newham, Manchester. Oldham and so on?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I cannot give my noble friend that information although I shall inquire to see whether the figures are available. I take on board the import of what she puts forward; namely, that particularly in the areas she mentions such people have an important contribution to make.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord kindly confirm that teaching assistants have no qualifications? If that is right, what sort of assistance do they give besides carrying books, making the tea, or whatever?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right. Many teaching assistants have qualifications. If one takes nursery nurses as an example, at least 80 per cent. have the relevant qualification. Many other teaching assistants have qualifications. However, a more general issue is that some do not have those qualifications. At present, there is a lack of co-ordination in terms of qualification requirements for teaching assistants. Certainly, the Government believe that we need to develop a national framework to ensure that we have the right training and qualifications for teaching assistants. I should say that notwithstanding some limitations in that area we owe an enormous debt of gratitude for the work that teaching assistants do at present.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will have a closer look at the need for statistics in this regard. He and other noble Lords today have stressed the importance of assistants. There is no doubt about that. In those circumstances the Government should examine what LEAs are doing in relation to this matter. Some may not be appointing many, or any. If these people are so important, we should know what is happening.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is important that all local education
1660
authorities recognise the value of teaching assistants. I shall see whether there are any statistics which can be made available to noble Lords. We believe there is much to be gained from looking at the experience of both LEAs and individual schools which have developed very effective systems for the training and support of teaching assistants. Over the coming year, we hope to publish good practice guidance designed to encourage all schools and LEAs to take account of the work being done in the best schools.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister said that information is not held centrally but gave a specific figure of 6,500. That seems rather odd. How is it known there are 6,500 if there are no central statistics? Will the noble Lord say also what is the pupil-teacher ratio so we can work out the ratio of assistants to full-time teachers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I said that I did not have the statistics available to answer my noble friend's question about bilingual teaching assistants. In relation to the collection of statistics there is an annual census; it is from that census that the figure of an increase of 6,500 teaching assistants was made available. It is my understanding that at present there are 103,800 full-time equivalent teaching assistants in schools.

Israel/Palestinians: EU Peace Policies
3.5 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will urge use of the European Union's foreign, trade and development policies in support of the achievement of sustainable peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the EU has consistently worked to promote a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians based on the Oslo Principles and subsequent agreements. It continues to do so with active British support. The EU welcomed the Wye Agreement and has called on both parties to implement the agreement fully and without the introduction of new conditions. The EU is the largest aid donor to the Palestinians and plays an important role in pressing for action on the development of the Palestinian economic infrastructure. We and other partners are continuing to do all that we can.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full reply. Does she agree that a comprehensive EU approach would include the creation of a Palestinian state, the removal of some Israeli settlements from the West Bank and Gaza, an equitable division of water resources and some international control over the old city of Jerusalem and the principal Holy places?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord is extremely skilful in putting a lot of questions in one short supplementary question. I shall try to deal with the four issues which he raised.

1661
At the moment, it is important to ensure the implementation of the Wye Agreement. It is vital that both sides refrain from unilateral acts and provocative statements which undermine confidence and which jeopardise the progress which we are trying to make in putting Wye back on track. We support the Palestinian right to self-determination and that does not exclude the option of a state. But we look for that to be achieved through negotiation.
On the question of the settlements, the EU continues to monitor closely the developments on the ground, including the building and expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories and the actions in east Jerusalem. We recently published a summary of that settlement activity and the presidency undertook a demarche to the Israeli Government as recently as 15th February.
On the question of water, we are playing an active role through the EU in the multi-lateral water resources working group and DfID continues to assist the Palestinians on water issues.
I believe that I have dealt previously with the issue of Jerusalem. The Government have made their views well known on that to the Israeli Government.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with a conclusion that I reached during a ministerial visit to Israel and Gaza last year that, given the opportunity that peace would provide, there is an overwhelming desire on the part of the business communities in both Israel and Palestine to engage together to tackle major infrastructure problems, trade problems and, indeed, to deal with the issue to which she has particularly adverted; namely, the difficult issues affecting water. If my noble friend agrees with that conclusion, is she encouraged by the fact that there is this community of interest between the two business communities?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords. I do believe there is that community of interest. The EU is promoting the development of regional trade through the support for regional cumulation of origin between Israel, the occupied territories, Egypt and Jordan. We believe that encourages partners to trade with each other and helps to develop the sort of industrial base to which my noble friend refers, and which is so important. That is in addition to the work that the EU is doing on the infrastructure questions, which my noble friend raised, particularly in relation to the Gaza airport, the seaport and the industrial estates. That should all help to add to the economic stability of the area.
Lord Beloff: My Lords—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I think it is for the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to speak. I am sure that there will then be an opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the poverty of many of the Palestinians is one of the
1662
main problems because it provides opportunities for recruitment into terrorism, which is, after all, the main obstacle to peace? As the Minister stated, the EU is the major donor of aid to the Palestinians. Is there machinery in place to ensure that the aid goes to the poor masses of the Palestinians and is not syphoned off for luxury living by Mr. Arafat and his associates?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the decline in Palestinian living conditions has been a matter of major concern. I hope I have outlined to your Lordships the action being taken by the EU to ensure that aid gets to where it is needed. There is a continuing and important role for the European Union to play in that respect. The recent ad hoc liaison committee and consultative group meetings in Frankfurt focused on how the international donor community can support the Palestinians directly and through the NGOs with advice, aid allocation and project implementation.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, considering the recent fall in the living standards of those living in the camps and the standard of services being provided in the camps, can the Minister say whether Britain and her EU partners are considering an increase in the UNRWA budget?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the EU is already the largest donor to the area. I believe that it was a United Kingdom initiative. However, as a result of that, the European Union has engaged Israel in a dialogue to find practical ways to ensure that the money gets through to the Palestinians, to the economy, in ways that Israel will find compatible with its security. Obviously that takes a certain amount of application and work. However, we and the EU believe that the existing initiatives I have described as regards what happened recently in Frankfurt will deliver tangible benefits to the Palestinians.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, would the Minister invite the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to use some of his wide-ranging foreign energies to put pressure on the oil-rich Gulf states to make a contribution to the Palestinian economy to strengthen the peace process?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that all people of goodwill, both within the immediate region of Palestine and Israel, and indeed elsewhere, should be persuaded to do what they can to support the Palestinian economy. There are a number of ways in which that can be done, through the trading alliances—which I have already described, and which the EU is trying to promote between Egypt and Jordan who are, in fact, engaging in that process—by directly supporting the infrastructure and, most important of all, in supporting the peace process. Unless we get the peace process right, there will be no prosperity for the Palestinians.

West Wales and the Valleys: EU Funding Status
3.14 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards securing Objective 1 status for areas of Wales suffering from high levels of unemployment, poverty and lack of investment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the European Union has confirmed that the gross domestic product of the West Wales and the Valleys NUTS II area for the period 1994–96 is around 71 per cent. of the European Union average. If the Commission's current proposals for NUTS II eligibility are approved by member states, this area will qualify for Objective 1 status. The subsequent approval of an Objective 1 programme for the area will be subject to the satisfactory conclusion of further negotiations with the Commission.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most helpful reply. Can he confirm that Objective 1 status is only given to areas suffering considerable deprivation and that West Wales and the Valleys fall into that category? Can he give the up-to-date position regarding matching Treasury funding, bearing in mind that without that funding there will be no Objective 1 status? That would be a tragedy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn is quite right in his description of the Objective 1 categorisation. Matching funds will be required at present. The question of funds on a matching basis after the year 2000 remains for negotiation. I can tell your Lordships that the timetable looks promising. The European Council should come to a conclusion this month, and the European Parliament should do so by the end of June.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the claims made by London to EU structural funds are not disadvantaged by the recent statistical exercise? That exercise gave a distorted picture of inner London as the wealthiest area in Europe by attributing the entire wealth of the City of London to the citizens of some of the poorest boroughs in the country such as Hackney, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, and so on. The income of a City trader living in Surrey, at £1 million, was attributed to council tenants living in one of those deprived boroughs. Can the Minister ensure that that exercise, which pictured inner London as the wealthiest area in London, despite the deprivation, does not prejudice London's claims to EU structural funds?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, such question as I could disentangle does not seem entirely focused on Objective 1 status for West Wales and the Valleys. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is about to ask
1664
a most helpful question. He will be able to confirm that some people who live in inner London are extremely well off!
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, pace! Will the Minister go further and give the House an assurance that the Government's financial contribution to Objective 1 status will be met in full by the Treasury and not deducted from the Welsh block grant?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give that assurance. I am sure that the noble Viscount did not expect me to fall into that particularly well-laid trap. We are adamantly determined to secure the very best possible advantage for a deprived area, as the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, described it. The area suffered very intensive, historic consequences of the rundown of heavy industry. It is in need of, and a worthy candidate for, such funds as are available from our friends and donors in Europe.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords—
Lord Brookman: My Lords
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if we do not all confine ourselves to asking short questions and watching the clock, no one will get in. I suggest it is the turn of my noble friend.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, maybe that is because I am Welsh. I was assured by the Minister's reply. However, can he confirm that massive job losses resulting from mining and steel industry closures in Wales have had a dramatic effect upon unemployment and, therefore, the old subject of Objective 1 status is extremely vital as of now?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, yes. That is one of the bases for the conclusion, an unhappy one, that the GDP of the West Wales and Valleys NUTS area is only 71 per cent. That is part of the necessary qualification for Objective 1 status. The recent history of Wales, with job losses, contributed to that. I do not know why everyone gets so excited about Questions on Wales.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Bragg set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Kennet set down for the same day to one-and-a-half hours.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to

Public Service Broadcasting
3.20 p.m.
Lord Bragg Lord Bragg rose to call attention to the future of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, first I must declare an interest. I was trained by the BBC and worked there for many years in the World Service, the Third Programme and Huw Wheldon's "Monitor" programme. For more than 20 years I worked in ITV, currently making arts programmes for LWT and I work on Radio 4. I am engaged with two media and two organisations I greatly respect.
What distinguishes public service broadcasting in this country is that over decades it has been so successful; massively and uniquely well-funded and heavily protected. As a consequence, for many years it has been able to call on and pay for the finest talent across the board. "Public service broadcasting" still, just, defines public broadcasting in Britain today. My hope is that it will continue to do so, despite great turbulence in the airwaves. My fear is that the BBC, its chief guardian, may be set on an unnecessarily dangerous path at the moment. My intention is, as George Orwell put it, "to tell it how it is".
I believe that strong public service broadcasting is essential to ensure that those two powerful media—radio and television—remain vital, democratic and a full reflection of this country's variety. As I want to devote most of my time to the BBC I should like to begin by stressing that, though the BBC is the cornerstone of public service broadcasting, it is by no means the only block in the edifice. Let me take television as an example and choose not the content of Channel 4 which is so very like the content of BBC2, but rather the more unlikely comparison of ITV—a big established commercial channel—with BBC1, the BBC's flagship channel.
I should like to note, first, that of all public service UK TV broadcasters, the BBC is the only one not to have positive programme obligations placed upon it. Each of the ITV companies has such an obligation, as have Channels 4 and 5. According to information published recently by the BBC itself, in 1997–98 ITV produced more than twice as much arts and music programming as BBC1 and 20 per cent. more than BBC2. ITV produced more home-grown, home-produced, home-written drama than BBC1 and BBC2 combined. ITV showed more documentaries and features than BBC1. ITV, on that snapshot count, is at least an equal public service broadcaster with BBC1. Frankly, it is rather worrying when the BBC continues to assert that everything in the public service broadcasting garden is wonderful and theirs. It is not true and it does not help.
Where does that leave us? It suggests that it would do no harm for the BBC to institute a table of genre obligations such as exists in ITV and publish a defined percentage of programmes meeting that definition. Yet, despite the figures, I would argue that public service
1666
content in all terrestrial channels is, or ought to be, underpinned by the BBC because that is its prime purpose and should continue to be so—more so.
An even more brutal question is: do we need to go to BBC television for anything specific at all? Sports, movies, soaps, drama, comedy, news, documentary, arts, local programming—it is possible almost everywhere to find adequate or preferred alternatives to BBC television. Given that it is television that drives on the licence fee, that must raise serious questions. And with the proliferation of channels, the arrival of the Internet and the convergence of television and the Internet, there will inevitably be a fragmentation of audiences— the view most cogently expressed by Gerald Kaufman. As to a large extent the public service remit presupposes a mass audience, where does that leave the licence fee after 2006? "Why pay it if you don't watch it"? is a question which must be answered before it is used to wound.
At present for about £100, by any comparison, the BBC offers outstanding and remarkable value. There are many, including myself, who would pay more. There are many to whom the sum is a burden, particularly if they can live without the BBC. And even for the majority which calmly accepts it, the licence fee is still an imposition and as such it must justify and be seen to justify its existence.
So what is it about the BBC which merits its monopoly of almost £2 billion a year of public money? Is it its fine record and traditional character and reliability? Yes. But the loss of the cricket, to take but one example from a general haemorrhaging of sport, is a small but definite indicator that traditions can be lost and therefore character can be changed. Its particular, its especial programme skills; is that what makes the BBC worth the licence fee? Yes again. Yet none nowadays would deny that other outfits are every bit as skilled and, more to the argument, the same independent production companies such as Hat-Trick, or the same writers such as Jimmy McGovern and the same directors and skilled crafts move from channel to channel as freely or as expensively as footballers move from club to club. The hard edges are beginning to blur. Whose channel is it?
Radio here provides an almost wholly different platform. Apart from Radio 1 it is an exemplary case; and, of course, I can understand that BBC1 and Radio I must reach out for the wider audience. "Most people shall watch or listen some of the time" is an old and tested BBC mantra—I hope the charm keeps working. But if it looks and sounds just like its competitors, then a feeling of unease will grow, legitimately.
The twin worries that commentators have expressed are the size of the BBC bureaucracy and, more importantly, the nature of the BBC's commercialism. Both stem, critics say, from the BBC's expansionist tendencies—tendencies which even friends of the BBC believe are doing harm to its fundamental remit and its justification for state funding. Perhaps one clear way of expressing the remit is that the BBC must concentrate on that which the commercial market cannot fill. This is not all it should do of course, as I have said by

1667
reference to the purposes of BBC1 and Radio 1. But if it fails to do that core job it will be vulnerable to serious challenges, especially when the going gets tough.
For instance, I wonder whether the BBC really needs to spend £30 million a year—at least—on a 24-hour rolling news service when Sky and CNN already cover that market. And does the licence fee payer really have to pay for BBC On Line when the FT, Microsoft, NBC and BT are already providing that service in a commercial market? And does the BBC need to invest public money to the extent of £200 million a year for the next 10 years on loss-making digital channels which will lose money for years and which the commercial sector will, and does, produce? Given the general unhappiness among BBC producers at the slashing of their budgets and given the strains that that puts on BBC's resources and performance, I am reminded of the late Sir Huw Wheldon's remark that,
"the BBC is the sum of its programmes, and no more, and no less".
The widening range of commercial activities means that the BBC has grown a gigantic corporate centre noted with amazement by, among others, Ray Snoddy in The Times recently. That costs the BBC at least £80 million a year and we must ask: is it all necessary? Think what even half of that would do for programmes! And surely, more importantly, this leaves the BBC with a split mission. What sort of organisation does it want to be? Is it becoming a commercial company maximising its assets or is it there to use the British licence fee for the British public at the highest programme level? One might say both. But that may be too easy an answer.
The BBC cannot be a little bit pregnant. If it is going to play on the global commercial market field, then its competitors have every right to demand and get a level playing field. Otherwise they will always be at a disadvantage against a body backed by a massive and fixed flow of state support. That could become an inflammatory issue. Other broadcasters could bite back in many ways—one way might be in the demand for some percentage of public funds for their public service broadcasting commitments.
I am going to suggest a way to steer the BBC from a collision course which seems to me to be facing them in the market. No one is asking the BBC to give up commercial life. Its name adds money to the programme-making pot. BBC Worldwide does that. But it is wholly owned and run by the BBC at the moment and so bound to raise questions, cause problems, cross lines, get into battles with others in the competitive field, which will confuse and, I believe, could ultimately damage the BBC.
Why not set up a wholly independent commercial structure which would house all UK television programmes? They would include the BBC, ITV, Channels 4 and 5—all of them. At present we have one of the world's most successful television industries, but we do not punch anything like our weight on the world market. It is ludicrous that in the USA buyers simply play off British companies one against the other and drive our prices down. Despite our massive industry and all the
1668
compliments we and others pay ourselves on it, from the world market in 1997 we collected the accolade of a record balance of trade deficit—£272 million.
One of the principal reasons for this is that there are far too many organisations selling British programmes. We have no critical mass so we have no clout. We should be selling whole channels, not competing with each other to sell programmes. I suggest that one "UK International Programme Distribution plc" could sort that out. It would build us up on the market, compete world wide and pour money back into the BBC and other companies for better programmes. A new broadcasting Bill could examine this and other matters. It would be useful to know when it is considered appropriate to introduce such a Bill.
Going back to its roots, the BBC could show a clean pair of heels to all of us in the large and growing market of public intelligent broadcasting. The BBC is perfectly placed to command this territory and dominate a growing English-speaking world market.
As I have concentrated on television, I would point to Radios 2, 3, 4 and 5 as an example, performing outstandingly in the fields that they occupy. Personally, I wish for more discussions on Radios 3 and 4 and about as much time devoted to lectures and seminars and arguments as to music. But that is a personal and a marginal point.
By concentrating wholly on programmes of quality—as happens largely in radio—think what the BBC could achieve in television. At a time when leisure and life expectancy are increasing, the British population is revealing a growing enthusiasm for continuing education and an appetite for knowledge and culture. Could not the BBC seriously address this in science, history, education, the arts, archaeology, drama and documentary and put extra resources there, bringing in much more talent as it has done so successfully with the natural history area in the past and as it has done in its time with new drama and comedy? No one else anywhere could move in here on the scale of the BBC; it could be an inspiration.
Instead of becoming more and more like other channels and competing in a global market which will make it more and more like other institutions, it should surely aim to be different from them and with profit to its viewers and to its listeners. It could be so successfully different.
Clearly, some years ago the BBC had a fright when it feared that in the last phase of the Thatcher government it would be asset-stripped and deprived of much of its inheritance. To fight against that and to turn that tide was a great achievement and there have been other achievements since. But now, as one who is a strong supporter of the BBC and who wishes it nothing but well, I say to it—look out and look at what you can uniquely do. The remit is the way forward.
Public service is enough of a responsibility and an opportunity. For over 75 years the BBC has stood for something singular and been seen to be singular. If that goes the BBC will eventually go and a great chapter in our social and cultural history would have come to an

1669
end. It need not be like that. But the dangers are clear and the time to act is now. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by congratulating my fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on moving this Motion. One of the endearing characteristics of Cumbria is that things are done differently there and down here he is not allowed to be "my friend". I, too, look forward to hearing the Minister wind up and I hope that I am allowed to ask him not to be too wordy as I have a train to catch and the timetable will be tight.
I have a number of interests in the general area of media and broadcasting, which I hope and believe I have fully declared in the Register.
The topography of the broadcasting landscape in this country has evolved in a very ad hoc and typically British way, but I do not believe that it has served the country any the worse for that. I suppose that if one were designing it from a blueprint, one would not necessarily start from here.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, pointed out, it is important to understand that public service broadcasting in this country covers both radio and television. I believe that radio does not get the attention that it deserves, least of all from me because I shall make my few comments about television. As the noble Lord said, the television sector covers not only the two BBC channels, but also Channels 3 and 4, S4C and Channel 5. These channels collectively provide the so-called bouquet of television offerings, which comprise public service broadcasting in this country.
They owe their very being to spectrum scarcity which dominated broadcasting until the dawn of the multi-channel world brought about by satellite and cable, which has been accelerated in particular by digital technology and various on-line services, not to speak of general convergence with telecoms.
The circumstances which gave birth to the core bouquet of public service channels are now disappearing before us. That poses a real challenge for policy makers and politicians which needs to be addressed.
Since the BBC first began broadcasting, the rationale for public service broadcasting has changed and the practical manifestation of the rationale has also changed. Given the abundance of potential transmission systems, there is no longer any real spectrum scarcity. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, pointed out, credible content may well become the main constraint on broadcasters. Certainly, its value has soared over recent years, as can be seen from the market price of the broadcasting rights of major and popular sporting events.
Against that background I believe that the time has come for a careful reappraisal of the purpose of public service broadcasting and where it belongs in the digital world into which we are now going. I wish to put on record that public service broadcasting has served the country well in the past and that the concept, as it has
1670
become known in this country, albeit changed by changed circumstances, has a real and important role for the future.
In this context it is interesting to note that attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam there is a protocol which recognises the place of public service broadcasting and the legitimacy of what the European Community would define as state aid to support it. While in my view these are unequivocally issues for member states, the international nature of broadcasting, especially satellite broadcasting, in a language which is either shared by more than one member state or is used very widely across the Community as a whole, gives the contemporary broadcasting industry a pan-national character which in turn requires a pan-national framework of rules within which it must operate.
It is very likely that many of the issues which are at the heart of this debate will come before the committee which is inquiring into the future funding of the BBC under the chairmanship of Gavyn Davies. It is the case that its terms of reference are narrowly set, but I cannot see how one can take a view about the right way to fund the BBC without knowing what the BBC should be doing. In the middle of a revolution—for that is where we are, in broadcasting terms—that is a little unclear. It is particularly so if, as I suspect, it might be unrealistic to think of providing enough money for the BBC to do everything that it has been doing for some time and to take on new activities, for example, on-line and 24-hour news services. It may well be that there will be a need to clarify and to think through very clearly exactly what the BBC should be doing in the context of contemporary circumstances.
Against that background, I believe there is a need for a re-definition of public service broadcasting for the next millennium because only then can one identify, for example, what the BBC might do, how it might do it and how in turn that will be paid for. What is true for the BBC is also true for Channels 3, 4, S4C and Channel 5 because a change on one part of the public service broadcasting waterfront reads across to, and has implications for, all the others.
When I had the great privilege to be the Minister for broadcasting between 1995 and 1997, I was responsible for the passage through Parliament of the Broadcasting Act 1996. We were very clear that the changes that we were bringing about—or, to be strictly accurate, we were helping to bring about—were not an answer in themselves. They were not a destination on a journey, rather they were merely a stopping point on the way to the future. I am quite clear that we were right to look at it in that way.
I believe that the next resting place on that particular journey, which is propelled by technology and not, I believe, by politicians, is a consideration of precisely what public service broadcasting should be doing in the multi-media, digital world of the next millennium.
In answering that, I believe it is important that the topic is canvassed widely and generates continuing controversy and dispute within and without political and broadcasting circles. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, pointed out, getting this right will matter a very great deal to everyone in this country.

1671
I am not actually sure that at this stage there is any need for the Government to do anything. Like all Members of your Lordships' House who have been Ministers, I know that governments like doing things: it gives the appearance of being in control, which my experience in the Department of National Heritage suggests is not necessarily so in the context of the broadcasting industry, because the Government set the framework within which others operate. I believe that that is how it should be.
However, I hope that the Government will make it clear that there are some very serious questions which need answering about the future purpose and form of public service broadcasting which government, of whatever political persuasion, will have to address in the reasonably near future. I hope that they will give a lead and encourage academics, broadcasters, journalists and—dare I say it?—even politicians, to start debating the matter.
3.41 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the well-informed introduction of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and equally well-informed comment from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I should first declare an interest. I am president of the British Radio and Electronic Equipment Manufacturers' Association—saying it takes up almost the seven minutes of my time. I have received a large number of briefings from ITV, Channel 4, the BBC, commercial radio and others which could form the basis of a good hour-long speech. However, we have seven minutes each—or a little under.
Therefore, perhaps I may begin by saying that my real interest in the debate is that I believe that the media, and broadcasting within the media, form part of the essential cement of a democratic society. Like the European Commission in its report on the digital age, I believe that,
"a society which restricts access to information or freedom of expression to a privileged few is no longer a democratic one".
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, says that we are in the midst of a revolution. That is an often overworked word, but in this case it is true. New technologies and converging technologies will change in a way probably not experienced since the BBC was founded over 75 years ago; in other words, broadcasting is undergoing a fundamental change.
I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in my belief that the Government cannot be passive in the face of this revolution. I say that because there are powerful commercial interests at work. If the Government are passive, we may find that it is those who are looking for shareholder value rather than the public interest who set the pace and the direction of change. So we look to the Government—I am sure that Ministers from the previous administration recognise the terms—for quality, diversity and choice. Those words formed the title of the 1989 White Paper which preceded the subsequent Broadcasting Act. Quality, diversity and choice are not the same as proliferation.
1672
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, was interesting and persuasive in what he had to say about the BBC. However, I shall have to read Hansard before I decide just how close a friend he is of the corporation. We on these Benches see ourselves as friends of the BBC. But I hope we are candid friends. We see the licence fee as the iron pole around which public service broadcasting must be built. We shall have to be persuaded a very great deal about alternatives before we see the argument for letting go the licence fee even after 2006. The problem is that the licence fee creates a Catch-22 situation for the BBC. It needs audience to justify the licence fee, but if it chases audience too hard in the direction of populism it may then start losing the justification for its privileged position.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, in one respect; namely, that the future for the BBC is not in chasing its commercial rivals but in making a virtue of the special position that we as a society grant to it. It should also stand firm and look for allies to defend its position against those who not only take the rather lofty view of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, but who may also look at the 40 per cent. of the audience that the BBC commands as rather juicy territory to occupy as commercial entrepreneurs.
Last night, Will Wyatt said to the all-party media group that,
"behind the gossip, the noise around celebrities, the occasional alarums and excursions, … the BBC is not so quietly fulfilling the public service promises of information, entertainment and education which have been its Holy Trinity since John Reith took over the British Broadcasting Company as it first was".
Those are extremely fine words. If the BBC keeps to that commitment to educate and inform as well as entertain, it will find many supporters, allies and defenders. However, as a number of my noble friends will say, the problem is that alongside those fine words are suspicions of dumbing-down and of the BBC moving away from Reithian commitments.
I shall not dwell too long on it but the marginalisation of politics and current affairs within the BBC's schedule is, I believe, a disgrace. It is no use the BBC referring to the Parliamentary Channel as some kind of convenient dustbin for that commitment. If the BBC is to play its role within a democracy, it must educate and inform within its main channels and at peak times. I seek some evidence that the BBC is looking in that direction.
I have one short comment to make on technology. There is much debate about the switch to digital television. There are now six different delivery systems for digital television on the market. That is because the providers will not reach agreement about interoperability. Here is one good example of where Ministers can bang heads together to the advantage of the consumer. Most Ministers are in office for only a short time. To have been the Minister responsible for the BBC becoming a public corporation, the Minister who introduced ITV or, indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, who introduced Channel 4—all Ministers who left a mark on broadcasting policy—must be a source of greater satisfaction than to be thought of as someone who sat there passively while entrepreneurs and bean counters destroyed an impressive national

1673
heritage; namely, our public service broadcasting system. I point out to the Minister that the decisions that he and his colleagues make during the next three years will determine whether we retain that public service in our broadcasting or lose it forever.
3.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for introducing this issue to your Lordships' House. I want to associate myself with the very positive affirmation that he made of the BBC, but I also want to pick up the challenge which he laid down. The challenge for the BBC is to sustain its reputation and its special place in the life of the nation by producing programmes of quality and skill; that is to say, programmes which attract and extend audiences by helping to stimulate and expand the horizons and interests of viewers and listeners.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already spoken of a trinity of aims: to entertain—that clearly is to be seen as an important part of any scheduling at the present time—to inform and to educate. Neither the reputation of the BBC nor its future will be secured by heading relentlessly downmarket as the route to maximum market share. We need to remember that there is an independence given to the BBC by the paying of the fee, which is a significant amount of money. That freedom ought to be used positively, not just to entertain but also to inform and to educate.
It will not surprise your Lordships' House to hear that I wish to concentrate on religious broadcasting. I need to declare an interest as I come from a city which depends greatly upon film, television, radio and the media, having both BBC Bristol on its north side and HTV on its south side. There is no doubt that the BBC remains capable of producing religious broadcasting of the highest standards and that, on occasions, it continues to do so. What is less clear is a commitment to offering such work on a regular basis, or to giving the material the promise it deserves. If your Lordships think that perhaps religion is a minority interest, a kind of sidelined activity for those who like it, I remind your Lordships' House that every Sunday in this land over 6 million people attend places of worship. We are not talking about the wider membership but the weekly attendance. The membership of the main political parties is 850,000.
There seems to be a growing tendency to reduce the quantity of religious programming, to dilute the content, and to push it to the margins of the schedules. Last Christmas was a case in point. We were offered "Noel's Christmas Festival", but not a single act of televised worship on Christmas Day—an omission which produced considerable comment and protest, not only in the postbags of bishops and archbishops, but also in the media. What is worse, we were offered "Christmas Disney" and "Christmas Bloomers" but not one moment of reflection on the true meaning of the word "Christmas".
That is just one example and there are many others. On Radio 4, the "Sunday Programme" is shorter and earlier, and "The Moral Maze" has been moved to the
1674
evening. On television, series like "Heart of the Matter" and "Everyman" now have reduced runs. On the World Service, "Pause for Thought" has disappeared altogether. If noble Lords think that I am trying to concentrate on some general ideas, I mention last Sunday's programming. The BBC offered us at 9.30 a. m. "The Heaven and Earth Show" but nothing again until "Heart of the Matter" at 11.30 in the evening, whereas HTV offered us "Sunday Morning" worship and "My Favourite Hymns", which comprised an interview with a member of your Lordships' House, the noble Marquess, Lord Bath. It also offered "The Jesus File" in the evening. HTV offered more religious broadcasting than the BBC.
Measured against religious programming in earlier years, there has been a decline. Measured against the substantial increase in BBC output, the decline has been considerable. Marginalisation can produce a vicious circle in which audiences may fall as a result of unfavourable scheduling, the commitment and available skill base of programme makers and broadcasters is eroded, and so the marginalisation accelerates. If this gives us cause for concern, it is not encouraging to note that the strategy document entitled The BBC Beyond 2000 makes no mention of religion whatsoever.
Faced with the challenge of meeting its clear public service duty to provide both acts of worship and serious coverage of religious and spiritual issues, the BBC seems to be facing a crisis of confidence. I believe there is no need for that to be the case. Polls show that 70 per cent. of the population of this land believe in God. They may not actively pursue that Sunday by Sunday, but it is part of what it is to be a human being, and they recognise it as such. Research indicates that religious programming appeals to many non-believers, but it also provides a service to the handicapped, the elderly, and those who are shut in. If we remember how many of our population are now over the age of 60, and who have been members of churches for the whole of their lives, religious broadcasting takes on a quite different aspect. As I said, more people go to church than we imagine. On a Sunday many more people go to church than watch football on a Saturday. It is a 6:1 ratio. "Songs of Praise" can rival the audience figures of "Match of the Day", but that is just an aside. Religion continues to be very much part of the life of the nation; a public service broadcaster should not be deluded into seeing it as an optional extra.
It has given me no pleasure to make this speech because I have been a great admirer of the BBC. With the approach of the millennium the BBC has, I believe, an opportunity to address these concerns in a positive and resounding manner. It can take the risk, the audience is there. It has an opportunity to demonstrate through the quantity, quality and prominence of the religious programming it offers listeners and viewers that it continues to deserve the reputation it has established during the past seven decades.
I have one final point to make. Religious broadcasting helps a community to understand itself. Living in a multicultural community, that has even more importance than it had during the past seven decades.
3.56 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for introducing this debate today and setting it on its way with a compelling and thought provoking speech, with which I agreed in almost every respect. Looking at the list of speakers today, I have come to the conclusion that I am possibly the only participant who has not been either a past, present or—dare I say it?—future governor of the BBC, or programme or film maker of distinction. Best Boy or Gofer is probably the best I can hope for now and, frankly, time is against me for obtaining either of those exacting and important roles. I have, however, one distinction of which I am not particularly proud. I probably look at more television and listen to more radio than most politicians who tend only to look at reruns of programmes in which they have been prominently featured.
We are now entering a formative period in broadcasting as significant as any since the early Reithian days. The digital revolution has profound implications in transmission, control, creativity and standards. It is particularly unfortunate that the terminal stage of analogue broadcasting, which should be unambiguously setting the targets to be met by the new technology, should in my view be marked instead by a steady decline in the nurturing of creative talent, coupled with an eagerness to go for the easier and cheaper options, hence the current dearth of new comedy writing of merit and new plays of distinction, and a reliance in their place on undemanding quiz shows, fly-on-the-wall documentaries of the "Britain's worst" type and a seemingly endless obsession with sick animals and humans.
There is also an increasing preoccupation with sex and violence, to which the Broadcasting Standards Commission has referred in recent days, revealing an increase of 70 per cent. in the number of complaints received in the past four months. This is worrying in the extreme. The increase in the "shockability factor" is defended because it is claimed it attracts the young, and the young hold the purse strings nowadays so far as advertisers are concerned. I should have thought this displays a patronising and distorted view of the younger generation, apart from being economically flawed. The middle aged and older generations have plenty of spending power and they on the whole tend to be the viewing audience on any particular night.
Some may feel it is unfortunate that the BBC too often joins in this dangerous ratings game. I am aware that within the corporation it is driven by fear, in what is surely a hangover from the Thatcher years, that a fall—any fall—in ratings may sooner rather than later put the licence at risk. That is one reason, and I hope that it is a misguided one now. The other, I fear, is the hubris of individual producers and directors. What better way to gain one's spurs than to go even further than the previous man in breaking down social taboos? This increasingly speedy drop in standards cries out for effective regulation, not censorship, and certainly not a straitjacket on true creative activity, but effective
1676
regulation, and, when things go badly wrong, retribution too. There is no point in having regulation without having retribution.
For years, along with others, I have argued strongly for one powerful, overarching regulatory authority, embracing both public sector broadcasting as well as the commercial world. Despite the welcome tidying up in recent months, I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister would give an assurance that this is still being actively considered. In the interests of eventual agreement and—dare I say it—harmony, I would gladly waive my earlier suggestion that such an authority should be called "OFFAIR". With all the problems that digital broadcasting will bring in its train, it may well be that an additional body to regulate gateway access should be established as well.
What of the corporation, halfway through its charter renewal period? In past years—years, many would say, when its creative talents truly flourished and programme makers were treated as gods—the organisation was inefficient in its control of departmental budgets and general costs. The present director-general deserves great credit for turning this situation round so that the BBC has been able to live in a world of increased cost and still have enough to invest in new projects, even if I am not as enamoured as some about 24 Hour News, which seems to me to provide the temptation to create news rather than report it. The BBC Worldwide has also been an important success and holds the key to much of the corporation's future. It may be that the corporation's commercial activities will have to be carefully ring-fenced as they grow in importance in the years to come.
However, all this has not been without cost. Bureaucracy has become endemic and morale in recent years would seem to have declined sharply. Anecdotally, personnel skills were never much in evidence at Broadcasting House, but nowadays seem to have got worse. One is almost tempted to say that they are to man management what Genghis Khan was to the peace movement.
I am sure that we all welcome wholeheartedly the recent appointment of the BBC funding review panel and will eagerly await its findings in July, particularly with regard to alternative and additional sources of revenue in what are bound to be income-stretching times. The preservation and enhancement of the public broadcasting ethic in this country is essential for anyone who cares about literacy, intelligence and the stretching of personal horizons. Whether the BBC should have to carry this burden alone after 2006 is a matter for the panel. It seems that a digital surcharge would not command universal support, and it is doubtful whether, despite Herculean effort, the corporation's commercial endeavours could make up any shortfall. A licence on all sets in a household might be difficult to enforce and would have the political appeal of a temperance campaign on New Year's Eve in Scotland.
It may be that breaking new ground would provide an answer and that commercial TV companies could make a contribution by way of an annual levy. After all, we are all shortly entering a new world and all the old

