Sitting of 29 March 1999

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

  NEW WRIT
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Newark in the room of Fiona Elizabeth Ann Jones.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Speaker: As the motion is opposed, it will have to stand over until the time for raising matters of privilege—after statements.

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Chess
    Maria Eagle: What recent representations he has received concerning the status of chess in the UK. [77368]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I have in recent months received a number of representations on chess from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House and from members of the public, and all of them have been in favour of chess being classified as a sport. Hon. Members will be aware of my strong support for chess and of my recent announcement that, at the earliest parliamentary opportunity, we intend to amend existing legislation so that chess can be "recognised" as a sport.
    Maria Eagle: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and welcome very much the support that he has shown for reclassifying chess as a sport. Does he agree that chess is an excellent pursuit in which boys and girls and men and women may learn concentration, strategy and tactics? Does he also agree that it is an excellent pursuit for children in after-school clubs—where it may have an immediate impact by increasing our younger children's concentration in school?
    Mr. Banks: Both the Secretary of State and I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's view, which has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House,
    712
    that chess is enormously valuable not only to young people, but to all people—although it does seem to be a sport that is better played the younger one is. We have an 11-year-old champion—Jessie Gilbert, from Croydon—who was the youngest adult winner of the world championships, which was absolutely amazing. We have 50,000 children playing chess in clubs across the country. Furthermore, the new opportunities fund offers another opportunity for chess to be taken into after-school clubs. There are, therefore, plenty of opportunities. Chess is a wonderful British success story in sport. We should recognise it as a sport, as do 11 of our partners in the European Union.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given the hon. Gentleman's reported remark that chess should be reclassified as a sport
    "because we are very good at it",
    will he explain to the House how chess meets the requirement of the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937, which stipulates that, to be categorised as a sport, an activity should necessitate some physical—as distinct from mental—effort?
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman—who does a very good impression of a small pawn in the House—makes a point. I said only inter alia that we should recognise chess as a sport because we are good at it. Although that does not seem to be a bad reason for recognising it as a sport, there are many other reasons why we should do so. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in saying that it does not meet the definition of a sport under the 1937 Act—which is precisely why I said that we shall seek the earliest parliamentary opportunity to amend that Act.

    Libraries
    Ms Beverley Hughes: What initiatives have been introduced to improve (a) access, (b) quality of service and (c) value for money in local library services. [77369]
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has required all library authorities to produce annual library plans for the first time. Books are at the heart of a public library service, and annual library plans report on, among other matters, the range and adequacy of the stock of books and accessibility of service. My right hon. Friend has also announced substantial additional funds for libraries, totalling almost £300 million, to enable them to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by information and communications technology.
    Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that there is considerable scope for modernisation and innovation in our library services? Will he congratulate my local library service on introducing innovations—such as implementing smart cards to enable self-issuing outside working hours, linking library services to sports centres and linking provisions for schools and communities to provide enhanced facilities for both? There is probably more innovation across the country than we are aware of. What role might my hon. Friend play in disseminating good practice and promoting modernisation throughout our councils?
    Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and should like, very readily, to add my

    713
    congratulations to those that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressed on his visits to her library service. We have seen some very remarkable increases in usage of libraries in her authority—particularly where libraries have been linked to leisure centres. That seems to be a good example of innovative good practice, and she is right to draw attention to it. With the instrument of the new annual library plans, we shall be able increasingly to establish standards to be applied consistently across the country, and to have better opportunities to identify good practice and to disseminate that practice. We shall certainly be keen to do so.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: While the Minister is in congratulatory mode, will he join me in congratulating Conservative Kent, Surrey and Bedfordshire county councils on preserving all their library services, despite the cuts in funding from central Government? Will he urge Labour-controlled councils such as Brent, Camden, Lambeth, Haringey, Merton. Wolverhampton, Wirral and Southwark to follow that example, because they are busily engaged in closing libraries? Will he have a special word with the Secretary of State, who has a particular relationship with Islington council, which is closing five of its 10 local libraries? That is hardly likely to encourage access, quality of service or value for money, is it?
    Mr. Howarth: I am afraid that I cannot offer the congratulations that the hon. Gentleman invites me to. He is at his most selective and biased, as is all too plain to the House. He cited the example of Surrey, which was a very close-run thing; the council tax payers of Surrey had a narrow squeak. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about Islington, which has withdrawn the proposals to which he referred.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes very seriously his statutory responsibility under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 to superintend and promote a comprehensive and efficient library service. We have announced the best local authority standard spending assessment settlement for seven years, and there is no justification for cuts to library services. We are invigilating closely what is going on authority by authority. We have made inquiries of several authorities. We are determined that this country's precious library service should be fully maintained and enhanced.

    Millennium Commission (Volunteering)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: In what ways the millennium fund has promoted volunteering. [77370]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission is making a major and enduring contribution to promoting volunteering in the United Kingdom. Its millennium awards scheme is enabling 40,000 individuals to put their bright ideas for community projects into action, and many of the capital projects that it is supporting will provide significant encouragement and opportunities for volunteering.
    Mr. Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 4,000 people who have already received awards, particularly the two from my
    714
    constituency—one for an environmental project and the other for a family learning project? How does he envisage the fund contributing towards dealing with social exclusion.
    Mr. Smith: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating all the millennium award winners on their work in developing their skills and giving something back to their community in the process. The aim is that 40,000 individuals will be assisted in that over the next five years. There are also many initiatives in the capital projects funded by the commission. The commission has granted £22 million to the changing places scheme, which is an umbrella scheme incorporating 21 community projects in England and Wales that will reclaim wasteland and enhance local environments. It relies heavily on local volunteers and 70,000 are expected to contribute to the project, which will make a major contribution towards tackling social exclusion.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Department for Education and Employment is also producing what appears to be an excellent scheme on millennium volunteers. Will it be possible to produce a directory of the many worthwhile millennium initiatives for use by Members of Parliament, local councillors, citizens advice bureaux and others? It is also important to know the local contact points for such schemes. The millennium volunteers project is a great idea, but it will not be great in practice if people do not know with whom to get in touch.
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's point about the millennium volunteers programme will be fully addressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. We are working closely with him and the Millennium Commission to ensure that all the initiatives are properly co-ordinated and that detailed information is available. The millennium voyager bus is going around the country—it has recently visited Birmingham—full of information about what is happening in each area, how to contact the organisations involved and what is planned for the millennium year.

    Football (Disabled Supporters)
    Mr. Bill Rammell: What progress has been made with the implementation of the football task force report "Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters". [77371]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): On 25 November, I wrote to all the organisations identified in the report as having a role to play in implementing the task force's recommendations. The responses that I have received have been positive, indicating that the task force's proposals either have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented. On 17 March, I wrote to those organisations that have yet to reply, asking them for an indication of the progress that they are making.
    In addition, I have taken steps to implement the practical recommendations made in the report that fall to the Government through the Building Regulations. Those relate to amending the approved document for part M of the Building Regulations to require all new stadiums, new stands and extensions to existing facilities to provide

    715
    wheelchair spaces in accordance with the "Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds"; to drawing up a sliding scale for the numbers of designated seats in new stands and stadiums for people who are ambulant disabled or visually or hearing impaired, and to amending part M accordingly; and to extending the future role of the Football Trust to improve disabled facilities at grounds.
    Mr. Rammell: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree with me that facilities for disabled people at most English grounds still leave a great deal to be desired? Will he ensure that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 are fully implemented by all those clubs? Does he also agree that, to succeed with the world cup 2006 bid—which is a key priority for the Government and for most hon. Members—the new national stadium and access to it for the disabled must be world class?
    Mr. Banks: I agree with my hon. Friend. Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will undoubtedly improve access at sports venues for people with disabilities. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we now have a real opportunity in the construction of the new Wembley to ensure that it is a state-of-the-art stadium for not only able-bodied but disabled supporters, whatever their disability. The building of the new Wembley stadium is crucial to our 2006 bid, and I am delighted that we have cleared the hurdle of the approval of Wembley plc, and we can now proceed to the design stage.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister agree that we should try to improve facilities for disabled supporters not only of football, but of other sports? Will he bear in mind the needs not only of disabled spectators, but of paralympic athletes? I have discussed this matter with the Minister, and I know that he is aware of the concerns of many paralympians about the lack of proper facilities for disabled competitors at Crystal Palace. I hope that he can tell us that that matter is being addressed.
    Will the Minister join me in welcoming the very good new facilities, including facilities for the disabled, opened yesterday by Trevor Brooking, the acting chairman of Sport England, at the Lightwater leisure centre in my constituency?
    Mr. Banks: I most certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I acknowledge the part that he plays in the promotion of disability sport in this country. He is right to point out that our paralympians are among the finest in the world. We should see them in terms not of their disability, but of their sporting achievements and prowess, about which we have much to feel proud. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will apply to all sporting venues, not just football stadiums. There is much that we can do to improve our grounds, whether for athletics or for football, to ensure that we provide the best possible facilities for disabled spectators and our disabled sportsmen and sportswomen.
    Ms Claire Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that some clubs have made considerable progress in opening up their grounds and making football accessible particularly to the disabled, but also to families and children? Does he also agree that the decision by Chelsea football club to keep open the job for Graham Rix after
    716
    his conviction shows cynical disregard for the views of the family of the victim, and is a step back in making football accessible to all?
    Mr. Banks: Football clubs such as Blackburn and Northampton have provided facilities for disabled supporters. That is admirable and should be replicated around the country.
    On the matter of Graham Rix, it is for the club to decide. Mr. Rix is rightly paying the price for his criminal act. Whether the club should have made such an announcement so soon after the sentence had been passed is a matter of judgment, and some people may feel that it has erred in its judgment. However, it is a matter for the club, and Mr. Rix will suffer his due penalty, as he should.

    BBC
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make a statement on the renewal of the BBC charter. [77373]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The BBC charter was renewed in 1996 to run for 10 years. It will next be reviewed in the run-up to 2006.
    Mr. Baker: Will the Secretary of State try to ensure that the BBC spends a greater proportion of licence payers' money on programme making? Is he aware that the BBC is awash with—indeed, submerged in—management strategies, management consultants and mission statements, and that the situation has reached such a point of absurdity that Broadcasting house has no broadcasters in it, only managers? Will he ensure that licence payers get better value for money by having more spent on programmes and journalists and less on gobbledegook managers?
    Mr. Smith: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. It is entirely a matter for the governors to allocate the BBC's resources, and it is very important that the Government do not intervene in those decisions; but it is also important to ensure, as hon. Members of all parties would wish, that the BBC devotes as much of its resources as possible to making good programmes for its viewers and listeners.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Since the BBC is the prime cultural institution in the country, will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to promote its cause up to and beyond the renewal of the charter?
    Mr. Smith: I will certainly seek to do that. The BBC is our premier public service broadcaster, and I was delighted to read a week ago of the comments made by Mr. Alan Yentob, who seized strongly on the point that the BBC's pre-eminent task is to act as a benchmark of quality in the broadcasting environment.
    Mr. James Gray: If the BBC is indeed a benchmark of quality, is the Secretary of State not concerned about declining standards in both television and radio? What does he think about the recent announcement that the licence fee is to be increased to more than £100? Is that not too much for, for example,

    717
    the elderly, the disabled and the housebound? Would not some of the money be better used in finding rebates for them?
    Mr. Smith: We are, of course, following the five-year programme of licence fee settlements put in place by the Conservative Government. We felt that it was correct to follow that prospectus, because all the BBC's plans had been based on it. It is, however, important to bear in mind the affordability of the licence fee, especially for those who are not particularly well off. The review panel that I established to report to me in July on the licence fee is considering that issue.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Has my right hon. Friend seen last week's BBC report, showing that 3 million fewer people now listen to parliamentary coverage because of the transfer of "Yesterday in Parliament" to long wave and the dumping of "The Week in Westminster" in a graveyard slot? Is he aware that, according to the same report, the "Today" programme has not gained a single new listener between 8.30 and 9 o'clock? Does that not show that the BBC's decision to move parliamentary coverage out of the mainstream was a complete disaster? It was a disgrace when it was made last year, and it should be reversed. There has been a general drop in BBC listening and viewing figures. which are now at 30 per cent. To what percentage of the national audience does the BBC have to drop before the licence fee itself is called into question?
    Mr. Smith: The BBC has indeed published its study of what happened following the changes to "Yesterday in Parliament". I know that it is of great concern to many hon. Members, and indeed to you, Madam Speaker. The report is out for consultation, and the closing date for responses is Friday 30 April. I very much hope that hon. Members of all parties will express their views forthrightly to the BBC.
    BBC1 and BBC2 between them have not 30 per cent., but 40 per cent. of the national viewing figures. That is a healthy and substantial segment of the viewing population. The important factor to sit alongside that is the reach of BBC programming, which is well over 90 per cent. in an average week.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a subsidy of £2 billion from the licence fee payer means that the BBC has a clear obligation to protect the public interest? I echo the comments by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane); in that regard, does the Secretary of State share my concern that, since the Radio 4 changes a year ago, "The Week in Westminster" audience has dropped 65 per cent. and the "Yesterday in Parliament" audience has fallen by fully 73 per cent? Will he remind the director-general of the corporation's clear public service responsibility to react to those figures?
    Mr. Smith: I will remind the BBC, the governors and the director-general of their duty as a public service broadcaster not only to entertain, but to educate and inform. My personal view is that accurate and full coverage of what happens in Parliament is part of that duty, and I am sure that that is a point that many hon. Members will wish to make. However, it is not,
    718
    and should not be, up to the Government to make a Government view known to the BBC about its programming decisions: it is up to individual Members of Parliament to do so. I shall do so, and I am sure that many colleagues will also do that.

    Commonwealth Games
    Mr. John Grogan: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002. [77374]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): We want to see a highly successful Commonwealth games in 2002. I am pleased to say that £112 million of lottery money will help to build facilities that will not only house the games, but provide a lasting sporting legacy for the people of Manchester. I am pleased also that a detailed sports programme for the games has been agreed and that the programme for athletes with disabilities has been fully integrated. Manchester 2002 Ltd. will now be able to work up a detailed budget and pursue television sales and sponsorship.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Manchester Commonwealth games will be an excellent showcase for Britain in the year of the Queen's golden jubilee and that their success will enhance our chances of attracting similar prestigious international events? Is he, therefore, seriously considering the case for central Government financial support for the costs of the opening and closing ceremonies and security?
    Mr. Smith: There is already substantial support for building the facilities. It is early days yet in determining the revenue needs of the games, because much will depend on accurate estimates of the costs, both of running the games as a whole and of the opening and closing ceremonies. Much will also depend on the sale of television rights and the amount of private sector sponsorship that is sought. At this stage, it would not be right to pre-empt decisions on those issues.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at last week's meeting of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, we were informed that there might be a danger on the site that has been proposed for the Manchester games stadium, because deep mine workings are still in operation underneath that site? A fortnight ago, we visited the site and we were not informed of any difficulties. What will the Secretary of State do about that problem?
    Mr. Smith: I am aware of the issue. A number of former mine workings are near the site of the facilities that are due to be built. All those have been identified, and the stadium and other facilities will be sited in areas that are unaffected.

    Television Licence Concessions
    Ms Christine Russell: If the BBC funding review panel will review the basis on which concessions are given for television licences. [77375]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): Yes. The terms of reference for the review panel require it to
    "consider the current structure of the concessionary licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available".
    Ms Russell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the present system is unfair, riddled with anomalies and downright divisive? That is the view of most pensioners and older people in my constituency. Furthermore, is my hon. Friend aware of the miserly £1.25 rebate that blind people can obtain off their licence? Will those two concerns be passed on to the review panel?
    Janet Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent job that she does in representing the views of her constituents. The Government accept that the current concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory. I can confirm that the review will consider the concession for blind people, which the Government accept is currently of little help, but the way forward must be considered as part of a wider review of concessions.
    Mr. David Heath: Is not the hon. Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) absolutely right? Is it not absurd that two pensioners in Frome, who live next to each other in identical flats—one in a sheltered scheme, one outside it—are asked to pay totally different amounts for their television licences? Should we not have a system that treats all pensioners equitably?
    Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman hits the nail firmly on the head. The unfairness of the current scheme is a problem. The Government accept that the concessionary licence scheme is imperfect and unsatisfactory, but we must be aware that any substantial extension of concessionary arrangements could be expensive. We shall consider in detail the outcome of the review.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, I welcome my hon. Friend' s statement. However, will she consider ensuring that the people who benefit from a cheap licence will not suddenly face an increase when the anomalies are removed? Will she consider ensuring that all pensioners benefit from a £5 licence?
    Janet Anderson: May I say, as I have said already, that we must be aware that any substantial extension of the concessionary scheme could be very expensive? We await the deliberations of the review, and we shall give detailed consideration to them. Let me repeat that we recognise the unfairness of the present scheme, which is undoubtedly imperfect and unsatisfactory.

    Theatres (Funding)
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: If he will make a statement on the future of funding for smaller theatres. [77376]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): In recognition of the important contribution that smaller theatres make to my Department's objectives of access, excellence and
    720
    education, we are discussing with the Arts Council a review of regional producing theatres to be undertaken in the coming year.
    Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. May I extend to him an invitation to visit Cambridge Arts Theatre, if he has not recently done so? He will find the theatre working hard towards accessibility, excellence and education through its work with local schools. What does he expect the quantum of funding to be for small regional theatres? When he comes to discuss accessibility, will he bear in mind the fact that accessibility to theatre may include support for touring companies from west end theatres in London that are able to visit regional theatres?
    Mr. Smith: Yes, indeed. We have put in place £125 million of additional funding over the next three years for the performing and visual arts, through the Arts Council. I am pleased that a major proportion of that money has already been made available to the regional arts boards. Eastern Arts, for example, has received a 15.4 per cent. increase in funding for the coming year, and I expect a proportion of that money to support regional theatre. We have also put in place new audiences funding for the Arts Council, and some of that is already going into support of touring.
    Charlotte Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my name is listed among the members of the Shadow Arts Council, despite the fact that I have never been asked to join such a group? Does that not raise doubts about the credibility of that organisation, especially as it refuses to accept that the Government are giving an extra £125 million to arts organisations over the next three years?
    Mr. Smith: I do indeed understand my hon. Friend's surprise at her inclusion as a supposed sponsor of that organisation. It is shared by several others among those included on the letterhead list that the organisation issued. I very much welcome any group of people who wish to act as advocates for the cause of the arts in the United Kingdom, but I wish that that organisation would get its facts right before entering the public prints.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Does the Secretary of State agree that small theatres up and down the country, including the Palace theatre in Newark, can perform valuable services to their local communities? Is he concerned that it is now Arts Council policy to let small theatres that it funds go to the wall, perhaps because they do not fit into some great managerial scheme? If not, how does he explain why so many theatres face closure or crisis when the Arts Council is apparently sitting on a £7 million fund that it could extend as a lifeline for core funding for those theatres instead of keeping it up its sleeve? That threatens their survival. Will he call on the Arts Council to release those funds to ensure the survival of regional small theatres?
    Mr. Smith: Of course, the Arts Council has already made available in quite a number of cases substantial additional funding to regional theatres. The Bolton Octagon had a 7 per cent. increase; the Chester Gateway, 14 per cent.; Duke's, Lancaster, 29 per cent.; the Manchester

    721
    Royal Exchange 8 per cent.; the Stephen Joseph theatre in Scarborough 39 per cent. Substantial additional funding is going to many regional theatres. Having said that, there is concern that regional theatre in general has been suffering financially over many years, principally through decisions taken by the previous Government in cutting money for them. That is why I am asking the Arts Council to take a thorough look across the board at the state of regional theatre right the way across the country so that proper funding decisions can be taken.

  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE

    Millennium Dome (Transport)
    Mr. Norman Baker: What progress is being made in securing adequate transport arrangements for visitors to the dome. [77398]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Excellent progress is being made in delivering new transport infrastructure services that support the public transport objective of the millennium experience project. For example, the first of six new boats for the riverbus services was launched last month and construction work on the new dome pier is on time. The transit link guideway and vehicles that will bring people to the site from Charlton railway station are under construction. Phase 1 of the Jubilee line extension is due to open at the end of April, and phase 2 in the late summer. The on-site coach park is complete. The arrangements for park-and-ride car parks are progressing to plan. The travel industry has confirmed a range of attractive and competitive package offers for travel to and entry to the dome.
    Mr. Baker: I am grateful for that comprehensive answer. If the millennium dome is the rip-roaring success that the Government are working hard to achieve, is the Secretary of State confident that the planned infrastructure, when it is all in place, will be sufficient to carry passengers to the dome? Does he accept that the Jubilee line has been given signalling inferior to what was originally planned, and that the line through Charlton station, which is serviced by Connex South Eastern, already operates at 1.8 per cent. above capacity, according to figures released today? What contingency plans exist to deal with a success so fantastic that there are not enough public transport places?
    Mr. Smith: We anticipate that the dome will, indeed, be a fantastic success and that at least the 12 million visitors currently expected will wish to visit. We want them all to come by public transport. That is why we have been careful, with our colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the various operating companies, to ensure that adequate infrastructure is in place.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the news that National Express will offer an all-in package of travel and admissions to the dome? Given that nearly half the
    722
    visitors are expected to arrive by rail, what discussions has he had with London Underground about arranging a similar package for people using the Jubilee line extension, assuming that it is indeed finished on time?
    Mr. Smith: Discussions are continuing with a large number of other travel and transport operators to ensure that a comprehensive range of packages is available. The National Express package announced a week and a half ago is but the start.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my right hon. Friend consider making tickets to the dome available in the north-west? People must be able to use west coast main line services efficiently and get to the millennium dome on time.
    Mr. Smith: The New Millennium Experience Company is conducting detailed discussions with all the train operating companies, including those that handle the north-west main line and its branches. I am confident that announcements will be made shortly about any conclusions that are reached.

    Millennium Dome (Religious Content)
    Mr. James Gray: What will be the religious content of the celebrations planned at the dome on 31 December 1999. [773991]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The New Millennium Experience Company is currently developing plans for the opening celebrations of the dome on 31 December this year in discussion with Government and others, including the Lambeth group. The nature and scope of the celebrations will be announced in due course.
    Mr. Gray: I am glad that we still have time to make representations to the Minister. Will she take this opportunity to acknowledge that 2000 and the millennium mean only one thing: the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ? Will she find a way of ensuring that there is a moment for quiet Christian reflection in the dome during the opening ceremony on 31 December, led by leading clergy from the Roman Catholic, Church of England and non-conformist Churches?
    Janet Anderson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise the significance of the millennium as a Christian anniversary, and discussions are continuing to decide how that will be reflected on the opening night. We hope to make an announcement in due course.
    Mr. David Borrow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as many people will travel to the millennium dome next year, it will provide an ideal opportunity not just for Christian worship and for displaying Christian beliefs but to present the many religious faiths that exist in this country? That will be an important experience for communities that are overwhelmingly of one faith and may not have knowledge of the range of faiths in the United Kingdom.
    Janet Anderson: We understand that we must recognise the interests of all faiths represented in this country. Discussions are continuing about the matter, and we hope to make an announcement soon.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The House will be grateful for the Minister's

    723
    announcements as far as they go. However, can she confirm that those in charge of the events have received a request from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster that some time be set aside in the minutes before midnight on new year's eve for a Christian act of worship? Why is there any delay in the Government's saying, "Yes, of course", since it is very simple request and that is the most obvious occasion?
    Janet Anderson: As I said earlier, discussions are continuing. We are seeking to ensure that those who want to be involved are part of the opening celebrations. We will make an announcement about the matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: How the multi-faith nature of Britain is to be demonstrated in the dome. [77400]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The New Millennium Experience Company has worked hard in partnership with the Lambeth group to ensure that the multi-faith nature of the United Kingdom is reflected sensitively in the dome. The zone that will provide the focus for faith issues will encourage visitors to explore moments in human experience. The architecture of the zone will evoke the idea that it is a stopping place on people's spiritual journeys—whatever their faith. The NMEC is also providing a separate quiet space that will be available for private prayer and meditation by all faiths, and space has been made available for the performance of daily prayers by Muslims, which will be funded by that community.
    Mr. Vaz: I congratulate my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on the work that he has done to ensure that the Lambeth group truly represents all faiths in Britain. Will the Minister assure the House that the celebrations will not be hijacked by the Archbishop of Canterbury? We must recognise that many faiths in Britain wish to be represented in the dome and present at the ceremony. Will the Minister give a further assurance that other faiths and other races will be invited to the dome to make it and the opening celebrations truly representative of the diverse nature of Britain in 1999?
    Janet Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for our attempts to ensure that all faiths are properly represented. [Interruption.] I point out to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that we are trying to give as detailed a response as possible. I am sorry that he is taking the trouble to denigrate that; he should welcome what we have said.
    As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), we are doing our best to ensure that all faiths are involved and will make an announcement on the matter as soon as possible.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does not the Minister understand that she cannot have it both ways? If she accedes to the request of her hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) that faiths other than Christianity should be well represented in this millennium experience, that must, to some extent, be at the expense of what the festival is all about. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, the festival
    724
    is about Christianity; if the Government cannot come off the fence and understand that it should be a glorious celebration of 2,000 years of Christianity, and get the Prime Minister on-side, what on earth do they think they are doing?
    Janet Anderson: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening earlier, so I repeat that we do recognise the Christian significance and importance of this event, but I am extremely sorry that he should imply that we should exclude large sections of our population who follow different faiths. The Government's intention is try to include everyone; I am sorry that that is not the Opposition's position.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    Periodic Adjournments
    Mr. Denis MacShane: If she will make it her policy to announce the likely dates of periodic adjournments at the start of each Session. [77408]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I understand that hon. Members would prefer to have a greater degree of certainty about Parliament's timetable, and recognise that that would contribute to efficient management in the House and for individual Members. However, it is not possible to predict the progress of business with sufficient accuracy to give so far in advance dates as precise as those sought by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. MacShane: I find my right hon. Friend's answer disappointing. I realise that she has inherited a ramshackle system for running this place—probably one that William Rufus would have recognised—but if we are to modernise and to have joined-up government, we need a modernised Parliament and a modernised parliamentary calendar. No other Parliament in the world has a system as absurd as ours, in which we do not set dates. The system is unfair on Members with families, and on Members who want to plan things in their constituencies and to undertake other political and parliamentary business outside the House. Can we consider the matter again and try to institute a parliamentary calendar that stands for a year, allowing for emergencies and special exceptions? That would be welcomed by all Members of the House.
    Mrs. Beckett: I understand the attractions of a more fixed calendar. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that, broadly speaking, the House has a pattern of sittings with which hon. Members are familiar. We try to give as much notice as we can. For example, on 4 February, I gave notice of the weeks that would be included in the Easter and Whitsun recesses. In recent years, the warning for the spring recess has been 67 days on average. In one year, notice was only seven days; I gave 116 days' notice, so I think that we are moving in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.
    Sir George Young: Could not the right hon. Lady move a little further towards her

    725
    hon. Friend, who expressed such disappointment in her original reply? Will she give the House the full dates of the Whitsun recess? She has told us the week, but she has not told us which days before and after that week might be included. Will she also give us a target—for example, the end of June—by which date she would hope to announce the dates for the summer recess?
    Mrs. Beckett: I understand that for the past 10 years the dates of the summer recess have not been announced before the middle of June. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about giving greater notice, but I fear that the progress of business is sufficiently uncertain that at present I am not able to give him the extra dates for which he has asked. I shall do so as soon as I possibly can.

    Millennium Compliance
    Maria Eagle: What recent assessment she has made of the readiness of Government Departments and the wider public sector for millennium compliance. [77409]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): On 16 March, my right hon. Friend the President of the Council announced the results of the fifth quarterly review of progress in tackling the millennium bug in Government Departments, agencies and key parts of the wider public sector. The Government continue to make good progress on tackling the bug and the majority of bodies have nearly completed work on business critical systems. Encouraging progress has been made across the wider public sector. However, a concerted effort is necessary in some areas, and is being made, to ensure that the remaining work is finished on time.
    Maria Eagle: This Government have done far more than most Governments throughout the world, and certainly more than the previous Conservative Government, to ensure that we shall be ready for 2000. However, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a patchy picture across local government, and will he explain what central Government are doing to encourage colleagues in local government to ensure that they are ready in time?
    Mr. Tipping: By any international standard, the United Kingdom is in the top handful of Governments who are taking matters forward. However, it is important to recognise that the bug problem is everyone's problem—private sector and public sector together. Good progress has been made in the public sector, but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, there are problems in some of the smaller councils. Several initiatives have been taken, including the setting up of small groups of teams in Government offices to work with local authorities.

    Draft Bills (Committee Scrutiny)
    Fiona Mactaggart: What draft Bills have been made available for scrutiny by Committees of the House before Second Reading; and if she will make a statement. [77410]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Five Bills have been published in draft and I expect at least two more later this Session. Three such Bills have been considered by Select Committees of this House, and one by a Joint Committee with the Lords.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the opportunity to provide early scrutiny of Bills helps to avoid poor drafting? Has she noticed that, in the back of today's Order Paper, there are more than 100 amendments to the Employment Relations Bill tabled by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Does she share my hope that pre-legislative scrutiny of a wider range of Bills will obviate the need to table so many amendments at a later stage in the Bill's passage?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will recognise that, because we are at a relatively early stage in this Parliament, it is more likely that such problems will arise. However, I strongly share her views, first, that it is undesirable in principle for there to be many amendments to Bills and that it would be better if they could be avoided; and, secondly, that they are more likely to be avoided if Bills are published in draft and there is greater scrutiny of legislation before it comes before the House.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Lady agree that, in pursuit of her objective of ensuring better scrutiny of Bills, it would be good to look back on the policy initiative of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley and the concept of the Special Standing Committee, which enables the Standing Committee in question to take evidence before Committee stage? Will she consider reviving that practice and committing Bills to such Standing Committees?
    Mrs. Beckett: The Immigration and Asylum Bill is currently before a Special Standing Committee, and I endorse that practice. During this Session, we are exploring several options to try to determine which are likely to be the most fruitful. However, I believe that having a variety of measures available is the best way forward.
    Dr. Tony Wright: A Bill that is soon to appear in draft form is the freedom of information Bill. Has my right hon. Friend read the observations on that legislation contained in the Macpherson report on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry; and can she give the House an assurance that Macpherson's comments will be incorporated into the draft Bill?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not in a position to pre-empt the drafting of the Bill. As we debate the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report later today, such matters can be explored, but I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will have taken careful note of that report.

    Iraq
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to her oral answer of 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 734, concerning a Select Committee on the effects of sanctions

    727
    against Iraq, to which relevant colleagues she has passed on the concerns of the hon. Member for Linlithgow; and what was their response. [77412]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I asked that our exchange on 1 March be drawn to the attention of the relevant Foreign Office Ministers. However, the Government's position remains the same: that there is no need to set up a specific Select Committee on Iraq, when the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Select Committee on Defence are already able to examine issues relating to the Government's policies toward that country.

    Sitting Hours
    Sir Teddy Taylor: For how many hours the House sat in the latest parliamentary Session; and what were the figures for five, 10 and 15 years ago. [77413]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Last Session, the House sat for 2,117 hours and 36 minutes. In the 1992–93 Session, the figure was 1,985 hours and six minutes, and in the 1987–88 Session, 1,978 hours and 40 minutes. In 1983–84, the first Session of that Parliament, the House sat for 1,909 hours and 29 minutes. In other words, I confirm that the House sat for longer last Session than in the past.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of those worrying figures, does it not concern the Leader of the House that the Government are not subject to daily scrutiny for long periods during recesses? In view of Members' increased work load, might there not be a case for reducing the length of recesses and, perhaps, adjourning the House earlier than the normal 10 pm?
    Mrs. Beckett: The parliamentary calendar and timing of the parliamentary day are kept under continual review by this Government, as they have been by many Governments. The hon. Gentleman will know that, up to now, although we have made some improvements following the Jopling reforms and in this Parliament, all the complications that arise from making major changes have led to their being incremental and experimental. I suspect that that will continue.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, luckily, the common sense of the House of Commons is such that most Standing Committees are ignoring the suggestion that they should meet at 9 o'clock on Thursday morning. So far, modernisation has not caused too much difficulty. I trust that she will consult very widely with those who operate in Committee—Standing and Select Committees—before she makes any changes. On a personal note, since I am working longer hours than I was when I came here in 1966, and still spending Fridays in my constituency, I hope that she will not modernise our practices any more—otherwise I shall find myself working 24-hour sessions.
    Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend, like so many Members, is permanently on duty, although I understand her wish to have more freedom about how and
    728
    where that duty is exercised. I certainly assure her that we keep under review the changes that have been made and, indeed, would think very carefully about further changes. The motivation behind such changes is always to make this House more efficient and effective in the way in which it carries out its work.
    Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, owing to the hours that we now work, particularly on Wednesdays and Thursdays, members of the public cannot see the House of Commons as they used to be able to? Has she any idea about how to facilitate members of the public seeing the House at various other times?
    Mrs. Beckett: The House has considered these problems. Of course, it can be something of a moot point; some members of the public would rather see the House working than merely its facilities. People can always, of course, see the facilities of the House during recesses. We keep under review the degree of access that the public have to the House, and take it into account.

    Main Committee
    Ms Gisela Stuart: What progress has been made with plans for the creation of a Main Committee. [77414]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee agreed a report on Wednesday, and I expect it to be published on Tuesday 13 April. I hope that the House will have an early opportunity to debate it.
    Ms Stuart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she elaborate on whether she expects that the creation of a Main Committee will allow greater scrutiny and debate than the current Select Committee structure?
    Mrs. Beckett: The motivation behind examining and making such a proposal is to allow more time for ordinary Members to raise matters on which they would want debates, and to provide extra time for some of the excellent business for which, sadly, it is difficult to find time on the Floor of the House, such as debates on Select Committee reports.

    Millennium Compliance
    Mr. Brian White: What assessment she has made of the preparedness of (a) Government Departments and (b) the wider public sector in dealing with millennium compliance problems. [77416]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle).
    Mr. White: Given that programmes dealing with the financing of 2000 will be running by Wednesday night, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the monthly

    729
    reports that are due out very shortly will begin to include contingency plans that are built on the excellent work that the Government have already done?
    Mr. Tipping: I assure my hon. Friend, who has taken a very close personal interest in this matter, that the Government are engaged actively on this issue. Contingency plans are being made. As he knows, monthly statements to the House will begin to be made in the very near future.

    Procedure Reform
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on recent Government proposals for reforming the procedures of the House. [77418]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee has
    730
    considered a number of proposals based on evidence from the Government and elsewhere. The Committee's most recent report recommends an experiment with a parallel forum sitting in the Grand Committee Room off Westminster Hall.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. What does he regard as the principal outstanding problem relating to the procedures of the House, and how and when does he propose to address it?
    Mr. Tipping: The problem is that 659 hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, want to raise issues on the Floor of the House and have their say. The Government welcome that and seek new opportunities to give Back-Bench Members the chance to raise issues.

Berlin European Council and Kosovo
3.30
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the European Council in Berlin, which I attended with my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This European Council had two principal tasks: to reach agreement on the Agenda 2000 package of negotiations for enlargement of the European Union, including changes to agriculture spending and to the structural and cohesion funds; and to prepare for the appointment of a new European Commission. I pay tribute to the immense skill shown by Chancellor SchrÖder in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
The European Council was, however, overshadowed by events in Kosovo, which were constantly in the minds of European Council members during the meeting, and I shall begin with that matter.
European Heads of State and Government were unanimous in condemning Milosevic's barbarity and intransigence and in supporting NATO action. Air strikes are continuing and intensifying in the wake of the renewed repression in Kosovo. Thirteen additional Royal Air Force planes are being committed to the NATO operation this week. I know that right hon. and hon. Members will join me in giving their continued full support to the British forces engaged. Thirteen countries have aircraft committed to that operation.
Even as we speak, there are continuing atrocities perpetrated by Milosevic against defenceless Kosovar civilians, but one thing should be made very clear: the idea that this barbarity and renewed ethnic cleansing started last Wednesday when NATO began its campaign is simply absurd.
The massacres that we are witnessing now were planned by Milosevic in the past two months when he built up an army and special police presence in the Kosovo region totalling 40,000 troops and 300 tanks—a deployment far greater than at the height of last year's fighting and savage repression. In the two days prior to the NATO campaign, 20,000 people were driven from their homes, and in the past month, 65,000 were driven from their homes. That is in addition to the 300,000 people who were driven away last summer. It is now clear that Serb participation in the Paris peace talks was a cover for Milosevic's offensive preparations. We now know that on 20 March, the day after the talks were suspended, armed Serbs started summary executions and ethnic cleansing. They have continued ever since.
In our view, our response to those appalling acts, far from halting or slowing down the allied action, must be to intensify it and see it through to a successful conclusion. For every act of barbarity and every slaughter of the innocent, Milosevic should be made to pay a higher and higher price. I hope that no one who has seen the utter, callous brutality with which the Kosovar Albanian people have been treated is under any remaining illusions about the nature of the Serb regime. The proper answer to that is not weakness but strength.
We are also addressing the growing refugee problem created by Milosevic's brutality. I have today set up a cross-departmental group to respond rapidly to that crisis.
732
A joint military and civilian team will visit Macedonia and Albania later this week. The Department for International Development has allocated an extra £10 million as our initial contribution to the international effort, in addition to the help that we had already committed.
I shall now turn to Agenda 2000. On agriculture, the European Council agreed to phased price cuts of 15 per cent. for milk and cereals, and 20 per cent. for beef. It also set limits on agricultural spending, bringing the common agricultural policy under tighter control than before. Agricultural spending by 2006 is planned to be less than 2 per cent. in real terms above its level next year, and falling. Of course, some of us wanted more, but it is worth contrasting this outcome with the increase of 9 per cent. agreed at the Edinburgh European Council in 1992—and UK consumers will, when these reforms have been implemented, benefit by about £1 billion a year, or £65 for a family of four.
On the structural and cohesion funds, the European Council agreed that spending in the existing Union should total 213 billion euros in the period 2000 to 2006, an 11 per cent. reduction in the Commission's proposal. Within that total, full and proper account will be taken of the interests of the UK.
Cornwall, west Wales and the valleys, and South Yorkshire will qualify for the first time for assistance under objective 1 of the structural funds. Merseyside will retain its objective 1 status. A safety net will safeguard the position of regions of the UK qualifying for assistance under objective 2 of the structural funds. This will cover 14 million British people. There will be a special package for Northern Ireland, assuring assistance at a level equivalent to objective 1 status. There will be a special transitional programme of assistance totalling 300 million euros for the highlands and islands of Scotland, which no longer qualify for objective 1 status. That sum is double the amount available for other areas losing objective 1 status, and is comparable to the amount that the highlands and islands would have received as an objective 1 area. That is a tremendous deal for Scotland.
The negotiation also covered the revenue side of the Union's finances. It was agreed that more revenue would be raised from contributions linked to gross national product and less from value added tax receipts and customs payments. There is also to be a change in the way in which payment for the UK abatement is divided among the other member states. But no change was made to the own resources ceiling, the limit on revenue available for the Community budget. That is significant and welcome.
In the past two major negotiations on European finance, in 1988 and 1992, the European Union, when it made changes, agreed an increase in the revenue ceiling: that is an increase in the share of the European Union's wealth which taxpayers can be required to contribute towards EU spending. For the first time there has been a major Community financial settlement without an increase in the potential burden on taxpayers. In 1988, the settlement envisaged spending rising by 17 per cent., and in 1992 it foresaw spending rising by 22 per cent. This time spending within the EU 15 will fall in real terms over the period covered by the agreement.
On the abatement, I am delighted to report that the presidency conclusions say in terms that the UK abatement will remain. In line with the 1988 and 1992

733
European Council conclusions, the UK accepted that we should not make a windfall gain out of changes to the method of EU financing; that is the gain from a switch from VAT to GNP contributions and from an increase in the collection costs for traditional own resources. On the same principle, I agreed that the abatement will not apply, after enlargement, on an amount of expenditure in the new member states equal to the pre-accession aid in those member states which is itself now unabated. So any expenditure unabated now will remain unabated after enlargement. But the vast bulk of expenditure in the new members after enlargement will qualify for the abatement, because it is abated now. The result is that there will be no reduction in the United Kingdom's rebate. Our objective was secured. I said that the Government would maintain the abatement. We have done so.
Heads of State and Government also agreed to invite Mr. Romano Prodi, former Prime Minister of Italy, to be the next President of the European Commission. I warmly welcome his appointment. Mr. Prodi has a strong record of economic and political reform.
The European Council's intention is that the new Commission should be appointed and start work as soon as possible after the European parliamentary elections, and remain in office for the remainder of this year and the five years starting from January 2000.
There was unanimous agreement among Heads of State and Government that the new Commission will need to give urgent priority to a programme of far-reaching modernisation and reform, in which Community funds, programmes and projects are properly managed, the Commission's services are correctly organised and the highest standards of management, integrity and efficiency are ensured.
The middle east peace process was also discussed at the European Council, and we urged that the transitional period established under the Oslo agreement be extended beyond 4 May 1999, with the aim of reaching agreement on final status issues within one year.
I am pleased to say that agreement was finally reached on the trade and development agreement with South Africa—an historic step in consolidating prosperity and democracy in South Africa and developing the European Union's relationship with that country.
To sum up, the outcome on Agenda 2000 is an agreement that makes significant reforms to the CAP; puts the Union's financial house in order in preparation for enlargement; brings spending under control and reduces Community spending as a proportion of Community GNP, even after allowing for the costs of enlargement; gives a fair deal to UK regions that receive support from the structural funds; and maintains the UK abatement.
That is a good result for Britain and has been achieved by a new Government who have rejected the sterile confrontations and isolationism of the recent past, and who engage constructively with Europe to get a better deal for Britain. I commend it to the House.
Mr. William Hague: On Kosovo, the Prime Minister knows that we have expressed our hopes and concerns about the long-term future of policy towards Kosovo, but he also knows that we have expressed support for the present action and the air strikes, and I reaffirm that support today.
734
The loss of a NATO plane is a reminder of the great risks that our aircrews run as they do their job, and the rescue of the pilot is a reminder of the extraordinary ability of the armed forces involved. Does the Prime Minister agree that we went into the action in full knowledge of those risks, and that we should now have the resolve to see it through? Nothing would be more disastrous for the humanitarian situation that he described or to the credibility of NATO than if we backed out of what has been started.
I welcome what the Prime Minister said about refugees. May I ask him three specific questions about events in Kosovo? First, he referred to an intensification of military action. Can he confirm that NATO has extended its operations to target Serbian ground forces? Will that mean a new combat role for the allied rapid reaction corps based in Macedonia? What protection will those NATO forces give to Macedonia?
Secondly, what is being done to try to involve Russia in our diplomatic efforts? Will the Prime Minister tell the House what contact he or the Foreign Secretary have had with the Russian Government in recent days?
Thirdly, what preparations are being made now for aid, reconstruction and peacekeeping in the event of the military action being successful, as we all hope?
On the matter of the European Council in Berlin, however, is it not the case that the summit failed to agree on many of the objectives set by the Government, and failed to make the fundamental reforms necessary to prepare adequately for enlargement, or to make the European Commission effective and respected?
The Prime Minister's spokesman said two weeks ago that the common agricultural policy reforms agreed by farm Ministers were "unsatisfactory" because they did not go far enough, yet the Prime Minister has accepted a deal that falls significantly short of even those reforms. Ministers said last week that now that the euro was in existence, the cohesion funds were an anomaly to be re-examined, yet the Prime Minister has signed up to a deal that keeps those cohesion funds in place for the future.
A Foreign Office Minister said this month that the objective at Berlin was to freeze the EU budget, yet it was agreed at the summit that the EU budget would rise. Is not the result of the Berlin deal that British contributions to the European Union, taking account of the rebate agreement, will go up? Is not that the truth of the matter?
The other thing that the Prime Minister promised us before Berlin was root-and-branch reform of the Commission. The commitment to a new Commission later this year is welcome, provided that it means a new Commission. Can the Prime Minister confirm that, at the end of a major summit of EU leaders, just one week after the explosive report on fraud, all the Commissioners who resigned, including Mrs. Cresson, are still sitting behind their desks at the Commission; that those Commissioners are still looking forward to receiving £250,000 pay-offs; that there is still no truly independent fraud office to police the Commission; that no instructions have been given to the new Commission President to make sure that the Commission does less in the effort to do better; and that, on the contrary, Downing Street says:
"integration is part of our mantra—the PM is busy integrating now",

735
in the words of the right hon. Gentleman's spokesman?
Is it not true that a summit that was supposed to prepare the EU for the next decade has left it with a largely unreformed agricultural policy; with cohesion funds still there; with enlargement more distant rather than nearer; and with a disgraced Commission still in place?
The Prime Minister: First, on Kosovo I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support and I agree that it is important that we have the resolve to see this through. The intensification certainly includes action taken against the repressive forces in Kosovo. There is no new role there envisaged for our own forces in Macedonia. In respect of Russia, I have myself spoken to Prime Minister Primakov. The Foreign Secretary has been in close contact with his opposite number in the Russian Government and is due to speak again to him later today. We are putting aid and peacekeeping measures together now, and part of the humanitarian package is making sure that we get aid to people there.
In respect of the European Council, it is best to compare the deal that was secured by this Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I think it is a fair comparison; the Opposition do not seem to want to make it, though, do they? On our basis, real-terms spending within the 15 falls, but one wonders what the Conservatives negotiated when they were in office: it rose by 15 per cent. in 1988 and 22 per cent. in 1992, and at Fontainebleau it rose by more than either 15 or 22 per cent. That is what happened when the Conservatives were negotiating for Britain. They did not merely remain isolated; they were pretty unsuccessful in their isolation.
I seem to remember that the key tests that were set for me were—point number one—whether I would maintain the United Kingdom abatement and—point number two—whether we would get a good deal on structural funds. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were saying a few weeks ago. I notice that he did not even mention either of those two points in his statement. I take that as the best endorsement for my negotiating position I can have.
However, the right hon. Gentleman is right that we wanted the reforms to go further. He is wrong that root-and-branch reform has been put off in respect of the Commission. Not at all; we are due to meet the President elect of the Commission within the next couple of weeks and we will agree specifically—there is no doubt about this—a clear mandate for reform of the European Commission and the way that it operates. People in Europe expect no less from us and we intend to deliver it.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Bearing in mind the statement that is to follow on Northern Ireland, I am reminded of the old saying about sorrow coming not in single spies but in big battalions. The Government are in for quite a tough week, I think.
On the European summit, is it not the case that there is good news and bad? The good news is that the Government have retained the rebate; the bad is that they have done so—as, indeed, others have succeeded in doing—by sweeping everything under the carpet. The summit did not tackle the tough decisions that needed to be tackled. I understand why that is so, because the Government were facing two crises—one in the Commission and the other in Kosovo—but is it not the case that they will have to be tackled and that we cannot safely widen the AEU until they have been tackled?
736
On the question of Kosovo, may I put four brief points to the Prime Minister? First, is it not the case that, if the voices of the Kosovar Albanians were heard in the Chamber, they would be saying, "For God's sake, don't stop until the job is done."? I can tell the Prime Minister that I have been in touch with people in Kosovo in the past 24 hours, and that is exactly what they are saying: "It is appalling, it is terrifying, it is horrific, but please keep going and, if you can, speed it up."
Secondly, will the Prime Minister give us a clear assurance that whatever needs to be done to cope with the humanitarian catastrophe—which has been described as the worst that we have seen since the second world war—will be done, not only for reasons of humanity but for reasons of stability? One of Milosevic's clear and specific intents is to ensure that the appalling flood of refugees now being forced—at gun point and by atrocity—over the border into Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro destabilises those countries.
Thirdly, would it not be useful if we heard a little more about the pressures and divisions growing up within the Former Republic of Yugoslavia? Montenegro has clearly said that it is Milosevic's fault that the intervention is taking place and wants to leave. The Vojvodina are saying the same thing and the Sanjak similar.
Lastly, on the question of troops on the ground, may I put this to the Prime Minister? Surely he will agree with me that there can be no point in terminating this operation—or, indeed, in putting the lives of our service men and women at risk—and leaving Kosovo with less than a durable and sustainable peace. If that is to be done, there is no other way to do it than by establishing, whether by law or in fact, an international protectorate. Rambouillet is one way to do that, but if Milosevic will not agree we shall have to establish it anyway. The only way to do that and to secure peace is to have troops on the ground. If that is not the Government's plan at the moment—as I believe it is not—will the Prime Minister at least say that he will not exclude it in the future?
The Prime Minister: On the European Union summit, I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that we have swept all the issues under the carpet. It is worth pointing out that the EU 15 are in agreement about the enlargement process—the five plus one coming into the European Union. In one sense, as I said earlier, we would have preferred more fundamental reform of areas such as the CAP. However, we have agreed a basis on which structural funds are hugely reduced for the 15. Countries throughout Europe are prepared to give up some of their European Union money to allow enlargement to happen. Taken together, the structural and cohesion funds are less than the European Commission was looking at. There are elements of CAP reform in the cuts in the price of beef, cereal, milk and other products, which are very important for the future. We now have an agreed basis for enlargement to happen, and there is no reason for the process to slow down.
Although people can always say that perhaps we should have gone further and done better—I would say that myself in relation to some of the areas of reform—it is worth underlining what we did agree. One of the great pluses for Britain was that we were not the people who were proving difficult in this negotiation. We secured every single objective that we wanted—[Interruption.] For the benefit of those Opposition Members who

737
are shouting, we did it without the absurd and often counterproductive posturing that has characterised their relationship with Europe over the past few years.
In respect of Kosovo, I agree with the first three points that the right hon. Gentleman made about the Kosovar Albanians. He is absolutely right: if people ask their representatives, of course they will say that what is happening on the ground is terrible, but it is absurd to imply that before the NATO action began those people were living an untroubled and stress-free life. This has been building up for months and months.
On the humanitarian crisis, I agree that we must do all that we can to ensure that people can go back in safety at a later date. What the right hon. Gentleman says about Montenegro and other areas is absolutely correct. We cannot do enough in pointing out to our own people, particularly when we have people reporting from Belgrade, that we are dealing with a state-run media. People there are shown what they are allowed to be shown, and nothing else—[HON. MEMBERS: "Like here."] No, as a matter of fact, it is not like here. People should know the difference.
As for troops on the ground, we have made it clear that we favour ground troops in pursuit of a viable settlement. We have said all the way through, however, what the problems are with putting in ground troops to fight their way through. In respect of the international protectorate, I believe that, de facto, to use the right hon. Gentleman's words, Rambouillet offers a proper protectorate. Obviously, the purpose of the ground troops would be to go in in support of that.
Mr. Donald Anderson: No objective observer, on the continent or in this country, can deny that the Berlin Council was a triumph for both the European Union and the Prime Minister. Why? Because we are now perceived as a part of a team, not as isolationists sniping from the sidelines. As part of a team, we can reach a good deal for this country, including—I speak as a Member from south-west Wales—objective 1 status for my area. On that subject, how will the Government respond in terms of matching funds for my region and others?
On Kosovo, the solidarity of the European Union and the NATO 19 has been magnificent. Will my right hon. Friend spell out what financial assistance will be given to the neighbouring countries to allow them to cope with the flood of refugees? Will he confirm that, throughout the bombing campaign, we shall not lose sight of the fact that, ultimately, there will have to be a political settlement?
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments on the Berlin summit. The issue of matching funds, like any expenditure of money, will have to be dealt with within the resources that we have available to us. My hon. Friend was right on the rebate. I should point out to hon. Members that, over the next few years, because of the settlement that we have gained, not only on the rebate but in the structural funds, Britain's actual net contributions will—for the first time since we joined the European Community—be far more in line with those of comparable countries such as France and Italy.
On Kosovo, we are giving financial assistance to the countries that have to deal with the problems of refugees. Part of the £10 million that I announced earlier is to deal
738
precisely with that. I agree with my hon. Friend that, ultimately, there will have to be a political solution. We have always wanted a political solution. First, however, we must stop the murderous repression in Kosovo.
Sir John Stanley: Will the Prime Minister place in the Library a paper setting out in the fullest possible form the justification for his statement today that, two months prior to the current military operations, Milosevic was planning the comprehensive ethnic cleansing of Kosovo?
The Prime Minister: I am perfectly happy to give the House—and anyone else—the evidence of that. There is absolutely no doubt about what has been happening. If the right hon. Gentleman and others like him want evidence of it, I shall list some of the things which happened long before this NATO action started. For example, over a year ago, in February 1998, in Likosane, 26 people were killed. Shortly afterwards, in March, in Donje Prekaze, 54 people were killed. Shortly after that, in August 1998, the entire town of Junik was destroyed. In Donje Obrinje, in October 1998, 18 people died. In Racak, in January 1999, 45 people were killed.
Those examples do not include all the places that were "cleansed" of people who were driven from their homes. A quarter of a million people were homeless before the action even started, and that number is on top of those who had to leave their homes even earlier. There is no doubt about what has been happening in Kosovo. To those who say that such actions began only when the NATO bombing began, I say that it has been going on month after month after month. The only difference is that now the situation is getting the publicity that it deserves.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Will the Prime Minister reject out of hand the perversity of the position of the Conservatives—who reject federalism while in the next breath complaining when various European Union countries try to assert their national interest and when they do not get all they would wish out of a European Union summit? May I also warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's defence of the British abatement—which demonstrates that the fact that we are positive in our relationship with Europe does not mean that we have abandoned our national interest? Finally, does my right hon. Friend feel that enough progress was made on reform of EU finances to ensure that enlargement starts before 2006?
The Prime Minister: On the desire for even greater reform, my hon. Friend is right to point out that part of the difference in the common agricultural policy reform agreed at the Agriculture Council was that it was agreed by majority voting, whereas there has to be unanimity at the Council of Ministers and at the prime ministerial, Heads of Government and Heads of State level. Of course, we should have liked things to go further, but that is not to understate the reform that was agreed.
On the rebate, I have always noticed that other countries firmly defend their interests within the European Union. Any notion that France, Germany or Spain do not fight for their own national interests would be contradicted by attenders at any one of those meetings. The difference is that, when those countries have a national interest to be secured, they do not think that

739
standing up for their own national interests will be helped by being anti-European. That is the difference between the two.
On my hon. Friend's final point, the settlement provides a basis for enlargement. Now there should not be any hold-up in the enlargement process, except for what is necessary to ensure that those countries are in a fit state to join.
Mr. David Davis: Everyone will be just as appalled as the Prime Minister at the increasing viciousness of the Milosevic regime to the Kosovars since the start of the bombing. Did the Prime Minister predict that increasing viciousness, particularly given the evidence that he has just outlined? if he did, why was not more of the immediate military action focused on mitigating it?
The Prime Minister: We held back from military action to give the political process a chance to work. That is what we were trying to do for months and months. We were doing that not because we were unaware of what was happening on the ground but because we wanted, if at all possible, to go the extra mile to get a diplomatic solution. Unfortunately, we did not get that. Repression is going on now in Kosovo and our obligation is to act. We have taken action and we should take it all the way to see it through.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that, whatever the legality or morality of the war that has been launched against Yugoslavia, the bombing has gravely worsened the refugee crisis, quite apart from the ethnic cleansing, which, as he said, has gone on for some time? The refugees alone may well destabilise the Balkans and the situation may get out of control. Is he also aware that General Wesley Clark saying that NATO would "devastate" Yugoslavia—a phrase that I heard him use on the television—was bound to consolidate opinion in Yugoslavia around their Government, as would happen in any country?
Russia—the one country that might have some influence—has been alienated. Is it not clear that, at some stage, there will have to be discussions? Rambouillet is dead. There is no possibility of going back to Rambouillet and sending troops in after we have bombed a country. What is required is United Nations action, a ceasefire of the kind that the Prime Minister urged so skilfully in Northern Ireland, and bringing in someone of international status—maybe Nelson Mandela or someone of that character—to try to get the sides together before the situation gets totally out of control.
The Prime Minister: First let us be clear where the responsibility for the refugee crisis lies. It is not NATO bombing that has caused the refugee crisis; it is the policy of brutality and repression against innocent Kosovar Albanian people. I have no doubt that, when their country is subject to air strikes, there will be anger among the Serbian population, but let us not forget that they do not get the full picture. There is no proper news communication. There are no free newspapers. There is no independent television station that reports to the Serbian people what is being done in their name in Kosovo. Many ordinary Serbian civilians, even though they may dislike the NATO bombing campaign,
740
would be horrified by what is happening in Kosovo under the Milosevic regime. We remain willing at any point to engage in peace talks and mediation, provided that Milosevic comes back into line with the agreements that he made last October and has never honoured. Any agreement has to take Rambouillet into account. Of course it has to be based on that. Rambouillet offered a good deal for Serbia. That makes it all the more tragic that Milosevic preferred to intensify his repression rather than accept the deal.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Is not the Prime Minister's failure in Berlin demonstrated by the fact that the European Union development budget for the next seven years was passed without alteration, in spite of the fact that we are highly dissatisfied with it, that it is the cause of much of the fraud and maladministration of the Commission and that it is not focused on the poverty base that we want to tackle?
The Prime Minister: The negotiation concentrated on Agenda 2000, the structural funds and the common agricultural policy, but Britain is taking the lead on development issues in the European Union, and doing a good job of it. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman meant to say that the Berlin summit was a failure in general. I am too modest to read out quotes from newspapers from other European countries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I could be prevailed upon. It may be perceived as a failure by the hon. Gentleman, but that is not the picture from outside.
Ms Candy Atherton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts to secure objective 1 status for Cornwall. May I ask him to convey the thanks of the county to the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, who has been tireless in his commitment to Cornwall? Does my right hon. Friend have a message to convey to the people of Cornwall as we look forward to a new economic era?
The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, whose efforts have been more tireless than anyone's—as I have been able to testify every time I have met her in the past year or so. She has worked extremely hard to bring this about, and has urged on us the importance of objective 1 status for Cornwall. We negotiated hard for that because, although Cornwall has many tremendous advantages, it has real problems of economic restructuring. Objective 1 status will help it enormously. It provides the basis for a secure and good future for Cornwall, which did not exist before.
Mr. Tony Baldry: The Prime Minister should realise that, until the common agricultural policy is fundamentally reformed, enlarging the Community will create severe financial difficulties both for those countries wanting to join the Union and for those that are already members. I acknowledge the Prime Minister's disappointment that more progress was not made on reform of the CAP, but when does he expect that process to get back on track?
The Prime Minister: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman—we would have preferred reform to go further, but we agreed greater reform of agricultural

741
policy than has been agreed by anyone else in the past two decades. It is worth pointing out that there will be a real decrease in the later years of the next financing period, and that will be the first-ever real reduction in CAP spending. We believe that that is a sufficient basis for enlargement. I should like to have gone further, not least because the European Union must face up to the fact that, when the WTO negotiations get under way, we shall be obliged to make greater reforms in common agricultural policy, so it is a good idea to prepare for that now. None the less, let us not ignore the real progress that has been made.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Prime Minister say a little more about his contacts with the Russian Government and the Russian Prime Minister to bring about a peace process and a ceasefire in Kosovo to stop the tide of refugees and the pogroms against the people there, and to stop the bombing? What contact does he propose to have with the United Nations? What has been Kofi Annan's involvement? Does he think that this is a matter for the United Nations, which should be brought on board, rather than for NATO, which is undertaking actions without UN approval?
The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, the Russian resolution at the Security Council was defeated by 12 to three. Kofi Annan has said that there are times when diplomacy no longer works. Our contacts with Russia have been perfectly amicable and close. The Russians disagree with the action that has been taken, but let us not forget that they participated in the Rambouillet peace talks and agreed with the outcome. They disagreed with Milosevic's refusal to sign up to the deal. It is true that the Russians do not agree with the NATO bombing campaign, but, as we constantly say, we have tried every diplomatic and political avenue and Milosevic will not agree. That is why, respectfully, we have to disagree with the Russians on the validity of our campaign.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Prime Minister realise how tragically apt it was for him to go to Berlin to explain the reasons why he is the leading European advocate of an historically ignorant, politically inept, internationally illegal and half-botched policy that is already threatening to increase and extend the carnage in the Balkans? Is he determined to prove himself as stupid as the Kaiser?
The Prime Minister: Without replying to the insults, let me pick out one point on which the hon. Gentleman and I may agree. He referred to the carnage in Kosovo. The people who are responsible for that carnage are Milosevic and his henchmen. The hon. Gentleman's response is to do precisely nothing, to sit back and say, "Get on with it." That is not the responsible thing to do.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On the carnage in Kosovo, given the fact that not a single word issued by the Yugoslav media can be believed, while we have a freedom of the press in this country of which we are rightly proud, has my right hon. Friend heard from any of the armchair strategists, deploying their high-powered word processors from well behind the
742
front line, whether they believe that the Kosovo people should be helped; whether, if they do, they have a better way of helping them than that being employed by the Government; whether they support our armed forces as they risk their lives in action; and whether they want us to win or to lose?
The Prime Minister: As ever, my right hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. Those who say that we should not be involved should listen to what ordinary Kosovar Albanian people and their representatives say. They are the ones who are living through this appalling situation, and they know that the alternative to NATO action is simply that it continues without the rest of the world lifting a finger.
Mr. Martin Bell: As one who was in Kosovo the week before last, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain how the objectives that he rightly wants to achieve can be achieved by air power alone; and how, by the dispatch of more Harriers, we can stop Kosovar Albanians being murdered in barns and teachers being lined up on school playing fields and shot in front of their pupils? Surely we will have to commit ground troops at some time, or, if the political will is not there, let us admit that, and hang our heads and walk away in shame.
The Prime Minister: On ground troops, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said in response to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The targets that we are selecting are ones that affect Milosevic's military capability and, specifically, ones related to the Kosovo repression. The NATO action will continue to intensify. Anyone who believed that, after years and years of build-up, the action could end in a few days, was always suffering from a delusion and was always headed for disappointment, but I have no doubt at all that we will succeed in our objective. We should have total resolve to see it through, all the way.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is Mrs. Ljubica Erickson, the wife of a distinguished Edinburgh university military historian and adviser to the Ministry of Defence, right when she says that there has been terrible collateral damage in the villages around Belgrade and that the trauma among old people, women and children has become appalling? If the Prime Minister were in the position of a Serbian soldier in Kosovo, knowing what was happening back at home and hearing that NATO intended to intensify the bombing, would there not be a danger that he might behave like an animal? What is the end object of all this? Until the bombing stops, is there any chance of involving the one people who can resolve the problem—the Russians?
The Prime Minister: In the end, people must face the consequences of the difficult choices that are being made, as we must in choosing to start the campaign. Our targets are military, and I caution against believing anything or anyone who is basing information on what is being said by the Serbian Government-run media.
Serbian soldiers had been carrying out brutality and atrocity for a long time before the bombing, and their attitude cannot be the determinant of how we run this. If they want to stop the NATO bombs, they can do so in one very simple way and that is by starting to treat people

743
in Kosovo like civilised human beings, instead of subjecting them to ethnic cleansing, which is what the Serbians have been doing.
People say that we have to find a political solution and ask why we cannot involve Russia more, but we have been trying for months—more than months—to find a political solution and Russia has been intimately involved in all those attempts. The truth is that no political solution is possible at the moment because Milosevic is determined to rid Kosovo of Kosovar Albanians, and he will do so by killing them if necessary. That is the truth. The choice, therefore, is let him do it, or try to stop him, and the latter is what we are doing.
Sir Archie Hamilton: When the Prime Minister supported Mr. Prodi for the presidency of the European Commission, did he take into account the accusations of fraud and other criminal activity levelled at Mr. Prodi when he ran the Italian state holding company, IRI?
The Prime Minister: Anyone who knows Romano Prodi knows him to be someone of the highest integrity. It does not surprise me in the least that the Conservative party should wish to begin with the new President of the European Commission by attacking and vilifying him.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the Serbs are rounding up Albanian civilians and holding them in military installations in Kosovo? Will he bear that in mind when selecting which targets to attack?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we do bear that in mind. We are getting the best information that we can about that. The use of human shields is a barbarous practice in itself, but we will take account of any information we have to try to minimise any damage.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Prime Minister agree that the policy of President Milosevic appears to be to expel the Albanian population of north Kosovo, settle in Serbs—probably from the Krajina area—and then declare a ceasefire and assert victory? Were those foreseeable developments taken into account by NATO before the present policy was embarked on? If they were, will the Prime Minister tell us how he proposes to stop them and, if President Milosevic achieves those policy objectives, how he proposes to reverse them?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks make the case for the campaign that we have. The idea of getting rid of as many ethnic Albanians as possible from northern Kosovo is not new but has been talked about in Serb circles for some time, and that is precisely what has been going on for months and months. That is why we were right to take the action, and the only chance that we have of stopping that policy is to make Milosevic pay such a high price that he is deterred from following it. That is the only alternative.
Mr. John Home Robertson: I happened to be in an aid truck on Mount Igman when air strikes were launched against the chetnik besieging forces around Sarajevo back in 1996. The only thing that
744
was wrong with those air strikes was that they were at least a year too late. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those air strikes made it possible to achieve peace in Bosnia, and will he remind the House of that recent lesson from history? Action may be painful, but failure to act in the face of such atrocities would be appalling.
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely. It was as a result of the action by air strikes that we were able to get a settlement in that situation. I do not think that anyone who has witnessed the events of the past few days can be in any doubt about the nature of the regime that we are dealing with and the fact that we have no alternative, unless we are to let the brutality continue, to taking the action that we are taking.
Mr. David Curry: Does the Prime Minister reflect on how extraordinary it is for the Heads of Government to dilute an agreement reached by Agriculture Ministers which he had already described as "inadequate"? Will he be fair enough to admit that the decision is bound to make enlargement more difficult; that it makes the European Union unprepared for the next round of world trade talks; and that Britain's fundamental interests are less served by the rebate than by a fundamental reform of the CAP, which caused the problem in the first place?
The Prime Minister: It would be unwise, and possibly unfair, to enter into the last part of that question.
I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the WTO talks. That remains a force coming down the track at the European Union that will give us the chance of another look at the whole area. The statement of European Council conclusions made it clear that, whatever happens with the CAP, we must still have the right proposals for the WTO negotiations in the interests of the whole of Europe. It would have been better to go further on CAP reform, although—thanks in many ways to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food negotiated—we gained more reform than most people would have contemplated a short time ago.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: There is something truly horrendous in the fact that a 20th century stained by Nazi genocide should end with genocide, first in Bosnia, and now in Kosovo where young men are being marched away to be shot, children are being terrorised and elderly people being made homeless. May I say that, while there are, again, some voices in the House calling for appeasement of a fascist regime, the great majority of Members of the House of Commons and the great mass of decent British public opinion supports the Prime Minister's endeavour to stop the atrocities and to end the genocide? We wish my right hon. Friend good luck.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his words. I am sure that he is right.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Prime Minister aware that many Opposition Members fully support what he and the Government are trying to do, but worry that some of the methods involved may not be efficacious?

745
Is the Prime Minister aware of, and will he comment on, what seem to be well-founded intelligence reports, first, of increasing collaboration between the Iraqis and the Serbians, and, secondly, that Prime Minister Primakov was paid $800,000 by the Iraqis, which hardly recommends him as a good, honest middle man to resolve the present terrible crisis?
The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I have no comment to make, except to say that we know of nothing to substantiate it. In respect of Iraq and Serbia, there is no doubt that they have been in contact, but we know no more than that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support that he gave in making his first point. It is interesting that the issue has, in a sense, moved from a matter of justification to one of efficacy and whether we will succeed in our aims. I believe that we will succeed. We have set clear objectives. We have in place the mechanisms to achieve them. Our only choice is to go through with them. Having seen over the past few days that there can be no doubt about the nature of Milosevic and of what he is trying to do—it has been graphically illustrated—there is no alternative but to see our action through with total and complete resolve. That is why I support, at the moment, intensification of the NATO effort.
Dr. Rudi Vis: On the middle east, the Prime Minister said that the 4 May deadline has been extended. The extension has happened for good reasons, and I welcome it, but will he say whether any new date has been set?
The Prime Minister: Our proposal on the middle east takes account of the 4 May deadline. We have not stated a date on which we believe the final status talks should be concluded, and it would not be wise of us to do so at present. It is right to show that we do not want the peace process in the middle east to be held up at all for any reason. We want it to be driven forward.
Sir Alastair Goodlad: In view of the reaction of the Serbs to the bombardment that has taken place, does the Prime Minister agree that early rather than gradual intensification of the bombardment, to the maximum capacity of the alliance, is likely to achieve the best results?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely. As I said a moment ago, in the light of what has happened during the past few days, intensification, not backing down, is the answer.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Recognising that talks failed to end ethnic cleansing and extreme racism in Yugoslavia, must we not always remember the simple fact that Milosevic was killing his own people and that the way to end the bombing lies in his hands? If he gets his people to stop the killing in Kosovo, the bombing will stop immediately.
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Milosevic has been a disaster for people in Serbia for
746
many years. Anyone who has looked at his record over this long period knows that it was he, 10 years ago, who withdrew autonomy from Kosovo and began the process of using Serbian nationalism to drive people out of Kosovo. He has time and time again proved an instigator of violence and instability in this region.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Through the fog of war over Kosovo, the full details of what actually happened at the Berlin summit are hard to discern, other than that it seems to have been business as usual, with the candidate for President of the Commission chosen within an hour. There was no sign that the Government will accede to the wishes of 70 Members of this House, set out in early-day motion 437, that our Commissioners be confirmed by Parliament. Will the British net contribution of £2.85 billion, as certified by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a letter to the Financial Times on 25 March, which is the second highest, go down the scale to fourth, fifth, or sixth? Is there any hope that our contribution will be reduced?
The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the process of selecting the Commission, we are using the same process that was used by previous Governments. [HON. MEMBERS: "That's all right then.] It is not, "That's all right then," but it is a little bit much for Conservative Members to start attacking us on this when, for 18 years, they could have changed it and chose not to, although it might be unfair to designate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) as a supporter of the previous Government's policy. In respect of contributions, yes, as a result of our settlement, for the first time, although we will remain second-largest net contributors, we will be closer to France and Italy than we have been at any time in the history of the European Community. As a result of the rest of the settlement that we succeeded in achieving, not merely do we retain the abatement, we got a better deal on structural funds than any negotiated by the Government that he used to support—sort of.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the Serbian military must, at some stage, recognise that, if Milosevic keeps up his nationalist stance, he himself will destroy the whole of the Yugoslavian military infrastructure? It is his responsibility. Is there any evidence that the military are getting that message? On a related matter, may I express the hope that we will not support any solution that leads to the partition of Kosovo?
The Prime Minister: On that latter point, no is the answer to that. On the former point, my hon. Friend is right. The responsibility rests entirely with Milosevic. This is a message that we will bring home to him and to the people in his military infrastructure.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Prime Minister comment on recent news reports that countries adjacent to Kosovo may be closing their borders to refugees? Is there in place a genuine strategy to ensure that the European Union as a whole and our NATO allies share the problem of dealing with this sad situation?
The Prime Minister: On the humanitarian situation, we have announced the measures that we wish to take,

747
and that will obviously be done in co-ordination with other countries and with the UN's refugee programme. I hope very much that we can count on the support of the hon. Lady's party, and, indeed, all parties, in the action that we are taking.
Mr. Tony Worthington: There has been a tremendous welcome in Scotland for the deal that the Prime Minister has negotiated for the highlands and islands. Is it not a fact that it could never have been negotiated by the discredited previous Government or by the separatists, who would throw away the strength of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must be correct because the isolationism of the previous Government would never have retained the rebate, let alone secured a deal on structural funds and the objective 1 and objective 2 safety net. As for the Scottish National party, nobody at the summit was in any doubt that we could never have secured this deal if Britain and Scotland had not stood together and negotiated as one.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Is the Prime Minister being frank with the House about the rebate? He said that there has been no reduction in the rebate, yet the Library—which has examined the detailed figures—calculates that, by 2006, the annual loss on the rebate to this country will be no less than 220 million euros.
The Prime Minister: The 220 million figure is the windfall gain that we would have made if issues that are presently unabated were subject to abatement. In reaching agreement, we did precisely what was acceded to in 1988 and 1992. However, the difference with this Government is that we have not only kept the rebate intact so that there will be no reduction but managed to agree that there should be no increase in the own resources ceiling. That was something that the previous Conservative Government signally failed to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on.

New Writ (Newark)
4.31 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot: I beg to move,
That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Newark in the room of Fiona Elizabeth Ann Jones.
I shall be brief because an important debate on the Lawrence report is to follow. However, brevity should not disguise the importance of this issue: Newark needs and deserves to be represented in Parliament. The convention is that the party that formerly held the seat moves the writ. However, Madam Speaker, last week you announced that a by-election will take place because an election court had found that the seat of Newark was won by Labour in circumstances involving electoral fraud. Therefore, we believe that the convention does not apply.
Nevertheless, out of respect to the Labour party, I spoke last week to the Government Chief Whip and told her that if she did not move the writ, I would.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall give way in a moment.
I wanted to give the Government Chief Whip the chance to move the writ herself so that the people of Newark could be represented in this place. However, she did not do so. On the contrary, she wrote me a letter saying that she would oppose the issuing of a writ in order to give Fiona Jones the right to stand in the by-election if she was successful in her appeal. That is a pretty odd doctrine. After all, The Guardian told us on 20 March that Labour had refused to fund or to back Fiona Jones's appeal. Is that true? How long is this situation to continue? Are the people of Newark to be deprived of representation in Parliament while Fiona Jones appeals to the House of Lords and to the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House of Commons for a long time and he will recall many by-elections conducted over many years. He will also know that many of his colleagues won seats in general elections. Can he place his hand on his heart and say at the Dispatch Box that he knows of no case where a Conservative Member of Parliament elected to the House of Commons was in breach of the limits on expenditure under election law?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I know of no such case. In any event, in 140 years no Member of Parliament until Fiona Jones has been disqualified from Parliament for electoral fraud. Even if her appeal were successful, there is no chance that the Labour party would select her to stand again. On 20 March, The Mirror stated:
"She should never hold office again. She simply does not deserve to."
I quote that not because it is true—although it is—but because that is what the Labour party believes. In opposing the writ, the Labour Government are not acting in the interests of Fiona Jones. That is an absurd suggestion. They no longer care about her; they are acting in the interests of the Labour party.

749
The Labour party has even suspended the entire Newark constituency party—presumably so that it can once again impose a candidate from the centre. Mr. Phil Dilks, Labour's regional spokesman, told the Newark Advertiser that
"this decision has been made with the by-election in mind. We do not intend to be without Parliamentary leadership for a moment longer than necessary."
However, that is exactly what they do intend. By opposing this writ, the Government are refusing the people of Newark the right even to be represented in Parliament. The interests of the people of Newark are being completely disregarded by the Labour party.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that such was the delay in calling the 1989 Richmond by-election—a matter that was in the hands of the then Tory Government—that I was prompted to move the writ? I was told by the Tories that if I would only hang on they could get their candidate ready. They got their candidate ready and he is now the Leader of the Opposition. Tory Members have been applauding me ever since—or have they?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that indication of support in the Lobby, although I hope that it will not be necessary because I hope that the Government will not force this matter to a vote.
Some might say that Newark has been deprived of a Member of Parliament not merely for the past few days, but since the general election. Fiona Jones, elected in May 1997, failed even to open her mouth to speak in this House until 1998. In her brief career here, she spoke four times. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have been completely unaware of what she looked like until she gained notoriety as the first Member of Parliament for 140 years to be disqualified for electoral fraud. The people of Newark deserve better. The Labour Government have the power to delay the by-election, but if they exercise that power the people of Newark will remember.
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"this House do pass to the Orders of the Day."
Despite the fact—[Interruption.] We do have an important and sensitive debate after this—not that one would be aware of that from the attitude of Conservative Members. I want to explain with more brevity, I hope, than the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) achieved in his insulting remarks, why I am moving this amendment.
First, if we vote down the amendment, the by-election may not be able to be moved during this Session; that does not seem to me to be in the interests of the people of Newark. Indeed, that point was made in this House by the former Leader of the House, Lord Biffen on a previous occasion when an attempt was made to move a writ in such a way.
The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire said that Madam Speaker had declared a by-election. She did not; she reported the decision of the courts and the fact of that decision.
750
The right hon. Gentleman also said that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip had written to him to say that the Labour party did not want to hold the by-election now, in order to allow Fiona Jones to be a candidate. That is not remotely what my right hon. Friend wrote. I have a copy of her letter before me and I propose to share its contents with the House. She wrote:
"The Labour Party wants to ensure that the people of Newark are without a Member of Parliament for as short a time as possible. Fiona Jones has appealed against her conviction. The Court of Appeal has agreed to hear the Appeal early, on 13 April 1999. The Court of Appeal will decide whether the conviction stands or not. If this Appeal is successful, we will have to await the Court of Appeal's interpretation of Section 160 Subsection (4), and Section 173 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.
In these circumstances, it would in our view be clearly wrong to call a byelection whilst this Appeal is ongoing."
Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, because I do not want to take more than a minute or two longer. I am following the precedents set in the House in the past by moving an amendment to the motion.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the purport of those sections of that Act is precisely whether or not Fiona Jones is allowed to stand in the by-election?
Mrs. Beckett: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he is mistaken and that it is a matter of whether or not a vacancy exists.
It is a breach of convention for the Opposition to move the writ. It is extraordinary that they have done so when the verdict to which they refer was given only 10 days ago, on 19 March; when an appeal is pending; and when an early date has been set for that appeal, which will be taken not only on the conviction, but on a point of law—on the interpretation of the Act, which the right hon. Gentleman apparently wants to prejudge.
Mr. Duncan: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: No, I shall not give way. The Lawrence debate is much more important than this childish nonsense.
Given that the appeal will be held in the near future—indeed, in almost as short a time as has elapsed since the case was first heard—it is in the interests of the House to move on from this business. I recommend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Contempt of the House."] Yes, I think that the way in which Opposition Members have behaved is a contempt of the House. It seems to me and to the Government that it is right to hold a by-election in Newark when a vacancy has been properly called. However, an appeal is outstanding, so I invite the House to accept the amendment, enable that appeal to be heard and allow the by-election to be called in a proper manner, if that is the outcome of the court's decision.
4.43 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I find it incomprehensible that, on the day on which we have discussed the conflict in the Balkans and we are to debate

751
the Lawrence inquiry report, we should involve ourselves in a matter that is little more than party political manoeuvring in its worst sense.
If Conservative Members had one inkling of the meaning of parliamentary democracy or of empowering the people of Newark, they would have waited until after the Court of Appeal decision on 13 April. In fact, their motion has nothing to do with empowering the people of Newark. The Liberal Democrats feel strongly that the people of Newark should have a Member of Parliament in whom they have faith and confidence and that, if a by-election is necessary, it should be fought as soon as possible. However, it is ludicrous for the Conservatives to be baying for a by-election before that Court of Appeal decision is given on 13 April; it simply shows how low the Conservative party has sunk.
4.44 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: I represent a constituency which adjoins Newark. Therefore, and to that extent, I am rather well placed to report to the House the feeling in the constituency of Newark. I think that the electors of Newark will be extraordinarily dismayed by the disdain that has been shown by the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, for the proposal that we should have a by-election.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hogg: Not at the moment, no.
The suggestion that we should move to the Orders of the Day rather than discuss parliamentary democracy and a by-election is frankly an affront to this House. The tradition is and the basic principle must be that people are not deprived of a parliamentary representative a moment longer than necessary. That must be especially true when the vacancy has occurred not through misfortune, but as a result of culpable behaviour. When there is culpable behaviour by a Government Member, there is a very special obligation on the Government forthwith to move the writ. The fact that they have not done so is, I suspect, a measure of their cowardice and their disdain for Parliament.
Mr. Fraser Kemp: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I am not proposing to give way. I am adopting, in this respect only, the example of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I have made my position quite plain.
The electors of Newark have a very special local reason for wanting an early by-election. For example, for 1999–2000, Nottinghamshire county council will have the highest band D council tax of all the shire counties.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hogg: No, I have made my position plain.
752
Indeed, the Nottinghamshire county council tax payer is facing the second highest percentage increase—9.9 per cent.—of any shire county. Even more particularly, in the Newark and Sherwood districts band D council tax will be the highest of the English shire counties.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be in order for the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to engage in blatant electioneering under the pretext of talking about the by-election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): That is not a point of order; it is a point of argument. This is an important House of Commons matter. Whatever the merits of both sides of the argument, they should be heard in a sober manner.
Mr. Hogg: I always welcome protection, and I am grateful for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The allegation that I was electioneering comes a bit rich from a Government who do not want an election in this constituency because they are fearful of the consequences. There is the general matter of principle, but there is a local point, too. Local electors want a chance to express their opinion on council tax rates. Incidentally, they might also want to express their opinion on the level of policing in the county. In contrast to March 1997, the number of police in Nottinghamshire county council has fallen by 54—a significant number if one happens to live in Newark.
The explanation advanced by the Leader of the House is essentially an unworthy one. She does not want the by-election, to the prejudice of the electors of Newark, for the personal convenience of Mrs. Fiona Jones. I have nothing against Mrs. Fiona Jones, and do not want to be particularly critical of her—except that she has been found guilty of a criminal offence by a court. We must not lose sight of that.
We have been told that we are to await an appeal. For how long are we to await an appeal? [Interruption.] I know perfectly well that the legal process takes a long time; nobody is in a better position than I to know that. An appeal goes to the High Court. It might then go to the House of Lords. After that, I anticipate that it would go to the European Court. Months and months would pass—perhaps years. Are the electors of Newark to be deprived of representation for the personal benefit of Mrs. Fiona Jones?
Mr. Michael Foster: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is well versed in the law. Does he agree that Pinochet should have been sent to Spain immediately after the initial hearing?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That cannot possibly be a point of order.
Mr. Hogg: In any event, Pinochet should have been returned to Chile immediately, and should be returned there now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hogg: I shall not give way.
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is descending

753
into disgrace. The Lawrence family are in the Chamber for an important debate on the Lawrence case and the issues surrounding it. The two Front-Bench spokesmen each spoke on the motion for two to three minutes, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has been speaking for longer than three minutes and is extending the debate to issues that are not related to the question. Will you ask for brevity on this question, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that we can proceed to the next debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is no one in the Chamber apart from right hon. and hon. Members. Secondly, this is a serious debate and there is no control over the time that may be taken by an individual Member in making a contribution. I have, however, asked the House to deal seriously with the matter, and I hope that my request will be observed by all hon. Members.
Mr. Hogg: The point of order from the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) seemed to me to demonstrate two points, both of which we have come to recognise. The first is Labour Members' reluctance to allow full and free debate in the House. They want to truncate the debate on this motion and proceed to the next business. It is perfectly true that the next business is important, but this business is also important, as you made apparent, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a disgrace that Labour Members are trying to curtail debate on what is essentially a matter of parliamentary principle.
The second point, with which Conservatives are already becoming familiar, is that Labour Members are afraid to meet the electorate when there is a good chance of them being rumbled. There is a good chance of them being rumbled in Newark, so they hope to conceal both their embarrassment and the arguments during the European and district council elections. That is a disgrace and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), the Opposition Chief Whip, will push the motion to a vote and that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it.
4.53 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: This matter arises directly from Madam Speaker's pronouncement on 22 March, in which she said:
"Under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, the seat is vacated with effect from 19 March."—[Official Report, 22 March 1999; Vol. 328, c.1.]
That much seems absolutely clear, so we are now discussing what rights the people of Newark have against the background of the fact that the seat has been declared vacated with effect from 19 March. Surely no Member of the House can deny the importance of that issue. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) for bringing the matter to the House.
The problem is that for some considerable time—arguably since shortly after the last general election—the people of Newark effectively have been unrepresented because they have not had the full range of representation in the House that voters in a constituency would normally
754
expect from their Member of Parliament. An issue immediately arose because people who are in the unfortunate circumstances in which Mrs. Jones found herself cannot properly represent their electors when they have been subject to the sort of accusations that were made in Newark.
Dr. Nick Palmer: As a Nottinghamshire MP who has witnessed Mrs. Jones's work at first hand. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that her constituents were receiving a full service until the time of the court case. I suggest that we allow Mrs. Jones the chance to have her appeal heard on 12 April so that her constituents can benefit from her continuing service.
Mr. Forth: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman to make his judgment on how effective Mrs. Fiona Jones has been in the House. I cannot say in detail what she has been doing in Newark, but I suspect that her activities in this place have been somewhat limited. [Interruption.] Labour Members seem to believe that what they do in this House is of no consequence, but I take a different view.
Mr. Hogg: Will my right hon. Friend inform the House that such is the Labour party's confidence in the appeal of Mrs. Fiona Jones that it decided not to meet her legal costs?
Mr. Forth: I shall come to the appeal in a moment. The other point that I want to make—
Mr. Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you please point out to right hon. and hon. Members that they are not delaying Government business by conducting this debate? Instead, they are truncating a debate on a very serious issue that confronts the British people. The Stephen Lawrence debate is extremely important—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The current debate is perfectly well in order. There are many occasions in this place when there is competition between priorities as various matters are raised.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the convenience of right hon. and hon. Members, will you confirm that there is no reason why the next debate should not continue until a later hour than is scheduled at present? That would mean that the debate would not be truncated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is nothing to do with the occupant of the Chair.
Mr. Forth: I am pretty certain that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I would not oppose a 10 o'clock motion, were one to be moved, as we recognise the full importance of the next debate. I hope that Labour Members are not suggesting that simply because the next business is very important, the very important business that we are now discussing should be swept aside and ignored by the House. We must clarify the position when circumstances arise such as those in Newark. We must be clear, as a House of Commons, how we want to respond

755
to them, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has given us that opportunity.
I wish to complete my reply to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford). If Mrs. Jones had been the excellent representative in Newark that he claims, presumably the Labour party would have nothing to fear from having an early election involving either Mrs. Jones, if it were possible to do so, or her successor, reflecting in her glory.
Mr. John Hayes: I have no wish to prolong the debate because I hope to speak in the next one, if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I speak as a former Nottinghamshire county councillor who knows Newark extremely well.
This issue in Newark is about faith in the proper democratic process and in adequate representation, and it bears some relationship to the next debate. Against that background, it goes way beyond party matters or issues. The issue is about restoring the faith of the people of Newark in their elected representatives. That is a more fundamental issue than anyone has mentioned in this debate so far.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure that we all suspect that the faith of the people of Newark in the political process has been shattered. It is important that we give them an opportunity to restore that faith at the earliest possible date.
The little argument that we have heard from Labour Members seems to revolve round the fact that, as there will be a relatively early opportunity for an appeal to be heard, there is no need to have a by-election at an early date. They seem to be saying that that is all right. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said that we do not know whether the matter will end on 12 or 13 April; it could go beyond it. In fact, it could continue for a considerable period beyond that. It is unacceptable for the Government to be arguing that the people of Newark should be patient and wait for what might be a very long and exhaustive process to be completed. It is entirely unreasonable to expect the people of Newark to wait, unrepresented, for an indefinite period before a by-election takes place.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Are there not just two lowly, non-partisan points that need clearing up? Is not the first that the only relevance of the appeal is whether the former Member of Parliament will remain disqualified for five years, not whether there will be a by-election? Is not the second piece of information that the House deserves to hear from the Leader of the House—whether in an intervention or at the end of the debate—the earliest date, by her reckoning, that the by-election could take place?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That reinforces the point that I was making a moment ago, and goes a stage further. After the appeal process is exhausted, however long that might take, there would have to be a further selection process by the Labour party if it stuck to the argument that we have heard from Labour Members—
756
that if, at the end of the appeal process, Mrs. Jones were cleared of the conviction, she might well be considered as a candidate. That would further prolong the matter.
Mr. Hogg: As a Member who represents a constituency adjoining Newark, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the prospect of the Labour party in Newark selecting Mrs. Fiona Jones as its candidate is negligible, because the local Labour party is wholly split. Unless she is parachuted in by those on the Government Front Bench, under no circumstances will she be the candidate.
Mr. Forth: It is not for me, or even for my right hon. and learned Friend, if I may say so, to intrude on the Labour party's selection process.
If, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) said, Mrs. Jones has performed an excellent job in representing the people of Newark, in spite of her difficulties, and if the Labour party is serious in its belief that she is essentially innocent and will be declared so after an appeal process, I should think that Mrs. Jones would have to be considered a possible candidate in the Labour party's selection process after the appeal process has been exhausted.
All these matters are of the greatest importance and could give rise to the thought that the House might want to reconsider the procedures surrounding by-elections, even in these unusual and, I hope, never-to-be-repeated circumstances. Because such important issues are involved, I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire has done the House and the people of Newark a service in bringing the motion before the House today.
I hope that the Leader of the House will make it clear to the people of Newark that if the Government use their massed ranks to vote down the motion for an immediate by-election, the Government will at least have the decency to tell the people of Newark when they can expect to have a new Member of Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 97.

Division No. 132]

[5.2 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bradshaw, Ben

Ainger, Nick

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Allen, Graham

Browne, Desmond

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Buck, Ms Karen

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Burden, Richard

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burgon. Colin

Atkins, Charlotte

Butler, Mrs Christine

Austin, John

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Banks, Tony

Caborn, Richard

Barron, Kevin

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Bayley, Hugh

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Beard, Nigel

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cann, Jamie

Bennett, Andrew F

Caplin, Ivor

Benton, Joe

Cawsey, Ian

Berry, Roger

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Best, Harold

Church, Ms Judith

Boateng, Paul

Clapham, Michael

Borrow, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

757

Clelland, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clwyd, Ann

Hurst, Alan

Coaker, Vernon

Hutton, John

Coffey, Ms Ann

Illsley, Eric

Cohen, Harry

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Coleman, Iain

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Colman, Tony

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Connarty, Michael

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cranston, Ross

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Crausby, David

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cummings, John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & lsleworth)

Kelly, Ms Ruth

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kemp, Fraser

Dalyell, Tam

Khabra, Piara S

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Kidney, David

Darvill, Keith

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Davidson, Ian

Kingham, Ms Tess

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dean. Mrs Janet

Laxton, Bob

Denham, John

Leslie, Christopher

Dismore, Andrew

Levitt, Tom

Dobbin, Jim

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Doran, Frank

Linton, Martin

Dowd, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Drew, David

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Love, Andrew

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McAvoy, Thomas

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

McCabe, Steve

Efford, Clive

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Macdonald, Calum

Fisher, Mark

McDonnell, John

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Mclsaac, Shona

Flint, Caroline

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Flynn, Paul

McNulty, Tony

Follett, Barbara

MacShane, Denis

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Foulkes, George

McWalter, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

McWilliam, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marek, Dr John

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Goggins, Paul

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Grant, Bernie

Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Merron, Gillian

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Grocott, Bruce

Miller, Andrew

Grogan, John

Moffatt, Laura

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mountford, Kali

Hanson, David

Mudie, George

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mullin, Chris

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Healey, John

O'Hara, Eddie

Hepburn, Stephen

Olner, Bill

Heppell, John

O'Neill, Martin

Hesford, Stephen

Palmer, Dr Nick

Hill, Keith

Pearson, Ian

Hinchliffe, David

Pendry, Tom

Home Robertson, John

Perham, Ms Linda

Hood, Jimmy

Pickthall, Colin

Hoon, Geoffrey

Pike, Peter L

Hopkins, Kelvin

Pollard, Kerry

Howells, Dr Kim

Pond, Chris

Hoyle, Lindsay

Pope, Greg

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Pound, Stephen

758

Powell, Sir Raymond

Stoate, Dr Howard

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Stringer, Graham

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Prosser, Gwyn

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Quinn, Lawrie

Radice, Giles

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Rammell, Bill

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Rapson, Syd

Timms, Stephen

Raynsford, Nick

Tipping, Paddy

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Todd, Mark

Rooker, Jeff

Touhig, Don

Rooney, Terry

Trickett, Jon

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Roy, Frank

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Salter, Martin

Ward, Ms Claire

Sarwar, Mohammad

White, Brian

Sawford, Phil

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sedgemore, Brian

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Wood, Mike

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Woolas, Phil

Snape, Peter

Worthington, Tony

Soley, Clive

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Spellar, John

Squire, Ms Rachel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mr. David Jamieson and

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mr. Clive Betts.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Greenway, John

Amess, David

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Hayes, John

Baldry, Tony

Heald, Oliver

Bercow, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Boswell, Tim

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Brady, Graham

Hunter, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Jenkin, Bernard

Bums, Simon

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Butterfill, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Key, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Chope, Christopher

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Clappison, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Lansley, Andrew

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Letwin, Oliver

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Curry, Rt Hon David

Lidington, David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Duncan, Alan

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Duncan Smith, lain

McLoughlin, Patrick

Faber, David

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

May, Mrs Theresa

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Moss, Malcolm

Fox, Dr Liam

Nicholls, Patrick

Fraser, Christopher

Ottaway, Richard

Gale, Roger

Page, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Paice, James

Gibb, Nick

Pickles, Eric

Gill, Christopher

Prior, David

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Randall, John

Gray, James

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Green, Damian

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

759

Ruffley, David

Trend, Michael

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Waterson, Nigel

Soames, Nicholas

Wells, Bowen

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Spring, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wilkinson, John

Streeter, Gary

Willetts, David

Syms, Robert

Woodward, Shaun

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Tellers for the Noes:

Thompson, William

Sir David Madel and

Tredinnick, David

Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
5.13 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): When I published the report of the inquiry into the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence on 24 February, I spelt out the Government's determination to take action. Last week, I published, as promised, a detailed action plan to set out our response to the report's 70 recommendations.
The action plan provides a framework for a major programme to deliver significant improvements in all key services. Much of that programme of work has already started; most of the inquiry's recommendations should be implemented by the end of this year, and the rest should be in place within three years.
I am taking personal responsibility for the delivery of the programme set out in the Macpherson report. I shall chair a steering group to oversee and monitor progress. The group will include members from the Race Relations Forum, the Commission for Racial Equality, the Black Police Association, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents Association, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
I know that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are considering carefully the report's implications for the criminal justice system and for policing in those parts of the United Kingdom.
As most hon. Members—particularly those participating in the debate—will, I hope, have had the opportunity of reading the action plan, I shall not go through it line by line. I should like, however, to say something about the plan's main elements.
Restoring confidence in the police among all sections of the community and increasing the openness and accountability of the police service are crucial. Only through mutual trust will our police service be able to work effectively for all sections of the community. We have to remember that, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said in his response to the Lawrence report, although it contains serious criticisms and a clear agenda for improvement of the police service—about which no one is being complacent—our police service is different from, and I suggest is significantly better than, the police services of most countries of the world, as it is founded on the essential element of trust and confidence between the community and the police service.
The new ministerial priority to improve trust and confidence in policing among ethnic minority communities will ensure that issues of central concern to those communities are given proper attention. Police performance in that sphere must improve and will systematically be assessed, as it will be in other spheres. Progress of police activities will also be assessed.
As recommended by the Macpherson report, Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary will be conducting a full inspection of the Metropolitan police

761
service to review its community and race relations strategy. The inspection will also involve a focused examination of unsolved murder investigations. No inspection of that size and complexity has been undertaken before. Nevertheless, I am able to tell the House that the preparatory work for that inspection is well under way, and that, next month, inspection teams will begin their work.
New police discipline arrangements—another issue raised in the Macpherson report—take effect from Thursday, 1 April 1999. Key changes include introducing the civil standard of proof, a fast-track procedure to deal swiftly with officers caught committing various criminal offences and, for the first time, separate formal procedures for dealing with unsatisfactory performance.
One of the inquiry's recommendations was that I should consider the establishment of a fully independent complaints system.
Mr. John Bercow: I know that the Home Secretary will agree that, while we in no way wish to condemn the entire police force for the ineffective or recalcitrant conduct of a part of it, it is crucial that police conduct should not only be fair but be seen to be fair. In considering the proposal on a fully independent complaints procedure, will he accept that many people feel that it is fundamentally unjust that complaints against the police should continue to be investigated by current and former police officers?
Mr. Straw: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comment. Moreover, when he says that many people believe that that practice is unjust, these days, that also includes police officers. It is a matter of record that the Police Federation and, I believe, the Police Superintendents Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers accept the need for there to be an independent investigation of serious complaints, but not for less serious ones.
Currently, serious complaints are investigated by police services other than the one to which the relevant officers belong. In my experience, those investigations are extremely thorough and independent. None the less, the fact remains that they may not have the appearance of independence, which is why I am pleased that there is such widespread support for some changes.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that, some months ago, one of my constituents, Janet Alder, saw him about her brother, who died, almost a year ago, in police custody in Hull. Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the problems in that type of case is that delays on the part of the Police Complaints Authority and the Crown Prosecution Service in making decisions cause considerable anxieties and concerns—that young lad is still not buried—and that we really must expedite decisions in such cases?
Mr. Straw: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to go into detail on that case, but I accept that the time that some investigations take—particularly investigations into the circumstances of a death—can cause great anxiety to relatives, although it is difficult to see how they would be conducted any quicker under an independent system.
762
In its report last year on police complaints and discipline, the Select Committee on Home Affairs also made recommendations for the establishment of a fully independent complaints system. Work is already under way on that proposal. A detailed feasibility study is being carried out and will be completed by April next year. I shall inform the House of the conclusions of that study.
The Macpherson inquiry raised concerns about the accountability of the Metropolitan police in comparison with other police forces. The establishment of the Metropolitan Police Authority will profoundly change the accountability of the Metropolitan police service to the communities that it serves. The Greater London Authority Bill, which is due to finish its Committee stage tomorrow, will establish an authority with virtually the same structure, functions and powers as police authorities outside London. The differences are explained entirely by the fact that the Met will continue to have national and international functions. It is important that the Home Secretary continues to play a role in the running of the service in respect of those functions.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the national and international functions have diminished somewhat with the creation of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service? The Home Secretary's insistence on taking such an active part in the selection of the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner is at variance with the Macpherson report's recommendations.
Mr. Straw: I accept that the establishment of NCIS and the National Crime Squad has changed the circumstances a little, but the Metropolitan police service still has major national and international functions relating to national security. It has functions relating to the capital that transcend the interests of some of the local communities in London and it has important international functions, as well as functions such as the protection of royalty. It is important that the Home Secretary should take an interest.
With the establishment of the proposed Metropolitan Police Authority, I do not believe that there will be any significant difference between the Home Secretary's involvement in the appointment of the Commissioner—taking account of the national and international functions—and his involvement with police services outside London. The Home Secretary has a veto over who may be included in the short list for every police force, in London or outside. That is when the crucial input into determinations is made. That point may have been missed in the debate. The Commissioner will be a Crown appointment. The other difference is that one member of the 23 on the Metropolitan Police Authority will be nominated by the Home Secretary in respect of the national and international functions of that police service. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
Dr. Ian Gibson: On the subject of police forces outside London, does my right hon. Friend have any comment on the report in Tribune this week that, according to Home Office figures, one third of the small ethnic community in Norfolk have been arrested by the police?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I have not read my copy of Tribune this week, but I normally do and I look forward

763
to it. I shall refer to stop-and-search powers in a moment, if my hon. Friend can await my remarks, without commenting specifically on the figures that he has given. I should be surprised if one third of the ethnic community had been arrested, but it is possible that at least one third of them have been subject to stop and search. I shall look at the figures carefully.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As the Home Secretary knows, we welcome the creation of the Greater London authority and the transfer of policing functions to a more democratic body. As someone who lives in south London when he is in London, he will know that the pressure on the police caused by racism and serious crime in recent years has been horrendous. When those two factors are combined, the pressure has been awful. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, if the inspectorate's report makes it clear that the police in London need more resources to investigate unsolved murders, to deal with serious crime and to combat racism, the Home Office will not restrict the GLA from raising the money needed for London policing?
Mr. Straw: I shall not get into a debate about the budget of the Metropolitan Police Authority two years before it is established. We have properly funded the Metropolitan police service for this year, and I shall set the budget for next year after the usual consultation. I am sure that the new Metropolitan Police Authority, when it sets a budget for 2001, will fully take into account the needs of the Metropolitan police service.
I do not subscribe to the adjectives that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) used about the Metropolitan police service. Of course there have been pressures on the police, but I believe that the Metropolitan police service has shown great skill in dealing with crime in London. That is reflected in its output. Speaking from memory, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that burglary is now down to an 18-year low in London, and street robbery is down to a nine-year low. There is a major agenda for the investigation of serious crime, but if the hon. Gentleman is talking about that, I refer him to the point that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) just made. These days, a significant part of the investigation of serious crime, which by its nature takes place in the capital, is undertaken not by the Metropolitan police service directly but by NCIS and the National Crime Squad, which are separately funded.
I am conscious of the time, given the previous debate, so I shall move on to deal with the issue of freedom of information. Openness has a very important role to play in restoring public confidence in the police service and in increasing public confidence in other public services. I hope to publish a draft Bill and consultation paper on freedom of information in May. Under our proposals, all aspects of policing will be covered by freedom of information legislation.
We have made no secret of the fact that our proposals include two specific categories of information—information relating to informers and information relating to an investigation or prosecution—which will be exempt from disclosure under the legislation. There will be no statutory right of access to such information under the freedom of information legislation, but it is important to
764
point out that, under separate legislation already passed, information relating to an investigation or prosecution is already disclosed to a defendant—and self-evidently has to be—when a case comes to court. However, information relating to the conduct of any such investigation—for example, how many officers are on the case, whether a computer system is being used, or what training and experience officers have in relation to similar investigations—will be disclosable subject to the appropriate harm test.
There is much more to freedom of information than legislation itself. I accept that there is a substantial amount of work to be done to ensure that there is a real cultural change towards greater openness in all public services—and that includes the police.
Mr. John McDonnell: I am sorry that I missed the beginning of my right hon. Friend's speech, but I was late arriving in the Chamber because I was delayed at another meeting. He may have dealt with this point, but will he give us an assurance that the reports of Police Complaints Authority investigations will be published in full? It is now almost 18 months on, and we have yet to receive the full publication of the report into the investigation of the case of my constituent Ricky Reel.
Mr. Straw: I cannot give the precise guarantee that my hon. Friend seeks, particularly in the case of Ricky Reel. I know that he has been very concerned about that case, as I have. He and I have had many discussions, and I have met Ricky Reel's family. We are seeking to ensure that Police Complaints Authority investigation reports can be published, provided that it is safe to do so. As my hon. Friend will be aware, sometimes it may not be safe to do so if it would prejudice a successful prosecution or compromise other investigations. Subject to that, we want as much openness as possible.
Effective race equality training is another crucial issue that we have to deal with if the police are to be equipped to operate fairly and effectively in today's society. I agree with the inquiry that all police staff, including CID and support staff, need such training. Ethnic minorities themselves must be involved in the development and delivery of the training.
Ms Tess Kingham: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any training about the needs of ethnic minorities and racism in the police does not leave out Romany gypsies and gypsies in general, who are given protection under current legislation but who are often forgotten in training? They tend to be regarded as an open target for racism.
Mr. Straw: I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's point is taken on board when the training is developed.
National Police Training is already working with the Association of Chief Police Officers to develop a comprehensive programme to deal with the training issues highlighted by the inquiry. The programme involves review and revision of existing provision, setting clear standards for the design and delivery of training and identifying the best delivery methods.
The Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into the whole matter of police training and is expected to report to the House shortly. Her Majesty's inspectorate

765
of constabulary has meanwhile been conducting a thematic review of police training. Once I have received and considered both reports I will announce further measures of reform.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend ensure in his discussions that the important issue of independent validation of training carried out both by National Police Training and by the individual forces is right at the top of the agenda? It is one thing for officers in the Met or elsewhere to be given training, but it is another thing entirely to validate the impact and effect of that training in the carrying out of their day-to-day duties.
Mr. Straw: I accept entirely that external validation of all training that involves public money is absolutely essential. That applies to the police service as it does to any other public service.
There is widespread agreement in the House and throughout the country that we must have a police service which fully reflects the racial diversity of the communities that it serves. I have already announced that I will set targets for forces on the recruitment and retention, and promotion, of ethnic minority officers. The targets themselves will be published next month and forces will be required to report on progress. I will be chairing a national police conference in mid-April to develop and spread good practice in this area.
Operationally, we know that there has been significant under-recording of racist incidents and a lack of understanding by some police officers of what such an incident is. One reason is that the police are used to gathering evidence to put before a court, so they apply an evidential test before deciding whether to record an incident as racist. Recording racist incidents is not about only that: it is about monitoring the level of perceived racist activity in society.
I hope that we can tackle the problem by accepting the inquiry's simplified definition of what constitutes a racist incident. The definition recommended by Macpherson is not in substance a new one. It is a simplified revision of one recommended by ACPO. As the inspectorate says in "Winning the Race, Revisited",
"in essence, an incident has a racial element if anyone says it has."
Some have criticised that definition on the grounds of its subjectivity, but it is a definition for the reporting and recording of such crimes, as the starting point of any investigation. Whether such crimes are the subject of a subsequent conviction is of course a matter for the judgment of the court on objective tests. The House will be aware that, to assist the courts, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we have established new offences of racially aggravated crimes.
We accept the need identified by the inquiry for a co-ordinated response by the police and other agencies at a local level to racist incidents. The Racist Incidents Standing Committee, chaired by the Home Office, has published a good practice guide on effective multi-agency working.
766
Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, crime and disorder partnerships come formally into force this Thursday. They can play—and have already been playing—a major role in dealing with racist crime.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recruitment of black and ethnic minority police officers is one thing, but retention is an even more difficult issue? I know that he has met, as I have, the Black Police Association on several occasions. Will he give the House an undertaking that he will pay attention to the retention of black police officers and the circumstances in which they have to function?
Mr. Straw: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. It is no good recruiting large numbers of black and Asian officers then to find that they leave the force because they are discontented with the environment in which they are expected to work. Therefore, retaining officers—and ensuring that they have similar opportunities for promotion and are promoted—is a central part of our agenda.
Ms Harriet Harman: As my right hon. Friend will probably be aware, my borough of Southwark has only 4 per cent. ethnic minority police officers, but 30 per cent. of the population is from the ethnic minorities. I welcomed what he said a moment ago about setting targets. Can he tell us when we in Southwark will be able to make progress on narrowing and eventually closing that gap, to ensure that the police are properly representative of and sensitive to the community that they serve?
Mr. Straw: As I said a moment ago, I intend to publish targets next month for all forces, including the Metropolitan police service. They will not be broken down borough by borough, but that will be a matter for discussion between borough commanders, the Commissioner and—once it is established—the Metropolitan Police Authority. For all the criticism, we should remember that the Metropolitan police service has made the greatest progress in the recruitment and retention of black and Asian officers in the past few years. Their number now stands at 873, and that figure has increased by 42 per cent. since 1993. That progress provides us with some grounds for optimism that we can increase the pace in the near future.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Has my right hon. Friend considered the recording of a person's ethnicity, either of those involved in racist attacks or of those who are arrested and charged? When I looked into the stop-and-search figures, I found that the recording of people's ethnicity varied around the country. Will he pay some attention to that issue?
Mr. Straw: Yes, and we will introduce changes in the code of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure proper recording of individuals' ethnicity. Without effective and accurate recording, we cannot make proper judgments about how the police do the job we expect of them.
Like the inquiry, I strongly believe that the powers of stop and search are important for the prevention and detection of crime. However, I accept that there may be a

767
disproportionate use of those powers against ethnic minority communities and that discrimination is likely to be one of the factors that explains that disproportionate use. We have commissioned research within the Home Office to gather information on current practices within forces to access the practical implications of the inquiry's recommendations. We welcome the five pilot projects in the Metropolitan police service—in Tottenham, Brixton, Hounslow, Plumstead and Kingston—which are developing strategies to use those powers effectively. Following evaluation, we will review the recording of stops and, if necessary, introduce further new arrangements by the end of next year.
The inquiry also made recommendations on education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is taking a number of steps aimed at promoting cultural diversity and preventing racism in our schools. Citizenship education, which will foster an understanding of cultural diversity in Britain, has a prominent place in the revised national curriculum. The Government are determined to prevent pupils being tormented by racist bullying. The Department for Education and Employment will ensure that all schools have effective anti-bullying policies that can deal effectively with incidents of racial harassment. Further steps will be taken to ensure that all racist incidents are recorded and that parents and governors are informed of the nature of the incident and the action taken to deal with it. The fact that I am joined on the Treasury Bench by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards indicates the seriousness with which we take the inquiry's recommendations on education.
Recommendation 38 states that consideration should be given to
"permit prosecution after acquittal where fresh and viable evidence is presented."
The recommendation says only that the matter should be considered, and the inquiry did not come to a conclusion on its merits. As the inquiry asked me to do, I have asked the Law Commission to consider that recommendation.
In recommendation 39, the inquiry proposed that I, alone, should consider
"amendment of the law to allow prosecution of offences involving racist language or behaviour, and of offences involving the possession of offensive weapons"
in the home. I have made it clear that I have serious reservations about going beyond the law as it stands. I well understand the inquiry's concern, which stemmed from the behaviour of the five suspects, to which the report refers in chapter 7. We must balance those concerns with the rights to privacy and family life and to freedom of speech, which are enshrined in the European convention on human rights, as well as with obvious practical considerations. We will reach conclusions by the end of this year.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: Would my hon. Friend allow me to continue? I have already taken getting on for 25 minutes, and hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part in this truncated debate.
All that I have outlined represents a significant agenda for change. We must work together to build a Britain of which we can all be proud and in which racial equality is
768
a reality. I do not want this to be a partisan agenda. I am grateful to the right hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield and for Berwick-upon-Tweed for their active support for the agenda set out in the report, to which they assented when I made my initial statement on 24 February.
The publication of the inquiry's report on that date was overshadowed by events to which I will refer briefly. First, there was the leaking of the report the weekend before publication. I have explained to the House my reasons for seeking an injunction to try to preserve the confidentiality of the report before it was presented to the House. I shall in due course publish the conclusions of the leak inquiry to the House.
Secondly, on the evening of publication of the report, the memorial plaque at the place where Stephen Lawrence died was vandalised. That appalling event shows how far we still have to go to tackle racism in our society. I visited the plaque with Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence to lay flowers on the day after the report's publication, and I want to pay tribute to them again for their continued dignity and courage through all these events.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State explained to the House on 26 February the circumstances surrounding the dreadful publication of the unamended—so-called unredacted—version of appendix 11 of the inquiry's report. As I have said, both in and out of the House, I am very sorry indeed that the error occurred. The Metropolitan police have been working hard to make sure that every measure is taken to ensure the safety of the witnesses named. I thank the police officers and civilian staff concerned for the way in which they have responded in this matter.
I visited Eltham with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) on 18 March and spoke to residents about their concerns. I want to record my appreciation and that of the local residents for all the work done by my hon. Friend in the lead-up to the report. He has represented the interests of his constituents, including the Lawrence family, and he has done a huge amount of work subsequently in the light of all the problems that arose following publication of the unredacted version of appendix 11.
The Government are determined—as I hope is the House—that events such as those must not distract us from our determination to take forward the agenda to implement the recommendations of the inquiry. Our vision is of an inclusive society, in which people are treated equally regardless of race, in which equality of opportunity for all is key and in which we, as a society, celebrate diversity in our lives and our communities. Our country—our Britishness—has been shaped by many different peoples over the centuries, broadening our languages and customs.
Britain was the host nation for a new labour force that we desperately needed—we sought it in the Caribbean and in Asia—and welcomed in the 1950s. Some groups came here and prospered, but the welcome was not wholehearted for many of them, despite the fact that we had invited them to emigrate here. While our record of race relations is better than that of many nations, there can be no room for complacency.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry recommended that the Government should extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to the police. We agree, and as I told the House on 24 February, we will go further. The Act will be extended