1677
borders are there to be crossed. Whatever the solution, public broadcasting must be made safe. It is far too precious an asset in our democracy to be left to wither. I, for one, do not begrudge one penny of the licence fee to help to preserve it. but I do begrudge giving that money if it is used to drive down standards in order to compete with the demands of advertisers on commercial channels. The battle over the BBC was fought and, thankfully, won in the 1980s. Let us use the new century to strengthen it and with it the concept of public service broadcasting in this country.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I join in the congratulations to my noble friend Lord Bragg. I always knew that he would make an excellent Member of your Lordships' House and he has proved it again today. He certainly was not afraid to bite the hand that feeds him, even if only a little bit.
Like others, I have to declare a past interest as a former vice-chairman of the BBC. To some extent my noble friend Lord Hussey and I were responsible for ensuring the appointment of John Birt as DG. Speaking for myself, I have no regrets about that decision, either then or now. It was the right decision.
In my brief remarks I want to concentrate on the BBC, although I recognise, as has been said, that there are good public service programmes elsewhere. I share the concern of others about the "dumbing down", as it is called, of some of the programmes. I concede that like most politicians—certainly those in another place—I see and hear very little of those programmes. That does not prevent politicians saying that they are awful; they do that all the time, both here and in another place. I see and hear little other than news and sports programmes—and of course my noble friend Lord Bragg from time to time. I enjoy them and him.
The crucial question in this debate, as has been mentioned by many, is the balance between public service broadcasting, however defined, and the need if we want it—and I do—for audience share. That does not mean that the BBC has to compete with everything that goes out on Sky, on ITV and perhaps—I am less sure—on digital. That is for the future and, unlike what has been said by some in the debate so far, I do not see how the BBC can opt out of the future, which is very much to do with digital.
How the BBC should be financed is clearly an important matter. As has been said, there is now a committee again looking into it. It has been looked at quite frequently in the past and I am not sure what the committee will come up with this time.
I agree with Sir Christopher Bland, the present chairman, that there is a need for a strong BBC, with a significant audience share, to set a benchmark for quality. The growth of television and radio stations will make it very difficult, but it will be all the more vital that the BBC competes in many, not all, of the areas of programmes put out by other channels. It will be equally important, if not vital, to balance quality with the seeking of popularity and audience share.
1678
I have a serious concern that without a substantial licence fee the real danger to the BBC would be its decline to a type of station such as PBS in America and many other countries around the world. That could also happen if we took the advice being offered today and cut out large numbers of our so-called popular programmes. The BBC must compete, and compete with programmes that many of us might find not so popular.
I understand that the BBC feels a constant need to tell us how good it is. It might be as well if, from time to time—and perhaps more often—it responded to criticism by saying that that criticism is perfectly valid and it will do something about it. On the other hand, constant criticism can be bad for morale. The chairman, the DG and the governors of the BBC are right to defend criticism, good or bad, as appropriate.
The real danger—and it is a danger in the nation as a whole—is that we are becoming a nation of critics. In many areas of business and of the country success has become a kind of dirty word. The BBC is a public institution, and one that is criticised probably more than most: not more than governments, but more than most. The more successful the BBC is with the majority of its programmes, the more its critics and its enemies—and there are many—will seek to show that a lot of its programmes, or at least a minority of them, are very, very bad and that something should be done about it. The BBC has had to live with that for a long time and it will continue to do so.
I shall conclude by reverting to the main question: the quality of public service broadcasting. Criticism is fine, and often just, but what does the BBC do about it? One cannot get quality on the cheap. The chairman recently said that the total commercial television revenue in 1992 was double that of the BBC; in 1999 it is four times the revenue of the BBC; and in 2006, at the time of the renewal of the charter, it will be eight times that of the BBC. The BBC cannot compete financially. That is why it has lost, sadly, all the sports programmes. That is why tonight I shall have to watch Manchester United on ITV. I very much regret that. I would have liked to have seen it on BBC. But despite the, at times, well-deserved criticism I hope that it will not deflect Parliament from maintaining a decent licence fee. I look forward to hearing what the committee considering the matter has to say.
I recognise that other broadcasters—ITV, Sky News, Sky Sports, which has so much more money, and digital TV—can and do provide news and popular programmes as good as, and at times better than, the BBC. But the BBC is unique in the world for, despite all its faults, it sets vital standards. That is the justification for the licence fee. We in Parliament must ensure that the finance is made available so that the BBC can continue with quality programmes in all areas and can improve the quality of those programmes while retaining a decent audience share.
4.10 p.m.
Baroness James of Holland Park: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for initiating this debate. The number of noble Lords who have put

1679
down their names to speak is an indication of its importance. We have listened to some distinguished, knowledgeable and compelling speeches.
But, first, I must declare a past and present interest. From 1986 to 1993 I was privileged to serve as a governor of the BBC under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, and the vice-chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. The BBC owes them both a debt of gratitude, as, indeed, do I. I also from time to time take part in BBC programmes on literature and the arts, one of which I recorded this morning.
I was three years old when the BBC began and I can say with truth that I have listened to its programmes every day of my life. It has provided me with trustworthy news, information, education, stimulus, entertainment and laughter, in the darkest days of the war and in the turbulent years of peace. I feel for the BBC that mixture of loyalty, affection and occasional indulgent irritation that we feel for institutions which we most revere. I am grateful to the BBC for what it has given me over the years and what it still gives me. But I have serious concerns. In the short time available, I shall concentrate on three of them.
My first concern is about programmes. The BBC has always been in something of a dilemma about its market share, and perhaps understandably so. The fear has been that if the share falls below a certain percentage—30 per cent. is often quoted—the public will ask why they should pay for a service they rarely use and the licence fee will be in danger. So there is the insidious temptation to concentrate on numbers rather than on quality. That way lies disaster.
Some BBC programmes are superb. Too often they are peaks of excellence in an arid plateau of undistinguished pabulum. Unless the BBC stays faithful to its mission of providing wider choice and of setting standards, it will become just one more broadcaster and will lose both public respect and the right to public funding.
I am glad that consideration is once again being given to funding. The licence fee has always been stoutly defended on the grounds that it ensures the independence of the BBC from government control. It has the virtue of certainty. Once the licence fee is set, the BBC can know with some accuracy what its income will be. But I am increasingly worried about its unfairness. Is it really just that people of vastly different incomes should pay the same? Would it not be possible, and indeed administratively simple, to have income bands based on the property values established for the council tax? The rich would pay more—perhaps considerably more—and the poor considerably less. Is it true that only a licence fee can guarantee the independence of the BBC? It is, after all, the Government who set the level of the fee.
I see from the BBC accounts for 1997–98 that the cost of licence fee collection and enforcement is £109.5 million. Presumably this covers detection vans and court proceedings, but it seems extraordinarily high. I hope that we will be able to find a system which will be simpler and fairer while still safeguarding the essential independence of the BBC.
1680
Perhaps my greatest concern at the moment is the managerial ethos of the BBC. I see it as increasingly too rigidly controlled, too bureaucratic, too secretive and too arrogant. The product of the BBC is not a commodity; it is creativity in sound and vision. Creativity does not flourish in an atmosphere of despotism, coercion or fear. It is not nourished by the shibboleths of fashionable managerial theories, by the filling in of innumerable forms or by directives issued in that curious bureaucratic jargon which bears little relation to the English language. And at the heart of creativity we have not a system, but people, men and women, on whose dedication, loyalty and talents the corporation depends. Systems exist to serve them. They do not exist to serve the systems. I wish that the BBC today was a happier place in which creative people could work and flourish.
I have two further points to make on management. The BBC is not managed by the director-general and his colleagues without outside assistance. It would be interesting to know how many millions of licence payers' money has been spent in the past five years on the professional and highly expensive consultants and advisers who have apparently become essential to the running of our national institutions. I suspect that the figure is somewhere in the annual accounts but I have never been able to find it.
Then there is what I would describe as the mystery of the disappearing executives. People of talent who are appointed, often with éclat and in a blaze of publicity, are suddenly no longer there: Liz Forgan from radio; Bob Phillis, deputy director-general; Sam Younger from the World Service; and Rodney Baker-Bates, financial director. They disappear into a total and interesting silence, a silence which is hardly compatible with an organisation dedicated to openness and funded from a compulsory levy on virtually every home in the country. The BBC is not a private company and it is never appropriate for it to behave like one.
We are constantly reminded that we live in a rapidly changing world and that we must adapt to and indeed welcome its vagaries. Technology advances almost by the week; institutions are reformed, often with more haste than wisdom; nothing, however revered or long-established, is sacrosanct; global communications, particularly the Internet, mean that the world seems to shrink before our eyes. It is possible to feel that the ground is no longer firm under our feet. The BBC is not the BBC of my childhood; nor can it be; nor should it be. But in the midst of this maelstrom of change, much inevitable and some necessary, surely, my Lords, principles should remain firm.
The BBC should stand for three things: integrity, independence, excellence. If it fails even in one of these it will lose the confidence of the country and will no longer retain or indeed deserve its long-standing reputation as the world's most trusted and most admired public service broadcaster. I hope—indeed, in my more optimistic moments, I am confident—that it will not fail.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, in talking about public service in the context of broadcasting we have in mind several things. We have in mind the raising of the quality of all programmes. Programmes that are not to one's taste can still be good of their kind. We have in mind programmes aimed at breaking new ground and setting new standards. Obviously we have in mind providing what the majority of people want, but equally we have in mind programmes catering for minority interests and preferences. Above all, we have in mind programmes which are educational in the broad sense and which enhance the quality of life.
On television and radio today there are programmes as good as any that have been put out since broadcasting began. But at the bottom end—and it is a long tail—the material is worse than it has ever been, and it continues to deteriorate. If noble Lords will allow me the paradox, my objection is not to the vast quantity of dross that is transmitted every day but to the fact that the dross is second-rate. I have sacrificed myself in your Lordships' interest over the past couple of weeks and have watched some of those programmes. I could not believe how bad they were. Television at the bottom end is less literate and more damaging to the education of young people than are the worst of the tabloids. There are those who spend their lives attacking our teachers. I am not one of them. When I think what teachers are up against, with pupils spending more time in front of the television set, dominated by illiteracy and illogicality, than they do in the classroom, I find the achievements of our teachers astonishing.
One also thinks ruefully about the contradictions in the broadcast media. On the one hand, a beautifully produced classic serial raises appreciation of a great novel, and causes some people to buy it, and even to read it. It may even cause them to try some other work by the same author. On the other hand, much of television implies that most of our literary heritage is passé and that serious reading is not for the young and up to date.
The problem is a more general one, for which the broadcasters are not solely, or mainly, to blame. I refer to a demand for instant gratification. We can all agree that in order to be appreciated the best of the arts require a great deal of work. Most of the music that I love was well beyond me the first time I heard it. But broadcasters today, who seek mass audiences, find that quite unpalatable.
As an example, the other day I noted that a rare serious drama on ITV was watched by what the broadcasters called a "disappointing" 4 million people—implying presumably that they will not do such a production again. In the heyday of the legitimate London theatre a great play would be regarded as a triumph if it ran for a year and was seen by a quarter of a million people, let alone 4 million.
The position in relation to science is worse still. I hope that we can debate the subject at length on another day. The failure of the broadcasting media to take science seriously is a disaster for our country. The headline approach in terms of discoveries, Frankenstein
1682
monsters, eccentric scientists and continuous confusion between science and engineering does endless harm, as does the implication that a civilised person can boast that he or she knows no physics and does not understand mathematics.
My noble friend Lord Bragg was too modest to mention a superb series for which he was responsible and which has also led to an excellent publication. I should like to persuade him to try another such series based on mathematics. But the point is that even in this case we are talking about exceptions, when serious science ought to be a normal part of broadcasting output.
I have taken a broad view of public service broadcasting. It can be agreed that there are public service elements on all channels, including satellite channels. However, one does not need to be a major researcher to contrast the BBC with the commercial channels. Whatever the faults of the BBC—there are many; they have already been mentioned and will receive further mention in today's debate—it faces up to its responsibilities, which the commercial channels neglect and would neglect more were they not subject to external pressures. I shall not dwell on that topic at great length. However, I believe that in the next phase of thinking about broadcasting something must be done to raise the quality of the commercial sector.
I agreed with an enormous amount of what the noble Baroness, Lady James, said. To Echo her remarks, there are clearly tensions at the BBC between the audience maximisers and the standard setters, between the accountants and the creative artists. But the forces of good prevail occasionally. They prevail even more when people outside the BBC, such as your Lordships, remind the BBC of its Charter and traditions.
That is not to say that I am opposed to efficiency and do not take the problem seriously. On the contrary, I have always argued that those of us who believe in public service and the public sector, whether it be health, education or broadcasting, must be more committed to the efficient use of resources than anyone. Efficiency, cost control and the like are a means to a end; namely, the raising of the quality of service that is provided.
I turn now to the World Service. That, too, is one of the great contributions that the BBC has made to informing and educating people overseas, not least in learning our language—and learning it from us rather than, say, the Americans. But the World Service seems to be constantly under threat, especially from those whose dominant criterion is audience maximisation. They refer to the rest of the world as "free riders". But that is the whole point. We want those people to listen to these programmes and to see our country represented by the BBC as a source of objective news, fair comment and high quality entertainment.
Finally, I make the same point about the BBC's website. It is of outstanding quality. It would be a tragedy if those who regard it merely in accounting terms ask what we earn from it, find that the answer is nought, and then want to end it. It is a marvellous website. It is seen all over the world and is an enormous credit to the BBC.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I shall follow up his remarks about the World Service. First, I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for initiating the debate. Some of the programmes that he has produced for Border Television are among the finest that I have seen in my lifetime. I hope that he will produce more in the future.
The World Service presently has an excellent exhibition in the other place. It gives Members of both Houses a chance to see its achievements. The presentation and the many brochures that are available indicate that the World Service is doing extremely well.
I travel frequently to the eastern seaboard of United States and try desperately hard, on a high-powered short wave radio, to hear World Service programmes on the eight bands and umpteen frequencies. But one always ends up with poor reception and it is very difficult to hear what is being said; and the programmes are usually broadcast at the most inconvenient times, at 2 a. m. or 3 a. m. local time. I know that short wave transmission is attuned to the atmosphere. However, I wish we could do better in relaying the World Service in the United States and other countries where transmission is poor, so that we could actually hear the service's output from London, which I know to be excellent. I wish, also, that the service would add a further five minutes in the hour of United Kingdom news, so that people abroad can hear what is going on in this country.
There is now a growing alternative in the United States of local radio stations broadcasting an hour or so of programmes on FM. That is particularly the case in Washington, and the programme originates in London. But again, more time is spent on other continental countries than on the United Kingdom. Scheduling is in the early hours of the morning when it is singularly inconvenient to listen—although it is a change from hearing four chat shows a month on Clinton for the past six months.
I wish to turn more critically to the attitude of the BBC to Scotland. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is present. She has a direct involvement with the BBC. Scotland is presently aflame with criticism on two major fronts: first, in relation to what has now become known as the "Scottish Six". The news goes out on United Kingdom television from 6 to 6.30, and it takes an earthquake or the transfer of a Rangers player to get a story on that bulletin at all. From 6.30 to 7 there is the regional news. BBC Scotland is desperately keen to run the whole of the news programme from 6 to 7 o'clock and put in appropriate comment on events in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It feels that it ought to be able to decide what the Scottish people would like to hear. It is incredible that the BBC governors have declined to allow this to occur. I quote from an editorial last week in The Scotsman, which is one of our great national dailies:
"The BBC appears to have decided that it must take every possible opportunity to irritate and offend Scottish viewers and listeners. Not content with its patronising dismissal of the case for a Scottish Six o'Clock News, the corporation has now concluded that there is no reason to provide live coverage of proceedings in the Scottish parliament".
1684
That is indeed extremely disappointing for Scotland when we are being treated as we are by the BBC based here in London.
The Scottish Parliament issue is particularly provocative. After all, I can see cable television with continuous broadcasting of the House of Commons, and now and again they put on the much better debates from the House of Lords. It takes time to build up confidence and enthusiasm to listen to and watch these programmes, but if we are to make a go of the Scottish Parliament (and now that it is in being I hope we will) it is right that the people of Scotland should be allowed to see and hear what is going on day by day in the Scottish Parliament itself. When the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, winds up the debate I hope that he will be able to give us some good news about what the BBC intends to do in Scotland this year because the Scottish Parliament will be up and running in July and we want to be able to see and hear what is going on. This is over and above what I said earlier about requesting the governors of the BBC to think again about the Scottish Six. After all, the Broadcasting Council of Scotland, which set out to advise the BBC as far as we know, was strongly in favour of having the Scottish News at Six. The noble Baroness, Lady James, mentioned that the BBC is being totally arrogant about this and is obsessed with ratings rather than thinking of its duty as a public service.
I conclude on two quick points. Like all of us here who are interested in the countryside—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, will support me here—I ask: why on earth do the BBC want to scrap "One Man and his Dog"? It shows a beautiful part of the north of England, mostly the Lake District, with something exciting and unpredictable happening every week; but it is being scrapped because someone at the BBC thinks we are bored with it. That is not so. Again, the BBC seems to be convinced that ratings are more important than appreciation.
Finally, I hope that the Broadcasting Standards Commission will take things a little more seriously. We do not all want to be Mary Whitehouse, who has done wonderful things in the past, but some of the language that is creeping into television now after 9 o'clock is, in my view, quite unacceptable. This is very noticeable in America on films and on television but, for heaven's sake, do not let it develop here. Surely one can make a good play with a good story without bringing in four-letter words on every other page of the script. It is high time that the Broadcasting Standards Commission took this seriously and put a stop to it because it will spoil television in the long run.
I am not quite so critical of the BBC in the general programmes. I know it seems to be on a deteriorating slope with some of its productions, particularly sport. It is desperately sad how sport is slipping out of the BBC programmes and being taken over by Sky. By and large there is much that could be continued if the spirit were there and if the BBC would only listen to the people and find out what they wanted to have.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Hussey of North Bradley: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for introducing this debate on an important topic. In doing so I also declare a past interest, having been Chairman of the BBC for 10 years.
The future of public service broadcasting lies first in the hands of Parliament but also in the conduct of the BBC by its governors and managers. In my first week I was challenged to define my objective. I replied that it was to leave the BBC complete with its channels and its licence fee intact. At the time that was thought to be a very unlikely prospect. The general view was that we would lose several channels. In the event we retained them all and the licence fee and at the same time strengthened the power of the governors, though you might not have noticed it.
There is a built-in frisson between governors and management. The management want the plaudits of their fellow broadcasters, judged by the industry's benchmarks. The Governors are concerned with independence, quality, high standards and the traditional ethos of a public service organisation. There was a political threat. I hope there is not one now.
The BBC is the biggest influence in the media. Rows with politicians are inevitable. So what? I do not blame politicians for trying to influence the BBC. I only blame people like myself if they give way to it. Incidentally, I discussed the BBC with politicians only in their offices. There should be clear space between the two. Too much propinquity leads to too many compromises. It weakens the resolve of editors down the line if they think their bosses are lunching with their critics.
The BBC is still a marvellous organisation. It still puts out great programmes on radio and television, but I do not think that it has got its strategy right. We face the prospect of 200 or perhaps 500 competitive channels and the onset of digital. I firmly believe that the BBC's response should be not to expand its empire at the licence payers' expense but to concentrate on its mainstream channels and invest in them.
When I joined the BBC the noble Lord, Lord Annan, told me that the BBC's problem was not that they wanted to do what everyone else did but that they wanted to do more of what everyone else did, and the situation does not seem much to have changed.
Michael Checkland and John Birt, under pressure from the governors, made great administrative reforms, saved large sums of money and radically improved efficiency, for which they both deserve great credit. But there is still a lot of money about. The licence fee brings in £2 billion a year. When I left the BBC (and I have just checked this) there was £250 million in cash from savings unspent, £200 million was given as an uplift to the licence fee for the introduction of digital television and a further £240 million from the sale of transmission. That totals £690 million pounds, which is a lot of money. What has happened to it?
1686
If there is a shortage of money it is not difficult to see what should be done. There is too much bureaucracy, over-bloated policy units, and too much spent on expansion and management. Ray Snoddy of The Times had it all. In his words:
"The BBC is drowning in policy options and perpetual revolution. Less money should be spent on all those areas not directly connected with programme making, and there are many of them."
The money should go on what the licence payer can see or hear, on those mainstream channels which won for the BBC its acknowledged reputation as the finest broadcaster in the world.
It is alleged that "News 24" costs £30 million. That is an enormous amount of money, yet no one could find £4 million for the Test Matches, now lost, together with the cup final, the grand prix and England at Twickenham. The BBC is a national broadcaster, where people expect to see and hear the big events. That should be the priority. It would be a great mistake to ask for a licence fee higher than the cost of living and might incur considerable resentment. So far as I can see the people have accepted the current system without complaint.
Equally, I do not believe in the amalgamation of radio and television. They are not the same; they are different art forms. I fear for the future of radio against the monster television. Much of it is of very high standard supported by a dedicated and articulate audience. Anyone seriously interested in the news would listen to Radio 4, "The World at One" and "The World Tonight". BBC television news is excellent but it has neither the time nor the space to give the coverage that radio does.
The BBC was founded by an engineer; an unusual engineer with moral and social vision. It has always been at the front of technology and must go digital both on radio and on television. It gives much better reception. But digital broadcasting is not the message; it is only the messenger.
The moral, economic and intellectual argument for a national broadcasting service funded by a poll tax lies in its absolute independence, the quality of its programmes, the breadth of its output and the manner in which it extends the choice of programmes for its audience. If it does not do that, it is a "con".
Currently the BBC is wading into a ratings battle with the toughest, roughest, richest companies in the broadcasting world. That is not a battle it will win. It does not have the money or the ruthless competitive streak that the opposition has.
The BBC is dedicated to setting high standards for the industry and widening the people's choice and is staffed by dedicated men and women who share that motivation but many of whom are now sorely depressed. The future of the BBC lies in the minds and skills of those programme-makers whose budgets are now being dangerously squeezed. When I arrived at the BBC I thought it had too much influence; I now think it has too little. I believe that it is time for a change of emphasis and appeal to uplift the hearts and enliven the minds.

1687
If I may add a personal note, I told the Prime Minister two years before I left the BBC that I would retire as soon as the charter had been signed. I also made up my mind that I would take no decision in my last six months that might bind the hands of my successor, otherwise I would have taken a much stronger line on moving BBC Radio and Television into a huge building which still does not work.
The future of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom will flourish as long as the BBC remembers that people and programmes are much more important than policies and processes. That is what I have said to the BBC previously. I have made my views quite clear to the BBC, and it knows them, but never before have I stated them in public.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the only interest I have to declare in this debate is as a consumer of public service broadcasting. I have been described by a former flatmate as an habitual user of Radio 4 and I shall concentrate my comments initially on that channel.
When the rescheduling of that broadcast channel took place recently there was a great cry that it was being dumbed down. I did not feel that. Apparently the BBC got its research right because, as someone in his thirties, I was probably the target audience it was aiming for. But it has failed in one area in particular. It is not giving me enough reasons to switch off. It is not paying enough attention to certain specialist areas and is not dealing with matters that I am not interested in or am not totally in agreement with. If someone agrees with everything one says he or she is either a sycophant or has nothing worthwhile to say. One should try to encourage disagreement and to encourage people to go into areas where one does not want to follow. That applies particularly to a publicly-funded organisation which must deal with the whole of our society.
That is a rather round-the-houses way of criticising the BBC for the lack of coverage it gives to Parliament, or the way it has sidelined it. I say frankly that I hated "Yesterday in Parliament". I hated the idea that I would very occasionally hear my own voice coming out of the radio. I found it a total shock. On one occasion, in company, I managed to pour an entire pot of coffee over my own groin when that happened. It was not something I enjoyed. However, the programme has been moved to another waveband. If one has to retune a conventional radio, by the time one has found the correct waveband the programme will be over. It is as the right reverend Prelate said about religious programmes: if programmes, especially short ones, are moved to other channels, people will miss them.
If people do not like particular programmes they can switch off. We should not be frightened of using the "off' button. In a publicly-funded broadcasting medium, losing some of the audience now and again is surely a price well worth paying in order to serve a cross-section of interests.
The BBC strikes me as being overly obsessed by the idea that it has to compete all the time with commercial sections, even the commercial sections of the other
1688
public broadcasters. It does not; it should not have to. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the BBC is not expected to compete at all times. It does not need to follow the programmes of other broadcasters—for instance, the American "confession" programmes which seek to shock such as "The Jerry Springer Show". How many more such programmes do we need? How many times do we have to hear that somebody's father's brother's sister is having an affair with her father's brother's sister's aunt? We do not need to know any more. I must admit that there is a certain fascination and by the third time they hit each other you say, "Either show boxing or stop". If we have to have these revelations, there should be a soft-porn slot for them. There is only so much we can take.
It is the same with low-quality soap operas, most of which seem to consist of only five plot lines, usually concerning a brother by some adulterous relationship, whose existence was formerly unknown, who turns up on someone's doorstep, is taken in as a member of the family firm and causes a row. The character then disappears and returns to the programme three years later, played by a different actor. There are certain types of programme which the BBC certainly should not aim to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said that in certain areas of quality other providers of public service broadcasting are outperforming the BBC. That another public service broadcaster which is commercially funded is producing quality programmes is probably the most heartening comment we shall hear in this debate. I do not believe that that situation could have occurred if it had not been for the standards set by the BBC in the first place. Without those standards, how could we have said, "You must match this"?
We must encourage the BBC to be brave and to take risks occasionally. We must allow it to fail now and again without jumping down its throat. We must allow it to continue to set standards. As long as we do that, we shall have probably the best public service broadcasting in the world—certainly in the English-speaking world. If we tell the BBC to chase viewing ratings at all costs, we shall drive it into an unwinnable contest with the giants who, for instance, cover only sport.
I have not mentioned that point before because it has already been done to death. A broadcaster with a good budget who produces only sports programmes will always be able to outbid a broadcaster who tries to cover everything. The BBC should not be in that position. I should like to see encouragement given to ensure that we have in our country the world's best highlights of sporting activities, at the very least, even if we cannot have the live events. That is surely something we can guarantee from Parliament to our public service sector.
Ultimately, unless we are prepared to allow the BBC to cover minority interests, and to cover them properly, we shall be failing to polish the jewel in the broadcasting crown.
4.48 p.m.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, I, too, thank and congratulate my noble friend, Lord Bragg, for making this debate possible and for the way in which he opened it. I find myself in agreement with almost everything that I have heard, from all parts of the House, this afternoon and I shall find it difficult to add to it.
I should at the outset declare an interest in that for the past 17 years I have been a director of Anglia Television. More to the point, I should also declare, or at least confess to, a passionate interest in the health and vitality of public service broadcasting generally.
In an increasingly digital age, the vitality and security of public service broadcasting is likely to be seriously threatened by those who believe that it has a diminished role to play in the brave new world of the millennium. There will continue to be fairly simplistic attacks on the licence fee as a primarily regressive tax and an unwelcome imposition. Much of this debate reminds me of a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, who characterised such a discussion as a "swimming pool debate"—one in which most of the noise tended to come from the shallow end!
In this particular case if one looks closely not a single country has come up with anything that resembles a compelling alternative form of funding. Every attempt to create a hybrid or mixed economy—for example, by introducing advertising support, as has been attempted in Spain and Germany—has seriously damaged the public service commitment. In this new world of the information society no broadcaster can hope to be involved in every single aspect of the digital economy. Each must play to its strengths: in the case of the BBC some very specific and well-honed strengths. That is why we should applaud the success of BBC Online, while recognising that the BBC's efforts in new media must be designed to build on its traditional assets, not dilute them. Surely, it is the social purpose of public broadcasting that needs to be justified, not its profitability. In an increasingly expensive and fragmented media environment a well-led and well-motivated BBC must, once and for all, re-establish the argument for the universal licence fee as one of the most equitable and truly sustainable forms of social justice of our modern era.
I suggest that instead of debating the funding mechanism we would be better advised to focus on the BBC's core role, its mission if you will. This needs to be defined as tightly as possible. To use a metaphor of which I have become increasingly fond, the BBC can usefully think of itself more as a "keep" than a "castle"; that is, possibly a smaller organisation but one with higher walls that guard a unique treasurehouse of innovative talent, critical standards and, most important of all, truth—the keeper of our national conscience as it were.
The Government's role in all of this is to endow the corporation with creative security and independence and ensure that it remains a benchmark for quality across the whole of our broadcasting system.
1690
What might this mean at an operational level? In the few minutes remaining to me I can do little more than sketch out a couple of examples that the BBC and perhaps the Minister might choose to consider. First, there is an overwhelming need for a strategic recognition at the centre that the BBC could, and should, be doing much more to reach out to regional, even local, audiences and to drive its roots deep into the under-nourished soul of urban and rural localities. Surely, the principal social purpose of any public service broadcaster must be constantly to inform and refresh our sense of community. BBC local radio in particular can encourage and deepen that sense of community in a way that no commercial broadcaster is ever likely consistently to manage. This is one means by which the BBC can remain intimately identified with our national life, just as over the past 75 years or so it has established itself as an essential element in the fabric of our imagination in all its diversity, creative richness and complexity—three phrases that precisely describe the corporation as they do the nation.
It is equally worth emphasising the vital role public service broadcasting plays in nurturing and developing our educational system. It is a truth, more or less universally acknowledged, that moving images, in one form or another, now represent the primary form of leisure for most people in this country. As a result, an increasingly close relationship is developing between the audio-visual communications industry, at the heart of which lies television, and our appetite for learning. It is a matter of the greatest possible public interest that the experience of our broadcasting institutions is brought to the service of education with as much energy, imagination and integrity as possible. It is my belief that we have as yet only scratched the surface of television's educational potential, but perhaps that is a debate for another time.
Likewise, we must ensure that training remains at the heart of the BBC's remit. One of the fundamental principles of a guaranteed licence fee must be an obligation to uphold production values right across the broadcast system. This must not become a negotiable obligation. There also needs to be serious consideration of the way in which the BBC is governed. In particular, there is a need to ensure that the appointment of the governors is entirely free from the pressures and temptations of the electoral cycle.
One might have hoped that the dawning of the digital age would have offered access to a new era of enlightened and informed debate. Instead, a torrent of opinion, of "spin", swirls through almost every channel of communication, threatening to obscure that bedrock of truth and fact on which the principles of any democracy ultimately rest. Surely, the role of public broadcasting is to enrich our great national debates and enable us to move forward as an informed and thoughtful nation, rather than being swamped in a tidal wave of pressures and prejudice.
It will come as little surprise to your Lordships to be reminded that trash, trivia and sensation can be brought to the marketplace at surprisingly low cost. Truth, responsibility and quality have always taken longer and, for the most part, carry a far higher price—and thereby,

1691
necessarily, a far higher social value. It is not, and should never have been, the BBC's function to compete with the market on the market's terms. Our public broadcasting system is financed and structured in such a way as not to replicate the market but to challenge and, it is hoped, inspire it. It is absolutely vital that it remains so.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Chadlington: My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on initiating this important and stimulating debate and thanking him. In particular, I congratulate him on the excellence of his introductory speech. I wish to examine in some detail the relationship between the lottery and public service broadcasting. I shall address in particular the responsibility for public access that I believe falls on the shoulders of successful applicants and the public service role within that that public service broadcasting must now play.
To do this I must first declare a number of interests. I served for several years as an independent member of the Arts Council of Great Britain and latterly the Arts Council of England, when I chaired the first Arts Council Lottery Panel. I also serve, or have served, on the board of a number of arts organisations, including the Royal Opera House. Although I shall limit my comments to lottery funding of the arts, many of the opportunities that public service broadcasting presents—I emphasise this—would apply equally to other distributing bodies, such as the Sports Council and the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
It is a tribute to all at the Arts Council that the lottery has been such a success. According to the latest figures there have been nearly 8,000 awards, with over £1 billion invested in projects with a total value nearly two-and-a-half times that sum. Quite properly, the vast majority of these by number are below £100,000. However, more than 700 organisations receive grants of over £100,000, many of them over £1 million and a few £10 million or more.
There are those who may argue that it is the people of Britain who have made this huge investment possible and therefore have a right to share in this vast bonus for the cultural life of Britain. Whether or not this is true, I suspect that the Saturday and Wednesday punter is more interested in whether he wins £1 million than anything else. I suspect that good causes are not uppermost in his or her mind. But it seems to me that the way these arts organisations have been funded places upon them at least a moral imperative to bring to the attention of the largest possible number the work that they can undertake as a result of lottery funding.
Indeed, as I hope to show in a moment, it is also in their enlightened self-interest so to do. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who generously accepted my invitation to join the Arts Council Lottery Panel in those early days, made much of the need for successful applicants to interpret access in the broadest sense. I remember that he argued on a number of occasions that access was not just about the disabled—important though that was—but about sharing artistic experience with as many people as possible up and down the land.
1692
He evangelised that larger capital projects, particularly in our great national companies, must have the most up-to-date technological and broadcasting facilities and the most flexible union practices. That may seem obvious today. But even five years ago such an undertaking from applicants often proved remarkably difficult to obtain. And it is strange that that should have been the case, for two principal reasons. First, one of the key problems faced by arts organisations is audience development—expanding the market—particularly for new work. It is clear that enjoying a significant capital injection to build or extend a theatre or a concert hall clearly puts the problem of audience development into even sharper relief. These capital developments nearly always demand more people to fill more seats more often.
Secondly, the need to improve returns in larger venues funded by the lottery is also intensified by the agendas of partnership funders. On average, taken over the past five years, for every £1 a project costs, the Arts Council puts in 40p and other funders 60p. An analysis of the funding pipeline suggests that this funding split is likely to continue to be the norm. But those partners are themselves looking for a return of some sort, often through publicity or, indeed, interest payments on sums provided.
The only way to build audiences is to appeal to a wider and wider market in a broader and broader catchment area. Publicity attracts that audience, often keeps it and encourages it to try new experiences. Public service broadcasting provides just that opportunity. If the prospect of a lottery channel—of which I was much in favour—no longer proves feasible, it surely should be incumbent on the public service broadcasters to bring those lottery funded projects into the homes of those people who paid for them. The benefits which would accrue to the arts community are incalculable. Would it not be possible to seek agreement between those organisations to whom lottery funding is given and public service broadcasters that so many hours would be devoted annually to successful applicants? Could it not be a condition of both the granting or the continuing of Arts Council funding and other distribution bodies, on the one hand, and licences, on the other? Even if that were limited to the national companies which received awards, the impact on arts awareness and arts education would be immense.
Let us consider the numbers. So far the Arts Council has provided £388 million to over 400 national projects. What a shot in the arm it would be to the profile of those outstanding organisations to know that such publicity opportunities existed. Publicity attracts and makes stars. Attracting better performers in turn increases audience numbers, creating a virtuous circle. Similarly, young performers are given a much wider audience than would ever be the case without broadcasting support.
The development of archive, educational and outreach programmes will clearly add far more to the status of the national companies. And of course such an initiative need not be limited to national bodies. The Arts Council, like other distributing bodies, has an overwhelming percentage of its investments in small local organisations, all doing exciting innovative projects and

1693
hungry to expand and develop markets. Here is a rich vein of programming funded in large part by the people of Britain. We must find ways to exploit it to the benefit of all parties involved.
I believe that any consideration of the future of public service broadcasting and its public service role must take into account the effect that the lottery has had throughout our national life, the contribution made by the people of Britain to its success and that the distribution bodies have been excellent and worthy custodians of lottery funds. But above all else the conjunction of successful lottery applicants and enlightened public service broadcasting policy would bring into all our homes the vibrance and variety of our cultural and sporting life, both nationally and locally, to the benefit of us all.
5.6 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on introducing the debate. His introductory speech was every bit as entertaining and informative as his programmes. But I fear that it may not reach such a significant market share. I. too, have to declare an interest. I have been one of those who has acted on occasions as a consultant to the BBC.
I wish to emphasise a point which has been raised previously. In this country we broadcast programmes exceedingly well. If one looks around the world, Europe and the United States have much poorer systems, with less popular support and far less consumer satisfaction. It is clear that the key reason for that is the unique role of the BBC. It has acted as a benchmark for standards, a setting of quality, throughout the industry over many decades and has therefore helped to shape the broadcasting industry to the benefit of the public. It is undoubtedly the case that commercial broadcasters fulfil the public service role. But I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who asked: would that be the case if the BBC had not existed? I rather doubt it.
It is one of those areas where the public corporation, with a positive mission to fulfil the objective of augmenting social and cultural life, has worked exceedingly well. We have given it up in other areas but not this one; and we should work hard to sustain it. There are those who argue, although not in this debate, that the digital age will change all that: that the BBC may have been a force for good in the past but it will be marginalised in the digital world, with the proliferation of channels and technologies. I think that that view is incorrect. In fact, if anything, the need for public service broadcasting is augmented in the digital age. The digital revolution may have got rid of spectrum scarcity, one important source of monopoly in this business, but it brings the largely costless reproduction of content across many different formats. That means enormous economies of scale and the likelihood therefore that large players, large monopolies, will thrive in the industry as never before. For that reason, it is vital that the public service role continues and remains significant.
1694
The digital age also means fragmentation of consumers. It makes people's identification of community more difficult. It will make finding one's way round the proliferation of offerings much harder. We shall be looking for navigators and guides; and the BBC has a crucial role to play in that.
The mission of the BBC to educate, inform and entertain is crucial to the fostering of community at all levels—national, regional and local, as well as ethnic and other minorities. That mission requires market share. There have been criticisms that the BBC has gone too far in that direction. Perhaps that is true in certain areas. But if the BBC is marginalised in terms of its viewing, it will not be able to fulfil that key public service role to the benefit of our society.
In the commercial world there are companies which pursue market share through the pursuit of quality. That is what the BBC should be urged to do. It is well placed to do so. It is worth recalling that the BBC is one of the top brands globally. It is among the top handful of brands recognised instantly by many people around the world—to a greater extent than any company in the UK; greater than any organisation and much greater, I suspect, than even our Government. That is an inheritance that we should not lose or squander. I believe that it will be the key in the digital age because among the diversity and proliferation we shall be looking for navigators and those brands will be the key to success. We need to use the BBC brand for quality to ensure that the public service role is continued into the next decade and beyond.
That will not be easy. If one considers graphs for industry revenue, they are growing at a rapid rate, whereas the licence fee income is largely flat. Looking to the future for an organisation with that projected revenue stream, one would predict that it was going to be marginalised, taken over and sidelined fairly quickly. Therefore, the vital question is: what other resources are available to the BBC to ensure that it continues to play the vital role that it can and should play in the future.
One area which is controversial is the BBC's commercial activities. The BBC must be focused on its key objective of public service broadcasting, but it is right also that it should take advantage of its productions in the commercial world, particularly overseas, by selling its products around the world in the best possible way. It should exploit its assets internationally and derive value domestically from the secondary exploitation of its productions. That is one way to generate revenue which can be used to good effect to augment the public service objectives of broadcasting which the BBC has as its core activity.
In so doing, it must avoid unfair competition. It is subject to UK competition law, which has become tougher. It is subject also to European law. The Commission has made many interventions in the area of broadcasting under merger and competition law. Therefore, the BBC must ensure that it behaves fairly in its commercial activities in securing extra revenue from this source.
But I doubt whether that will be enough because the BBC must expand into the new developing areas. It will be marginalised if it does not go into digital television.

1695
It will lose important opportunities if it does not go into the Internet. The Internet offers an extremely effective way of delivering the World Service objectives through a new medium which in many countries is more effective than the old medium. I urge the Government to think about whether the grant-in-aid that the BBC receives in that respect could be more flexible in the way that it is interpreted so as to allow for such innovation.
If we are to maintain the BBC in its valuable and unique role we shall need extra resources. Some may come from the commercial aspect, but it may be that we shall have to think about the difficult areas of the licence fee, a digital supplement and so on. If we do not augment the BBC's resources, in 10 years' time we may find that we have squandered the unique asset that it represents.
5.11 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I too must declare an interest because I am a director of British Digital Broadcasting, otherwise known as On-Digital. Digital broadcasting is a means of delivery which all broadcasters are using. That includes the BBC, ITV and Channel 4.
As regards the BBC, perhaps I may begin by saying a few words about the licence fee. I believe that that remains the best method of funding for the BBC. However, the licence fee must be seen as providing value for money. And what money that is. What a wonderful job it must be to be chairman of the BBC, as the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, was. One does not have to worry about banks or shareholders. Whatever happens, whatever one does, on 1st January each year, one is guaranteed an income of nearly £2 billion per year. What other business has a guaranteed cash flow like that?
The licence fee provides the BBC with an opportunity to be innovative and distinctive. It allows the corporation a freedom from commercial pressures. That freedom allows it to experiment and to challenge. To be blunt, it allows it the opportunity to fail, which is difficult for commercial broadcasters. The stability and certainty of the licence fee takes the pressure off achieving audience share. That is a huge advantage as it allows the BBC to deliver what the commercial market does not.
I am against any change in funding as any commercial or sponsorship income would compromise that unique situation. The BBC is a public service broadcaster; it is an alternative to the commercially-funded channels; and long may it last.
I do not say that the BBC should not be popular but I am saying it should be distinctive and, extremely important, it should set industry standards. In my view the BBC has become too focused on audience share and not sufficiently focused on audience reach. It seems to have a strategy that it is vitally important for the BBC to have a one-third market share to legitimise, as it were, the licence fee. That aim is misguided and unrealistic. As satellite and cable grow, the share of all broadcasters will decline.
1696
The market is now huge. Gone are the days of spectrum and channel scarcity. I agree with Sir Christopher Bland when he said that the BBC could reduce the gap between those who are information-rich and those who are information-poor. For example, the BBC should cover sporting rights that are part of our national identity—events that are on the "list". But I do not believe that the BBC should use public money to compete against pay-to-view for premium sporting rights on the general assumption that they should be broadcast on the BBC. There are plenty of sports that do not get a look-in at the moment.
I am concerned, as are others in your Lordships' House, about the mix of commercial services operated by the BBC in conjunction with its public service remit. I have nothing against the BBC being commercial but the core of BBC public services should be more clearly separated from its commercial side. At present, the Royal Charter and Agreement allows for an audit to differentiate between the two. The present arrangement is opaque. Parliament, let alone the public, does not understand where one starts and the other ends.
The core services of the BBC should offer what the market does not. It should he distinctive and should not emulate the commercial sector. It should provide something for everybody for at least some of the week. Those objectives could apply equally to radio. BBC's commercial activities are undertaken by Worldwide and BBC resources. They exploit the brands, programme rights, intellectual property rights, books and magazines. The BBC believes that those activities enhance the brand and any separation would risk the integrity of the brand and the strategic purpose of BBC Worldwide.
Some have argued for privatisation of the commercial activities, saying that privatisation would raise cash for the BBC, improve efficiency, improve Britain's programme exports and, perhaps more important, remove the criticism by commercial parties of unfair trading. That case has not yet been made but it perhaps could be made in future if the Government and the BBC do not act to ensure a clear separation of the public service remit from the Worldwide commercial activities.
I said earlier that the separation is opaque. That is a major understatement. For the benefit of all, Parliament and the public should be able to see where one starts and the other ends. I do not want the BBC to be like ITV. The BBC must be distinctive. It must reach the parts that other broadcasters do not.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Bragg for allowing me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I declare my interest in that I buy a licence for £97.50.
The debate on the future of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom must go beyond the mainstream white Christian community and include ethnic minorities and other religious communities. I appreciate that we live in a changing world, and therefore, through new technology, we must expect to increase the number of television channels and radio stations available to us. But I cannot accept the changing of ethical and moral values.

1697
The term "sexy" is becoming increasingly popular and the British modern culture is rapidly dumbing down to a level based on consumerism and materialism rather than the long-term intellectual and spiritual debate. It is important that public service broadcasting should have freedom of expression and freedom from commercial and political pressures. However, it must be accountable and provide value for money with the highest ethical standards and impartiality.
I cannot resist mentioning the BBC and the excellent news service that it provides in the UK and abroad. The BBC is the world's best-known and most-respected broadcaster. Similarly, radio stations across the country generally reflect the need of local communities, provide entertainment and debate issues and concerns of local people. Perhaps I may make a little plug for BBC Radio Sheffield, which provides an excellent service for the South Yorkshire communities.
However, I am concerned with the BBC Asian programmes' department, based in Birmingham, which is dominated by a particular social group of people. I have to say that there is also the same problem in the mainstream. My concern is the apparent lack of staff from the Pakistani and Bengali communities and that programmes do not cater for the Moslem community. The religious programmes mainly concentrate on Christian worship, and the Asian programmes with Bollywood. It seems that two million British Moslems have no category or department to go to. The BBC has abdicated its responsibility to British Moslems by including a broader category of "Asians" who seem to concentrate on cheap and superficial programmes related to fashion, Balti and Bollywood.
What has happened to serious journalism? What has happened to the intellectual debate? I have written to the director-general and the secretary of the BBC on behalf of the Moslem community. I am still waiting for information I asked for 10 weeks ago.
The BBC marketing report 100 Tribes looks at the viewer make-up of Britain and identifies the Asian community with music, fashion, Bollywood, Bangla and mega mella. The report completely ignores the needs of two million Moslem licence payers. The only programmes made about Moslems are not for Moslems, and that is the problem.
The new identity of "Asians" by the BBC ignores all the traditional cultures of the subcontinent. Languages such as Punjabi, Hindi and Urdu are not always pronounced properly. Art and culture represent a completely new identity of the "Asians" and are not relevant to the majority of British ethnic minorities.
Finally, the commercial radio and independent television companies have to take note of the fact that Asians have large families with over £2 billion buying power. By ignoring us, advertising is not meeting the needs of our communities. This week the Prime Minister said,
"The Government's role is to give sensible leadership, and I have no doubt whatever that it is towards a more tolerant Britain, a more inclusive Britain, a Britain of all the talents that the vast majority of black and white people wish to be led".
1698
I call upon the independent television companies and the BBC to look into their institutions, and fight prejudice; to ensure that their staff reflect their viewers and to develop, adapt and change to meet the needs of many, not just the vocal few.
5.25 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for allowing us the opportunity of this debate. As so many of us have put our names down, clearly we are happy to have the opportunity to speak about our favourite whipping boy.
After hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I wondered whether I should speak at all. So much of what I intended to say he had already said, including some of the figures I intended to quote. However, I decided to make my speech because I have one or two other points to make.
First, I declare an interest—a substantial one—as director of an ITV regional cable television broadcaster. I was also chairman of a local independent radio station for five years, and it is with radio that I shall start. Very little has been said about radio. What has been said has been more or less a throw-away approach. especially from the noble Lord. Lord Puttnam, who wrote off independent local radio in about one sentence.
I wonder how many noble Lords know that there are 200 radio stations, both local and regional, and three national stations? Forty per cent. of listeners listen to local commercial radio as opposed to 9 per cent. who listen to BBC local radio. Indeed, 50 per cent. of all listeners listen to local independent radio.
There seems to be some confusion about the responsibilities of local independent radio to the local community. I should like to quote what the Minister for tourism said about the commercial radio industry, which might give some idea of those responsibilities:
"The commercial radio industry recognises the importance of establishing firm links with the community to benefit both that community and to strengthen the radio station's profile and audience … The commitment of commercial radio to the local community is demonstrated by the extent of stations' involvement in community projects beyond traditional on-air public service announcements".
As I have said, for five years I was chairman of a radio station which served Windsor, Maidenhead and Slough. I can assure noble Lords that our most important approach was to keep the links with the community. We had focus groups and three local committees for three towns. We did our very best to keep in touch with everything. We were present at every major community fund-raising effort for charity. It is important to realise that local commercial radio is answerable to the licensing authority for what it will provide. Who monitors what the BBC provides? Local independent radio cannot afford any arrogance nor any separation from the local community.
Perhaps I may now turn to television. The noble Lord. Lord Rees-Mogg, was rather scathing about television. However, if he had looked carefully at the Radio Times, he would have found a very good oceanic drama called, "Hornblower" which extolled the virtues of honesty and decency. He might also have come across the outstanding drama produced by Granada on the murder

1699
of Stephen Lawrence. So, there are peaks and troughs on ITV. However, it is clear that ITV's peaks match anything produced by the BBC. It is also true that the BBC's troughs press standards below what ITV produces. The real problem is that too much of the time, when we turn on to BBC—BBC1 particularly—it is no different from ITV. That is the nub of the matter. We need the BBC to be different from ITV.
Two recent publications, Public Purposes in Broadcasting and an ITV survey, The BBC's Public Service Obligations & Commercial Activities, have been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. They clearly demonstrate that the obligations are not necessarily being met.
No speech can be complete without mentioning "Vanessa". There is no way that we can say that "Vanessa" is a suitable programme for a public service broadcaster, particularly with all the complications that have arisen.
Perhaps I may mention, briefly, the ethnic minority programmes. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed said. but there are some other points I should like to make. I do not think that any permeation of minority programming into the mainstream has taken place. If we are to reflect the multi-cultural nature of Great Britain, it is important that we should be part of the mainstream. We are still in a ghetto, mainly in Birmingham, and are very poorly funded. Programme production is poor and would never be acceptable in mainstream programming.
The BBC needs an independent regulator. I was deeply distressed when it showed a party political broadcast by the British National Party in its entirety. I complained to ITV, but at least LWT had edited the programme to take out the worst offending parts and Channel 4 had not shown it at all. However, when I complained to the BBC about showing it in its entirety, I got back nothing but "flannel". At least ITV did some research. If I am going to be fobbed off, I would rather be fobbed off by an external regulator than a BBC apparatchik.
The BBC made a fundamental error in partnering BSkyB for its digital technology. There is now no competition for BSkyB; it already controls Cable and has virtually destroyed it. In around five or six years we will see BSkyB putting pressure on all the digital television providers. BBC should have partnered another consortium to provide competition for BSkyB. No other company could do that.
My time is almost up, but I hope that today's broadcast has shown that the BBC cannot treat itself as a sacred cow and feel totally protected. And I am pleased about that.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, not only on introducing this important debate, but also on the wisdom and common sense with which he launched it. I thought I would confine my remarks this afternoon to radio, partly because I like it so much and, though I have been a film-maker all my life, because I suspect that it
1700
stimulates the imagination more than do the movies and television; but also for another reason. That is, when we are talking about "public service" we can distinguish the qualities of public service more easily in radio than in television. Of course, we can channel-hop on the radio as easily as we can on the television, but if we channel-hop blindly on television we find it extremely difficult to know which channel we have reached. If we do it on the radio, however, we can be sure within a very few moments which channel we are listening to.
If I listen to BBC Radio 3 more than others, it is simply because I love music so much. I love the fact that it still has its great orchestras—I pray that they never get abolished or diminished. I like them because, not only are they fine orchestras, but they do exactly as the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, suggested—they reach the repertoire that other, more commercially-minded orchestras cannot or dare not reach.
All the same, much though I love music and much though I love Radio 3, I wonder, with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, whether classical music needs to be continuous. Does it do classical music any service for it to be continuous? There is no need for BBC Radio 3 to fear that because Classic FM is continuous it should be also. Classic FM was greeted in its initial stages with great enthusiasm because everybody said that its listeners would go on to other music—perhaps to BBC Radio 3—that they would frequent the concert halls and become classical devotees. But sometimes I have a nasty suspicion that not all Classic FM listeners do that; that some of them just buy more and more records of favourite excerpts.
The whole business of classical music as an enormous, if quality, wallpaper in our lives is perhaps mistaken. If one listens to Classic FM or indeed Radio 3 in the mornings or afternoons, one listens to programmes called "Morning Choice", or "Morning Concert", or "Morning Masterworks", or "Morning Requests", or "Morning Miscellany", unless of course they are the afternoon equivalent. One never knows what they are because all the programmes are identical; they are all wonderful records of wonderful classical music. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I miss the other elements of radio. I can remember, not just from Radio 3 but from the good old Third Programme days, extraordinary experiences like the strange stories of Heinrich Boll, lectures by Sir Isaiah Berlin, talks by Max Beerbohm, no less, W. B. Yeats, the poetry of James Stevens and the amazing surreal contributions of Sir Ivor Cutler. We do not find them any more; we do not find the mixture that once we found.
Perhaps I should stop there because I have a strong feeling that the BBC has had enough advice on what it should do from all of your Lordships this afternoon to last it a lifetime. Instead I shall finish by asking what the nature of public service actually is. It is a phrase we have all used this afternoon. What distinguishes it from any other service? The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that he did not think the Government had anything to do. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, regards that as a matter of relief or of

1701
disappointment. But I have a suggestion not of something the Government should do but of a principle I hope they will accept. It is this.
What distinguishes a public service is that the quality and variety of the service come first; commerce, rivalry, profit, economy, organisation, all come second. Nobody wants a public service organisation not to be properly organised; not to have budgets; not to keep to them; and to be absolutely blind in the face of competition. But so many noble Lords this afternoon emphasised that it should not go for ratings alone. They can be dazzling. I have a stepson who works as an actor in Hollywood on one of the most popular series. When I asked him casually, "How many people watch you each week'?", he said, "Oh, 65 million". That is a figure so staggering that one cannot comprehend it in terms of an audience, but public service broadcasting should not be seduced by that. I believe that the BBC should do exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said—concentrate on what it can do best and what it can do uniquely. That is the definition of public service.
5.37 p.m.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, perhaps I can add my welcome to the opportunity my noble friend Lord Bragg has given us to debate this important subject of public service broadcasting. I should beg forgiveness for yet another declaration of interest; I am privileged to be the current BBC Vice-Chairman. The Addison Rules mean that I am not going to be able to comment at all on some of the issues raised, particularly about the BBC, and this will be one of the most frustrating seven minutes of my life. However, I hope the Minister will rise to the defence of the BBC in some areas.
Others spoke about the vibrant broadcasting environment of the United Kingdom. Broadcasting is a British success story and we are seeing existing strong networks being joined rapidly by fast-growing new services, including digital, the Internet and broadcasting on demand. Public service broadcasters must be in those new technologies and delivery mechanisms because they are the technologies and delivery mechanisms of the future; otherwise, public service broadcasting will face an absolute decline.
Some people have been predicting that, with more in the way of variety in broadcasting, it will mean a worse service with competition fragmenting audiences, investment with tabloid values growing and a nation divided between those who can benefit from the new services and those who cannot afford to. I am more buoyant about the future of public service broadcasting in this new and fast-developing world.
I am probably personally privileged in standing at this watershed in UK broadcasting to be just at the right age. I am old enough to remember the potter's wheel, but young enough not to go into the foetal position when faced with the Internet. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Currie of Marylebone that we need high quality public service broadcasting rather more as a result of market fragmentation.
1702
Several matters have already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Puttnam which we need to bear in mind as important ingredients of public service broadcasting in this new world. The first is that we need to carry forward the principles of informing, educating and entertaining when the market itself will not necessarily assure them. That does not mean that we in public service broadcasting should be relegated to carrying the boring, but worthy, kind of material that I might typify as being watched only by one man and his dog.
The second key feature of public service broadcasting was indicated by my noble friend Lord Barnett; namely, the role that it has in helping to improve standards for broadcasting. Regulation is a very poor mechanism for setting standards. A thriving public service broadcasting sector needs to be large enough to influence standards across the market as a whole. I shall speak more about that when I touch on the issue of funding.
The third role for public service broadcasting which is vital for the future is inclusiveness to ensure that through news and factual programmes all groups in society actively join in the debate on national, regional and local issues. We need to ensure that we can provide ways in which those who might otherwise be socially excluded are embraced within society, and therefore overcome the risks of division within our society into those who are information rich and those who are information poor.
Last but not least public service broadcasting needs to be glue for the nation, as it were, to provide an opportunity for shared experiences for all of us. That will become even more acute in a new, devolved United Kingdom with our very diverse society, but with a fragmented broadcasting market.
I wish to tackle in more detail two issues which have already been raised today. One is quality. I would like to debunk the term "dumbing down" once and for all. If I ever find the person who invented it I might address a few well chosen words to them. It is an incredibly glib phrase, which misrepresents entirely an important objective of public service broadcasting. We need to find a new word. Someone suggested "wising up" rather than "dumbing down". I have been trying to popularise the word "widebrowing" which describes the need for us to engage a wide range of audiences if the public purposes of public broadcasting are to be fulfilled. That requires new ways of making important issues accessible and relevant to a wide range of audiences.
If I dare, perhaps I may touch on the vexed question of programmes like "Vanessa". I could very well put money on the fact that probably not many noble Lords watch that programme. With due respect to your Lordships' House neither we, nor the chattering classes generally, can for the most part call ourselves normal or average. I suggest that if noble Lords come across programmes that do not suit them they should ponder for a moment. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, it may be that a programme was meant for an age and a stage far removed from noble Lords. One should judge whether the programme is good of its kind and effective in bringing issues or content in a relevant way to more

1703
normal people than noble Lords or myself. One must judge the programme because public sector broadcasting does not always get it right. Public sector broadcasters must guard against popularisation for its own sake.
The programme "Vanessa" at its best is trying to bring issues in a relevant way to wide audiences for the sake of the public service broadcasting objective of informing and educating and not simply for popularity.
As has already been highlighted, some elements of quality need comparative freedom from market pressures, such as investment in the arts and taking risks. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, stressed, comparative freedom from market pressures gives an ability to take risks with new approaches and new talent. I doubt whether we would see commercial broadcasting in a competitive market giving an early chance to people such as Dennis Potter or Harold Pinter in the future.
I pray the indulgence of noble Lords for a moment. The licence fee is an imperfect mechanism for funding public service broadcasting. Every other mechanism is poorer. We need to defend the licence fee because it gives public service broadcasting space to carry out the very important roles that I have outlined: to develop its role in providing services that inform, educate and entertain in ways which the market alone will not. It should be done in an inclusive way for the whole of the United Kingdom's diverse society and indeed for the world.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I have often found his broadcasting extremely infuriating. I have never been to sleep during one of his broadcasts. I enjoyed his speech enormously and I find myself in agreement with most of it.
I shall concentrate my remarks on the BBC. It is suffering from a lack of focus and direction, typified by the material that it sent to us before this debate. The front of the document The BBC Beyond 2000 contains a mission statement which is an example to everybody of what a mission statement should not be. It is a lot of guff, motherhood and apple pie. There is almost nothing in it which can be a day-to-day guide to the people within the corporation on how they should make programmes and conduct their lives. What is needed is a much more hard-edged understanding of what public service broadcasting should be and how it should be governed.
To my mind there are two fundamental things that should form the BBC. The first is a set of values which belong to public service broadcasting and which are not founded in the commercial world but set on their own. Secondly, and just as important, the BBC should be different, as other speakers have said. If it is not different, there is no function at all in having it. It must be different in everything that it does. Imitating ITV and doing as well as some other commercial broadcaster does nothing to justify the existence of a particular programme.
As regards values, I pick out three. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said, there is truth. It should be in everything that the BBC does, from such obvious
1704
features as news broadcasting and the dramatic programmes it makes to the slightest and most ordinary part of its programming. Truth should be the fundamental principle which all of its producers and programmers bear in mind every day.
Secondly, there should be a mission to inform. That is an old BBC icon but increasingly neglected. It is important that when we see a BBC programme, with any luck we should learn something from it. It should not be just bland and intellectually without content.
Although it is much paraded by the BBC at the moment, I do not believe it has achieved as much quality as it should. It aims at quality but it should do better to achieve good quality programmes. I take as an example something which the BBC does well in all three aspects. "EastEnders" is a programme which is true to the life that it depicts in as much as any soap opera can be. I do not think that the type of people it depicts would take offence at anything representative of themselves. It is informative and tells those of us who are not part of that community a great deal about the lives and concerns of such people, as well as being extremely entertaining. It is also a programme of high quality which is well produced and well acted.
But there is a great deal of the work of the BBC that is not at that level. I am a great listener to the "Today" programme. But its news agenda has become tabloid. The stories on which it chooses to lead are generally found in the Sun and the Daily Mirror, often also in the Daily Mail and the Daily Express but have no resemblance at all to the priorities contained in the great broadsheet newspapers. The main morning Radio 4 lead programme should not be like that.
As has been said by many other speakers and frequently in this House, the broadcasting of Parliament is a total disgrace. It has become a mixture of soundbites and pundits. It contains absolutely nothing of what has been said and done in Parliament. If you are reporting Parliament and are governed by a desire for truth and to provide infonnation, then Parliament should be reported on Parliament's terms. We make speeches which are generally about seven to 10 minutes long. That is the sort of aspect which ought to be fitted into broadcasting if you want to give a clear view of what Parliament is.
I turn now to the differences. As the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, and others have said, ratings should not count. If you are trying to be different from ITV, it must be remembered that ITV has to be governed by ratings. Indeed, that is what its revenues are generated by. However, the BBC is not so governed. It has to be different and it should look at things in a different way. I do not wish to see the BBC crowing about, or being governed by, ratings.
The BBC has to try new approaches. It is one of the great successes of the subsidised theatre that it takes on new ventures and does things that the commercial theatre does not do. I do not like to see the BBC paying hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to second-rate presenters merely because they are known faces. There should be hundreds of people within the BBC who have the capability to take over from these people. When they become so expensive, they ought to be spun out into the

1705
commercial world. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, who I am sorry to say is not present in the Chamber today, has followed that process in commercial television to great success. Every time he loses a producer from the "The Big Breakfast" programme he produces a new one who is cheaper and better. But, having our money to spend, the BBC ought to be doing that even better. To pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to second-rate talent, or to be kind to them, very much run-of-the-mill talent, should never be considered by the BBC.
As other noble Lords have said, the addiction to difference should certainly be carried into the question of sport. It does not matter whether premiership football is shown on ITV or the BBC. If it is there and broadcast on ITV, the BBC has no reason to wish to compete with that because it would be providing nothing different by doing so. Many sports and other activities are not featured on commercial television; the corporation should seek to cover them.
In combining both values and difference, the BBC needs a sense of importance. It needs to understand that democracy is important in this country and that it should give it good coverage and good understanding. But it has been walking away from that for many years. It needs to understand that we are part of Europe and that it must cover Europe, even to the extent perhaps of showing a few foreign films, and perhaps especially including programmes which give us an understanding of foreign cultures and of our partners in Europe. That is important to us. It is not being done by commercial channels and it should be done by the BBC.
Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, and others have said, minority programming is important. It is important not just to those minorities themselves; it is also important to us, so that we have a window onto what other parts of our society are like and can learn from that.
I hope that the BBC will pay attention to what has been said in this debate. I do not see its presence here. The BBC has provided us with a great deal of information and has spent much time in trying to tell us what to say in this debate, but those concerned do not appear to wish to listen to us. When I have written to the BBC commenting on material that it has sent to me, I have never received an answer. The BBC appears to be heading in entirely the wrong direction. I hope that those concerned take a look at themselves soon.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, when I saw my noble friend's Motion on the Order Paper, I had a little prick of conscience. Yes, conscience. The source of this unusual emotion was purely my enjoyment of public service broadcasting for many years; but I have never actually spoken up for it. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bragg for giving me this opportunity to do so.
I have absolutely no interest at all to declare. I have enjoyed the quality of the entertainment, the excellence of the music, the authoritative news and information and the creativity of public service broadcasting. However,
1706
I have enjoyed commercial benefit too. Some 18 years ago, when the BBC did a series on computers and introduced the BBC Micro, my company bought a Micro for any employee who agreed to follow the course. That turned us into a computer literate company some two or three years ahead of our competitors. It certainly contributed towards the growth and success of the business. So I am a real beneficiary of public service broadcasting in many ways.
However, my noble friend quite rightly talks about the future of public service broadcasting. Does it have one? Like many noble Lords, I think that it does because the Thatcherite idea that public services are inherently bad and that private services are good has been demonstrated to be completely wrong. Public services are not better or worse; they are different. Some 15 years ago 70 per cent. of the public thought that large private companies served the public well and 30 per cent. thought that they did not. Today the position is reversed. As a result, companies now spend millions of pounds reinforcing their reputation because they know that a good reputation brings real benefits to their business. It is called branding.
Nevertheless, people still remain sceptical. As a result, public service institutions are becoming an improving brand. I agree with my noble friend Lord Currie that public service broadcasters need to capitalise on this and enjoy the benefits, especially the BBC. However, public service is no excuse for poor management. So I wonder why the BBC sometimes compounds the errors of other businesses. For example, it operates an internal market. But I believe that internal markets were discredited and discarded years ago by other businesses. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bragg who drew our attention to the over-large headquarters. which again most companies have discarded. The BBC really can invest in skills and training for its workforce without then having to sack large numbers to produce "shareholder value", as the noble Lord. Lord McNally, put it.
Public service broadcasters do not have to produce shareholder value. They should not compete with markets on market terms, as my noble friend Lord Puttnam put it. They have other measures of performance. For them, excellent public service is as legitimate a measure of success and satisfaction as increasing shareholder value or ratings.
Normal business accounting is inadequate and misleading where public service is involved. That is why public service broadcasters should not ape their commercial competitors. If they do, they will be forced—and I say this with apologies to my noble friend Lady Young—to dumb down. Markets find it difficult to measure social values and markets always grossly undervalue benefits to society. That is why we have regulators. They are there to correct this. But I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Rather, that regulation will not stop dumbing down. Market forces are much stronger than regulatory forces. We have seen proof of this in some of the most strongly regulated sectors of our society. as regards the food we eat, the trains we travel on and the financial services that we use.