769
to cover all public services. It is time for the public service to put its own house in order on race equality. As employers, our track record could be very much better. To pick up a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), it is not only the police service that has much to do on the recruitment, retention and promotion of ethnic minority staff. That applies across the piece in public services.
I am sorry to say that most public services lag significantly behind the best in the private sector. I am setting targets for all services in my Department for the recruitment and progression of ethnic minority staff. I expect all my ministerial colleagues to do the same for their services. We have to remove all the barriers that prevent our young, and older, ethnic minority people from achieving their full potential.
Eighteen years ago, the House was discussing how to take forward Lord Scarman's recommendations following the Brixton riots. Much was set in hand after that report. Getting on for two decades after Scarman, why are we confronted with the findings of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, so many of which appear to replicate those of Scarman? Part of the problem was that the focus after Scarman was on policing issues alone. I believe that the crucial failing was that the implementation of the Scarman agenda treated race and the whole issue of community relations as a bolt-on extra to the police's work. That is why, in my judgment, the changes required by the Lawrence inquiry will work only if they are systemic—embraced by the culture of the police force as well as in its practice. That must mean that they are implemented in the mainstream of the service at every level and do not become an add-on extra.
Providing a police service in which all sections of our multiracial, multicultural society can have trust and confidence is not peripheral to policing but its core task. I am determined that we will not be distracted from that task as perhaps we were 18 years ago after Scarman. We will take all the recommendations forward as a package. For each area covered by the recommendations, the action plan sets out the main programme of work, who will have lead responsibility for taking it forward, the milestones for progress and how we intend to review and assess its outcomes. My steering group to oversee implementation of the programme as a whole will meet for the first time in early May.
I am determined that the momentum should be kept up. I thank the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) for his suggestion that there should be an annual report on progress and an annual debate in the House. I can announce today that, in the light of his suggestion, we will publish an annual report on progress. I shall discuss an annual debate with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
I have set out the comprehensive programme of action that the Government have set in hand in response to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. It is the first stage in building non-racist public services—the first step towards a fairer, more just and much more equal society. I am determined to build a society where everyone, regardless of colour, race or religion, has an equal opportunity to succeed. I want the public services to lead the way as a diverse work force, and to lead the way in setting the best standards of service to the public. As I have already said,
770
there is much that we can learn about that from the best of business, and we need to work together. Our public services need the most able and enthusiastic recruits from all communities, people who want to make a difference. The difference will be a fairer, stronger society that is better for us all. As I said on 24 February, it is that which will be a true testament to the memory of Stephen Lawrence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, (Sir N. Fowler), I remind the House of Madam Speaker's decision that there will be a 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
5.49 pm
Sir Norman Fowler: In view of the time constraints, I will seek to be short.
Beyond any doubt, the Macpherson report is important and should not be allowed to gather dust. There are parts with which I disagree, and I have other criticisms of the way in which it has been handled. However, I make it clear at the outset that I in no way challenge the central messages of the report.
The death of Stephen Lawrence was a cruel and unnecessary tragedy. It was a racist murder, and there is no question but that the investigation that followed was deeply flawed. It is an affront to our sense of justice that the murderers of Stephen Lawrence remain at liberty. I am also in no doubt that the murder and the events surrounding it symbolise the challenge that we face in this country. That challenge is not remotely confined to the police: it is a challenge to us all. Our common aim must be to prevent racial discrimination in this country, and I reassert our total opposition to racially prejudiced behaviour of whatever kind. That entails not just uttering the right words but acting in the right way to prevent such discrimination.
I also recognise that the police must do more to win greater trust among ethnic minority communities. The Macpherson report levels criticism in that area, but it is important to emphasise that it does not seek to paint policemen and women serving today—often under difficult conditions—as racist. The report does not justify launching a general attack on the police. Police feel a vast amount of good will for the cause of improving relations. We should recognise that fact and not allow under any circumstances the present difficulties to be exploited by those who are antagonistic towards the police service.
I do not wish to avoid the challenge of the Macpherson report; nor do I wish to hide behind the currently fashionable criticism that it is badly written. It may be, but, if we are to ignore reports on those grounds, all kinds of official documents will bite the dust. The Home Secretary might even be able to make another tasteless joke about my books rather than being guided by my message. I believe that the Macpherson report sets down a fundamental challenge—and doing nothing is not an option.
I shall deal chronologically with the events surrounding the publication of the report. It is a great pity—the Home Secretary touched on this point towards the end of his speech—that the handling of the report has not matched the importance of its message. The House can judge such matters. The House can judge whether action could and

771
should have been taken earlier to prevent witnesses from being put in danger. I think that that was possible and that such action should have been taken.
The House can also judge whether the Home Secretary was correct in seeking an injunction against the whole of the British media because The Sunday Telegraph quoted in advance three or four paragraphs of a report that was to be published in a few days' time in any event. Personally—the House knows my interest as a journalist and as chairman of a newspaper company—I believe that that was both wrong and an overreaction. Even more crucially, the distinguished legal commentator David Pannick said that, according to legal principles, the injunction
"should not have been sought and it should not have been granted."
For the purposes of this debate, the central issue of pre-publication is as follows. We know that the Macpherson report was leaked deliberately and we know also—or at least strongly suspect—that the aim was to influence opinion in advance of publication. That is important for this reason: the purpose of the leak appeared to be to implant a message that was very hostile to the police and to the Commissioner. I have a copy of the first edition of The Sunday Telegraph, which was later withdrawn. I was given it in a BBC studio during an interview about the incident. The article has "Censored by the State" written on it. More seriously, the report states that the position of the Commissioner was highly vulnerable, and continues:
"Home Office officials have told the Sunday Telegraph that his position will be untenable if he does not accept the stinging personal criticism levelled at him by the report and that ministers would have no option but to demand his resignation."
Someone among the small group of people who had access to the report deliberately leaked its contents in order to send a particular message. I believe the public have a right to know what happened and who was trying to exert that influence. For the purposes of this debate, I give notice to the Government that we do not intend to allow the matter to drop. An injunction against the media is, by any standards, an important step, and an injunction that follows a leak from the Home Office or the inquiry team raises some very important questions.
I have no intention of moving through all 70 recommendations in the Macpherson report. I will concentrate instead on what I regard as the most important. It seems to me that the first and most fundamental recommendation is that a ministerial priority should be established for the police
"to increase trust and confidence in policing amongst minority ethnic communities".
That proposal is fundamental, but contains nothing new in principle. Since the formation of police forces in Britain, the police have had to win the public's trust. It has never been enough for the police in this country to say, "My uniform is my authority." From the start, the service has had to win respect from a public sceptical about the idea of an organised police force. As it happens, I believe the police have been astoundingly successful in that regard. However, no one doubts that much more must be done to improve relations with and trust within ethnic communities.
Macpherson sets out a range of proposals for achieving that objective. I suppose the most attention has centred on the proposal to make the police subject to race relations
772
legislation generally. Subject to one proviso—which I shall come to later—I do not dispute that principle. It would be strange if the private sector were subject to race relations legislation but not the public sector, including the health service, the civil service and the police.
However, I have a different point about improving relations. I suspect that the proposals in Macpherson that will make the difference are not those that hit the headlines but the less dramatic recommendations, such as better training and the introduction of family liaison officers. For example, the report suggests that training courses designed to establish that good community relations are essential to good policing can achieve a great deal.
I think that that kind of approach will work because every opinion poll conducted in this country shows that the police service generally is one of the most respected services in this country. It remains a generally unarmed service. Relations between the community and the police are better in the United Kingdom than in any overseas country. Most people still regard the police as friends and believe that they can turn to the police service for help. The foundation of general public support exists already and can be built on and extended.
The general complaint about the police in Britain is not that they act officiously or are insensitive or inefficient but that there are not enough of them to meet the demands that the public legitimately place on them. The people want—this is also the message of the Macpherson report—an extension of community policing to every area. We should recognise that good community policing cannot be achieved by a police force that simply responds to emergencies, waits for 999 calls or patrols predominantly in cars. That is not what the public want.
Macpherson does not touch upon the strength of the police, but that fundamental requirement flows from the report's argument: we cannot achieve all that the report seeks to achieve if police forces are declining in strength. In international terms, the British police service is already small. In New York, there are 40,000 police. In London—which has the same population—there are 26,000 police, and that number is decreasing. If we are to be serious about joined-up Government policies, the issue of police strength must be tackled.
I strongly endorse one proposal in that area—there is nothing between me and the report on this point. It would benefit everyone if more policemen and women from ethnic minority backgrounds not only served in the police force but were retained by that force. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); it is not enough merely to recruit. It is also necessary to ensure that there is progress so that every recruit is given the opportunity to rise to the highest ranks in the police service. That must be the aim of any recruitment and retention policy.
What is my proviso about the proposals for the police? My concern is not that each of the different recommendations cannot be justified, but that, when all the recommendations are taken together, they might appear to add up to an onerous set of new obligations for serving policemen and women. We need to be careful about that. In their anxiety to do good and to change attitudes, the Government must guard against being too officious by introducing too many rules and giving the police the impression that they are constantly under

773
investigation—under race relations legislation, by the inspectors of constabulary armed with new powers, by organisations such as the Audit Commission and, of course, under the complaints procedure.
A range of changes are in prospect for the complaints procedure and the disciplinary code—a new code with a new burden of proof. As the Home Secretary mentioned, there is the prospect of a new body to carry out investigations. As a result of the Macpherson report, there is now the prospect that a disciplinary offence—not a criminal offence—can hang over a policeman for up to five years after he has left the service. I have serious doubts about that, and even more serious doubts about another issue that the Home Secretary has added to that list: that he intends to consider whether legislation should be introduced to enable police pensions to be forfeited for serious disciplinary offences.
When my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and I raised that matter at Home Office questions on 15 February, we were told by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that we had been badly briefed and that powers already existed. It is now clear that the hon. Lady was badly briefed and that, as my hon. Friend and I suggested, powers for disciplinary offences do not exist—and, in my view, nor should they. A pension cannot simply be confiscated: both the Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government have said that a pension belongs to the individual. I fear that the proposal will take us back to the days of grace-and-favour pensions and will be regarded as offensive in the police service.
Mr. Straw: I think the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) will confirm that it is already the case that, when a police officer has, for example, been convicted of a serious criminal offence and the Secretary of State signs a certificate stating that that conviction brings the police service concerned into serious disrepute, that police officer may forfeit up to 75 per cent. of his pension. That is the portion of the pension that was contributed by the state; the remaining 25 per cent. is never subject to forfeit because that amount is assumed for these purposes to have been contributed by the individual.
Sir Norman Fowler: That is a rather dodgy argument, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying so; it could apply to any other pension scheme. The fact is that ownership passes. I do not dispute the fact that what the right hon. Gentleman describes is true for serious criminal offences, but he is not confining his proposal to such cases. He is saying that such considerations should be taken into account in respect of disciplinary offences. I am questioning that proposal.
Mr. David Maclean: If the Home Secretary is considering the removal of the part of a police officer's pension that he is entitled to remove for serious disciplinary offences—possibly including racist offences or racist language—and as the Macpherson report has indicated that most of our institutions are also in need of reform, surely such a proposal should extend to health service workers and the whole of government and the civil service? Police officers would think that it
774
was unfair for their pensions to be removed for certain offences while civil servants and others did not have their pensions removed if they committed similar offences.
Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that our debate will be constructive, so I would say that the Government need to think carefully and deeply about that matter and any precedents that it might set. I understand the point made by my right hon. Friend; as he is aware, I was involved with pension policy, so perhaps I have a greater interest in the subject than most people.
The general message sent out by that kind of proposal is even more important than its specifics. I believe that most police officers are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the case for reform, but in that process of reform it is essential that the Government take the police service with them. It will be in no one's interests to have a demoralised service reacting defensively; everyone should be aiming at having a police service that positively embraces and supports reform.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Ms Abbott: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Norman Fowler: Yes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I establish to whom the right hon. Gentleman is giving way?
Sir Norman Fowler: It is self-evident, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I give way first to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Ms Abbott: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have listened carefully to his arguments about the onerous burdens that are being placed on the police. Does he accept that the police are in a different position from members of other public services? They alone have power over people's liberty—almost the power of life and death. It is not unreasonable that higher standards should be expected of them even than of people in other parts of the public sector. Does the right hon. Gentleman also realise the great concern among people—black or white, living in London or outside it—that serious allegations may be made against policemen and that they can walk away from those accusations simply by resigning and continuing to draw their pension? That does not apply only in the Lawrence case, but to a series of deaths in custody.
Sir Norman Fowler: I accept that there is a case to be explored and answered. I certainly accept that there must be the highest possible checks on the police. However, I advise the Government that it would not be right or sensible—nor would there be public support—if a set of proposals that were seen to be unjust were imposed on the police. That would be wrong.
Mr. Straw rose—
Sir Norman Fowler: If the Home Secretary will allow me, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and then I shall give way to him.
Mr. Rowe: I share my right hon. Friend's anxieties about the proposed pension arrangements. Is it not likely

775
that some of the older members of the police force might find it hardest to adapt to the new requirements—however necessary they might be—and that, in order to ease that problem, such officers might be expected to retire early? However, if, at the same time, their pensions were put at risk because of the behaviour that had caused the demand for their retirement, would that not be unfair?
Sir Norman Fowler: What would be unfair would be the imposition of a serious disciplinary offence that was considered unjust by the service and by the public. Rather than that we should all take entrenched positions, I urge that we should give these matters careful thought and consider whether it is sensible to proceed down that road.
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the matter needs to be explored, and that is true. However, it is crucial that what we do is fair not only to members of the public but to police officers; I have made that point on many occasions, in the House and outside it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out, the police do an extraordinary job. It is precisely because they do such an extraordinary job that that fact needs to be recognised in their terms and conditions of service.
Sir Norman Fowler: I think that that was a concession and that we are coming together. If the Home Secretary is agreeing with me, I shall move on, with that in my pocket. I genuinely believe that it is sensible to try to reach agreement on these matters.
We can also take it from the Home Secretary's published response to the Macpherson report that two other proposals are destined for the legal knacker's yard. The proposal in respect of double jeopardy—prosecution after acquittal—is set down as accepted by the Home Secretary, but what he means is that he is content for it to be considered by the Law Commission, and the word "consideration" is there in italics. Although I agree that it might be considered, I would be amazed if the Law Commission did not reject it. Similarly, the Government are right to be wary of changing the law in respect of racist language used in private places, such as a house. I do not think the Home Secretary mentioned this matter—
Mr. Straw: I did.
Sir Norman Fowler: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
Whatever our views, we have to pass law that is enforceable by the police and the courts and that does not infringe other rights. Therefore, I believe that that proposal should be rejected. I should add that, if anyone wants confirmation of the sort of people we are up against, they should read appendix 10 to the report, which contains an account of the language used by some of the suspects in the case.
There is one further point to be made. Although the focus of the report is better community relations, some of the recommendations have a general application, as they relate to far more than one service. Take freedom of information. The Home Secretary mentioned that the report proposes that a freedom of information Act should apply to all areas of policing. However, proposals such as
776
freedom of information cannot be considered in isolation, or as always applying to someone else; Government Departments have to apply them to themselves. In the topical case of the inquiry into the leak of the Macpherson report, the Home Secretary has personally blocked every sensible piece of information that is capable of being blocked. To give but one example, I asked, not for the individual identity of those being questioned, but whether, as a class, Ministers, officials, or ministerial advisers would be questioned. I was told by the Home Secretary:
"It would not be in the interests of the leak investigation now under way to give these details."— [Official Report, 4 March 1999; Vol. 326, c. 855.]
Ms Abbott: Quite right.
Sir Norman Fowler: I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) will support any restriction—
Ms Abbott: I said that.
Sir Norman Fowler: Oh, it was the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. In that case, I am amazed. In all seriousness, we should avoid imposing obligations on the police that we are not prepared to accept ourselves.
Another proposal that has general application and commands agreement on both sides of the House concerns victims of crime. Macpherson criticises the police for dealing with the Lawrence family in a patronising manner. I can think of few things more hurtful than that and I hope that the wider use of family liaison officers will help to address that problem. However, the principle goes far wider, because, even now, we do not look after the victims of crime well enough. We appear to believe that, after a certain period, people automatically come to terms with their loss, but that is not necessarily true; as I learned at the initial meeting of Victims Voice last year, the loss continues and we should do more generally to help crime victims.
Fiona Mactaggart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in countries where freedom of information legislation applies to the investigation of crime, it is often used by victims; and that in many cases—for example, in south Australia—victims' being able to give information to the police has led to successful prosecutions? Does he not think that more powerful freedom of information legislation might help in this country?
Sir Norman Fowler: I was not arguing against freedom of information. I must confess that, in the past two years, I have become a strong convert to the cause, because getting information out of the current Government is enough to tax any Opposition. I say, as gently as possible, that if we are to have freedom of information, I want it to apply not only to the police and the other public services but to the Home Secretary. We look forward to the Home Secretary's draft Bill on that subject, but I must admit that a Home Secretary who has just introduced an injunction on the whole of the British media would not necessarily be my first choice to introduce a freedom of information Bill.

777
There is a great deal in the report with which hon. Members from all parties can agree. No doubt there will be some who try to exploit the criticism of the police, and others—including, I suspect, one or two lawyers—who will never be satisfied. However, in my view, most people in this country will support a policy of constructive reform and, to an overwhelming extent, policemen and women will support it as well. That does not mean that each and every one of the proposals will receive support, but there is no doubt about the general support that the report commands.
For our part, the Opposition will support sensible measures to combat racism in this country; sensible measures to promote trust between the police and ethnic minorities; and sensible measures to work to eliminate racial discrimination, which clearly offends any concept of equality of opportunity in this country. We shall not support generalised attacks on the police or measures that unnecessarily harm the morale of the service; nor shall we support the making of bad law, however well-intentioned it is, or measures that infringe other rights. It is a question not only of condemning racism—although that is important—but of finding the right measures to fight racism. That second task will be far more difficult than the first, but we shall certainly do our utmost to help.
6.17 pm
Mr. Clive Efford: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for having established the public inquiry, and to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence for their tireless campaign.
Our debate is about the sort of society we want for ourselves and, most important, for our children. Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence have said on numerous occasions that they want Stephen to be remembered for bringing an end to racial division in our society. No other parent should have to go through what they have been through. During the inquiry, Mrs. Lawrence said that she wished that Stephen had had the chance to bridge the divide between black and white. At the end of the inquiry, Neville Lawrence said:
"This is a very small place, this world of ours, we have to live together and now we have to say; let us put the past behind us, join hands and go forward."
Those are the sentiments of two parents who have been subjected to the most outrageous injustice. They are calling for change for the better and it is in that spirit that we should follow their lead. We live in a multiracial, multi-ethnic society and it is time we started to educate it and police it as such.
The report has had a dramatic effect on the community that I represent. There can be no doubt that the people who have suffered the greatest injustice are Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, their family and, most of all, Stephen himself. However, the injustice done to many of the people named in the report has changed their lives. Some of them were only schoolchildren at the time when they gave evidence to the police, repeating hearsay that they had heard on the street or in the playground. They were too young to understand the importance of what they were saying, let alone that it might be published in a blaze of publicity six years later. Others were people who wanted to help the police to solve a terrible crime, or who came forward in response to an appeal for witnesses from
778
Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence. Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence have expressed their concern for all those people, some of whom were given no idea that their names had been made public at the inquiry and would be published in the body, not merely in the appendices, of the report. Regardless of who is to blame for the publication of the appendices, too little regard was given to those people in this affair—until it was too late.
I am grateful to the Home Office, the police and the London borough of Greenwich for the support that they have given my constituents. However, my constituents should never have been put in such a situation in the first place. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should set out clear guidelines so that no error of this nature can again have such a devastating effect on the lives of innocent bystanders. We should never have to hold an inquiry of such magnitude again—lessons must be learned and procedures set out so that those mistakes can never be repeated.
Throughout the inquiry, I was forced to defend my constituents from the excesses of the media. On the morning following the publication of the report, I began the day by defending my constituents because they were being portrayed as racists who had not assisted the police in their investigation. Later that day, the report itself was being attacked over the release of the names of dozens of people who had come forward with information. People in my community are angry that they are being denigrated as racists because they have an Eltham postcode. The report states categorically that the police did not meet with a wall of silence when they appealed to the local community for information following Stephen's murder.
I thank my right hon. Friend for taking the time to visit Eltham to meet members of the local community and parents of the children from the estate that has recently featured in the media, and for expressing his concern over the way in which they have been treated. To suggest that racist violence is peculiar to Eltham is to suggest that problems do not exist elsewhere. That is to undermine the report.
Racism exists in our society today; it permeates every section and every institution. It is the responsibility of all of us—the decent-minded majority—to confront racism in all its forms, to provide education where there is ignorance and guidance where there is prejudice, and to be intolerant of those who place themselves beyond the bounds of human decency. It cannot be solved by this report alone; the process is on-going. I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that he will personally lead the steering group to co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of the recommendations.
In contrast to the response to the recommendations of the Scarman report, such as they were, which were allowed to gather dust on a Home Office shelf, the Macpherson report is the beginning, not the end, of change. I say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence should be part of his steering group. They are responsible for bringing us to this point, and have the right to see the issue through.
In my written submission to the second phase of the inquiry in July, I stated that I believed that the Metropolitan police were institutionally racist. The canteen culture that permeates the police allows the swaggering bigots to dominate in a system that militates against those who would challenge such behaviour if they were given the confidence

779
that the police service would back them if they did so. I called for police recruits to be vetted, to weed out as far as practicable those who uphold racist views. Our police force needs to undergo fundamental change.
Sir John Woodcock, the then chief inspector of constabulary, stated in 1992:
"What is happening to the police is that a nineteenth century institution is being dragged into the twenty-first century. Despite all the later mythology of Dixon, the police never were the police of the whole people, but a mechanism set up to protect the affluent from what the Victorians described as the dangerous classes."
That change is still being resisted. We must not be deceived into believing that there is no resistance today.
I was not one who called for the resignation of Sir Paul Condon on the publication of the report. I took the view that there is no shining white knight—it would be a he, and he would be white—standing in the wings who would do anything different from Sir Paul Condon. On many occasions, he has said that he accepts the inquiry's findings. If he did not mean what he said, and intends to prevaricate over their implementation, he should resign now. Leadership that brings about change is required; it is no longer acceptable to say the right things but achieve nothing.
Scarman rejected the notion that the Metropolitan police were racist. He stated:
"The direction of policies of the Metropolitan Police Service are not racist. I totally and unequivocally reject the attack made upon the integrity and impartiality of the senior direction of the force".
He went on to accept that some officers, particularly those below the level of "senior direction", were guilty of
"ill considered immature and racially prejudiced actions in their dealings…with young black people".
Eighteen years on, we are still having the same arguments. If the police have failed to change, "senior direction", as Scarman put it, has failed to deliver the changes required.
It is clear that the police must come within the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976. We must end the secrecy that surrounds investigation of police activities. It is unacceptable for the police to continue to investigate the police. There should be full disclosure of all areas of policing. Secrecy should be maintained only in the public interest, and not in the interests of those who are being investigated. Public confidence can be restored only if there is full disclosure and effective scrutiny in order to ensure that the system is being applied in the public interest.
Having said that, I must also say that I recognise that the majority of officers, like the residents of Eltham, are angry at being accused of being racist when they feel that they are not.
We must recognise the work that the police are doing to tackle racist crime. Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Grieve, who heads the Met's racial and violent crime task force, stated at a recent seminar in Greenwich that one of the police's problems was that they had stopped listening to their most trenchant critics. The police are beginning to understand that "colour-blind policing" is not the way in which to police a multicultural society. They are beginning to consult members of the black community in the investigation and prevention of crime, something that is to be welcomed and encouraged. The police merely reflect the society from which they recruit. That was not accepted at the time of Scarman, but must be accepted now if we are to carry through the report's recommendations for the good of us all.
780
We must view the recommendations as the minimum that we should do to tackle racism in our society. We should view debate around the issues raised in the report as a positive step—even when such issues are controversial. The issue of double jeopardy is to be considered by the Law Commission, and will be the subject of further debate. I shall therefore not dwell on it for too long. There must be a mechanism to allow for a retrial where a significant amount of new evidence has come to light. I accept that that must not be automatic, and that there should be rigorous examination of the evidence before that could be done. Perhaps there should also be an independent re-examination of the original police investigation to determine why such new evidence has suddenly come to light. That may alleviate some people's fear that the police might not put every effort into the original investigation.
The other controversial issue is that of policing racist language in the home. I commend the inquiry for raising the issue. I share the concerns about civil liberties and how law on such a matter could be enforced. We must consider what the inquiry is trying to achieve by such a recommendation. Primarily, it is concerned with the effect that the matter-of-fact use of racist language in the home has on the minds of young people. Schools are attempting to confront young people who use racist language, to get them to understand the reasons why it is wrong. The problem stems from the home where such behaviour is commonplace. At the end of the day, parents who instil such views in their children must be forced to account for their action.
Where a child is constantly using racist language in defiance of every reasonable attempt to educate him to understand why such language is unacceptable, a multi-agency approach is required to engage the parents in the process to deal with the problem. That may be achievable through parental orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as set out in the report's recommendations.
The report recommends that the national curriculum should be amended in a way that is
"aimed at valuing cultural diversity and preventing racism".
Schools already do a great deal, which must not be overlooked, but we must understand that teaching children about other cultures does not constitute anti-racism. Children must be made aware of what damage racism does to the victim.
The final recommendation on the on-going process of building and maintaining harmony in our communities is probably the most demanding—but, potentially, the most rewarding. The report has focused too much on institutions and not enough on challenging community groups and police consultative groups to address its findings. In a predominantly white community, there is often little representation of black individuals, and the problems faced by members of ethnic minorities are often overlooked. We must ensure that the whole community is engaged in seeing through the recommendations.
We must now begin the process of restoring confidence among all sections of the community. In 10 months, Sir Paul Condon will retire as Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. That gives us a great deal of time to consider what we can and should expect from the Commissioner. It also gives us a chance to engage a cross-section of the community in that discussion. That could prove to be an

781
enormous gesture to the black community, which could help to restore confidence in the Metropolitan police, and I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to consider engaging the community in that debate.
At the time of his murder, Stephen had a split second in which he could have chosen to run. He was an excellent athlete, as well as an excellent student, and it is possible that he would have outrun his attackers, but he did not run. The fact that to run was not Stephen's first instinct is a powerful statement to us all. He had done nothing wrong. He had been brought up to understand the difference between right and wrong. A few moments in the company of his parents would enable anyone to understand why that is the case.
Stephen could not have known that what would happen to him in the next few moments would be fatal, but he knew that he had right on his side, and he did not run. He saw nothing from which he should run, and for that he suffered an enormous injustice that his parents have continued to experience in their campaign. It is up to us now to demonstrate the leadership that will prove right the instinct that Stephen had on that road in April 1993.
6.31 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: We regard the report as extremely valuable. If it is implemented, it will enable us to move on from the appalling tragedy of Stephen Lawrence's murder and the failures of policing that the report revealed to an active campaign to rid our society of racism. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has every reason to be as aware as anybody of the magnitude of the task. He spoke effectively and from experience about that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the disclosure of information about witnesses in the publication of the appendix to the report. I shall clear that point out of the way now, lest it obscure the value of the report. I remain amazed that the inquiry team could have included that material in the appendix and that nobody in the Home Office spotted that fact during the nine days in which it had the report because, in every court in the land, every week, decisions are made to ensure that the names of people giving information do not become known, and I serve on a Committee that has to carry out a similar task in its work. An appalling error was made in both organisations. The formal responsibility lies with the inquiry team and has been accepted by Sir William Macpherson, but it is horrifying that the mistake could have occurred in the inquiry offices and the Home Office.
Without the Lawrence family, this report would not have been produced, because they rightly insisted again and again that a report was needed. We welcome the fact that the Home Secretary agreed to set up such an inquiry and has responded fully to it, although I am anxious about a few of his responses.
The initial police response has also been encouraging. When the report was published, the chairman of the
782
Police Federation, Fred Broughton, said that it made painful but persuasive reading, but it was an opportunity for the police service to make
"real and lasting change and put its house in order".
He said also that
"we must look to the future and address our own agenda, structure and culture if we are to police with everyone's support."
That is a recognition by those whose responsibility it is to represent police officers—including representing them in disciplinary proceedings as well as representing their interests generally—that much work has to be done. That is an encouraging statement.
The investigation and the first inquiry were riddled with instances of amazing incompetence. If one removes the elements of racial stereotyping, it is still difficult to understand why the police behaved so incompetently, and that makes it more likely that racial stereotyping partially explains that incompetence. Frighteningly ignorant racial stereotyping appears to have led police officers to jump to conclusions and dismiss courses of action that they might otherwise have taken. They thought, "If the case involves a black person, he must have been in a fight. A black family would not understand us."
There was, however, real incompetence and a lack of basic attention to duty, to duty of care and to all the considerations that experience has led us to expect from police officers. That made their incompetence genuinely surprising to many people, except, perhaps, those who have found themselves in a situation similar to that of the Lawrence family, in which an unsolved crime has not been subject to the proper professional approach. For each of those people, there are many more who have experienced police officers doing their job properly but, in this instance, there was some of the worst incompetence that it is possible to find in policing.
As well as that lesson about incompetence, the Lawrence inquiry concerns a general policing issue that will be more puzzling to police officers. Any officer in any force reading the report would say, "We would not have done it like that. We would have made a better job of it." However, many police officers would be puzzled by the report's insistence that colour-blind policing is not enough. An understandable and traditional view of police officers is that they treat everybody the same. That is the instinct of fair policing. The police should have no favourites and no friends.
That policy does not work if the police are dealing with substantially disadvantaged and alienated sections of the community whose culture they may not understand and who have already had many adverse experiences of policing and authority. In those circumstances, more subtlety is required. There must be positive appreciation of the problems that a community faces and a positive attempt to overcome one's initial prejudices or instincts. That important point comes out of the report, and it requires an unexpected change of attitude by police officers who probably thought that they were doing right by taking no notice of colour, just as they might try to take no notice of religion or class. Sometimes, one must go beyond that.
The report makes many important detailed recommendations that have been accepted, including the extension of the Race Relations Act 1976 in full to police forces, new rules on the definition and investigation of racist or potentially racist crimes, and improvement of

783
family liaison, the treatment of victims and training. All those are valuable. The monitoring of stop and search powers is essential. In 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I have walked through the streets of London a great deal. On the vast majority of occasions on which I have seen a car stopped by police officers, the car's occupants have been black or Asian. That has always amazed me because the vast majority of people occupying the cars that move past me are not black or Asian. We have not attended properly to that problem.
The report contains recruitment and retention targets for police officers from minorities. Those are very important and must be pursued, but we must remember that the Metropolitan police have a serious recruitment problem to start with. They have difficulty recruiting in sufficient numbers. They have always had to recruit from far beyond London. If they are seeking recruits from somewhere like my constituency, as they often do, they have to go a long way to find members of ethnic minorities to recruit. For years, the Met has had to look to Scotland, Wales and the north of England because it cannot find enough recruits in London. That makes the task set out in the report much harder.
Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in the Metropolitan police service area in particular, there is great difficulty not only in recruiting but in retaining police officers from ethnic minorities, who often want to go to police forces elsewhere in the country?
Mr. Beith: There is evidence of such police officers moving to other forces. There may be factors in the Met that need to be addressed to prevent that, as well as the positive incentives that need to be given to try to retain ethnic minority officers. Targets are clearly important.
Mr. Simon Hughes: As I hope my right hon. Friend accepts, and as hon. Members from other parties know, the Met tells us that it is having difficulty in recruiting high-quality officers—not only, but in particular, black and Asian officers—from London who understand the society that they are meant to police. I hope that my right hon. Friend will further accept that one of the best responses to the report would be positively to recruit to the police service good, competent, graduate officers, who will view policing as a worthwhile career. If we did that, there might not be the incompetence that the inquiry revealed.
Mr. Beith: I agree very much with my hon. Friend on that point.
I want to mention a couple more policing matters. The first is the issue of discipline, and especially the application of discipline to officers who have retired. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) so readily dismiss the great public concern about the fact that it is possible for officers to retire from the police force, sometimes on the ground of ill-health because of the stress of an inquiry, and escape all disciplinary proceedings as a result. The research of the Select Committee on Home Affairs referred to that. The answer may not lie in tinkering with police pensions, but an answer must be found. We emphasised that issue to the Home Secretary in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster and we do so again in this instance. It is an
784
important issue, about which the public feel deeply. We hope for rapid progress on the independent investigation of complaints when the current discussions are complete.
Perhaps the most general comment that one can make about policing in the light of the Lawrence report is about the need for partnership and consent. Our view as a party about policing is that those approaches are fundamental to the success and acceptability of policing. They are also part of the best tradition of the British police force. The aim is to achieve policing by consent and in partnership with the local community. There has been a manifest failure to achieve that, difficult as it was to do with ethnic minority communities in London and some other parts of the country.
The primary aim is the restoration of partnership policing and policing by consent—in some instances, that will mean the introduction of something that has not been achieved at all. Having enough police officers in the community and the community feeling that it has some input into what the police do and what their priorities are, are all part of policing by consent.
That brings me to a recommendation on which I still maintain that the Government's response is less clear, and that is the role of the Metropolitan Police Authority. Its role will be slightly confused in any event because of the existence of the authority and of the elected mayor, who will have certain defined responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities appear in the Greater London Authority Bill in the section on policing. There are problems in other areas of government in London in determining who is responsible—the elected mayor or the authority—that might be reflected in policing. However, the report clearly recommends that the Metropolitan Police Authority should have powers of appointment and accountability for chief officers on the same basis as other forces. The Government's response is that the
"Secretary of State will continue to play a more active role"
in the appointment of the commissioner and deputy commissioner than applies in other forces.
The Home Secretary played down the difference and said that the situation would not be unlike that in other forces where, effectively, the Home Office has a veto on the shortlist. The position is slightly more complicated than that, but that is a reasonable summary. There is a considerable difference between a veto on the short list and "a more active role", which sounds very much like the Home Secretary putting up the name and telling the police authority that that is the name that it will have, or perhaps choosing from a couple of names that it is suggesting. The wording of the Government's response does not fit with the Home Secretary's indication that the recommendation is accepted and that the outcome will be pretty similar to the situation in other areas.
I take the view that national responsibilities that are still exercised by the Metropolitan police are not the real reason for the Home Secretary's desire to have a more active role. We are talking of a high-profile post and, if things go wrong, the result will be serious. The Home Secretary may feel that he or his successors might take some of the flak. The remaining national responsibilities of the Metropolitan police, important though they are, are not an argument for the rather curious and confused pattern that is summed up in the phrase "a more active role". That seems to be a recipe for not having sufficient accountability.

785
Freedom of information is another area where there is some difference between what the report says and what the Government are saying. The report states that "all areas of policing" should be included
"subject only to the 'substantial harm' test."
It is said also that there are no grounds for a class exemption for the police in any area. The Home Secretary immediately comes out with two class exemptions, one for material relating to informers and the other for that to investigations and prosecutions. It would seem that both would be covered in any event by the "substantial harm" test. That is a pretty obvious lesson from what happened over the report itself. If information leaks about informers, substantial harm is done to those people and to the prospect of gaining information in future. However, the report was explicit that a class exemption would not be required for that purpose.
When it comes to the test, the Home Secretary said in his response that there would be an "appropriate harm" test. There is a subtle shift of phrase from the "substantial harm" test. On this point, we shall carefully examine the draft Bill when it emerges.
One of the wider issues that the report raises is that of racist language in private places. It seems that there is a general feeling throughout the House, which is shared by most commentators outside it, that the proposal is not really feasible and is likely to lead to incursions into the general notion that we do not intrude into private property unless there are good grounds to believe that, for example, a serious crime is being planned.
Dr. Gibson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the phenomenon of scientific and medical racism which purports to show that there are several species—for example, homo africanus and homo europi? One is of fair complexion, sanguine temperament, brawny form and gentle manners and is acute in judgment. The other is of black complexion, phlegmatic temperament and relaxed fibre and is crafty, indolent and careless. That appears in books in establishments throughout the country, from schools to universities. What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion of that view?
Mr. Beith: I never encountered it in any serious book that I read in the course of my school or university life. Crazy and bogus medical views of a racist character have been found around the world for a long time. Thankfully, they are vigorously and effectively challenged. I should be surprised to find a book advancing the view that the hon. Gentleman has described in use as a text in any course in any reputable institution. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
I shall move through some of the wider recommendations. Disclosures in inquest proceedings that are related to deaths in custody constitute an important recommendation which the Government have accepted, and we welcome that. However, we are very concerned to be sure that the Government's view about legal aid will be the same as that of the report, which is that, "in appropriate cases", there should be legal aid for families in inquest cases such as the Lawrence case. The Government talk about "exceptional" cases. We are rather suspicious of those slight shifts of words.
786
There are important recommendations about education. I would stress that there is a need for good home-school liaison to help the parents of ethnic minority pupils feel that they are engaged in school activities. I stress also the need, as in the police force, to recruit to the teaching profession more people from ethnic minority backgrounds. The issue of opposing racism should be in the planned citizenship component of the national curriculum.
There are many wider issues for society as a whole. Understandably. some police officers make the point that it would be to misread the report to assume that all its recommendations are directed at the police service. The recommendations are directed much more widely, and some of them go to the heart of the position of ethnic minorities in our society as a whole.
Racism and discrimination exist in all parts of society. Statistics show that discrimination. Unemployment rates are twice as high as the average for ethnic minority communities. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are three to four times more likely to be unemployed as white adults. The number of exclusions from schools is rising and the rate for Afro-Caribbean boys is five times higher than that for white boys. In some local education authorities, the rate is much higher. The report refers to wider problems in society, which we must all address.
Ms Abbott: One of the wider issues on which the House might with profit reflect is that all political parties in the House should be doing more to ensure that the House is more representative of the society in which we live.
Mr. Beith: Quite right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) addressed some strong comments to the Liberal Democratic party and to the community as a whole in a speech a few weeks ago in London. We have sought in every way that we can to find ways of making our own party a more effective route for people from ethnic communities to enter the House. It is a problem that has faced all three political parties. The welcome presence of the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) is a reminder that, in all parties, we still have not achieved as much as we should in that respect.
That is a fitting note on which to conclude: in political parties, as in every other aspect of society, we have major battles to win.
6.50 pm
Ms Oona King: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this stage of the debate, not least because I am the only young black person in the country elected to Parliament. I do not know whether it is true, but someone told me that I am the only young black person—that is, someone under the age of 30 at the election—elected to a Parliament in the whole of Europe. That might suggest an institutional bias that faces young black people. We must deal with the parallel universes that black and white people seem to inhabit. I say that as someone with a black father and a white mother. The existence of those parallel universes was brought home to me by my childhood experience. My white family would always say, "Now, Oona, if you get lost, what you have to do is find a nice policeman, and he will look after you—he will take care of you."

787
The attitude on my father's side of the family was the exact opposite. Their attitude was, more or less, that if you are black, a white policeman can seriously damage your health. That was not just their own irrational prejudice and bias; it was their own experience. Indeed, my father is still exiled from the country that he came from because of institutional racism there and because he asked to be treated the same as a white man.
I was brought up with those two attitudes, so I understand my white family thinking that the policeman is the best person whom I could go to, but that was not my experience as a child. The very first contact that I ever had with a policeman was in Swiss Cottage. I was sitting on a fence, and a policeman came up to me and said—I hope hon. Members will excuse the unparliamentary language—"Oi, you black bitch, get down off that fence."
Those were the first words that a policeman said to me. I implore Opposition Members and people around the country to accept that that must inevitably diminish my respect for the police force. When the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) says that the police are one of the most respected institutions in the country, I must ask him: respected by whom? It is not the case that the police are respected by the black community. That is a great shame, because it undermines our democracy. That cuts to the core of what it is to be British, and what we hope for in a democratic society.
The parallel universes are further illustrated by a comment made by the editor of a middle England newspaper who wrote after the Lawrence inquiry:
"The problem the police faced was that the poor parents' grief was unassuageable and so they felt the need to blame someone."
I am, frankly, disgusted by those remarks, but disgust, outrage, hyperbole and hysteria do not help us to come to an understanding, so I try to steer clear of that as much as I can.
The problem that the police faced was the fact that they were institutionally racist, institutionally incompetent and institutionally corrupt. Corruption is the twin brother of racism, and it affects us all. That is why the debate and the Lawrence inquiry are so important, for white people as well as for black people.
Mr. John Hayes: Is the hon. Lady really telling the House that the police suffer from institutionalised corruption? Leaving aside that outrageous claim, does she not realise that by blaming an institution collectively, by assuming that there is some unconscious collective guilt, she is letting off the hook the officers who are certainly guilty of those charges, as they hide behind the collective allegations that she makes?
Ms King: If we can look at the issue that you raise by taking another "ism" and another institution, to see whether the point that you make is correct or not—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Lady must use the correct parliamentary language.
Ms King: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suffer from an inability to get that into my mind, even after two years in the House.
Perhaps the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will consider another example—another "ism" and another institution. Let us take sexism
788
and Parliament—the House of Commons. Let us look across the Benches. When the Home Secretary rose to speak, there was one woman on the Opposition Benches—and 26 men. Surely you would not deny that that shows that Parliament as an institution is biased against women? Would the hon. Gentleman deny that? I presume that he would not. [HON. MEMBERS: "I would."] You would say—I am sorry, hon. Gentlemen—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must think carefully before she chooses her words.
Ms King: You are absolutely right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Gentlemen just said that they would deny that there was discrimination against women, yet there are now just two women Members sitting on the Opposition Benches. That defies credibility and contravenes the facts.
I believe that there is institutional sexism. However, I also believe that all Members on both sides of the House are not individually guilty of being sexist. I do not believe that Conservative Members, for example, get up each morning and say, "Today we are going to deny women the right to be represented in Parliament." Of course they do not. That would be an absurd proposition.
What the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is saying is that we cannot apportion the guilt where it lies—in the institution, rather than in the individual.
Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I shall not attempt to punctuate her speech unnecessarily with further interventions. I should like her to develop the theme that she initiated. She is telling the House that those are not matters of choice but unconscious matters; when people act in a prejudiced, unreasonable, unfair or discriminatory way, they are not making a personal choice for which they should be sanctioned but are doing something that is unconscious. She said that we were not aware of our prejudices. I suppose she would say that we are imbued with them.
By saying that, is not the hon. Lady letting people off the hook? One cannot blame individuals if those individuals did not make a conscious choice about their prejudice.
Ms King: The hon. Gentleman seems to have failed to understand what I was saying. I am not blaming the individual, I am blaming the institution. However, there is often a failure to blame either. The Lawrence inquiry showed that neither the institutions nor the individuals were blamed.
Let us consider cases in which British juries have found, in actions against the police, that the police have fabricated evidence, maliciously prosecuted people, and assaulted people. British juries have found in favour of the plaintiffs, yet the police are left to walk away scot free. I say that that does not just damage us as members of British society; it damages the police as well. As has been said, the police themselves believe that that needs to change.
The recommendations of the Lawrence inquiry have provoked much debate. In the few minutes remaining, I shall concentrate on some of those recommendations— for example, recommendation 38, which deals with people being tried twice. Originally, I was implacably opposed

789
to that recommendation, but I ask hon. Members to listen, as I did, to one argument that was put to me. Recommendation 38 states that
"consideration should be given to the Court of Appeal being given power"
to bring a fresh case where there is "viable evidence". What is viable evidence? It is, for instance, clear DNA evidence that may prove beyond reasonable doubt a person's link with a murder.
We should consider another case—that of Fred West, the serial killer. He appeared before the police many years ago, but they did not have enough evidence to prosecute him at the time. Let us suppose that he has been prosecuted, but that that prosecution has failed because of lack of evidence. Twenty years later, the bodies are dug up from under his house and there is clear proof that he was responsible for those murders, because fresh evidence has come to light. Should not the Court of Appeal be given the right to "consider" putting fresh evidence before a court in such a case? After all, that was done—the other way round—in the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six cases. If we can allow the Court of Appeal to review a decision when there is a conviction, why cannot we consider allowing it to consider fresh evidence when there is an acquittal? We have to realise that if we fail to do that we will risk encouraging people to take the law into their own hands, which surely cannot be what any of us want.
Recommendation 39 concerns the use of racist language in private. I am still very uneasy about that recommendation, although, as with all arguments that are put before me, I want to give it a fair hearing. There is an anomaly here. Some of the suspects said, "We think that niggers should have their legs cut off; let them swim with their stumps back to their nigger country." If they had been overheard saying that in the community centre on their estate, they could have been arrested and the police could have searched their homes. The police would have uncovered all manner of other evidence to show that something was amiss with that particular family and those particular people. However, if their neighbours hear them saying such things through the walls, nothing can be done.
To me, it seems strange to allow something to be done in one case—many people are under the impression that we are not allowed to act if we hear such language in the community hall, but we are—but not in another. If we allow action to be taken if such language is used in one place, why are we making that distinction if we are trying to prevent racist attacks? Remember, we are looking at prevention and prosecution—those were the terms of reference of the Lawrence inquiry.
I shall conclude because of time constraints. We need a new Race Relations Act—that goes without saying. I have seven further points on which I should like a response. First, what measures will the Home Secretary take to ensure implementation of the Lawrence report? How can it be embedded in the mainstream? Secondly, what measures will he take to bring the minority of criminal elements in the police to justice? Thirdly, given that 50 per cent. of those arrested for racist crime last year were under 16, does he not agree that we need an effective youth service? How will the Home Office tie that into its plans?
Fourthly, I am told that a colour bar apparently operates in the Army. I believe that that should also be the subject of an investigation. Fifthly, will the Home Secretary
790
ensure that the pilots for stop and search take place in all the main concentrations of ethnic minority people? Sixthly, will he consider giving adequate funding to the police? We cannot expect them to implement the recommendations without that money. Seventhly, will he appoint Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence to the proposed steering committee?
Will it not be ironic that, when people say, "What contribution have black people made to British society?" we need look no further than Doreen and Neville Lawrence? They—two black people—have brought us to this stage—we will all benefit from a fairer, less racist, less biased and more competent police service and democracy, which is in all our interests.
7.5 pm
Mr. David Maclean: To keep the record straight, I wish to inform the House again that I am pleased to be an adviser to the Police Superintendents Association. I stress that I am an adviser; I am not a spokesman for the association and I do not make speeches in the House on its behalf. I always give my own view. I intend to be brief. The House may not entirely agree with my views, because what I shall say may be regarded as slightly controversial.
Two things immediately stand out when one reads the Macpherson report. The first is that the report is an exceptionally good analysis of the failings of the Metropolitan police murder team investigation of this awful and brutal murder. The second is that a large number of recommendations are not backed up by any supporting evidence. In some ways, I found it a rather schizophrenic report, as though it had been written by two people. Perhaps, in some ways, it was.
Many parts of the report were written by the Sir William Macpherson who is a good casework judge. When presented with this awful Gordian knot of contradictory facts and assertions, he cut through it forensically and reached sensible conclusions on the evidence. He analysed the failings of the murder investigation and one can have no quibble with his conclusions. Then I looked at the parts of the report written by the Sir William Macpherson who recommends that a whole range of things in the country should be changed. It seemed to me that those recommendations were based not on any firm evidence that he received, but on untested and unquestioned assertions. I was surprised; if he had the evidence to justify his recommendations, why was it not cited in his report? I came to the conclusion that a good casework judge Sir William Macpherson may be, but a Lord Scarman he is not. Even less is he a royal commission.
Why has Sir William got parts of his report so wrong? I wonder what was the impact of the initial statements made by Michael Mansfield and other lawyers, which were perhaps designed to frighten him into adopting a more radical agenda, even if there was no evidence for it. The House will remember the remarks by some lawyers, criticising Sir William Macpherson even before he had started his work and saying that he was bound to be unsympathetic to their aims and aspirations because of his background. Did that make him bend over backwards to please? I do not know; we do not know.
An incredible, but disgraceful and highly revealing episode took place when Sir Paul Condon was questioned. A member of Sir William's own inquiry panel,

791
Dr. Richard Stone, urged Sir Paul, "Just say, 'Yes, I accept institutional racism exists.' I think a lot of people here are willing you to say that." That is an extraordinary comment from one of the inquiry team assisting Sir William, who has signed the report. He said that "a lot of people here are willing you to say that." I do not think that that counts as impartial judgment, which we expect from an investigation.
So, on reading the report and on reading that comment from Dr. Richard Stone, it seemed to me that, no matter what the evidence presented, the preconception of institutional racism was the underlying mood and driving force. We have been asked to accept all of Sir William's report and his recommendations as though they were the new ten commandments. I merely say that if any other court of law had run a trial in the way that this inquiry was conducted, I suspect that all its findings would have been overturned quite quickly by a Court of Appeal.
I must tell the House that I am not suggesting for one moment that all of Sir William's recommendations are wrong—merely that a large number have apparently been produced from thin air without any evidence to back them up. The recommendations relating to the conduct of police investigations seem to be perfectly valid, in my experience. The suggestions on training are sensible, as are the suggestions for improvement in family liaison and in respect of family liaison officers, but the Government will need no advice from me when I tell them that the police will require massive extra resources throughout the country to-implement them. Improving family liaison for all the serious categories of crime, where victims will now expect the back-up that Sir William has recommended, will be extremely expensive.
Some of the other recommendations might also be sensible, but we cannot judge that from the report because Sir William has not presented the facts and arguments to justify them. The Home Secretary must be greatly relieved that Sir William inserted the word, "considered" before his wilder recommendations on changes to English criminal law. I merely ask the House to imagine the following: that, at the end of some other criminal trial, a hypothetical judge—perhaps called Harman or Pickles—ended his judgment by stating that all our institutions were intrinsically racist, that double jeopardy should be abolished and that it should be a criminal offence to make racist comments in one's own home. I imagine that the Government and the press would quickly suggest that that judge had lost the plot and his retirement was long overdue. Yet those are the suggestions in the report. Thank goodness that the Home Secretary can, in the nicest possible way, except some of them by "considering" them and then kicking them into the long grass where eventually they will be raked into the compost heap of history.
My difficulty, which is shared by nearly everyone to whom I have spoken in my constituency and elsewhere about the Macpherson report, is this. If Judge Macpherson can get some of the recommendations so badly wrong, and if his judgment is crazy enough that he can suggest that criminal offences should be created for possessing an offensive weapon, having offensive thoughts or uttering offensive language in one's own home, why should we accept that his judgment is perfectly wise on all the other matters in his report?
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Has not my right hon. Friend observed that Sir William
792
Macpherson prefaces those particular recommendations by saying that consideration should be given to them? That is not the phraseology that he uses in respect of some other recommendations. He simply says that the matter should not be left alone but should be considered further. Thus he does not make the recommendation in the precise terms that my right hon. Friend described.
Mr. Maclean: I accept my hon. Friend's point. On double jeopardy, and on extending the criminal law to deal with offensive weapons and language in one's own home, Sir William used the word, "consider". However, he did not use it for his definition of a racist crime, with which I have problems.
Sir William has discredited parts of his report by failing to produce reasoning and recommendations, and by producing in other parts of the report recommendations that do not stand up. His definition of a racist incident is unenforceable. It says that a racist incident is one if the victim or any other person says that it is.
Ms Oona King rose—
Mr. Maclean: I know that the police service has accepted it. It has been kicked around so much in the past few months that it would believe any hostile propaganda used against it. It is terrified of opposing any political correctness and will accept anything thrown at it. I give way to the hon. Lady.
Ms King: I have entirely forgotten the point that I wished to make as the right hon. Gentleman did not look up. I am sorry, but I shall come back to him.
Mr. Maclean: If I continue my speech, I might provoke the hon. Lady into remembering.
I should be happy to be corrected if I have got this little example of a racist incident wrong. Let us suppose that four men are having a drink after work; they come out of the pub and find that their car windscreens have all been smashed. One man is black and says that the smashing of his windscreen is a racist incident. Am I right in understanding that the police would be obliged to record it as such in his case? Even worse: the black man does not complain to the police that the smashing of his windscreen is a racist incident, but others who spot the incident on the news that night or in the local paper the following week go to the police and say that it was a racist incident.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I can confirm everything that my right hon. Friend says because I have a little booklet that is being issued to every policeman, which says in large letters:
"Don't forget—if anyone says that it is a racial incident, it is!"
That will be sufficient.
Mr. Maclean: We need more information because we will get to the absurd position where the Government discredit what they are trying to do, which is to deal with the under-reporting of racist incidents. I have no doubt that there is a tremendous under-reporting of racist incidents, but goodness knows what awful contortions of policing priorities will come about if we have a massive over-reporting of racist incidents, which is what will happen with the definition in the report.