1707
We should loudly proclaim the values of public service as an alternative to markets. Public service organisations can just as well move with the times and be truly inclusive yet be free of the strait-jacket of producing shareholder value for the market. The public service ethos provides information for minority interests and cultures. It requires suitable programming for our children who, as other noble Lords have said, learn an enormous amount from radio and television. Indeed, what an influence public service broadcasting has on them! I hope that the Social Exclusion Unit is looking closely at how it, too, can benefit from public service broadcasting and that it will take note of some of the comments that have been made in this debate.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Puttnam. Broadcasting funded by advertising, by sponsorship or by subscription cannot afford to deal with these matters. Moreover, as the nanny state shrinks, more than ever we need an informed population: informed to make the right decisions and, as my noble friend Lord Peston said, informed about science. Increasing competition and choice will not achieve this. Quality and reliability will. News has to come from a reliable source and there has to be an easy access to quality information so that people can make informed choices as citizens and as consumers.
This then is my argument for public service broadcasting. What can the Government do? First, they could foster public service broadcasting yet give it independence. Secondly, as my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Currie have said, they must ensure that it has sufficient finance to maintain the critical mass it needs to be an effective service and not become marginalised, as it has been elsewhere in the world. Public service broadcasting has been a wonderful ambassador, providing a showcase for our many talented actors, musicians, producers, designers and writers. Much of its authority comes from a public service ethos. Long may it continue.
6 p.m.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, this is an extremely difficult debate to wind up because of the quality of the speeches. I have made copious notes but I am afraid that I shall have to abandon them because I cannot read them as I have written so much. This has been an excellent debate. As one would expect, it was ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I have never been irritated by the noble Lord. I have always found his performances on radio and television to be extremely good. He set an example for us all in that he made a speech and gave some practical suggestions at the end of his speech as to how the BBC should move forward. He suggested setting up an independent commercial structure for all UK television so that the quality product we obtain from the BBC and other broadcasters would be protected in the USA. Buyers there could not drive down prices for programmes, as at present. That is an excellent suggestion.
Like most people of my age, I started listening to radio at an early age. I had a fairly peripatetic childhood. Fortunately, I had learnt to read and write fairly competently before war broke out. I found myself as an
1708
only child in various abodes during the following five years. I was grateful for the number of cheap children's books that were available. The classics were available, sometimes in abridged versions. My gratitude to the BBC remains intact. Like the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, I believe that if you want to know what true public service broadcasting is about you should listen to BBC radio rather than watch BBC television. Although there are many excellent programmes on television, there are many peaks and troughs, as other noble Lords have said.
In one of the rented homes to which my mother took me during the war I had a crystal set which was given to me by a Belgian refugee. I remember clearly to this day that one of my greatest achievements was to obtain a clear and consistent reception of BBC broadcasts with an irritating piece of wire and a tiny handle. Presumably my Belgian friend had received interesting broadcasts from his home country throughout the war. While I was at a boring public school I graduated to building a one-valve set. On Saturday nights I listened clandestinely to "Saturday Night Theatre" which stimulated my interest in playwrights and poets. I listened to readings from Hardy, Lorca and Oscar Wilde. Those were wonderful years of the radio broadcasting of drama. Much of the music I listened to went over my head—like the noble Lord, Lord Peston—but my interest in music was stimulated at that time. The Belgian refugee also gave me a mandolin as well as the crystal set, but I gave up on the mandolin. However, I became a competent operator of the crystal set.
The tradition of serious broadcasting on radio has been maintained in a praiseworthy manner, which probably has not been the case with television. Fortunately, I did not see a television broadcast until I was just over 17. That was the coronation of Her Majesty the Queen which I watched in France in black and white. I have never felt that television matched radio for sheer dramatic effect, even with an event such as that.
I mentioned my next point to my noble friend Lord Perry of Walton, who was the Chancellor of the Open University. If one is periodically an insomniac, one may think that a television programme will send one to sleep. One can tune in to a programme of the Open University at an early hour in the morning. That is an enormous revelation as there is no packaging. The programmes comprise expert, fairly anonymous presenters giving viewers purely the facts. My great quarrel with television is that it is too obsessed with packaging and presentation, which is expensive. That is not to say that there are not expert talented and usually young people involved in developing better ways of presenting graphics and improving presentation. However, I believe the BBC would do well to steer away from that aspect. I wish it would steer a course half-way between the Open University broadcasts and its present approach. That would be cheaper and I believe it would regain its constituency in terms of television broadcasts.
Noble Lords have made various valid points. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, spoke about dross. I absolutely agree with him. I wonder what length of time he has spent watching television. I know that he is a great

1709
expert at surfing the Net. I was puzzled to hear several noble Lords mention the excellence of the Internet. That does not square with an article in one of the broadsheets yesterday which stated that 90 per cent. of the material on the Internet comprises pornography. Even if the figure is 75 per cent., it is rather worrying. How is one not sidetracked by pornography when using the excellent BBC Internet? I have maintained for some time that pornography and sport are the only things that one can sell on subscription with any certainty, to the delight of accountants. I am rather concerned about this matter. I shall have to read Hansard and talk further to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, about that.
Unfortunately, I missed much of what the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, said. However, I have been well briefed on it by my noble friend Lord McNally. Music is a subject close to my heart. There is an excellent article in The Times today by Andre Previn in which he harks back nostalgically to the time when he gave many concerts on television. He said that those concerts did an enormous amount to stimulate the interest of audiences in music. At that time people were keener to attend concerts of the London Symphony Orchestra than to attend many West End shows. It is noticeable that BBC television has dropped its concentration on serious music. Last night Mr. Will Wyatt addressed the all-party media group. He pointed out that there are remarkable BBC radio broadcasts of serious music from all over the world which comprise concerts, opera and other such events. There is a great difference between radio and television, as has been said.
As I have said, sport and pornography are probably the only areas in which the accountants of those who sell subscriptions are really interested. However, I am quite sure that their creative colleagues have much higher ambitions. The BBC must stop spending money on competing with the satellite channels with regard to broadcasting sport. I am afraid that is a lost cause. Broadcasters have concentrated on that and produced an excellent product because they know that is where money is made. If we can retain the broadcasting of certain sports through statute I think that is all one can hope for. The BBC will just have to rely on highlights as regards other sports.
As I have said, I owe a great deal to the educational function of radio. However, children's programming on television is dreadful. It is the dross. It is politically correct, boring and strident. I have a small child and I protect him from terrible cartoons. However, I cannot do so when he has a small friend to stay. It is obvious that when that child is restive or bored at home, he watches a cartoon. The BBC should stop broadcasting cartoons. Let others get on with that.
It has been an interesting debate. I agree that the high standards of the BBC over the years have upheld its great central role as a benchmark of quality. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, who made a remarkable speech for someone who has been in such a prominent position. He was frank with us about his attitudes to public service broadcasting. His definition that it should uplift the hearts and enlighten the minds is the very best standard to which the BBC should
1710
adhere, not only for children but for all of us. It should stop trying to compete with those who are better furnished financially. The BBC has the licence fee. Everyone has tried to examine a better way of funding; it has not been found. The licence fee appears to be the only way. Let us give the public the confidence to support the funding of the BBC. Let us see whether the Government can persuade the BBC to get back to its natural constituency of average, normal, seriously-minded people who want quality rather than modern and politically correct programming.
6.11 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for introducing this debate. He brings to it his long-term professionalism in broadcasting. Unlike others, I have no interest to declare. I bring to the debate my interest as a consumer and somebody who has been involved at the sharp end of enforcing the public's payment of a licence fee. As a magistrate I have adjudicated on cases of licence fee non-payment and evasion—as indeed has the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who is in his place. Evasion is a criminal offence.
The experience of adjudicating in that way concentrates one's mind very carefully upon the implications of broadcasting funded by a licence fee. It is right that noble Lords have posed questions this afternoon about public service broadcasting in general. Should it exist at all? Is it sustainable in the multi-channel digital future? Is it merely an anachronism? Will markets on their own give us the media and the society that we want? Is it an optional add-on or is it essential to the health of all broadcasting?
This is indeed a timely debate. First, as noble Lords have mentioned, the Davies Committee has been appointed to consider the future of the licence fee and the balance between the BBC's public service and its commercial activities. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood remarked, that is a narrow remit. I look forward to the publication of the committee's report this summer and the opportunity then to debate its recommendations.
The second reason why this is a timely debate is that we are experiencing a fascinating time of change in technology—that of the digital age and the multimedia revolution. Yet, at the same time as we face change, there are constants, such as the public expectation of a quality service that is easy to access. As my noble friend Lady James of Holland Park pointed out, we demand quality of both delivery and programming.
The Davies report and the new director-general, whoever that may be, must have a vision of the future which will serve the BBC for decades and not just until 2006. Although the public service broadcasting debate will quicken at the time of renegotiating the charter, I, like my noble friend Lord Inglewood, suspect that we need now to begin to debate what should be the ground rules of public service broadcasting into the next century.
As noble Lords have pointed out, there are two contrasting ways of looking at this debate, with some overlapping views in between. One version suggests that

1711
the duty of public broadcasting is only to provide programmes that no commercial broadcaster would touch. If one takes this idea to its logical conclusion, as some in the European Commission would do, governments would explicitly commission hours of programmes perceived by the government to be "good" for us, for which the mass market would not pay and for which therefore advertisers would not pay. The second version is that in the new, vastly expanded broadcasting environment, the market will provide and there will be no need for public service broadcasting. It is tempting in that world to believe that television is just another consumer commodity, best left entirely to market forces and global trends.
So is it right to argue that broadcasting is too important to be left at the mercy of the market or too important to be left in the broadcasters' hands? As world audiences fragment under the competitive pressure from satellite and cable, is there a risk that diminishing audiences will reduce the ability of mainstream broadcasters to afford original, expensive and innovative productions? Is there a widening gap between the information rich and the information poor, one that is accelerated by the growth of subscription and pay-per-view? Without public service broadcasting, does the global media market risk homogenisation? That is a lovely bureaucratic word but, as noble Lords have pointed out, one which perhaps means the dawn of the Murdoch world. From what noble Lords have argued today, the answer to all three questions may be "yes".
We talk a great deal about the impact of the digital age on public service broadcasting, but the underlying issues remain the same. How do broadcasters balance commercial activity with their public service broadcasting remit? How do broadcasters maintain the quality of their programming? And, as noble Lords have mentioned, what form should regulation take?
The BBC has recently faced many an accusation, one of which is that the public service dog is being wagged by the tail of its ambitions to become a global broadcaster. Much attention has been paid to that accusation in the debate. Even Sir Christopher Bland admitted that the BBC is treading an increasingly delicate line by setting up an assortment of new public service and commercial channels while at the same time trying to preserve its traditional strengths on public service television channels and radio stations. Fears that it was compromising its core television and radio service erupted last year when it lost rights to live TV test match cricket to Channel 4. I was very much aware of that eruption in my home environment. My husband made me aware of it very painfully—not painfully to me, painfully to the television.
The BBC's opponents claimed it was stretching itself too thin with ventures such as its loss-making international news channel, BBC World. Last month I visited the "Where's Q" digital project, an exciting and innovative project, one in which the BBC could lead the world. I hope that it does. I hope that it has that opportunity. But, at the same time as wishing it well on that project, I appreciate that the project underlines questions about the role of public service broadcasters in a digital age.
1712
Many noble Lords have mentioned the BBC's Internet services. I have to confess that I have something in common with the noble Lord, Lord Peston: I, too, am an Internet groupie. I have not accessed the pornographic sections—and indeed the noble Lord is indicating that he has not either. Other noble Lords may well indeed give us some education on this, although I am not too sure whether it would be educational.
There is a free-rider problem with regard to the BBC's Internet services. Licence payers are funding an excellent Internet news service to the citizens of the world. There are of course many advantages to that, but I am concerned that the Internet may become the successor to the World Service. Does it or can it really ever offer the access that radio does to those who are the poorest users in the third world? Could it be a Trojan horse destroying the World Service from within? I note that BBC Online recently decamped to Bush House, the home of the World Service.
Mention has been made of chat shows. In the United Kingdom we will all be watching and listening to discover how the BBC will respond to the charge that it is "dumbing down" or "widebrowing", a new term I have learnt tonight. Playing up to the ratings war, I believe, is what it is all about. As my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm pointed out, there is an underlying feeling among the public that the BBC and other public service broadcasters should not be driven by that need to play up to the ratings war.
I would question the role of chat shows for a public service broadcaster. After all, TV shows like the "Vanessa" show, which has been mentioned, have given a whole new meaning to the term "faking it". Perhaps the only certainty in all of this is that the licence fee payer expects the BBC to produce good quality programming as its public service responsibility, a point my noble friend Lord Lucas argued so well today.
Recently I attended the launch of the essays Public Purposes in Broadcasting—funding the BBC and found the presentation, including one by the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, who spoke earlier in the debate, and the book itself a stimulating introduction to the work of the Davies review. Public service broadcasters should continue to have a clear responsibility to provide a wide range of programmes that challenge but without causing offence. I believe that the public will expect of public service broadcasters in the digital age exactly what they expect of them in the analogue age—quality, diversity, innovation and independence. On a personal note, if I am persuaded in favour of public service broadcasting by any argument, it is quite simply this: that without it we could lose the opportunity of being surprised by programmes that we did not know we wanted.
6.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend Lord Bragg and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I can start from a point of agreement with everyone who has spoken. By that I mean an acknowledgement of the strength of public service broadcasting in the United Kingdom. But

1713
beyond that I have to say that I will not be able to follow a large number of the contributions because the debate has been very personal—it has been very attractive for that reason—and has concerned people's feelings about particular BBC programmes.
My noble friend Lady Young said that she expects me to rise to the defence of the BBC. That is not the job of the Government. I cannot do that. I am certainly not going to find myself defending or attacking "Vanessa", "One Man and his Dog" and "Jerry Springer". I am tempted when the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, refers to Radio 3 and Classic FM. I shall break my rule for a moment to say that the reason one wants continuous music is that some of us are not continuous listeners; and when we switch on, we want to find music. That is the answer to the noble Lord's question. I shall not break my rule again.
In that way the debate has been remarkable. Time after time noble Lords have expressed undying devotion to the BBC and then they have gone in for stinging criticism of the way in which it operates. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether the BBC will be listening. It will be listening; he can be sure of that. The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, managed to describe the BBC as a whipping boy and a sacred cow in the course of a single speech. That is quite an achievement.
I have to move on from that not only because it would be improper for me to respond as if I were speaking on behalf of the BBC, which I cannot, but also because the subject of the debate is the future of public service broadcasting in this country. That is what I want to talk about. Public service broadcasting, however one defines it, is not just the BBC but other television and radio channels which have had a degree of regulation that will no longer be possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Birkett, proffered definitions and a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Young, offered definitions of public service broadcasting. I do not want to do that. I have an agreement with the lexicographers. They do not determine government policy and I do not write dictionaries; and we are better off that way. We must recognise that the future of regulation, which has been a contributory factor, if not the only factor, in the success of public service broadcasting in this country, has to change. It is changing and it has to change more. Spectrum scarcity, which has been the basis of regulation, has been undermined already by cable and satellite and it will certainly be undermined a great deal more by the advent of digital radio and television. I shall argue that these changes in technology will not only continue the need for public service broadcasting, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, but will actually increase it. In doing so, I shall acknowledge straightaway my debt to the thinking and writing of Andrew Graham, an economist and Master of Balliol College, Oxford, who I think is the most creative and logical of all thinkers on this subject.
It seems to me that there are three essential elements in public service broadcasting. The first is: who produces it; what is its origin; what is the industry structure behind broadcasting? The second—this has
1714
taken up 90 per cent. of the time in the debate—is: what is in the programme; in other words, what we in industry would call the design and manufacture function. The third is: how do people get to see the programmes; access; what we would call marketing and distribution. Unless we look at all three of them, I do not think we will understand the nature of the problems and opportunities that we will face. The first thing we have to recognise is that new technology in itself does not ensure that there will be new players. In a valuable publication, to which reference has been made, my noble friend Lord Currie said that changes will come about from the smaller players. I am sure he is right. The problem is to ensure that there will be smaller players rather than concentration. The problem is that, on the contrary, new technology pushes towards concentration of ownership and fragmentation of audience. A quality product. which is the essence of what we are discussing here, is inevitably expensive to produce and it will not become cheaper to produce. Indeed, it may become more expensive because of the shortage of first class talent. That is particularly true of the example of sports rights, to which reference has been made.
Broadcasting has high fixed costs which encourage larger players. But it is also cheap to disseminate. We can move from television to film, to video, to radio and to press. The feature here is of low marginal costs. That is a move from one kind of monopoly or oligopoly of spectrum scarcity to a different kind of monopoly, a natural monopoly, of economies of scale—that is, the high fixed costs—and of economies of scope—that is, those who have the product can make more money by selling it on. That was acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Currie. This is what we are talking about when we face convergence between print, telecommunications, computing, broadcasting and other means of communication.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred to shareholder value. What I say to him is that in general terms monopoly is bad; private monopoly is worse; media monopoly is worse; and private media monopoly is worst of all. That is the threat we have to face. So what should be the public's policy objectives under those circumstances? First, we have to be clear that public service does not mean public service broadcasters only; it has to be public service as made available by the commercial sector. But we can be certain that public service will not be produced by the commercial sector or the market only. In other words, the need for the preservation of a non-commercial sector in media ownership and in broadcasting ownership is critical.
The Broadcasting Act 1996 allocated digital spectrum; it gave more scope to the BBC and to the existing channels; and it ensured that those with a public service remit would be allocated space and that those with space would be required to carry public service broadcasting. In addition, there are cross-media rules enforceable by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which will be a strengthened competition commission when the Competition Act comes into force. I do not have answers to these problems. However, I want the House to know that the

1715
Government recognise the difficulties that exist and the inadequacies of some of the solutions that have been found in the past.
I shall say rather less about programmes, even though other noble Lords have said more. I wish to set out what public service broadcasting is not. It is not merely what the commercial sector does not offer. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who made a most thoughtful and constructive speech. It is not just a safety net. It is not just a niche. Nor is it just particular kinds of programmes, however valuable they may be—it is not merely news and current affairs or religious broadcasting. I say to the right reverend Prelate that I believe the advisory panel on religious broadcasting has been making representations to the BBC on the points that he raised. It is not merely education, important and all-pervading as that is, and ought to be. It is not just such things as costume drama. It is not just minority programming. I am sure that my noble friends Lord Ahmed and Lady Flather, among others, would not wish minority programming to be in the ghetto of public service broadcasters. It should be everywhere, in all kinds of offerings.
Like my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, I take the view that public service broadcasting has to be defined in terms of the whole spectrum of quality programming. My noble friend Lord Peston made the same point. The noble Baroness said that it has to be good of its kind. That is the proper criterion.
Public service programming is an approach to broadcasting rather than a particular kind of broadcasting: an approach that has the objectives of seeking to entertain, inform, educate and challenge people into new thinking. It should pervade both the BBC and commercial broadcasting.
What are the public policy objectives? It is certainly the Government's wish that the BBC should survive and adapt to the new conditions. I recognise the fears expressed on this matter by my noble friend Lord Barnett but do not entirely accept them.
There are five key principles that should apply to the BBC. It should act as a benchmark for quality, driving up standards across the board—my noble friend referred to "vital standards". It should provide something for everybody, making the good popular and the popular good. It should inform, educate and entertain, expanding people's horizons with new and innovative programming. It should operate efficiently and effectively and provide value for money for licence fee payers. I shall return to some of these points as they were raised in the debate. And it should stimulate, support and reflect the diversity of cultural activity in the United Kingdom, acting as a cultural voice for the nation.
I shall not say anything more about the BBC at this time as I must respond to particular points about the BBC which are issues of public policy. I wish to move on the third element of public service broadcasting; namely, the question of access—what I termed marketing and distribution.
1716
Many years ago, Lady Plowden said: "Broadcasting is democratic. There are no reserved seats". It was true when she said it. I wonder whether it is true now. I wonder whether, with the development of pay-per-view and subscription television, we can still say the same. It may be democratic in the same way as we are all free to go and eat at the Ritz, but some of us cannot afford to do that. I wonder, also, with the proliferation of channels, whether we still have the universal geographical coverage which we have built up so painfully over the years. More than that, when we move further into multiple-channel offerings, whether digital, on-digital or cable and satellite, the question of how we find what we want to listen to or watch will be increasingly important. We shall need what is called the electronic programme guide, which is the equivalent of an operating system on a computer. Here again, we are in difficulty.
The cable and satellite operators have said that they will provide interoperability between their set-top boxes. Indeed they have set a date-15th March. Oftel and the ITC are supervising the process. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, invites me to "bang heads together". I do not know whether at some stage that may be necessary—or at least, it may be necessary for Oftel and the ITC to bang heads together. Certainly, it is absolutely critical, if we are to have public service broadcasting that works, that people know where to find what they want to watch.
So far as geographical coverage is concerned, the 1996 Act regulated it and set priorities for the best, most available multiplexes. Subscription and pay-per-view will continue as a funding mechanism—it must do. It will be moderated, as it has been to some extent by the listed events provisions. But there are enormous difficulties in the way of the continuation of public service broadcasting as it has been viewed during the course of this debate. So let us return to the fundamental principle behind public service broadcasting: quality and diversity free-to-air.
Perhaps I may now turn to the public policy issues raised in relation to the BBC. I cannot spend very much time on the issue of the licence fee, much as I should like to. The Davies working group is in place. It will report by the end of July. It is not covering the wider issues of governance. Those are matters for the Charter review which will take place closer to the time when the Charter is up for renewal. I am sure that Gavyn Davies and his colleagues will read carefully what has been said in this debate.
A number of number Lords spoke about the need for new channels, which are possible in the digital world. In a most interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Chadlington, talked about a channel which provided access to lottery funded arts and sports. That is a thought which deserves serious consideration.
In his maiden speech, my noble friend Lord Bragg referred to the need for an opportunity channel which would provide a showcase for newly trained people coming into the media. That is another suggestion that deserves further consideration.
There was much less reference than I should have wished to education in the debate. Noble Lords will wish to know that the BBC is proposing BBC

1717
Knowledge, a purely educational channel. We must make sure that the opportunities that are available through the increased spectrum provide not just high quality education for children, and above all for adults, but that we can find a way of making the output accessible and making sure that people know where to find it.
A number of noble Lords referred to the BBC's investment in digital programming—my noble friend Lord Bragg in a less friendly way, some noble Lords in a more friendly way. Yes, it is the case that the BBC is spending £200 million, 9 per cent. of the licence fee, on digital provision. It has been allowed to keep the £250 million which it received from the sale of its transmission services facilities. That is contributing towards that expenditure.
The vexed question of audience share and market share took up a great deal of time. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, thought that it was an unwinnable contest. But others, more closely reflecting the view of the Government, thought that there must be a critical mass of audience achieved by providing what is good of its kind in a wide range of programming types in order to ensure that the BBC continues to have the respect of its audiences and continue legitimately to claim the licence fee. My noble friend Lord Currie put it correctly when he said that the BBC cannot be marginalised in terms of viewing. I was grateful for what my noble friend Lord Puttnam said about the training role of the BBC and I hope that that will be taken very seriously.
There was considerable debate about the commercial activities of the BBC. They were applauded by Lord Currie and deplored by some others. My noble friend Lord Bragg made a very interesting and worthwhile suggestion about an independent collective marketing arm for all UK television and radio. That may go against what other noble Lords were saying about the value of the BBC brand. That again deserves further discussion.
The noble Viscount Lord Astor queried whether BBC Worldwide was adequately distinct. I can assure him that the BBC publishes separate accounts for BBC Worldwide and these are publicly available. In any case Gavyn Davies is looking at the balance between the commercial activities and the non-commercial activities of the BBC.
Reference was made to the European Commission competition law. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for reminding us that there is a protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty which legitimises state aid to public service broadcasting. My noble friend Lord Currie referred to this as well. There is of course a problem with mixed state funding and advertising funding but that will have to continue to be fought out between the different directorates general of the European Commission.
I close by re-emphasising the Government's view of the importance of public service broadcasting. This is a matter of the highest social and political importance. We see this as an essential element of citizenship. Broadcasting is part of the democratic process, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said. Research has shown
1718
that television and radio have become a prime source for the way in which we see the world, the way in which we take in information, and the way in which we see ourselves as a community and as individuals. It must be asserted that we have the right to this information, and that assertion in turn means that we must defend public service broadcasting to the end. Information must be an essential part of our society like public safety, health and education. All the issues which have been debated this afternoon are public policy issues. We need to continue to debate them. I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made to that essential debate.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I hope you read that this has been a debate of very high standard and I look forward to reading the speeches in Hansard tomorrow. I should like to make one very brief point. I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I am a full hearted supporter of the BBC licence fee and of the BBC as an unabashed, unqualified public service broadcaster. I hope the BBC will examine the fair criticisms made here, although the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of BBC indifference is rather worrying.
I am sure my noble friend Lady Young will agree that if you cannot take concerned criticism, especially in such a uniquely privileged position, then you are in trouble. Most of us here support the BBC at its best and will work for it. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATO
6.42 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose to call attention to the role of NATO in international peace and security, with particular reference to the new strategic concept and to crisis management; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am old enough—many noble Lords are—to remember when NATO was set up. There was quite a bit of ceremony; there was even a hymn written, presumably "I vow to thee my NATO all earthly things above". It was recommended for use in schools.
There was no doubt then what NATO was for. Stalin thoroughly scared us. It was as easy to say what NATO was for then as it is hard now. The old strategic concept was simple indeed: NATO was a mutual security treaty. The European members were a compact and contiguous group and we joined together, as the Charter of the United Nations permitted, for our common defence. The adversary was one only, and was obvious to all.
Ten years ago history unkindly deprived us of this simple situation, and now we are left with the richest and most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen, led by the most powerful military country now present in the world, with no conceivable adversary. It is said that drugs and smuggling could be an adversary for NATO. For Interpol of course; but to suggest that they can be hunted and destroyed by intercontinental or medium range ballistic missiles, nuclear or not, or

1719
battlefield missiles, or bombers, or fighters, or carriers or submarines, or by tanks or by divisions on the ground, is either disingenuous or idiotic. I repeat: NATO as it now is has no conceivable adversary.
NATO is the creature of the United States. But just how much American foreign and defence policy today is controlled by the American people? Fewer and fewer of them vote—36 per cent. turn-out for the last congressional elections—and it is the lobbies: the military-industrial lobby, the American-Israeli lobby, the genetic modification lobby, who today control Congress. President Clinton's Secretary of Defense is a Reagan Republican, who believes in American military "intervention" and in scrapping the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which is the linchpin of all the Strategic Arms Limitation agreements. And on her appointment, Mrs. Albright said, "What's the point of having this wonderful military if we don't use it?". So that tends to be that.
As far as the United Nations and the expansion of NATO are concerned—and Star Wars again, and Full Spectrum Dominance, and Space Dominance and God knows what other Dominance—Senator Helms has got the Administration on a short lead. The US owes the UN a billion-and-a-half dollars. It has signed 52 treaties which the Senate will not ratify. Among those it has not even signed are the Anti-Personnel Landmines Convention and the convention setting up the International Criminal Court, both rightly dear to our Government's heart. Meanwhile, President Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive No. 60 allows him to launch pre-emptive nuclear war against "proliferators".
The New NATO Strategic Concept which we are debating today is to be our answer to the question: what are our young men and women now to be ready to die for? The Government have decided to find the answer in secret and then spring it on us. Though there is a Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons, it has not been informed. In this House, we do not have one at all. I am among those who over the years have proposed that we should have one. This debate is not, to put it mildly, in Government time.
Our own Strategic Defence Review was supposed to be "foreign policy led", but I do not think we actually have a foreign policy. There is talk about better Brit-pop and fewer cocktail parties, but foreign policy is about political, social, economic and environmental justice in the world.
There are, I suppose, four possible futures for NATO. One would be to phase it out and use the money and the skill to build up the UN, remove injustice at home, and crush disease, poverty, exploitation and waste in the world. That would be to find adversaries where Confucius, Jesus and the Prophet Mahomet found them, and where the vast majority of humankind still find them. But we say to our children and grandchildren, "Ah, well, hmm, perhaps that should be your task".
A second future would be to leave things as they are: keep NATO at about its present level, perhaps adding two or three contiguous friends in spite of the absence of any threat to guard against. This would be a large continuing waste of wealth, but otherwise would not do much harm.
A third would be to expand NATO to include all European countries that want to join, and somehow to meet the cost of bringing them up to interoperability. That would create an adversary all right, though at first a shattered and humiliated one, Russia. This and any other imaginable Russian Government would perceive such a NATO as a threat, as their elected Parliament never ceases telling us. We are already having to spend a lot of money on a new missile because of some new Russian weapon. Of course; and they say they would find some way to keep the weapons they have and to rearm, and that way would obviously be nuclear or chemical, because for them that is now cheaper.
A fourth future would be to expand NATO as far as possible around the world, starting from eastern Europe, taking in all willing countries in the Middle East, central Asia and in due course south and south-east Asia, until we reach Japan, Australasia and the lands of the former SEATO and greet the Hawaiian shore of the US. This would produce not one but countless adversaries as NATO power and bases were set up in region after region of the world. But there are takers. Azerbaijan already wants a NATO base against Armenia, and there are NATO exercises in Albania, whose president is swearing unconditional loyalty to the United States in the hope that NATO will bomb the Serbs. When asked what his troops were doing exercising in Kazakhstan, an American general answered: "I guess it's to show there's nowhere we can't get to".
Such a future would cause China to devote everything to military effort, thus becoming in its turn the most powerful nation on earth and gathering under its sway all those countries which have chosen, and been able, to resist the expansion of NATO. They would be numerous because of the current US and British insistence on the rights of foreign "investors", which in ordinary language includes speculators, to override the decisions of local governments.
I do not know whether any Member of this House still doubts which of those four futures has the wind in its sails—perhaps not. It can be felt and seen most clearly in the American and French press. I feel it most clearly in the North Atlantic Assembly, to which my colleagues the Labour Peers were kind enough to elect me. The American wind is blowing strongly there towards the fourth alternative, with little assistant puffs from this country.
The argument has come to rest for the moment on the relative position to be given in international law and politics to NATO and to the United Nations. Hitherto the supremacy of the United Nations as global parliament and law-giver has never been doubted: the UN, even if it was not always our salvation, was always our hope. All countries find it slow and faltering. A very few—above all Israel, who owes her very existence to it—see it as a permanent hostile presence. But to the enormous majority of mankind the United Nations, and the rule of international law of which it is the symbol, is already the shield and help which it could one day be for all. The American people also incline that way, when anyone takes the trouble to ask them.
These realities have long been reflected in our basic documents in the West. Until now, if one were starting an international organisation of any kind, and often even a national one, one built a reference to the UN into paragraph 1 of its constitution. The Labour Party did that, and still does. But at the recent plenary meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly in Edinburgh there was a draft resolution on the new strategic concept. It was not controversial. Where it dealt with out-of-area NATO actions, it contained the traditional phrase that such actions should be,
"properly mandated by UN authority or OSCE responsibility and agreed with the highest cohesion".
An amendment was moved to delete the word "properly" and replace it with the words "whenever possible". Among the signatories to the amendment was the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British House of Commons. The amendment was put to the vote and passed.
Another resolution, from the chairman of the House of Commons Defence Committee, referred to,
"non-Article 5 missions, which the revised Strategic Concept should identify as a new NATO fundamental task"—
that was fine—for which NATO members should be,
"ready to act should the Security Council be prevented from discharging its purpose of maintaining international peace and security".
That, too, was passed and thus the North Atlantic Assembly now endorses the US view that NATO may arrogate to itself the right to confer legality on its own actions, whatever and wherever they may be.
It would be hard to put the European view more clearly than it was put by the French Foreign Minister, Mr. Vedrine, in September at the United Nations:
"Nothing should permit a state, a group of states or an organisation, however powerful it may be, to have recourse to force without having received prior authorisation from the Security Council, except in the case of legitimate self-defence".
Now I realise that it must be pleasant to coast along in the warmth of American friendship and protection, but it has its price, which is the consequent loss of warmth from other quarters. Do we care about good relations with the Arab states, with all Islam, even with the two Koreas?
Trouble only arises when we—or, rather, the United States—wish to act other than lawfully. Our current undeclared war on Iraq has nothing to do with Security Council resolutions, self-defence or anything in the least "humanitarian". We are now operating under American command to "topple Saddam", which is unlawful. Despite our own law, we allow American officials to do their plotting here in London and claim that we have no "evidence". We supported President Clinton's entirely self-serving attack on the factory in Sudan, where we had no evidence, either. Do Foreign Office officials report to Ministers how all this plays in the rest of the world? Do they show them the cartoons?
Perhaps we should now detach ourselves a bit. The way to do that is to take the law as our guide. What we—and perhaps only we—could do would be to talk
1722
to the United States. Without our support it just might see its legal nakedness. As it is, we are feeding the junkie his drug.
At present NATO is strong in armed might but weak in legitimacy and the UN is strong in legitimacy but weak in armed might. A useful common purpose for NATO might be this. Let all the European countries who want, including Russia, join together in this organisation of ours, self-defensive as it always was, but with the capacity to go to the help of those who are attacked or are being maltreated outside its area, provided that it does so with the clear and recent approval of the UN or the OSCE. It should become the military arm of the UN for Europe and adjacent territories. This would imply the growth of corresponding organisations in other parts of the world, which is in fact already beginning. The essence is that there should be no self-appointed, self-legitimating world policeman, but several regional or continental policemen at the service of the UN—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is over his time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House for ten seconds more. There should be no self-appointed, self- legitimating world policeman but several regional or continental policemen at the service of the UN, all internally as democratic as possible and all expressly subordinate to the authority of a UN which we must also strive to make inclusive and democratic.
6.57 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for giving us the opportunity to discuss a subject which was not fully covered by the debate on 8th December on the Strategic Defence Review. That review said remarkably little about what strategy the North Atlantic Alliance should have, although it made a few remarks about it. It seems to me that the Government have done little to persuade their allies within the alliance to reconsider fundamentally what is the best way to try to ensure the future security of Europe and of its interests, and therefore of our interests, in the light of the statement in the Strategic Defence Review that:
"The strategic environment we face today is very different to that of the previous 50 years".
I suggest that the first priority in the search for a secure and peaceful Europe is a sentiment which is included in the same chapter of the Strategic Defence Review on the subject of enlargement; namely, that policies and institutional arrangements should not lead to new divisions within Europe. My fear is that overemphasis on NATO as the principal means of assuring this is tending to do just that. By NATO I mean what that acronym correctly designates: the military organisation, dominated by the Americans, which is primarily still designed to meet a threat from the east, which the Strategic Defence Review dismisses as non-existent. What is more, that organisation is dedicated to the use—the first use, in some circumstances—of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it does

1723
not surprise me at all that many Russians in and out of government view the enlargement of NATO in its present pattern with concern. That is accentuated by steps to re-arm and reorganise the armed forces of the new members on the model of those of the United States.
I remind noble Lords that the celebrations to take place in Washington next month mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the North Atlantic Alliance, not NATO as a military organisation. It was the outbreak of the Korean war in June 1950 and the alarm that it raised that the Russians were drawing American forces into that part of the world in preparation for overrunning western Europe, greatly reinforced by a dramatic speech by Winston Churchill to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg calling for a strong European army, that led to American agreement at a NATO meeting on 12th September 1950 to the establishment,
"at the earliest possible date of an integrated force under centralised command in Europe—"
something for which, ironically, the French had been pressing for some time. Up until that time the American perception of the alliance was that the European members should get together to organise their own defence and build up their forces with US military aid, buttressed by economic aid under the Marshall Plan.
I believe that we should move back towards the original American perception of the alliance. More than once I have explained in this House my proposed reorganisation of NATO—I mean NATO—which is, briefly, that the military structure should be radically transformed so that it consists of three elements: first, the United States forces assigned to the alliance straightforwardly under their own national command, as they are in reality; and, secondly, a more or less integrated European military command, training and perhaps procurement organisation within the alliance, not separate like the Western European Union. Britain, France and Germany must be members of it. Any other members of the alliance that wished to join could do so. That organisation could operate under either American overall command or independently.
The third element would comprise the forces of those members of the Alliance that did not wish to assign forces permanently to this organisation but could do so for any operation in which they wished to participate. I suggest that the adoption of that proposal will remove many of the objections that have been expressed from time to time to the involvement of the alliance in peacekeeping or peace enforcement. It would also remove many of my objections to enlargement. It would have other advantages. It would make possible the abolition of NATO's huge bureaucratic headquarter staffs, which are bound to grow as the alliance is enlarged on NATO's present pattern; and it would be possible to wind up the WEU.
The principal problem would then be the relationship between the North Atlantic Alliance—I do not want to do away with that for a moment—and OSCE. I believe it is essential for the future peace of Europe and the security of its interests elsewhere in the world to incorporate Russia and the European former members
1724
of the Soviet Union closely with all the arrangements, political and military, designed to provide security, prevent armed conflict and promote peace in Europe.
At present there appear to be too many different and ill-organised bodies and methods. The Contact Group for Yugoslavia may point in a sensible direction. The choice appears to be between, on the one hand, strengthening OSCE and devising better ways by which, under the aegis of the United Nations—it must take place under the aegis of the UN—the North Atlantic Alliance can provide it with support, including if necessary armed forces, and, on the other hand, enlarging the North Atlantic Alliance itself, revised as I have suggested to include Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine. That would have the further advantage that one could include the Baltic states without controversy. Certainly what is now going on in the Balkans is not satisfactory.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is a timed debate. I would be grateful if noble Lords would keep to the six-minute time limit.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I do not want the Americans to lose their interest in Europe, but I believe that we can have better arrangements. I do not know what will emerge from the Strategic Defence Review, but I am afraid that it will be much the same as it was before.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating this extremely important debate. Noble Lords may have noticed that I have been sandwiched between two former Chiefs of the Defence Staff. I regard that as my great good fortune because it means that when people read Hansard tomorrow they will at least be forced to scan my speech.
This is a big subject with many consequences for our Armed Forces. In a sense, it is the other half of the debate that we had last week which was concerned with overstretch in the Armed Forces. It is to the credit of our Armed Forces and their lobbying abilities that last week there were more speakers about overstretch than there are this week about NATO's response to meet that overstretch.
The strategic concept along with the Washington Treaty itself is one of the fundamental texts of the Alliance. We know that the new strategic concept will address the circumstances in which the Alliance now finds itself: the new risks in central Europe, the CFSP, enlargement, crisis management and reform of the command structure. All of these have combined to prompt the United States of America to call for a re-defined role for NATO as a major player on the world stage. For the Americans this is the main aim of the summit. However, for Europeans the summit provides an opportunity to address the huge shortcomings in European action exposed during the 1990s. At the same time as European leaders signed the Treaty of Maastricht, which for the first time mentioned a CFSP, their response to the outbreak of war in the former

1725
Yugoslavia exposed a lack of policy and an inability to act. Bosnia, Iraq and Kosovo have underlined that fact. The Washington Summit is of major importance for European defence. I hope it will show that we have moved a long way since the Treaty of Maastricht.
I believe that there is good news on European defence. Finally we are moving away from our historic ambivalence as to what European defence actually means. I believe that European defence is now accepted by everyone, including France, to be the business of NATO. It is also accepted by everyone, perhaps especially France, that real defence works only on the basis of mutual guarantees, and as long as four members of the European Union do not share such guarantees the EU can neither become NATO's rival nor its successor. I believe that that is now common ground and represents real progress.
Therefore, the real debate at Washington will be about European defence action within NATO that may be European-led in defence of European values and interests. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister that his initiative at Põrtschach followed by the St. Malo agreement have given real momentum to addressing European defence action without getting bogged down in endless debates about European defence structures.
However, the bad news starts as soon as one addresses the methods for European action. George Robertson's famous question is: What happens when one presses the button? The button is wired to the European capitals and that is where the system fails. France believes in strong action and Europeanisation but not multinationalism; Britain believes in strong action and multinationalism but not Europeanisation; and Germany believes in multinationalism and Europeanisation. Noble Lords can guess the rest. It is to address this problem that we look to the Washington Summit.
Based on my understanding, the United States quite reasonably does not want to establish a European Union bloc within the Alliance. It would rather see the WEU maintain its decision-making autonomy within NATO. The American attitude above all shows a desire to see Europe assume greater responsibilities within the Alliance without in any way undermining the Alliance itself. In practice the debate today is how to establish a European chain of command within NATO to enable Europeans to act on their own initiative using NATO forces and assets. Surely that is a reasonable aspiration. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance on that point.
I hope that my noble friend can offer some reassurance on two further points. The first has been alluded to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. It is the position of members of the Western European Union who are not in NATO or the EU. My noble friend will be aware that there are some 28 members of the WEU in differing categories of membership. I would argue that that has been the WEU's greatest strength and has reinvigorated that institution since it was pretty much moribund in years past. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me that the contribution made by those countries is properly recognised in whatever
1726
institutional arrangements are agreed, and that institutional relationships can be built on, as has been achieved by the WEU in the past few years.
Secondly, I hope that my noble friend can reassure me on the position of the assemblies: the NAA, the WEU and the OSCE. Those assemblies are poodles and lapdogs. They roll over and Ministers tickle their tummies. They have no real power. Surely the time has now come to have fewer assemblies but with more real powers. Can the Minister reassure me that she believes in parliamentary assemblies with real powers?
7.10 p.m.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, I do not think that any noble Lord would question the value of NATO over the past close on 50 years. It has provided an effective framework for Western defence and deterrent in the face of a formidable Warsaw Pact capability and periodical belligerent diplomatic and sometimes military moves, all of which could not be ignored. It bound Western Europe together and healed internal wounds before the European Community had taken hold. It kept the United States fully involved in underwriting the defence of Europe and away from any dark thoughts of isolationism. More recently, it has provided a formidable military agency to carry out peace-keeping and even peace enforcement operations on its borders and on behalf of the UN. Its contribution to half a century of peace, historically quite an achievement, and the bringing about of the collapse of militant communism have been quite outstanding.
But what of the future? American involvement is, I believe, as important as ever, because without American forces and money Europe cannot be defended and aggression cannot be properly deterred should a threat there ever reoccur. Nor can Europeans engage in any military operations worthy of the name without some American support and in some cases its lead role. With the United Nations lacking any proper military staff or standing military forces, there is also, I suggest, an ongoing requirement for some European-based, US-backed reaction force which can produce teeth for the UN Security Council decisions in areas directly affecting the present NATO area.
Those reasons alone call for the continuation of NATO in some form. At the same time, with the frontiers of NATO now being extended out to the borders of Belarus and the Ukraine—here I agree with my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver that it is possible that we followed the US initiative too rapidly over this, but I think that it is probably too late to go back; and the concerns of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have to be met somehow—now that the deed has been done it is more important than ever to alter the image and character of NATO if we are not to return to the language and posturing of the Cold War, and in areas far less advantageous to ourselves.
NATO, I suggest, would be a better stabilising influence if it became more of a European Security Pact, as has already been said, which not only looked for exchange of information, harmony and non-aggression agreements within its own borders but also tried to

1727
establish good mutual relations and non-aggression pacts with its neighbours as well. That will give us a long overdue opportunity to run down and reduce the NATO top heavy command organisation designed for war fighting on three fronts and controlling Army group corps and divisions in fast moving operations. That is no longer necessary, as has been said repeatedly by my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver; and I entirely agree and support his views.
In this new-look NATO, it would do no harm—indeed, it would be enormously helpful—if there were to be a marked European Community pillar of NATO which could, if required, provide the decision-making and command machinery to take on smaller humanitarian and peace-keeping operations in the European area which do not necessarily require or cannot get US involvement. This would invariably require a common European defence policy. I greatly support the Government's efforts to achieve that.
The Russian Federation and some of the other former Soviet Republics no longer have, in military terms, the international clout which they had in the Cold War, nor the capability to transform the balance of power at a stroke. But they want to get back into the international action and to continue to be considered a world power. Indeed, their co-operation could prove valuable, as to some extent it already has, in places like the Balkans and the Middle East.
So NATO's challenge for the future is how to work with Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine (whose interrelation is obscure) in the international arena so as to spread peace and stability and not friction and conflict, and without of course restarting the Cold War.
Perhaps I may conclude with a bit of a fairy story, albeit a true one. Thirty years ago I was commanding a brigade of our strategic reserve which was carrying out a big exercise on Salisbury Plain. It was being watched by a Russian military attachã, a major general. In the course of the exercise, a battalion was dug in on the reverse slope preparing to beat off an attack by Fantasia tanks. As I looked at the position, two riflemen signalled me over. One of them said, "Excuse me, sir. My mate and I are having a bet. Is there a Russian general out on this exercise?", to which I replied, "Yes, I will get him to come and talk to you". As I walked away, the other said to me, "My mate and I have got another bet, sir. Could you tell us: is Russia in NATO?" When I told the Russian general, 30 years ago, to come and talk to two soldiers who wanted to know whether Russia was in NATO he was somewhat nonplussed. But perhaps those two soldiers were more prophetic than they realised.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for his introduction. His constructive comments were followed by those of the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Carver and Lord Bramall, whose soldier colleagues were, I hope, prophetic. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for the fact that in recent times he has brought in a note of optimism. Many of us had soldiered along for a long time in the WEU where the mood of pessimism seemed entirely justified.
1728
It is now more than a decade since the transformation of central and eastern Europe became inevitable and yet western Europe may still not have come fully to terms with it. The umbrella of mutually assured destruction may not be required. Unfortunately, western Europe failed to understand that it still could rain rather heavily. The difficulty has been that the failure is an historic one. The previous strategy began after the Second World War and certainly after the Berlin airlift. It lasted a long time and brought about a considerable degree of stability. However, we have to understand that during part of that period conflict was regarded as almost inevitable. Study of government papers in the early 1950s leads one to realise that the Ministers in key positions in Cabinet regarded a conflict with Russia as unavoidable before the end of the 1950s.
It was right that the start of that strategy Britain should make an enormous contribution. The remainder of western Europe was ravaged by the war and incapable of contributing properly to its own defence. From the very start, the United Kingdom accepted extremely heavy commitments. Looking at the position in the late 1940s, one can read how the United States was pressing the Labour government most vigorously to increase their expenditure on defence. They wished the Labour government to increase their spending in cash terms in the late 1940s to £6,000 million per year, which was an enormous amount then. The government were able to increase it to £4,500 million. That made sure that they lost the next general election but one because they had to introduce such things as prescription charges.
No one could sensibly argue other than that the commitments Britain made at that time, when Europe was incapable of contributing to its own defence, were right. But we have continued to bear an inequitable burden since then. All right, our spending has been restrained by a transfer from conscription to professional forces, and no one can doubt the capacity of our Armed Forces today. But, unfortunately, Europe has done very well without making up for the inadequacies of the first part of the period during which the strategy applied. The result has been that failure to come to terms with modern reality that has led to the horrors of Yugoslavia, despite the fact that there was a very long lead time during which warnings of such horror were manifest.
I am not at all happy that those in Europe who still believe that they can ignore the United States and that they can adopt the posture of the powerful without providing the capacity to match it are being entirely reasonable. That is why it is essential for the Government to maintain the view that NATO must continue; that there should be a proper parliamentary structure in Europe. Unfortunately, that has not been so.
I shall not bore the House by repeating some points I have made before. But I recall the time when the Royal Navy was steadfastly maintaining the blockade on the maritime movement of armaments into the former Yugoslavia. The Council of Ministers of the WEU was proclaiming that it had all the information about the land movement of such weapons and yet proposed to do nothing about it. That must have read very badly to any

1729
sailor maintaining that blockade to find that our colleagues in Europe were not prepared to match on land that which the British forces were doing at sea.
For that reason, we should press for the approach which my noble friend has urged us in his brief but important contribution, because we must secure not merely a realistic approach from Europe but also one in which it accepts responsibility as well as some power. We accept the right for Europe to have a real degree of independence, but there must also be a capacity for Europe not only to defend itself but to contribute to that stability, which is certainly needed even if it is delegated to the regional organisations to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, quite properly referred.
7.23 p.m.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this timely debate. I thank him also for his provocative and challenging remarks to which we can respond.
I begin by wishing a month in advance a very happy birthday to the North Atlantic Alliance. I also wish it many more successful and fruitful years. If it dies or needs to die, I hope that it has a peaceful and painless demise. But I believe and hope that it has much more to do before it passes away since the world is a very dangerous place and people, as well as organisations, at the age of 50 must begin to transform themselves for the better.
I hope I may be permitted a personal observation. I celebrated my 50th birthday last month thanks to NATO, I believe. I held my birthday party in the Apsley House of Estonia, the General Johan Laidoner Museum; General Laidoner being the Estonian equivalent of the Duke of Wellington. He was removed in 1940 with 10 per cent. of his compatriots to concentration camps in Siberia and elsewhere. The Estonians, like their neighbours, have not forgotten that and never will.
My speech in Estonia was televised. I noticed that the two minutes shown on television did not show the British-Estonian parliamentary group handing over a cheque but showed me saying:
"The path of enlargement upon which NATO has embarked with its partners and aspirant members should, in the case of the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, be carried to its logical conclusions as soon as is sensibly possible".
I very much hope that in Washington next month the leaders of the nations which form part of NATO will be able to demonstrate not only positive support but also to lay down a timetable since anything less may damage the still fragile process of democratisation of those nations which are emerging from half a century of tyranny. Also, we do not wish to send the wrong signal to the Russian Federation.
We are told by some—the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for one—that we must do nothing to irritate the Russian Federation. I have heard it said that the Duma will not countenance enlargement which will, one day, bring in the Baltic states. Let us be careful when we use those sentences. I suggest that it is the conservative and reactionary forces rather than liberal forces within the
1730
Russian Government and the Duma who are shouting the loudest and who do not want the enlargement of NATO. We must be careful not to listen to the wrong voices and we must encourage those Russian deputies who bravely strive to turn their nation towards liberal democratic situations and priorities. Otherwise, we shall do them and the Russian people a gross disservice.
Apart from enlargement, what do we want to achieve at the Washington summit at a time when the air, land and naval forces of the NATO alliance have decreased since 1990 by 37 per cent. and defence expenditure has decreased by 22 per cent.? First, we must welcome the three new nations into NATO; secondly. as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said with clarity, we need to agree to an enhanced European role within NATO; thirdly, to continue to search for ways to reduce nuclear weapons; and fourthly to continue the process of transforming NATO so that simultaneously, when required, it is able to act proactively in crisis management organisation with the ability to act quickly, as was not apparent in Bosnia and Kosovo. It must also form the defensive security for all member nations, as it has done over the past 50 years with startling success.
But whether we like it or not—and I do—the Washington summit will be remembered as the occasion when Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic came out of the cold. There is an irony here. They are the nations in central Europe which see themselves as the least threatened. But they will be the first to become members.
I solve jigsaw puzzles. I tend to start with the corners and the edges and I wish that the NATO organisation had done that in respect of enlargement. Last month saw the publication of a report by the International Defence Advisory Board to the Baltic states whose chairman is General Sir Garry Johnson, that distinguished former Gurkha and rifleman, our last NATO commander of NATO's northern flank. The work of his team of distinguished ex-servicemen and diplomats from eight nations from America, Scandinavia and Europe has been outstanding in assisting the Baltic states and others.
In its conclusion, the report draws attention to the commitment of the Baltic states which share western values, and which are on the threshold of NATO, to the general concept of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and the giant strides which have been made by creating—they had to start from scratch—democratically controlled defence forces on the NATO model. There is a need for that to be recognised at Washington. Has the Minister read that report; does she agree with its conclusions; and will she please draw it to the attention of her right honourable friend the Prime Minister before he travels to Washington?
7.28 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, six minutes allows only one or two bullet points to be made in this debate. As all noble Lords know, NATO was created as, and remains, a defensive alliance. During the Cold War, that did not make it any less of a perceived threat by the USSR, however false that perception may have been. Its continued existence, now with three additional

1731
countries, does not make the Russians feel comfortable, despite the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and Partnership for Peace and the other liaison that NATO has with Russia.
As my noble friend Lord Kennet and others have often warned, the unstable economic and political situation in today's Russia is a breeding ground for political extremism, with not only the tirades of Zhirinovsky, but more recently Duma deputy, General Maslyukov mouthing flagrant anti-Semitic hatred, fanning the flames of smouldering nationalism and militarism. The slow pace of progress towards the signing and implementation by Russia of the SALT II Treaty and conventional forces reduction in Europe is in part a measure of residual Russian resentment at the West's actions in maintaining and enlarging NATO, but excluding them, in effect, despite the placatory declarations.
However, as several noble Lords have pointed out, NATO can be a force for good in peacekeeping and conflict resolution. The Dayton Agreement, imperfect though it is, could not have been reached without NATO, and particularly US, muscle behind it. And now, in Kosovo, the possible air strikes against Serbia would, again, be under NATO command. But, like some other noble Lords, I feel that Europe needs to ask why it is not possible to contain problems, such as those in former Yugoslavia, without transatlantic help, through the United Nations Security Council and European organisations such as the OSCE, possibly with the participation of the WEU. Serious military strategists doubt whether the WEU could ever form an effective force. As Senator Helms said, in his speech to the Senate on NATO enlargement last April,
"With all respect to our friends in Europe, the EU could not fight its way out of a wet paper bag".
It could be held that there is a germ of truth in that withering remark, though I would suggest that careful extraction from a wet paper bag rather than fighting out of it might be a more effective and less messy process.
The nations of Western Europe collectively are many times richer and more populous than Yugoslavia and have, even now, a far greater military capacity; yet decisive action seems to have required the participation of the United States. Is that inevitable? I suggest that Europe needs to look very carefully at the wisdom of its apparent military dependence on the United States and strengthen its collective security arrangements.
As my noble friend Lord Kennet has warned us, the United States and Europe have different agendas. The "New World Order", US-style, is not something we should accept as a fait accompli. In its pursuit of military and economic ascendancy, the United States downplays the role of the United Nations, disregards international law and cultivates some very doubtful allies. One of its most stalwart supporters in NATO is Turkey, which incidentally is over 2000 miles away from the North Atlantic. Originally, of course, it was brought into the organisation to buttress the southern flank of the former Iron Curtain. It is as a member of NATO that it has been able comprehensively to equip its armed forces which have been deployed for its own purposes to invade Cyprus and hold down its Kurdish
1732
population. The CIA, as described openly in the International Herald Tribune two weeks ago, was largely responsible for the capture of Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdish resistance movement in Turkey. That was, perhaps, in gratitude for Turkish help in the continuing Gulf conflict with Iraq.
My plea to the Government is that, while acknowledging the power and potentially beneficial role of NATO, we should be very watchful that it is not used as a vehicle to promote the interests of its most powerful member. At the same time, we should rapidly increase the effectiveness of the OSCE, possibly with the WEU, in conflict resolution so that eventually the United Kingdom and Europe are no longer so dependent on US military strength and can adopt a more independent role.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall that NATO's Partnership for Peace has already done a good deal to change the image. Communication, co-operation and transparency are now principles which sovereign states are learning to apply. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, which has been mentioned, now brings together 44 states, including four traditional neutrals, for regular meetings.
This work for stability has offshoots; for example, the NATO-Ukraine Commission, or the Mediterranean Co-operation Group, linking Egypt, Israel, Jordan and countries in North Africa. Another example is the Partnership Co-operation Cell at Mons in Belgium.
I turn specifically to Russia. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is currently visiting Murmansk. The imaginative and generous thing to have done would have been to offer full NATO membership to Russia immediately after the break-up of the old Soviet Union. That was not done, but the progress since June 1994 when Russia signed to join the Partnership for Peace, has been remarkable. There is now, for example, a bilateral, permanent joint council. Russian units have taken part in both IFOR and SFOR in Bosnia, and only last May joined in NATO exercises in Denmark. Mutual military missions will soon be established in Brussels and Moscow. I understand that there have been discussions on the vital subject of the conversion of defence industries to peaceful production. A start has been made on the re-training of retired and redundant military personnel, particularly officers. All of that is especially important in view of the demoralisation which exists in the Russian armed forces, made worse by the current economic blizzard.
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government one specific and one or two general questions. Will they raise, in the permanent joint council with Russia, the matter of the vast store of arms and munitions of the former Soviet 14th Army located in the east of the Republic of Moldavia? Some of the explosives are known to be so old that they cannot safely be transported. It is also essential to ensure that none of that material falls into irresponsible hands.
Will the Government pay particular attention, within the partnership, to arms control, not only over weapons of mass destruction, but also over small arms? Those

1733
have been proliferating worldwide and can so easily destabilise small and poor countries. I understand that this matter is topic one of the long-term programme for consultations.
Will the Government use the conference of national armaments directors to address arms exports to the third world and the issue of the licensing of arms production outside Europe and North America? Under the heading of arms control, will they question whether it is necessary or desirable for every small country to equip itself with supersonic fighters and other high-technology weaponry? Will they also use the political and military steering committee, which comes under the partnership arrangements, to strengthen democratic, civilian control over military and security matters?
7.38 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I hope my voice, which is not very strong, will last out for my allowed short time. I regret that we are having only a one-and-a-half hour debate on an issue which is, after all, providing the framework for British defence policy.
It has always seemed to me to be extraordinary that Britain's commitment to the European Union should be a matter of so much domestic controversy in terms of its limitations on our sovereignty, with committees of both Houses poring over each document in draft; but that within NATO—which represents, after all, very much a limitation on British sovereignty—common documents should be discussed in great detail in the US Congress but not presented to the British Parliament on a similar basis.
This should have been discussed. After all, we have the elements of a common defence policy through NATO. I just want to flag some elements which seem to me to be important in the new concept. First, we need a new European-American relationship. I was interested to see that, in his speech in Rome on 25th January, Mr. Solana talked about the need for a new transatlantic bargain to be part of the new NATO strategic concept. That is why, he said, our alliance must have a stronger European personality. It is not a particularly new theme. I remember when I was a student John F. Kennedy making his great speech in July 1962 in which he called for a new transatlantic partnership with a stronger European component. The United States has always been deeply ambivalent about that, with Bartholomew telegrams and all sorts of things passing to and fro every time the Europeans started to get back together, resisting the idea that there could be a European caucus within NATO. I hope that we now have a sufficiently mature relationship with the United States for it to accept that a European partner within NATO means a coherent European grouping.
That brings me to my second point; that is, the importance of the St. Malo declaration and the extent to which that feeds into the definition of a new strategic concept. My party made itself a little unpopular with the Government by criticising the Strategic Defence Review on its publication for not including a European dimension. For that reason we strongly support them in
1734
the St. Malo initiative and hope that they will take it a great deal further. A more effective use of limited resources, training together and sharing equipment, is exactly the right way forward. I know that the St. Malo declaration also referred to greater European autonomy in operations. Perhaps the Minister will say a little about what is meant by that interesting phrase "greater autonomy" in the St. Malo declaration and how that will feed back into the NATO concept.
Thirdly, I should like to ask about future enlargement, which is a matter of much controversy in the United States. I share entirely the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that now NATO has started to enlarge, it should logically enlarge to include as many of the states of central and eastern Europe as possible. We are talking about the transformation of NATO into something which will not be fundamentally dissimilar from OSCE, with an integrated military structure providing, through Partnership for Peace, the ability to train forces together and to retrain forces that were not used to civilian operation—civilian control or peacekeeping operations—and so to build a broader European security organisation.
We know also that there was much resistance in the United States, particularly in the US Congress, to the idea of further enlargement. I hope that the Minister will say something about our continuing commitment for Romania, Slovenia and others eventually to come in. The NATO working paper of three years ago on NATO enlargement included the phrase that, in the long run, NATO and EU enlargement should come to include the same number of European countries. Again, that seems to me to be the ideal. Relations with Russia and the Ukraine need to move either to eventual full membership or to an extremely close partnership. The NATO-Russia council has not yet been an easy relationship, but clearly we need to take that as far forward as we can.
I have two further points. The first concerns NATO beyond Europe. The Secretary-General, in a number of recent speeches, said clearly that NATO should not aim to be a global policeman. We know that there are many in the United States who want NATO to become in effect something like a global policeman. There were even those within the British military establishment who were arguing that, if there were problems in the South China Sea, the SDR should ensure that the British had some possibility of being there.
This is the most difficult area for the new strategic concept. Most Europeans, including the British, are not entirely happy with American policy in the Gulf; with American attitudes towards the Arab-Israeli conflict; and some of us are not entirely happy with the different nuances between American policy towards Turkey and those of European policy towards Turkey. Those are the most difficult areas on which to compromise. The ideas of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski, who sees NATO as the means through which the United States projects power across Eurasia into the greater Middle East, are very different from the European security organisation that most of us here wish to see. I hope that the new strategic concept will clearly explore those differences.

1735
Finally, I turn to the question of the balance between regional and global organisations. In Bosnia, Kosovo and Macedonia, we have been struggling with the question of who authorises international forces. The Chinese veto of the renewal of the Macedonia extraction force because Macedonia recognises Taiwan seems to recognise the difficulty of relying on UN organisation for regional peacekeeping operations. I hope that the new strategic concept will also recognise that the OSCE, NATO and the EU all have a role to play in that.
The role of the United Kingdom is as a leading European member of NATO, explaining our shared values, but also our different priorities to our American partners. I hope therefore that the new strategic concept will spell out the form of a new European-American partnership in security in which Britain will become one of the leading European members.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for securing this important debate. Just before Christmas the noble Lord again provided an equally valuable opportunity for the House to discuss the appropriate legal basis under which NATO should take action under our changing geopolitical landscape, which increasingly poses various security and stability challenges.
NATO's last strategic concept was introduced at the Rome summit of November 1991 and reflected the need for a new framework to enable the alliance to respond effectively to a world of increasingly diverse and multi-directional risks. The aim was to equip NATO with the capability to undertake crisis management and crisis prevention operations, including peacekeeping, while continuing its core mission of collective defence. The geopolitical sands have shifted yet again in the eight years since that concept was drawn up and the tasks for the alliance are now more, rather than less, varied. But, though the nature of the threats faced by alliance members today may be different, the stark dangers posed by those threats remain the same.
During the debate in December, I quoted the US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, who said that a ballistic missile attack using a weapon of mass destruction from a rogue state is every bit as much an Article V threat to our borders now as a Warsaw Pact tank was two decades ago.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that underlying any new strategic concept for NATO will be the fact that threats to our security are no longer likely to be the result of calculated aggression against the territory of the NATO allies; instead the serious economic, social and political difficulties, including ethnic rivalries and territorial disputes and issues of sovereignty faced by many countries in central and eastern Europe have the potential to undermine European stability and to lead to armed conflicts, as we have seen in Bosnia. That is why NATO must be prepared to act in Kosovo.
In this short contribution, I seek to explore the strategic concept and the European defence debate in particular. As the 21st century dawns, NATO's future role is being discussed, debated and agreed by its
1736
members. The emerging debate on European defence capabilities has a key part to play in this process and has been much commented on this evening. The Minister has given an assurance in the past that, as the embodiment of the transatlantic partnership between the European members of the alliance, the United States and Canada, NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy, linking as it does the security interests of North America and the security interests of Europe.
Will the Minister assure the House that there are no contradictions between the Government's proposals at Põrtschach for a more integrated EU defence identity and the St. Malo declaration on the one hand, and the principle of the primacy of NATO in European defence, strongly supported by the Government in the Treaty of Amsterdam, on the other, especially given the absence of details on those proposals provided to the House. Perhaps the Minister can take this opportunity to clarify the strategy and objectives of the St. Malo declaration in the context of NATO.
Is she in a position to provide details on how the Government intend to take forward the principles on which they believe any new European defence arrangements should be based in the run-up to the WEU ministerial meeting in Bremen on 10th-11th May and the European Council meeting in Cologne on 4th June? For it is important that the St. Malo declaration is not the first step towards the road of an unrealistic, potentially damaging European common defence identity, since any new European defence policy must respect the centrality of NATO to the transatlantic link and to our common defence.
Central to this question is whether the Minister accepts that a common European Union defence policy on the one hand and a European defence policy underpinned by the primacy of NATO on the other, are or are not mutually exclusive. Is she satisfied that our French partners in the St. Malo declaration share that view?
Perhaps I may make it absolutely clear from these Benches that we fully support enhanced defence co-operation with our European Union partners. The member states of the European Union naturally have many interests in common. There is a role for a common foreign and security policy in safeguarding and advancing those interests. That is a role in which this country can plan a prominent part. In many areas such as intelligence gathering there is much mutual benefit to be gained from greater co-operation. However, does the Minister agree that closer co-operation between European sovereign nations does not need to be institutionalised through the establishment of independent decision-making structures for a European defence initiative?
I hear what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has said about small scale humanitarian projects. However, in my view, it is critical to appreciate that to seek the creation of a new alliance within an alliance could fatally undermine the very institution that we have relied on for our peace and security for the past five decades, especially since the European Union does not have any of the operational expertise or the working

1737
understanding with NATO. I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that the European allies alone lack the air and sea capacity, the missile defence policies, the advanced communication satellites and the military computers provided by the United States. From these Benches, we firmly believe in the overriding importance of the Atlantic alliance as the bedrock of our future security. Sustaining a strong US component to European security is an essential part of that.
We seek an assurance that the Government's commitment to NATO and the preservation of its prerogatives is equally respected by our French partners in the St. Malo declaration, particularly given their difference of opinion with the United States over the mandate under which NATO should be able to act out of area. Equally, it will be useful to have an update on the contacts at both official and ministerial level with our NATO allies, in particular with the United States, through which the Government have said that the detailed work arising from the St. Malo declaration is being pursued. From these Benches, we appreciate the difficulties in defining "out of area" in today's world of weapons of mass destruction. How will that be addressed in the updated strategic concept? What discussions have the Government held with the Russian Government concerning the Government's policy on the legal basis under which NATO may take action outside its borders?
The question facing NATO today is how it can fine tune its political and military structures to be able to defend alliance interests in the future as effectively as it has defended alliance territory in the past. With the co-operation and unity of existing and new members and with NATO's partners, the answer to that question can be found and NATO will continue to be the ultimate guardian of peace and security in Europe.
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too, thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating this debate this evening and, indeed, thank all noble Lords who have taken part.
In 1949 the founding members of NATO affirmed their faith in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter; their determination to safeguard the freedom of their peoples, based on democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law; and their resolve to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, reminded us, without any doubt NATO has been tremendously successful in securing these goals. NATO has kept war away from the territory of its members and has created conditions in which the likelihood of aggression against any of its members has been greatly reduced.
My noble friend Lord Kennet drew our attention in particular to the new strategic concept that is being developed for adoption at the Washington summit and which will reaffirm the alliance's Article 5 commitment to collective defence of allied territory. This
1738
commitment, and the integrated military structure that underpins it, are the foundations on which the success of the alliance has been built, as the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, told us. The guarantee of security within the alliance provides the basis for NATO and individual allies to contribute to wider international stability. I assure the noble Lord. Lord Moynihan, and all noble Lords, that this is a principle which must not be compromised.
But NATO has always been far more than just a collective defence organisation. I argue with my noble friend Lord Kennet. The raison d'etre of NATO is not to identify enemies, but rather, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, suggested, to promote peace and stability throughout the whole of the Euro-Atlantic region. That is the reason for its involvement in operations outside its territory. NATO's non-Article 5 operations and activities with partners are sometimes called "new missions". Yet they are not new at all. NATO has been conducting a crisis management mission in Bosnia for the past five years. They embody the principles set out 50 years ago in NATO's Washington Treaty. So the so-called "new missions" are among the means by which NATO fulfils its purpose in the post-Cold War security environment, just as planning to defend against a strategic attack preoccupied NATO in the past. They show that NATO is continuing to adapt to the security situation in Europe and to shape it.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that part of this ongoing adaptation of NATO's work is to develop the European pillar within the alliance, building on agreement reached at the Berlin Summit in 1996. Subsequent efforts to build a specific European security and defence identity within NATO, which will enable all European allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the alliance, have been given new impetus by the Prime Minister's call for Europe to take greater responsibility for its own defence and security, as emphasised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall. The Franco-British declaration at St. Malo of 4th December sets out our objective of ensuring that the European Union will be able to back its common foreign and security policy by credible military forces in order to respond, where appropriate, to international crises. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that the cornerstone of European security remains the main source of European defence capabilities and NATO, which will have a central role to play as we continue to develop our ideas on this with allies and partners. I hope that that is a sufficiently unequivocal response to the point that the noble Lord raised.
I turn to the points raised by my noble friend Lord Kennet who rightly drew our attention to the question of the locality of NATO action. Of course, it is right and proper to discuss these issues. But I believe that the conclusions that the noble Lord drew were essentially wrong. I shall try to explain why. All NATO operations, like any British operation, must be in accordance with international law. The legal basis of any operation will depend on the precise circumstances

1739
of the case. The legal basis for an Article 5 collective defence operation would be the right to self-defence recognised in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave examples of that. For many non-Article 5 operations, a United Nations Security Council resolution would be needed to authorise the use of force. But force may also be used to defend a non-NATO state at its invitation or, in exceptional circumstances, to avert an immediate and overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe. In such cases a United Nations Security Council resolution may not be necessary. NATO's role in non-Article 5 missions can be seen in practice on the ground in the former Yugoslavia, where NATO forces in Bosnia, and now in their involvement in the Kosovo crisis, have been vital in improving the prospects for peace. NATO-led forces have seen their role in the Balkans develop towards ever-increasing co-operation with other international organisations and greater involvement with partner countries. As my noble friend Lord Rea reminded us, the NATO Stabilisation Force in Bosnia is working to enforce the military provisions of the Dayton Peace Agreement. SFOR now comprises troops from 20 partner countries as well as all NATO member states. The UK acts as one of the three "lead nations", with around 4,800 troops currently in Bosnia and a further 350 based in headquarters and in Italy.
Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Rea also said, the difficulties of the current situation in Kosovo demonstrate the enormous complexity of managing crises in the former Yugoslavia. But experience shows that NATO's military resolve, the credible threat of force, and the commitment of allies and partners, can contribute to the possibility of successful political outcomes. In Kosovo, NATO is assisting the OSCE in verifying Belgrade's compliance with relevant Security Council resolutions and its agreements with NATO and the OSCE. A NATO force has been established in Skopje to extract OSCE monitors if necessary.
So called "out-of-area" operations, or non-Article 5 operations, in Bosnia, and potentially Kosovo, are a key part of NATO's developing role. The Government believe that it is neither morally acceptable nor politically prudent for us to stand back from this sort of conflict prevention in the Balkans. An escalation of violence there would have grave security implications for us, for our European partners; and, indeed, beyond that. It would also carry a high risk of deepening humanitarian suffering in the region. NATO has the capacity to influence political developments beyond its borders. The important point is to use that power as a real force for good. I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his support on that point.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby raised some points about the new strategic concept, as indeed did many other noble Lords. The new strategic concept will be agreed at the forthcoming Washington Summit and will take account of the sort of role that NATO is playing in the former Yugoslavia. As the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, said, it will be a clear statement of NATO's purpose and will serve a number of vital functions. It will be a statement of NATO's policy. The noble Lord,
1740
Lord Moynihan, asked for information in that respect. The statement itself will be a tool of information. It will explain to the various publics within NATO what NATO is doing to safeguard their security and it will present NATO to non-NATO audiences. It will also provide high level guidance to NATO military planners and outline what NATO needs to do to ensure that its military forces can perform the demanding tasks that it will need to undertake in a strategic and changing environment.
The development of European defence capabilities and the response to the risks posed by the proliferation of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and their means of delivery, are examples of the way that NATO is reviewing its strategic outlook to ensure that it remains effective. Our own Strategic Defence Review last year, to which many noble Lords referred this evening, identified new priorities for UK military planners. Likewise, NATO needs to update its posture to continue to perform effectively. The new Strategic Concept will identify the priorities for NATO action to ensure that NATO troops become more mobile and can be more flexibly deployed.
As my noble friend Lord Kennet reminded us, NATO is entering a new phase in its history this month. We shall be welcoming Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into the Alliance on 12th March. I take this opportunity to extend a warm welcome to those new members. Their membership will strengthen both the Alliance and European security as a whole. Their accession is a practical reminder of NATO's commitment to enlargement. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that NATO's "Open Door" policy will be unequivocally reaffirmed at the forthcoming summit.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, my noble friend Lord Rea and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, raised concerns about NATO's relationship with Russia. We have spoken often in this House about the importance of the NATO/Russia Founding Act of May 1997. However, I should point out to noble Lords that this is not just an Act which has been signed and left on one side. Ambassadors meet monthly and Ministers meet at least twice a year. Indeed, either side can call extra meetings as required. In fact, there have been many extra meetings over the Kosovo crisis in recent months. So it is not just a piece of paper; it is a real working partnership that we have tried to set up. I do not think that I need remind your Lordships of the important role that Russia has played in the Contact Group on Kosovo.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, our priority is to deepen and broaden the co-operation that we have within the framework of Partnership for Peace and to include the military sphere in that concept. We want to continue to build opportunities for partners to deepen their links within NATO and ensure that the North Atlantic Council remains the real authority, while also extending our hand—that is, the hand of friendship—to others elsewhere, in the way that I hope I have been able to indicate.