793
Let me make it clear once again that I am not suggesting that all of Sir William's recommendations should not one day be implemented. They may be good for this country and our society. However, we do not know; and we do not know from the report, because it does not contain the evidence to justify all the changes that Sir William wishes to bring about. We should not stand this country on its head just because of an inquiry report that has not considered in depth all the wider repercussions of its recommendations.
Mr. Rowe: Is it not extraordinary that the deputy chief constable of Kent, who was charged with the task of carrying out an investigation, was never asked to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry, despite making himself available to do so? Does not that cast doubts on some of the findings?
Mr. Maclean: I was not aware of that point—or if I was, it had slipped my memory. It brings me to the point that I wish to make: there is a series of issues that goes much wider than the appalling murder of Stephen Lawrence. The correct approach should have been for the Home Secretary, when he saw Sir William's recommendations and the lack of evidence to back some of them up, to refer the matter to a proper body of experts, which could have considered them in detail. The previous Government set up a royal commission on criminal justice, which was well respected and supported by the then Opposition.
If every institution in this country is racist—if the entire civil service and our education and health services are deeply steeped in institutional racism, and if all the other organisations and individuals, including the BBC and the media, have institutional racism—it requires a much better analysis than that carried out by Sir William and his inquiry team if we are to get to the bottom of that awful problem. If huge and fundamental changes must be made to the way in which everyone in this country thinks, we must build those changes on better foundations than Sir William's flimsy recommendations. Moreover, those foundations must be agreed by the vast majority in this country.
The Government and the Home Secretary have said that they will start to implement all of Macpherson's recommendations—but they will do so without an analysis of some of the real wrongs to be righted. I accept that there are the real wrongs of the murder of an innocent victim and the mistakes of that murder investigation. They must be righted. However, is it right to start to change the curriculum for primary schools in Penrith because of failures that Sir William has found in the Metropolitan police murder squad investigating a particular case?
Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence deserve a better investigation of their son's murder, but my constituents deserve an infinitely better investigation of the Macpherson recommendations before they are asked to change their lives. They do not deserve to be branded as institutionally racist just because of a failure by a Metropolitan police murder investigation squad. They deserve to have infinitely better evidence of their wrongdoing if they are to be re-educated Orwell-style. Nothing less than a royal commission will suffice before we take the road down which the Government are now rushing.
794
I believe that the vast majority of people in this country are decent, honest and law abiding; they are not racist—not even unwittingly. They deplore what happened to Stephen Lawrence, just as they deplore any innocent person, irrespective of race, colour, creed or religion, being murdered by vicious thugs.
The Government should not, on the evidence of the Macpherson report alone, accuse the people of this country of being racist reactionaries in need of re-education. Let the Government first establish a proper, authoritative and impartial royal commission. Let them get the facts. Let there be a proper detailed analysis, and let us get to the real truth before the "1984" re-education programme begins.
7.20 pm
Mr. John Austin: After months of taking and sifting evidence, the Macpherson inquiry came to the inevitable conclusion which the Lawrence family and all those around them had known: that the Metropolitan police investigation into the murder of their son was palpably flawed. A combination of incompetence and racism has allowed brutal racist killers to remain at liberty. As the Macpherson report clearly says, that is an affront both to the Lawrence family and to the community at large.
The inquiry has not only brought the wholly justifiable complaints of Doreen and Neville Lawrence to the attention of the public, but highlighted what Macpherson described as the hitherto underplayed dissatisfaction of minority ethnic communities—not only with the handling of the Lawrence case, but with other cases across the country and with their treatment by police.
Undoubtedly the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) would say that black people's actual experience is not evidence; I believe that it is. We often see references to black people's perception of the police, and to the need to change it—as though their perception is something wrong with those black people. By using the word "perception" we suggest that black people's treatment by the police is something imagined by the black community. I believe that it is time that we recognised that their perceptions are drawn from their experience. Their attitudes are based on reality, not perceptions.
The Macpherson report has identified colossal and unbelievable incompetence on the part of the Metropolitan police. It is a catalogue of mismanagement and failure, which clearly must be dealt with. However, those failings should not deflect our attention from the need to tackle the insidious evil of racism, not only in the Metropolitan police and in police forces across the country but in society as a whole.
Today, it comes as a disappointment to me that the Police Federation's briefing to hon. Members accepts the Metropolitan police's incompetence and mismanagement, but says that the report lacked sufficient balance. Later in that briefing, it declines to accept the report's definition of institutional racism.
I draw it to the attention of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that an accusation of institutional racism is an accusation not against individuals but against the way in which the system operates.
In response to the comment of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I say that, yes, we have a conscious choice. When the institution in

795
which we operate is racist, we have a choice consciously to challenge that racism and that discrimination. I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) about the press's portrayal of the people of Eltham. In our part of south London, we have had more than our fair share of racist murders and attacks. I live a few hundred yards from the spot on which Rolan Adams was murdered; I used to live a street away from the Lawrences' family home. Rohit Dugal was brutally slain near the spot where Stephen Lawrence died. He was also my constituent.
Those are not problems particular and peculiar to Eltham, Woolwich or Thamesmead—racism is an issue that affects us all. Racism is an issue across London, Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds. It is also an issue in Harrogate, Cheltenham, Tunbridge Wells, Sutton Coldfield, Folkestone and Hythe, Ryedale—and, yes, in Penrith. Let us not forget that the Metropolitan police may well recruit officers from the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.
In May 1993, a month after Stephen Lawrence's death, in a debate on racial violence, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I called for action by the Government. Regrettably, those calls fell on deaf ears. In that debate, I drew the attention of the then Home Secretary to the recommendations of the Commission for Racial Equality, in its review of the Race Relation Act 1976, for an independent review of the law on incitement to racial hatred.
The CRE, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I had urged the Home Secretary to make racial harassment a specific criminal offence, to make racial harassment a ground for eviction, to place public authorities under a statutory duty to monitor complaints of racial harassment, to establish a separate tort of racial harassment, and specifically to consider criminalising racial violence.
Earlier that year, I had visited the then Minister of State—the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd)—with representatives of the Society of Black Lawyers to discuss draft legislation on those issues that had been submitted to the Home Secretary. All the demands fell on deaf ears. However, since that time, the current Home Secretary has already moved on many of the issues. I hope that publication of the Macpherson report will push the agenda even further forward.
When it became clear that the whole investigation into the murder of Stephen Lawrence had been flawed, several of my colleagues and I made repeated requests to the Home Secretary of the day—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—for an inquiry, but we were appealing to a closed mind.
Prior to publication of the Macpherson report, and—in the case of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), today—some Opposition Members attempted to divert attention from the real issue of racism by concentrating on the leak of part of the report to The Sunday Telegraph and on the Home Secretary's handling of that matter. After publication of the report, much of the Opposition's attention was focused not on the report's contents and recommendations, but on inclusion in the appendices of the names and addresses of sensitive witnesses and informants.
796
I made my view on that matter quite clear to the Minister of State when he made his statement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham also has clearly stated his views on it. But I want to say, here and now, that if it had not been for the courage and determination of the current Home Secretary, we should not have had the report. For years, the Lawrence family and their supporters and several hon. Members had made demands that, as I said, fell on deaf ears and closed minds.
On 24 June 1997, shortly after the general election, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) and I accompanied the Lawrence family and their advisers to see the Home Secretary. The fact that he had assembled the whole of his ministerial team indicated the seriousness with which he viewed the situation. After the meeting, and after having had a discussion with Neville and Doreen Lawrence, the Home Secretary both was deeply moved and welcomed the opportunity of discussing not only the tragic circumstances of their son's death, but broader issues on racially motivated crime and the relationship between police and minority ethnic communities.
The Home Secretary described the legal difficulties in establishing an inquiry. However, that day, as I left the Home Office, I had the feeling—and I sensed that the Lawrences shared it—that, for the first time, someone in a position of authority and someone with the ability to take action had not only listened to the Lawrences, but had actually heard what they said. I only wish that some Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, would listen to and hear what black people are saying, and heed what their real experiences are.
Scarman has been mentioned. Some will say that we have been here before. Some will recall the hopes that were engendered by Lord Scarman's inquiry into the Brixton uprising, in 1981, which were followed by such disillusion.
I believe that there were essentially two problems with Scarman. The first was his total failure to recognise or accept the existence of institutional racism. Without that acceptance, any attempts to tackle racism in our society will fail. Secondly, the Scarman report failed to live up to expectations because there was no comprehensive national co-ordinated programme of action with timetabled outcomes. We are not going to make the same mistake again.
Macpherson has overcome that first failing by providing a very clear definition of institutional racism, to which I hope we can all sign up. Prior to publication of the report, I wrote to the Home Secretary, asking him to reconsider the position of the Commissioner in view of his comments that he did not believe that there was institutional racism in the Met.
The Commissioner has now accepted the report's definition of institutional racism. Although I called for his position to be considered before the report was published, because he has accepted the report's recommendations and the definition, I believe that, at this stage, calls for his resignation would be tokenistic and not particularly productive. However, I reserve the right to review my position on the matter in the light of evidence of Sir Paul Condon's willingness to implement the report's recommendations.
I recognise that the Greater London authority and the Metropolitan Police Authority will need to be consulted over the appointment of a new Commissioner, but we

797
cannot wait until the current Commissioner retires before we consider his successor. The appointment should be made as early as possible to give him or her some time working in tandem with the current Commissioner on implementing the recommendations.
The Macpherson inquiry also expressed concern about institutional racism in all the agencies that make up the criminal justice system. Section 95 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 requires criminal justice agencies to monitor their operations by ethnic group, but the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the courts, the Prison Service and the probation service have generally failed to provide the information on which action to eradicate institutional racism depends.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) have mentioned the contentious area of stop-and-search powers. Information on the use of those powers is publicly available under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. That information raises many questions, but the experience of black people goes beyond the formal stop-and-search figures recorded under that Act, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has said. People can be stopped under traffic legislation or drugs legislation, as well as by so-called voluntary stops. The inquiry report reaches a clear conclusion that the perception and experience of minority communities is that discrimination is a major element in stop-and-search problems. Black people are more likely to be stopped and searched and to be arrested than their white counterparts. Evidence suggests that, when tried and convicted, black people are more likely to receive a custodial sentence than their white counterparts.
I hope that the pilot projects that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to set up on stop and search can be established speedily and will lead to the full implementation and acceptance of recommendations 61 to 63. I also welcome his acceptance of recommendation 11 to bring the police within the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976 and his decision to go further by bringing all public services within the scope of the Act.
However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, I do not believe that those changes are sufficient. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will bring proposals to the House to strengthen race equality legislation, including the monitoring of practice. I raised the issue in the debate on the Queen's Speech in November 1994. Governments of both parties have recognised the need to monitor employment practices in Northern Ireland and the importance of contract compliance in the legislation against religious discrimination. If that need is recognised for religious discrimination in Northern Ireland, it should be recognised for racial discrimination in this country.
My right hon. Friend made comments about inquests and the information that is made available to the families of the deceased. He also referred to the police ombudsman to be created in Northern Ireland. I should like to draw attention to the prisons ombudsman and the issue of deaths in custody. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the death in Belmarsh prison of my constituent Kenneth Severin. When his family tried to take a complaint to the
798
prisons ombudsman, they were told, "Sorry, I can't accept that complaint. I can only take complaints from prisoners." Of course, the prisoner could not make the complaint because he was dead. The same was true in the cases of Alton Manning and Dennis Stephens. Having met the families of all three, I believe that their experiences were on a par with those of the Lawrence family in their dealings with the police following the death of Stephen Lawrence. Following the meeting that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and I had last year with the then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), about those deaths in custody. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will meet a delegation from those families to talk about their experience.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the parliamentary ombudsman has found in favour of the Severin family on all their complaints, including the failure to disclose the contents of the internal investigation and report into Kenneth's death. The parliamentary ombudsman recommended in February that even at this late stage the report should be made available to the family. Why has it still not been made available?
There were many other comments that I wanted to make about education and the role of other organisations in combating racism. In view of the shortness of time, I shall conclude by referring to the comments of Doreen Lawrence, which were also quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. She said:
"I would like Stephen Lawrence to be remembered as a young man who had a future—and had he been given the chance to survive, maybe he would have been the one to bridge the gap between black and white".
We owe it to the Lawrence family and to the memory of Stephen to act to ensure that that gap is bridged.
7.35 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The last words in Doreen Lawrence's statement about Stephen were:
"He saw people as people."
We should approach the debate with humility, because many of us were Members of Parliament, councillors or in other positions of authority when things were going wrong.
I should like to acknowledge at least one mistake. Had I known about the attack on Stacey Benefield before the attack on Stephen Lawrence, I would have been able to go to the police within hours of hearing of the attack, which might have led to the police going for the forensic evidence, because some of those involved in the attack on Stacey Benefield were able to destroy the evidence—if they had it.
Many of us know many things about our constituency and our constituents, but there are times when rather greater knowledge would be desirable. The police failed to act on the information that came forward early. The Lawrences were told that people were erecting a wall of silence. That was not true. Many people came forward with information, but when the police began observation they suffered from what might be called a series of bad luck, but could probably be called incompetence. People were allowed to get away and destroy any evidence that they may have had in a bin bag.

799
There are other occasions on which I suspect that I could have gone further. I went with the Minister—as he is now—to the Attorney-General and the Crown Prosecution Service after its decision that the first case had to be dropped. I am not a lawyer. The Minister can say more about that if he wants. I am not competent to speak about the levels of evidence needed or the tests that the CPS has to make.
When the private prosecution came along, it was clear that the jury did not want to accept the judge's instruction to acquit. One should not start saying that judges should not have the power to give directions to juries, but if the judge was ambivalent about whether to give the instruction, perhaps a greater public row might have allowed the issue to have been tested more. I suspect that there is an asymmetry. Juries can acquit when legally they might have convicted, but they should not necessarily be given the chance to find people guilty when legally they ought to acquit. There is injustice and a lack of symmetry that is difficult to accept and understand.
I went to see the Commissioner when there was information about a problem of communication with the family. He told me how the issue was seen by the police and I told him how it was firmly seen by the Lawrence family, Ros Howells, Imran Khan and some of the other responsible people who acted with them. Maybe I did not push hard enough. Maybe I did not know enough to push hard enough.
This is not an easy speech to make. I was with the Lawrences and saw how they controlled what developed. The movement from their home in Llanover road to the Methodist church where Stephen had been part of the youth club was one of the most impressive things with which I have been associated. There were no police in evidence, no protesters and no fear of any street disturbance. I was also impressed by the service and some of the other services that have been held in that church, including that for the Stephen Lawrence memorial window.
There is a simple trust in the Lawrence family. It is a trust with which Stephen grew up. As the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) said—I agreed with every word of his speech—when Stephen was confronted in Eltham that night, he did not run. That was an important part of the way in which the Lawrences brought up their family.
People should read the appendices to the report, which recount the stories of the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks, the forgotten victim of the crime that night. If more young people were brought up by people like the Lawrences and fewer were brought up by people like the parents of those who have been called the suspects, this country would be transformed. Street behaviour, family behaviour and school achievements would be very different.
Anyone who thinks that we have learned the lessons of the past has not read an article in today's edition of G2, the tabloid section of The Guardian. It describes the work of the Stephen Lawrence memorial trust, which tries to help young black architects to continue their training and to get work. It says that there are 70 black architects in this country, and it describes how difficult it is for them to become known and, if they are qualified, to get employment. I suspect that the same is true in the legal profession and, as has been pointed out, it is difficult for young black people to get elected to the House.
800
There is no room for complacency. We should approach this debate from the point of view of the Lawrence family. That came across remarkably well in the Tricycle production of "The Colour of Justice". If anyone has not had a chance to see that production, I commend it. There is not a word in it that was not said at the inquiry.
I should like to pay tribute to the inquiry and the inquiry staff. What Sir William Macpherson, the staff of the inquiry and those who were sitting with them had to go through was as intense as what the rest of us feel when we watch what is happening in Kosovo. We begin to see an awfulness, and we begin to see why things are happening but we do not know how to stop them and we cannot turn the reel backwards.
The issue could be approached from the point of view of the police, which has been highlighted in one speech—I am sure that others will follow. I do not disagree completely with the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) about the parliamentary briefing from the Police Federation, and perhaps not everything it says is right, but it was well written—I may be looking at a separate blue sheet—and the police are beginning to learn and to be more open about what is going on.
I want to raise an issue with the Home Office which I do not expect to be addressed today, but I would appreciate the opportunity to meet a Minister to discuss it. I have the agreement of the local Member of Parliament to raise it. In the past few months, there are have been three articles in Private Eye about Sergeant Virdi, who took part in the arrest of two people involved in a racial attack. When he asked whether it had been recorded as a racial attack, he was suspended and faced a year of uncertainty about whether the Crown Prosecution Service intended to prefer a charge against him. He is still suspended a year after the original attack and does not know whether there will be disciplinary proceedings against him.
I tabled a rather delphic question about it to the Home Office, and from the answer that I received it seemed as though it had not heard of the matter. I tabled other questions. I asked how many times the police had argued at the employment tribunal for a postponement of the hearing, and when that series of incidents had come to the attention of the Home Office, which is the police authority for London. The answer from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), suggested that the relevant information had come from the police relatively recently.
I suggest that Home Office Ministers, as the police authority for London, ask for a detailed explanation of the chronology of events. If they are prepared to see Sergeant Virdi's MP or me, or both of us together, it would be interesting to hear their views.
Mr. McDonnell: Mr. Virdi came to see me on Friday at my advice session—it is the neighbouring constituency to his Member's. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter in the debate: I was hoping to raise it later. This case is creating a sense of grievance in the Asian community in west London—I think it will soon

801
spread across the country—that we have never seen before. That community has been one of the strongest supporters of the police service in London.
Mr. Bottomley: It would be appropriate for me to say no more about the matter now. I suggest that Ministers read the articles in Private Eye and seek an explanation of the chronology of events. They may then be able to make a statement. We would be willing to table a question so that we can find out what the Home Office, the acting police authority, thinks is going on.
The problems are not only in London. I am currently the Member for Worthing, West, in Sussex. The police wanted to search the home of one of my constituents, who admits that he has not led a perfect life. They were following up a proven case of driving while disqualified. He said that the home they wanted to visit was not the home that he had been living in for the past year or two. He told them where he was living, and during their attendance at his home, in his absence, they used language to his partner that was unjustifiable—that is acknowledged. She made a complaint, but the officers in charge of the investigation of the man's criminal offence were those against whom her complaint had been made.
I am not suggesting that every criminal can get away with it by saying that the police have made racial remarks, but some sensitivity should be used as a result of the Macpherson inquiry. If it turns out that the police have been holding a person's property month after month without any connection to the offence for which the man was arrested, people at a senior level should be asking themselves, "Have we got this right?" It is asking those questions that matters most.
Lastly, I want to refer to expectations, which is slightly beyond the Macpherson inquiry. I first became interested in the idea of professional public service through politics because of my experience as a governor of a school in Vauxhall, which is now closed. It had 1,200 girls, and, in the fifth form, not one of them was allowed to take what were then 0-levels, because the English department decided that that would divide people into those who could take 0-levels and those who took CSEs. If people were seriously interested in getting 0 and A-levels and going on to higher education, they could stay on in the lower sixth. It was not until I helped to get two West Indian mothers on to the governing body that that policy changed. Within three years, the first black girl from the school went on to medical school.
We lived in the area, and I talked to Afro-Caribbeans, the Portuguese and everyone else who had come to England and to London in the past two or three generations—we are all migrants, because the population of London 20,000 years ago was nil, so we must all have come here at some stage, but some came more recently. They asked why it was that the schools in that part of London were much worse than the schools in Jamaica or wherever they had come from. It was not because our teachers were not interested, but because their expectations were low. It required pushy parents like me and others, whatever the colour of their skin or their creed or wherever their grandparents had come from, and that took a lot of effort.
I am glad that the present Government are backing up the calls that people like me have been making. All families deserve the right to bring up their children to trust
802
other people. All parents should be able to bring up their children so they can trust the schools to which they go. Their children should be able to trust a police officer in the street, as half the family of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) advised her.
That is when the colour of people's skin becomes as important as the colour of their eyes or the colour of their hair. We may notice it, but it does not tell us any more about them.
7.48 pm
Mr. Bernie Grant: I welcome the debate. Surprisingly, I agreed with many hon. Members who have spoken. The speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) was full of bonhomie, and his tones were so dulcet that I was lulled into a false sense of security, until I remembered that he was a member of a Government who refused to have an inquiry into the Lawrence case. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) criticised the Macpherson report, but he was a Home Office Minister in the Government who refused an inquiry into the Lawrence case. It is useful for us to remember that.
I am deeply indebted to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his fortitude in getting the inquiry and the debate under way, and for all the steps that he has taken so far. I am also grateful to the inquiry team for its steadfastness in sticking to the issues.
I have some criticisms of the Macpherson report. For instance, it does not place any onus or responsibility on the community, unlike the Scarman report, which set up police committees and talked about the need to get the communities involved. The Macpherson report talks about institutions, which is all well and good, but people work and live in communities. We need to get the black and ethnic minority community behind us.
I find it quite astonishing that the inquiry could not find any individual racism in the Metropolitan police. Anyone who saw the drama-documentaries on television will have seen the individual racism, arrogance and lack of accountability displayed by the officers who were questioned.
My biggest problem is with the new definition of institutional racism. I am especially concerned with the use of the word "unwittingly", because it lets people off the hook. If we say that an institution discriminates, but that the people involved do not know that they are discriminating, we are letting them off the hook. When St. George's medical school was found by the Commission for Racial Equality to be institutionally discriminating against black and ethnic minority applicants, it was found that someone had programmed the computer to reject people with foreign-sounding names. That was not unwitting: it was done deliberately.
I do not want Sir William Macpherson to try to tell me that institutionalised racism is unwitting. It is not. When the Ford motor company changed the faces of people in its advertisement—they changed a Sikh and a black man into white men—before it sent it to eastern Europe, that was not unwitting. Someone took the decision.
When, two years ago, Sir Paul Condon talked about 80 per cent. of young black people being guilty of mugging, so whenever police officers saw a black youth in the street, they automatically assumed that he was

803
a mugger, that was institutionalised racism. It was not unwitting. I thoroughly disagree with that definition in the report.
The investigation of Stephen Lawrence's death has some similarities with a case in my constituency. A few weeks ago, a young man, Roger Sylvester, died in police custody. The Essex police are investigating the case, and we await their findings, so we are not exactly clear about the circumstances, but we know that he was about 30 years old and was taken naked from outside his house in Tottenham. Again, we have a black victim who has been set up by the police.
The police went on a rampage of misinformation. They said that Roger Sylvester was big, black and violent, and that is totally untrue. I have had letters from white pensioners saying that he was a kind man who went shopping for them and took them across the street, but the police, to cover themselves, said that he was a big, black, violent man who had something to do with drugs, so immediately this person, who was a victim, becomes a problem in the minds of the general public. When the police started to investigate the murder of Stephen Lawrence, they tried to make out that he was involved with a gang, which again shows the ability of the police to give misinformation and try to cloud the issue.
There are other similarities in the way in which the families have been dealt with. There was liaison between the police and the family of Roger Sylvester, and they had several meetings, but the police decided to set up their own consultative group, without any agreement with the family. They pulled in a few worthy community leaders and used that forum as the method of consulting the family.
Family liaison is extremely important, and I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend is paying particular attention to it. I do not care how much it costs to set up the systems. It is definitely worth it, because it is about bringing trust back into the community and establishing a relationship with the police.
Nothing was done when Sir Paul Condon talked about black youths and mugging. He is the head of the Metropolitan police, who were severely criticised in the Macpherson report, yet no one in official circles is calling for his resignation. I have called for him to go because the black community feels that he should.
Let me draw an analogy. When it was found that there was corruption, everyone, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, said that Jacques Santer, the head of the European Commission, had to accept responsibility, even though he protested his innocence and said that he was whiter than white. Sir Paul Condon is the head of the Metropolitan police, who have been condemned by the report, yet people are saying that he has to stay. I find that extraordinary. It is about time that people who are responsible for the officers under their command accepted responsibility for those officers' actions.
Eight police officers from Tottenham police station were involved in the Roger Sylvester case, but the chief superintendent is swanning around and taking no responsibility. He could not care less, presumably, because he is not being held to account. The case of Sir Paul Condon is similar. There have been many deaths in custody and other racist murders that have not been properly investigated.
804
Rolan Adams, Wayne Douglas and others in London have died at the hands of the police or in police custody, yet no senior police officer has been held responsible. It is the only profession or job that I know of in which someone can be in charge of something that is not correct and take no responsibility whatever. That has to change.
Ms Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most disappointing aspects of the whole affair for the black community is that Condon, having been found so thoroughly wanting—and despite claiming that he was taking personal responsibility—has been left in position?
Mr. Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments. The matter should be reconsidered because, since he was given the go-ahead to continue as commissioner, he has appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs and—I understand—said that he does not accept the recommendation that the Race Relations Act 1976 should be extended to the police. We now see even more arrogance from Sir Paul Condon.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Grant: I do not have the time to give way, but I am willing to engage in a debate with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber.[Laughter.] Pistols at dawn!
Recruitment and retention are crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) mentioned in an earlier intervention. An experiment that we conducted in Tottenham should be taken up by the Home Office. In conjunction with the Industrial Society and the Metropolitan police, we recruited some 20 young people from minority ethnic groups—Cypriots, Asians and the children of people from the Caribbean and Africa—as a representation of the community. They were recruited en bloc and given physical and academic training to bring them up to the required standard. They entered Hendon police training college and 18 became fully qualified police officers. The scheme was a tremendous success.
I wanted all 18 to be posted to Tottenham police station so that they could support each other in the canteen. The only way to defeat the canteen culture is with a group of people who are very visibly seen to be challenging racism. That would have made a huge difference in Tottenham, because the community would have seen a police force that was representative of the community. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Home Office to consider the issue of cohort recruitment and cohort placement. There is no point in recruiting 20 people and then sending each one to a different police station. They need to be together so that they can support each other.
My final point is about stop and search, and the recording of ethnicity, which I mentioned in an earlier intervention. When I did a survey some years ago of the stop-and-search figures, I found that each police force had its own method for recording ethnicity. Some used the category of Arab and others used the category of oriental. All sorts of definitions of ethnicity were used—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has used up his time.
8.4 pm
Sir Sydney Chapman: An appalling tragedy has taken place, and anybody who fails to grasp the dimensions of what that family tragedy has entailed has only to read the first page of Sir William Macpherson's report into Stephen Lawrence's murder. It catalogues some extraordinary activities by the police and much inaction by the police. The prolonged police investigations were in two phases, but the result is that the murderers of Stephen have not been brought to justice. Apart from Duwayne Brooks, no witness has come forward with firm evidence and there is no other sound evidence. Even the Police Complaints Authority report states that the police investigation was bungled. When, 20 months ago, the Home Secretary set up the inquiry that is the subject of this debate, it found that the first police investigation was "palpably flawed".
The only comfort we can find is that out of that appalling disaster, the publicity has increased the public awareness of the need to fight racism. I know that every hon. Member will join me in saying that one of our priorities is to wipe racism out of our country. If anyone questions that priority, someone who has been a Member of Parliament for an inner-city constituency, as I was in Birmingham, Handsworth, can explain the need to tackle racism and—to coin a phrase—the causes of racism.
My principal comment about the Macpherson report concerns its definition of institutional racism. It is worth revisiting the Scarman report on the subject, as the Macpherson report did. Scarman rejected the allegation that Britain as a society, knowingly and as a matter of policy, discriminated against black people. He wrote:
"The direction and policies of the Metropolitan police are not racist. I totally and unequivocally reject the attack made upon the integrity and impartiality of the senior direction of the force. The criticisms lie elsewhere in errors of judgment, in a lack of imagination and flexibility, but not in deliberate bias or prejudice".
Those words were written 18 years ago, and my judgment is that matters have improved considerably since then in the Metropolitan police, although I cannot be certain of that.
I accept that when Sir William gave his definition of institutional racism, he went out of his way to say that that did not mean that all Metropolitan police officers were racist. He wrote:
"We hope and believe that the average police officer and average member of the public will accept that we do not suggest that all police officers are racist and will both understand and accept the distinction we draw between overt individual racism and the pernicious and persistent institutional racism which we have described.
Nor do we say that in its policies the MPS is racist. Nor do we share the fear of those who say that in our findings of institutional racism, in the manner in which we have used that concept, there may be a risk that the moral authority of the MPS may be undermined."
My point is that even though those are Sir William's words, repeated in the recommendations, the public perception is that if an institution is described as institutionally racist, it has racism spread throughout it. I find resentment of that among some of my constituents to whom I have been able to talk, as well as the police in my constituency, because they do not accept that racism is endemic. The report gives the impression that it is. I fear that that public awareness will give comfort to those few people who, for ulterior motives, wish to set the public against our police force.
806
I want now to look to the future. If we are to succeed in our fight against racism, we must begin in our schools and our homes. I am horrified by a statistic from recent research in Cardiff. Of all cases of racism reported to the Racial Equality Council, 50 per cent. involved people under 16, and a quarter of those involved children aged six to 10. I am not averse to passing stronger legislation, but whatever laws we pass, we must have leadership, and an example must be set in our schools and our homes.
Recommendation 17 of the inquiry's report states:
"That there should be close co-operation between Police Services and local Government and other agencies, including in particular Housing and Education Departments, to ensure that all information as to racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies."
That would be an important tool for the authorities.
I am highly doubtful about the idea of prosecuting in respect of remarks made in private. If remarks are heard outwith the home, they are presumably not defined as racist remarks made in private.
When it comes to policing the police, I support calls for a genuinely independent Police Complaints Authority. However, one reason why the police have policed the police for so long is that it is felt that only police officers know how to detect unfair or illegal police behaviour. Whatever independent commission is set up should include at least some people who have experience in a police force.
Currently, about 1,000 complaints are made each year about police irregularities. They vary from, at one end of the spectrum, rudeness, which is not to be tolerated, to, at the other end, deaths in custody. There is a lack of public confidence when a second force investigates a complaint made against another force. I agree, therefore, with recommendation 58.
I am slightly worried about the definition of racist incidents to mean that any allegation of racism must be followed through. All serious allegations must certainly be reported, recorded and investigated. However, there ought to be an escape clause for cases in which the allegation is patently proved to be frivolous.
I very much support the need to develop victim support schemes. I strongly support the idea that the Metropolitan police and other forces should work with victim support schemes set up by lay people on proactive initiatives in minority ethnic communities. I pay tribute to Barnet victim support scheme, which is doing magnificent work; some of its cases involve racism, and I, for one, include anti-semitism as an offence against a race.
Macpherson recommends that consideration of the double jeopardy issue should be referred to the Law Commission. I would go a little further than has my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on that point. I do not oppose our being able to hold a second trial or to bring charges again after they have been dropped. The Criminal Procedure and Investigations 1996 Act allows a second trial in cases in which defendants have been acquitted because witnesses or jurors have been intimidated. If ever there were a principle, that Act breached it. The Court of Appeal should be allowed, in exceptional and serious cases, to authorise the police to prosecute again.
I am concerned about the readiness of the Crown Prosecution Service not to prosecute unless it feels it has a watertight case. If 50 per cent. or more of the evidence

807
is there, the CPS will go ahead with prosecution, but, across the spectrum and not necessarily in racist cases only, it drops prosecutions too readily.
I must disagree with my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). I want to put in a good word for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I am glad that he has not resigned. I hope that he will not do so, or retire early. I was perturbed to hear from the Home Secretary that he is due to retire in 10 months in any case.
I want the commissioner to stay longer in his post. He has done a good job in the policing of London, with many initiatives since he was appointed. Burglaries have gone down tremendously, and the Bumblebee and Eagle Eye initiatives took place under him. Recorded crime has gone down 16 per cent. since 1992—more or less since he became commissioner. The number of complaints against the police has also fallen.
One of the main points that worries me, however, is that the last police report recorded that in the Metropolitan police area, the number of reported racist incidents in the last half of last year was 70 per cent. higher than the figure for the equivalent six months in the year before. That is a cause for concern. Whether the figure has risen because people are more willing to make complaints about racial harassment, I do not know. I hope that some research may be done on that point.
Sir Paul Condon was appointed in February 1993, two months before Stephen Lawrence was murdered. He has led from the front, and he has a good track record against racism. Shortly after he was appointed, he said:
"Racially motivated prejudice is an area where we must be totally intolerant; of racially motivated attacks, of those who indulge in racial abuse and of those who use hatred and violence as the tools of their political expression."
He went on:
"We must be equally intolerant of our own colleagues who fail to reach the required standards."
He has acted as he spoke. If he went, it would be a devastating blow to the morale of the Metropolitan police.
Finally, the Metropolitan police has a problem not only of recruiting officers, but of retaining them. Too many go to other forces or retire early. The Government are addressing the latter point, but the former must be addressed too.
Some police officers have clearly failed in their duty, but the vast majority of the Metropolitan police do a decent job in difficult, dangerous and sometimes dirty circumstances. We should pay tribute to that vast majority of the people who police our streets and protect us from crime.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I appeal for forbearance among hon. Members? More wish to speak than will be able to if everyone takes up their full time allotment.
8.19 pm
Joan Ruddock: I first had the privilege of meeting and working with Doreen and Neville Lawrence when I was a member of Labour's home affairs team. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) approached me at the start of his campaign in support of their request for a new
808
inquiry into Stephen's murder. Like so many others, I have followed their progress, their heartache, the setbacks and the triumphs, which culminate in this historic debate. It is no exaggeration to say that Stephen's death, his parents' pursuit of justice and the response of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary offer us our best ever hope of recognising and defeating institutional racism.
Both personally, and as a Member of Parliament with a constituency population that is one third black, I want to identify myself with what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, said in opening the debate. The action that he has set out is crucial for justice and race relations. I want to demonstrate how vital those measures are by referring to events that took place in my constituency in 1981, and which remain unresolved. I know that Doreen and Neville Lawrence will understand my reasons for doing so.
Three years ago, I was approached by one of Deptford's remarkable black community leaders, Sybil Phoenix. She asked for my support for raising a permanent memorial to the 14 young black people who died as a result of the New Cross fire of 1981. What was remarkable was not her request but the fact that no memorial had been mounted in the preceding 15 years. I began to take an interest in those tragic events, read the newspaper coverage and heard the testimonies of many involved. If it were not for the deaths of Stephen Lawrence and Michael Menson, I would have said that what happened then could not happen today.
Nineteen years ago, a woman who shares my surname, Mrs. Gee Ruddock, was asked by her daughter Yvonne if she could have a party for her 16th birthday the following January. At first, Mrs. Ruddock did not concede, but she eventually decided that it was right to have a party for her daughter. On that fateful Saturday night, the house filled with young elated people.
In the early hours of Sunday 18 January 1981, Mrs. Ruddock ran from her burning house to see her daughter jump to her death from an upstairs window and her son carried out fatally burned. Eleven other young people died. The speed and force of the inferno caused a police officer at the scene to conclude that a petrol bomb had been thrown into the house.
In the short time available, I cannot recount the reported details of the inquiry or the theories of what did or did not happen. Suffice it to say that the forensic evidence presented to the inquest suggested that the fire started in the house and that an inflammable liquid had been spilled on the carpet. Long before the inquest was concluded many events occurred that underlined the institutional racism that we recognise today, not only in the police but throughout our institutions.
It was a tragedy of huge proportions: 13 young people dead at a birthday party. However, there was no message from the Prime Minister to the family and no mention of the incident in Parliament. Ugly rumours with racist overtones spread rapidly and were rehearsed in newspaper coverage. It was the time of Scarman and the Brixton riots. In the black community, there was immense grief, shock and anger and, undoubtedly, a feeling that the majority white population did not identify with its loss. Only six weeks after the fire the National Front announced that it would march past Mrs. Ruddock's house in a demonstration with the theme, "Don't blame the whites for the New Cross fire". The march was banned, but its message was heard.

809
The black community's anger at apparent white indifference to the New Cross deaths was greatly exacerbated by the reactions to a subsequent tragedy in the Republic of Ireland, when 48 people young people were killed in a discotheque fire. Immediate condolences were sent to the bereaved by the Prime Minister and the Queen. On Monday 2 March 1981, the New Cross Massacre Action Committee led a march in central London to draw attention to the deaths and the failure of the police to find the cause. I am told that television coverage attempted to explain the reasons for the march, but the newspapers were hostile. "Rampage of a Mob", said the Daily Express.
"The Day the Blacks Ran Riot in London",
said The Sun.
"17 Cops Hurt as Thugs Turn Blaze Protest into a Terror Riot",
said The Daily Star.
An inquest was being held against that background. It was a total disaster. No one was satisfied with its proceedings or the outcome of an open verdict.
After the event, Parliament took note. In an Adjournment debate, David Mellor remarked:
"It was extremely unfortunate that the coroner seemed unable to exercise proper control over the proceedings. It was little short of lamentable that throughout the proceedings he did not take a note."
My predecessor, John Silkin, said:
"The inquiry should have been held in a court …the coroner in this case was out of his league."— [Official Report, 21 May 1981; Vol. 5, c. 457–467.]
Christopher Price, another Lewisham MP, said:
"The inquest did enormous damage to the processes of justice and to race relations."
That sense of injustice remains raw in our black communities. Much has changed. Great efforts have been made by individuals, community leaders, Lewisham council, Lewisham Commission for Racial Equality and police officers locally, but it is not enough. That is why when Lewisham council erected the memorial to the victims of the New Cross fire in 1997, George Francis, on behalf of the bereaved families, asked me for assistance in getting the 1981 inquest reopened. It was a daunting request, and we have not yet reached its conclusion.
Thanks to Commander Griffiths, who agreed to meet me and the families' group at the Francis's home, a new police investigation was opened in May two years ago. It has applied new forensic techniques to the evidence and attempted to re-interview everyone who survived the fire. I believe that the new inquiry has been pursued vigorously and vigilantly by the officers in charge. I hope that they will soon report that everything that could be done 18 years later has been done, and that they will share the information with the families concerned. That will not make up for the years of torment that Mr. and Mrs. Francis have endured: never knowing why their 17-year-old son Gerry died; never quite knowing what to believe; convinced of a cover-up, but whose cover up; no doubt tormented as parents by the thought, "What if?" Mr. Francis has consistently spoken out on behalf of the families' group. He accepts that the evidence so far does not point to an externally racially motivated crime but more likely to a tragic accident.
810
The new investigation will not make up for the torment of Wayne Hayes, now 35, who managed to escape the fire. In a recent newspaper article he said:
"This fire changed the whole course of my life—Parents are suffering like crazy and they want to know how their children died—We want the truth."
The search for truth, as the Stephen Lawrence inquiry has revealed, is a tortuous process. It does not progress simply from A to B, and it is fatally handicapped where racial prejudice exists. I cannot know what happened in New Cross in 1981, nor how the police inquiry and the inquest were conducted. Whether or not this was a racially motivated crime—and Mrs. Ruddock has found no reason to change her view that it was—institutional racism stood, and stands, in the way of delivering justice to black people, whether victims or perpetrators.
There is much in the recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report which, if implemented, will ensure that tragedies such as the New Cross fire are treated very differently in future. There are very welcome proposals regarding the conduct of the police, inquiry methods, transparency, the building of confidence while conducting investigations and changes in the rules governing inquests. My right hon. Friend knows that I have inquired about whether the New Cross fire can be included in the inspector's review of outstanding deaths and murders. I trust the Minister may be able to tell me something about that today.
Finally, I pay tribute to the police for reopening this investigation and for their willingness to work harder and achieve better liaison with the bereaved families. However, I give notice to my right hon. Friend that, unless the matter is resolved satisfactorily in some other way, I shall press in due course for the inquest to be reopened. Like Stephen Lawrence's parents, the New Cross fire parents seek the truth. Nothing less than the truth can satisfy them and lay to rest the memories of Humphrey Geoffrey Brown, Peter Campbell, Steve Collins, Patrick Cummings, Gerry Paul Francis, Andrew Gooding, Lloyd Hall, Rosaline Henry, Patricia Johnson, Glenton Powell, Yvonne Ruddock, Paul Ruddock and Owen Thompson—all of whom died in the fire—and Anthony Berbeck, who survived but was found dead at the bottom of a tower block 18 months later.
8.31 pm
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate this opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who gave a moving account of the New Cross fire in 1981. I remember those events clearly because, at the time, I was serving as chairman of the juvenile court in Brixton. I heard the Brixton riot cases and experienced at first hand the enormously charged atmosphere generated by furious parents, outraged children, distressed police, agitated lawyers, social workers who did not know where to turn and vicars who were alienated from their local communities. The Metropolitan police and the young black community were talking entirely different and hostile languages.
I believe that the Scarman report did a great deal to ensure that the police were more enlightened and sensitive and showed greater tact and diplomacy in handling all citizens in the community. In some ways, what flowed from the Scarman report and the riots of that time were

811
mass movements. The upheaval spread to other cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham and there was great investment in social policy strategies. Some of the inner-city regeneration work initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was motivated by those tragic events.
The Stephen Lawrence inquiry was about the murder of one boy. The fact that he was a black boy is almost irrelevant to many people because he could be anyone's son. He was a young boy doing his A-levels and hoping to be an architect. The depth of emotion surrounding those events has shown that the community recognises that it is unacceptable for such a case—involving a girl or a boy, black or white—not to be investigated rigorously and properly.
I disagreed with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) when she said that she was the only young black female Member of Parliament. I found her remarks offensive to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I felt for the hon. Lady—who is almost my hon. Friend—and nearly sought to intervene. However the comments of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow about her treatment as a young girl by the police rang true for all London Members of Parliament and those familiar with life in our inner cities.
I served as a magistrate when the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), as Lord Chancellor, was busy encouraging more black and ethnic minority magistrates. All black or ethnic minority magistrates or their children had been stopped repeatedly by the police. We were all the same when we were in the retiring room and when we ate lunch. However, when we drove home in our cars, the black or ethnic minority magistrates were much more likely to be stopped.
I have no wish to use the Macpherson report to stir up divisiveness, suspicion or hostility. There is a danger of that because some people have reacted with exaggerated language and taken an extreme position. Regrettably, that provokes a backlash. I have received a large document from a constituent—a white woman—complaining about incidents in which she feels that the white side has not been put fairly and properly. The moderation and the constructive approach with which Members on both Front Benches have been handling the report is most important.
I do not intend to go through each of the recommendations. In my view, some of them are over-ambitious, unenforceable or extremely costly: but no doubt the Home Secretary will be able to fund some of the proposed projects without undue difficulty. I shall speak about the work being done to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to all parts of the public sector.
It is right that the public sector should be a model for the recruitment, retention and progress of people from black and ethnic minorities. Perhaps as a result of my experience as chairman of the court in Brixton, when I was the Secretary of State for Health I convened a group to talk about the recruitment and retention experiences in the national health service of people from black and ethnic minorities. When the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) made allegations in his speech about St. George's medical school, there was reason behind his comments. I used to meet members of the Overseas Doctors Association frequently—I wish it would stop
812
calling itself the Overseas Doctors Association because many of its members went to the same school, university and medical school as my daughter and they are no more overseas doctors than she is. At those meetings, I heard tragic and deeply emotional accounts of the experiences of nurses, doctors, managers and others in a service that should have been as good as, or better than, any other in the way that black and ethnic minorities were treated. That was especially important because in our health targets we needed to reach out and improve the health of the whole community: the black, Asian and white communities.
In a subtle way, we have moved on from Scarman. Being colour blind is not really the challenge that we face. People of my generation went through a period of thinking that to be enlightened we must not mention whether people were men or women, black or white and we must not mention their age. That was naive and unhelpful. What is important is how we recognise and celebrate diversity.
In 1993, we published an action plan with eight targets which seem as valid today as they were then. I only wish that they had been acted on with the energy that I intended at the time. Those targets covered such matters as the number of G-grade nurses or the length of time that doctors took to complete their specialist training.
Similarly, there are comments in the Macpherson report about education. I worry about the way in which the national curriculum recommendations will be implemented. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked in Camberwell, Peckham and Brixton for many years and met many families who had travelled halfway around the world to live in Britain. They were frustrated that there was such a strong focus on ethnic minority education that their children were not learning to read, write, spell and do arithmetic. The last thing that was popular with people in black and ethnic minority communities was the patronising approach that implied that parents in those communities had lower aims and aspirations than those of other parents. My experience was that people who had travelled long distances to be in Britain had aims and aspirations that were often closer to mine than to those of some of the excessively politically correct leaders of the Inner London education authority at that time. That was the concern of the 1985 Swann report, "Education for all", The Swann committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) was a member, concluded that, too often, patronising, paternalistic attitudes arising from misguided philanthropy resulted in a failure to bring out the best in young people. I endorse and applaud the recommendations on education for citizenship contained in the Macpherson report.
The British Council, of which I am vice-chairman along with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), is involved in training police around the world, in Zimbabwe, Pakistan, South Africa and Uganda. I met some of the trainers who train police forces to deal with human rights concerns, to work with the community and in methods of combating racism and the tensions that divide communities in almost every country in the world. I do not want the experience of the Macpherson report to be such that we lose confidence that, overall, we have developed an approach of which we should be proud, but there is never room for complacency. The tension that divides communities can be seen in the report and, in its extreme manifestations, results in the horrendous events

813
in Kosovo. It is part of the predicament that faces not only modern communities but communities throughout the centuries. The British Council is also involved in magnificent work that celebrates the diversity of Britain today—the best of British, which includes contemporary dance groups, such as Kokuma; some of the best contemporary Afro-Caribbean musicians, such as J. Life, who played at the Labour party conference, but not at the Conservative party conference; and Benjamin Zephaniah.
In the hope of a constructive message emerging from the Macpherson inquiry, we should all reflect that it was in 1958, at the time of the Notting Hill riots, that Lord Justice Salmon said:
"Everyone irrespective of the colour of their skin is entitled to walk through the streets free from fear."
I hope that that will be true.
8.43 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: I represent a constituency that has a strong ethnic minority presence: nearly 30 per cent. of my electorate come from the ethnic minority community. It is a strong community, which is able to protect itself from racial attacks. In 1979, the community decided to oppose the presence of the National Front, which wanted to hold a meeting in my constituency in Southall. In that campaign 20 years ago, Blair Peach died, but no public inquiry has ever been held into his death. I want to take the opportunity offered by this debate to urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to set up a public inquiry into the death of Blair Peach and the question of who killed him.
I should like to reiterate the sentiments already expressed by other hon. Members today, that the work of Stephen's parents, Neville and Doreen, to obtain some justice after their son's death has been an example to everyone. I have been impressed and moved by their public appeals over the past six years. The Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which was brought to an end by the publication of the Macpherson report, is without doubt one of the most important inquiries ever to have taken place in this country.
I should like to present a glossary of the racial hate mail that I regularly receive from within the country and abroad. A letter that I was sent last year stated:
"when we had a Empire trying to make scum like you better, you did not want us in your country"—
India—
"but after the British had left, you all realised what a stinking shower you all are, and you all want to come to our lovely country and make it like a pig hole like your own country.
Go back to your own country and try to make it better, I believe and hope we British will get a new Enoch Powell who will deport all the stinking curry eating wogs out of Britain. Sooner the better. Union Jack."
Last year, I received a Christmas card, which had been posted in Paris. It said on the front:
"A Heartfelt wish to you and all your Family for Christmas and the New Year",
but inside, it said a different thing altogether. The card was sent by one of the supporters of Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front, and said:
"Get out of my Country you fucking Wogs. Only our Politicians want you over here. We don't!"
814
Another such leaflet was sent to me last year, saying:
"So F. O. back to Africa & India! We the English public didn't want you over here. Ever-only the bloody Politicians did."
That is an example of the hate literature that is sent to us. Even Members of Parliament are not safe from it.
Another letter that was sent to me said:
"Mr. Khabra, how you can be proud of your Indian origins and ask Tony Blair a sycophant question on India's 50th independence anniversary my mind boggles because in practice Indians are corrupt and lazy and cannot organise a piss up in a brewery."
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. Given the traditions of the House, he might just spare us the odd word or two without detriment to the message that he is trying to put across.
Mr. Khabra: Another letter that was sent to me said:
"Surely at a time when we're aiming to save green space and reduce traffic, we should not be increasing the population, letting thousands of immigrants through."
That is proof that people will even use environmental issues, blaming ethnic minority communities for polluting the environment. Those letters represent the cocktail of abusive racist language to which I am often subjected by people who believe in racial discrimination.
The Macpherson report concluded that "fundamental errors" were made and that the police investigation
"was marred by a combination of professional incompetence, institutional racism and a failure of leadership by senior officers."
Opposition Members have implied strong criticism; they have asked, "What does institutional racism mean?" I am sure that they know that there is such institutional racism in this case. It was founded during the period when this country was an imperial power. Such practice continues; institutions practice institutional racism. We urgently need the trust between the ethnic minorities and the police to be strengthened.
It is unfair to condemn the entire police force because the whole community recognises the good work that the police carry out on our behalf. However, there is no doubt that an improvement in community relations between the police and general public is needed. I stress that the issue does not concern only the police; there are racist attitudes throughout public life.
The police service has recognised that it needs to recruit more police officers from ethnic minority communities. I know from my own experience that, for various reasons, the police have difficulty in attracting young people from black and Asian communities. One reason is that they believe that the police force is still very much a racist institution, and that deters them from serving in the police.
Under new proposals, each force will set individual targets for recruitment that will reflect the cultural diversity of the community that it serves. Barriers to achieving those targets will be tackled by removing discriminatory practices within the service and pursuing a policy of improved community relations. We should note the new police discipline procedures, including a fast-track procedure, with full rights of appeal, to deal swiftly with officers who are caught committing serious criminal offences. Those are steps in the right direction.
I welcome the Government's moves to introduce targets, not quotas, for the recruitment, retention and promotion of ethnic minority officers in areas other than the police, such as the Home Office and the fire, immigration, prison and probation services.

815
I also welcome the Macpherson report's recommendation that there should be close co-operation between the police service, local government and other agencies, particularly housing and education departments, to ensure that all information about racist incidents and crimes is shared and is readily available to all agencies. I welcome also the recommendation that
"Local Education Authorities and School Governors have the duty to create and implement strategies in their schools to prevent and address racism."
Both of those approaches are aimed at tackling racism at the most important level, the grass roots.
I welcome the action plan, announced by the Home Secretary on 23 March, to take forward the 70 recommendations of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. The fact that the Home Secretary has taken personal responsibility for that signals that there is a political will to bring about changes that have been identified as necessary. The inquiry accepted that institutional racism is present in all our major institutions. The Home Secretary has endorsed that finding and restated his commitment to building an anti-racist society, and the proposals for that are still being developed.
I highlight recommendations 12 to 19, which refer to racist incidents. The Home Secretary has agreed to ensure that the definition of a racist incident as
"any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"
is universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies.
Recommendation 11 of the Lawrence inquiry report calls for the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 to be extended to the police force. The Home Secretary's unconditional acceptance of that recommendation demonstrates that racial equality is to be taken seriously. The Race Relations Act does not have enough teeth to bite and there is a need to amend and strengthen the law so that racial discrimination can be rooted out from society.
I welcome recommendation 39, that there should be an amendment of the law relating to racist language and behaviour. I welcome also the review of legislation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to carry out before the end of the year.
During my time as a Member since 1992 and before, when I was a community leader in my constituency, I have always had a good working relationship with the local police. They have always been prepared to listen to my concerns whenever they have arisen. However, there is still a long way to go, not only in the police force but throughout society at large, before we eradicate racial prejudice.
We must accept that many changes have taken place over the past 10 years in terms of racial prejudice. However, I am convinced that the attitude of racial prejudice still persists among a minority of people. Surprisingly, it is my experience that it exists in the party political system. Individuals, without realising it, still behave in a racially discriminatory way. Racial prejudice takes different forms and it is reflected in their attitudes to Members who come from the ethnic minority communities, who are their own colleagues.
The Lawrence family has shown bravery in the face of adversity. It is now up to everyone, including us, to show the same determination and put an end to prejudice.
8.56 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the entire House deplores the sort of comments that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) has received, no doubt anonymously. If it is any consolation to him, I have been the subject of hate mail. It is not very pleasant for oneself or for one's family. However, I am sure that the House is pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has a good working relationship with his local police. That is extremely good news, even if it perhaps that somewhat contradicts some of his more generalised points.
I begin by striking a note of agreement, as I am not sure that the House will agree with everything that I have to say. I share the universal sense of outrage at the killing of Stephen Lawrence. I appreciate—even if I do not understand, having not experienced it myself—the grief that his parents have suffered. I also readily appreciate their deep frustration that no one has been successfully brought to book for the murder of their son. Anyone who has read the appalling appendix to the report setting out the conversations that went on inside a flat cannot help but believe that that sort of behaviour and language is completely unacceptable in our country.
First, nothing that I might say is intended to diminish my appreciation or respect for the Lawrences. I hope that my parliamentary pension will not be imperilled. Secondly, I acknowledge the complexity of the task that was faced by the inquiry. I can agree with some of the recommendations, such as the proposal that police procedures at the scene of incidents be reviewed or, as other hon. Members have suggested, that improved services for victims and their families should be provided by the police.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who unfortunately is no longer in his place. I am sure that we were all moved by his experience. He knows much more about this issue than the rest of us and has had a close relationship with the inquiry. The rest of us have to fathom what we can from the report.
Having started on a note of agreement, I conclude that the report is fundamentally flawed. In the interest of arriving at fair and sensible conclusions, the House must address these issues fearlessly. In my view, the report is driven by a desire to be seen to be politically correct. It is inconsistent and contradictory. In some places it contains fatuous and even dangerous nonsense. At its heart is the contention that not only the police service but all British institutions are endemically infested with racism, which throughout is described as a disease. I regret that in the language of Macpherson, there is only one kind of racism, only one kind of insensitivity—that is, white against black. The report therefore stands accused of being partial.
Furthermore, every allowance is shown towards the Lawrences—quite understandable in the circumstances—but little latitude is afforded to the police, who are subject throughout to the precision weapon of 20:20 hindsight. That is rich, coming from a committee of inquiry that was so incompetent that it overlooked the publication of the names and addresses of vulnerable witnesses. How can members of the committee of inquiry criticise police officers working under pressure, when they themselves were guilty of such an elementary mistake, for which they have not yet apologised?

817
However tragic the death of Stephen Lawrence—and it was tragic—the greater tragedy is that his death is but one of many senseless killings. What about Keith Blakelock, the police constable hacked to pieces in October 1985 by a gang of black murderers at Broadwater Farm in Tottenham? What about young Richard Everitt, an English schoolboy brutally killed by a gang of Asian youths just days before Stephen Lawrence's murder? Neither of the killers of those two has been found. It is not just Stephen Lawrence and his parents who have suffered; many other people have suffered as well, and we should be concerned for them all.
It is the out-and-out contradictions that render the report so flawed. For example, at paragraph 5.13 the report states that as regards Stephen Lawrence's friend Duwayne Brooks,
"no police officer, at any time, treated him properly as a victim."
Yet in the next paragraph, the report states:
"DC Cooper and other police officers treated Mr Brooks at the Police Station appropriately and professionally."
However, at paragraph 5.31 we are told:
"He simply was not treated professionally and appropriately and according to his needs."
What on earth are we to make of such inconsistencies?
I remind the House, uncomfortable though it may be, that Mr. Brooks' response to the police woman who arrived at the murder scene was to ask—in deference to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not use the exact language—
"Who called you f…ing c…s anyway, pigs. I only called the f…ing ambulance".
I quote from the report. It must require discipline to work calmly against such abuse. We should also remember that, as paragraph 5.25 states, the lawyer, Mr. Khan,
"never complained to the police on Mr Brooks' behalf about lack of liaison or lack of care or support being given to Mr Brooks."
More generally, the inquiry refused to consider that incompetence alone could account for the failure to catch Stephen's killers—I refer to paragraph 6.44. It exonerates individual police officers of racism, such as Detective Superintendent Crampton, who
"was undoubtedly not influenced in our opinion by the fact that the victim was black".
I quote from paragraph 13.74. The same was said of Detective Superintendent Weeden, who took over from Mr. Crampton. Paragraph 14.34 states that
"there is no ground for alleging that these failures"—
it is acknowledged that there were failures—
"occurred because the victim of this murder was black or because Mr Weeden was in some way involved in collusion or corruption…We see no basis upon which it can properly be alleged that Mr Weeden acted improperly in his investigative duties because of racist attitudes."
Having failed to make charges of racism stick, the inquiry accuses the police of
"the evil of unwitting racism",
which can arise, for example, because of
"well intentioned but patronising words or actions."
818
We are offered what I regard as an appalling example at paragraph 15.4, where Detective Inspector Bullock is hauled over the coals and accused of "casually and insensitively" referring to Stephen Lawrence and Duwayne Brooks as
"'the two young coloured lads'. He was oblivious to his own insensitivity in this regard."
I regard that as utterly fatuous nonsense. I do not understand how such allegations can be made against a police officer for using that sort of mild language. There was nothing intentionally racist in it, nothing thought to be offensive. Indeed, I imagine that the language was thought to be caring and concerned, yet it has been twisted round and held against the detective. I find it extraordinary that his words should be invested with racism.
There is worse to come. Poor acting Inspector Little was unwittingly infected with racism because he committed the crime of treating the murder of Stephen Lawrence as he would any other murder, of which, I remind the House, there were three outstanding in the area at that time. He had failed to catch up with the times. In the old days, officers had to be colour blind and had to treat everyone the same, otherwise they were prejudiced. The report states:
"A colour blind approach fails to take account of the nature and needs of the person or the people involved".
We cannot go around society working on the fine-tuning of people's sensitivity. We cannot expect police officers, in the execution of their duty, to understand all those changes of nuance in that fashion. It is thoroughly unrealistic that they should be expected to do so.
The examples that I have quoted are not only fatuous, they are dangerous, for they introduce the concept that the police will be chastised if they treat everyone equally before the law. British citizens expect their police service to treat everybody equally before the law, but even my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) suggests that we are all out of touch and must abandon that approach, and must take myriad considerations into account.[Interruption.] The Minister of State shakes his head, but I have quoted from the report; to be colour blind—to treat everybody equally—is not acceptable, apparently. Police officers will, at best, be confused.
Mr. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. Time is short and not many people have had an opportunity to put the kind of argument that I want to put to the House tonight.[Interruption.] Some may say that that is a good thing, but there we are.
The failure of the police to catch and convict the murderers of Stephen Lawrence may owe something to the decision not to arrest the suspects immediately, but to found on that error of judgment a charge that the police were insensitive and racist—and to build on that a vast raft of new, draconian laws and procedures—is unwarranted and wrong. The Commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, whom I believe to be an extremely dignified and capable officer, has been pilloried and abused in a manner which would have resulted in charges if meted out by non-blacks. He has expressed reservations about bringing the police within the remit of race relations law, and I believe that he is right to do so.