1741
The noble Lord asked some very specific questions about the former Soviet 14th Army in Eastern Moldavia. The UK and our European partners have been active in attempting to resolve the situation. The European Union and the OSCE have consistently called for, and offered to assist in, the removal of Russian armaments and military equipment from that region. NATO has not been involved but Moldavia could, if it wished, raise the issue in the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's specific point.
The noble Lord also asked about ways in which we might tackle small arms proliferation. The problem with the latter will be discussed at a meeting between NATO and its partners next week. We think that the Euro Atlantic Partnership Council could exchange more information on small arms policy, looking at things like stock-piling and the destruction of surplus arms. I hope that the noble Lord is encouraged by that response. There is a forthcoming meeting and those concerned will be considering the specific point that he made.
I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath said about the importance of our relationships not only with NATO but also with the WEU. We want to enhance the ability of the EU to act through the CFSP. We want further to develop the European dimension of NATO in a way that I hope I have been able to indicate. We want to link those two more effectively together to ensure that there is no unnecessary duplication of effort. We believe that this will be good for the transatlantic relationship within NATO and, indeed, good for our relationships within Europe.
I should tell my noble friend Lord Ponsonby that we are committed to making the arrangements associating non-NATO, non-EU countries within the future European defence operation function as well as we possibly can. We give strong backing to the work of the WEU and the NATO parliamentary assemblies. Indeed, to answer the particular points raised by my noble friends, that strikes me as being a very good model for parliamentary oversight.
NATO has succeeded in promoting peace and stability in Europe for 50 years. I do not believe that there has been any dissent among noble Lords on that crucial point. Her Majesty's Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that NATO maintains these standards of success. This will entail an unflagging commitment to collective defence, the stability of the wider international environment and, of course, the rule of law. NATO's new strategic concept will reaffirm these commitments. In doing so, it will set out the way forward for NATO so that Europe and North America enjoy the best possible chance of ensuring that peace and stability remain the norm for our own people, for our neighbours and, indeed, for many other countries in the world where we are able to exert our influence.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank noble Lords who have spoken and perhaps to express two minor regrets about this otherwise admirable debate: first, that the Government were not
1742
able to give us any more information about the document we were discussing—we shall have to wait until the summit next month for that, and perhaps we can then talk about it again—and, secondly, that there was no contribution from the Conservative Back Benches. However, with those two minor exceptions, we had a most useful discussion and I applaud all that was said. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order 1999
8.10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I intend to discuss these three orders together. If the House is content, I intend to begin with the second and third of the orders and turn finally to the disqualification order.
I am pleased to present to the House these three orders which mark a significant stage in preparing for the first meeting of the Parliament and elections to the Scottish Parliament. I threatened Members of your Lordships' House at the end of our discussions on the Scotland Act that we would shortly return to devolution matters through discussion on the orders. I have lived up to that promise and I now present the orders to this House. The orders have already been debated and agreed in another place.
The first of the orders to which I wish to refer is made under Section 2(1) of the Scotland Act and is called the Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999. The purpose of this order is quite simple but extremely important. It sets the date of the first election to the Scottish Parliament. This will be 6th May of this year. The order also provides that the first meeting of the Parliament will take place on 12th May at 9.30 in the morning in the Church of Scotland General Assembly Hall on The Mound in Edinburgh. Provision already exists in the Scotland Act concerning the dates of future elections and meetings. In the case of ordinary general elections, Section 2(2) provides that they are held on the first Thursday in May every four years. Under Section 2(3) of the Act, the first meeting of the Parliament following election will be within seven days of the day after the day of the poll.
The Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999 makes detailed provisions for the conduct of the elections to the Scottish Parliament and covers a wide range of provisions, including, for example, absent voting, nomination procedures, ballot papers and the count procedures. The order also makes provision for those occasions when the Scottish Parliament elections are combined with local government elections. This will be the case this year on 6th May. This order is made under Section 12(1) of the Scotland Act.
Members of your Lordships' House will no doubt recall with a degree of affection and pleasure the late nights which we spent debating the election provisions during the passage of the Scotland Act. Thanks have already been offered in the other place to the representatives of the political parties and electoral administrators with whom we have consulted over the past few months on this order. I add my own gratitude for the input by all concerned which has resulted in this order which I am confident will provide comprehensive rules and procedures for the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections.
Election law as it stands is sometimes, perhaps inevitably, criticised for being arcane. However, it is also a well tested basis on which elections have been held successfully over the years. That is not to say that we can stand still. Your Lordships may be aware that the Home Office is currently looking in general terms at the way elections in the United Kingdom are run. I am sure this review will make comprehensive recommendations which may be applied at some future point to the elections to the Scottish Parliament. I make no excuses therefore that the order before us reflects to a great extent existing UK electoral law covered by the representation of the people legislation.
The order has, however, also had to take account of some recent changes to electoral law and of course recognises the use for the first time of the additional member system. Account has also had to be taken of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. This controls the descriptions political parties and candidates may use at elections in order to reduce the scope for confusion. Following that Act the order also provides for the use of official party emblems on ballot papers. I shall return to the question of ballot papers in a moment.
While the Government are still considering the full implications of the report prepared by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee, we have taken the opportunity in this order to include provision dealing with the expenses which may be incurred by political parties during an election campaign. I shall come to that later.
I shall now explain briefly how this order makes provision for this May's elections, and some of the changes which are being made to existing practice. The order mirrors to a considerable extent the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985. It covers such general issues as the provision of staff for returning officers, the people who are on the ground and who have to put these provisions into practice and the loan of equipment for use at the Scottish Parliament elections. Importantly, from the point of view of the returning officers, it also applies Section 29 of the 1983 Act, which covers payments by and to returning officers.
The main part of the order also covers the election campaign and expenses. This covers the appointment of election agents and as at present each constituency candidate and each individual candidate at regional level will be entitled to an election agent. Each party which puts forward a list will also be entitled to an election agent in respect of that list. As I mentioned earlier, we
1744
have also taken into account the proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee to the extent that the powers under the Scotland Act will allow.
The order therefore imposes expenses limits and penalties for constituency candidates which are on the same basis as apply for elections to the other place. It also imposes expenses limits for those individuals who are standing as independent candidates in a regional ballot. These limits will be structured in a similar way to those for constituency candidates. The limits for such an individual candidate will be the aggregate of the constituency limits in a region for which he or she is standing. The order also sets a limit of £1.5 million on political party expenditure. This limit on party expenditure is intended to cover all a party's campaign expenditure which is not normally incurred in respect of a particular constituency candidate. I should say that it has been extremely helpful to have had the voluntary agreement reached by the main political parties in Scotland on the national limit on party expenditure and on some other matters covered by the noble and learned Lord's committee which are not provided for in the order.
In the expectation that I shall be asked further about these limits, in particular, I suspect, about the absence of limits at a regional level, I should say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, did not recommend attempting to subdivide party expenditure between national and regional elements. However, as regards the form of return for these expenses, the expenses incurred by each regional election agent will require to be shown separately. We think that transparency is as effective a safeguard as we need against parties targeting expenditure on a particular region.
On broadcasting, we have decided not to apply the existing Section 93 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Section 93 required broadcasters to seek the agreement of all candidates to certain types of broadcast reports. This of course does not absolve the broadcasters of the requirement to be impartial. This mirrors the provision for the elections to the Welsh Assembly.
The order also has eight schedules and an appendix containing prescribed forms. Schedule 1 deals with the election lists and registers and the sale of such registers. Schedule 2 contains the rules for the conduct of the elections. These rules, in effect, set out the practical arrangements that must be in place at any election. I shall say a little more about these rules in a moment.
Schedule 3 of the order deals with absent voting. Your Lordships will, I hope, agree that by allowing for those who already hold an indefinite absent vote automatically to qualify for an absent vote at the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary election, we have gone a great way towards ensuring that those people are not disenfranchised. Other electors will be able to apply for an absent vote either by post or by proxy in the normal manner.
Schedule 4 of the order is technical and deals with how a returning officer issues postal ballot papers to electors and how the papers are then dealt with when they are completed and returned. It also covers, among other issues, who is eligible to be in attendance at such proceedings.
The combination of polls is dealt with in Schedule 5. We have concentrated in the order on the combination of the Scottish parliamentary and local government elections. A number of the provisions in this schedule are, again, of a technical nature, and alter as necessary the rules contained in Schedule 2 and the local government rules where the functions can be combined for both elections. For example, each elector will receive only one poll card for both elections. In addition, no elector will have to visit more than one polling station to vote at both the Scottish parliamentary election and local government elections in May. Voters will visit the one polling station and automatically receive three ballot papers. Other issues include the detailed arrangements for counting the ballot papers at both elections and making provision for the local government ballot papers to be counted at any time after 10 a. m. on the day after the poll. By this time we hope that the ballot papers for the Scottish parliamentary elections will have been counted and the results known.
Schedule 6 deals with various legal proceedings which can arise from an election. Schedule 7 of the order deals with the use for election meetings of rooms in school premises, and mirrors as far as practical the existing arrangements. Finally, Schedule 8 of the order deals with modification of enactments arising as a consequence of this order.
Turning back to the rules contained in Schedule 2, these introduce, among a vast array of other issues, the timetable to be used. We have decided that the timetable should be, as far as possible, the same as that for local government elections, with some slight necessary adaptations. This will allow a longer period than the timetable for Westminster general elections allows for some of the processes. We consider that using such a timetable will, in particular, have its advantage when the elections are combined with local government elections and should make the administering of the main processes, such as nominations, that much easier. Based on this timetable, all candidates and parties must submit their nominations before the final deadline of the 13th April, an auspicious date.
The nomination process for prospective candidates has been somewhat changed. At present a candidate must have his nomination proposed, seconded and attested. We consider that this is not appropriate for the Scottish parliamentary elections, particularly with the introduction of regional lists. All registered political parties will have to be registered, which will involve a separate process under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. It seems illogical, having gone through that registration process, for a party also to have to seek subscribers for its list. To ensure that there is a level playing field between prospective regional candidates and political parties, we decided further to remove the need for attestation of nominations for individual candidates. For further consistency, candidates standing as constituency members will also be released from this requirement. This means that at Scottish parliamentary elections the nomination form will simply be signed by the candidate and witnessed by one other signature.
We believe that the real safeguard against frivolous candidacies will continue to be deposits. During the debate on the Scotland Act your Lordships' House was informed that the deposit level for constituency candidates had been set at £500. For regional seats it will also be £500 for each individual candidate who wants to stand as an independent, and £500 for each political party that puts forward a list for a particular region. These levels are now confirmed in rule 10. The deposit will of course, as at present, be returnable if a party or a candidate receives more than 5 per cent. of the vote in the respective constituency or region.
Noble Lords will be more than aware of the lengthy discussions we had during the Committee stages of the Scotland Bill about the design of ballot papers. There are a variety of views on how the ballot papers should look. To assist us in this difficult area we commissioned research involving a cross-section of the public to offer their views on the papers. The constituency ballot paper will be similar in design to those already in use at general elections. In respect of the regional ballot paper, we have had to give particular care to produce a form of ballot paper which will be clear and straightforward for the voter to understand. In the appendix, the forms at the back of the order constitute the form of paper which, having undertaken research and consulted with returning officers and political parties, we consider to be the most appropriate. This ballot paper will list each registered political party followed by the names of any independent candidates in alphabetical order.
During the debate on the election provisions in the Scotland Act, it was apparent that your Lordships wished to see the names of candidates for each list on the face of the ballot paper. These names now appear under the names of each registered political party. The names will be printed in the order in which the party wishes them to be elected. This should provide the public with sufficient information about each party which is standing for election. I should add that 80 per cent. of those who took part in the research found a paper in this form to be very or fairly easy to understand. A poster will also be on display in each polling station. This will provide guidance for electors on the procedure for voting, the rules set and the text at form AD. We are preparing a layout for this text which will be recommended to returning officers.
Turning to the ballot paper colours, rule 28 specifies that the colour of each type of ballot paper must be different. For the elections on the 6th May, we have guided returning officers that the ballot paper for the constituency candidates will be purple and that the regional ballot paper will be peach. There was considerable difficulty deciding which particular colour should be associated with any particular voting slip. The ballot paper for local government elections will be white as normal.
Some noble Lords will be aware that a detailed publicity campaign—which has been agreed by political parties from all sides—has started in Scotland. This includes television and press advertisements, as well as a leaflet which will be sent to each household in Scotland over the next few weeks. We consider that this

1747
will go a great way towards informing voters what to expect when they enter a polling station and what the ballot papers will look like.
The voting procedure at the elections will be similar to that as present. On each ballot paper the elector will be asked to place an "X" against the preferred choice of candidate or party. There will be three ballot boxes at each station: one for the constituency election, one for the regional member papers and one for the local government elections. Each ballot paper will then be placed in the respective ballot box. We have suggested to returning officers that the ballot boxes should be colour coded as an additional aid to voters. Returning officers have the capacity to have additional staff on hand at polling stations to assist voters, if needed.
Counting of the Scottish Parliament elections will begin as soon as practicable after the polls have shut at 10 p.m. We therefore have every reason to hope that an overnight count will enable the results to be known during the course of the night. That will be the expectation of the public. As I mentioned earlier, the count for the local government elections will be delayed until the following day and the legislation provides that the counting should not start before 10 a. m. the following morning. This will give some discretion to the local returning officer to set the exact time in the light of local circumstances.
Schedule 2 to the order also covers the issue of recounts. The counts for both the constituency and regional parts of this election will, of course, be a matter for each constituency returning officer. For the constituency element, the rules governing recounts will follow those existing for general elections. Where a recount is required for a regional poll, then the legislation similarly makes provision for a recount to be asked for at a constituency level. But a further recount cannot be demanded across an entire region once all the constituency level results of the regional poll have been passed to the regional returning officer. This is the same approach as will be taken in Wales and also for the European elections. It is the only practical option in our view, given the size of the regions and the impossibility of being absolutely sure that the count will be able to proceed at the same speed, or at approximately the same speed, in every place.
I acknowledge, however, that the question of regional recounts is a difficult one. We face it for the first time. We face a situation where the winners of the election will not be immediately apparent from the result of the count at each individual counting centre. In reaching a view, we have looked at how a similar situation is already handled in the proportional system used for the Northern Ireland Assembly where the same issues also arise. In elections to that assembly there is, as there will be in Scotland, provision for a recount to be requested at each count centre but no provision for a recount for the whole vote once the results from each centre have been collated nationally. It has been accepted in that context that recounts can work on such a basis.
However, I do recognise the concerns that have been expressed about how this may work in the Scottish context. It is important that the House appreciates that
1748
for a recount to take place there is no requirement for the vote to be close. Existing electoral law, repeated here, simply allows candidates as a matter of right to request one or more recounts. The only limit on when a recount may take place is that the returning officer may refuse a request which he believes to be unreasonable. Clearly, therefore, if candidates are concerned that any aspect of the count process at a particular centre has not been properly conducted, or if there are other issues at hand, they will be able to seek a recount even though the final result is still unknown.
I appreciate that some noble Lords would prefer the further option of a region-wide recount. I understand that. However, the order leaves ample scope for any concerns about the count process to be pursued at the point of the original count. We think that that is the preferable way forward. Given what I recognise is a difficult problem—I say in all fairness that it is a problem we have not faced before and we are all, to an extent, learning—I am happy to ask officials to explore further with returning officers ways in which the detail of the count process might be arranged to minimise the scope after the event for any questioning of the outcome, which I am sure returning officers themselves will be only too pleased and too keen to avoid.
This is a very bulky document, and rightly so, as it covers a huge number of important issues. I have covered some of these issues only briefly. I would be happy to comment on other points as necessary. We have consulted widely with returning officers who are the experts on the ground in the conduct of elections. We believe that the order is a sound basis for future elections to come.
I should now like to turn to the order that is made under Section 15 of the Scotland Act which disqualifies a number of office holders from membership of the Scottish Parliament. We intend that the Scottish Parliament should represent the widest possible range of interests. We have made no secret of that. However, we also recognise that it would not be appropriate for certain office holders, because of their position, to sit in the Parliament. Put quite simply, those who are eligible to be Members of the other place will also be able to be MSPs. In addition, ordained members or ministers of any religious denomination, and Commonwealth and Irish Republic citizens, as well as EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom, will be able to stand. I do not need to labour the point that Members of your Lordships' House will also be able to stand as MSPs.
As your Lordships know, it is felt to be inappropriate for certain officer holders to be Members of the other place. Similar considerations evidently apply to the Scottish Parliament. Section 15 of the Scotland Act therefore makes provision about who should be disqualified from membership of the parliament. The provisions of Section 15 cover civil servants, members of the Armed Forces, members of police forces and judges. Section 15 also gives Her Majesty power, by Order in Council, to specify office holders who should be disqualified from being members of the parliament. That is the order before us today.
In considering which office holders should be disqualified from the Scottish Parliament, we have paid particular heed to the established and well-understood precedent set by the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. Quite rightly, in my view, we have decided that it would not be appropriate to depart radically from that approach at this stage. This order makes provision for the first elections on 6th May and will remain in force until such time as the Scottish Parliament makes its own provision. I am quite sure your Lordships would agree that it is right for the Scottish Parliament to be able to decide the scope of the disqualification provisions for its own membership. But we have to start with something, and this is the order we are starting with.
We think that the list of disqualified office holders before us today strikes the right balance between ensuring that the Parliament is open to a wide range of talented people but is properly independent and able to hold the Executive to account. In deciding who should be disqualified under the order, we applied the criteria used to determine whether an office holder should be disqualified from the other place. Our aim has been to maintain the independence of the Scottish Parliament and safeguard the MSPs from undue influence by the Executive through the existence of patronage. We have also recognised that certain office holders must be seen to be politically impartial.
The disqualification order therefore disqualifies those office holders who would be disqualified from being an MP wherever we thought that the same arguments applied in relation to the Scottish Parliament. For example, if office holders are operating in devolved matters or in areas where Scottish Ministers have an interest, such office holders will be accountable to the Parliament and it would be clearly wrong if they could also be MSPs. Office holders who fall into that category include members of Scottish water authorities or members of Scottish Enterprise.
However, it would not be right to limit this order to office holders in Scottish bodies. There are various bodies based outwith Scotland or operating in reserved areas which are properly within the scope of this order. For example, there are certain office holders outwith Scotland who must be politically impartial in order to carry out their role. For example, those in certain broadcasting organisations are disqualified. In a similar vein, we concluded that members of tribunals should also be disqualified from membership of the Scottish Parliament to ensure judicial impartiality.
However, the order does not disqualify everyone holding public office. Noble Lords may be interested to know how many people are disqualified from being members of the Scottish Parliament. We estimated the figure at under a million across the United Kingdom. Of those, the vast majority are civil servants: just over half a million; members of the Armed Forces, a quarter of a million; and members of the police force, about 140,000. The order adds under a further 100,000 across the United Kingdom. However, that figure alone gives a misleading impression.
Of the 100,000 disqualified by the order the vast majority are politically restricted local government employees. There are about 52,000 in England and Wales and about 5,900 in Scotland, which represents about 2 per cent. of the total number employed in local government. If we remove those, members of the Metropolitan Police Force and Northern Ireland prison staff, the order disqualifies about 10,000 office holders across the United Kingdom. Of those, 3000 are members of various social security tribunals and 2,500 are members of employment tribunals, leaving in the region of only 4,800 specified office holders across the United Kingdom.
It is difficult to break this down further into those bodies which could be described as Scottish. But rough calculations suggest that between 700 and 800 office holders would fall into this category, of whom around a quarter will be staff at the Scottish parliament, who themselves will be quite properly disqualified. Indeed, there are in all under 330 entries in the order which range to cover all members of certain bodies as various as Scottish Homes and the Crofters Commission to specified office holders such as the chairmen of other bodies, for example, the Gas Consumers Council.
Those who are disqualified under the order would be required to resign that office before making their formal consent to nomination. That provision is contained in the Conduct of Elections Order, which I have already mentioned. The consent to nomination must be given by the last day for the delivery of nomination papers and may be submitted up to one month before that. For the Scottish Parliament elections, consent to nomination must be submitted by 13th April. That would mean that people holding disqualifying offices would be required to resign by that date at the latest, as is the case for Westminster elections.
I realise that I have spent some considerable time explaining these matters in detail to the House. When it comes to disqualifying anybody from standing in a parliamentary election, it is necessary to make absolutely clear the basis upon which we have acted. I therefore ask the House's indulgence for having taken so much time. However, I hope that I have been able to deal with the issues as fully as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are doubly grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. We are grateful, first, for the detail that he has gone into on a number of issues; we are also grateful for the fact that he did not go into detail on all the issues on these very large orders.
I shall approach matters as quickly as I can, in a slightly different order, but beginning with the noble Lord's announcement that election day is to be 6th May. That fact will come as a huge surprise to the Scottish population—it is interesting to note that everyone has assumed it but it is not quite legal yet. It would have

1751
been quite a shock had it been decided not to hold the election on 6th May. I do not think I shall subject anyone to the dangers of that shock.
My only point in relation to the first page of the order arises from the reference to 12th May. I begin to wonder what kind of ceremony will surround what is a very important day. I hope that it will not merely be a case of people sidling up and down the high street and popping in, almost unbeknown. I hope that there will be at least some of the pomp and circumstance that surround the opening of Parliament and that some of the historic Scottish traditions can be observed at that time.
Perhaps I may briefly examine the Scottish Parliament (Disqualification) Order. I wish to make a number of points, without going through the whole order. Taking an example from the first page, officials ought to have, as it were, cleaned the copy before they decided to copy the House of Commons. Looking at the first page, I am not entirely sure whether the aircraft and shipbuilding industries arbitration tribunal still exists. There is a question mark over that. I certainly do not think that British Shipbuilders still exists. And, having checked, I do not think that the British Coal Corporation still exists. I am told by no less an expert than Dod that it ceased to exist on 1st January 1998 and that its functions were transferred to various departments of the Department of Trade and Industry. Dod may be wrong; I may be wrong. However, I do think that a little cleaning might have been done to remove those bodies that have ceased to exist.
My second point is one that the Minister attempted to answer. There are many bodies—the social security tribunals mentioned by the Minister are a case in point—where the Scottish Parliament has absolutely no locus. They are entirely reserved to Westminster. They are rightly on the "banned" list for the House of Commons. I am not entirely convinced that one should argue that they should also be on the banned list for the Scottish Parliament, when that Parliament will have absolutely no say.
If the principle is one of ministerial accountability and of non-involvement in politics, I can understand that. However, I do not think that it is always that. Perhaps the first time round is not the occasion to question that principle. However, for the future, we ought to look carefully at the banned list, especially when it covers reserved matters. Perhaps the Scottish Parliament will do that.
The third point is that, although we have the banned list, members of those bodies listed are not banned from Westminster in total, only from the House of Commons. There are Members of this House who sit on some of these bodies. When I arrived in this House I was a member of the Seafish Industry Authority. It is perfectly right that that body should be on the banned list for the Scottish Parliament because it will be answerable to the Scottish Parliament. However, there are other bodies that are answerable to the United Kingdom Parliament. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is the chairman of the British Council. I do not think that the British Council will have anything to do with the Scottish Parliament. So I wonder why the
1752
British Council should be added to the list for the Scottish Parliament when it is seen as perfectly proper for a Member of this House to be on the British Council.
There are other Members who might be mentioned. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is a member of the Council on Tribunals; the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, is chairman of NESTA; the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, is chairman of the New Opportunities Fund; the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is a BBC Governor—that would probably not knock her out from the list for the Scottish Parliament. I really cannot see the point of English Nature being a proscribed organisation. I am wondering about my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane. I may have missed it, but I cannot find a reference to the Scottish Tourist Board on the banned list. I suspect that it should be there. That may be worth examination. It probably ought to be on the list on the same principle as the other bodies.
I now turn to the bulk of the business. I wish to put a number of minor points. I am happy to say that the Minister dealt with one or two of them in his speech and that will save time. I shall put two major points at the end of my remarks. My first point regarding those of us who have absent vote rights constantly was dealt with by the Minister. Those absent vote rights will carry on into the Scottish Parliament.
I turn to the next point, on paragraph 42 of the main document, concerning the 1.5 million which I understand has been agreed between the parties. If I understood the Minister correctly, the amount of money spent by each party on its regional list is not included in the £1.5 million. The £1.5 million is the over-arching general expenditure of the political parties and does not include the eight separate regional expenditures. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. I have not done a calculation. I imagine that if it were to be included then the parties centrally would have a pretty tight budget for the normal mega-advertising that goes on. If it is not included, that is fine. I also heard what the noble Lord said about the importance of the regional expenditure being properly accounted for and being returned in some way so that the public can inspect it. That is absolutely right and proper.
The next point is the modification of Section 10 of the 1998 Act which is, if one likes to look at it this way, Henry VIII in operation. The Minister and I had quite a lot of discussion about the question of what happens at what I may call by-elections on the regional list, although these are not actually going to be by-elections; in other words, what one does if a member retires or dies and it is necessary to find somebody to fill the vacancy.
I notice that the Minister has made some changes to what we agreed after some quite detailed discussion in your Lordships' House. It would be fair to say that it was your Lordships' House that brought in the improvements in the Bill. The Minister was very reasonable in his approach to this and accepted some of the points made in the debate.
I am a little concerned at leaving the amount of time which can be taken between a member dying or retiring and the procedure to find out who is next, whether they

1753
agree to being members and whether they are still, so to speak, in good standing with their registered party. I notice that the time is within such period as the regional returning officer considers reasonable. Given that everything else in electoral law is pretty tightly timed in the number of days, and so on, I was struck by the fact that that was a little open-ended and I wondered why we did not just say 28 days, or even longer. I would accept that, but there should be some kind of time constraint on it. Perhaps the regional returning officer will want to put a time constraint on the people who respond to his letters; in other words, if he sends a letter to the person who is next on the list he will expect a reply within a certain amount of time and not allow the matter to drag on.
On the next point, may I say out of appreciation that I am glad to see the point about the parties' emblems. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for changing the Registration of Political Parties Bill when it was pointed out to him the problems this would cause in Scotland and Wales if there were to be only one party symbol for the whole of the United Kingdom.
My next point concerns the ballot paper. I had not actually picked it up, which shows the complexity of this document. I was interested in the Minister's statement that there would be three ballot boxes and that we would separate them. I imagine that that would help to speed the count on the evening. It is something I am deeply interested in because I have been volunteered—I think that is the right word—to do the radio and television commentary during the night. Frankly, if it were necessary first to sort out all the ballot papers from one ballot box, it would be a pretty long night. I am therefore quite relieved to see that.
It may not have been in this Bill but the Minister may recall that I raised the question of the official mark. I continue to be fairly obsessed by the official mark. I do think it is something from yesteryear. In the case of these elections the people sitting at the table are going to have to make three official marks for every person who comes up. I prophesy that the number of papers without official marks will increase simply because of that, especially if there is a queue of people and perhaps some explanations having to be made about the new system. I am sorry to see that we are still sticking with the official marks because I am not in the least convinced that they do any good.
The next thing I noticed was the existence of a presiding officer. That was a different presiding officer from the presiding officer who was going to preside over the parliament. Your Lordships will remember that I tried to call him the speaker. I have only put this in because I was interested to show that perhaps I was right after all. On Monday the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, was being interviewed on the radio about a tourist conference. He was talking about whether or not there should be a tourist Minister and he described the tourist Minister as being "in the Scottish Cabinet". I thought to myself, "Oh dear, you will get
1754
reprimanded". As I say, I do not think they are supposed to use "Minister", "Cabinet", or "Speaker", but it indicates what is going to happen.
I next have a general election point. I see that we are continuing to suggest that if the person who is presiding at the poll is doubtful about somebody, he asks him or her a question: "Are you the person registered in the register of government electors for this election as follows?" It has always seemed to me that if one is intent on voting on behalf of somebody else, one is not going to own up to that question. It is a totally pointless question in order to stop people impersonating others. If we want to do that we have to go down to saying, "Have you any evidence to show me that you are who you say you are?" When I raised that I did not make much progress, but I still see that pretty pointless question in the papers.
My last minor point, if I may call it that, is once again to welcome the fact that the names are on the regional list ballot paper. Your Lordships will remember that the Government were intransigent on the Welsh Bill. They would not entertain it. Happily, the Minister was much more forthcoming and understood the point that was being made, as did his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn when we came to the European Elections Bill. I am certainly very pleased and I thank the Minister for putting the names on the ballot paper. I think it would have been ludicrous if they had not been on the paper. Perhaps I may say on behalf of Wales that I gather a bit of back-filling has been going on, despite the fact that it is not in the Act, and the names are going to be on the Welsh ballot paper as well, but we are going to come to that later.
My two major points are these. The first one has not been covered by the Minister, the second one has. The first is about the whole question of registered political parties, the nomination of the candidates on the regional list and the registered political parties. Those of your Lordships who heard me on the Registration of Political Parties Bill will know that I considered it profoundly undemocratic and absolutely wrong that somebody had to adjudicate over whether or not the political party could stand at an election. My worst fears have already been confirmed. Last weekend in the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman there were reports that the registrar had refused to accept the registration of the Green Party in Scotland. The Green Party in Scotland is totally different from the Green Parties in the rest of the country, but he had already got a registration from the Green Party which covered England and, I presume, Wales, and he declined the registration from the Scottish Green Party. I do not believe that is right.
In today's Herald there is a report that the Scottish Socialist Party led by Mr. Tommy Sheridan—and I find it odd that I am standing as a flag-bearer for its right to stand, although it is not odd because it is a fundamental democratic right—which is a minor irritant to the governing party but a considerable force in the City of Glasgow, has also been refused on the basis of the fact that the Socialist Party of Great Britain, which put up far fewer candidates than the Scottish Socialist Party at the last election, has registered. Therefore, he is not allowing the Scottish Socialist Party to register.

1755
I presume that also means that the party will not be able to describe itself as the Scottish Socialist Party on the local election ballot paper. Its members hold local council seats in the City of Glasgow. I really do think that we are going to have to find a way round this because, while I do not agree with Mr. Tommy Sheridan on much or perhaps anything that he does or says, I think he has an absolute right to continue with the party which he and his friends created and to be able to stand under that party banner, which is clearly understood in the City of Glasgow. I think it would be quite wrong if he were not able to do that. I suspect that it might even be contravening his human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. If he reads those rights, he might be led to consider whether there is a challenge to be mounted on that basis. I know that the Minister is not answerable for the registrar, but this is a very serious issue. It is not only to do with the Scottish Parliament or the regional list seats.
I understand why the Government needed registration for regional lists, although I should have preferred not to have the registration Act. I understand the argument on regional lists. But there is absolutely no argument when it comes to local government seats, especially when these people are already elected under the flag of the Scottish Socialist Party. There is no political advantage to my party in my advocating either the Green Party or the Scottish Socialist Party being allowed to stand. but I believe that it would be iniquitous if neither of those parties could fly under the name by which everyone in Scotland knows them. I hope that the Minister can indicate that the Government are looking seriously at that matter.
My last point concerns recounts on the regional list. I listened with care to the Minister's explanation, but I still believe there is a major problem. I accept that when the counts are finished someone could ask for a recount on the regional list at that point. But at that point there may not be any obvious reason why a recount should be called. The Minister might confirm a point for me in order to help me with my night on television explaining the great triumphs of the Scottish Conservative Party.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have to tell him that, if he is to receive a fee for that appearance, my advice is also subject to a fee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have not yet negotiated my fee. I am happy to tell the BBC that I shall be looking for one, but I shall probably do so in vain.
I presume that, when the first-past-the-post count is completed, there will be an announcement in the normal way about who has been elected. After that, the regional list count having been completed for that constituency, the result will be transmitted to the regional returning officer. Once he has the results in from all the seats in his patch, he will add them together, everyone will agree the totals and he will then perform d'Hondt on them. It is not even at that point that it becomes obvious that
1756
there may be a problem with a very close result but only when the d'Hondt calculator is used down the list, especially when the last seat of the seven is reached.
Perhaps I may give an example using the results in central Scotland at the last general election. The last seat was between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The Conservatives had already gained one seat, so they were left on the last line with 20,791.5 votes. The Liberal Democrats, who had by that time gained no seats, were left with 20,624. The Conservatives won that seat by 137 votes. On any normal first-past-the-post count, that is recount territory. I believe that, if I were a Liberal Democrat in those circumstances, I would feel peeved that I had not the right to ask for a recount. A hundred and thirty-seven votes of a total of over 40,000 is pretty minuscule. One bundle placed on the wrong pile could make all the difference between the Liberal Democrats gaining that seat and the Conservatives gaining it.
I am extremely glad that it is against my party that I can make this mathematical argument because it shows that I am trying to look at it from a fairness point of view; but, of course, it could happen any way round. That is what would happen in central Scotland. I believe that at that stage a recount ought to be called if, in that case, the Liberal Democrats wanted it. I hear what the Minister says about the difficulty, but I do not think that the difficulty is sufficient answer. In my view, they would have to abandon getting a result there, call in all the boxes and do a full recount of all the constituencies. I understand the logistics, the difficulties and the delay that would be caused, but we are talking about a delay of a few hours in order to ensure that a political party is not deprived of its right to call a recount in a very close call.
It is that seventh seat in all cases that would make the close call. None of the other seats were as close as that one, but one could devise arithmetic by which they could be even closer and one or two votes could make all the difference. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is to follow me, would make the same point. I appreciate the Minister's difficulty but it is a difficulty which we ought to have overcome so that, in the unlikely event that we get into this situation, the count would be extended into the next day and one seat would be left to be decided the next day after all the votes had been recounted.
I am sorry to have spoken at length, but these are long pieces of secondary legislation, the last two of which, in particular, raise serious issues.
9.5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to wear my "McThomas of Glenshee" hat for the purposes of these regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said that the date of the election was unlikely to be a huge surprise in Scotland. I think that it will be a huge surprise in England to find that on that day a new legislative body, the Scottish Parliament, is elected in Scotland. We are all looking forward to the reaction.

1757
The noble Lord also referred to his hope that the beginning of the Scottish Parliament would be greeted with pomp and circumstance. According to the Welsh press today, the Welsh have already taken that on hoard. For the opening of the Welsh Assembly we are relying upon our cultural icons, the Manic Street Preachers, Tom Jones and, it is hoped, the whole of the Welsh rugby team—but only provided they beat England on 11 th April. Remembering Harold Wilson in 1966, I respectfully suggest to the Government that it might be in their interests to have a word with the England team to make sure that the Welsh team are victorious at that time.
I note with interest that the disqualification order is 32 pages long compared to four pages for the Welsh disqualification order. I also note, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, references to certain bodies that I know no longer to exist. A certain degree of pruning and rethinking of that order may be required. I am also very interested that no member of Sianel Pedwar Cymru is entitled to be a member of the Scottish Parliament. It is interesting to consider who might have that desire.
Perhaps it indicates that Scottish television has taken over Welsh television. For some reason I pay my electricity to Renfrew in Ayrshire. Things appears to have come to a pretty pass.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten Emyrs Hughes and Keir Hardie?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we attempted to take over Scotland in those days. I continue to do so.
The serious point that I raise on this particular order is whether it is necessary to follow the Westminster model and require a candidate to stand down from office on consent to nomination. I believe that difficulties arise in employment if the holders of the offices set out in the order must resign those offices just to become candidates. I can understand that if they are elected they should immediately resign the posts that they hold, but there is no certainty that if they resign to be candidates they will ever recover those positions at a later time. I have always regarded that as a bit of a difficulty with Westminster elections. I respectfully urge the Government to consider whether in the context of Scotland, where there is an attempt to make the opportunity for a person to become a member as wide as possible, it is necessary to have a provision of that kind.
I turn to the meat of the matter: the elections order. I make three points, all of which have been referred to by those who have already spoken. First, I welcome the list of names that appears on the ballot paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out, we had such trouble with these issues on the debates on the Welsh Bill. We were told that it was impossible and nothing could be designed to put before electors. Here we have in the schedule to the order an example of just such a scheme that the focus groups, who today advise the Government, describe as fairly easy to understand. That was the kind of comment that we made throughout.
1758
I am a little perturbed by the fact that the colours of the ballot papers are blue and peach which, certainly in my part of the world, have been Conservative colours for as long as I can remember. That may not be so in Scotland. The noble Lord indicates that the colour is mauve.
I turn to the question of regional expenses. Reading this document, I do not understand how the political parties can divide their expenses between regional elections and a national campaign. As it reads at the moment, it suggests to me that the constituency candidate has an expenses limit that is similar to the Westminster limit; that the individual candidate who stands in the region has a limit which is the sum total of the constituency limit in that particular region. and that the £1.5 million limit applies to all expenditure—indeed, the noble Lord said so in his speech—not usually covered in a constituency. That means that it should cover the whole of the regional elections and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated. I see that the noble Lord is nodding.
To have regional limits for those who are party candidates as opposed to individual candidates cannot cause a difficulty. If an individual candidate has a regional limit that is limited to the sum total of the constituency limits, why cannot the same be applied to the party so that the national expenditure of that party is the sum total of the eight regions in Scotland? That would appear to be the proper way to go about it.
Obviously, the noble Lord together with those who advise him, has considered this. He tells us that he believes that the publication of expenses on a regional basis afterwards will ensure transparency. Transparency is all very well if it occurs before an election but it is not much use after the members have been elected to the Parliament. It leaves open the possibility of abuse to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. referred whereby a party—for example the Labour Party—decides to abandon any regional expenses in central Scotland, where it expects to win constituency seats, and dumps one third of that expenditure in the Highlands and Islands, one third in the Borders and another third perhaps in the North East in areas where they are a little more likely to end up relying upon the regional list to provide that party with representation. That abuse is open to the political parties. I am not so naïve as to believe that a political party such as the Labour Party in Scotland will not take advantage of it. That is a matter that the Government should reconsider before the order is finally passed.
I turn to the issue of nominations, at Schedule 2, Rule 4. The Liberal Democrat Party has always been concerned to ensure that candidates can stand as freely as possible and are not limited by excessive deposits. For example, if a deposit for a parliamentary election had been placed as high as £5,000, in some elections 20 years ago my party would have been completely bankrupted. The financial limits are therefore one way of controlling candidates, but not a very fair way. The alternative is to ensure that a candidate who stands can say, "I have the backing and support of a significant number of people from the constituency". We have

1759
always said that 10 people assenting were too few: that if one cannot get 100 people behind one in a constituency election one ought not to stand.
The position now outlined in the schedule is that any individual can nominate himself. For the sum of £5,000 that he deposits, and will undoubtedly lose, he then has access to the free post; if he is a regional candidate he can have it over a huge area, and he can have easy advertising at a cheap price for whatever cause he chooses. That is the kind of abuse that I am sure the Government would wish to avoid. It is an issue to which they should give further consideration. Making it easy for a candidate to stand is one thing; but to open it up for anyone to gain £500 worth of massive publicity is somewhat different.
I turn finally to the question of recounts. Although the Minister fairly acknowledges the problem, I do not think that he has yet found the solution. It is interesting that there is a significant difference between the Scottish and the Welsh provisions. The Welsh provisions were originally drafted like the Scottish provisions. Rule 55 provides that an objection can be taken at constituency level by a regional candidate or by his election agent provided that he is present when the counting or the recounting of votes takes place. If there are 10 constituencies a regional candidate and his agent cannot cover the lot. The provision cannot work.
For that reason, there has been an amendment in the Welsh provisions. It provides for a party to nominate counting agents for an individual candidate or a group of party list candidates so that objection can be taken at a constituency count by a regional candidate, his agent, a party list candidate or the counting agent—this refers to Wales—who has been specifically appointed for that purpose. The Scottish machinery cannot work. The Welsh machinery could but—perhaps I anticipate what I may say later—it should not. It is not satisfactory that a recount should be requested in each individual constituency.
Let us consider the position. There are 10 constituencies. The constituency count is held in the first small constituency, and everyone goes home. The second constituency count is held an hour later. The third count, a rural constituency, is four hours later. But it is only when all the 10 constituency regional votes come in that the need for a recount can be ascertained. It is only at that point that the agent for the party for the regional list can phone up the people in each individual constituency and say, "The vote is so close on the seventh candidate that we must have a recount". Everyone has gone home. If that is so, from a practical point of view the boxes have to be brought out the next day in each individual constituency and counted. There will be a delay anyway. So why not do as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, suggested? Why not bring all the boxes sealed from the various constituencies to a central point on the following day or the day after? After all, there are only 10 constituencies on average to each region. What is a day or two compared with an election petition which may last months? The recount could then be done in one centre for a final figure to emerge. I say that against my own
1760
party because as the Conservative Party stands at the bottom of the opinion polls in Scotland, it is probably a Conservative who will be at the bottom of the list.
Having said that, I believe that the recount provisions require to be looked at again. The Welsh have provided a solution. I do not believe that that is satisfactory but, although it is inconvenient, it is workable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, noble Lords will be glad to hear that I shall be brief. My first question is about the ballot boxes. The Minister said that there will be three ballot boxes in each polling station, colour-coded to match the ballot papers. What will happen if a vote for the Scottish Parliament goes into the local government box? Are voters to be warned that if that happens their vote will not be counted because that box will not be opened until the next day. That may cause a great deal of feeling and a candidate may lose a vote because of it. I should like to know whether people will be warned about that.
Secondly, have the Government made sure that the colours that they have selected are those least likely to be mistaken by people who are colour blind? That is not a lighthearted question. A great many people, particularly men, are colour blind. For example, when they are picking red strawberries against green leaves, they cannot see the strawberries even though they want them. I do not know a great deal about that. If the colour chosen is mauve, the intensity of the colours is very much the same. Will the colours be easily discernible and, most important, will they be discernible from white, because if the coloured ballot paper is mistaken for white, the vote will he lost. That seems to me to be a snag.
I read—and the Minister has doubtless read it too—that in Grampian region there is anxiety about the combination of a high turn-out and the fact that the process will be rather slower because people will be learning the system of voting in three ballot boxes. That may mean that there is a delay, particularly at the rush hour, at the end of election day, which we all know takes place. Therefore, in that region there will be extra ballot boxes. Has that decision been taken in other parts of the country? Has consideration been given to the fact that extra ballot boxes may be needed?
My other question is about the opening. During the passage of the Bill we understood that it was not constitutionally necessary for Her Majesty or her representative to open the Parliament. Has Her Majesty been invited to open the Parliament and, if so, has she accepted? The public want to know that.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I now have a pile of paper almost equal to the number of pages in the order. I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised a number of interesting and important points. It is right that we should look at them.
Perhaps I may deal with them in reverse order and deal first with the issues raised by the noble Baroness. As regards the colour of the papers, we have indeed taken the problem of colour blindness into account in selecting the colours.

1761
As regards ballot papers going into the wrong boxes, we must accept that there is a significant risk that a number of ballot papers will go in the wrong box. It is the count for the local government elections which takes place the following day. The practice on the evening will be that the ballot boxes will be opened and mis-allocated papers will be allocated properly at that point. Therefore, if somebody's ballot paper is put into the wrong box, that would not end up as a wasted vote.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does that mean that the local government ballot boxes will be opened the previous evening?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, they will be opened and then resealed.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the other points raised. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that Her Majesty will attend the opening ceremony on 1st July. That will be the official opening ceremony of the Parliament. The first meeting, on 12th May, will be very much a low-key event.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I am pleased that he recognises the importance of due ceremony to mark the formal opening of the Parliament. It was only a few months ago that the noble Lord was putting all his effort into ensuring that that day would never dawn. It is nice to know that he now wishes to see that it is properly marked. Indeed, we are having, and have had, consultations to ensure that that takes place.
The noble Lord mentioned a number of bodies which he thought may be defunct. That point was also latched onto by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I say to both noble Lords that British Shipbuilders continues to exist, in a very reduced way. There are three office holders. The chairman is paid in the region of £17,000. The two members each receive £5,000. Therefore, it is a little too early to write off British Shipbuilders. I spent most of last week in Brussels. At one stage we were talking about virtual cows. In this order we may be talking about virtual organisations. However I think it is better, even if such bodies are defunct, or have recently become defunct, to include them. There is no harm in including defunct bodies, because nobody will be excluded on that basis.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the Minister that it is a good job that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not in his place to hear his remarks.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have a "belt-and-braces" attitude on this matter. The noble Lord also mentioned social security tribunals. The basis of disqualification there comes from the line of judicial independence, ensuring that people who perform that function are seen to be politically independent.
I turn to the £1.5 million. During the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I indicated by nodding that he was correct and that the noble Lord,
1762
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was wrong. As I have said, the £1.5 million covers everything not normally covered in a constituency campaign, and that means both the national and regional element. It is difficult. when one thinks of it, to distinguish between the regional and the national. If someone puts up a "Vote Labour" sign, what the dickens is it? Is it an exhortation to vote Labour nationally or regionally? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the point that a party would somehow concentrate "a third, a third, a third" in their best regional areas. I do not believe that that stands up in reality. What would happen if they did that? They would have no national campaign at all. Clearly the parties are going to put quite a lot of that £1.5 million into an across-the-board national campaign. I suspect that we shall see very little dedicated regional expenditure and regional campaigning. There will be the amounts spent in the individual constituencies and I suspect that we shall find that the £1.5 million is virtually taken up by national activities and a national campaign. Therefore I do not have the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised the point of registration of political parties. As a Minister I can have no locus in that. Whether or not to accept a registration of a political party, a name, rests with the registrar, though there is an appeal to a committee established by Madam Speaker in another place. I am sure that that is the route that will be taken in relation to the specific cases instanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It would be quite wrong for a Member of the Government to have any say in whether or not a party name should be accepted by the registrar. A quite correct division exists. I also make the point that the party name used at a local election is decided by the returning officer and not the registrar. So the decisions are taken by two very different people. The sort of tension identified by the noble Lord. Lord Mackay, can therefore occur.
We come to the business of recounts. As I said in my opening speech. it is a difficult area; I acknowledge that. It is one about which we have no previous experience. All our elections at the moment are based on first-past-the-post, and when the count is done we know who has won. That will not be the case when we move into proportional additional member territory. There is a fall-back position. If the situation arises illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and we are down to a couple of hundred votes out of several tens of thousands, then the decision is clearly by recourse to the courts. The papers are still extant and the recount would be possible if a candidate thought that there was something wrong with the way in which they had been counted in the first place.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, will the Minister accept that an election petition is hugely expensive and will rest upon the individual candidate?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, it is a course of action that is not to be undertaken lightly; I accept that. The difficulty with the alternatives is, to take an area like the

1763
Highlands and Islands where counting will take place in a number of different constituencies with vast geographical spreads, how long will the counting stations have to be kept open? We get into the practical mechanisms of what will be required. However, I recognise the anxiety. We should go forward on the basis of the procedures described in the orders and learn from experience. We can then see what adjustments may be appropriate and may command widespread support in the future. If a real difficulty arises, I am sure that it will be in the interests of all of us to look again at these provisions in the future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not sure that I am imagining the scene correctly. Will the results of the regional vote be read out in such a way that people know that the collation has been done correctly or will that be done on paper and simply the ultimate result read out?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the regional returning officer has to announce the additional regional result. To achieve that he will have to go through a process of calculation. That is published as part of the proceedings of declaration. As my noble and very helpful friend, Lord McIntosh of Haringey has indicated to me, it can be recalculated on demand as well. That is an open and explicit part of the process so that people know where they stand and make a subsequent judgment on whether they are content with how the process has been applied.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating that the calculation can be done again if someone asks for it. The calculation will be very easy. If the returning officer is not too quick, other people will probably obtain the result quicker than he will. It is a fairly straightforward calculation to use the D'Hondt calculator. I still believe that the problem remains that when one gets to the seventh seat there could be a severe difficulty.
I hear what the Minister says about the counts. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am not convinced that there is not a way round it which is far superior to going to court, which is both expensive and lengthy. I appreciate that the problem with orders is that, even if the Minister were to agree with us, there is probably not much that can be done at this stage.
I fear that there has been an oversight, which perhaps indicates that if these orders had come before us sooner we might well have picked up this matter. Albeit hedged about with qualifications as to when somebody could call for a recount, the ability to call in all the papers the following day and have a general recount would certainly seem to be by far the fairer and better option.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said on that matter. I believe that we have a way forward for these elections. We are in unknown territory to a significant extent. We can reflect on the basis of experience. I am sure that no party represented here, or likely to be represented in the Scottish Parliament, would wish to see its representation
1764
enhanced on some dubious basis. There will be ample opportunity to bring forward new provisions, if that is felt necessary, for subsequent elections.
I believe that I have dealt with all the new issues. I realise some arose from the procedures which have already been adopted for election to the other place. Quite understandably, noble Lords were using this debate to rework some arguments heard there. I do not believe that they are particularly appropriate to these orders. I believe that I have dealt with the particular new issues which relate to the new orders before us today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (First Ordinary General Election and First Meeting) Order 1999
Lord Sewel: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committed—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 1999
Lord Sewel: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft order laid before the House on 25th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Assembly for Wales (Disqualification) Order 1999
9.39 p.m.
Lord McIntoshof Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government of Wales Act set the framework for devolution to the National Assembly for Wales, but it left some major tasks to be dealt with in subsequent secondary legislation. Before us tonight are three orders which, taken together—although they are not being taken together—fill in much of the remaining picture. The elections order sets out comprehensively the regulatory framework needed to conduct the Assembly's first election under the additional member system; the disqualification order clarifies who is and who is not eligible to stand in that election; and the transfer of functions order prescribes the comprehensive list of powers and duties which are to be handed over from the Secretary of State and vested in the Assembly.
The purpose of the draft disqualification order is to set out clearly those offices and employments which are incompatible with membership of the Assembly. The

1765
order has been considered and approved by the other place. There are well-established rules on disqualification relating to membership of the House of Commons, the European Parliament and local authorities. Comparable rules need to apply to the Assembly. This is dealt with under Section 12 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, which specifies a number of persons and classes of person who will be disqualified from membership of the Assembly. In addition, Section 12 enables the Secretary of State to recommend in an Order in Council further offices and employments, the holders of which would also be disqualified from becoming Members of the Assembly. The draft of such an order is now before the House. Subject to the assent of this House, the order will be put to Her Majesty in Council.
In preparing the order the Secretary of State has had to recognise that there are no direct parallels in the national Assembly within the United Kingdom. He has decided that it would not be appropriate to put in place for the Assembly disqualification provisions that mirror those which apply under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. The Assembly will not be a comparable body to the House of Commons. The listing under the 1975 Act is an extensive one, running to several hundred bodies and post-holders. That listing would not fit the circumstances of the Assembly.
The draft order before your Lordships takes account of responses to a consultative exercise which invited views on the range of disqualification and the need to avoid conflicts of interest and to preserve the impartiality of these bodies. In addition, disqualification is to extend to the broadcast interests, given the role which they would have in reporting on the Assembly. In identifying the offices and employments subject to disqualification, the Secretary of State has decided that it would not be appropriate to apply disqualification to all employees of the listed bodies. Therefore, the order proposes only a limited application to employees, mainly civil servants.
Part I of the order lists 28 bodies where all members are disqualified from membership of the Assembly. Part II identifies a further 43 bodies and offices, the members of which (or post-holders) are not able also to be members of the assembly. In Part II the distinction proposed is for those employees who by virtue of their employment are ex officio members of the board.
Many of the Welsh public sector bodies listed in Part I and Part II will have a direct link with the Assembly and the funding dependency will be a clear one. There are then bodies which operate in a quasi-judicial manner.
Impartiality is the reason for disqualifying members of the Audit Commission, the Commission for Local Administration in Wales, the Health Service Commissioner for Wales and the Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of the Boundary Commission for Wales.
I should also outline why it is necessary to extend disqualification to the listed social security bodies. Although the Assembly will not exercise functions in the field of social security, these bodies have a duty to decide appeals in Wales on matters which can directly or indirectly affect the Assembly's activities or expenditure;
1766
or, indeed, affect Assembly Members directly. For example, the bodies could be dealing with child support maintenance appeals or decisions which influence the respective responsibilities of local authority social services departments and the Department of Social Security.
The Social Security Commissioner and the Child Support Commissioner, who are analogous to High Court judges, are disqualified by the provisions of Section 12 of the Government of Wales Act, which apply to the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Therefore, it would be consistent to ensure that disqualification from Assembly membership was extended to the social security appeal and tribunal structures, which are responsible for precedent-setting decisions or have a deciding influence over the way that a particular tribunal carries out its business. Similar considerations apply to the pensions bodies listed in the order where we wish to avoid actual or potential conflicts of interest and compromising impartially.
Outside of the draft order the Secretary of State will rely on his contractual relationship with the Training and Enterprise Councils and the career service companies in Wales to disqualify their board members. For the Welsh European programme executive he will enter into an agreement with the company to preclude Assembly Members from serving on its board. Under the Assembly elections procedure order which I have already described to your Lordships, those in a disqualifying office or employment who intend to stand as a candidate for election to the Assembly would be required to resign before making their formal consent to nomination. The final date for the formal submission of nomination papers will be 8th April. That would mean that people holding a disqualifying office would need to resign by that date at the latest. Where a person resigns their membership to stand for election to the Assembly and is unsuccessful in that election, there is discretion to decide whether to reinstate that person to the body concerned. For an employee, reinstatement would depend on the terms and conditions of employment that apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of this order. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy is unable to be here tonight and we shall not have the benefit of his knowledge and experience in these matters. However, we have the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I am sure that he will be extremely helpful to the House.
Bearing in mind the important matters to which these orders relate, the attendance in the Chamber tonight is disappointing to say the least. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish spoke earlier to the Scottish orders. He identified that many of the organisations listed in the Scottish schedule did not exist or that there were inappropriate exclusions. It is also interesting to note that with the bicameral system that will still apply in England, this House will still have the benefit of Members who are involved in many of the organisations mentioned in both of the schedules. It is of course a two-way process as the

1767
organisations benefit from the input into Parliament as well. However, I accept the reasons given by the Minister for these disqualifications.
The list in the Welsh order before us tonight is much shorter for the reasons given by the Minister. With my limited knowledge I can see no difficulties here but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, will have some interesting observations to make. I look forward to hearing them.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I cannot wait to hear myself after that introduction! I have only the same point to make that I made in relation to the Scottish legislation. I see no reason why people should be required to resign their positions until they are elected. In the past it has been difficult to find candidates who are members of public bodies or who are employed in certain occupations because they cannot he assured that they can return to their jobs if they are unsuccessful in their candidatures. It is a huge burden to place on anyone, particularly the kind of people we want to serve in the Welsh Assembly—that is young, active people—to ask them to abandon a job or a career at the beginning and to take a step into the unknown on becoming a candidate for the Assembly.
As regards Westminster elections, there may be some good reason for this—although I do not know what it is—that is hallowed by tradition. But one would have hoped that in coming afresh to this particular subject in the context of the Welsh Assembly a different approach could have been taken. I have no objection to the various offices that are described in Parts I and II and I have listened to the explanation that has been given by the Minister. I conclude by congratulating the Welsh Office on producing such a succinct document.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his comments. I hope that he will pass on to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, our best wishes for his speedy recovery.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, he raised it on the Scottish Order and I was here to hear him. I am afraid the answer is the same: this mirrors the rules which apply to parliamentary elections. Section 14(1) of the Government of Wales Act provides that a person who is disqualified from being a member of the assembly by virtue of Section 12, which includes the draft Order in Council, would be unable to take up the seat if elected, as the effect of disqualification would mean that the election was null and void. That is the technical difficulty.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, he would be unable to take up the seat. That is what we were discussing under the Bill. That does not say that he would be unable to be a candidate. There is power for the Government to change their mind on this issue and permit people to stand without having to resign their positions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can see the rationale behind that point, but because of the way that the Act has been drafted—and this is not in the order—the election would be null and void and there
1768
would have to be a new election. A resignation at that stage would not do the trick. That is the problem we have. The consent to nomination in the assembly election process will require each candidate to confirm that they are not disqualified from membership of the assembly. Of course we are talking about only a relatively small number of those who would be disqualified. As I said in my opening remarks, employees will be able to ensure, and should ensure—and employers should agree—that they will be reinstated if they fail in the elections. But that is a matter for their contract of employment rather than for this order. I understand the noble Lord's point, but it relates to the Act and not to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 1999
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be interested to note that the version of the order we are considering today is that which was laid on the 22nd February, not the version laid on the 15th February, which has been withdrawn. In the original version, a clerical error deleted almost half of paragraph 53 of Schedule 5, making it defective. We have re-laid the order to correct the error and have also taken the opportunity to amend the drafting slightly to make clear the rules under which an assembly regional ballot paper may be accepted. I apologise to your Lordships for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
The first elections to the Assembly will be on 6th May 1999. Section 11(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 allows the Secretary of State by order to make provision for the conduct of the assembly elections. That dispensation includes provision for setting limits to election expenses of candidates and registered political parties, and procedures for election petitions. The draft order draws heavily on provisions from the Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1985 and includes material from statutory instruments made up under those Acts and other legislation on the same basis.
We have also had to take account of two other developments which affect elections in the United Kingdom—the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 and the recommendations of the Neill Committee on the funding of political parties. I shall spell out in more detail what we have done and why in respect of those issues.
The order has been the subject of detailed discussion and consultation from the very start. In December 1997 we set up an elections working group of senior returning officers and elections administrators to advise officials on the content of the order. Group members have reported regularly to their colleagues in Wales and have fed back their views. We issued a draft of the order to the political parties and returning officers, to other

1769
organisations such as the Wales TUC and the CBI Wales, and a copy was placed on the Welsh Office website.
Most of the order does no more than apply provision equivalent to the rules for parliamentary or, occasionally, local government election orders, with modifications for the two-vote system. Articles 1 to 13 deal mainly with voting, registration, polling places and absent voting. Polling places for assembly elections will be the same as those for the parliamentary elections and the absent vote criteria are the same as those for local government elections. This is because the assembly electorate is that for local government elections.
Article 14 provides for the combination of polls when assembly elections take place on the same day as local government elections, as will be the case on 6th May this year. Articles 15 to 22 deal with the administration of elections, including the appointment of a returning officer for each assembly constituency and for each assembly electoral region. Articles 23 to 31 provide for the local government franchise to apply for the assembly elections, defines various voting offences, such as personation, and imposes the requirement of secrecy on specified officials and at specified stages of the election process.
Articles 32 to 36 define the arrangements for the appointment of election agents and sub-agents. There will be one election agent only for each party list. Articles 37 to 65 deal with election expenses. These articles lay down election expenses limits for constituency candidates, independent candidates at regional elections and registered political parties at assembly general elections. Our proposals draw on two sources: the existing provisions in the 1983 Act for candidates at parliamentary elections and the recommendations submitted last autumn by the Neill Committee in its report on the funding of political parties. In case the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, wants to raise the issue of national limits, I should remind him that the Neill Committee specifically, both for Wales and for Scotland, set national limits rather than regional limits. There would have had to be some very good reason for us to go against the recommendations of the Neill Committee. The committee was clear that there should be national limits, including for the assembly elections. The proposed limits are in Articles 46 to 48.
We followed without exception the Neill recommendations for constituency candidates. The same limits apply as for elections to the House of Commons except that the figures have been uprated in line with inflation. Independent candidates at regional elections will have limits equivalent to the sum of the limits in all the constituencies in the electoral region. There will be no regional limit for registered political parties but there will be a national limit for such parties of £600,000 at a general election. Expenses incurred on the election campaign of a constituency candidate of a registered political party will be ring-fenced and will not count towards the national total. The national expenses limit for a party will be made up of all expenses incurred by that party which are not specific to an individual
1770
constituency campaign. The national total will include expenses on the regional campaigns and any expenditure of a general nature.
Article 66 makes provision for free mail-shots. We will provide for one free mail-shot per constituency candidate, one for each independent candidate and one for each party list at a regional election. Parties standing at the constituency and regional elections will be allowed to send a single leaflet to electors presenting their list candidates and their constituency candidates in that region. The Royal Mail is amending its regulations accordingly. Articles 67 to 158 deal with broadcasting at assembly elections, election meetings, disturbances, bribery, treating, election performances, forms and notices, and election advertisements.
I shall deal only with the most important of the schedules. Schedule 5 lays down the main body of rules for the conduct of an assembly election. The provisions are based largely on the parliamentary election rules of 1983. Paragraphs 1 to 23 set out the election timetable and deal with nominations, deposits, withdrawals, disqualification and so on. The nomination procedure takes account of the provisions of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. Deposits will be £500 for a constituency candidate, an independent candidate in a regional election and a regional list.
Paragraphs 23 and 24 and associated parts of the appendix set down the rules for the lay-out of ballot papers. The constituency ballot paper is very similar to that used for parliamentary elections but will include emblems. The regional ballot paper is the result of detailed research. Voters had a very strong preference for the names of the list candidates to appear on the ballot papers in this lay-out. They wanted to know precisely for whom they were voting and they did not like ballot papers which bore only the names of the parties. Specimen ballot papers have been made available and placed in the Library of the House. For the first elections, the constituency ballot paper will be coloured pale lilac—what I called mauve in an earlier intervention—and the regional ballot paper will be peach. White is being used for the ballot papers for the local government election.
Paragraphs 26 to 36 deal with matters such as the official mark, appointment of election staff, and poll cards. It is based on the standard procedure, adapted as necessary for a two-vote system. Paragraphs 37 to 48 apply the standard parliamentary rules for procedures in the polling station, adapted as necessary for the two-vote system.
Paragraphs 49 to 64 deal with the count declarations and procedures after the count. Counting will take place on the Friday. These paragraphs provide for the constituency returning officer to count the ballot papers for his constituency election and those cast for the regional election in his constituency. On completion of the regional count, the constituency returning officer will relay the totals to the regional returning officer. Once he or she has agreed the totals, the constituency returning officer may give a local announcement of those figures. The constituency returning officer will declare the constituency result and relay it also to the

1771
regional returning officer for the latter to calculate the allocation of the regional seats. The regional returning officer will declare the regional result.
The provisions for the rejected ballot papers will make clear to returning officers that they can accept regional ballot papers where the voter has placed a mark or marks in the voting box for a party and against the name of a candidate on the party's list. He would also be able to accept a ballot paper where the voter had not marked the voting box but placed marks against the name of one or more candidates in the same list. A ballot paper where marks have been placed for one party and beside the names of candidates for another party would not be accepted since the voter's intention would not be clear.
Paragraphs 66 to 68 provide for vacancies in the constituency to be filled by by-election unless the vacancy occurred three months or less from the next ordinary election. There is no provision for regional by-elections. In the case of a list member dying or vacating his seat, the next candidate on the list would normally fill the seat. If the regional member was an independent, the seat would have to remain vacant until the next election. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
10 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the order. His briefing from the Welsh Office appears to have made for a more comprehensible explanation of the expenses limit. Even I understood the provisions.
I am convinced that there is a major difficulty regarding the recount. I believe that Ministers recognise that. My noble friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised this point during debate on the Scottish order but it bears repetition.
At the constituency count both the candidate and, if applicable, the party list candidates or their agents may instigate a recount. The problem is that it would not be until the regional result was known, after the d'Hondt calculation is announced, that the desirability of a recount may become apparent. Therefore, the candidates or their agents may routinely demand a recount at the constituency count even if there is a clear majority.
In the previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, suggested recourse to the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out the cost of that. It is not desirable routinely to have recourse to the courts.
The noble Lords, Lord Sewel and Lord McIntosh, seemed to imply that there would be no problem if a recount was requested even if a large majority was declared by the returning officer. Will the Minister confirm that that applies to the Welsh elections as well as the Scottish elections?
There are only four top-up seats in Wales. I now understand that the Minister's right honourable friend Mr. Michael aspires to one of them. He has another
1772
problem in that, although he is his party's choice as First Secretary, the Assembly may decide to elect someone else.
But I digress. The regional count could clearly be very contentious. The Minister said that he thought that a recount at regional level would not be practical, or words to that effect. I merely point out that we on these Benches promoted the advantages of a first-past-the-post system.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested a centralised count. I have come very late to these matters, but his suggestion seems to have merit. His party, as we know, is very pro-PR. The problem is that his solution may be effective for Wales, but what about a national general election? The noble Lord may want to correct me on that point when he replies.
The order is, of necessity, voluminous and detailed. As the Government enjoy the support of only 25 per cent. of the electorate, the people of Wales will be very disappointed if the election process is flawed. I should therefore like to ask the Minister whether the process defined in the order has been tested by means of an exercise. I am thinking of an exercise that would test the robustness of the rules against those who would like to explore the limits of them. Such an exercise would test for what could go wrong. I appreciate that we have had elections by PR in Northern Ireland, but these are new and different rules. Have they been tested in the manner which I have described?
I have looked to see what would happen if an elected member were to die after being elected. Paragraph 65 of Schedule 5 makes provision in the event of the death of a candidate during the election process, as explained by the Minister. I am sure I have missed the provisions in the order, or perhaps it is provided for elsewhere, but can the Minister help me on this point?
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, replied to questions from my noble friend, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The only problem is that I cannot remember what he asked for. Perhaps we will leave that point. My noble friend also raised many points of detail in a far more lucid manner than I could. In view of the sparse attendance in the House, I can see very little point in worrying your Lordships by repeating these questions as they apply to Wales, but again I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and of course the Minister's reply to the debate.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, may I first of all congratulate the Welsh Office once again for producing a very much more readable document than their Scottish counterparts, and in particular the clarity that has been achieved by placing much of the detail of the election in Schedule 5. That has really helped to follow and to understand the way in which this document is put together.
I come immediately to the recount problem. I remember being at the count in North Wales for the Euro elections. That is a substantial area. It covers six or seven parliamentary constituencies. Nevertheless, it was possible to bring all the votes to a centre in Mold

1773
and to count them quite quickly and produce a result without any difficulty. That is now to be the North Wales Region for the purposes of the regional seat.
If the proposals that are set out in this document are to be followed, I can envisage that on election night the constituency count will take place, the constituency members will be declared and there are bound to be disparities in time. Each constituency is separate. The Wrexham constituency is very close, five or six miles across. The constituencies in the far west, in Anglesey and in Caernarvon, are very much larger. If there is to be a recount of the regional vote the same night the counting staff in every constituency will have to remain in position until all the regional results are finally in and a declaration is made, presumably at some central point. Just as in the Euro elections, I would imagine that there would be a returning officer who would declare at a central point—it could be Cardiff or, if we are dealing with the North Wales Region, it could be somewhere like Mold in North Wales—where the election result is known for the first time. It is at that point that the agent may wish to ask (reasonably) for a recount in every constituency. Hours may have passed. Staff may have been kept hanging around at various centres from Wrexham through to Caernarvon. Wrexham strives in general elections to be first in the whole of the United Kingdom to produce a result and usually is about second, third, or possibly fourth. I know this to my chagrin on many occasions. The practical point I seek to make is that the counting staff will be hanging around to see whether there is a possibility that when the last result is in from the most remote constituency a recount of the regional vote will be required. To my mind, that is nonsense. If a recount is required, there is no reason why it should not take place by the collection of all the boxes together on the following day in a central point within the region and for the matter to be dealt with by a counting staff for that regional centre rather than take place across the whole of the district. I speak for north Wales, but the same could apply to any region. There is an improvement in the machinery, as I said when debating the Scottish order, but it is by no means a successful solution for the problem which arises.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships, perhaps I may return to other points that I made in relation to the Scottish order. It may well be that the Neill Committee recommended that there be a national maximum limit on election expenses. We welcome the concept of a maximum limit. The Liberal Democrats have always suffered at the hands of the other two parties, which spend astronomic sums which seem to come, in some instances, from all over the world and from all kinds of pockets. We do not have access to such funds, so we welcome the principle of a maximum. Whether the Neill Committee took into account the tactical uses to which that maximum can be put I venture to doubt. In the case of Wales, it is perhaps even more obvious that the Labour Party, which will not expect to win regional list seats, for example, in the valleys of south-east Wales and possibly in north-east Wales, will be much more concerned to ensure the return of a regional list candidate in mid-Wales. It is no coincidence that at the
1774
top of that list is Mr. Alun Michael, who is nominated as First Secretary of the Assembly, so they have every incentive to place their eggs in that particular basket and to use the money in a concentrated way.
In discussing the Scottish situation, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that surely much of this expenditure would go on a national campaign to every part of the country. What I believe he overlooked was the posters and increased leafleting which could take place in a particular area and even the targeting of local radio stations and the use of other forms of advertising. I appreciate that with local radio stations no advertising is possible, so I withdraw that suggestion. The possibility of targeting an area arises as a result of this position.
Finally, I repeat the point that nominations under Article 4 can be made without anyone backing the particular candidate. That system is open to abuse. Any individual can put his name forward for a regional seat. He can, by lodging a deposit of £500, have free post under Article 66 and he can send out whatever form of advertising he wishes. It is a very simple form of advertising. There is nothing in the order that would stop him from doing that. I respectfully suggest that that provision should be looked at again and that there should be indications of public support from people entitled to vote before the nomination of a particular candidate is accepted.
10.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their observations on this order. I acknowledge that the most important and difficult point that has been raised is the lack of provision for recounts on a regional basis. As my noble friend Lord Sewel said in response to the debate on the Scottish order, the costs of such a recount would be enormous. For that reason, on balance we felt that it was desirable to adopt the procedure set out in the order.
Despite the invitation of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, I shall not be tempted to debate issues concerned with national general elections or the position of the present Secretary of State for Wales. While I have nothing positive to add to what my noble friend Lord Sewel said, it is important to point out that even at constituency level recounts are not a right; rather, they take place at the discretion of the returning officer. This is not a procedure that parties can use as a tactic in fighting an election. In any case the primary purpose of a recount is not to check a close result but to ensure that there is no discrepancy in the counting procedures. That would arise, as provided for here, when the ballot papers were counted at local constituency level, hence the provision that the facility for a recount of regional ballot papers should take place at that level. I acknowledge that the noble Lord has a point about the convenience of counting staff at constituency level and that they should not be kept waiting for a long time. However, there are conflicting interests here and we must come down on one side or the other. We have come down on the side of a system that is consistent with the discretionary nature of recounts in elections generally in this country. We recognise that we are dealing with a new situation.