819
The chairman of the Hampshire Police Federation said:
"Law-abiding ethnic communities have never caused problems for the police service, and indeed in Hampshire we have always enjoyed good relations with community leaders …
The main concern is in dealing with criminals who just happen to be black or Asian.
It is this element which I fear will attempt to capitalise on a well-intentioned report and try to use it to their advantage.
The phrase 'you have only stopped me because I am black' in light of this report will understandably cause officers concern.
It will be exploited by that criminal element who attempt to hide their criminality behind their colour and attempt to thwart proactive policing by falsely alleging persecution on the basis of race rather than the truth.
I have already heard officers in this Force express reluctance to become involved with black or Asian youths for fear of allegations being made."
That is a very serious charge and the Minister of State has to take it into account.
It is fair to say that some unpalatable truths have to be faced, one of which is the fact that no Government have ever received a mandate to turn the United Kingdom into a multiracial society. Despite the warnings given in the 1960s and 1970s about the inevitable social consequences of large-scale immigration to Britain, successive Governments have ploughed on regardless.
There are those who will use the report to try to advance a cause that I do not believe to be in the interests of good race relations in this country. I regret that some who have come here freely and others who have sought refuge in this country appear no longer content to learn and accept our native customs and traditions, but wish to assert their own. Some of the minority even want to dictate to the majority.
I believe that the report makes chilling reading in places. Not only does it contain the quite frightening suggestion that the thought police should be allowed to invade the home of a free-born Englishman; there is the threat of indoctrination in our schools to make children "value cultural diversity". My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) described that as Orwellian. Although some people welcome cultural diversity, others see it as a threat and there is no point in this House being other than aware of that fact. It strikes some people that the homogeneity of the United Kingdom is somehow under threat.
This country is Britain, and the best service that we can do for all our children is to give them a thorough knowledge of the history and cultural heritage of these islands. As for the police, they deserve far better than this report and the public humiliation to which the Commissioner has been subjected. Britain is a tolerant country. We need to keep working at good race relations, but it is time that those with ethnic minority backgrounds, who represent just 6 per cent. of the population, tried to be more understanding of us and our centuries-old culture.
9.10 pm
Mr. Iain Coleman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this interesting debate. Given the lack of time, my speech will be brief.
It is crucial that, above all else, we learn the key lessons from Stephen's tragic death. We all have a duty, particularly those of us in public life, to examine our
820
conduct and consciences to ensure that we have done so. Are we certain that our actions are consistent with the desire of all right-minded people to build a decent society, free from the discrimination, hatred and prejudice that breeds the attitudes that we all witnessed from the five young white men caught on video tape proclaiming their vile and disgusting opinions?
When I was first elected as a local authority councillor some 13 years' ago, the relationship between my local authority and the Metropolitan police was appalling. The level of mutual distrust bordered on hostility and it was the widely held view of most Labour councillors, including myself, that the Metropolitan police was an organisation riddled with racism, which was to be challenged at all times and treated with contempt and disdain. Any suggestion that a constructive dialogue should take place between our two bodies was regarded almost as tantamount to appeasement with the enemy.
On reflection, I believe that the fault for that near-complete breakdown in trust and communication should be apportioned to everyone involved, including those of us in the Labour party who adopted an inflexible and inappropriate approach. Those who suffered at the time were not the police or the policy makers at the council, but the local communities that we were elected to serve. It has taken more than a decade for us to turn that situation around. We have gone some way to achieving that objective.
Having worked closely with local senior police officers over recent years, I am convinced that they are now genuinely committed to an anti-racist police strategy. In January this year, Chief Superintendent Joe Kaye, who was until recently stationed at Hammersmith police station, accepted an invitation to speak at a local ward meeting. In the 1980s the idea that the Labour party would offer an invitation to a senior police officer to discuss his vision of a community police strategy would have been absurd. We opened up the meeting to residents of a deprived housing estate and the large audience sometimes gave Chief Superintendent Kaye a hard time. However, the fact that he was prepared to listen and respond to the views and criticisms of a local working-class community is further proof of how the relationship has changed in the past decade.
Welcome though the change at the top of the local police structure is, there remains much distrust and suspicion among my constituents about the Metropolitan police. Far too often, my black constituents are the individuals who are stopped for no good reason when driving their cars at night. It is still regular practice in my constituency for young black men to be pulled up and searched when all that they are doing is peacefully walking home. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the black community continues to be resentful and sceptical about the police's commitment to root out the discrimination that has scarred their service for far too many years.
I particularly welcome, therefore, the suggestion in the action plan, which the Home Secretary has drawn up following the Macpherson report, that all stops, including non-statutory ones, be recorded and details given to the individual who is stopped.
It is important, as I said, that we should all examine our own behaviour to ensure that nothing we do could in any way encourage or tolerate the spread of

821
racist attitudes. I am sure that all hon. Members will therefore welcome, as I do, the all-party statement on the principles of good practice for the debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The document was signed by all the leaders of parties represented in the House, and calls on all Members of Parliament, all Members of the European Parliament and all councillors to ensure that, in any dealings with the public, no words or actions are used that may stir up racial or religious hatred or lead to prejudice on grounds of race, nationality or religion.
It was therefore a very sad disappointment that, in the very week in which the Immigration and Asylum Bill—the legislation with which that all-party document was drawn up to deal—was published, a leaflet entitled "Fulham Homes For Fulham People" was distributed in some parts of my constituency. The authors of that propaganda are two young white Conservative councillors who were elected to the authority less than a year ago. Currently, one of them is challenging for leadership of the Conservative group in Hammersmith and Fulham.
Among the statements made in the leaflet are that more housing points should be given
"to those who have a strong link with the local area"—
whatever that might mean. It goes on to say that the Labour council
"couldn't care less whether you've lived 5 minutes or 20 years in Fulham."
The leaflet also states that the Labour council grants
"75 bonus points for certain categories of homeless people, including asylum seekers",
and ends with the charming expression "Stop the rot".
Those statements are dangerous and completely without foundation. They are also a disgrace. Hon. Members will judge for themselves whether they are consistent with the all-party agreement signed by all the party leaders, including the Leader of the Opposition.
One of the young men involved in publishing the leaflet is the chairman of the new youth wing of the Conservative party—an organisation that I believe is called Conservative Future. I am sure that we shall all be eagerly awaiting the recommendations of the internal investigation into the publication of that leaflet, which was announced yesterday by Conservative central office, after a complaint made by the national Commission for Racial Equality.
Stephen's tragic death has highlighted the prejudice and discrimination faced daily by the United Kingdom's black and ethnic minority communities. It must therefore be incumbent on all of us in public life ruthlessly to stamp out any behaviour that could in any way feed that prejudice. The time for words is over. Only by our actions will we demonstrate our commitment at last to build the fair anti-racist society that the people of the United Kingdom deserve.
9.17 pm
Mr. Humfrey Malins: I shall be brief.
When I hear it said by politicians that our Metropolitan police are institutionally corrupt, institutionally racist and institutionally incompetent, I think that the world has sometimes gone completely mad. I also believe that the reverse is the truth. There are some bad apples in our
822
Metropolitan police, but there are some bad apples in every part of society. The truth—which is not said enough—is that our Metropolitan police are an outstandingly good force of devoted men and women, ably led by a man who has introduced much innovation and done a great deal of good.
We are lucky in our metropolis to be policed by that force. It is also high time that politicians began talking up police, rather than talking them down. They have no voice in the Chamber to speak for themselves, so let us do it.
I admit straight away that we must approach this important debate in a measured manner. It would be wrong to deny that there are some problems. It is important to stress that there must be more trust between police and ethnic minority communities. Yes, all of that is necessary. Much can and should be done.
We need more people from ethnic minority communities in our police force. I do not like the idea of quotas, but I do like the idea of having more young men and women from those communities in the police force. I should be very glad to see more leaders of the ethnic minority communities encouraging some of their youngsters to join the police force, rather than, I am sad to say, so often talking down a career in the police. I therefore accept the need to recruit and retain more people in the police force from ethnic minority communities.
I am on all fours with one aspect of the Macpherson report. My career in the law over many years has convinced me that we need to look carefully at the use of the stop-and-search powers. There is no doubt that there is a feeling among a lot of black young men in the metropolis that those powers are operated unfairly and to their detriment. Any fair-minded person will accept that there is a case to be considered. I am pleased that the Metropolitan police—with Government backing, I think—are considering pilot studies to see where improvements can be made. It is important that young people should feel fairly treated on the streets.
However, there is a lot in the Macpherson report that is silly and sinister and could suitably be consigned to the dustbin. The abolition of the double jeopardy rule would be a great mistake. I hope that all those in authority share that view. The prosecution of offences involving racist language in a private home would also be a great mistake. Certain offences already exist under public order legislation and the defences in relation to private homes should remain.
This is awkward, because I am trying to convert a 15-minute speech into about four and a half minutes. We have to be very careful about how we approach the issue in education and our schools. I am worried to see recommendations that the national curriculum should be amended to include lessons on how not to be racist in order better to effect the needs of a diverse society. I am also terribly troubled by the absurd recommendation that schools should record all racist incidents, that all recorded incidents should be reported to the governors, the guardians and the local education authority and that the numbers should be published. We are creating too much trouble for ourselves, particularly when a racist incident is defined as
"any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person."

823
The recommendation goes on to say that
"the term 'racist incident' must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes"—"
very significant words—
"in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment."
One wonders who will do the reporting, the recording and the investigating and with what commitment. Is that not political correctness gone mad?
We are in severe danger of doing too much. As a result we shall create more resentment and tension where not so much exists at the moment. We should not take action that results in more problems and more tension. Let us move slowly rather than quickly and let us carry the consent of the whole population with us. The Macpherson report is another example of 5 per cent. of the population making 95 per cent. of the noise.
9.23 pm
Mr. Jon Trickett: In view of the time, I shall try to curtail my comments. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). A boy lies dead. The police bungled the inquiry. The Kent police then handled the investigation incompetently and five racist murderers are still on the loose.
We should compliment my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on having had the courage to launch the inquiry. We should congratulate the authors of the report on their intelligence, wisdom, patience and humanity. We should also commend my right hon. Friend on having had the wit and speed to respond so comprehensively to the Macpherson report.
In my public life, I have represented two very different areas. For 14 years I represented an area in south Leeds with a rich multi-ethnic mix. From 1984, I lived among the community. The relationship between the police and the ethnic minority communities had broken down, and there was a huge chasm of confidence between those communities and the police. I discovered a level and intensity of racial harassment and violence that was frightening to me as a near neighbour and terrifying to the people who were subjected to that violence. Offensive graffiti displayed the Nazi insignia. We were not dealing merely with incipient racism—although that existed—but with organised racism by fascist organisations. There were attacks on property and attacks on the person, both physical and verbal. People lived in fear and were intimidated in their own houses. They were frightened to go out. Frequently, the women, the elderly and the children were unable to leave their homes.
The police had failed to protect that community. I was frequently called out—sometimes almost every night—to witness incidents. Almost invariably I was there before the police arrived: sometimes they took hours to arrive or never came at all in spite of threats to people's physical safety.
An inquiry was launched by the Leeds community relations council, which was chaired by Canon Jim Richardson, then Vicar of Leeds. It found harassment on a large and horrific scale. The police statistics failed to recognise the scale of the phenomenon, which has been reflected in many of our other inner cities.
I want to highlight recommendations 12 to 17 in the Macpherson inquiry report, which will require a more accurate system of reporting racial incidents in the future.
824
That will help to create some public confidence, and will reveal for the first time the true extent and character of the problem of racism and fascist organisations in our inner-city areas. It will require the police and other agencies to become race aware in a way that they have not been in the past. It will begin to restore confidence that the suffering of communities is being adequately recognised.
In 1996, I left Leeds and went to the community of Hemsworth, which, according to the 1991 census, is 99 per cent. ethnic white. That gives me a special perspective. I now represent villages which are ethnically white, almost without exception, but where a chasm of confidence opened up between the police and the community as a result of the 1984 miners strike. Now there is great poverty in those communities, as well as large-scale drug dealing and a rising tide of criminality.
Many people in those villages tell me that they have lost confidence in the policing of their communities. I share and understand such fears and lack of confidence when I meet elderly people who fear to go out of their homes. I try to call community meetings and a different police officer comes on each occasion, so there is no continuity. The police say that some communities must raise money to pay for adequate policing. The entire community lacks confidence in the police.
The common theme of the communities that I have represented is lack of confidence. Macpherson is pointing us in the correct direction.
Above all, I want to highlight the recommendation concerning the Police Complaints Authority, which makes it clear that it should become independent. The Home Office is sympathetic to the principle of an independent system of investigation. I want to press the Minister to clarify the sentences in the document that refer to the cost and practical implications of making the Police Complaints Authority independent. In my view, true independence is an absolute imperative. It would be well worth it if some cost were involved, as a means of restoring confidence in policing among communities such as those I have briefly described.
9.30 pm
Mr. John Greenway: This important debate was bound to generate strong emotions, but generally speaking, it has again demonstrated that there is unity in our revulsion at the appalling and atrocious murder of Stephen Lawrence; in our condemnation of the abysmal and deplorable handling of the police investigation into that crime, as set out in the Macpherson report; and in our sense of outrage at the comprehensive failure of our criminal justice system to bring Stephen's killers to justice.
We want to make our streets safer for all our citizens; to eliminate racism in our society; to make our police service more responsive to the needs and interests of all elements in our communities, and especially minorities identifiable by their ethnic origin; and to address the shortcomings so forcefully outlined in Sir William Macpherson's exhaustive report. Above all, we want the restoration of confidence in our police service, especially in London, among all sections of our multicultural and multiracial community.
We are right to pursue with vigour and determination the process of change and reform that those crucial objectives demand, but we have surely an equal

825
responsibility to examine carefully the conclusions and recommendations in the Macpherson report, to test their validity and appropriateness, and to ensure that the changes that we instigate will have the effect that we all want.
We must not allow our abhorrence of Stephen's murder to cloud our judgment of precisely what is wrong, what needs to be done and what will be most effective and necessary action to achieve our objectives. As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) said, hysteria does not help us to come to an understanding of the problems.
Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend do a kindness to the Kent police? At least one speaker today has suggested that the Kent police inquiry was incompetent. In fact, the report said that it was painstaking, thorough and fair. It is only right to put that on the record, especially as the leader of the Kent police inquiry was never asked to give evidence to the Macpherson inquiry.
Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend makes his own point extremely well. There was a thorough Kent inquiry, although some of its conclusions were not shared by Sir William Macpherson.
We should avoid the mistake of thinking that nothing has been done before to tackle the problems. Macpherson may well be a defining moment in police and community relations in our country, but the report and its recommendations are not revolutionary in all respects. Indeed, the report is at its best when building on and developing reforms and processes already under way.
I was a member of the Home Affairs Committee when, in 1994—after Stephen's murder, to which we referred in the very first paragraph of our report—we wrestled with many of the issues tackled in the Macpherson report. Too often, Select Committee reports are prepared, published and then forgotten. They seem to have a very short shelf life.
Many of the issues that Macpherson considered—definition of a racist incident; the scale of racial harassment in our country; the need to reform the law on incitement to racial hatred, to which the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) referred; the recruitment, retention and advancement of ethnic minority officers; and police training in racial awareness—were central to the Select Committee report. Work has been on-going since those recommendations were made. That was very much the agenda that we have been debating today.
The Opposition will take a constructive approach to Macpherson, with the aim of ensuring that we reach the right conclusions about what went wrong and why; that our analysis is accurate and clear; and that the changes the Government seek to make, with Parliament's approval, will properly address the problems and issues while also securing the right balance of interests, effects and causes.
I shall summarise some of the more important points about which we have genuine concerns. In the main, they relate to the police service. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said, it is crucial that the police's determination to meet the
826
challenge of the Macpherson report is not undermined by low morale arising from falling manpower or over-fussy bureaucracy. While the definition of institutional racism, which gave rise to such controversy and has been mentioned during the debate, is important, it is also important that we again place on record the fact that Sir William himself confirmed that accepting the definition of institutional racism does not entail accepting that all police officers in London are racist, nor that the policies of the Metropolitan police are racist. Once that judgment has been accepted, it is time to move the debate forward and to concentrate on implementing those measures that tackle head on the racist behaviour of the swaggering bigots mentioned by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford).
Given the need to challenge the behaviour of individual police officers, we feel that disciplinary procedural changes are generally to be welcomed. Indeed, Metropolitan police initiatives in that area are already well advanced. However, we share the concerns of the police about the implication of the recommendation that calls for disciplinary action for up to five years after retirement. Discipline in the police service is surely about determining fitness to hold the office of constable or higher rank in the police service. It never was about seeking redress or apportioning blame. If that is what is now required, a different approach may be necessary. We do not believe that an extension of pension forfeiture, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke in some detail, would be a just option.
Disciplinary action, more often than not, arises as a result of internal investigations, but complaints from the public and other bodies are also significant. There would probably be an increase in such complaints if the police service were brought within the terms of the Race Relations Act 1976. We accept the principle, for the reasons my right hon. Friend outlined, but before the primary legislation needed to achieve that is introduced, we need to consider carefully the implications. For example, would complaints under the Act be permissible if they were based not on racial motivation, but on outcome? If so, there would be serious implications for the potential cost of meeting compensation claims. It is unlikely that there would be a ceiling on such claims. Our support for the Race Relations Act extension is also dependent on ensuring that the ability of the police to fight crime effectively and to uphold the rule of law is not undermined.
We welcome the fact that Sir William supports the retention of stop-and-search procedures, but we agree that research needs to be done to establish the extent to which discrimination affects the use of those powers, a point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead.
The new disciplinary code restates the tradition of policing with fairness and impartiality, and the police service must be free to meet that requirement without fear or favour. Whether or not, and to what extent, the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 are eventually applied to the police, the most practical solution for improving racial awareness lies in improved training.
There have been many new developments in that area, and the police are ready to take them further in the light of the report. Too often in the past, important training initiatives—in racial awareness, but in many other areas

827
too—have been undermined by demands for greater cost-effectiveness. We look forward to seeing the current report into that matter of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
We accept the fresh definition of racist incidents. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, it is likely to lead to a significant increase in recorded figures for racist incidents. We need to be careful in dealing with that.
I have strong views about the need for a significant increase in recruitment and retention of police officers from ethnic backgrounds. Anyone who has experienced policing in some of the major cities of the United States of America cannot escape the contrast between a multiracial, multicultural police force policing a multiracial, multicultural community and what still happens in the United Kingdom. There has been progress, but we need to do more. The biggest increase in ethnic recruitment occurred when recruitment of additional officers was at its height, not in the 1990s, as the Home Secretary said, but in the 1980s.
There is a huge contradiction in Government policy in this area. It is absurd for the Home Secretary to set targets for ethnic recruitment, but to disclaim any possible influence or responsibility on recruitment levels or on the ability of police forces to maintain adequate numbers of officers.
I should refer briefly to the handling of the report, which has also been referred to by the hon. Member for Eltham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The hon. Member for Eltham spoke forcefully about the strong sense of outrage and incredulity felt by his constituents, many of them young people, when their names and addresses were published. What adds insult to injury is the clear knowledge that, just when Ministers and officials should have been taking greater care to prevent that grave error, they were busying themselves in blocking publication of what appeared to everyone to be a deliberate leak of the report. Will the Minister of State tell us when he expects the leak inquiry to be published?
Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Greenway: I will not because I must finish.
The police cannot be expected to deliver this important programme of reform unless proper resources are provided. The acid test of the Government's commitment to reform will be their capacity to provide those resources. The Government's pronouncements, which we have heard again today, must be matched by a willingness to ensure that the police have the resources to do the job that we all expect.
The signs are not encouraging. The Macpherson report has generated huge expectation of change and reform. The blueprint is clear, and it is widely supported. The police service is eager to deliver change and to restore its battered pride. However, I say with all sincerity, that Ministers must recognise that unless they reconsider their stance on resources, the greatest obstacle to success will rest with them.
9.45 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Our race, our culture, our history, in all the richness and diversity now happily represented in this
828
House and reflected in this debate, are very important to each and every one of us in our different ways. However, they do not, and must not, on their own define us, because we are all, each and every one of us, much more than that. Whether in Peckham or in Penrith, we share a common humanity that we must recognise and upon which we must build. In this country, we share something else: a common home and a history of empire and Commonwealth. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) should recognise that, because his past constituents had a role in ensuring that. We must now build on that shared history and humanity.
The great evil, and it was an evil, of what happened to Stephen Lawrence is that all his murderers saw was another black boy. All they saw was another nigger, and they were going to get him. All too many, but not all, the police officers only saw another black boy suspected of being a street fighter, and they treated him as such. They only saw yet another black family with a sense of unjustified grievance, and they treated them as such. That should be a matter of shame to each and every one of us.
What I sensed on both sides of the House today was exemplified by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) and, particularly, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and my hon. Friends. They recognised that, whatever happens, whatever we have said, we all, in our different ways and from our different perspectives, believe that what happened to the Lawrence family must never happen again. No family, no matter what their colour, should have to go through again what the Lawrences have suffered over the past six years. That unites us all, and thank God that it does.
Reference was made in the debate—sometimes, from various perspectives, critical—to the definitions of institutional racism and racist incident suggested by Sir William Macpherson and his team. The Government accept both the report's definitions because we see them as working definitions that have a practical purpose. I am sure that we could all find something in them, or underpinning or underlying them, with which we might take issue to a greater or lesser extent, but I think that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members recognise their value because they enable us to move forward. Institutional racism is defined in such a way as to enable us to identify better and to come together to address a problem that we know exists.
I must stress to right hon. and hon. Members that no black person in this country needed Sir William Macpherson to tell us about the nature of racism. No black person in this country needed to be told about institutional racism in the Metropolitan police or any other police force or in the wider institutions of our society. We recognise that it is there, as do many white people, and we are only too cognisant of the fact, as are many white people, that something must be done about it. We must address that problem if we are to move forward. All of us surely require not breast-beating, semantics, self-flagellation, the donning of sackcloth and ashes, or diversionary quibbling, but change in order to address better the reality and perception of unfairness and injustice. We seek equal not preferential treatment, not for one race but for all. No one is asking for—or wants—any favours. We seek fairness and equal treatment under the law because it is the law that is important. That must be at the forefront of our consciousness when we consider these matters.

829
I well understand—what lawyer would not?—the concern about the definition of a racial incident. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) referred to stop and search from his perspective as a lawyer. All lawyers have a thing about definitions, and the definition of a racial incident might give the lawyers among us pause for thought. It is essentially an entirely subjective definition, and that always starts alarm bells ringing in any lawyer' s ears.
However, the definition has a practical purpose: as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is a tool that enables us to record better an event that the victim clearly feels displays racial motivation. The Crown Prosecution Service must determine whether the evidence justifies a matter coming before the court. Sir William Macpherson's definition does not require the matter of racist motivation to be accepted by the CPS or to be brought before the court. It is for the court to determine in the ordinary way whether such a motivation is made. No one of our fellow citizens should be left feeling that his or her concern about a racial motive was not at least recorded. It is not unreasonable to ask that of those whose duty it is to record such matters.
We now need not rhetoric or sentiment but practical measures to ensure that this tragedy does not happen again. The action plan seeks to introduce practical measures: it is a task for everyone with benefits for everyone. The action plan must not be viewed as being only for black people. Every victim of a crime and every member of the public, whatever his or her colour, will benefit from the improvements that it sets out. They will benefit in terms of the competencies that are necessary in a murder investigation, because the events that occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Stephen Lawrence murder should never have happened. Those benefits will accrue to everyone in terms of the way in which bereaved families or the families of victims will be treated by the police.
There are resource implications, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, in this instance fairness and justice have no price; we recognise that. Benefits will accrue to everyone from the fact that basic first-aid skills will be improved. Confidence in the police is vital for all black and all white people—whether in Handsworth or Hemsworth—and it must be strengthened and kept in good repair, because the police have special responsibilities. We put particular burdens on the police. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) said, we must not forget the community dimension. He has shown the way ahead for recruitment and retention through the cohort project in Tottenham, which sought to bring people into the police from a diverse range of backgrounds.
There is a community responsibility and there will have to be a community involvement. All of us must be committed to working together to build strong, civic communities in which every member feels that he or she has an equal part to play. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) rightly reminded us of the significance of young people in all that work. We must bring them on board because they must be part of the solution, rather than remaining part of the problem.
830
The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is correct to point out the work done by the Select Committees. The police have been moving to embrace the diversity agenda, but other public services and institutions must do the same. That is why it is important to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 across the public services. We must all recognise our responsibility in these matters.
It is true that there have been many causes for concern in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) mentioned the victims of the New Cross fire. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Khabra) referred to the case of Blair Peach. Those campaigns have helped to bring us to the point that we have reached today, but they are part of the past and we must now move forward. We need to move forward on the basis of a greater degree of accountability, and in that context the proposals made in relation to the new Metropolitan Police Authority are most important.
We must also acknowledge the important role that we shall play in this House. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) correctly reminded us of the importance of evaluating what we do, of pushing projects forward and reporting back to the House. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we shall do just that. We must build on the consensus that exists in this House; a consensus acknowledged in the contributions made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) and for Eltham (Mr. Efford). My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham has had to deal with these matters day in and day out and rightly makes the point that no community deserves to be castigated or written off as racist.
Good people, black and white, are working together to build practical strategies for change. Those strategies need to be taken forward. Yes, existing injustices are a cause for concern. Some of my hon. Friends have asked us for replies on specific matters and the ministerial team will be only too happy to meet them to discuss those matters.
Today, this House is challenged to make a new beginning in which we are united in this country—our country, our home—to build a society that is inclusive and in which people are judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. That is a fitting memorial to Stephen Lawrence. That will make a reality of all that his parents have striven for: not rhetoric, not sentiment, but a positive strategy for change; a strategy for change that will deliver us the sort of society in which we can take genuine pride and that represents the best that this House can stand for. We have seen that reflected here today. Yes, there will be differences, but at least now we can talk about them openly and move forward. That is progress.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Don Foster be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Phil Willis be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier today, there was a hint that there would be important discussions and contacts tonight between the Foreign Secretary and the Russians—Mr. Primakov—on the matter of Kosovo. Have you had any request that a statement be made to the House on that matter?
Madam Speaker: No, I have not received such a request. Had I been informed that a statement was to be made, it would have appeared on the annunciator as soon as I became aware of it.

Trading Credit Approvals
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Phil Willis: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to raise the issue of trading credit approvals in this Adjournment debate. I realise that the subject might appear somewhat obscure, but the Minister's response tonight may well have a profound effect on any local authority involved in commercial trading operations and, more important, a significant impact on the economic well-being of 200 businesses in my constituency and the 4,500 men and women who depend on Harrogate's successful conference and exhibition business for their livelihoods. In addition, it may determine whether the current £110 million spent by business tourists within the Harrogate district continues, and whether the high level of private-sector investment that has resulted from the successful international conference business is sustained.
In his response, I hope that the Minister will address three specific points. First, will he clarify the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 in respect of the granting of supplementary credit approvals, including trading credit approvals? Secondly, will he clarify and make explicit the Government's policy in respect of local authority trading organisations? Thirdly, will he re-examine the application for a trading credit approval on behalf of Harrogate borough council?
Although I intend to concentrate on the case of Harrogate borough council's trading operation—the Harrogate international centre—I am aware that the debate has considerable significance for other local authorities with publicly owned conference and exhibition facilities. In towns such as Scarborough, Southport, Blackpool, Brighton, Eastbourne, Bournemouth and Torquay, the development of business tourism came as a direct result of the decline of the traditional holiday tourism market. In Harrogate, it was a response to the collapse of the traditional spa treatment market—a market from which the town of Harrogate derived much of its prosperity and developed its now splendid environment.
The arrival of much larger players—Birmingham's NEC, Manchester's G-MEX, Edinburgh's international centre, Glasgow's Scottish conference and exhibition centre and the Belfast waterfront—has presented new challenges to the smaller venues. Harrogate has risen to that challenge and today ranks as the third-largest conference and exhibition business in Britain outside London. Ten years ago, the business barely achieved break-even before financing costs, but it now achieves a trading surplus of more than £1 million per year, which is used partly to support council services and partly to finance reinvestment in the business.
However, the council has now reached the point where the future prosperity and survival of its conference business requires significant capital investment—about £9 million, of which £2 million can be found from accumulated profits within the borough council. The council needs to raise external funds of £6.6 million to allow reinvestment in catering and exhibition facilities. Failure to do that will inevitably have an impact on local jobs and businesses and will reduce the financial return

833
to the council that is needed to underpin local services. For those reasons, Harrogate applied for a trading credit approval to borrow £6.6 million.
Trading credit approvals are not specifically defined in legislation: they are a form of supplementary credit approval issued under section 54 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. First issued in connection with the South Yorkshire supertram project, they are principally associated with regional airport development. KPMG, one of the world's largest accountancy firms, said in its advice to Harrogate borough council in 1997:
"we are aware of this type of credit approval being used for capital projects that can generate sufficient revenue stream to service debt financing obligations".
The Local Government Association said, in a letter that I recently received, that it understands that
"Trading credit approvals are so termed because they were issued on the basis that associated borrowing costs would be met from income streams".
Indeed, such criteria for borrowing approvals make excellent sense. They follow the golden rule laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that borrowing should be for capital investment and not revenue expenditure. They comply with the Treasury's proposals for resource accounting, and therefore do not add to the public sector borrowing requirement. They would allow local authorities to invest in trading operations that can provide an appropriate rate of return and that meet stringent but transparent tests.
However, obtaining either a supplementary credit approval or a trading credit approval depends entirely on the discretion of the Secretary of State, who may have regard, according to section 55(1) of the 1989 Act,
"to such factors as appear to him to be appropriate".
Surely such a situation is unacceptable.
This year, four local authorities applied for a trading credit approval, and not one of them was successful. If, as for Harrogate, the reasons for refusal are somewhat spurious to say the least, what is the point of such a facility? Of course Governments should set strict guidelines for borrowing, but legislation that depends simply on the whims of the Secretary of State cannot be acceptable. I therefore ask the Minister to agree to examine the legislation and to make proposals that would allow, under clearly defined circumstances, local authorities access to borrowing for profitable trading operations.
When Harrogate applied for a trading credit approval just over 12 months ago, it did so having exhausted every other avenue of financing for its new facilities. Revenue balances were considered, but rejected. Harrogate borough council is certainly not profligate. Its net budget was £15 million in 1991–92, and next year it will be £15.4 million—an increase of 2.5 per cent. in cash terms over eight years, but a real-terms reduction of 19 per cent. Reserves are at a minimum, prudent level and are insufficient to apply to a capital project.
A sale to the private sector was considered. In 1991–92, the business was marketed worldwide without success. Although great interest was shown in taking over the management and operational functions, the private sector was not prepared to take on the capital debts and
834
invest in new facilities. Nor could the core objective that the business remained a key local economic development primer be guaranteed.
The reason why was perfectly clear, and is the reason why most conference and exhibition businesses remain in public ownership. Given the subsidies paid around the country to attract business, the financial returns on investment are low, and not adequate, given the risks, to justify investment on purely commercial grounds. However, they are more than adequate to meet long-term public sector borrowing costs. Independent experts have agreed that Harrogate's investment proposal is not appropriate for private commercial investment, although the catering business has recently been transferred to the private sector—to Crown Catering.
The private finance initiative was considered in some detail and subjected to an assessment by KPMG, which concluded:
"PFI does not offer a suitable solution for the procurement of the whole of the scheme…PFI does not appear to offer a realistic funding solution".
The chief executive of the public private partnerships programme also concluded:
"Therefore, on balance, and in the light of the Council's likely commitment to underwrite the investment financed by the TCA, I would find it difficult to argue that, in this case, PFI would provide a best-value option".
Were European grants available? Harrogate is not an assisted area. Unique among conference venues, it has access only to one small source of European funds: Konver. Harrogate has been advised that, although there was an outside possibility of grant aid from Europe, that is now unlikely. In any event, the maximum possible was only ever going to be £500,000—not enough to finance the whole scheme.
What about capital challenge? That was considered but not taken forward because it was clear that the Government were seeking cross-service bids and the total UK allocation was very small. Perhaps a single regeneration bid would have been successful. Originally the subject of an informal bid in the first round, the proposal was rejected at the outline stage by the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside.
Two other possibilities were considered before any application for a trading credit approval: the reallocation of resources within the capital programme and the sale of assets. Ironically, those were the very suggestions made by the Government when they denied Harrogate its request for trading credit approval. The briefest examination of the evidence presented to the Government reveals how absurd both those suggestions were.
The trading credit approval being sought was for £6.6 million. In contrast, Harrogate's total capital programme for next year amounts to just £4.7 million on housing and £3.5 million on general services. To reallocate £6.6 million from those figures would virtually wipe out existing spending plans and commitments, but the simple fact is that most of that money cannot be reallocated. About £2.3 million is from grants for specific projects which Harrogate has secured from the lottery and other bodies; £600,000 is match-funding to secure those grants; £3.2 million is ring-fenced by law for specific services, mostly housing, and that leaves just £2.1 million of spending over which the council has any degree of choice.

835
Even if the council had put all the £2.1 million towards its new exhibition hall, first, that sum is nowhere near the £6.6 million financing requirement, and secondly, it would involve the complete cancellation of essential or committed schemes including housing renovations, rural centre closed circuit television projects and public convenience refurbishment.
All those points were explained to the Government when the trading credit approval was requested. The Government had no questions about the figures and it is plain that the capital programme could not be reallocated to find the £6.6 million, so why do the Government, who had the information for over a year, persist with a suggestion that is illogical and impossible to achieve?
Further asset disposal is equally illogical. Since 1980, the council has had a proactive policy of asset disposal in line with Government policy. Over £35 million has been raised from asset disposal, with about half of the proceeds being applied to the debt on the existing conference centre. Although the council retains some assets, further disposal does not satisfy the commercial tests that must be applied before disposal can be justified and it would fall foul of the district auditor.
Following that detailed analysis, which is supported by KPMG and the public-private partnerships programme—the 4Ps—and not challenged by the civil servants, it was clear that a trading credit approval was the only way forward. Local authorities do not enter lightly into commercial operations. They know only too well that the cost of failure has to be paid by poorer local services. However, Harrogate and other local authorities involved in the business and holiday tourism market know that a failure to invest results in a spiral of decline for their communities.
Harrogate's position as conference and exhibition centre owner is unusual. The dependence of the town's economy and the borough council's finances on the conference and exhibition business is unique because of the scale of the conference business compared to the size of the council.
The Government recognise in their wider economic policies that particular local circumstances warrant extraordinary action. The Government have rightly recognised Birmingham's dependence on the Longbridge car plant and are prepared to support that business with public money. The dependence of Harrogate's economy on the conference business is at least equal to Birmingham's dependence on Longbridge, yet, while the Government are apparently prepared to support Birmingham's economy with cash, they are not prepared to allow Harrogate to borrow what is, in public expenditure terms, a tiny sum to meet its requirements.
The Government have now given local authority-owned airports freedom to borrow commercially. Why cannot similar freedoms be given in respect of conference and exhibition businesses, especially if individual borrowing is subject to specific vetting by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions? There is an inherent contradiction in general Government policy that requires local authorities to achieve best value and annual efficiency savings of 2 per cent. while specific policies prevent capital investment that is often essential for improving efficiency.
The Government's promotion of the use of the PFI is entirely unrealistic for the wide range of small and medium investment requirements of small
836
local authorities. High start-up and financing costs and the artificial nature of risk transfer ensure that any attempt at private finance will conflict with the need to achieve best value. The PH may be appropriate for £50 million-plus investment schemes but Ministers will be aware that the cost effectiveness of even those schemes is widely questioned by finance professionals and independent academic research.
Harrogate borough council's approach to working with the private sector is pragmatic and entirely business driven. Hence the use of the private sector for construction work and the repair and maintenance of roads and buildings, and recently the transfer of the Harrogate international centre's entire catering operation.
It is about time that the Government came clean on this issue. If they are opposed to the provision of services direct by the public sector and direct public investment as a matter of policy, irrespective of business and financial arguments, let them say so. We shall all know then exactly where we stand. A clear political stance on this issue will at least help us to explain to local businesses and to workers whose jobs are being put at risk why the council is being prevented from making a commercially sound investment that would support local business and jobs.
If the Government do not have an ideological or policy reason that goes against local authority trading operations, surely the appropriate and selective use of trading credit approvals makes good sense. Harrogate wants to borrow its own money. It does not ask for a penny of Government grant support. It does not seek to burden council tax payers with additional revenue costs. It will pay for what it wants within the business plan. Like any other successful business, it wishes to invest to sustain jobs and businesses into the next millennium.
On behalf of all my constituents, I plead with the Government to reconsider Harrogate borough council's application for a trading credit approval.
10.17 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Alan Meale): Before congratulating the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), Madam Speaker, I congratulate you. Some of us have early nights and get home, but when we are involved in Adjournment debates we realise that you are here all the time. It is nice to put that on the record.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) on securing an Adjournment debate on a very important subject. Since entering this place the hon. Gentleman has never missed an opportunity to fight with vigour the cause of his constituency. I pay tribute to him for that.
The hon. Gentleman has explained well the circumstances surrounding Harrogate borough council's application for trading credit approvals for capital investment in a new exhibition hall and hospitality facility for the Harrogate international centre. I shall undoubtedly disappoint him at the outset when I say that the Department rarely gives extra credit approvals. One of the main reasons for that is that the 1999–2000 budgets in the Department are identified from within specific funding programmes. There is only £4.5 million for local authority airports and only £1 million for ports in total. More generally, the importance that the Government

837
attach to capital investment by local authorities is evidenced by the announcement made last summer by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement on the economic and fiscal strategy report.
In that statement, my right hon. Friend announced new measures for the modernisation and improvement of Britain's infrastructure and public sector, including a near doubling of net public sector investment over the next three years. Since then, my Department has published a White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", setting out our detailed proposals for a long-term capital investment framework for improving the system of capital allocations. It also gives local authorities greater freedom as well as encouraging better local authority asset management, thereby ensuring that spending is conducted in the most efficient, fair and effective way.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to sound economic strategies and to spending no more than we can afford. That means prudent policies that meet our fiscal rules and maximise the value of local government investment within public spending constraints.
Under present arrangements, a local authority's borrowing for capital spending is limited to the amount of credit approvals issued by the Government, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. Basic credit approvals are issued each year to local authorities for capital expenditure for all purposes. In addition, supplementary credit approvals may be made available through specific programmes focused on Departments' particular policies.
The total amount of provision for credit approvals made available each year is for individual Departments to determine, within the limits of their overall budgets and in accordance with their spending plans. Departments have announced their capital provision for 1999–2000, as well as provisional figures for the next two years, in accordance with the comprehensive spending review.
As I said, my Department has no plans to make provision for trading credit approvals—
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am sorry that I have not precisely followed the Minister's argument, but I understood that as the public sector borrowing requirement does not provide a cap or ceiling on the amount of money that can be made available for such purposes, it should not be necessary for Departments to have ceilings.
Mr. Meale: That is a factor, within the constraints in the budget, the design and plan of which is for a three-year spending programme. We want to stick to our programme.
My Department has no plans to make provision for trading credit approvals for the period of the comprehensive spending review, other than a small amount for specific transport schemes. In the past, such credit approvals have been issued to only a small number of authorities for investment in transport schemes such as railway lines, tunnels or ports, which generate fares, tolls or some other form of revenue stream. That is because trading credit approvals do not receive revenue support from central Government, so the scheme must generate sufficient operating revenues to pay financing costs.
838
That is the position with regard to planned expenditure. It is also open to local authorities to apply for extra credit approvals, as the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough pointed out, which Ministers may issue at any time, taking account of factors that seem to them to be appropriate. My Department receives numerous requests for such increased borrowing for a wide variety of purposes. However, because of pressures on public finances, the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear me say that additional credit approvals—
Mr. Willis: Four were received last year.
Mr. Meale: If the hon. Gentleman waits a little longer, I may finish the explanation. Additional credit approvals, including trading credit approvals, outside existing programmes can be given only in the most exceptional circumstances.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that issuing a trading credit approval would have no impact on central Government resources. As I explained, trading credit approvals are different from other supplementary credit approvals in that they do not attract central Government revenue support for the revenue costs of borrowing. Because of that, it is a fairly common misconception that trading credit approvals are in some way free, and that Ministers are being perverse if they refuse to grant them.
Trading credit approvals, like all other credit approvals, other than those issued in connection with the private finance initiative, count as public spending. Additional trading credit approvals therefore lead to additional public spending. Any extra amounts would have to be found from within the relevant Department's expenditure limit.
In other words, outside identified expenditure programmes, additional trading credit approvals could be given only by taking resources from some other programme. Before my Department agreed to such a transfer, we would need to be fully convinced that it was for a purpose more pressing, especially from the national perspective, than our other expenditure priorities.
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand, my Department's budgets are always stretched, and there is no shortage of projects that Ministers could fund if the resources were available. Another reason why Ministers must be cautious about the issue of additional credit approvals is that increased borrowing means an extra burden on the local authority. That is because trading credit approvals are not supported by revenue payments from central Government. The whole burden of the debt falls on the local authority—in this respect, the local citizen. We would therefore need to be fully convinced on the self-financing aspects of any scheme funded through the trading credit approval route.
Indeed, if the authority could not afford the loan, it would help nobody for the Government, further down the line, to find that they were faced with the dilemma of either pouring more national resources into a rescue measure or writing off the initial investment, leaving the authority to cope with mounting debt. That would help nobody, least of all the local authority. In such circumstances and whatever was decided, either the national or the local taxpayer might have reason to feel justifiably aggrieved if we went about our business in that way.
A further question needs to be addressed in assessing the merits of applications for extra credit approvals—that of precedent. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and

839
Knaresborough will no doubt appreciate, every local authority making such an application is, naturally, able to make arguments for why it thinks that it should receive assistance and to point to circumstances that it considers to be exceptional. Although the circumstances of particular cases may vary, they are all similar in that they represent opportunities or unavoidable expenditures which authorities face outside their planned programmes.
My Department often hears the argument from local authorities that funding their proposal would cost peanuts in the overall scheme of things. Indeed, they cannot understand the Government's hesitation in that regard, but, although many cases may have merits, it may be extremely difficult for my Department in particular to determine whether any one of those applications for expenditure is more pressing than another. Clearly, helping them all would have a significant impact on public expenditure.
I have said that additional credit approvals, including trading credit approvals, could be given only exceptionally. As all requests for additional resources are looked at on their merits, it is not possible to have rigid criteria for assessing applications. However, together with the considerations that I have mentioned, we take into account whether national or Government policy objectives could be seriously impaired or whether an authority appears to be in imminent danger of failing to deliver effective statutory services.
In that respect, we have had a number of discussions over the past two or three weeks in this place, in particular on the Local Government Bill. The debate amply showed that there are circumstances—whatever the political persuasions of local authorities—where there may be a risk of failure to deliver essential services to our citizens. In that regard, we must always be hesitant about emptying the bank—those services would be more difficult to afford.
Whatever the circumstances, the arguments for giving any additional support would need to be very compelling indeed. All applications for additional credit approvals must be viewed in the general context that I have described. In the case of Harrogate's application for trading credit approvals for upgrading the Harrogate international centre, I can tell the House and the
840
hon. Gentleman that Ministers met the authority, as he described, and considered written reports and other evidence, as well as the arguments in the case. That included the helpful report of the public-private partnerships programme—the 4Ps to which the hon. Gentleman referred—on a possible public-private partnership approach.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, after weighing all the circumstances of the case, we concluded that the project was not sufficiently exceptional to divert departmental resources from other spending priorities and that a trading credit approval should not be given. I understand that the council proposes to proceed with the upgrading of the conference centre in a phased programme funded by other resources, including usable capital receipts. I hope that that may be assisted by the decision taken last summer to allow the whole of the capital receipts from the sale of council-owned assets, other than council houses, to be used to fund investment rather than to repay debt.
May I expand on some of the issues that have been raised in relation to our decision? The conference centre has been compared with local authority airports, which it cannot be in this case. Controls in respect of airports, tunnels and other such structural items are very different from those in respect of whether a local authority should fund and employ people in an international business centre. The relationship in that case has a different set of priorities.
The Government hope in future to relax the restrictions placed on a number of airport companies, particularly small ones, which now operate on a full commercial basis. To qualify for the removal of borrowing controls, the hon. Gentleman's local airport company, Leeds-Bradford, and the other three local authority airport companies concerned have had to demonstrate a track record of consistent profitability and a strong balance sheet with the prospect of positive cash flows, which has not been the case in respect of the Harrogate international centre. In those cases, my understanding is—
The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the (1) sites in the United Kingdom where genetically modified crops have been grown in breach of the licence conditions and (2) the name of(a) the promoter and (b)owner of the (i) trial and (ii) materials in the trial and (c)any other (A) body and (B) person responsible for conducting such trials. [72554]

  Mr. Meacher
  There have been two such cases in the UK where a successful prosecution has been taken. The information is as follows:

  1.Both cases were located at Joseph Nickersons Farms. Rothwell, Lincolnshire.

  2.(a) (b) (i) and (ii) Monsanto plc and Perrytields Holdings Limited.

  (c) Nickerson Seeds Limited on behalf of Monsanto plc and Perryfields Holdings Limited.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which occasions the team of Green Ministers has discussed issues relating to genetic modification. [75088]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]The issue of genetic modification has not been discussed by Green Ministers. It is considered within Government by a different, specific, Cabinet Sub-Committee.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to make biotechnology companies legally and financially liable for any damage to the environment caused by genetically modified crops. [75200]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]There is already some protection though Civil law and general product liability. The issue of environmental liability is an important one and the principle that those who damage the environment should pay for remedying the damage caused is one that I would strongly support. The European Commission is currently finalising a White Paper on environmental liability and this may offer a way forward. We expect the White Paper to include the question of damage by genetically modified organisms but need to study the detail of the Commission's proposals before reaching any conclusions.

  Biotechnology Industry
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many unminuted pre-arranged meetings have occurred between 458
  (a) himself, (b) Ministers in his Department and (c) his officials and representatives of the biotechnical industry sector since 1 May 1997. [74836]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]There have been no such meetings involving the Ministers of this Department. Although most meetings involving officials are minuted, my officials have, from time to time, had meetings with the biotechnology companies where minutes are not taken. However, these are always in pursuit of a clear remit from Ministers for specific agreed purposes. Information on the number of such meetings is not available.

  Soya Bean Imports
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he will take to examine bulk imports of United States soya beans following the 1999 United States harvest to test whether they contain AgrEvo's Liberty Link soya bean; and if he will make a statement; [75348]

  (2)if he will make a statement on the licensing status of AgrEvo's Liberty Link soya bean in the (a) United States of America, (b) European Union and (c) United Kingdom; [75347]

  (3)what steps he takes to ensure that unlicensed soya beans do not enter (a) animal feed and (b) the human food chain; and what communication he has had with AgrEvo about the planting and harvesting in the United States of America and subsequent exporting to the United Kingdom of its Liberty Link soya bean. [75349]

  Mr. Meacher
  AgrEvo's Liberty Link soya bean has been authorised for cultivation and food in the USA but not authorised for cultivation or food in either the European Union or United Kingdom. However, I understand that an application for marketing consent under Council Directive 90/220/EEC has been lodged with an EU member state. I have not had any communication with AgrEvo about this particular variety.

  It is illegal to import GM soya unless the variety has approval under Council Directive 90/220/EEC. It is the duty of the importers to ensure that all imported soya has the necessary authorisations. If the product does not get EU consent by the time it is grown commercially in the United States of America and we have reason to believe that the product is being imported illegally the inspection of bulk imports will be arranged. In such circumstances the importer can be prosecuted.

  Inspection Charges
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he calculates the notional costs described in the consultation papers on the proposed Town & Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations; and what is the proportion of these costs in relation to the proposed charges for work undertaken by(a) Environment Agency inspectors in Wales, (b) Environment Agency inspectors in England and (c) Scottish Environment Protection Agency inspectors in Scotland. [77214]

  Mr. Meale
  The notional costs are calculated by the Agencies to reflect the rate of return on capital and a notional insurance premium. The proportion of notional
  459
  costs in relation to the proposed charges for work undertaken by Environment Agency inspectors in England and Wales is:
  (a) and (b) 3 per cent.
  The notional element in SEPA charges in Scotland is
  (c) 2.5 per cent.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the levels of relevant input costs in(a) Wales, (b) England and (c) Scotland in relation to the proposed inspection charges to be levied by the Environment Agency in Wales and England, and by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency under the proposed Town & Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations. [77212]

  Mr. Meale
  Estimates of the costs of inspection under the COMAH regulations by the Environment Agency in England and Wales and by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) in Scotland are a matter for the two Agencies. The chargeable costs that the Environment Agency estimates that it will incur as a COMAH competent authority in England and Wales are:(a) and (b) £900,000 in 1999–2000 rising to £2,200,000 in 2000–01 as the work builds up.

  These costs will be recovered on the same basis in England and Wales. A split of costs between England and Wales is not available. The costs which SEPA estimates that it will incur as a competent authority for COMAH in Scotland are:
  (c) £200,000 in 1999–2000.

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) small and medium-sized enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (A) 1997–98 and (B) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76857]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The licences for which my Department is directly responsible are listed. The information requested for each of these licences is not held centrally and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. In some cases, details of individual licences issued are held on public registers, while a data base of guidance and forms is available on the Direct Access Government website.

  Licences issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its Executive Agencies

  Waste Management Licences

  Water Abstraction Licences

  Consents to Control Discharges to Water and Sewers

  Licence for the Operation of Potentially Polluting Industrial Processes

  460

  Licence Consent for the Release or Marketing of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)

  Part B consents for research purposes

  Part C consents to place products on the European market

  Hazardous Substances Consents

  Licences in Respect of Radioactive Materials and Waste

  CITES Import Export Licences

  CITES Sales Certificates

  Bird Licences

  Camping Site Licences

  Navigation Licences

  Manufacture and Handling of Asbestos Products

  Explosives Licences

  Construction and security of explosive factories and magazines

  Construction and security of explosives stores (Issued by Local Authorities)

  Construction and security of premises used for keeping explosives (Registration eg for fireworks sales issued by Local Authorities)

  Licences for importation and manufacture of Acetylene

  Manufacture of explosives from ammonium nitrate

  Storage and handling of dangerous substances in harbour areas Storage of Petroleum Products

  Road Haulage EC Cabotage Permits (earmarked for abolition)

  Various International Road Haulage, Coach Operator and Cabotage Permits

  Public Service Vehicle (PSV) Operator Licences

  Goods Vehicle Operator Licences

  Licences Issued by the Regulator (to operate a network, station, depot, passenger or non-passenger service etc.), under Section 6 of the Railways Act 1993

  Licences Issued under Section 8 of the Railways Act 1993 (international services)

  In Vehicle Driver Information System

  Street Works Licences

  EU Coach Service Authorisations and Cabotage Permits

  Approved Driving Instructors

  Approved Training Bodies (learner motorcycle training)

  Tachograph Testing Centres

  Permit to Operate High Speed Craft (including hovercraft)

  Register of British Hovercraft

  Register of British Shipping

  Boatmasters Licence

  MOT Examiners

  The London Local Service Licence

  Approval of Business to Train for the Carrying of Dangerous Goods

  Street Work Licences

  Air Operator Certificates

  Certificate of Airworthiness

  Aerodrome Licence

  Aerial Application Certificates

  Air Travel Operating Licences

  Air Carrier Operating Licences

  Air Carrier Route Licences

  Air Transport Licences

  Double Arrow Logo

  Airline Operating Permits.

  461

  Designated Area Sets
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make available his Department's designated area sets (GIS) to local authorities. [78724]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Designate areas within my Department's policy responsibilities are designated by the Non Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by the Department, not directly by the Department itself.

  The Inter-departmental Group on Geographic Information (which my Department Chairs) has issued a Charter Standard Statement on Geographic Information that encourages all Government Departments and Agencies to make their geographic information available to all users. Digital forms of the National Statutory designated areas would be part of this initiative.

  End of Life Vehicles Directive
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a copy of the presidency text of the End of Life Vehicles Directive which was put before the Environment Council on 11 March. [78460]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 24 March 1999]The text considered by the Environment Council on 11 March is a Council working document and as such is subject to the confidentiality of Council proceedings.

  Rent Tribunals
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people from ethnic communities sit on rent tribunals covering the Greater London area; and if he will make a statement. [78533]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are six members from ethnic minorities appointed to sit on rent tribunals in the Greater London area. This represents seven per cent. of the total membership of the London Rent Assessment Panel, from which rent tribunals are drawn. We want to see the proportion of tribunal members from ethnic minorities more closely reflect that in the national population. Three of the members from ethnic minority communities have been appointed since September 1998.

  Illegal Tipping
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what policies he promotes to prevent the practice of fly-tipping; and if he will make a statement. [78585]

  Mr. Meale
  Stringent controls and severe penalties are in place to discourage the fly-tipping of waste and, where it occurs, to enable the perpetrators to be traced and prosecuted. The main controls and the maximum penalties were set out in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 8 December 1998,Official Report, columns 120–21.

  My Department has prepared a Circular explaining these controls and penalties which was issued to magistrates by the Lord Chancellor's Department on 6 February 1998. We wish to encourage the Courts to make full use of the available penalties.
  462
  We have made it clear that we expect the Environment Agency to be fair but rigorous in its enforcement of environmental controls; and we support the action being taken by the Agency on fly-tipping. This includes the provision of a free 24 hour hotline for members of the public to report incidents (Tel: 0800 807060).

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he had made of the effect which the introduction of Landfill Tax has made on the practice of fly-tipping. [78586]

  Mr. Meale
  The Tidy Britain Group has carried out three studies into fly-tipping. The study comprised three surveys and one of its main aims was to establish the types, quantities and locations of fly-tipped waste. The third survey was carried out in partnership with the Environment Agency and was published last month. It suggests a modest increase in fly-tipping over the period from 1994–95 but less than was originally feared by local authorities following the introduction of the landfill tax.

  Local Authority Aggregate Credit
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority for which information is available(a) the Aggregate Credit Limit and (b) the percentage of Aggregate Credit Limit of debt outstanding, using figures at 31 March 1997. [78588]

  Ms Armstrong
  The information requested is not available. Figures for the Aggregate Credit Limit are not collected centrally.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to collect centrally and publish figures on local authorities' aggregate credit limits; and if he will make a statement on how his Department ensures that local authorities do not exceed their aggregate credit limits. [78587]

  Ms Armstrong
  I do not consider that it would be helpful to collect figures on local authorities' aggregate credit limits. It is for local authorities external auditors to monitor their compliance with all the requirements of the capital finance system.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities which provide waste disposal facilities for use by individual council tax payers, without having a statutory responsibility to do so. [78584]

  Mr. Meale
  All waste disposal authorities are under a statutory duty under Section 51 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to arrange for places (commonly referred to as 'civic amenity sites') to be provided at which persons resident in their area may deposit their household waste free of charge.

  National Strategy for Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends
  463
  to inform all local government staff of the developing policies towards carers outlined in the National Strategy for Carers. [78547]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions wrote to leaders of councils in England enclosing a copy of the report of the National Carers' Strategy, highlighting the role of local authorities in supporting carers, and asking them to draw the report to the attention of everyone within the authority. A copy of the report has also been sent to all Directors of Housing, Social Services and Education in local authorities in England.

  Road Accidents (HGVs)
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of road accidents involving a heavy goods vehicle for each month since January 1994. [78481]

  Dr. Reid
  The number of road accidents involving a Heavy Goods Vehicle which resulted in personal injury is shown in the following table:

  Road accidents per month involving at least one Heavy Goods Vehicle1: 1994–97

  Number of accidents

  Year of accident

  Month

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  January

  1,046

  1,053

  941

  1,132

  February

  1,083

  979

  1,108

  1,048

  March

  1,133

  1,156

  909

  1,026

  April

  964

  798

  941

  952

  May

  934

  948

  928

  960

  June

  1,043

  951

  863

  1,053

  July

  1,058

  1,038

  1,049

  1,128

  August

  1,141

  1,033

  1,000

  1,077

  September

  1,140

  1,205

  996

  1,035

  October

  1,238

  1,180

  1,269

  1,352

  November

  1,198

  1,216

  1,316

  1,266

  December

  1,200

  1,056

  1,106

  1,093

  Total

  13,178

  12,613

  12,426

  13,122

  1 Accidents may involve more than one Heavy Goods Vehicle.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Merseyside for 1999–2000. [78861]

  Ms Armstrong
  The highest Band D council tax for the metropolitan districts in Merseyside in 1999–2000 will be £1,172 in Liverpool while the lowest will be £920 in Sefton. No authority in Merseyside is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Kent for 1999–2000; [78897]
  464
  (2)what is the (a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Tyne and Wear for 1999–2000; [78899]

  (3) what is the (a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Northumberland for 1999–2000; [78901]

  (4) what is the (a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Lancashire for 1999–2000; [78896]

  (5) what is the (a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Cumbria for 1999–2000; [78898]

  (6) what is the (a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in the West Midlands for 1999–2000; [78900]

  (7) what is the (a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in North Yorkshire for 1999–2000; [78902]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]The highest and lowest Band D council tax for the shire and metropolitan districts within each of the requested areas in 1999–2000 are in the table. No authority in these areas is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  County

  Highest

  £

  Lowest

  £

  Lancashire

  Preston

  959

  Lancaster

  884

  Kent

  Maidstone

  797

  Gravesham

  731

  Cumbria

  Barrow-in-Furness

  893

  Allerdale

  856

  Tyne and Wear

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  978

  Sunderland

  815

  West Midlands

  Coventry

  968

  Solihull

  742

  Northumberland

  Castle Morpeth

  908

  Blyth Valley

  883

  North Yorkshire

  Ryedale

  779

  Hambleton

  695

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in a London borough for 1999–2000. [78768]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]The highest Band D council tax for the London Boroughs in 1999–2000 will be £912 in Islington while the lowest will be £350 in Westminster. No authority in London is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Cornwall for 1999–2000. [78765]
  465
  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The highest band D council tax for the shire districts in Cornwall in 1999–2000 will be £759 in North Cornwall while the lowest will be £738 in Penrith. No authority in Cornwall is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, before transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in each shire county in England (i) for 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) as proposed for 1999–2000. [78907]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The requested information has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Greater Manchester for1999–2000. [78908]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The highest Band D council tax for the metropolitan districts in Greater Manchester in 1999–2000 will be £987 in Manchester while the lowest will be £689 in Trafford. No authority in Greater Manchester is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  County

  Highest

  £

  Lowest

  £

  Bedfordshire

  South Bedfordshire

  912

  Mid Bedfordshire

  859

  Buckinghamshire

  Chiltern

  774

  South Buckinghamshire

  757

  Cambridgeshire

  Cambridge

  737

  East Cambridgeshire

  703

  Huntingdonshire

  —

  South Cambridgeshire

  —

  Cheshire

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  876

  Macclesfield

  858

  Devon

  West Devon

  802

  Exeter

  749

  Dorset

  East Dorset

  844

  North Dorset

  809

  Durham

  Sedgefield

  967

  Chester-le-Street

  830

  East Sussex

  Wealden

  822

  Rother

  775

  Essex

  Harlow

  872

  Brentwood

  762

  Gloucestershire

  Stroud

  818

  Tewkesbury

  726

  Hampshire

  East Hampshire

  800

  Test Valley

  756

  Hertfordshire

  Watford

  832

  Broxbourne

  723

  Nottinghamshire

  Newark and Sherwood

  970

  Rushcliffe

  900

  West Yorkshire

  Calderdale

  876

  Wakefield

  756

  Rail Franchises (Byelaws)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department issues on byelaws drawn up by the privatised rail franchises. [79188]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No formal guidance is issued to rail operators regarding byelaws. However the Department has provided ad hoc advice to the Byelaws Reform Group who are overseeing the adoption of new byelaws by the railways industry. The Group is made up of London Underground, Railtrack, the British Transport
  466
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in Northamptonshire for 1999–2000. [78909]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The highest Band D council tax for the shire districts in Northamptonshire in 1999–2000 will be £797 in South Northamptonshire while the lowest will be £682 in Wellingborough. No authority in Northamptonshire is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the(a) highest and (b) lowest council tax at Band D for a council billing area, after transitional relief grant and council tax benefit, in (i) Bedfordshire, (ii) Buckinghamshire, (iii) Cambridgeshire, (iv) Cheshire, (v) Devon, (vi) Dorset, (vii) Durham, (viii) East Sussex, (ix) Essex, (x) Gloucestershire, (xi) Hampshire, (xii) Hertfordshire, (xiii) Nottinghamshire and (xiv) West Yorkshire for 1999–2000. [78910]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The highest and lowest Band D council tax for the shire and metropolitan districts within each of the requested areas in 1999–2000 are shown in the table. No authority in these areas is eligible for Reorganisation Transitional Relief Grant in 1999–2000 and figures for the amount of Council Tax Benefit that the authorities expect to provide during the year are not yet available.

  Police and representatives of the rail franchise operators. The new byelaws will have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State.

  Transport Policy (Disability Organisations)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the disability organisations from which his Department regularly seeks views on the development of transport policy. [79056]
  467
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In the first instance we are advised by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) which was set up under the Transport Act 1985 to advise the Secretary of State on the transport needs of disabled people. The Act requires that at least half the membership are disabled people; currently over 70 per cent. are disabled.

  Officials also attend meetings of the two main umbrella organisations in the field of disability and transport—the Joint Committee on Mobility of Disabled People and the Joint Committee on Mobility of Blind and Partially Sighted People. Those meetings provide an opportunity to report on recent developments and to receive feedback on transport policies.

  We also consult a very wide range of other disability organisations as part of public consultation exercises.

  New Roads and Street Works Act 1991
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the initiatives currently under way to improve the operation of the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [78966]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]Regulations are being laid under powers in the 1991 Act to facilitate and encourage the electronic transfer of information about street works and other works in the highway between utilities and highway authorities. This will ensure greater consistency and speed in transferring and registering the information, which in turn will help authorities in their co-ordination role.

  In the debate on roads policy in the House on 18 March 1999, Official Report, columns 1364–66, I referred to our commitment to act to reduce the disruption and inconvenience of prolonged street works which had already been announced in last year's Integrated Transport White Paper.

  There are other proposals being taken forward following earlier consultation: these concern safety measures (signing, lighting and guarding of works), reinstatement, the inspection regime and the recording of underground apparatus.

  Capping
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances he plans to cap councils which over-spend; and if he will make a statement. [78914]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: My colleagues and I are currently considering the budgets and council taxes set by local authorities for 1999–2000. If we decide to designate any authorities they will be informed in April.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people(a) were killed, (b) were seriously injured and (c) suffered minor injuries in road accidents in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [78944]
  468
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: 3,599 people were killed in road accidents in 1997, 42,957 were seriously injured and 280,978 were slightly injured.

  Greenwich Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of potential additional demands upon services provided by the London boroughs of Greenwich and Lewisham arising from the millennium celebrations in Greenwich; what additional resources have been made available to those authorities; and if he will make a statement. [79169]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government take the view that any additional costs will be more than offset by the immense long-term rewards the boroughs will reap as a direct outcome of the Millennium Experience and other Millennium activities planned for the area.

  Public Sector Housing
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to encourage the transfer of public sector housing to new landlords. [79020]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are keen for local authorities to pursue transfer where it is clearly part of their housing strategy and will improve the living conditions of tenants and the service they receive. However, authorities are under no compulsion to transfer their stock. Our aim is to ensure the delivery of improved efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to tenants.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many transfers of local government housing stock have taken place since 1 May 1997. [79021]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There have been thirty-one transfers of local authority housing under either the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer programme, or with funding from the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund since 1 May 1997.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his proposals for the protection of sites of special scientific interest. [78702]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 465. Once we have given full consideration to the ideas put forward in responses to the proposals, and completed discussions on some of the more difficult issues, we will announce how we intend to proceed.

  Jubilee Line
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 576, if he will place a detailed summary of the cost review in the Library. [79166]
  469
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We announced the results of LT's cost review on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 730. The details of the review contain information that, if released, could prejudice London Transport's commercial position: therefore, in line with previous practice, we do not release details of the cost review.

  Hardwoods
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his letter of 22 July 1998 (ref. EE/PSO/10679/98), what is the result of the review of current policy on hardwood procurement across Government. [77637]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to my letter of 17 March 1999 informing him of the results of the review of Government policy on timber procurement. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Polling Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funds are available to local authorities to improve access to polling stations for disabled people. [79027]

  Ms Armstrong
  Acting returning officers may apply to the Home Office for grants towards the cost of providing temporary ramps and specially adapted polling screens, to make polling stations accessible for those disabled voters who wish to vote in person, for national and European elections. The remainder of the cost is funded by the local authority. Grants are not allocated specifically for local elections. The need for revenue expenditure by local authorities is taken into account, along with other spending pressures and the scope for efficiencies, in the local government finance settlement.

  "A New Deal for Transport"
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in publishing the daughter documents to the White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", Cm 3950. [79534]

  Mr. Prescott
  Last July's White Paper on the Future of Transport identified nine associated publications which would set out in more detail the proposals in the White Paper. Seven have already been published:

  A New Deal for the Railways: response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee

  A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England

  Guidance on local transport plans

  Breaking the Logjam: consultation on road user and workplace parking charges

  British Shipping—charting a new course

  Sustainable distribution: a strategy

  From Workhorse to Thoroughbred: a better role for bus travel.

  Of the remaining documents, the report on inland waterways will be published in the next few months. The document on road safety policy, setting out the Government's strategy and targets for beyond 2000, will follow in the autumn and will reflect the findings of the speed policy review. We have since announced that a further daughter document, on ports policy, will be published; a policy paper is currently out for consultation
  470
  and the document should be issued later this year. The Government will also this summer be issuing its action plan to encourage walking.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish revised household projections; and if he will make a statement. [79535]

  Mr. Prescott
  In our policy statement "Planning for the Communities of the Future" published early last year, the Government said that they would put in place new policies in respect of planning for housing which would include a new flexible approach to regional planning involving decentralisation to regional stakeholders; a national 60 per cent. target for the re-use of previously developed land; the creation of a National Land Use Database; and that we would be setting up a task force to advise us on how to make the best use of recycled land.

  Our emphasis is on urban renaissance—making our towns and cities places where people want to live—and this theme will be developed in an Urban White Paper which the Government propose to publish later this year.

  The Government have implemented all of these initiatives and more. We issued the consultation draft of planning policy guidance note 11 (PPG11) "Regional Planning" last month, together with new guidance on the preparation of development plans (PPG12). Planning policy guidance note 3 "Housing" (PPG3) was published for consultation last week. It introduces a new sequential approach to the release of housing land which will require local planning authorities to consider the re-use of existing property and of previously developed land before releasing greenfield land for housing development. The National Land Use Database is now being compiled and I expect to publish first results shortly.

  Together, these represent the Government's new policy direction to planning for housing and mark a clear departure from what has become known as the "predict and provide" approach favoured by the previous Government. That policy is dead.

  It has been the practice to publish periodically projections of household growth in England. In keeping with that, the Government Statistical Service (GSS) will be publishing a report later this year setting out the household projections for the period 1996 to 2021 together with a full description of the methodology by which those projections are derived.

  The household projections are one input to the process of regional planning, a new round of which is currently in progress. I have therefore decided to make available the main projections for England and the English regions in advance of publication of the full GSS document.

  The number of households in England is projected to have grown from 20.2 million in 1996 to about 24.0 million in 2021, an increase of 3.8 million or about 150,000 households per year. It is a smaller increase to that previously projected for the period 1991 to 2016 which was 4.4 million or around 175,000 households a year.

  The most important explanation for the reduction in the projected rate of household formation is the changes contained in the most recent marital status projections

  471
  published by the Government Actuary's Department in January. Recent evidence has shown that cohabitation is increasing at a faster rate than expected, leading to a greater increase in the number of couple households by 2016 than assumed in the previous projections. Changes in the marital status assumption have also led to downward revisions in the proportions of older women who are widows or divorcees.

  The projections are not forecasts, estimates or predictions. They are based entirely on what might be expected to occur if previous trends continue and are heavily dependant on the assumptions involved. Such trends can and do change as a result, for example, of demographic or economic factors, as the new cohabiting assumptions show.

  I therefore agreed with the Select Committee to publish information about how sensitive the projected total number of households at 2021 might be to changes in underlying assumptions. This information is as follows

  Household projections: Government Office Regions 1

  1996 millions

  2021 millions

  1996–2021 percentage change

  1991–2016 percentage change 2

  North East

  1.1

  1.2

  8

  16

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  2.1

  2.4

  14

  19

  East Midlands

  1.7

  2.0

  20

  26

  East of England

  2.2

  2.7

  25

  29

  Greater London

  3.0

  3.6

  21

  22

  South East

  3.2

  4.1

  26

  27

  South West

  2.0

  2.5

  25

  29

  West Midlands

  2.1

  2.4

  13

  18

  North West and Merseyside

  2.8

  3.1

  11

  18

  England

  20.2

  24.0

  19

  23

  1 All figures rounded

  2 Source: Projections of Households in England to 2016, ISBN 0–11–753055–7

  There are insufficient data available to undertake a sensitivity analysis on the regional projections. However, a significant factor in determining regional household growth is migration from and to other regions and there are some indications that this may be particularly sensitive to economic factors. In this respect, the Government do not believe that past migration trends are necessarily representative of future patterns of regional growth.

  Regional projections are published as one input to the process of regional planning. As our consultation draft of PPG11 "Regional Planning" indicates, the household projections should be taken into account in assessing a region's housing needs. Other factors should equally be taken into account so that regional planning bodies should, against the background of need and capacity, take a realistic and responsible approach to planning future housing provision.

  Change in household formation 1996–2021 in response to changes in key parameters

  Change in household formation (000)

  Cohabiting

  +20% (never married)

  -180

  +10% (previously married)

  -20% (never married)

  +180

  -10% (previously married)

  Mortality1

  +1 year for men, 0.6 years for women

  +160

  -0.8 years for men, -0.7 years for women

  -180

  Marriage

  +15% (never married), 10% (others)

  -100

  -15% (never married), -10% (others)

  +110

  472
  in tabular form at the end of this statement but, for example, a 1 per cent. change in real interest rates may affect the national projection by over 200,000 households in either direction.

  The conclusion of the analysis is that the projected growth of 3.8 million in the number of households in England between 1996 and 2021 is not a precise figure. It reflects one of the potential outcomes but it could be subject to some variability.

  In keeping with previous published projections, I am today also announcing household projections for each of the Government Office regions. Again, the Government do not regard the projections as forecasts or predictions of the number of households likely to form. If the new regional projections are compared on a like-for-like basis with those published previously, they indicate a reduced rate of household formation in all regions except the South East where the rate of growth is stable. The projections are as follows:

  The household projections I am publishing today relate to England as a whole and English regions. I recognise that similar information at sub regional level could be useful as background for the regional planning process and the preparation of Regional Planning Guidance and my Department will therefore be writing to the regional planning bodies to make relevant information available in a form consistent with that published as part of the last set of household projections in 1995. The statistics are inherently less reliable at this level of detail and I expect the information to be used only to inform debate as an extrapolation of past trends and not to be used to 'predict and provide'. Rather, I look to regional planning bodies to use their new flexibilites to take account of all relevant factors, against the background of need and capacity, in considering the distribution of growth within a region.
  473

  Change in household formation 1996–2021 in response to changes in key parameters

  Change in household formation (000)

  Fertility

  +0.2 in the mean number of children per woman

  +40

  -0.2 in the mean number of children per woman

  -60

  Net Inward Migration

  +40 thousand per annum

  +450

  -40 thousand per annum

  -410

  Divorce

  +10% (first marriage)

  +60

  -10% (first marriage)

  -60

  Interest Rates (real)

  +1%

  -230

  -1%

  +260

  GDP (real per head)

  +0.25%

  +190

  -0.25%

  -150

  Unemployment (%)

  +1%

  -20

  -1%

  +30

  1 Increased expectation of life at birth between 1996 and 2021 over the principal projection.

  Note:

  The variations shown are consistent with those exemplified by the Government Actuary's Department in their respective publications on the underlying national population projections and marital status projections. The changes in household formation are not additive.

  British Rail
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what make of car has been made available to the new chairman of British Rail; and on what terms. [78802]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The car arrangements for executive Board Members of British Railways are determined by the Board. I understand that the Board has a pool car, which will be available to the Chairman when required.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish Office budget for Scottish Enterprise in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97, (f) 1997–98 and (g) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76863]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The Scottish Office Budget for Scottish Enterprise in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for the years 1992–93 to 1998–99 and the plan figures for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 are follows:

  £million

  Year

  Budget

  1998–99 prices

  1992–93

  448.8

  520.8

  1993–94

  451.3

  510.1

  1994–95

  466.9

  520.4

  1995–96

  464.4

  502.9

  1996–97

  476.9

  501.1

  1997–98

  449.5

  460.7

  1998–99

  455.2

  455.2

  1999–2000 (plans)1

  427.1

  416.7

  2000–01 (plans)1

  435.4

  414.4

  2001–02 (plans)1

  468.1

  434.68

  1 Plan figures for 1999–2000 are subject to adjustment to reflect CSR changes to baseline provision. Changes to Scottish Enterprise budget reflects a reduction on their property activities; re-phasing of the Hyundai project, and a realignment of existing training programmes to reflect the introduction of the New Enterprise will play a key role.

  474
  About £300m of New Deal resources will also be available in Scotland over the lifetime of this Parliament by way of Employment Service spending.

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

  Fire Service Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish Office budget for fire services in Scotland in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76867]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]Fire services in Scotland are a local government responsibility. Total financial provision made available by the Secretary of State for local authority spending on fire services in the form of Grant Aided Expenditure, and capital allocations, together with direct central Government expenditure, has been as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Cash Terms

  1998–99 Prices

  1995–96

  149

  161

  1996–97

  164

  173

  1997–98

  184

  189

  1998–99

  189

  189

  1999–2000

  197

  192

  2000–01

  206

  197

  2001–02

  213

  198

  Sources:

  For the years 1993–94 to 1998–99: Departmental Reports and GAE announcements.

  For the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02: Comprehensive Spending Review.

  As from 1 July 1999, financial provision for the fire service in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Fox Control
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the financial support provided by his Department to fox control associations. [78334]
  475
  Mr. Macdonald
  Financial support, amounting to 50 per cent. of approved expenditure, is provided to recognised Fox Destruction Clubs under a scheme to prevent the predation of lambs. Total support has averaged around £70,000 per annum in recent years.

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

  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reason figures on the cancellation of hospital admissions by health boards for the quarters ending 31 March 1997 to 31 December 1998 are not available for hospitals in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area. [78228]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the cancellation of hospital admissions in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area is not available for the periods requested because of concerns over the accuracy and completeness of the available data, and the consequent misrepresentation of

  Average daily population of sentenced young offenders by length of sentence, 1993–1997

  Number and Percentage

  Length of sentence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  % change196–97

  Total2

  819

  720

  719

  770

  787

  2

  Less than 6 months

  246

  209

  249

  194

  144

  -26

  6 months—less than 2 years

  287

  223

  227

  282

  301

  7

  2 year—less than 4 years

  151

  160

  114

  132

  146

  11

  4 years or over (excluding life)

  105

  103

  98

  131

  154

  18

  Life

  17

  15

  14

  17

  19

  12

  Section 205 sentences (indeterminate)

  9

  9

  14

  10

  18

  80

  Section 206 sentences (fixed)

  4

  1

  2

  4

  4

  —

  1Based on rounded figures

  2Components may not add to totals due to rounding

  Average daily population of adult sentenced prisoners by length of sentence, 1993–1997

  Number and Percentage

  Length of sentence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  % change 1 96–97

  Total2

  3,795

  3,785

  3,823

  4,026

  4,282

  6

  Less than 3 months

  333

  226

  209

  206

  165

  -20

  3 months—less than 6 months

  462

  434

  437

  428

  406

  -5

  6 months—less than 2 years

  815

  775

  740

  853

  889

  4

  2 years—less than 4 years

  533

  627

  614

  616

  654

  6

  4 years or over (excluding life)

  1,240

  1,293

  1,390

  1,480

  1,686

  14

  Life/Section 205

  411

  430

  433

  443

  481

  9

  1 Based on rounded figures

  2 Components may not add to totals due rounding

  Interim figures for the period April 1998 to February 1999 indicate that 25 per cent. of prisoners are testing positive for drugs of abuse, down from 29 per cent. in the financial year 1997–98. Final figures for the financial year 1998–99 will be reported in the 1998–99 Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts.

  There is no direct information available on the current number of inmates with alcohol problems. However, the following information may be of value.

  In a study involving a representative sample of prisoners (Cooke, 1994), the level of alcohol dependence among the population was found to be 18.3 per cent. for females and 38.1 per cent. for males. In a more recent study (Gilchrist and Hooke, 1997) conducted in Greenock
  476
  the true position. This is due to difficulties associated with the computerised Patient Administration Systems. Greater Glasgow Health Board and the NHS Trusts are currently working together to resolve this problem, and they expect to be able to provide accurate information on cancellations of hospital admissions, via the new national data collection process to be introduced shortly.

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

  Prisoners
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the sentence range of the prison population for each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the current number of inmates with(a) drug and (b) alcohol problems. [78800]

  Mr. McLeish
  The available information on the average daily sentenced prison population by length of sentence for each of the last five years is provided in the following tables.

  prison 29 per cent. of prisoners reported that they were drinking over the weekly safe limit for men as set by the Inter-Departmental Working Group. And, in a recent study in Cornton Vale (Loucks, 1997), an estimated 10–15 per cent. of women were found to be addicted to alcohol.

  From 1 July 1999, these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament.

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each month between 1 April 1998 and 31 January 1999 NHS waiting list figures in Scotland. [79063]
  477
  Mr. Galbraith
  NHS in Scotland waiting list figures are published quarterly. The inpatient and day case waiting list on 31 March, 30 June, 30 September and 31 December 1998 is provided in the table.

  Date

  NHS in Scotland Inpatient and Day Case Waiting List

  31 March 1998

  89,525

  30 June 1998

  88,703

  30 September 1998

  84,931

  31 December 1998

  78,526

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

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

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by her Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71467]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The cost of Information Services issuing press releases from May 1997 to date is as follows:

  Paper £63.75

  Post £44,032.40

  Total £44,096.15.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many press releases have been issued by her Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71452]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: The Information Services have issued the following press releases:

  Year

  1990

  (approx) 1,380

  1991

  (approx) 1,400

  1992

  (approx) 1,250

  1993

  1,355

  1994

  1,080

  1995

  1,223

  1996

  1,117

  1997

  1,180

  1998

  1,313

  special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76825]
  478
  Marjorie Mowlam
  There have been 5 occasions when a departmental special adviser has accompanied me aborad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. There are no non-departmental special advisers. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and Civil Service Management Code.

  Bomb Alerts
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the (i) dates, (ii) times, and (iii) location of each bomb alert in Northern Ireland since 1 September 1998, of which the RUC are aware. [77749]

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

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what involvement fleet managers have had in drawing up her Department's Green Transport Plan. [77973]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Northern Ireland Departments are pursuing the target for having Green Transport Plans for all headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Government Departments and Executive Agencies by March 1999 and for all other key buildings by March 2000. There are no fleets associated with these buildings.

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list all Public Records Act 1958 instruments that have prescribed periods of(a) extended retention or (b) extended closure of decennial census returns for Northern Ireland; and if she will list the class numbers, census years and periods mentioned in the schedules. [78444]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Public Records Act 1958 does not apply to Northern Ireland in respect of access.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the total annual storage and maintenance costs for all 1841 to 1991 decennial census returns in Northern Ireland. [78436]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Public Record Office holds census records for 1937, 1951, 1961, 1966, 1971, 1981 and 1991. The annual storage and maintenance costs are £39,495.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many visits and of what length the Chairman of the Parades Commission has made to Northern Ireland since the inception of the Parades Commission. [79178]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Chairman of the Parades Commission has paid 100 visits to Northern Ireland, 69 of which have involved one or more overnight stays.
  479
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many authorised officers of the Parades Commission have been remunerated over the past 12 months; how they are appointed; and under what terms. [79177]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since 1 April 1998, a total of 13 persons have been remunerated as Authorised Officers of the Parades Commission. The Authorised Officers are contracted to the Parades Commission by the Mediation Network for Northern Ireland, which is responsible for their appointment and terms of employment.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Parades Commission has budgeted for in the coming year for(a) Chairman and Parades Commissioner remuneration, (b) the costs for civil servants seconded to the Parades Commission,(c) the remuneration of authorised officers of the Parades Commission, (d) travelling expenses and (e) office rent. [79173]

  Mr. Ingram
  The answers are as follows:

  (a) £180,000 (£30,000 pay costs for Chairman + 6 x £25,000 for Members)

  (b) £254,000 (pay costs for civil servants)

  (c) £84,000 (pay costs for Authorised Officers)

  (d) £35,000 (travelling expenses for Chairman, Members and Secretariat)

  (e) £64,000 (office rent).

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much the Parades Commission has(a) spent to date on and (b) budgeted for consultancy, broken down by spending on (i) training of monitors, (ii) monitoring of parades, (iii) opinion surveys, (iv) project planning, (v) recruitment campaigns, (vi) media advice and (vii) legal costs in the coming 12 months. [79172]

  Mr. Ingram
  (a) I would refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on 17 March 1999, Official Report, columns 697–98. Unfortunately the figure given in my reply was incorrect. The total amount paid for consultancy and related services since the inception of the Parades Commission is £267,000. A breakdown of the expenditure is given here.

  £

  Training for Stewards/Monitors

  42,000

  Monitoring research

  20,000

  Opinion surveys

  4,000

  Project planning

  2,000

  Recruitment campaign

  10,000

  Media and publicity advice and services

  122,000

  Legal Advice and services

  6,000

  Surveys, research, other training etc.

  31000

  Associated costs (advertising, printing etc.)

  30,000

  (b) The budgeted figure for Consultancy and related services in 1999–2000 is £230,000. This budget is not broken down at this stage into the lower level detail outlined for expenditure to date.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will break down the(a) running costs and (b) programme expenditure of the Parades Commission for the coming year by main spending items. [79171]
  480
  Mr. Ingram
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Running costs—£329,000: £254,000 pay and £75,000 general administrative expenditure (travel and subsistence, office equipment, telecommunications etc.).

  (b) Programme cost—£818,000: £64,000 rent, £20,000 publications/printing; £246,000 Mediation Network for Northern Ireland charges, including Authorised Officer costs and related expenditure; £229,000 Commission Members' and Chairman's total costs; £160,000 professional advisers' costs; £50,000 education and monitoring costs; and £49,000 telecommunications, courier charges etc.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to publish the Parades Commission's Annual report. [79176]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Parades Commission expects to publish its Annual Report towards the end of April 1999.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will place in the Library a copy of the Parades Commission's consultation document on its proposed changes to its Procedural Rules, the Code of Conduct and Guidelines. [79175]

  Mr. Ingram
  Copies of the consultation document containing proposed changes to the Code of Conduct, Procedural Rules and Guidelines were placed in the Library of the House on 26 March 1999.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the(a) persons and (b) organisations to whom the Parades Commission has issued for consultation its proposed changes to its Procedural Rules, the Code of Conduct and Guidelines; and if she will (i) provide a list of those who have responded formally to the Parades Commission's consultation document and (ii) make a statement on the further consultation the Parades Commission is undertaking. [79174]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Parades Commission has consulted a wide range of individuals and organisations about the proposed changes to its statutory documents. These include loyal orders, residents and community groups, business organisations, churches, academics, voluntary bodies, and political representatives. In addition, the Commission placed public notices in the daily newspapers drawing attention to the consultative process, and posted full details on the Commission's website. Respondents to the consultation have not been advised that their response or identity could be made public. It would therefore be inappropriate to list their names here.

  The Commission is considering carefully the responses it has received in relation to the draft statutory documents.

DEFENCE

  Defence Agencies (Employment)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the(a) Army Technical Support Centre, (b) Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency, (c) Defence Estates Organisation and (d) Defence Dental Agency; and what the figure was at each Agency's establishment. [71944]
  481
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brigadier A. D. Ball to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the employee numbers for the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA), as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the ATSA.
  The ATSA had 1,085 employees on 1st February 1999, and had 1,274 employees at its Agency launch date on 25th October 1995.
  I hope that you find this information helpful.

  Letter from Ian C. F. Andrews to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the number of people currently employed by the Defence Estate Organisation, and employed at the time of the Agency's establishment, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Estate Organisation.
  The number of people current employed across the Defence Estate Organisation is 1,423. At the Agency's establishment, on 1 April 1997, there were approximately 1,400.

  Letter from Air Vice-Marshal I. G. McIntyre to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people currently employed and the figure on formation of the Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency.
  The Defence Dental Agency currently has 1185 personnel on the payroll of whom 134 are uniformed dental staff within the command of The Health Alliance (THA) British Forces Germany. Payroll responsibility for these staff was transferred to this Agency with effect from I April 1998.
  Strength on formation of the Agency on 1 March 1996 was 1043. At that time dental staff within THA were not included in the strength.

  Letter from C. J. Boyle to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 March 1999:
  Further to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA), these matters fall within the Chief Executive's responsibility. However, as he is currently away from office, I am replying on his behalf.
  When the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) formed on 1 April 1997, it employed a total of 1171 staff, comprising both Service and civilian personnel.
  Through the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), AFPAA formed a public/private partnership with EDS to deliver most of the Agency's services on its behalf. In order to ensure the continuity of current services and to provide a significant input to the development of new systems, most of the Agency's civilian staff transferred to the private sector, when the partnership became effective on 1 January 1998. The Agency, therefore, currently employs 299 staff.
  I hope this explains the position.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Gulf War veterans, medically tested as part of his Department's research programme, have shown signs of uranium-related illness; and if he will make a statement; [72940]
  482
  (2) how many Gulf War veterans have had a medical test since the research programme commenced; and how many are waiting for a test. [72931]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A Gulf veteran who is, or has been, concerned about his or her health may be receiving or have received care, including testing, under various auspices. The Ministry of Defence has only centralised data in respect of its Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP). This was established in 1993 to provide veterans who believe that their health may have suffered as a result of the Gulf conflict with as full a diagnosis as possible of their medical conditions. During an assessment at the MAP, all referred veterans receive a standard set of screening tests and are asked by the examining MAP physician to provide detailed information about possible factors to which they may have been exposed during the Gulf conflict. As at 18 March 1999, 3,021 Gulf veterans had been referred to the MAP for a medical assessment. Of these, 34 were waiting to be seen for the first time and 201 had failed to appear for one or more appointments; hence, a total of 235 have yet to receive any tests at the MAP.

  With regard to the testing of UK Gulf veterans for the presence of depleted uranium (DU), I refer the hon. Member to a detailed paper setting out my Department's position, which I published on Friday 19 March 1999. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The MAP is not a research programme. The Ministry of Defence is funding a range of studies into different aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses. One of these studies—a neuromuscular symptoms study being conducted by a team led by Doctors Michael Rose and Mohammed Shareif at King's College, London—involves carrying out clinical tests on Gulf veterans. A further study on UK Gulf veterans under Professors Simon Wessely and Anthony David of King's College, London, which is being funded by the US Department of Defense, is also conducting clinical tests on UK Gulf veterans. Both these research teams are conducting their studies independently of MOD and we do not have access to the data collected, including any clinical findings.

  Naval Manning Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Naval Manning Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Naval Manning Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76895]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Rear Admiral J. M. de Halpert to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 29 March 1999:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State about the number of people employed in the Naval Manning Agency and the costs of publication of the Agency's 1997–98 Report, as these matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Naval manning Agency.
  The Agency currently employs 278 people including four part-time personnel. On Vesting Day (1 July 1996) the Agency employed 292 personnel.

  483
  The proof copy of the Agency's 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts was produced on 28 January 1999, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The final version of the Report is currently with the printers and should be published in April. The cost is expected to be similar to last year's at around £1,600.
  I hope you find this helpful.

  Weapons Testing (Scotland)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what testing of depleted uranium weapons has taken place in Southern Scotland. [77356]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Since the test-firing of depleted uranium (DU) based ammunition was approved in 1979 all testing of such ammunition in southern Scotland has been conducted at Kirkcudbright and West Freugh (near Stanraer). The trials at West Freugh, which took place in 1988 and 1990, tested Vulcan Phalanx ammunition and were very limited in nature, with only 200 small calibre rounds (around 20kg) being fired. The testing of 120mm DU-based ammunition for the Challenger main battle tank, which takes place at Kirkcudbright, started in 1982. Since the end of the Challenger tank development programme in 1997 this testing has been significantly reduced and currently only a small number of rounds are fired each year to check manufacturing quality.

  Armed Forces (Uniforms)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department's contracts for uniforms for the armed forces were awarded to United Kingdom textile companies in each of the last five years. [77468]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The number of contracts awarded to UK textile companies in each of the last three Financial Years is as follows:

  1996–97: 155 contracts

  1997–98: 300 contracts

  1998–99: 358 contracts.

  Earlier details are not available as information on clothing and textile contracts placed by my Department has only been recorded centrally for the last three years.

  Cadet Centre, Chorley
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what facilities the new cadet centre in Chorley will provide for cadets; and if these will be the same as at the existing centre on Devonshire Road in Chorley. [77474]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: The new cadet centre will provide offices, classrooms and activity area, toilet and washing facilities, secure storage facilities, and a rifle range. All facilities currently enjoyed by the cadets will therefore be reprovided in this new centre, which will be for their sole use.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts Her Majesty's Government are making to obtain medicinal and scientific data about the effects of depleted uranium-based ammunition in Iraq. [77258]
  484
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Officials from the Department for International Development (DfID) have been in discussion with the World Health Organisation (WHO) concerning possible projects to improve the overall health situation in Iraq. DfID expects to receive formal proposals—for example, to improve epidemiological surveillance in Iraq, to establish links between medical institutions outside Iraq and to improve Iraq's cancer registration system—from the WHO shortly, which the Government will consider carefully.

  The Government are well aware of suggests that there has been an increase in ill-health—including deformities, cancers and birth defects—in southern Iraq, which some commentators have attributed to the use of depleted uranium (DU) based ammunition by Coalition forces during the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. However, the Government have not seen any peer-reviewed epidemiological research data on this population to support these claims and therefore cannot comment on them further. There is currently no evidence that the illnesses of the types described, including cancers, are uniquely associated with exposure to DU. The Government would, of course, consider carefully any medical or scientific data which was presented on this subject.

  Sexual Offences (Armed Forces)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last year for which figures are available there has been an allegation of (i) rape and (ii) sexual assault within the United Kingdom by a member of the armed forces; and in each case(a) how long a time elapsed before the civil police were informed, (b) if the alleged victim was advised and assisted to ensure there was no inadvertent destruction of evidence, (c) if charges were brought, and (d) where a conviction was secured, what sentences were imposed. [78325]

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

  Ordnance Requalification
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of requalification for(a) 155 mm artillery projectiles, (b) 105 mm artillery projectiles, (c) 120 mm tank projectiles, (d) rocket motors for Sea Wolf and Sea Skua missiles and (e) explosives for ejector seat systems; and what is his estimate of the proportion of the cost that is met from his Department's funds. [78190]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The typical requalification cost for an artillery or tank round of ammunition is about £2 million, of which about £1.5 million is for the charge. For rocket motors the cost is about £5 million and for ejection seat cartridges up to £1 million. Costs vary significantly according to the circumstances, as does the proportion of cost to be met by the Ministry of Defence. These amounts should be set in the context of the overall value of the procurement contracts, which often amount to many tens of millions of pounds. For example, the Extended Range Ordnance/ Modular Charge System contract is worth around £100 million.
  485
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ammunition products for United Kingdom military use will have to be subject to requalification procedures by his Department. [78189]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: All ammunition products require Ordnance Board qualification before they are made available for United Kingdom military use. Requalification of explosive products is required whenever there is a prolonged break in production or there has been a change in manufacturer, manufacturing process, or source of raw materials. Therefore it is not possible to determine precisely which future ammunition requirements will induce requalification.

  Ammunition (Overseas Suppliers)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what quotations have been obtained from overseas suppliers for the supply of ammunition products previously supplied by Royal Ordnance Bishopton. [78185]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: None. The MOD procures ammunition as a finished product, not as individual components. It is a matter for the prime contractor to choose the source of each of the components, such as casing, explosives, fuses and propellant. British Aerospace has announced that it intends to close Royal Ordnance Bishopton by late 2000. We expect the factory to continue to participate in work on Ministry of Defence contracts awarded to Royal Ordnance and other prime contractors until that date.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the overseas countries from which the United Kingdom currently obtains ammunition products; and if he will list the value of each contract. [78187]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Ministry of Defence currently procures ammunition products from the USA, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Belgium, Israel, Canada and South Africa. The costs associated with individual contracts are commercially sensitive and I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the memorandums of understanding that exist between the United Kingdom and overseas ammunition suppliers. [78188]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Her Majesty's Government normally conclude Memorandums of Understanding only with other national Governments. There are no MOU with overseas ammunition suppliers.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with overseas ammunition suppliers in the past year; and if he will list the companies that have been consulted. [78182]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I have not had any discussions about the supply of ammunition with any overseas companies in the past year. However, Ministry of Defence officials have regular contacts on a wide range of issues with defence companies at all levels. These include obtaining
  486
  information on product ranges and capabilities, the discussion of tenders, and the management and performance of contracts. Details of such contacts in the past year are not held centrally. However, a search of available records indicates that contacts took place with the following ammunition suppliers: Aerojet, Alliant Tech Systems, Armtec, Atlantic Research Corporation, Boeing, Day and Zimmerman, Lockheed Martin, Olin Winchester, Primex, Raytheon, and Team MACS of the USA; Aerospatiale, Celerg, CTA International, and GIAT of France; Alenia, Europea Metalli, Fiat Avio, and Simmel of Italy; Buck Technologies, Diehl, Dynamit Nobel, EBV, GIWS, Junghans, LFK, Mauser, MEN, and Rheinmetall of Germany; MECAR of Belgium; Hirtenberg of Austria; Miltec, Oerlikon, and Swiss Munitions of Switzerland; Eurometaal of The Netherlands, Lapua of Finland, Bofors of Sweden; NAMMO, and Raufoss of Norway; Expal, International Technology of Intallaza of Spain; INDEP of Portugal; Bristol Aerospace, and SNC of Canada; PINDAD of Malaysia; CIS of Singapore; Denel/ Somchem, Denel/Swarklip, Denel/Naschem, Pretoria Metal Pressing and Vector of South Africa; IMI, and Rafael of Israel; ADI of Australia; and Micron of India.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment his Department has made of its overseas-based ammunition suppliers with respect to(a) security of supply, (b) exchange rate risk and (c) ability to supply ammunition promptly; [78191]

  (2) what assessments have been made of the security of supply provided by each of the United Kingdom's overseas ammunition suppliers; and if he will make a statement. [78186]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The Ministry of Defence considers carefully the issue of security of supply before placing equipment contracts with overseas suppliers. Where necessary, we seek suitable safeguards to ensure satisfactory security of supply.

  Contracts contain specific conditions designed to ensure prompt delivery of defence equipment and ammunition products. In order to eliminate exchange rate risks, we aim to place all overseas orders in Sterling. Where this is not possible, we use a variety of measures, including the advance purchase of Deutschmarks and US dollars, to minimise the risk of adverse movements in these currencies.

  Royal Ordnance Bishopton
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the Department for Trade and Industry regarding the closure of Royal Ordnance Bishopton; and if he will make a statement. [78183]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: I consulted other Government Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, about the issues surrounding the recent decisions on the Multi Year Buy and Extended Range Ordnance/ Modular Charge System competitions, including the impact on Royal Ordnance Bishopton and other Royal Ordnance sites. In addition to work associated with the Modular Charge System, Royal Ordnance informed the Ministry of Defence that it would require further work

  487
  to be directed to Bishopton, without competition, for the plant to remain open. Even then, the work force would have had to reduce by almost half to around 150 employees. We concluded that £20 million cost premium to keep a much reduced Bishopton open in the short term did not represent good value for the taxpayer.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which foreign Governments have been consulted with regard to the re-sourcing of ammunition supplies to UK forces following the closure of Royal Ordnance Bishopton. [78181]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: We have not formally consulted foreign Governments about the supply of ammunition after the closure of Royal Ordnance Bishopton, nor is there a need to do so. We routinely conduct international competitions for the procurement of ammunition. These show that there are many friendly and reliable alternative sources in Europe and further overseas. In the event of an urgent, unforeseen demand for ammunition, we would secure further supplies from friends and allies, as we have successfully done in the past. To facilitate such procurements the UK is a signatory of the international Joint Ballistic MOU, together with France, Germany, Italy and the US, which allows for the strategic and tactical interchange of 155mm ammunition.

  Somchem Contract
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the value for money of the contract to supply artillery shell propellant from Somchem; and if he will make a statement. [78192]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Somchem was a clear winner of the competition for the sub-contract for the Modular Charge System for the AS90 howitzer on both cost and technical grounds. The decision to award Somchem the contract, therefore, represents best value for money.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence industrial considerations were taken into account in the award of the artillery shell propellant contract to Somchem. [78184]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: We considered defence industrial issues very carefully before deciding to procure the Modular Charge System contract from Somchem. We concluded that Royal Ordnance would still be capable of continuing as a major supplier of a wide range of ammunition to the Ministry of Defence. The company remains a key player in the European ammunition business with a continuing role in the future rationalisation process for the industry.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department made of the impact of the current value of the South African Rand when awarding the artillery shell propellant contract to Somchem; and what arrangements have been set in place in the contract with regard to exchange rate fluctuation. [78193]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The contract price for the sub-contract for the supply of the Modular Charge System for the AS90
  488
  howitzer has been specified in Sterling. The value of the South African Rand, therefore, has no effect on the contract.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies he has carried out on the potential to upgrade the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers to meet future requirements. [78777]

  Mr. Spellar
  Concept studies have examined the feasibility of upgrading and extending the life of the current Invincible-class aircraft carriers. These studies established that the vessels would not be able to meet future requirements. However, there will be further analysis to establish the baseline against which the cost-effectiveness of the future carriers will be assessed.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which companies have been invited to tender for the future Royal Navy aircraft carrier; and what criteria were used to select the companies. [78781]

  Mr. Spellar
  British Aerospace Defence Systems, Marconi Electronic Systems, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon and Thomson-CSF have been invited to tender for the initial assessment phase of the future aircraft carrier. They were selected from the companies that had expressed interest in the tender, following an assessment of their ability to deliver the programme to cost, time and performance.

  155 Transport Regiment
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the possibility of transferring 155 Transport Regiment to North Wales. [78570]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: 155 Transport Regiment does not exist. 157 Transport Regiment, whose headquarters is based in Cardiff, has a number of sub-units that are based in South Wales and no consideration was therefore given to transferring the headquarters to North Wales.

  Mr. Tony Geraghty
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons, on what date, in what circumstances and manner and under what powers Mr. Tony Geraghty was arrested; when his bail will be ended; what charges are in prospect against him; and if his Department plans to take action in relation to his recently published book. [79019]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Mr. Tony Geraghty's home address was searched on 3 December 1998, under warrant, by Ministry of Defence Police officers investigating alleged offences against the Official Secrets Acts, concerning his book "The Irish War".Mr. Geraghty was arrested and placed on unconditional police bail, he is due to answer his bail on 22 April 1999. A file has been prepared by the Ministry of Defence Police and submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. The Crown Prosecution Service will determine whether or not Mr. Geraghty will face charges. The Ministry of Defence Police were acting under powers conferred by the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.
  489

  HMS Vengeance
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 571–72, on HMS Vengeance, what components were found to be defective; when they were replaced; what effect their failure had on the state of the submarine's reactor; what steps he is taking to enure the safety of similar components on other nuclear powered submarines; and if he will make a statement. [78916]

  Mr. Spellar
  Two of the Main Coolant Pumps of the rector system were found to be defective. Both pumps continued to provide full output, but showed early signs of longer term degradation in performance. They were replaced between 9 February and 17 March this year. There was no effect on the submarine's reactor. To ensure the safety of such equipment on other nuclear submarines, routine equipment monitoring is undertaken as a matter of course. The original pumps from HMS Vengeance will undergo detailed examination to confirm the cause of the defect.

  Chinook Crash
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the members of the RAF Board of Inquiry investigating the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD 576 in 1994 were informed, at the time of the Inquiry, of his Department's case against Textron Lycoming, the manufacturers of the full authority digital engine control system; [78381]

  (2) if Boeing treated the full authority digital engine control system fitted to the Chinook Mk2 as flight safety critical at the time of the RAF Chinook crash in June 1994; [78380]

  (3) if his testing and evaluation organisation at Boscombe Down treated the full authority digital engine control system fitted to the Chinook Mk2 as flight safety critical at the time of the RAF Chinook crash in June 1994. [78379]

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

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Air Accidents Investigation Branch personnel investigating the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576 in 1994, were informed, at the time of the investigation, of the Ministry of Defence case against Textron Lycoming, the manufacturers of the Full Authority Digital Engine Control system. [78792]

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

  Procurement Programmes
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many defence procurement programmes are running overtime; and in each case by how long. [79101]

  Mr. Spellar
  Information on time overruns against the original approval on the top 25 defence procurement programmes is published by each year in the Comptroller and Auditor General's reports on the Ministry of Defence "Major Projects Report". Copies of these are in the Library of the House.
  490

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Child Soldiers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with which she has had recent discussions concerning the use of child soldiers; and if she will make a statement. [78544]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Neither I or the Secretary of State have personally had any recent discussions on this issue with countries in which child soldiers are a problem.

  This is, however, an issue of deep concern to our Department. In late 1997 the Secretary of State spoke to President Museveni of Uganda about the abduction of many thousands of children by the Lord's Resistance Army, most of whom are forced to become child soldiers or concubines. In Sierra Leone, the British High Commissioner has just agreed with the President Kabbah that children under the age of 16 will be excluded from enlistment in the Sierra Leone armed forces or the civilian defence forces; and that any children taken into custody by ECOMOG will be handed over to UNICEF at the earliest opportunity. We have also provided assistance for children affected by conflict in countries such as Liberia and Sri Lanka.

  We have had a number of meetings with the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Mr. Olara Otunnu, the most recent being on 16 March in London. Mr. Otunnu briefed us about his recent travels in the Great Lakes Region and Sudan. We have offered our full support to ensure that his lobbying and advocacy work to reduce the use of child soldiers is followed up and given practical effect on the ground. Plans for this are under discussion between Mr. Otunnu, UNICEF and our officials.

  DFID recently issued the "Policy Statement on Conflict Reduction and Humanitarian Assistance" which describes our general approach to defusing tensions and building sustainable peace through targeted conflict reduction strategies. Progress in implementing these will also help eliminate the child soldier problem.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) her private office,(b)Government special advisers, (c) her policy unit and (d)staff in total. [78500]

  Mr. Foulkes
  (a) Information on the ethnic origin of staff in the Private Office cannot be provided as the small numbers involved could lead to the identification of individuals, contrary to the Code of Practice agreed with the Civil Service trade unions.

  (b) In relation to special advisers, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39.

  (c) DFID does not maintain a separate Policy Unit in support of Ministers.

  (d) My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will provide this information centrally.
  491

  EU Aid
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what representations she has made to the European Commission in the past 12 months about improving the effectiveness and transparency of the EU aid budget; [79065]

  (2) what specific steps she has taken in the past 12 months to ensure that the United Kingdom contribution to the EU aid budget has been spent effectively. [79066]

  Mr. Foulkes
  In December we published our 18 point strategy to improve EC development spending. It has been widely disseminated in the Commission and other member states. Our paper describes the specific, practical measures the Department for International Development is to take to maximise the contribution of the EC's development programmes to the international poverty eradication strategy. The Secretary of State and our officials are pursuing vigorously our strategy with the Commission and with other EC member states for redirecting EC resources to the poorest countries, and for improving the effectiveness and transparency of EU aid spending. The Secretary of State discussed these issues frequently with her European opposite numbers, most recently in Berlin on 18 March and both she and I have had a number of discussions with Members of the European Parliament on this.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of her budget will be channelled through the EU aid budget in the financial year 1999–2000. [79099]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We currently forecast expenditure of £750m through the EC in 1999/2000, comprising £248m through the European Development Fund, and £520m through EC budgetised programmes.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many times she or her Minister met former European Commissioner Cresson to discuss EU aid in the past 12 months. [79064]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At no time in the last 12 months have I, or the Secretary of State met former EU Commissioner Cresson to discuss EU aid.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Human Genetics
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those members of advisory committees to his Department who have declared outside interests with(a) DiaDexus, (b) Cerebus Ltd., (c) SmithKline Beecham, (d) Stanford University, (e) Human Genome Services Inc, (f) Glaxo Wellcome, (g) the Wellcome Institute, (h) Monsanto, and (i) AgrEvo; and if he will specify in each case the advisory committee to which they belong and the nature of the declared interest. [76242]
  492
  Mr. Battle
  Members of the following executive non-departmental public bodies and advisory committees have declared interests in the organisations listed by the hon. Member.

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  Prof. J. Goodfellow:
  Chairman of the Wellcome Trust Molecular and Cell Panel, and member of the Base Science Interest Group. Prof. Goodfellow is also married to the senior Vice-President and Head of research for SmithKline Beecham.
  Medical Research Council
  Prof. L K. Borysiewicz:
  Consultant for SmithKline Beecham. Holds a Wellcome grant.
  Prof. E. Johnstone:
  Consultant for SmithKline Beecham. Holds a Wellcome Fellowship or grant.
  Dr. T. W. Robbins:
  Consultant for SmithKline Beecham. Holds a Wellcome Fellowship or grant.
  Prof. J. Bell:
  Holds a Welcome Fellowship or grant.
  Prof. R. Mirsky:
  Holds a Wellcome Fellowship or grant.
  Prof. A. M. McGregor:
  Holds a Wellcome Fellowship or grant.
  Council for Science and Technology
  Sir Richard Sykes:
  Chairman, Glaxo Wellcome PLC
  Human Genetics Advisory Commission
  Dr. G. Poste:
  Non-Executive Chairman of Diadexus and Cerebrus. Board member of SmithKline Beecham. Also lists in "Who's Who" the fact that he is a Governor of the Centre for Molecular Medicine and Genetics at Stanford University.
  Industrial Development Advisory Board
  Dr. R. Hawley:
  Shareholder of SmithKline Beecham and Glaxo Wellcome PLC.

  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission register of members' interests relates to details of potential conflicts of interest registered by members relevant to particular inquires on which they are serving. No interests in the organisations listed by the hon. Member have been registered by such serving members over the last year. The register can be examined on the MMC's website.

  Wellcome Trust
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, or to his appointed inspector, in relation to the re-opened inquiry into the Wellcome Trust's application for planning permission at Hinxton Hall in South Cambridgeshire. [76070]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: I have made no representations either to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, or to his appointed inspector in relation to the re-opened inquiry into the Wellcome Trust's application for planning permission at Hinxton Hall in South Cambridgeshire.
  493

  Manchester United
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he is planning to publish his conclusions on the BSkyB bid for Manchester United. [76354]

  Mr. Byers
  I shall publish the MMC's report as soon as is practicable.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76836]

  Mr. Byers
  Since 2 May 1997, Special Advisers have travelled abroad on 12 occasions. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  US Import Duties
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to compensate all United Kingdom exporters affected by the increase in import duties in the United States; and if he will make a statement; [76784]

  (2) if he will compensate fine art publishers for the costs of the increase in United States import duties; and if he will make a statement. [76777]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 4 March that the Government had decided to establish a scheme for the cashmere knitwear industry to guarantee the bonds requested by the United States. The mere threat of US action had been having a particularly significant effect on cashmere, in view of the highly seasonal nature of that industry.

  The services of my official are at the disposal of other industries for advice while urgent consultations continue within the European Union and the Word Trade Organisation.

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies (i) all licences and permits issued by his Department and its agencies to companies permitting them to carry out their business, (ii) the cost of each such licence or permit in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1999–2000 and (iii) the current number of companies which are in receipt of each such licence or permit. [76855]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: It is not possible to distinguish between small and medium-sized enterprises and large companies in the manner requested.

  Private Motor Vehicles (Imports)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's assessment of the effect on Exchequer revenues of the retail purchase and 494
  subsequent importation into Britain of private motor vehicles from (a) European Union countries and (d) non-European Union countries. [78133]

  Dr. Howells
  No figures exist on the effect on Exchequer revenues of importation of private motor vehicles.

  Slough Heat and Power
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Slough Heat and Power Ltd.'s application to extend its existing combined heat and power generating station. [79386]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today granted consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Slough Heat and Power Ltd.'s application for construction of a 11 MW extension to its existing 80 MW Combined Heat and Power station. The extension, fuelled by 80,000 tonnes of mainly processed waste paper annually, has also today been given planning permission. The decisions have been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  Planning permission has also been granted after consultation with the Slough Borough Council which did not object to the application subject to 40 conditions being included.

  Decisions on other applications under consideration will be announced in due course.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Droite de Suite
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed imposition of droite de suite on the British art market and its likely impact on the work of his Department. [77372]

  Dr. Howells
  The Directive would cause very real difficulties to the United Kingdom, threatening earnings and jobs in the London art Market. We cannot agree to the Directive as it stands at present. As a result of the Government's previous efforts, significant improvements have been made. However, they do not go far enough and we shall be continuing to work with our EU partners on ways in which the impact of the Directive on the UK can be reduced so as to ensure that we get the best possible deal for Britain. If, and when, the Directive is adopted, the Department of Trade and Industry will be responsible for transposing it into national law, but will do so only after the widest consultation with those most affected.

PRIME MINISTER

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Prime Minister how many civil servants in his office have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many
  495
  civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76814]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 53. Information in respect of my office was included in this answer.

  Unscom
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 15, on Unscom, if he made any contact with the United States Administration when preparing his reply; and if he sought any clarification of the allegations of United States signals intelligence operations under the cover of Unscom in Iraq, from United Kingdom nationals working for Unscom. [78156]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 15, where I set out the position with regard to these matters.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has discussed with representatives of the biotechnology industry the introduction of a voluntary three-year halt in the planting of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops. [77681]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: Government officials have been discussing with representatives of the biotechnology industry their proposals for the introduction of genetically modified crops for commercial growing by farmers once all relevant approvals have been granted. Officials have been seeking to obtain assurances from the biotechnology industry that the commercial introduction will be restrained until results from the farm scale evaluations indicate that commercial activity may take place in accordance with the concept of managed development as set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment in his statement to the House of Lords Select Committee on EC Regulation of Genetic Modification in Agriculture on 21 October 1998.

  The farm scale evaluations are to allow careful studies of the effects of larger scale cultivation of these crops on farmland wildlife, as compared to conventional crops. No specific timescale for commercial introduction has been agreed. We will move to allow cultivation only when we are satisfied that we have enough information about the environmental impacts to be able to make a sound decision.

  Tax Take
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library his analysis showing that the amount of tax, in pounds, to be paid in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c)2000–01 and(d) 2001–02 will not increase as a result of the proposals put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [77996]
  496
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget statement, 9 March 1999, Official Report, columns 173–90, as a result of the Budget measures there will be net tax cuts to support work, enterprise and families. Further details can be found in table 1.3 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Departmental Responsibilities
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister by which Secretary of State parliamentary questions on the proposed unified Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department of Trade and Industry trade promotion operation will be answered. [78440]

  The Prime Minister
  Questions may be addressed to either Secretary of State, since, as was made clear in the announcement on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 399–400, the unified FCO/DTI trade promotion and development operation will be the joint responsibility of the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and for Trade and Industry.

  President Suharto
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an investigation into the extent of the United Kingdom assets of former President Suharto, of Indonesia, his family and close associates; and if he will freeze the United Kingdom assets of former President Suharto pending the outcome of the results of such an investigation. [78589]

  The Prime Minister
  Allegations into criminal conduct over which the United Kingdom has jurisdiction are a matter for the police to investigate. United Kingdom confiscation legislation does not permit the restraint of property pending the outcome of any such investigation. Restraint is only obtainable when proceedings have been or are about to be instituted against a person. The powers with respect to international requests for restraint are very similar once a country has been designated by an Order in Council. Indonesia has not, however, been designated for this purpose. It is open to any party which considers that it has a claim to property to avail itself of the normal procedures available in the civil courts.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures he uses to define child poverty for the purposes of forming policy. [78482]

  The Prime Minister
  Child poverty is complex. It is characterised by a number of related factors which can include persistent low family incomes caused by parental unemployment, as well as other factors such as low educational attainment, poor housing and poor health. What therefore matters is taking action in all these areas as we are doing to improve the life chances of all the children in Britain today.

  Sudan
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions he discussed with the US authorities the evidence presented by them to justify their bombing of the Sudanese factory. [78863]
  497
  The Prime Minister
  It is established practice that under Section 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose or discuss information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Prime Minister how many people were(a) injured and (b) killed as a result of the US bombing of the Sudanese factory; and if any of these were military personnel. [78862]

  The Prime Minister
  As I told the House on 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 364–65, the attack on Al-Shifa was retaliation for the death of more than 100 innocent people by acts of terrorism in Africa; no one was killed in it. There are no confirmed reports about injuries.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit Nigeria. [79062]

  The Prime Minister
  Although my plans are not yet fixed, I hope to visit Nigeria later this year.

HEALTH

  Black and Ethnic Minorities
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise the 1993 good practice guidance on black and ethnic minorities in the NHS. [73882]

  Mr. Denham
  The contribution of black and ethnic minority staff to the National Health Service is invaluable. As part of our commitment to modernise the NHS, we are determined that all NHS workplaces will be free from racial harassment and discrimination. To that end, we recently launched a major programme of action by publishing"Tackling Racial Harassment in the NHS—A Plan for Action". This, together with the Equalities Framework, to be published later this year, will provide tough targets and standards which all NHS employers must meet.

  Capital Investment (Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the time scale for his decision in relation to the Strategic Outline Case for additional capital investment in Wakefield district hospitals. [78719]

  Mr. Denham
  An announcement on the outcome of the 3rd Capital Prioritisation Exercise will be made shortly.

  Pharmacists' Pay
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the percentage increase in pharmacists' pay for 1998–99; and what was the average percentage increase of other NHS salaries. [78756]

  Mr. Denham
  Hospital Pharmacists on national terms and conditions of service received pay increases of 2 per cent. from 1 April 1998 rising to 3.8 per cent. from 1 December 1998. The same increases were awarded to nurses and the professions allied to Medicine and to all other non-review body staff.
  498
  Community pharmacy contractors' remuneration, was increased by 3 per cent. for 1998–99.

  Hospital and community health service doctors received increases of 2 per cent. from 1 April 1998 rising to 4.2 per cent. from 1 December 1998.

  National Health Service managers on the new national and residual national arrangements received no national increase in 1998 but provision was made for increases to be determined locally. Trust chairs were asked to ensure that the cost of individual pay rises for board members and senior managers were contained within an overall cash envelope of 2.7 per cent.

  Anti-impotence Treatment
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the responses received to the consultation on the proposals to restrict the prescribing of anti-impotence treatments on the NHS to specific groups of men; and if he will make a statement. [78788]

  Mr. Denham
  We have received approximately 800 responses to the consultation which ended on 25 March 1999. No assessment of these has yet been made.