1775
As my noble friend Lord Sewel said, if any difficulty is experienced on 6th and 7th May we shall look at the matter again. There is the undesirable but long stop possibility of an appeal to the courts.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, made a suggestion about the testing of procedures which involved a dry run with no voters. I thought that that was an excellent suggestion. I shall draw that to the attention of the returning officers who will be responsible for organising these matters at local level. Perhaps the Attlee command post exercise may become a feature of Welsh Assembly elections. The noble Earl also referred to the possibility of the death of or the vacation of office by a representative after the election. I thought that I had referred to that in my introductory speech. In case I have not, perhaps I may set out the position. For a constituency representative, if there is a death or a vacation of office there will be a by-election. For a regional representative the presumption is that the next person down on the same party's list will take the place of the regional representative. If for some reason that person does not want to do it, one goes further down the list. If the next person on the list has left the party there is provision whereby the party organisation can say that it does not want that person because he or she is no longer "one of us". The replacement of regional party members will take place without great political significance. The only exception to that is that an independent member elected on a regional list will not be able to be replaced and the seat will remain vacant until the next election.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made reference to the national maximum limit of expenditure. He made some quite machiavellian suggestions about the way in which (I noted) the Labour Party, not the Liberal Democrat Party, might behave in the allocation of posters, leafleting and so on. The noble Lord may be right. It may be that the Liberal Democrat Party would behave in that way. It may be that all sorts of sinister things would go on. But I think he would recognise that if we had departed from the Neill recommendations a howl of protest would have gone up from the press and media and the risk of obloquy would be very much greater than the rather remote risk to which the noble Lord referred.
I wrote down the noble Lord's point but I cannot read my writing.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it relates to nominations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord has stood for election, as I have done. Having 10 names on the ballot paper was always a farce. It was easy to achieve. I do not think that there is any real difference. We recognise reality.
I hope that I have dealt with the points raised. I commend the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999
10.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the basic principle is straightforward. Every statutory function my right honourable friend the Secretary of State exercises, with a small handful of exceptions, is to pass to the Assembly. What we are considering today is in essence a list of those functions. They constitute an important and extensive set of powers for the Assembly which would deliver the promise set out in the White Paper, A Voice for Wales. The order meets the duty and lays on the Secretary of State by Section 22 of the Government of Wales Act a duty to lay a draft transfer order before the first Assembly elections, including such functions in the fields of responsibility listed in Schedule 2 to the Act as he considers appropriate.
It might assist your Lordships if I outlined how the order works. For the most part, the transfer is straightforward. Where the Secretary of State is able to exercise a function now, the Assembly will be able to do so in the future. So an unqualified entry in the order means that the Assembly will, after 1st July, be solely responsible for the functions concerned in Wales.
In many cases legislation requires the Secretary of State to act jointly with his right honourable friends in exercising functions. In very many others he has to seek the consent of the Treasury before acting. We do not believe that the Assembly should generally be bound in this way. It should be accountable to the people of Wales, not to UK Ministers. So in most cases we have removed the requirements for joint action and for Treasury consent.
There are, however, a few instances where it would not be prudent to do that. For example, the Assembly could not sensibly make separate decisions about bodies that serve the whole of Great Britain. In those cases, the order transfers to the Assembly only the share of the Secretary of State for Wales of a joint function, leaving the Assembly to act jointly with the other Minister concerned. That will require the Assembly and the relevant Secretary of State to act in a sensible and co-operative manner.
The UK Government will still need to act in Wales on many matters which are not transferred to the Assembly: social security, broadcasting and prisons, for example. They are examples of powers under which UK Ministers exercise some functions now while the Secretary of State for Wales exercises others. In those cases, the order makes the functions concurrent so that both the Assembly and Ministers may use them. Indeed, if we did not do so, Wales would be deprived of programmes operated there by other Ministers now.
I should say something at this point about probably the most complex provisions in the order, those relating to water. As we recognise in the White Paper A Voice for Wales, water policy requires special treatment under devolution. Rivers do not respect the border between

1777
England and Wales and water companies do not do so either. There are many functions in the Water Industry Act 1991 about which the order makes special provisions. The Water Industry Act contains the great majority of powers regulating the water industry. The order gives the Assembly those powers as regards DŴr Cymru and allows the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to retain them as regards Severn Trent. That reflects the respective roles of the Welsh Office and the DETR now. It means that the Assembly will have jurisdiction over the operation of Dwr Cymru in Herefordshire and Cheshire, while the DETR oversees Severn Trent's activities in Montgomeryshire. That is the only sensible way to proceed. It would be a nonsense for one undertaker to be subject to oversight from two different authorities.
The construction of reservoirs is a matter of great sensitivity in Wales. We believe that the Assembly should have sole control over such decisions in all circumstances. My honourable friend the Member for Bridgend, Win Griffiths, assured the other place on 22nd July last year that that would be so. The order fully discharges that assurance. In no circumstances will a UK Minister be able to authorise such works. That will be a matter for the Assembly alone.
The transfer order is at the heart of the new government of Wales. It gives the Assembly comprehensive powers to improve public services, the economy and the environment and to do so solely on the basis of its democratic mandate. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's explanation of the order. During the passage of the Government of Wales Act, on these Benches we tabled amendments to restrict the Government's ability to transfer further matters by means of orders. Noble Lords will need no reminding that it is not normally the practice of this House to fail to approve such orders when presented before your Lordships.
I have one concern regarding the lack of collective responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. That may have the undesirable effect of the Assembly deciding to spend money that should properly be under the control of the local councils. I understand that that is termed to be "top-slicing". That would result in the councils having to raise council taxes in order to maintain their services. I recognise that I may be covering old ground but I am advised that that is an important matter. Does the Minister regard that as a problem, or will he explain why it is not?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I wholly welcome this order. It is the raw meat for which I have been waiting for a very long time, even though it is in somewhat indigestible form.
In looking through some of the ancient Acts that are referred to in the schedule, it is like the history of the struggle of the Liberal Party in Wales for the people of
1778
Wales in the 19th and early 20th century, from the public health Acts to local government Acts, the great Lloyd George Budget of 1908 through to the disestablishment of the Church of Wales by the Welsh Church Act of 1914. All those past pieces of our colours are floating in front of my eyes. I have no criticisms and I thank the Government for getting on with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I particularly express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. What he described as the "raw meat" is, of course, served off the bone.
Looking at the Acts contained in the order, I question some of what the noble Lord says about the historical role of Liberal governments. There have not been many Liberal governments and they are not terribly proud of the Inclosure Acts of 1845 or the Burial Act of 1853. If the noble Lord looks further on, he will find many more from the Labour government of 1945 than from any preceding legislation. That is no doubt because much of the preceding legislation had been repealed or consolidated. I do not wish to make too much of a political point of that.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is concerned about top-slicing. The Secretary of State for Wales already has full freedom to allocate the Welsh block between his responsibilities. There really is no reason to change that as a result of devolution. It is important that a single Assembly should be able to set spending priorities to reflect its electorate's wishes. The Assembly will be under a statutory duty to work in partnership with Welsh local authorities. The Welsh Local Government Association, which represents the local authorities, fully supports the proposals and I see no reason to doubt the ability of the Assembly to work closely with the local authorities in Wales. Indeed, my instinct would be to think that they would work a good deal more closely than the Secretary of State or the UK Parliament is able to do. I hope and believe that the noble Earl need have no fears about the relationship between the Assembly and its local authorities. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Cervical Cancer Screening
10.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress the Department of Health's cervical cancer screening programme is making in implementing the proposals in its 1998 review, in response to the criticisms contained in the December 1998 report of the House of Commons' Public Accounts Committee, and in response to the recent legal cases brought against the NHS.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after a gruelling week for the health team, I am sorry that this Unstarred Question comes on at this time of night. I know that health teams on all Benches have been working extremely hard over the past week. Perhaps it is getting to be a habit to debate into the early hours of the morning.
Many of us, even a relatively new Member such as myself, remember the late Lord Dean of Beswick with considerable admiration. While battling with cancer he fought as a doughty advocate for cancer treatment in this country, particularly for institutions such as The Christie Hospital. I am particularly grateful to him because a Starred Question in December about cervical cancer aroused my interest in this subject and in the state of the cancer screening programme. I should like to emphasise that this Unstarred Question is put down in a spirit of inquiry, not adversarial criticism.
Cervical cancer is the most common cause of cancer in women under 35 in the western world, and overall the second biggest killer of women in the developing world. We have one of the most effective screening programmes in Western Europe. However, over the years a number of cases have demonstrated grave problems in that programme. I need only recite the names of hospitals without mentioning the number of smear tests which have had to be rechecked as a result—The Inverclyde Royal Hospital, 1993; Gateshead, 1993; Blackpool, 1994, Gorleston, Norfolk, 1996; Merthyr Tydfil, 1994 and Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby, 1998—to produce a roll call of some of the cytology laboratories where problems have been encountered.
The worst case of all has been the Kent and Canterbury hospitals NHS Trust where an independent review reported last year that problems in the trust's former screening services may have contributed to eight deaths, with 30 women needing hysterectomies and over 300 found to be in need of urgent treatment. Around 91,000 smear tests needed to be rechecked. As your Lordships will be fully aware, just a fortnight ago three women—Lesley Cannon, Sandra Penney and Helen Palmer, each of whom developed adenocarcinoma and had to have hysterectomies as a result—won a test case. That case will be followed by others. The damages in that case are yet to be assessed.
To its credit, the Department of Health has taken energetic action since the report of that independent inquiry. In December 1997 the department launched an action programme with an action team to monitor it and to consider such matters as staff resource. The programme included mandatory accreditation requirements by cytology labs, refresher training for staff who were not up to standard, a review of smaller laboratories and regional reviews of screening services.
The action team reported in August last year. It recommended much improved public information, especially about what screening is and its level of accuracy. In April last year, Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General, conducted his own review of the programme. He confirmed that progress had been made on the programme since his last report of 1992—in particular, achievement of the overall coverage target of 80 per cent. adopted in 1993. However, he described a situation where implementation of laboratory guidance and achievements of regional targets was patchy; certain groups were not being reached by the screening programme, in particular ethnic minorities, and, although falling, the number of unscheduled smear tests of 450,000 in 1996–1997 was unjustified. In addition.
1780
many women were waiting too long for their smear test results and follow-up with colposcopy clinics, and there was inadequate understanding of what was involved.
Sir John made a number of recommendations designed to remedy those deficiencies. They included: screening at three year intervals, not five; better smear taking, mainly taken by practice nurses in GP surgeries, and, above all, improved quality assurance in the screening labs and colposcopy clinics. When reviewing the NAO Report, the Public Accounts Committee which reported last December—I know this was controversial in many circles—said,
"The NHS Cervical Screening Programme affects the lives of millions of women each year and despite recent improvements there are still worrying failures at every stage of the screening process".
The Public Accounts Committee went on to say,
"The NHS Executive need to set firm national and local timescales for fully achieving quality standards and take robust action where standards slip".
Subsequently, the screening programme's report was published in the autumn of 1998. It was clearly designed to maintain or restore public confidence and it is a user-friendly, upbeat document, perhaps a little too upbeat in the current circumstances. Having said that, it is hardly surprising that most recent public opinion poll evidence—an NOP survey was published recently—is that public confidence in the screening programme has fallen significantly. Half of those polled are less confident in the service than they had been previously. It has given rise to some rather upsetting and disagreeable headlines such as,
"This cancer screening is a lottery and women are paying with their lives".
That is a deeply worrying and inaccurate headline which appeared only two weeks ago in the Sun. In addition, there have been other articles which have appeared in the broadsheets which, in their own way, have been as undermining of the screening programme.
In the face of all that we must not forget that the generality of laboratories do an excellent job, nor the success that the national screening programme, which was introduced in 1998—the first in the European Union—has had in reducing the incidence of cervical cancer; from 14 per 1,000 in the 1950s to below six nowadays. Over 4.5 million smear tests are carried out each year and in fact they reach 85 per cent. of eligible women, which makes it one of the most comprehensive in the world. It is estimated that it prevents up to 3,900 cases each year.
In fact, the same NOP survey said that seven out of 10 of those who knew of recent failures were still happy with the quality of the service. Only one-in-eight are less likely to have a smear test than they were two years ago, while one-in-four claim to be more likely to do so. Nevertheless, it must clearly now be a major government priority to get the programme right in the way it is executed. That is doubly so now that controversy is extending into the area of colposcopy— the examination of cervical tissue following abnormal smear test results.
Many questions remain about the national screening programme before we can be sure that there is a programme on which all women can rely. What further

1781
action, for instance, is the department taking to improve detection of cervical cancer? What action is being taken in the light of the recently decided Kent and Canterbury court cases? They were regarded as borderline by the hospital and they disputed negligence, yet the judge disagreed. However, it seems as though the standard Bolam test has been changed as a result of that case. What is the position on the programme in relation to the accreditation of laboratories? Are the low-volume laboratories to be closed? How will the department ensure that the 13 health authorities which failed to come up to coverage targets meet the 80 per cent. target in the coming year? Have the regional directors of public health now firmly grasped the reins of accountability? Is it the case that there is a major recruitment crisis? Noble Lords will have seen some of the articles on that score in the press.
Despite all the management improvements—I know that the Minister will be telling us about some of those—both in train and those suggested by the Public Accounts Committee, the cervical cancer screening programme cannot guarantee detection. One thousand three hundred women a year still die from cervical cancer. We still have one of the highest recorded incidences of cervical cancer in the European Community at 12.1 per 100,000; 50 per cent. of invasive cancers occur in women who have been adequately screened, which means that there are inefficiencies in the test. According to Government sources, the current screening success rate is 80 to 90 per cent., but many people dispute that. There are issues of inadequate smears and false positives and 20 to 30 per cent. of diagnoses are falsely declared negatives, which can lead, as we know, to tragedy.
Cervical cancer is recognised by all major global medical authorities to be the first identified virally induced cancer in women. There are more than 70 types of HPV (papillomavirus), of which 13 high risk types have been identified as determinants in causing 95 per cent. of cervical cancers. Is there not a very good case for introducing the new HPV/DNA test as a supplement to the current pap test? That has many advantages. It can detect all the high-risk types of HPV. In combination with a smear test it can raise detection rates to 97 per cent. It is automated; it reduces the number of inadequate smears and the need for repeat smears. As a result, the recommended recall period is actually five years and not three years. That could lead to savings of something like £30 million by the National Health Service, as a recent BMJ article illustrated. It can also detect difficult adenocarcinoma cases, which constitute 20 per cent. of all cancers and which the three women in the Kent and Canterbury case had.
The FDA in the United States has already undertaken extensive trials. The test is in use in the United States for borderline cases. There are trials in a number of other EU countries. Here in the United Kingdom, the ICRF has a trial involving 12,000 women due to be completed next year. It is already in use here in Marie Stopes clinics, yet the official trials seem to be destined to take for ever. The Health Technology Assessment Programme is undertaking a fast-track systematic
1782
review of the role of DNA testing within the NHS cervical screening programme. That will not be completed for some considerable time. The so-called TOMBOLA trial is expected to last eight or nine years and has not even started.
Yet this is a diagnostic tool to supplement an existing test, not a major new treatment. Why cannot we rely on the ICRF trials when they are complete? That does not seem to be displaying the same sense of urgency as the Dutch Government, for instance, who are pressing for interim results.
I mentioned various aspects of the BMJ article and the test with regard to saving resources. The test itself could cost as little as £20. That should be set against all the litigation costs for the NHS which may be incurred by a test which is now known not to be completely accurate. Recently a Californian doctor said:
"Paps comprise 2% of laboratory activity but 98% of lab losses in terms of litigation".
In a recent Parliamentary Answer, John Hutton, the Minister of State, in answer to a question about DNA testing said:
"The Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening are currently considering the potential role of new technologies in the cervical screening programme".
Is not this an important task? Is not the solicitor for the plaintiffs against the Kent and Canterbury Hospital Trust, Sara Harman, correct when she says:
"We have been using this method to screen cervical cancer for years and we are still getting these mistakes. We have to develop new techniques for reading smear results".
The Secretary of State has personally promoted the research on the so-called Campaign Test unveiled in December last year which is being developed in CRC research in Cambridge, which is an improved, computerised way of improving the pap test. But that looks as though it is still some way off being introduced in the programme.
Beyond the issue of management and testing, the issue of communication also needs to be addressed. There have been worrying studies about what women understand about the possibility of having to attend a colposcopy clinic in the event of an abnormal smear. There are a number of issues regarding information which I do not have time to go into today. I hope that we can hear from the department tonight what it is doing to allay current public fears and anxieties about the screening process.
Personally, I am very optimistic about the screening programme in the future. There are many exciting developments in medicine, including both vaccines and cures for HPV. Has the department taken a view on the news of the potential new chemotherapy treatment for cervical cancer shortly due to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine? It is a fast-moving area.
Whatever the criticisms, those who claim a screening programme of this nature is unnecessary are still in a small minority. The development of a totally reliable screening programme, however, is of crucial importance. If we do not get it right there will be a major effect on the quality of life and worry for hundreds, if not thousands, of women.
Finally, I quote from Dr. McGoogan, who is a clinical director of pathology at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. In the programme review published in December, she said:
"We've never been in a better position to be confident and enthusiastic about the future because so many things are coming together now".
I ask the Minister to help underpin that optimism and assure us that the issues I have raised tonight will be dealt with urgently.
10.45 p.m.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, very much for bringing this subject to our attention this evening. There have clearly been some spectacular failures in the cervical cancer screening programme. However, as the noble Lord said, it is important to put this in the overall context that the service is having a most desirable clinical effect. It is one of the biggest cervical screening programmes in the world and it is saving lives. Following its introduction, there has, over the past five years, been a 7 per cent. reduction per year in cervical cancer deaths. That is really very good news.
The Chief Medical Officer set up a review of the screening programme and, following its recommendations published in August of last year, practically all laboratories undertaking screening have now applied for accreditation. Those which have not applied are likely to be merged with larger laboratories. It is unlikely that the actual accreditation will be completed before the end of the year, because this does take some time. Those laboratories which undertake fewer than 15,000 specimens per year are being merged with other laboratories. On the quality assurance side, I can tell noble Lords that a number of programmes have now been developed and there are regionally appointed quality assurance directors for cytology now in place with appropriate budgets, which is good news. A national committee for quality standards in colposcopy has also been established.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has been actively involved in training. It has developed a joint accreditation of colposcopy training programmes with the British Society of Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology. This began just over 12 months ago. The college is just about to circulate its working party report entitled, Recommendations for Service Provision and Standards in Colposcopy. So it is quite clear that much has been achieved.
The Cervical Screening Programme Review 1998, which has some beautiful flowers on its front cover and is known as "The Flower Report", has a foreword written by another flower—the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health in the House of Lords. This has been a very useful report because it has given the public the true picture about cervical screening programmes, emphasising that they do not give an "All Clear" to the patient but provide what has been described as a safety belt. I think that the report should be compulsory reading for all people involved in medical litigation in this sphere.
1784
Reference has been made to the Kent and Canterbury Hospital case. I can tell the House that the reason why this case was defended was that it was quite different to the large number of other cases which were settled out of court. The three patients concerned had a cancer involving glandular cells called an adeno-carcinoma, whereas the cervical screening programme is for the detection of a different kind of cancer called a squamous cell cancer. Detecting border-line abnormalities in glandular cells would be fortuitous in such an exercise. All three patients had smears which could easily have been overlooked in any laboratory, even if they had been checked by other experts. In fact, in one of the three cases, the smears were passed as normal in a teaching hospital laboratory in the Midlands.
The two expert witnesses for the plaintiffs maintain that they should not have been overlooked, while the three expert witnesses for the defence said they could. It is clear that the defence expert witnesses see far more cervical smears every year than the other witnesses and certainly undergo the annual cervical cytology performance test, which is a kind of annual driving test.
As I am sure noble Lords are aware, in medical research we try to reduce bias which could readily distort our findings. There are two kinds of bias to which I should like to draw attention. There is outcome bias, which will occur when one looks at a smear knowing that the patient subsequently developed a cancer. It would be a thoroughly biased eye that would scrutinise every cell at great length, which is quite a different technique to that of screening. The other bias is context bias, and that obtains where one looks at a smear knowing that it is not a routine smear but is involved in litigation, especially when the slide has written on it some comment such as, "Query abnormality. Query glandular".
If the court wishes to obtain unbiased opinions, I suggest that rigorous scientific methods should be used. Each expert witness should be required on his own to examine a doubtful smear, together with 10 negative smears. It is imperative that all the smears should look alike and that their only distinguishing feature should be the number inscribed. Each witness should be required to record his opinion without discussing it with anyone. That gets rid of the problem of a "retrospectoscope" which people find so useful. If that were done, it would simulate to some extent the circumstances under which those in the cervical screening scheme actually work. Had that been done in the Kent and Canterbury case, I suspect there would have been many surprises.
This case has serious implications for the cervical screening service. The conflicting evidence of the five expert witnesses demonstrates just how difficult it can be to interpret whether a cell is abnormal. The court seemed to take the view that anything short of absolute confidence that the smears were in the normal range required the screener to pass the slide on, which would have meant that a more senior member of the staff would have checked it. The court was also of the opinion that the sensitivity of the test is of supreme importance and much more important than the distress of women who have repeat smears or referrals for borderline abnormalities. The rationale for screening

1785
depends on population based data and not necessarily on outcomes for individuals within the population. Screening tests are not perfect: 100 per cent. sensitivity and 100 per cent. specificity, which of course would be the ideal, cannot be achieved. A good cervical smear may contain more than 200,000 cells. Human observation is notoriously fallible and if the abnormal cells in the smear are scanty they may not be reliably detected by a human screener. Misreporting of such smears could surely be defended, in Boland terms, as not amounting to negligence.
The implication of the judgment could be that one cannot have false negatives and therefore 100 per cent. accuracy is required. This is simply not achievable with the present technology. The result of all this is that there will be an increased reporting of smears as borderline and this will lead to excessive demands on the service which simply cannot be met. The other likely long-term effect, of course, is that it will become even more difficult to recruit those who do the screening. The Secretary of State recently expressed concern that some regions in England had not attained the 80 per cent. screening coverage of eligible women because of the present difficulty in recruiting staff. It will become increasingly difficult to recruit as the pressure on those in the service reaches breaking point. They put up with inadequate pay because they know that they are doing a worthwhile job of a very high standard. But altruism has its limits. If the unrealistic public expectations develop into hostility and litigation continues to increase at its present rate, and if they continue to be paid inadequately, they will simply leave. I believe that the screening programme is in jeopardy. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance, especially to those who have done such excellent work in this difficult sphere.
10.56 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his kind remarks concerning the late Lord Dean of Beswick. As his Whip, I particularly appreciated his comments and I know that his wise counsel will be much missed by many noble Lords.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, we have enjoyed—and I think that is the word—many happy hours of debate on NHS subjects in the past few days. Although we discussed NICE and CHIMP, much of the debate was focused on funding, management and structures. It is very important that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has brought us to focus on the prevention of illness, an area which so clearly needs attention. I thank the noble Lord for enabling us to debate this important matter and for the constructive approach which he and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, have brought to the debate. They have made many comments with which I agree and which I much appreciate. The lack of speakers in the debate is certainly no reflection on the importance of the issue.
I will try to respond to as many as I can of the issues raised—there are quite a number—but I would like to start by making a few points. There is no doubt that the
1786
identified failures in the programme in the past few years have caused considerable concern. I believe that the Government have taken the right action to try to deal with the problems identified through systematic reviews, identification of weaknesses and the introduction of accreditation for laboratories, by taking a keen interest in new technologies, and in an endeavour to educate women in both the benefits and limitations of screening.
I acknowledge that there can never be room for complacency in this area. Clearly we have to be ever watchful in monitoring the quality of the programme. The Government are determined to do that. The NHS cervical screening programme is a very important part of the Government's drive to reduce the number of deaths from cancer, and it has proved to be a success. More than 5 million women per year are screened in the UK and experts estimate that the programme prevents up to 3,900 cases of cervical cancer each year. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl pointed out, the number of deaths from cervical cancer in England and Wales has been falling by around 7 per cent. a year. This success—and it is success—owes much to the hard work and dedication of all the staff involved in the programme. I believe that they should be proud of what has been achieved. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, made some very important points about those achievements.
As we knew, despite those successes there have been some problems which have attracted a great deal of adverse media coverage. The failings in Kent and Canterbury caused many women and their families a great deal of distress. I would like on behalf of the Government to offer them my continued sympathy. The health authority and the trust concerned have been making every effort to settle the claims for compensation as quickly and as fairly as possible in order to minimise further distress to the women affected.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord McColl, in three test cases the High Court has recently ruled in favour of the women making the claim. I am not in a position to comment further on this matter. The NHS Executive is currently considering the judgment and the implications for the NHS cervical screening programme as a whole. But I shall ensure that the points made by both noble Lords are drawn to the attention of the relevant officials.
Following the failures in Kent and Canterbury and elsewhere, the Government took swift action to address shortcomings in the cervical screening programme. Over the past year the programme has undergone the biggest shake-up in its 10-year history. We have implemented a wide-ranging programme of action—I acknowledge the kind comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on this matter—to improve the quality of the programme, and the changes we have introduced will be closely monitored to ensure that they happen.
Regional directors of public health were required to carry out detailed regional reviews of the cervical screening programmes and draw up action plans to deal with areas of weakness. From this year they will be making formal annual reports to the NHS Executive on the performance of the programme in their region. Improvements have been made to the

1787
way the programme is managed. Responsibility for commissioning quality assurance for the cervical screening programme is being transferred to the regional office and all regions have now appointed a quality assurance director.
Both noble Lords commented on laboratories and on the fact that those which read smear tests have been required to apply for accreditation by June 1998. All bar one, which is shortly to merge with another laboratory, have now done so. Laboratories which read fewer than 15,000 smear tests and which were not meeting national standards have been reviewed and the majority have now stopped reading smears or have merged with other laboratories. In all cases their performance will be closely monitored.
Where needed, refresher training is being provided for staff in laboratories and in September a Resource Pack for the Training of Smear Takers was published, which has proved to be so popular that a reprint has had to be ordered.
We acknowledge that improvements still need to be made to the programme and we are working hard to ensure that the momentum is not lost. For example, the Department of Health is working with regional offices to improve colposcopy services, building on the action plans drawn up by regional directors of public health last year.
In order for the screening programme to be successful, it is important to screen as many women as possible. A national working group has been established to identify and disseminate cost-effective measures to improve screening coverage in inner city areas. I hope that that answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the position of women from minority ethnic groups. Most health authorities are making steady progress in increasing coverage by ensuring that the screening programme they offer is acceptable to women and that their invitation systems are accurate. We recognise the efforts they are making but we know that more needs to he done.
The Secretary of State has set a new requirement that all health authorities should achieve 80 per cent. coverage by March 2002. The 13 health authorities that are not currently doing so provided action plans at the end of February setting out the measures they will take to achieve this. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health will shortly be meeting the chairs of the health authorities concerned to emphasise the priority they must give to running a fully effective screening service. He expects all health authorities to give their closest attention to this matter and the chief executives will be held accountable for their health authorities' performance.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the development of new technologies. New methods of taking smears and new methods for reading them in laboratories are being developed which could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the cervical screening programme. We are keeping this matter under close review. But before any new methods are introduced, we must be sure that they are both safe and effective.
1788
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also mentioned the question of HPV testing. We are taking a keen interest in developments in HPV testing. While there is a substantial body of evidence on the influence of HPV on the development of cervical cancer, the exact mechanisms are not known and it is not yet possible to tell which women with the HP virus will go on to develop cervical abnormalities and which will not.
Less evidence is available on the significance of HPV testing, and the NHS cervical screening programme has therefore advised that the role of HPV testing has not been established and it should not be used in routine practice within the NHS. However, research is under way to clarify the potential and limitations of HPV testing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, pointed out, the Medical Research Council is funding a large study (known as the TOMBOLA study) of the management of women with borderline or mildly abnormal smears. HPV testing is an integral part of that study. It is true that the results will not be known until 2005. A number of other research projects are under way in Amsterdam and elsewhere and we await the results of those studies with interest.
In January last year the NHS Technology Assessment Programme was commissioned to undertake a systematic review of research into the role of HPV testing. The report is due to be published later this year.
I turn to the benefits and limitations of screening. We want women, and the general public, to have confidence in the screening programme. But we acknowledge that we must be more open about both the benefits and the limitations of cervical screening. We understand that women would like a guarantee that the results they receive are correct. But even with perfect management and 100 per cent. coverage, no screening programme could be 100 per cent. accurate, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, pointed out.
A common misconception is that cervical screening is a test for cancer. It is not. It is a test for abnormalities which, if left undetected and untreated, might lead to cancer. Cervical cancer is generally a very slowly developing disease. By having smear tests every three to five years women can reduce their risk of developing cancer by 80 to 90 per cent. That is why it is so important for women to have regular tests. But women should still report any abnormal bleeding to their doctors.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the report of the Public Accounts Committee which was published on 6th December. It followed the publication of the NAO report in April 1998. The PAC report was largely retrospective, but a formal government response will be made in due course. In responding, we can indicate that considerable progress has been made.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the issue of whether the screening interval should be three years or five. As I have said, cervical cancer is a very slowly developing condition. In terms of saving as many lives as possible it is far more important to screen as many eligible women as possible than to offer more frequent screening. So the priorities are to ensure that as

1789
many women as possible have access to and attend for screening and to improve the quality of the service. But once the coverage target has been met, it is then for health authorities to decide whether they want to recall women more frequently than every five years.
The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord McColl, raised the very important issue of the shortage of cytology screeners. I acknowledge that in some areas there are difficulties with the recruitment and retention of screeners. That has been attributed partly to low morale and partly to pay issues. I very much appreciate the hard work of all staff in the programme, particularly over the past 18 months, when morale has clearly not been helped by adverse publicity. I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I have never believed that morale is simply down to an issue of pay. But clearly that is a consideration.
The Government recently announced detailed proposals for modernising the NHS pay system. We shall begin consultation with NHS health professionals and NHS staff soon. We clearly want a system that pays staff fairly for what they do, rewarding them for developing new skills and taking on responsibilities. It is equally clear that we cannot make all the changes overnight. In the short term, cytology screeners' pay will be considered in the current pay round. I am afraid, though, that I cannot anticipate the outcome of those negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, also asked a question concerning public information. Perhaps I may say to him that plans for a national publicity campaign
1790
are being drawn up. We are also looking at the provision—and I think this is very important—of better information for health professionals.
In the few seconds left to me, I again acknowledge the contribution made by both noble Lords. I hope they will agree that the Government have taken important steps to deal with the problems identified and to ensure a very high quality service in the future. I end by giving an assurance that the changes we have introduced will be closely monitored to ensure that they happen. We shall continue to work to improve the programmes further. This shows our commitment to achieving what the noble Lord wishes to see.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I appreciate much of what he has said today, but could he elucidate for me the relationship between the MRC's TOMBOLA research and the HTA research? He was almost implying that if the HTA review was favourable, taken together with other aspects such as the Dutch research, it might be possible not to have to wait until that full 2005 project of the TOMBOLA research was complete, which was one of the points I was trying to make.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it would be difficult for me to go further on that matter. I was simply trying to say that various research projects and assessments are taking place and that we shall look at each one on its merits. I should prefer to write to the noble Lord in more detail to explain the different approaches in relation to research and how we shall tackle them.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Drumcree
  Drumcree
  Scotland: Emergency Services in the Islands
  Scotland: Emergency Services in the Islands
  Scotland: Secondary School Teachers
  Scotland: Secondary School Teachers
  Wakefield District: Government Initiatives
  Wakefield District: Government Initiatives
  Peers' Speaking Record
  Peers' Speaking Record
  M.25: Litter Clearance
  M.25: Litter Clearance
  Lottery Spending: Research
  Lottery Spending: Research
  Food Standards Agency Levy
  Food Standards Agency Levy