  Ship Inspections
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ships were found to be unhygienic as a result of inspection of ships for nuisance; and how many special notices were served under the provisions of the Public Health (Ships) Regulations 1979 in each year since 1990. [78993]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 245–46.

  Greenwich Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the additional demands upon health services in Greenwich and Lewisham arising from the millennium celebrations; and what additional resources have been made available to the relevant health authorities to meet this demand. [79313]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive's London regional office is assessing the mechanisms needed to ensure the NHS and partner organisations are well placed to manage the Millennium.

  Resources will be given to any affected Health Authorities to cover the cost of additional inpatients admitted to local hospitals from other areas.

  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) Bexley and Greenwich Health Authority and (b) Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust regarding the millennium celebrations; and if he will make a statement. [79312]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive's London regional office is in close and regular contact with local health authorities and NHS trusts, as well as local organisations and stakeholders, on the subject of the millennium celebrations, and will ensure local plans are robust.
  499
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the additional demands upon the London Ambulance Service arising from the millennium celebrations; and what additional resources have been made available to the service for this purpose. [79314]

  Mr. Denham
  The London Ambulance Service is forecasting a 12 per cent. increase in workload in December 1999 and January 2000 over the corresponding months this winter. It is difficult to forecast demand for the night of 31 December/1 January as it is not yet entirely clear what major events will be taking place.

  The London Ambulance Service has drawn up proposals to maintain and improve its response to emergencies over the next 12 months, including the Millennium celebrations and is in discussion with health authorities and London regional office of the National Health Service Executive on the implementation and funding of those measures necessary to achieve this.

  Human Vaccines
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what decisions were taken on the basis of information obtained from the investigations into BSE(a) to discontinue use of human vaccines and (b) to destroy stocks of human vaccines. [78801]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to his three questions on 25 March 1999,Official Report, column 378.

  Cancer
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he proposes to(a) designate and (b) accredit a cancer centre for the North West of England as recommended by the Calman-Hine report; [79238]

  (2) if he will list his criteria for (a) designating and (b) accrediting regional cancer centres; [79237]

  (3) on what dates the regional cancer centres for each region of England and Wales were accredited; [79235]

  (4) what factors underlie the length of time taken to accredit a regional cancer centre for the North West of England. [79236]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no rigid criteria for the designation and accreditation of cancer centres. Flexibility in the early stages of implementation of Calman/Hine reflected regions' different starting points and allowed for approaches to the designation and accreditation process to fit local circumstances. In the North West, accreditation is carried out by external clinical audit and quality control of clinical services. This process will be developed and implemented for cancer centres in the North West in 2000–01.

  As part of our work to bring Calman/Hine into line with the national service framework model, we are developing a set of common national standards and performance measures against the new performance framework which will apply across the country. These will be supplemented by a new set of milestones against which progress in implementing Calman/Hine and achieving national targets can be measured.
  500

  Food Standards Agency
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many posts will be deleted from establishment in his Department as a result of the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. [79031]

  Ms Jowell
  There are 76 people in the Joint Food Safety and Standards Group in the Department. These posts will transfer to the Food Standards Agency when it is established.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Education Action Forums
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the legal status of each education action forum; and if that legal status entitles each forum to be exempt from the payment of VAT. [79032]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Action Forum has the legal status of a corporate body. The forum also has exempt charitable status, and all forum members are trustees. The forum is not exempt from the payment of VAT.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the procedures by which his Department monitors the receipt of payments in(a) cash and (b) kind from businesses to education action zones. [79034]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department monitors the receipt of business contributions by education action zones through the financial returns which zones make. A summary of these contributions will be available as part of the audited accounts for each zone for the financial year 1998–99.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if Ofsted will be given responsibility for inspecting education action zones. [79033]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Yes.

  Education Services
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the organisations on the short-list of bodies considered suitable to take over the services of local education authorities and the bodies on the short-list for offering consultancy services; [79022]

  (2) if he will list the criteria used to determine the suitability of organisations to be on the short-list of bodies to take over the services of local education authorities or to offer consultancy services; [79023]

  (3) what is the basis for his decision not to include the Local Government Association in the list of bodies suitable to take over the services, or offer consultancy to, local education authorities. [79024]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As I stated in my reply of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 18, 98 expressions of interest were received for consultancy work and 107 for the delivery of LEA functions. We are currently conducting negotiations and seeking further

  501
  information from a number of selected organisations. It is normal commercial practice not to divulge the names of such organisations, as to do so could jeopardise the chances of a fair competition. DfEE officials have written to the LGA, setting out the reasons why they were not successful at the first stage. We hope to announce in April the lists of those organisations which we intend to use to provide consultancy services or to act as function providers. The criteria on which our selection is based are as follows:
  Strand 1—improvement action plans.
  Evidence provided by the applicant to demonstrate their track record of working with service providers in order to improve service delivery performance.

  The evidence should demonstrate a track record of work involving

  identifying and prioritising tasks and objectives;

  analysing roles and functions within organisations;

  development and assessment of the suitability of options and alternative methods of delivery;

  detailed implementation and monitoring/management of action plans.

  Strand 2—specification preparation and related work

  Evidence demonstrating work that requires a proven track record of understanding the type and nature of services provided by LEAs.

  Evidence demonstrating that the applicant has prepared service related tender/contract specifications.

  Evidence demonstrating the applicant's understanding of the methodology and processes involved in specification preparation.

  The quality and nature of the reference sites that the applicant has named for what they consider to be relevant work.

  Strand 3—contract and project management

  Evidence demonstrating a track record in handling complex contract and project management arrangements.

  Evidence demonstrating that they have successfully taken over the management of complex or sensitive contracts or projects at short notice.

  Strand 4—financial costings

  Evidence demonstrating that the applicant has a track record of establishing base-line service delivery costs.

  Evidence demonstrating a track record of undertaking effective efficiency reviews.

  Function Providers.

  For each strand, applicants were considered on the basis of the evidence they presented on

  Their track record of providing services related to that strand or comparable services;

  How their experience made them a suitable candidate for an approved list of suppliers for that function strand;

  How they intended to develop the specific capabilities required for that function strand.

  A range of more specific evidence was considered for each function strand, and I will write to the hon. Member setting these out.

  Education Funding Delegations
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many requests have been received by his Department for hon. Members to bring a delegation to meet a Minister to discuss education funding(a) in the past year and (b) in the last three months; and how many of those requests have been refused. [79030]
  502
  Mr. Mudie
  This information is not recorded and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but Local Education Authorities have been provided with an average 5.5 per cent. increase in funding for education for the coming year, compared with a 2.4 per cent. increase in inflation and a teachers' pay increase of 3.5 per cent.

  Special Schools
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of whether any special schools will close following his Department's programme for action on special educational needs; and if he will make a statement. [79026]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on 11 March 1999,Official Report, column 314.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date he made the decision to lay(a) S.I., 1999 No. 447 and (b) S.I., 1999 No. 606 before the House. [79028]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 447 relating to the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training) (England) Regulations 1998 (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1999 were laid before Parliament on 26 February 1999. S.I. 1999 No. 606 relating to The Education (Education Standards Etc. Grants) (England) Regulations 1999 were laid on 9 March 1999.

  Work Permit Applications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current average waiting time for an application to the Immigration and Nationality Department for a work permit; and what was the average waiting time in each of the previous three years for which figures are recorded. [78661]

  Ms Hodge
  Applications for work permits are made to the Department for Education and Employment's Overseas Labour Service. Records are kept on the proportion of applications cleared within four and eight weeks:

  1998–99 (estimated)

  1997–98

  1996–97

  Proportion cleared within four weeks

  70

  66

  73

  Proportion cleared within eight weeks

  93

  91

  95

  Numbers cleared

  73,000

  62,258

  53,718

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on (1) what date(a) he and (b) his Department received the leaked copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee First report of Session 1998–99 on Foreign Policy and Human Rights (HC100); and by what method it was received; [77760]
  503
  (2) what date (a) he and (b) his Department received the leaked copy of the Foreign Affairs Committee Third report of Session in 1998–99 on European Union Enlargement (HC 86); and by what method it was received. [77835]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I refer to my earlier answer to the hon. Member on 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 876.

  Overseas Commercial Posts
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of overseas commercial posts for United Kingdom-based staff, showing in each case the current grading and indicating for each grade the proportion commercial posts represent of all overseas posts at their grade. [78442]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I am placing in the Library a list of UK-based overseas jobs with more than 50 per cent. Commercial content. The proportion commercial work represents of the work of all frontline staff overseas at these grades is as follows:

  Percentage

  SMS

  13.9

  DS5

  18.9

  DS6

  46.5

  DS7

  31.0

  DS9

  7.3

  Frontline work excludes time spent on management or support functions.

  Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has tabled for revising the 1990 conventional armed forces in Europe treaty; and when he next expects to discuss them with(a) the UK's NATO allies, (b) former Soviet bloc countries and (c) other European countries. [78748]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK contributed to NATO's comprehensive proposals for adapting the CFE Treaty which were tabled at the negotiations in Vienna during 1998. These proposals, along with ideas from other Treaty parties, are being discussed in Vienna by officials from all 30 States Parties to the Treaty, with a view to signature of an adapted Treaty at the OSCE Summit in November 1999. Other OSCE states are briefed regularly on progress in the talks.

  Diplomatic Notes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about(a) his policy with respect to issuing diplomatic notes to foreign Governments and (b) his policy in respect of the failure of a foreign Government to respond to such a note. [78749]

  Mr. Fatchett
  British Embassies and High Commissions use diplomatic notes as a customary vehicle for written communication with Ministries of Foreign Affairs in accordance with accepted diplomatic practice.
  504
  There is no set policy if a foreign Government fail to respond to a diplomatic note. They are under no formal obligation to reply. If they choose not to, we would consider what action to take in the light of the circumstances of the case.

  Egypt (Abductions)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) reports he has received and (b) representations he has made concerning the abduction of Suhir Shihata Gouda in Egypt. [79309]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have recently received reports about Suhir Shihata Gouda from international NGOs. Our Embassy in Cairo is making inquiries into the background.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Egyptian authorities about the abduction of Christian women in Egypt. [79310]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We regularly make representations to the Egyptian authorities when we receive reports of human rights abuses against anyone, regardless of gender or religion. This includes reports of abductions.

  Overseas Trade Services
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 March 1999,Official Report, column 765, on overseas trade services, if he will place in the Library the relevant accounts for the overseas trade services income for 1997–98. [79311]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Details of overseas trade service income and expenditure for 1997–98 are contained in the 1999 Foreign Commonwealth Office Departmental Report which will be issued on 31 March 1999; copies will be placed in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Refreshment Department
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will make a statement on the effect on services for members and staff of the Refreshment Department's modernisation programme. [77415]

  Mr. Dennis Turner
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave on 15 February 1999 to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody),Official Report, columns 421–22, and to my letter of 4 March which was sent to all hon. Members. In my letter, I set out in detail the catering facilities which will, and those which will not, be available to hon. Members and staff during Phase F of the Refreshment Department modernisation programme.

  Retirements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Council if she will discuss with the House of Commons Commission, the Commissioner of Police of the
  505
  Metropolis and officers of the House means by which hon. Members can be informed of prospective retirements and departures of long-serving staff. [77411]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to write to my hon. Friend about this matter.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the President of the Council if she will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) her private office, (b) Government special advisers and (c) her Policy Unit. [78509]

  Mrs. Beckett
  On 1 March 1999 there were six staff in my Private Office, none of whom was of ethnic minority origin. As regards Special Advisers, I would refer my hon. Friend to answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 39.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council what assessment she has made of the 9.9.99 computer bug in formulating Government policy on the millennium bug. [77545]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 7.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards the Government plans to impose to guard against cross-pollination with non-genetically modified plants when genetically modified foods are planted commercially. [75138]

  Mr. Rooker
  The issue of cross-pollination is considered by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) when examining each application for release of genetically modified (GM) crops. Appropriate conditions (e.g. separation distances) may be included in a consent, but a consent would not be granted if ACRE considered the risks associated with cross-pollination to be unacceptable. In addition the Government have encouraged the development of industry guidelines which will set out best practice for growing GM crops, and these guidelines will include minimum separation distances between GM and non-GM crops.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the financial impact on the British pig industry of the new stall and tether regulations. [75844]
  506
  Mr. Rooker
  The legislation to ban sow stalls and tethers was introduced in 1991 and allowed the industry an eight year phase-out period. The Government estimate made at that time was that the total compliance cost to industry would be in the region of £9 million taking account of the phase-out period and that many systems would in any case need to be replaced for other reasons.

  Farmers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to adopt an early retirement scheme for farmers; and if he will make a statement. [78023]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: Support for early retirement is one of the measures provided for in the Rural Development Regulation, recently agreed by the Agriculture Council as part of the CAP reform negotiations. Detailed implementing rules still need to be agreed. No decision has yet been made on which of the measures in the Regulation will be implemented in the UK. We are currently evaluating the views expressed by farmers and other interested parties as a result of the consultation exercise launched in January. Now that the Regulation has been agreed, we will be putting forward more detailed proposals for consultation, taking account of the funds available.

  Genetically Modified Animal Feed
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his Department's policy that products derived from animals which eat genetically modified animal feed are safe for human consumption. [78722]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes. The Advisory Committee on Novel Food and Processes considers the human food safety implications of animals fed genetically modified material to ensure this.

  Farming
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage rotation of planting by(a) species of crops and (b) area of UK farms. [78540]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is for farmers to decide how best to manage their crop rotations to achieve profitability and meet customer requirements. The Government's role is to provide an appropriate policy framework, which is why it has pressed for CAP reforms aimed at reducing the distortions caused by production-linked subsidies. The Government also aid conversion to organic farming, which relies on crop rotations to maintain soil fertility.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of food-producing land in England is devoted to monoculture. [78541]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the form requested. Information on agricultural land use can be found in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1998" which was published on 16 March 1999 and a copy placed in the Library of the House.
  507

  Genetically Modified Food Substances
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a list of food substances available in the UK containing genetically modified contents. [78783]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: All genetically modified foods on sale in the UK have been approved following a rigorous safety assessment. The Government do not keep details of the use of ingredients in individual food products. However, wherever GM ingredients from GM soya or maize are present in foods, this must be declared in accordance with the requirements of EC Regulation 1139/98 and the Food Labelling (Amendments) Regulations 1999. The only other GM product currently on the market, tomato paste, has been clearly labelled by the manufacturer on a voluntary basis since its launch in 1996.

  EU Duties and Subsidies
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duties are applied by the European Union to(a) dairy products and (b) meat products from each country of supply; and what subsidies are given on the same goods exported from the EU. [78942]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: Figures for the annual import duties applied by the European Union to meat and dairy products are published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L 292, Volume 41, 30 October 1998, entitled: "Commission Regulation (EC) number 2261/98 of 26 October 1998" amending Annex 1 to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff.

  Additional import duties may be applied on entry to the European Union when certain poultrymeat products are imported at very low prices that may disrupt the internal market. Commission Regulation No 1484/95 implements the system for applying additional duties in the poultrymeat sector, which is published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L 145, 29 June 1995. In order to implement the WTO Brazil/EU Disputes Panel ruling this was amended by Commission Regulation No 623/1999 introducing a new system for calculation which took effect on 25 March 1999. Some imports of beef and veal are allowed into the Community under certain limited concessionary import schemes, but these concessions are limited to a quantity of beef that amounts to 5 per cent. of total community production.

  Export refunds for certain dairy products are published in Commission Regulation (EC) No 532/1999 of 11 March 1999, fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products which can be found in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L 63, 12 March 1999. Export refunds for certain pigmeat products are published in Commission Regulation (EC) No 332/1999 of 12 February 1999, which can be found in Official Journal of the European Communities, L 40, 13 February 1999. The latest rates of export refunds for beef and veal were published on 16 March 1999 and can be found in Commission Regulation 565/1999, which can be found in Official Journal of the European Communities, L 70 of 17 March 1999. Export refunds for certain poultrymeat products are
  508
  published in Commission Regulation (EC) No 395/1999 of 23 February 1999, which can be found in Official Journal of the European Communities, L 48, 24 February 1999. This reflects the remaining refund availability since quota volumes for other products under WTO rules have been exhausted for the year July 1998–99.

  Copies can be found in the House Library.

WALES

  NHS Staff (Bridgend)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many doctors were employed by Bridgend and District NHS Trust on 30 September 1996. [78006]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There were 173 doctors (153.7 whole-time equivalent) employed by Bridgend and District NHS Trust as at 30 September 1996.

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

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) nurses and (b) mental care nurses were employed by Bridgend and District NHS Trust on (i) 30 September 1996 and (ii) 30 September 1997. [78005]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on nurses employed by Bridgend and District NHS Trust is shown in the following table.

  30 September 1996

  30 September 1997

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Nurses1

  1,575

  1,355

  1,591

  1,357

  Mental care nurses2

  663

  630

  657

  621

  1Staff employed in the nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff group.

  2Staff employed in the community psychiatry, other psychiatry, community learning disabilities and other learning disabilities services.

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

  Social Inclusion Programme
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a detailed breakdown of Welsh budget provision for(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02 under the Social Inclusion Programme. [78771]

  Mr. Michael
  I announced allocations for a dedicated Social Inclusion Programme in December 1998. The amounts are set out:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  8.0

  2000–01

  10.0

  2001–02

  30.0

  There are many other budgets across the range of Welsh Office programmes that also contribute to the objective of fostering social Inclusion.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
  509

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total amount of charges on matrimonial properties held by the Legal Aid Board. [78519]

  Mr. Hoon
  The precise impact of the statutory charge can be identified only when all moneys due by way of costs and contributions have been collected into the Fund. The total principal quantified as subject to the statutory charge on property was £196.2 million at the end of March 1998. This amount relates mainly, but not exclusively, to properties which are subject to the charge as a result of matrimonial proceedings. The amount therefore does include statutory charges on property arising out of non-matrimonial proceedings. It is not possible to provide a breakdown between outstanding matrimonial and non-matrimonial charges.

  There was £32.8 million accrued interest for outstanding statutory charges on property as at 31 March 1998.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the net cost of matrimonial legal aid for each of the past five years. [78518]

  Mr. Hoon
  The net cost of matrimonial legal aid, for each of the past five years was as follows:

  Year

  £

  1993–94

  266,725,000

  1994–95

  296,624,000

  1995–96

  324,862,000

  1996–97

  345,668,000

  1997–98

  343,287,000

  Conditional Fee Insurance
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what discussions he has had with insurers about the development of the insurance market for conditional fee insurance; and how he proposes to regulate the market. [78520]

  Mr. Hoon
  My officials and I are in regular contact with the insurance industry on the development of all aspects of legal insurance. Responsibility for the regulation of the insurance market rests with Her Majesty's Treasury. The provision of legal expenses insurance is subject to statutory and self regulation. Insurance companies trading in the United Kingdom have to be authorised in accordance with the Insurance Companies Act 1982. In addition, most companies agree voluntarily to abide by the industry statements and codes of practice of the Association of British Insurers.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the 510
  ethnic origin, at 1 March, of (a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78502]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information relating to ethnicity in the Lord Chancellor's Department is not usually given where numbers are small enough to enable identification of individuals. This practice complies with an agreement between the Trade Unions and the Department, and assurances given to staff when they are asked to provide the information. However, as the special adviser to the Lord Chancellor and all staff in my private office (irrespective of ethnic origin) have consented to provision of this information, and the Trade Unions have consented to publication, the information requested at(a) and (b) is set out in the table.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not have a "Policy Unit" as referred to at (c).

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office will provide the information requested at (d) for all departments.

  Ethnic Origin

  Number

  Percentage

  Minister of State's Private Office

  White

  3

  50.00

  Black—of Caribbean origin

  1

  16.67

  Asian—of Indian origin

  1

  16.67

  Asian—of Bangladeshi origin

  1

  16.67

  Response rate

  100.00

  (b) Government special advisers

  White

  1

  100.00

  Response rate

  100.00

  Immigration Adjudicators
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many appeals were made to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal against decisions of an immigration adjudicator in cases in which he has made a decision to deport in the last year for which figures are available. [78616]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department how many adjudications are required to deal with appeals against entry clearance refusals; and what estimate he has made of the number needed in each of the next five years. [78690]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information provided is based on the assumption that it is the number of adjudicators, and not adjudications, that is required. There are 50 full-time and 200 part-time adjudicators and approximately 17 per cent. of their time, equivalent to 2,500 sitting days per year, is spent on appeals against decisions by entry clearance officers. Current plans for the next three years assume that 1,750 days will be necessary per year, rising to 2,250 when the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Bill for appeals against refusals of visas for family visits, if approved by Parliament are implemented. No forecasts have been made beyond the next three years.
  511
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average waiting time for an adjudicator to determine an appeal against refusal to(a) vary and (b) extend leave to remain. [78624]

  Mr. Hoon
  Data of this nature in the categories requested is not retained by the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA). The Immigration Appellate Authority are able to list appeals before adjudicators within approximately 6–8 weeks. Decisions are then typed and sent out. On average this takes 5 weeks.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many of the asylum appeals remitted by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to the special adjudicator the appeal was allowed by the special adjudicator in each of the last five years. [78675]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not collected and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the average time for a special adjudicator to determine an asylum case remitted to him from the immigration tribunal from the time the case is remitted in the last year for which figures are available. [78678]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Immigration Appellate Authority are currently able (as at 24 March 1999) to list appeals heard by the Tribunal (both asylum and non asylum) but remitted back to an adjudicator, for hearing within approximately 6–8 weeks. Decisions are then typed and sent out. On average this takes 5 weeks.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average waiting time for(a) a decision on leave to appeal and (b) the determination of the appeal itself in the case of appeals against refusals to vary or extend leave to remain from an adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [78644]

  Mr. Hoon
  Specific data in the form requested are not retained by the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of(a) the legally qualified members and (b) the lay members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal are from an ethnic minority. [78647]

  Mr. Hoon
  To enable the Lord Chancellor to monitor the effectiveness of policies designed to attract more members of the ethnic community to apply for judicial appointment, candidates are requested to indicate their ethnic origin on their application. This is a recent introduction to the appointment process and candidates are not compelled to answer. Therefore, full and detailed records are not available. However, from records that are available I can indicate that the ethnic origin of the members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is as follows:Of the 25 part-time legal members 11 are White, one is Asian, one is Other and the remaining 12 are unknown;
  Of the 5 full-time members 4 are White and one is Asian; and
  Of the 26 lay members no breakdown of ethnic origin is available.
  512

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage free admissions to local museums and galleries. [77377]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The revenue funding of local museums is outside the remit of my Department and is a matter for the governing bodies of those museums. However, museums which are registered with the Museums and Galleries Commission can apply to the £7 million HLF Access Fund. Also, for the first time, my Department is spreading its financial support to museums beyond those which it directly funds by means of a £15 million challenge fund for Designated Museums, the majority of which are outside London. By these means we are seeking to raise standards for, and access to, pre-eminent non-national collections.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on museum attendance of introducing free entry for children. [77397]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is too early to give a precise indication of the impact of introducing free entry for children which I launched for museums funded by my Department at the Natural History Museum this morning.

  However, the experience of the Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester, which introduced free access for children at the end of January (at the same time as a major temporary exhibition about dinosaurs), is that child admissions have risen by over 80 per cent.

  Millennium Fund (Social Exclusion)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the contribution which the millennium fund will make to tackling social exclusion. [77378]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the Millennium celebrations are truly inclusive, involving people from every part of the country and all sections of society. As well as promoting economic regeneration, many Millennium Commission projects are specifically designed to strengthen and empower individuals and communities, and to foster access to recreational and learning opportunities in areas where this has previously been limited.

  Digital Television
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the role of public service broadcasting in delivering digital services. [77379]

  Janet Anderson
  Digital broadcasting can offer better quality reception and a greater range of services, including interactive services. The Government are determined that these benefits should be available to as many people as possible. Public service broadcasting will have a continuing role to play in ensuring that there are a broad range of high quality services available to listeners and viewers at reasonable cost.
  513

  International Olympic Committee
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the effect of the internal changes within the International Olympic Committee on a future British bid to host the Olympic games. [77380]

  Mr. Banks
  I welcome the recent reforms of the International Olympic Committee so far as they go, and I am sure they will help to restore some confidence in the Olympic Movement. Certainly, this Government will not be supporting a British bid for the Games until we are entirely satisfied that the host city selection process is accountable, open and transparent for all future Olympic bids.

  Broadcasting (Wales)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future of broadcasting in Wales following the establishment of the National Assembly. [77381]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government understand that the Welsh Assembly has a legitimate interest in broadcasting in Wales. Broadcasters help to define our national cultures in all parts of the United Kingdom and the Welsh Assembly will have much to contribute to the debate on broadcasting matters. Those based in and serving Wales will continue to benefit from the Government's commitment to regulation with the lightest possible touch. Our aim is to ensure that all viewers are offered a choice of high quality programmes which cater for all interests and all sections of the community.

  Schools (Music)
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage increased musical activity in schools. [77382]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I announced last summer the creation of a new independent youth music trust with £30 million ACE Lottery funding over 3 years to work to enable greater access to music making for young people. Under its new name, the National Foundation for Youth Music will go live on 12 April. This initiative, together with the Standards Fund measures announced in January this year will provide a total investment of £180 million for the improvement of music making opportunities for young people, in schools and outside.

  Works of Art (Exports)
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the rules governing the export of works of art. [77383]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I have no plans for a review of the export system generally.

  Sport (Disabled People)
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what ways he is supporting sport for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [77384]
  514
  Mr. Banks
  We are working closely with the Sports Councils to change the culture and structure of sport to ensure that all sports providers offer a wide range of opportunities to people with disabilities.

  People with disabilities must be able to choose when and how they wish to participate, and opportunities should be provided for people with disabilities to be consulted, represented and employed at all levels of sport. Following a National Disability Sport conference in 1997 it was agreed to move towards the establishment of a single agency in England. The English Federation for Disability Sport will act as a first stop shop providing information and advice at regional and national level.

  Libraries
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to enhance Britain's library service. [77385]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We are making available £70 million through the New Opportunities Fund to create content for the Public Libraries IT network and train library staff in ICT skills, and we have just announced a further £200 million, again through the New Opportunities Fund, to support the development of the network infrastructure. Libraries also potentially stand to benefit from a range of other educational programmes including the £470 million set aside for the development of learning centres under the Capital Modernisation Fund.

  Tourism (Manchester)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to encourage tourism in the Greater Manchester area to coincide with the Commonwealth games in 2002. [77386]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  As the Government's new tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", states, we are committed to bringing major international sporting events to this country. Euro 96 demonstrated the boost which can be given to tourism by such events. The 2002 Commonwealth Games will put Manchester and the North West on the map and will provide a great shop window for the facilities and attractions that the area has to offer the domestic and overseas visitor. Manchester City Council and other nearby local authorities are already working with the North West Tourist Board and the English Sports Council to maximise the tourism potential of these Games.

  Scarborough and Whitby
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the tourism strategy will help Scarborough and Whitby to develop affordable family holidays. [77387]

  Janet Anderson
  As our new tourism strategy, "Tomorrow's Tourism", says, the future of our seaside resorts depends on all those involved in both private and public sectors working together to develop the sort of products now needed, with the quality and value for money which visitors expect. The strategy suggests an eight stage regeneration plan for resorts and also identifies further action which should help increase access to tourism for those with low incomes, for families, elderly people and people with disabilities.
  515

  NESTA
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what means he will monitor the scientific value of investment through the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. [77389]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts has just finished consulting on how it intends to operate.

  Means of monitoring is one of the issues that has still to be decided. As an independent body I expect NESTA to be responsible for monitoring the value of all of its investments covering science, technology and the arts. I will also expect them to report back to me with their findings.

  Departmental Visual Identity
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the objectives in developing his Department's visual identity. [77390]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Department's new visual identity was designed to:improve the Department's communications systems;
  achieve better value for money in design and print purchasing; and;
  produce a new logo and new design guidelines for use by suppliers and staff within the Department.

  World Heritage Sites
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy on protecting world heritage sites from damage. [77391]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  World Heritage Sites are protected by a range of statutory controls. Prior consent is required for works to listed buildings and scheduled monuments, and for natural sites environmental agencies must be consulted on development proposals. Government planning guidance identifies World Heritage Sites and their settings as a key material consideration in the planning process. Management Plans also ensure a rigorous and co-ordinated approach to the protection of such sites.

  Museums (Merseyside)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of a single pass for entry to all the national museums on Merseyside on attendance levels. [77392]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In the first year of the introduction of the Eight Pass (July 1997-June 1998), the National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside's annual season ticket, we estimate that there was a drop of about 27 per cent. of visits compared to the previous twelve months. However in the eleven months to the end of February 1999 there is evidence that this trend is being reversed. To enable NMGM to provide better access to its collections, we are providing it with additional funding so that the price of the Eight Pass can be pegged at its current 516
  level, and from 27 March admission to NMGM for school age children became free. NMGM also intends that there will be free admission for pensioners in April 2000.

  Quest
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out the first-year programme for the agency Quest. [77394]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Quest will undertake up to six major studies a year. Although the first year's programme will be finalised only once the director and advisory board are appointed, I expect it to include a review of targets and indicators used within Funding Agreements, and a review of administrative structures within national bodies in DCMS areas including the Sports Governing Bodies.

  National Lottery (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage the full use of national lottery money allocated this year for sporting and cultural activities in Yorkshire and Humberside. [77395]

  Mr. Banks
  Although National Lottery money is not allocated specifically on a regional basis, we want all regions of the country, including Yorkshire and Humberside, to receive their fair share of funds. Measures in the National Lottery Act 1998 and recent changes in Policy Directions to the distributors will help to achieve this. The investigation which the English Sports Council, the Arts Council of England, the Heritage Lottery Fund, the National Lottery Charities Board, the Millennium Commission and the New Opportunities Fund are undertaking into the reasons for the low take-up of funds in coalfield areas will also help to ensure that people in Yorkshire and Humberside benefit as much as possible from the National Lottery.

  Millennium Dome (Contracts)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many zones within the Dome are sponsored with irrevocable contracts. [77401]

  Janet Anderson
  I would like to point out that not all sponsorship is related to the provision of zones and not all zone costs are met by sponsorship. However, irrevocable sponsorship contracts for the Communicate, Mobility, and National Identity zones have been signed. Other zone sponsors announced by the New Millennium Experience Company are fully committed at Board level and contractual negotiations are progressing well. To date the NMEC has announced f142 million of sponsorship towards the project target of £150 million.

  Millennium Dome (Visitors)
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are being taken to encourage young people and children from the north of England to visit the millennium dome. [77403]

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to make the dome accessible to children from the north-west from low-income families. [77406]
  517
  Janet Anderson
  The Millennium Experience is the focus for the nation's millennium celebrations. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is therefore keen to ensure that as many people as possible who wish to visit the Dome can do so and that as many people as possible have the opportunity to take part in the associated National Programme of events and activities. The company's ticket pricing structure was announced on 18 March and includes up to one million free Dome admission tickets for schoolchildren under the Education Tours Scheme. There will also be discounted education rates for students/college visits (at £14.50 each) and school visits (£8 each). Details of the full range of prices were placed in the Libraries of the House on 18 March.

  The NMEC is not offering special discounts for low income families although the children of all families have the chance to benefit from free admission under the Education Tours Scheme. The overall ticket pricing structure has been informed by the experience and systems of other major visitor attractions both in the public and the private sectors. In addition to visiting the Dome, thousands of schoolchildren are taking part in the National Programme's Schoolnet 2000 project (sponsored by Tesco); the Voices of Promise project (sponsored by Marks and Spencer); and the Our Town Story project (sponsored by McDonalds).

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimates his Department has made of the numbers of people likely to visit the millennium dome in each of the next five years. 77402]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  During the period of the Millennium Experience—i.e. during the year 2000—the New Millennium Experience are expecting 12 million visitors. From 2001 onwards, numbers will depend upon the outcome of the competition launched by the Government on 4 March to find a long-term, sustainable and viable use for the Millennium Dome.

  Millennium Dome (Financial Benefits)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the financial benefits of the millennium dome to each UK region. [77404]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  No estimate has been made of the financial benefits accruing from the Millennium Dome to each UK region. However, the British Tourist Authority (BTA) has estimated the number of overseas visits to the UK in the year 2000 as 27.5 million and that as a direct result of the Millennium Experience an additional £300–£500 million of overseas tourist revenue will be brought into the UK economy. The "halo" effect could double this figure. The BTA have further estimated that 10,000 to 15,000 new tourist related jobs will be created. This is excellent news for the whole of the UK.

  Millennium Dome (Regeneration)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact of the millennium dome on the regeneration of south-east London. [77405]
  518
  Janet Anderson
  The building of the Millennium Dome, and its proposed long-term retention, will have major regenerative benefits for the whole of London including the south-east, the full effects of which will become increasingly apparent over time.

  Before the decision was taken to site the Millennium Dome at Greenwich, the Greenwich Peninsula was one of the largest derelict sites in the country, suffering from heavy contamination. The extensive site preparation works and infrastructure improvements required for the Millennium Experience have acted as the catalyst for a major mixed-use development project on the Peninsula, under the direction of English Partnerships. This project, including the new Millennium Village that is being built in the southern part of the site as a model for sustainable regeneration of a brownfield site, will establish the Peninsula as a vibrant new urban quarter for London, with ensuing economic, social and environmental benefits for the south-east and beyond.

  On 4 March the Government launched a competition to find a long-term, sustainable and viable use for the Millennium Dome. We are sure this will bring forward a wide range of imaginative proposals and an outcome that will be of major benefit to the whole of London.

  Millennium Dome (Religion)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what decision has been made about a Christian component to the New Year's eve and New Year's day celebratory events at the millennium dome. [77407]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is currently developing plans for the opening celebrations of the Dome on 31 December this year in discussion with the Government and others including the Lambeth Group. The nature and scope of the celebrations will be announced in due course. 1 January 2000 will be the first day of operation of the Millennium Experience within the Dome. Announcements about the content of the Experience, particularly the individual exhibit zones, are being made by the company as and when it considers such announcements appropriate in the context of its marketing strategy. The company has already confirmed that displays included in the Spirit Zone will reflect the significance of the year 2000 as a major Christian anniversary and include aspects of the birth and life of Christ.

  Tourism
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the works council directive's impact on the tourism industry. [77388]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government will be consulting widely on implementing regulations for the European Works Council Directive, which have to be in place by 15 December 1999. Tourism employers and trade organisations will therefore have the opportunity to make their views known.

  Television Licence Fees
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made
  519
  of the relative value for money of the television licence fee for those viewers who cannot receive the regional broadcasts appropriate to their home. [77396]

  Janet Anderson
  A television licence is required to install or use television receiving apparatus to receive any television programme service, as defined by the Broadcasting Act 1990. The licence fee is therefore a payment for permission to receive television broadcasts and not for a service provided. It is payable in full irrespective of the services that can be received or the use made of those services. Linkage of the level of the fee to the services available to, or used by, individual licence holders would undermine the principle of a universal licence fee to fund the BBC's services and would be wholly impractical to administer.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in the financial year 1999–2000 of replacing the reduced rate of income tax with a 10 per cent. income tax rate that extends from the personal allowance to(a) £9,433 per year and (b) £7,114 per year. [74397]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated full-year costs at 1999–2000 income levels of introducing a 10 per cent. lower rate extending for(a) £5,098 (£9,433 less the 1999–2000 personal allowance of £4,335) and (b) £2,779 (£7,114 less the personal allowance) would be £12 billion and £6 billion, respectively.

  Maintenance Payments (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people will be affected by the loss of the tax relief for maintenance payments; and what the average amount of the tax relief lost will be. [76843]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]The latest available Survey of Personal Incomes (1996–97) shows around 300,000 taxpayers in receipt of income tax relief for maintenance payments. Of these, an estimated 20,000 will be eligible after 5 April 2000 for the maintenance relief for the 65s and over.

  We estimate that the average amount of maintenance relief for 1999–2000 will be around £220.

  As a result of the withdrawal of maintenance relief, approximately 10,000 people who receive maintenance under arrangements set up before 15 March 1988 will no longer be taxable on the payments they receive.

  London Underground
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to review the CSR if the best value objectives for the public-private partnership for the London Underground cannot be met. [77169]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The Government expect that the PPP will represent best value. As the progress report published by London Transport on 520
  15 March made clear, good progress is being made with implementing the public-private partnership (PPP) for London Underground.

  Ways and Means Borrowing
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the size of the Government's overdraft on the Ways and Means account at the Bank of England. [77471]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]The size of the outstanding balance of Ways and Means borrowing fluctuates each day, reflecting the seasonal and daily changes in the Government's cash requirements. At the end of February 1999, it stood at £2.8 billion.

  Census and Certificate Income
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue has been derived by the Exchequer, since 1990, from the sale of(a) micro-film and other copies of United Kingdom 1841/1851 to 1991 decennial population census enumerators' books and (b) certified copies of 19th and 20th century United Kingdom birth, marriage and death certificates. [78275]

  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. John M. Taylor, dated 29 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on revenue derived from the sale of census books and birth, marriage and death certificates.
  The Census Returns from 1901 and 1911 are closed to the public by virtue of Instrument 12 dated 1966 of the Public Records Act 1958. Censuses from 1921 onwards were taken under the terms of the 1920 Census Act as amended by the Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 which gives protection to personal census information given by the public. Accordingly, there have been no sales of microfilm, or other copies, of the census enumerators' books from the Censuses for 1901–1991. Records from the 1841–1891 Censuses are open to the public and are in the custody of the Public Record Office. Disaggregated sales information from the Public Record Office Copy Service, in the form requested, is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  The Public Expenditure and Receipts Act 1968 requires that the costs of the service provided must be recovered by the fees levied. Each year the Economic Secretary to the Treasury conducts a review of the fees prescribed by the Registration Acts, including certificate fees, in order to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the need to exercise his powers under the 1968 Act to make an order amending those fees.
  Revenue relating to certificate income is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1991/92

  2.9

  1992/93

  3.2

  1993/94

  3.6

  1994/95

  4.0

  1995/96

  3.9

  1996/97

  4.4

  1997/98

  4.8

  Information relating to earlier years could only be obtained at.
  521

  Fuel Duty Escalator
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 426, if he will place a copy of his Department's environmental appraisal on the impact of the fuel duty escalator in the Library. [78401]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]The environmental appraisal of measures in the 1999 Budget is contained in table 5.1 of the 1999 Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and Fiscal Strategy and Budget Report, which includes an environmental appraisal of the road fuel duty escalator.

  Industrial Disputes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many working 'days were lost in the United Kingdom in 1998 as a result of industrial disputes. [78534]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 29 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on industrial disputes.
  The estimated number of working days lost to labour disputes in the United Kingdom in 1998 is 282,400.

  Jobs (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the estimated number of new jobs created in the Greater London area in each of the last three years. [78892]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 29 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on job creation.
  Information is only available on the net change in the number of jobs and not on the number of new jobs created. The information on net changes in jobs is derived from the Short-term Turnover and Employment Statistics. The following table shows the annual levels and net changes in Civilian Workforce Jobs between December 1996 and December 1998 (the latest available figures).

  Civilian Workforce Jobs1 in Greater London, at December

  Thousand

  Level

  Net change from previous year

  1996

  3,872

  +78

  1997

  4,005

  +133

  1998

  4,088

  +83

  Note:

  1. Civilian Workforce Jobs comprise Employee jobs, Self-employment jobs and Government-supported trainees, (only the Employee Jobs component is seasonally adjusted).
  522

  New Deal (Over-50s)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to implement the budgetary provision for the £60 per week supplement payable as part of the extension of the New Deal to those aged over 50 years. [78927]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Employment Credit for people aged over 50, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget on 9 March 1999,Official Report, columns 173–90, will be available in pathfinder areas from October 1999, and nationally in 2000, alongside the New Deal for the over 50s. Further details will be announced in due course.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 26 January 1999,Official Report, column 235 and his oral statement on the Budget, of 9 March 1999, Official Report, column 185, if he will make a statement on the difference between the two estimates of the number of pensioner households receiving winter fuel payments. [78525]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]In his Budget Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer was describing pensioner households within the United Kingdom whereas the DSS figure relates to Great Britain only.

  Bogus Marriages
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what arrangements exist for the Registrar General to pass on information about suspected bogus marriages to(a) his Department, (b) the police, (c) the Immigration Service and (d) other relevant authorities; [78598]

  (2) what guidance is currently given to registrars as to the circumstances which give rise to suspicion that a marriage will be a sham marriage for the purpose of evading immigration control; and what steps they should take to investigate such circumstances; [78602]

  (3) what requirements are currently made of registrars to report marriages which they suspect are being entered into for immigration purposes to the Registrar General. [78599]

  Ms Hewitt
  Long standing informal arrangements exist for the Registrar General to pass information to the Immigration service. No arrangements exist for passing of information to the Home Office, the Treasury, the police or any other relevant authorities.

  Where a superintendent registrar suspects that the proposed marriage of a person from abroad has been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls, he is advised to report the rule facts of the case to the Registrar General.

  No specific guidance is issued to registrars defining what might be a sham marriage. They are advised to report the full facts of the case, including their reasons for believing the marriage to be one of convenience, to the Registrar General. The facts and the registrar's supporting

  523
  comments are then taken into account by the Registrar General in deciding whether or not to pass on details of individual cases to the Immigration Service.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will respond to the question from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton of 9 March for answer on 11 March (ref. 76246). [79100]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Shortly.

  Consumer Goods
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average retail prices of(a) private motor vehicles, (b) white goods and (c) personal computers in each European Union country in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [78132]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  UK

  B

  DK

  D

  EL

  E

  F

  IRL

  I

  L

  NL

  P

  A

  S

  FIN

  EU

  Personal Transport equipment 1992–96

  1992

  104

  88

  177

  93

  149

  118

  99

  130

  95

  84

  112

  173

  101

  109

  143

  100

  1993

  103

  95

  178

  95

  128

  104

  105

  130

  89

  86

  119

  130

  114

  98

  128

  100

  1994

  103

  98

  177

  93

  121

  102

  103

  129

  90

  96

  116

  129

  113

  99

  137

  100

  1995

  95

  100

  182

  95

  117

  105

  104

  128

  87

  99

  119

  134

  117

  99

  150

  100

  1996

  97

  96

  177

  94

  116

  107

  101

  129

  95

  93

  111

  136

  111

  104

  141

  100

  Household appliances and repairs 1992–96

  1992

  93

  109

  109

  102

  111

  104

  102

  98

  98

  107

  96

  93

  118

  115

  112

  100

  1993

  88

  115

  110

  112

  104

  95

  106

  92

  88

  112

  100

  90

  128

  101

  102

  100

  1994

  93

  109

  108

  114

  91

  88

  103

  100

  87

  103

  98

  76

  124

  109

  111

  100

  1995

  84

  116

  115

  126

  96

  91

  108

  93

  79

  111

  100

  83

  134

  108

  125

  100

  1996

  83

  110

  111

  122

  97

  91

  107

  93

  87

  105

  94

  81

  127

  119

  117

  100

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's estimate of the total value of goods sold in the United Kingdom in the categories of(a) private motor vehicles, (b) white goods and(c) personal computers in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [78008]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  Estimates of the value of goods sold to consumers in the United Kingdom are published by the Office for National Statistics in "Consumer Trends" and electronically on the ONS databank, which can be accessed by the House of Commons Library. Purchases of private motor vehicles are shown as series CCQI and white goods as series CDDS in table 2.1 of "Consumer Trends". Purchases of computers are not separately identified but are included within series CDGH, audio-visual goods, also in table 2.1.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Distribution
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of households receive their main
  524
  No information on retail prices as such is available. The tables show the relative prices of these goods across EU countries expressed as an index. The figures shown relate prices in the EU member states to the average for the EU (shown as 100). For the years 1992 and 1993, the EU average is based on EU 12, though results for Sweden, Austria and Finland are included in the table, while the average for following years is based on EU 15.

  There is no suitable aggregate for personal computers covering the years requested. 'Personal Transport Equipment' includes cars and motor and pedal bicycles, with cars making up by far the largest part of expenditure on these items. 'Household Appliances and Repairs' includes large domestic appliances, such as cookers and refrigerators, but excludes small electrical goods, such as toasters.

  The figures are intended to provide a snapshot rather than a time series. Discontinuities between years arise as a result of changes in the data used (the goods for which prices are collected in one year not being strictly comparable with those used in the following year) and improvements to methodology.

  income from (a) work and (b) benefits for each decile of the income distribution below average income, and for each of the last 10 years. [78024]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 22 March 1999]: The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Percentage of households by main source of income and income decile for households below average income (before housing costs)

  Equivalised income deciles

  Year

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  All households below average income

  Benefits

  1994–95

  69

  79

  74

  56

  32

  16

  55

  1995–96

  70

  78

  72

  56

  32

  18

  53

  1996–97

  70

  77

  71

  55

  31

  17

  52

  Employment

  1994–95

  19

  17

  22

  37

  54

  70

  36

  1995–96

  19

  18

  24

  36

  53

  67

  38

  1996–97

  19

  19

  24

  37

  53

  68

  38

  Other

  1994–95

  10

  4

  4

  7

  14

  15

  9

  1995–96

  9

  4

  4

  8

  15

  15

  9

  1996–97

  10

  4

  5

  9

  16

  15

  10

  525

  Percentage of households by main source of income and income decile for households below average income (before housing costs)

  Equivalised income deciles

  Year

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  All households below average income

  Benefits

  1988–89

  76

  82

  68

  29

  11

  5

  47

  1990–91

  75

  80

  68

  30

  15

  7

  47

  1991–92

  72

  81

  72

  41

  18

  9

  49

  1992–93

  71

  80

  73

  51

  22

  11

  51

  1993–94

  72

  80

  71

  52

  27

  15

  52

  1994–95

  73

  78

  71

  49

  27

  14

  51

  1995–96

  72

  77

  72

  48

  28

  14

  51

  Employment

  1988–89

  14

  15

  27

  58

  75

  80

  43

  1990–91

  16

  17

  28

  54

  69

  76

  43

  1991–92

  16

  16

  25

  48

  66

  72

  41

  1992–93

  16

  16

  24

  41

  62

  72

  39

  1993–94

  16

  15

  24

  40

  57

  70

  38

  1994–95

  16

  17

  24

  40

  58

  71

  38

  1995–96

  17

  18

  24

  41

  57

  71

  39

  Other

  1988–89

  9

  3

  5

  13

  14

  15

  10

  1990–91

  9

  3

  4

  15

  17

  17

  10

  1991–92

  11

  3

  3

  12

  16

  19

  10

  1992–93

  12

  4

  4

  9

  16

  17

  10

  1993–94

  10

  5

  5

  8

  15

  15

  10

  1994–95

  10

  5

  5

  11

  15

  16

  10

  1995–96

  10

  5

  4

  11

  15

  16

  10

  Notes:

  1. All figures are estimates and are taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data set which is based on either the Family Resources Survey (FRS-table 1) or the Family Expenditure Survey (FES-table 2). Unlike the FES, the FRS does not cover Northern Ireland.

  2. FRS based HBAI data are not available prior to the financial year 1994–95. For this reason, FES based data (based on combined financial years, where 1995–96 denotes the combined financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97) back to 1988–89 have been provided as a supplementary table.

  3. In previous years, HBAI data were mainly derived from the FES. Following a DSS methodological review in 1995, it was recommended that information from the FRS should be introduced into the HBAI series and that it should replace the FES as the main source of information on low-income households.

  4. For the purposes of this analysis, 'main source of income' is defined as being the largest of the three sources of income outlined in the table above.

  5. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income (that is to say income that is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household).

  6. The seventh decile (where decile one is the bottom decile) only partially falls below the average income figure; for this reason, figures relating to it have been excluded from the analysis.

  7. It should be noted that the results are subject to year on year sampling variation and that more emphasis should be placed on looking at longer-term trends as opposed to annual variations.

  Sources:

  Family Resources Survey 1994/95–1996/97

  Family Expenditure Survey 1988/89–1995/96.

  Civil Servants (Appraisal)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the appraisal performance markings awarded to civil servants in 1998 for(a) each agency in his Department and (b) the Department broken down by (i) grade, (ii) gender, (iii) ethnicity, (iv) parttime/full-time working and (v) disability; and for (1) each agency and (2) the Department whether the Cabinet
  526
  Office's four fifths rule for detecting potential adverse impact was applied to the appraisal markings of civil servants in the 1998 report round. [78146]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available has been placed in the Library.

  The Cabinet Office's "four fifths" rule is not intended to be an absolute measure and in this Department it is used to complement other tests of statistical significance.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that staff who operate(a) the Single Work Focused Gateway and (b) the Housing Benefit Service are trained to identify carers and advise them of the services available; [78546]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that staff who operate the Single Work Focused Gateway are trained to identify carers and advise them of the services available. [78550]

  Angela Eagle
  All Single Gateway staff, including those who work for local authorities, will undergo a comprehensive training programme which will ensure that they have the necessary balance of skills in order to deal with a wide range of clients, including carers. The Carers' National Association and other groups are involved in the training of Single Gateway staff.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to treat as income money granted from a college access fund where a jobseeker's allowance claimant is studying under the part-time study concession. [78728]

  Angela Eagle
  Arrangements for the treatment of payments from college Access Funds have been in place since the Funds were introduced in the 1990–91 academic year.

  Up to £20 per week of any regular payments from Access Funds may be disregarded in the calculation of Jobseeker's Allowance paid to part-time students. Any remainder is taken into account as income. One-off lump sum payments are treated as capital. Entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance is not affected unless a person's capital or savings exceeds £3,000.

  There are no plans to change these arrangements. Pensions

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the highest earnings level at which entitlement to the proposed state second pension will equal entitlement to SERPS, during the first phase of operation of the state second pension; and if he will set out the basis of his calculation. [78875]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently consulting on our proposals for the State Second Pension. Final decisions, including those on earnings thresholds at which different pension accrual rates apply, will take account of responses received.
  527

  Miss H. McNulty
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when Miss H. McNulty (DSS ref: PSC(AE)/107) can reapply for a Social Fund payment for a mobility scooter (Benefits Agency ref: PQ681/2/3/4 and 696/7 98/99). [78784]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Winnick, dated 26 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when Miss H McNulty can re-apply for a Social Fund payment for a mobility scooter.
  Miss McNulty can re-apply for a payment at any time. The effect of the Secretary of State's Social Fund Direction 7 in its current form, however, means that if her circumstances remain unchanged from the earlier application, a Social Fund Officer cannot make an award for an item that has already been refused within 26 weeks of the date of the earlier application.
  Changes to Social Fund Directions from 5 April 1999 mean that there will be no time-limits placed on repeat applications for Budgeting Loans. However the restrictions will continue to apply to Community Care Grants and Crisis Loans.
  The first date Miss McNulty can apply for a Community Care Grant or Crisis Loan payment without being affected by Direction 7 is therefore 29 June 1999.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he defines the well-being of claimants, as referred to in paragraph 2.11 of Safeguarding Social Security. [79228]

  Mr. Timms
  The word is used in its ordinary sense of health, success, contentment or welfare. In the context of welfare reform, we consider that this is best achieved by promoting work for those who can, whilst providing security for those who cannot.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which benefit rules are being examined to establish whether their design contributes to(a) fraud and (b) error. [79233]

  Mr. Timms
  We are currently examining the rules listed in chapter five of the Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: securing the future" (Cm 4012). In each case, we are assessing the extent to which their design contributes to both fraud and error.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the budget is for the next five years for providing staff with the information technology required to beat fraud. [79229]

  Mr. Timms
  We will be investing in new technology to modernise the administration of Social Security and to make payments more secure against fraud and error. It is not possible to distinguish the costs of security from those of administration.
  528
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposals contained in Safeguarding Social Security upon benefit administration costs. [79219]

  Mr. Timms
  Delivering a secure system is an integral part of good benefit administration. It is therefore not always possible to specify costs solely directed at safeguarding Social Security. Modernising our computer systems, for example, will deliver a better, as well as a more secure, service to the public.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what target the National Audit Office proposed for reducing fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance. [79216]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monetary incentive will remain for local authorities to detect fraud and error in benefits once the proposals in the Green Paper "Safeguarding Social Security" have been put in place; and if he will make a statement. [79230]

  Mr. Timms
  We have reformed the local authority anti-fraud incentive scheme to ensure that authorities submit valid claims for additional subsidy payments arising from the detection of genuine cases of benefit fraud. It is equally important to prevent fraud from entering the system. An additional £100 million will be made available to local authorities over the next three years to encourage them to adopt the Verification Framework. Through a series of additional checks, carried out throughout the life of a benefit claim, the Verification Framework will help to prevent benefit fraud and error before it has a chance to occur.

  For the longer term we are working with local authorities on the measurement of levels of fraud, the effectiveness of anti-fraud strategies and the whole local authority funding regime.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to adopt a civil law definition of fraud for the purposes of measuring the level of fraud. [79232]

  Mr. Timms
  We have no such plans.

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if single mothers using the Single Gateway will be expected to provide the necessary information for pursuing child maintenance payments on their first interview. [79215]

  Angela Eagle
  The Single Gateway will build on the existing close working relationship between the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency. Since last year, lone parents have been helped to complete a child support application when they are visited by Benefits Agency staff at the start of their Income Support claim. Likewise, under the new arrangements, we will help parents with care to pursue child support at the earliest possible stage.

  Securing regular child maintenance is one of the keys to helping lone parents move from benefit back into the labour market by providing them with a portable income which will supplement their earnings.
  529

  Computer Systems
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many different computer systems are operated by his Department's agencies for the purposes of recording data on claimants, payments and contributions. [79224]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Mainframe computer systems used for recording data on claimants, payments and contributions

  Agency

  Computer system

  Benefits Agency

  Audit Trail Analysis System

  Child Benefit Computer System

  Customer Accounting and Payment Strategy

  Departmental Central Index

  Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance

  Earnings Top Up

  Electronic Stop Notice System

  Family Credit/Disability Working Allowance

  Invalid Care Allowance/Attendance Allowance

  Incapacity Benefit

  Income Support Computer System

  Jobseeker's Allowance Payments System

  National Unemployment Benefit System

  Payment Accounting Strategy

  Pensions Strategy Computer System

  Social Fund Computer System

  Child Support Agency

  Child Support Computer System

  Contributions Agency

  National Insurance Records System (2)

  War Pensions Agency

  War Pensions Computer System

  Notes:

  1. The Social Security Agency Northern Ireland makes use of the UK systems for the purpose of recording data on claimants, payments and contributions.

  2. Where two services are shown in the Computer System Column, e.g. Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance, the two sets of data are held on one system.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the benefits covered by the Personal Details Computer System. [79217]

  Mr. Timms
  The Personal Details Computer System (PDCS) will provide the Department with a consistent set of customer personal details for use by all benefit systems. This will improve the accounting and security of benefit expenditure.

  At present, all personal details previously held by the Child Benefit and Income Support computer systems and on Jobseeker's Allowance, plus all details from new claims to these benefits, are being maintained on PDCS.

  New personal details relating to claims for Retirement Pension, short-term and incapacity benefits, Widows Benefit, Maternity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance are also being maintained on PDCS, and we have started the transfer of existing records for these benefits.

  At present there are over 13.7 million records on this system.

  Work-focused Interviews
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what intervals claimants will be required to attend repeat work-focused interviews. [79218]
  530
  Angela Eagle
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer I gave him on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 556.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long it will take under the proposals in paragraph 3.18 of Safeguarding Social Security to check the integrity of all National Insurance numbers. [79222]

  Mr. Timms
  There are two proposals in paragraph 3.18. The first will involve the checking of 1.8 million individual payroll items against the Departmental Central Index by April 2000.

  The second is about more active management of dormant National Insurance accounts. This would of necessity be a continuing activity because the status of accounts change over time.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proprietorial checks have been carried out on existing staff involved in the issue of national insurance numbers; [79307]

  (2) what reforms have been set in hand to unify the responsibility of staff for the issue of national insurance numbers as described in paragraph 2.10 of Safeguarding Social Security; and if he will make a statement; [79221]

  (3) what checks are in place for the recruitment of new staff involved in the issuing of national insurance numbers. [79223]

  Mr. Timms
  We undertake a range of rigorous recruitment checks which follow Cabinet Office guidelines on all staff prior to employment. All existing Departmental staff are bound by strict rules on propriety which cover, for example, possible conflicts of interest.

  We have recently reviewed all of our recruitment and proprietorial checks and found them to be generally sound. However, we are currently undertaking a risk assessment of posts across the Department (including posts involving the allocation of National Insurance numbers) to determine those that are particularly sensitive and may require further checks. In addition, we are already implementing a number of improvements, including even tougher employment checks for new staff, new mandatory management checks to ensure the correct procedures are fully complied with. To provide a further level of assurance our internal audit will carry out their own checks.

  Measures have been put in place to strengthen the security and control of National Insurance numbers. To improve management control, the number of staff who can issue National Insurance numbers has been reduced by two thirds from 1,500 to 500. We have also introduced an approvals system whereby all new staff have to be approved by a designated manager.

  New Claims
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to clearance time targets to allow for checks on new claims. [79227]
  531
  Mr. Timms
  There has been no change to stated clearance time targets to allow for checks on new claims. However, on Income Support claim clearance times are now measured only from the time that a fully completed claim form and all necessary supporting evidence have been received.

  Minimum Funding Requirement
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how and when the review of the minimum funding requirement was announced. [79397]

  Mr. Timms
  Our intention to review the minimum funding requirement was announced in the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions", which was published on 15 December 1998.

  The announcement of the terms of reference of the review was by means of a press release on 3 March. On the same day details of the terms were sent to the National Association of Pension Funds, Confederation of British Industry, Trades Union Congress, the Association of British Insurers and the members of the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries.

  Identification
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions will be given to staff on the documents necessary to prove(a) a claimant's identity and (b) a claimant's partner's identity. [79231]

  Mr. Timms
  Departmental guidance for establishing a customer's identity is available in the form of a guide which is held in all DSS offices; it is called the Evidence of Identity guide. It lists examples of documents that may be used by a customer in order to help establish their identity in order to trace or allocate a National Insurance number.

  The same guide is used to guide staff on establishing the identify of a customer's partner or any other adult included in the claim.

  Current procedures require staff to look at documentary evidence provided and ask questions specifically directed at the customer to enable the DSS to get a complete picture of the customer's history.

  Leaflet GL25 (previously BAL4), available to the customer in all DSS offices, assists customers by telling them the sort of documents that would be helpful to bring in to a DSS office when trying to establish identity.

  Married Couples Allowances
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the net impact on a two parent single earner family with two children receiving one and half times average household income, taking into account the increase in child benefit, if the married couples allowance was abolished. [74747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  A two parent single earner family with two children receiving one and a half times median household income will lose £207 from the abolition of married couple's allowance, but will gain £416 from the Children's Tax Credit in 2001–02.
  532

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 499, for what reasons he has not yet reported to the House on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 12 March. [78427]

  Mr. Straw
  I reported to the House on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 23–26.

  Asylum Seekers (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department further to paragraph 3.8 of "Asylum Seekers Support", if the trust has suggested that(a) Cherwell District and (b) other districts in Oxfordshire satisfy the criteria set out in paragraph 3.1. [78583]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is too early to say which areas satisfy the criteria in paragraph 3.1 of the Information Document. That document invited expressions of interest from potential support providers. Responses will inform the choice of location of cluster areas.

  Earlsfield Police Station
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the(a) current and (b) future use of Earlsfield Police Station, Wandsworth. [78538]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that Earlsfield Police Station is currently used as a base by officers of the Area Major Investigation Pool (AMIP), and for local sector officers; for meetings of the local Sector Working Group; and, as necessary, for the storage of lost or stolen motor vehicles.

  Earlsfield is part of Wandsworth Police Division, which is amalgamating with Battersea Division as part of the Metropolitan Police's overall move to Borough based policing. This amalgamation may lead to a review of the use of Earlsfield as a sector base and for meetings of the Sector Working Group. It is envisaged that the AMIP officers will remain at Earlsfield and that it will continue to be used as necessary for the storage of lost or stolen vehicles.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the monitoring arrangements and assessment standards he plans for the support arrangements set out in Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. [78883]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The support arrangements are likely to be provided under contract either to local authorities, housing associations, private sector or voluntary sector organisations. Responsibility for monitoring all aspects of the contractual arrangements will fall to the Asylum Support Directorate which will be set up as new body within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the Home Office.
  533
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cash payment he proposes to meet the cost of sanitary protection for female asylum seekers. [78790]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The proposals for non-accommodation support provisions are set out in paragraphs 4.18–4.21 of the Information Document "Asylum Seekers Support" which I published on 22 March. It will be for asylum seekers to use this provision to meet all their essential living needs. In circumstances where support is provided wholly in kind, we would expect contractors to make suitable provision for essential living needs.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which retail and supermarket chains have been consulted over the generic voucher scheme proposed in paragraph 4.17 of the document "Asylum Seekers Support", published by his Department on 23 March. [78947]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Inquiries have been made of a number of potential suppliers and local authorities who use voucher schemes. The Information Document itself continues that consultation process and is intended to identify potential providers with an interest in supplying a voucher scheme.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraph 5.18 of the document "Asylum Seekers Support", published on 23 March by his Department, under what circumstances families with children will not continue to receive support while they lawfully remain in the country. [78949]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Families with children who are recognised as refugees or granted exceptional leave to remain will, if they are eligible, be transferred to the main benefits system. Those whose application for asylum is rejected will normally continue to be supported while they lawfully remain in the country. Support would be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances, for example, if the families were to leave the accommodation provided or were seriously to abuse it.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for support arrangements for asylum seekers whose cases are not dealt with in the six month time scale set down in the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [78798]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no such time scale set out in the Bill. The White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modem Approach to Immigration and Asylum", indicated in paragraph 8.9, that the Government were aiming to ensure that by April 2001 most initial asylum decisions will be made within two months of receipt and that most appeals to adjudicators will be heard within a further four months.

  The support arrangements will be introduced before those targets are met, but are considered to be suitable for cases which take longer than six months overall, provided that such a support arrangement does not continue for several years.
  534
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to make an announcement' concerning the level of cash payment available to asylum seekers under the Asylum and Immigration Bill. [78795]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This information is set out in paragraph 4.20–4.21 of the Information Document "Asylum Seekers Support" which I published on 22 March. The Government have concluded that adult asylum seekers should receive £7 per week; children aged 3–18 should receive £3.50 per week; and children aged under 3 years should receive £7 per week in cash.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff will be employed in the new Asylum Support Directorate. [78948]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office commissioned KPMG to conduct a study of the structure and size of the Directorate required to manage the proposed new asylum seeker support arrangements. We are currently assessing the recommendations in that report, but initial indications suggest that approximately 300 staff will be required.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the document published on 23 March entitled, "Asylum Seekers Support", if he will list the component elements of essential living needs. [78950]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not my intention to specify the individual elements of essential living needs. These will vary for different asylum seekers according to circumstances. The non-accommodation provision listed in paragraphs 4.18–4.21 of the Information Document are intended to cover essential living needs, but it is for asylum seekers to determine how they use the resources available to them.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce for asylum seekers wishing to make inquiries to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices at Croydon(a) a freephone service, (b) a free post service and (c) methods by which they can be reimbursed for the cost of telephone and postage for such inquiries; and if he will make a statement. [78799]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The provision in paragraphs 4.18–4.21 of the Information Document "Asylum Seekers Support" which I published on 22 March set out the non-accommodation support provision. This provision is intended to cover any telephone and postage costs incurred by the asylum seeker. Where support is provided mainly in kind, providers will need to provide these services at no cost to the asylum seeker.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the number of asylum seekers who claimed asylum in England and subsequently moved to Scotland in each of the last five years; [78645]

  (2) what proportion of asylum seekers applied for asylum in (a) England and Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [78646]
  535
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average cost in staff-hours of effecting the removal of a failed asylum applicant in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [78658]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The amount of staff time spent on removals is extremely difficult to quantify. Cases may, depending on their type and complexity take only a few hours to conclude, or many months. Cases might be completed and removal effected, at the port of entry, but many cases will involve appeals, judicial reviews of periods of detention. All incur costs in staff time. An attempt to quantify the staff cost of effecting an asylum removal could, therefore, be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum claimants were removed to a safe third country as a result of him issuing a certificate under section (2)(1)(a) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 in the last year for which figures are available. [78619]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 1998, 750 asylum seekers were removed to a safe third country following the issue of a certificate under section 2 of Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Numbers have risen over recent months. In the first two months of this year, over 180 asylum seekers were removed to safe third countries.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the current annual cost of supporting an asylum seeker. [78637]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) on 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 30, which gives the available information on costs of supporting asylum seekers.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many claims for asylum were made by persons who had previously made unsuccessful appeals against a refusal of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; [78674]

  (2) how many persons in possession of a visa or other form of entry clearance applied for asylum following entry to the UK in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and in how many such cases (a) asylum and (b) exceptional leave to remain was granted. [78643]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals of(a) a claim for asylum and (b) an appeal against a refusal of a claim for asylum have been followed by an application for judicial review in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [78673]
  536
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table:

  1996

  1997

  Application for leave to move for Judicial Review1,2,3

  1,225

  1,350

  Decisions3

  915

  1,250

  Of which granted leave to move3

  190

  320

  1Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2Excludes appeals lodged by the Secretary of State

  3Estimates based on Crown Office data

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases penalties paid by(a) airlines and (b) other carriers were refunded as a result of applications for asylum being granted in each of the last five years. [78688]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Charges amounting to £937,000, relating to 566 individual cases have been refunded over the last five years. A breakdown is as follows:

  Year

  £

  1994

  72,000

  1995

  38,000

  1996

  86,000

  1997

  380,000

  1998

  361,000

  All of the refunds related to payments made by airlines. Some of the cases arose prior to the increase in the charge from £1,000 to £2,000 per passenger (i.e. July 1991).

  Voting Arrangements
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to allow all citizens of pensionable age who wish to do so to vote by post in(a) local, (b) national, (c) European elections and (d) referendums; and if he will make a statement; [78931]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to allow all citizens who wish to do so to vote by post in local national and European elections, and in referendums; and if he will make a statement. [78932]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My Working Party on Electoral Procedures is currently looking at possible changes to absent voting arrangements to encourage participation in the electoral process.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate how many letters at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon are unopened. [79300]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of unopened letters in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) offices fluctuates from day to day with the volume of the postbag. However, as at 19 March there were approximately 3,900 unopened letters in IND offices. Of these, 3,600 were new applications which are readily identifiable from their envelopes and which are routinely sent unopened to caseworkers designated to deal with them, which allows the caseworker to open and deal with correspondence
  537
  more promptly. An earlier backlog of 18,000 unopened items has now all been opened and sorted. Most letters sent to IND are now opened on the day of receipt.

  Mr. Malin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average time that is taken to answer a telephone call to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate offices in Croydon. [79301]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Calls which connect to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate switchboard are held in a queue until an agent is free to take the call. The average time a caller waits in the queue before their call is dealt with is two and a half minutes.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from(a) foreign Governments, (b) employers and (c) others in the last three months regarding delays by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in dealing with applications made by foreign nationals in the UK. [78662]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have received a number of representations from interest groups and from the business community about the current delays in processing applications to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. To set out all the details of such representations for the hon. Member would divert staff from the more important task of improving levels of service.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff were employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate at the most recent date for which figures are available. [78657]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The total for March 1999 was 5,293.

  Immigration Officers (Ports and Airports)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reinstate immigration offices at airports to check the documentation of outgoing passengers; and if he will make a statement. [79290]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The previous Administration had already removed, in 1994, embarkation controls for passengers travelling from ferry ports and small airports to destinations within the European Union/European Economic Area, with the consequence that some 40 per cent. of all departing passengers were not seen by an immigration officer. There has never been an embarkation control for Channel Tunnel services.

  What was left of the control was, therefore, ineffective in terms of providing a reliable immigration record of a person's departure, and we have since introduced new arrangements following my announcement on 16 March 1998. The new system involves a close partnership between the control authorities and port operators, and is based on intelligence and target led embarkation checks, including the increased use of Closed Circuit Television.

  Resources previously engaged in operating embarkation checks have been re-deployed to improve arrivals control. There are no plans to reinstate routine embarkation controls, although immigration officers will continue to retain their powers to examine departing passengers if circumstances require.
  538
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of non-immigration offences detected as a result of questioning by an immigration officer in the course of dealing with a person seeking leave to enter at a port of entry. [78642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  When an Immigration Officer discovers evidence of a non immigration offence during the course of an examination, the matter is referred to the appropriate authority (e.g. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise or the Police). This is reflected in the standing instructions to the Immigration Service. No separate assessment of the number of such references, or their outcome, has been made.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions immigration officers exercised their powers to require the captains of ships or aircraft arriving in the United Kingdom to furnish information under the provisions of paragraph 27(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. [78672]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is common practice for immigration officers to use these powers in the general administration of the immigration control and to meet the requirements of the Immigration Carriers Liability Act. No separate record of the number of such requests has been made.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were examined by(a) an immigration officer and (b) a medical inspector or other qualified person under the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 in the most recent year for which figures are available. [78654]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All passengers seeking to enter the United Kingdom are subject to examination by an immigration officer, under paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2, in order to establish their claim to admission. In 1998, this amounted to some 84 million passengers, including British citizens and other European Economic Area nationals.

  No central record is kept of the number of passengers examined by a medical inspector under paragraph 2(2).

  There has been no comprehensive embarkation control for examinations under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 at cross-Channel ports since 1994 and at all other ports since April 1998.

  Greenwich (Millennium Celebrations)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the additional demands upon fire services arising from the millennium celebrations in Greenwich; what additional resources have been made available to the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority; and if he will make a statement. [79288]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on 19 January 1999,Official Report, column 410. It is for the fire and civil defence authority to set a budget which will enable it to discharge its statutory responsibilities. Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate

  539
  are currently undertaking an independent assessment of the preparedness for the Millennium of all fire brigades in England and Wales. This includes the plans that brigades are making to deal with foreseeable increases in demands, major public events and any problems that may arise affecting essential agencies and utilities.

  Immigration Officers (Arrests)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons were arrested by immigration officers exercising a power of arrest under section 24(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 in the most recent year for which figures are available; [78652]

  (2) how many persons were arrested by immigration officers exercising a power of arrest under section 25(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 in the most recent year for which figures are available. [78653]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Immigration officers have hitherto used their powers of arrest under sections 24(2) and 25(3) of the 1971 Act sparingly, both as a matter of policy and because of the practical difficulties which arise because these powers do not have associated powers of search and entry. Information about the number of occasions on which these powers have been used is not recorded centrally and there is no requirement for it to be recorded locally.

  Immigration (Appeals)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many appeals against deportation orders have been allowed in the case of persons who have been in the United Kingdom for(a) more than seven years and (b) less than seven years in each of the last 10 years; [78681]

  outcome of appeals to the immigration Adjudicators by selected category, 1993–971

  Number of appellants 2

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Appeal category

  Total dealt with

  of which allowed

  Total dealt with

  of which allowed

  Total dealt with

  of which allowed

  Total dealt with

  of which allowed

  Total dealt with

  of which allowed

  All appeals

  29,220

  4,170

  28,620

  3,730

  21,810

  2,440

  26,990

  2,720

  34,950

  4,320

  Refusal of entry clearance:

  for temporary purposes

  12,500

  2,630

  9,250

  1,840

  1,940

  460

  930

  190

  1,100

  240

  for employment, business or independent means

  200

  30

  150

  20

  100

  20

  140

  20

  270

  60

  for wives, children and persons for immediate settlement

  2,420

  400

  2,750

  480

  2,980

  550

  2,920

  710

  3,380

  1,000

  for female fiancàes

  230

  60

  150

  40

  180

  50

  170

  50

  200

  70

  for husbands

  2,330

  480

  2,190

  550

  2,380

  610

  2,740

  740

  3,410

  1,230

  for male fiancèes

  480

  150

  520

  90

  200

  450

  170

  50

  150

  60

  Refusal of certificate of entitlement

  490

  80

  830

  110

  380

  70

  250

  30

  250

  30

  Exclusion

  Appeal at port

  290

  20

  200

  10

  140

  10

  100

  10

  180

  20

  External appeal

  1,020

  60

  800

  60

  200

  10

  170

  20

  120

  10

  Refusal of asylum

  n/a

  n/a

  2,300

  90

  6,830

  230

  13,660

  520

  21,050

  1,180

  Variation of landing conditions

  1,240

  50

  870

  30

  760

  20

  670

  40

  310

  30

  Refusal to vary leave to enter

  6,470

  160

  7,070

  320

  4,100

  290

  3,890

  290

  3,550

  360

  Decision to make a deportation order

  1,460

  40

  1,480

  90

  1,550

  80

  1,100

  60

  890

  50

  Refusal to revoke a deportation order

  30

  3—

  40

  3—

  50

  3—

  40

  3—

  30

  10

  Other enforcement decisions

  40

  3—

  30

  3—

  30

  0

  40

  0

  70

  3—

  1 Figures rounded to 10 with 3 = to 5 or less.

  2 Figures are a count of individual appellants, not cases, except for 'Refusal of asylum'.

  n/a = not available

  Source:

  Immigration Research and Statistics Service RDS, 26 March 1999
  540
  (2) how many persons appealed against a refusal to vary or extend leave to remain by an adjudicator in the last five years for which figures are available; [78668]

  (3) how many appeals were (a) made and (b) allowed against his decision to make a deportation order following a recommendation of a court in the last five years for which figures are available; [78696]

  (4) how many appeals against the refusal of him to revoke a deportation order were (a) made and (b) allowed in cases where the deportation order had been made following a recommendation of the court in the last five years for which figures are available; [78682]

  (5) how many persons who were refused leave to enter the United Kingdom at a time when they held an entry visa or other form of entry clearance appealed against such refusal in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and in how many such cases the appeal was allowed; [78640]

  (6) how many appeals against a refusal by him to revoke a deportation order were (a) made and (b) allowed in the last five years for which figures are available; [78693]

  (7) how many persons in respect of whom a deportation order had been signed appealed against destination; and in how many such cases the appeal was successful in the last five years for which figures are available. [78683]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table.

  I regret that it is not possible separately to identify those appeals against deportation recommended by a court, the destination of deportation or where the appellant was in possession of a valid visa or other leave to enter the United Kingdom.

  Nor is it possible to determine the period of residence preceding an appeal against deportation.
  541
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases an application for judicial review was(a) made and (b) granted following a refusal of leave to appeal by Immigration Appeal Tribunal in the last year for which figures are available. [78687]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in how many cases(a) leave to appeal was granted and (b) an appeal was allowed following an appeal from an adjudicator to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal over a decision (i) to refuse entry clearance or a visa, (ii) to refuse entry to the United Kingdom, (iii) to refuse to vary or extend leave to remain and (iv) to remove a person as an illegal entrant; and what was the average waiting time in each case in the last year for which figures are available; [78666]

  (2) how many applications for leave to appeal to the immigration tribunal against a decision of an immigration adjudicator in an asylum case were made (a) in 1998 and (b) in each of the preceding 10 years; and in how many of these cases an appeal was (i) allowed and (ii) remitted to the immigration tribunal. [78677]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information, relating to asylum Tribunal appeals, is given in the table.

  I regret that there is no comparable information available regarding non-asylum Tribunal cases.

  Appeals to the Immigration Tribunal in asylum cases, excluding dependants 1994 to 1997 1,2

  Number of principal applicants

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Applications for leave to appeal to the Tribunal

  Total applications

  1,410

  3,070

  5,620

  8,680

  Of which granted leave to appeal

  320

  460

  970

  1,340

  Appeals to the Tribunal

  Total determined

  270

  390

  900

  1,320

  Of which allowed

  10

  20

  55

  90

  Remitted

  190

  240

  550

  730

  1 Estimated figures rounded to 10

  2 Excludes appeals lodged by the secretary of state

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of processing and determining an appeal against refusal of a visa or other form of entry clearance. [78692]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Cost of processing and determining entry clearance appeals

  Cost (£)

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)

  1No information available

  Immigration Appellate Authority

  2357.08

  Home Office

  3126.61

  1 FCO costs of processing appeals are only available on an individual post basis.

  2 This is an average unit cost, excluding accommodation costs, for all types of appeal. There is no separate information available for entry clearance appeals.

  3 This is an average unit cost of presenting all appeals. There is no separate information available for entry clearance appeals.

  542
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average waiting time for the determination of appeals against refusal of a visa or other form of entry clearance in each of the last five years; [78691]

  (2) what is the average length of time taken for an appeal against a decision to make a deportation order from the notice of appeal to the determination by an adjudicator. [78679]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average waiting time for(a) a decision on leave to appeal from an Immigration Appeal Tribunal and (b) where leave to appeal is granted, an appeal hearing before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in cases where an appellant seeks leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal following a decision of a special adjudicator in each of the last five years. [78676]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that it is not possible to determine the average time between the dismissal of an appeal by an adjudicator and the determination of any appeal to the Tribunal without examining individual files.

  Immigration (EEA)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the bodies in other European Economic Area states which regulate the provision of(a) advice and (b) services corresponding to immigration advice and services. [78615]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We do not hold a list of the bodies in other European Economic Area (EEA) states which regulate the provision of advice and services corresponding to immigration advice and services. Under Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, it will be a matter for the Immigration Service Commissioner to decide what information he or she will need to obtain in order to consider the cases of advisers whose services may be regulated by an EEA body, and the Commissioner will be entitled to expect any such advisers to provide evidence of the nature of any scheme under which their services are regulated.

  Deportation Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many deportation orders were(a) signed and (b) enforced in each of the last three months for which figures are available. [78635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the Table. It should be noted that a deportation order enforced in one period may have been signed in an earlier period.

  Deportation action, October to December 1998 1

  Number of persons

  October

  November

  December

  Deportation orders signed

  80

  65

  40

  Deportation orders enforced2

  55

  55

  45

  1 1998 data are provisional

  2A deportation order enforced in one period may have been signed in an earlier period.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded to the nearest 5.
  543
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons who have been detained following a recommendation for deportation after a criminal conviction applied for and were granted bail in the last year for which figures are available; [78680]

  (2) how many cases an application to him to revoke a deportation order whilst the applicant was still in the United Kingdom was (a) made and (b) granted in each of the last five years; [78685]

  (3) how many applications he (a) received and (b) granted for the revocation of a deportation order in the last five years for which figures are available. [78694]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were removed from the United Kingdom in(a) the last three months, (b) the last year and (c) the last three years for which figures are recorded. [78650]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The latest three months for which a provisional removals total is available are December 1998 to February 1999. During that period, some 9,210 persons were removed, or departed voluntarily from the United Kingdom, under port or enforcement procedures.

  The annual totals for the last three years are 26,800 in 1996, 31,110 in 1997 and 34,850 (provisional) in 1998.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum applicants were(a) removed and (b) deported voluntarily from the UK in each of the last five years; and what proportion of the total number of failed asylum applicants they represented. [78663]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information on the numbers of asylum refusals, and removals and voluntary departures of persons who have applied for asylum at some stage, in the last five years is given in the table. It should be noted that: the figures for refusal of asylum and exceptional leave relate to initial decisions by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) and do not take account of the outcomes of appeals or other subsequent decisions; and a removal or voluntary departure in one year may relate to a decision to refuse asylum and exceptional leave, or the withdrawal of an asylum application or appeal, in an earlier year. Furthermore, some failed asylum seekers may leave the United Kingdom without the knowledge of IND, or before enforcement action has been initiated, and will not be recorded in the removals and voluntary departures figures. As the available information on refusals and removals of asylum seekers is not therefore directly comparable, it is inappropriate to these figures to calculate removals and voluntary departures as a proportion of refusals.
  544
  A person cannot be removed until all rights of appeal in the United Kingdom have been exhausted and thereafter significant barriers to removal may exist, such as a lack of documentation, judicial review or absconding.

  Refusals 1, removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, 1994 to 19984

  Number of persons

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19984

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave

  16,500

  21,300

  31,670

  28,945

  22,315

  Removed2

  1,640

  2,270

  3,680

  5,340

  35,020

  Departed Voluntarily2

  580

  900

  1,140

  1,790

  31,770

  1 Information relates to initial asylum decisions excluding the outcomes of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  2 A removal or voluntary departure in one year may relate to a decision to refuse asylum and exceptional leave taken in an earlier year.

  3 1998 removed and departed voluntarily figures are estimated.

  41998 data are provisional.

  Note:

  All figures are rounded.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recommendations for deportation he received from the courts; and how many he signed in the last year for which figures are available. [78695]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In 1998, some 340 recommendations for deportation were received from the courts. During the same year, 270 deportation orders were signed following a court recommendation for deportation. These data are provisional. It should be noted that a deportation order signed in one year may relate to a court recommendation received in an earlier year and some sentences may be for more than one year and so the deportation may be signed before their release some time later.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases applications for asylum following a decision by him to make a deportation order in respect of the person concerned were(a) received and (b) granted in the last five years for which figures are available. [78686]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table. It should be noted that a grant of asylum in one year may relate to an application lodged in an earlier period.

  Persons applying for asylum after a deportation order had been signed against them 1, number of applications and number of grants of asylum, 1994 to 1998

  Number of persons

  Year

  Asylum applications received2

  Grants of asylum 3

  1994

  195

  4

  1995

  250

  0

  1996

  145

  5—

  1997

  70

  5—

  19984

  25

  0

  1 Asylum application made at least one day after a deportation order had been signed

  2 Applications data are round

  3 It should be noted that a grant of asylum in one year may relate to an application lodged in an earlier period

  4 1998 data are provisional

  5 Represents 1 or 2

  545

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the current total number of persons living in the UK who have no legal right to do so; and, of these, how many(a) have had enforcement action initiated against them but not completed, (b) have not yet had enforcement action initiated against them and (c) have absconded. [78665]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no estimate of the total number of persons living in the United Kingdom who have no legal right to do so. There is no figure for the number of persons in the United Kingdom who have no right to be here but against whom enforcement action has not been initiated.

  As at January 1999, the number of persons against whom enforcement action has been initiated but not completed (including absconders) stood at 67,000. But some of these may still have outstanding legal appeals which means they cannot be removed yet.

  As at the end of November 1998 the number of known absconders was 31,500. This covers persons subject to port or enforcement action who had breached conditions of temporary admission, temporary release or restriction order, or were otherwise known to be out of contact with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND). Some persons recorded as absconders may have departed from the United Kingdom without the knowledge of IND.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the proportion of lorry drivers who report clandestine entrants to(a) the police and (b) other authorities on discovery of such persons in their vehicles in the UK. [78698]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Without having some idea of the number of drivers who actually discover clandestine entrants in their vehicle, any estimate of the proportion who report the matter can only be speculation. Many clandestine illegal entrants already report to the authorities of their own accord. Our aim should be to prevent them arriving in the first place.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were granted leave to enter the United Kingdom in(a) 1997 and (b) 1998 after being removed from the United Kingdom as a result of a breach of immigration law in the preceding three years. [78601]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned or (b) evaluated into the carrying out of checks by lorry drivers for the presence of clandestine entrants in their vehicles. [78699]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have had a number of meetings with representatives of the road haulage industry, in the course of which we have discussed possible precautionary measures; and I have made it clear that I am happy to have further discussions if this would be helpful. However, the Home Office has not commissioned any independent research into this subject and has not yet participated in the evaluation of research by others, but officials have advised on the work they have done in this area.
  546
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of road haulage operators and lorry drivers who have experienced incidents involving clandestine entrants. [78701]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Over 9,000 cases of clandestine illegal entry were detected or otherwise came to light during 1998. It is not possible to make an assessment of the proportion of road haulage operators and drivers who were responsible for bringing them into the country. It is not possible either to assess the proportion who were involved in unsuccessful attempts to gain entry to their vehicles.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proportion of road haulage operators with procedures in place for the prevention of clandestine entrants. [78700]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am aware that the Road Haulage Association (RHA) has issued guidance to its members on this subject. It is not possible to judge how many will have acted on that advice or obtained advice from elsewhere and, of course, not all operators entering the United Kingdom will be members of the RHA.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were arrested under the provisions of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971 in the last year for which figures are available. [78655]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the number of people arrested under the provisions of Schedule 2 is not collected centrally.

  Provisional figures for 1998 indicate that 27,600 passengers were refused leave to enter and removed, 16,460 illegal entrants were detected and 3,920 people were served with a notice of intention to deport for overstaying or breaching conditions. However, by no means all of these would have been arrested under Schedule 2. Some would have come to light as the result of an application for leave to enter or remain, others may have come to light after being arrested in connection with other matters.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many clandestine entrants were discovered concealed in a vehicle by (i) immigration officials, (ii) port authorities and (iii) the police(a) at a port of entry and (b) subsequently in the last five years for which figures are available. [78618]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Details of the total number of clandestine illegal entrants who were detected or who brought themselves came to notice during each of the past five years are given in the following table. We do not distinguish between cases detected at port of entry and those who come to light subsequently, neither do we distinguish according to who detected them.

  Year

  Number of clandestine illegal entrants

  1994

  1,810

  1995

  3,360

  1996

  4,110

  1997

  4,040

  19981

  9,320

  1Provisional estimate

  547
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the prevalence of clandestine entrants in vehicles gaining access to the vehicle through its roof. [78617]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am aware that in some cases there is evidence that entry was gained by this route but we have made no comparative assessment of method of access.

  Persons convicted and persons sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for offences1 under sections 24 and 25 of Immigration Act 1971 by type of offence, England and Wales, 1997

  Section

  Offence 1 description

  Total convicted

  Sentenced to immediate custody

  24(1)(a)

  Entering UK in breach of a deportation order

  2

  1

  24(1)(a)

  Entering UK without leave

  16

  10

  24(1)(aa)2

  By means of deception obtains or seeks leave to enter or remain in UK

  —

  —

  24(l)(b)(i), 24(1)(c)

  Overstaying time limit of leave

  11

  6

  24(l)(b)(ii),24(1)(d)

  Failure to observe conditions of leave

  5

  —

  24(1)(e)

  Failure to observe restrictions under Schedule 2 or 3 as to reporting to police or an Immigration Officer as to residence

  2

  —

  24(1)(f)

  Disembarks in the UK from ship or aircraft after being placed on board with a view to removal from UK

  1

  —

  24(1)(g)

  Embarks in contravention of a restriction imposed by Order in Council

  —

  —

  25(1)(a)3

  Knowingly facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant

  130

  101

  25(1)(b)3

  Knowingly facilitating the entry of an asylum claimant

  —

  —

  25(1)((c)3

  Knowingly facilitating leave to remain of persons by means of deception

  1

  —

  25(2)

  Knowingly harbouring an illegal entrant or person who is in breach of the conditions of his leave

  3

  —

  1 Principal immigration offence

  2 As added by section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

  3 As added by section 5 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996

  Immigration Advisers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those who responded to the consultation document on control of unscrupulous immigration advisers; which consultees were(a) in favour of, (b) in favour subject to specific criticisms of and (c) against, the proposals in the document. [78634]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government's consultation document on the control of unscrupulous immigration advisers did not present a single set of proposals, but invited views on a range of issues and options for change. Of 53 respondents to the paper, all were in favour of regulating those who provide immigration advice for profit and are not already subject to a regulatory system; 22 were in favour of the independent regulation of solicitors; 22 were against regulation of solicitors, but 11 of these expressed some concerns or reservations about the adequacy of the current regulation of solicitors in this field of work.

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the time limit for further representations following interviews in the case of unaccompanied child asylum applicants. [78597]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Children are an extremely vulnerable group and therefore, unaccompanied children will not normally be interviewed about the substance of their claim if it is possible to obtain sufficient information to decide the claim from written representations or other sources.
  548
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) convicted of an offence under (i) section 24 and (ii) section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and (b) sentenced to imprisonment as a result of such a conviction in the last year for which figures are available. [78605]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information for 1997 held on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  In the event that an interview was necessary in a particular case, normal time limits would apply, but as in all other cases an extension would normally be granted if there was a good reason for the delay, and full account would be taken of the applicant's vulnerability. Obviously, any undue delay in deciding an application once the circumstances are known would not be in the child's interest.

  Bogus Marriages
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many marriages have been reported by the Registrar General to his Department as marriages entered into for the purpose of breaching immigration control since 1994; [78604]

  (2) how many reports of sham marriages from the Registrar General to his Department have resulted in action being taken against one or both of the parties for breach of immigration law or control in each year for the last 10 years. [78603]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The number of marriages reported by the Registrar General in each of the past 5 years is given in the following table:

  Year

  Number of marriages reported

  1994

  404

  1995

  467

  1996

  519

  1997

  354

  1998

  450

  549
  It is not possible to identify those cases where enforcement action has occurred as a result of this notification as these are not distinguished from other enforcement cases. The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate costs.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for(a) leave to remain in the United Kingdom, (b) variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and (c) fixing an indefinite leave stamp on an applicant's passport or travel document as the result of the removal or replacement of a previous passport were there in each of the last five years; [78639]

  (2) how many persons in receipt of limited leave (a) applied for a variation or extension of their leave to remain and (b) had such an application granted in 1998. [78622]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relates to initial decisions on applications for an extension of stay, excluding dependants. The numbers of such decisions, excluding those in respect of an asylum application, were:

  Year

  Number

  1994

  185,000

  1995

  169,000

  1996

  180,000

  1997

  173,000

  1998

  157,000

  151,000 of the decisions in 1998 were grants of an extension of stay, including indefinite leave to remain. I regret that the other information requested is not available.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the current cost of processing applications for(a) leave to remain in the United Kingdom, (b) the variation of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom and (c) the fixing of an indefinite leave stamp on an applicant's passport or travel document as a result of the removal or replacement of a previous passport. [78671]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our estimate of the average cost of dealing with applications for(a) and (b) is £90. This includes direct costs and overheads, including accommodation. The cost of fixing an indefinite leave stamp on a passport will be significantly less than this.

  Embarkation Control
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were charged with an offence after being stopped at embarkation controls(a) in each of the three years before April 1998 and (b) since April 1998. [78651]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information requested is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many airlines were waiting for an application for approved gate check status at a550
  port of embarkation to be dealt with on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) according to the latest figures which are available. [78608]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The figure for 1 May 1997 is not available. The current number is 46 (from 19 airlines).

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average waiting time for an application for approved gate check status at a port of embarkation to be dealt with on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) according to the latest figures which are available. [78606]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  All applications for approved Gate Check (AGC) status are actioned upon receipt. A site visit is invariably required before AGC status can be granted. The estimated average waiting time for a decision on routine applications is:(a) on 1 May 1997–173 days and (b) currently—144 days.

  Citizenship
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average waiting time for an application for British Citizenship in the last year for which figures are available. [78660]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Applications for British Citizenship fall into two categories: naturalisations or registrations. As at the end of February 1999, naturalisations are taking 20 months on average to complete, whilst registrations are taking 7 months. The overall average time is currently 18 months.

  Unlawful Discrimination
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into alleged unlawful discrimination arising out of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [78620]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Commission for Racial Equality, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the Trades Union Congress have separately recounted to us instances of alleged unlawful discrimination reported to them, but the Home Office has not separately commissioned research.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he carried out with(a) business organisations and (b) others regarding a code of practice for the avoidance of unlawful discrimination by employers who seek to comply with the provisions of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [78621]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A Code of Practice for the avoidance of unlawful discrimination was proposed in the White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum", published last July. Comments from business organisations and others were invited at the time of publication.

  No business organisations have been directly consulted since then but consultations on the proposal have taken place with the Commission for Racial Equality, (CRE) the Trades Union Congress and other interested organisations. The current proposals provide for the CRE and

  551
  organisations or associations representative of employers and workers to be consulted on the preparation of the draft code of practice.

  Family Visitors
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many family visitors were refused an entry clearance(a) as a visitor, (b) in order to follow a course of study of not more than six months duration and (c) with the intention of studying but without having been accepted for any course of study in the last year for which figures are available. [78667]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. In 1998, 78,600 persons were refused entry clearance for travel to the United Kingdom other than for settlement, of whom 9,600 were students or prospective students.

  Forfeiture Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many orders for forfeiture were made under section 25(6) of the Immigration Act 1971 in each of the last five years. [78669]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database is given in the table.

  Number of offenders given forfeiture orders under subsection 25(6) of the Immigration Act 1971, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Year

  Offenders

  1993

  1—

  1994

  —

  1995

  1

  1996

  3

  1997

  14

  1 not available

  Work Permits
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long he expects the concession to employees requiring work permits for prospective employers in respect of work permit delays to continue. [78703]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  For as long as it is needed. We will keep its operation under review.

  Asylum Seekers (Slovakia)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum claims from Slovakian nationals were certified in the last year for which figures are available. [78656]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Of 335 initial decisions made in applications for asylum by nationals of the Slovak Republic in 1998, 27 per cent. were certified.

  Asylum Seekers (Eurostar)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to the French Government about the arrival in the UK of asylum seekers on Eurostar. [78704]
  552
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend is in close contact with his French counterpart, M Chevènement, about this matter. At their last meeting in Paris on 11 March, they discussed a range of options to deal with the problem, including imposing charges under the carriers' liability arrangements.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals have claimed asylum at(a) Waterloo Station and (b) elsewhere after arriving in the UK on a Eurostar service since 1 January. [78705]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  535 asylum applications, excluding dependants, were made at Waterloo in January and February 1999. I regret that information on how many asylum applications were made elsewhere after arriving in the United Kingdom on a Eurostar service is not available.

  Lost Passports
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints he received regarding the loss of passports of foreign nationals by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in(a) the last three months and (b) 1998. [78649]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Complaints received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are not recorded centrally on the basis of subject matter. Information kept centrally is in respect of the number of compensation claims dealt with as a result of maladministration.

  In 1998, 62 claims for compensation were dealt with, the majority of which arose because of lost documents. During 1999, 19 claims for compensation have so far been dealt with. A number of claims received in 1998 and this year remain to be determined.

  Forged Documents
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of persons seeking to obtain entry to the UK through the use of forged visas or entry clearance documents; and how many such forgeries were detected, in the last year for which figures are available. [78638]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During 1998, there were 6,338 recorded forgery detections at ports: these include the attempted use of forged or counterfeit documents, the use of fraudulently obtained documents and instances of attempted impersonation. There were 362 cases involving the use of a forged or counterfeit visa. We have not attempted any assessment of the number of forged visas which are not detected.

  Visas
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the stamping of visas to indicate when they have been used. [78689]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. The stamping of visas would slow down the immigration control process. One of the aims of the planned reforms set out in the Immigration and Asylum Bill is to develop a flexible and streamlined system of immigration control to enable bona fide travellers to pass through more quickly. We have
  553
  made provision in the Bill for measures to be introduced to achieve these aims and, in particular, to provide for the issue of a visa or other entry clearance to have the effect of also granting leave to enter. In taking these flexibility measures forward, we will be looking at greater simplification of visa processes and how these and our operations in general might be improved by technological developments in immigration control.

  Racist Incidents
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the incidence of(a) racial and religiously motivated attacks and (b) other criminal offences committed against asylum seekers. [78600]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on racist incidents is collected centrally, but asylum seekers are not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Airlines (Carrier's Liability)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much is owed in penalties arising out of carrier' s liability incurred by airlines more than(a) three months, (b) six months, (c) 12 months and (d) two years after the penalty was incurred. [78609]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 24 March 1999, the amounts owed by airlines were as follows:

  (a) more than three months: £6,620,480

  (b) more than six months: £4,658,480

  (c) more than twelve months: £3,772,480

  (d) more than two years: £3,058,480.

  These amounts include £1.8 million which is the subject of legally binding agreements, and £1.1 million is covered by outstanding writ action.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons with an entry visa or other form of entry clearance were refused leave to enter on arrival in the United Kingdom in the last five years for which figures are available. [78641]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information is available only on entry clearance holders refused leave to enter and removed at the 13 largest ports. The figures for 1995–98 are as follows:

  Year of removal

  Number

  1995

  530

  1996

  640

  1997

  740

  1998

  720

  Immigration Detainees (Bail Applications)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for bail by persons held in detention for immigration reasons under(a) the Immigration Act 1971 and (b) any other provision
  554
  were made to (i) an adjudicator and (ii) the Immigration Appeal Tribunal; and how many such applications were granted in each year for the last five years. [78670]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Officers
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of police officers employed in(a) the National Crime Squad and (b) the National Criminal Intelligence Service as at 30 September 1998; if he will list the number of police officers employed at 30 September 1997 on a basis which permits a comparison with (a) and (b) above; and if he will make a statement. [79196]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is set out in the table:

  Number of police officers

  National Crime Squad

  National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)

  30 September 1997

  1,325

  1253

  30September 1998

  1,344

  238

  1 Information on the number of police officers in NCIS for 30 September 1997 has been provided by the Director General

  The funding of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service will increase by 13.8 per cent. and 8.8 per cent. respectively in 1999–2000.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the strength of police forces in England and Wales as recorded in March 1999; and if he will make a statement. [79195]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information will be collected in accordance with normal procedures. Once all the returns have been received from police forces and validated, the statistics will be placed in the Library. I expect this information to be available in early June, on the basis of last year's timetable.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 3 February to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on behalf of his constituent Mr. Perry. [79168]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A reply to the right hon. Member's letter of 3 February will be sent this week.

  Special Adjudicators
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many of the appeal cases before a special adjudicator a certificate was issued by him and on what grounds, in the last year for which figures are available. [78684]
  555
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Certified asylum adjudicator appeal outcomes, excluding dependants, by category 1,2 1997

  Certified category

  Para 5(2)

  3,075

  Para 5(3)a

  420

  Para 5(3)b

  810

  Para 5(4)a

  205

  Para 5(4)b

  35

  Para 5(4)c

  225

  Para 5(4)d

  5

  Para 5(4)e

  20

  Total

  4,790

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5.

  2 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is records.

  Key to category codes

  Para 5(2) Designated country of destination

  Para 5(3)a Failure to produce without reasonable explanation, a passport on arrival

  Para 5(3)b Applicant gained or attempted entry using a false passport

  Para 5(4)a Claim did not show fear of persecution

  Para 5(4)b Claim was manifestly unfounded or where grounds have fallen away

  Para 5(4)c Claim was made after refusal of leave to enter

  Para 5(4)d Claim was manifestly fraudulent/evidence was manifestly false

  Para 5(4)e Claim was frivolous or vexatious

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average time taken for an adjudicator to determine an appeal against refusal of leave to enter in each of the last three years; [78623]

  (2) what is the average waiting time for an appeal to a special adjudicator in an asylum case between when the claim is refused to the determination of the appeal, according to the most recent figures. [78625]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is that, on average, the waiting time, over the last six months, for a special adjudicator to determine an asylum appeal is estimated to be 13 months. This relates to the date of the receipt of the appeal at the Independent Appellant Authority not the date of the refusal as requested. Information on non-asylum appeals is not recorded centrally.

  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish a report on the progress of his Department's Drugs Prevention Initiative. [79552]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I am publishing on 30 March, the Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative's (DPI) eighth and final progress report.

  This report reflects the Initiative's valuable contribution to advancing the case for effective community based drugs prevention over the last 9 years. That contribution was fully recognised in the Government's White Paper on Drugs, "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain", published in April last year. The work of the Initiative, in terms of its good practice findings from its rigorously
  556
  evaluated demonstration projects, has helped influence thinking and improve the evidence base for drugs prevention.

  The Initiative reaches its planned conclusion on 31 March 1999. The White Paper recognised the need for successor arrangements to the Initiative, to support the Government's 10 year anti-drugs strategy. I am pleased to announce that the Home Office Drugs Prevention Advisory Service (DPAS) will replace the DPI from 1 April 1999. The new service will cover the whole of England and will work closely with all Drug Action Teams to encourage good drugs prevention practice and to support their work in delivering the national strategy.

  I am placing a copy of the final DPI report in the Library tomorrow at 10.30 am.

  Prisoners (Health Care)
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the joint Prison Service and NHS Executive review on the future organisation of prisoners' health care; and if he will make a statement. [79553]

  Mr. Straw
  A copy of the Report by the Joint Prison Service and NHS Executive Working Group on the future organisation of prisoners' health care has been placed in the Library, along with a Table giving a detailed response to the recommendations and action points.

  The Report identifies a range of weaknesses with the current organisation and provision of healthcare to prisoners. While there is good work being done, looked at as a whole, there is considerable variation in the organisation, funding, delivery and quality of prisoner health care, with variable links to the NHS. The Report makes clear that this situation is largely the product of a historic legacy of ad hoc development and relative isolation from the NHS. This means that, on the whole, prison health care is reactive rather that proactive; and well developed primary care teams, health needs assessments and appropriately planned services, are the exception rather than the rule.

  The Government accept the recommendations and action points set out in the Report and reaffirm the existing aim of prison health care to give prisoners access to the same quality and range of health services as the general public receives from the NHS. The reform of prison healthcare poses problems and issues of a complex nature and will take place against the background of NHS reform. This means that change must be carried out in stages. The Government's response combines immediate action to improve service delivery, with a joint approach to future policy development and further work on identification of prisoner needs, priorities, timescales for improvement and organisation.

  First, the Report has identified a number of areas where priority action is needed, and which can begin to be addressed within the existing comprehensive spending settlement. As a start, the Government intend that, by the end of 1999, work will have been carried out to pilot a new prison reception health screening tool. This will help staff more effectively to identify the health needs and status of each individual prisoner and plan how to meet their individual treatment needs. In parallel with this

  557
  work, a health needs assessment template will be developed to help prisoners and health authorities determine the health needs of their prison population.

  With immediate effect, doctors newly appointed to undertake any kind of primary care in prisons will be required to hold a certificate from the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice (JCPTGP) or have recognised equivalent accreditation to practice primary care medicine. Doctors currently providing primary care services who do not hold the JCPTGP certificate will be encouraged to work towards obtaining it. The Government also accept the case made in the Report that nursing care in prisons should be under the direction of registered nurses. Where this is not the case, Prison Service establishments will work towards achieving it as soon as possible.

  The Report draws particular attention to the needs of the large number of prisoners with mental health problems. Within the framework of radical reform set out in the Government's White Paper "Modernising Mental Health Services—Safe, sound and supportive", published in December 1998, the needs of prisons will be taken into account when planning all inpatient mental health services including high and medium secure services. And, in order to support prisoners for whom a transfer to hospital would not be appropriate, Health Authorities will ensure that service agreements with NHS Trusts include outreach services for prisoners. These services will aim to provide appropriate mental health care for persons in prison custody and to achieve continuity of care when moving between secure prison accommodation and community mental health services.

  Secondly, the Government in particular welcome the proposal for greater joint working between the Prison Service and the NHS. This is in keeping with the Government's broader policy initiative, "Modernising Government", by removing barriers and disincentives to cross-departmental working where that is necessary for the delivery of better and more effective services.

  Ministerial and departmental accountabilities will remain as now: the Prison Service being accountable for the provision of primary care and the NHS for specialist services and for care provided in NHS hospitals. But future planning and delivery of prisoner health care will be underpinned by joint working and planning at national, regional and local levels. Practical benefits on the ground are likely to include the proper integration of health promotion and health care into prison regimes, and arrangements to ensure continuity of health care on receipt into custody, transfer to hospital, or on release back to the community. Health improvement programmes will be expected to reflect these objectives.

  In order to put the joint organisation and planning of prison health care on a firm footing, the Chief Executive of the NHS Executive and the Director General of the Prison Service, will, as recommended in the Report,
  558
  establish in the course of 1999 a Joint Prison Health Policy Unit and a Joint Prison Health Care Task Force. These Units, working with the Prison Service and the NHS will lead and manage the process of change.

  The Joint Prison Health Policy Unit will be expected to set overall standards and policy, provide clear strategic direction for prison healthcare, and to advise both Home Office and Health Ministers. This Unit will replace the current Prison Service Directorate of Healthcare and will be physically located in the NHS Executive in the Department of Health. The Prison Healthcare Task Force will draw on staff of appropriate experience from the Prison Service, the NHS and other organisations. Its principal roles will be to offer expert advice and support the joint work that prisons and health authorities will need to do in identifying and implementing plans to improve health services to prisoners and in making the best use of available resources. The publication of this Report signals the importance that the Government attach to establishing joint working arrangements between each prison and their local health authority. Prisons and health authorities will be asked to start their joint work in the course of this summer.

  Thirdly, this reorganisation will not only greatly strengthen the co-ordination of prison health care, but form the basis for further work, including an assessment of how budget-setting might best reinforce effective care, the identification of prisoner health needs, the formulation of improvement plans and consequent financial implications, and advice on priorities so as to achieve the effective use of resources.

  The Report notes that the scale of the problem with prison health care will not become clear until health authorities and prisons have jointly assessed the local health needs and have formulated improvement plans. It is not, therefore, possible at this stage to say when all the objectives set out in the Working Group's Report can be achieved. However, the Government will be taking steps to identify the scale of the problem and the resources needed to improve performance against standards comparable to those available in the community. The Task Force will aim to provide advice on good practice. Also, through pilots and in other ways, it will help to identify different organisational models of local delivery that meet the primary health needs of prisoners and that are cost effective. In the course of next year a formal review will be carried out to assess structural issues, priorities, timescales and future possible resource requirements.

  While the arrangements set out above will apply to England, there is a need to ensure consistency throughout the Prison Service including the four prisons in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales fully endorses the principles behind the Report's recommendations. The Welsh Office, and in due course the Welsh Assembly, will be working with the Department of Health and Prison Service to implement proposals to improve prison health care in ways compatible with Welsh circumstances.

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

Railtrack: Investment
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that Railtrack's recently published 1999 Network Management Statement demonstrates an intention to enhance the capacity and reliability of the rail network.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, Railtrack's 1999 Network Management Statement was published last Thursday. We made it clear at the national rail summit earlier this year mat we should be looking closely at the 1999 NMS to see whether Railtrack's proposed investment is sufficient, and that is what we shall do. We feel strongly that Railtrack must meet the needs and expectations of the public and the industry. The NMS has only just beer published and it is too early for us to be able to comment on its contents.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that out of Railtrack's quotes £27 billion investment over 10 years, less than one-third is new investment? That is meant to cope with the doubling of the number of trains in 10 years. Is he satisfied that of that new investment, Railtrack intends itself to pay less than 40 per cent. of the investment for passengers and virtually none of the investment for freight. How can the Government achieve their growth targets if Railtrack does not invest more of its money?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the programme which Railtrack has put forward provides a 30 per cent. growth
2
in passenger miles and a 200 per cent. growth in freight volumes over 10 years. However, my noble friend is absolutely right that for a significant portion of that, Railtrack is looking to others to provide the finance. That presents us with some strategic decisions which will be taken when we have analysed fully the implications of the NMS. It is an extremely complicated proposal and serious strategic decisions will need to be faced. The setting up of the strategic rail authority will greatly assist us in making those decisions.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, has the Minister seen reports which suggest that the Government may wish to take control of and responsibility for Railtrack's investment? Given the record of both governments over many years while being responsible for investment, does he agree that whatever the existing company may do wrong, it could hardly do worse?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am tempted to say that the noble Lord clearly has some experience of these matters. The Government's intention is to make the regulatory regime work. If that requires changes to the regime, we intend to make them, if necessary by legislative means. It is important that both the regulator and the strategic rail authority help Railtrack to meet the objectives set out in our integrated transport policy. That will require both funding and more investment, as the Prime Minister has made clear.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I travel regularly by train and suffer the vicissitudes of delays and cancellations, particularly on the London commuter line. I notice that in this over-large and glossy volume which Railtrack has produced, it is proposed that the improvements to the London commuter lines, and, in particular, the London to Brighton main line, will be funded in partnership with others. That seems to imply a subsidy from either central or local government. Since

3
the Minister is not very keen on local government subsidising those matters, from whom does he believe the subsidies will come?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be premature for me to respond in detail to that question. Railtrack has said that the funding for some of the improvements will either be from partnerships, or Railtrack will act as contractor and others will have to pay substantial amounts. Whether some of that falls on national government will depend on subsequent decisions. The work of the strategic rail authority, which we are about to establish, will inform our decisions in relation to that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, will the Minister not welcome the fact that Railtrack is proposing to invest £27 billion? Is that not a sum of money which would have been beyond British Rail's wildest dreams in its old nationalised days? Does that not contrast very sharply with the investment which is to be put into London Underground, which, after all, carries roughly the same number of people per day as the national railway, and in relation to which we have heard nothing about the public-private partnership?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards London Underground, the noble Lord is right that the rather detailed negotiations on the public-private partnership have still to be completed. Nevertheless, we expect that we shall mobilise resources to meet the needs of London Transport. On the investment of £27 billion, we clearly welcome Railtrack's commitment to analyse the priorities as set out in this document, large and glossy though it may be. However, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley has already pointed out, not all of that will be met from Railtrack's own finances. Therefore, government, operators and other interested parties will need to fund a substantial amount to reach that £27 billion. Nevertheless, we now have a strategy from Railtrack which in itself is welcome.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that
"the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life"?
In the light of that knowledge—which he has now, even if he did not have it before I rose to my feet—is my noble friend prepared to press Railtrack to honour its commitment under Condition 7 of its licence, not grudgingly in the letter but generously in the spirit, to meet the reasonable expectations of its customers? Even though he is not able to tell us where any public money may come from, is he prepared to press Railtrack to put more of its own money into the urgently needed works which have to be carried out to gauge enhancement and track capacity to meet the rapidly rising and welcome increase in demand for rail freight?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am always anxious to encourage generosity of spirit by Railtrack and other operators within the rail industry. However, they are
4
commercial enterprises and they have hard-headed decisions to make, subject to the regulatory mechanism.
Railtrack is prepared to engage in some investment in increasing the gauge, but, under its plan, the bulk of the resources for freight would be provided by others. Therefore, those negotiations have to continue. It is certainly the Government's intention to provide sufficient resources, both in infrastructure and in operating costs, to ensure that there can be a genuine and a significant sustained shift to use rail freight rather than road transport. That is part of our integrated transport policy. The achievement of that will take some time, but the rail freight industry has made a significant and welcome start.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the failure of the previous government to recognise the need for a strategic rail authority, or even an integrated transport policy, has cost this nation very dear indeed?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am very happy to acknowledge that. Probably the worst aspect of that was the rushed and much-botched approach to privatisation, which has left us with many of the problems that we, Railtrack and the operators are still addressing.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was wrong last week in the Question that he asked on immigration, is he not also wrong this week in the question that he has just asked?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in my experience, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis is rarely, if ever, wrong.

Immigration and Nationality Directorate
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke Baroness Brigstocke asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they propose to improve the situation for those students and others whose passports are held at the Immigration Centre in Croydon.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) in Croydon, which began in December 1998, is designed to produce a much quicker service to all applicants. However, in the short term the reorganisation is causing significant disruption to our service. Recognising this, the Home Office and Siemens Business Services have set up a joint project team to plan and deliver the measures necessary to

5
ensure the early recovery of previous levels of service. The project team has been asked to report by mid-April.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which gives one a certain amount of comfort. I understand that 22,000 passports are locked up in Croydon and that students experience tremendous delays in receiving their passports. Will the Government consider recompensing students who miss perhaps the first term of a course for which they have paid because they are unable to obtain the necessary visas?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right, the IND is dealing with about 22,000 applications where passports have been submitted. In 1998, there were approximately 46,000 decisions on student applications. Of those, 32,000 were granted, 14,000 were refused, 21,000 were decided "on the day" and the rest were done in case-work groups where the average waiting time was three months.
As regards compensation, I must repeat the Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, last week, that we consider ex gratia compensation where there is sufficient evidence to justify payment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this concerns not, only students? Perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that last week I wrote to his honourable friend Mr. O'Brien about one of my academic colleagues who is a specialist in middle eastern archaeology and who is unable to discharge his duties without travelling. Does the Minister think that it is fair to responsible citizens, or their employers, to prevent them from discharging the duties for which they are paid?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, last week I said on this very point that the service provided is not satisfactory. I do not believe that I have ever tried to duck that. I gave the figures on students specifically because that was the main interest of the noble Baroness. Of course, others have suffered. I know that because a number of your Lordships have been good enough to tell ire about individual cases.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I must declare an interest as a solicitor who from time to time has to deal with the IND on behalf of clients. Is the Minister aware that delays affect not only students and asylum seekers, but also those applying for naturalisation? In April 1998, the advice to those who had paid the not insubstantial fee for naturalisation was that their applications would take at least 12 months. In November 1998, those who inquired were told that the department was still dealing with applications lodged in May 1997 and that they would have to wait at least another 12 months. Does the Minister think that that is an appropriate way to deal with those who apply to and pay a fee to a government department?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not, and I am happy to repeat that. In fact, last week I
6
used the words of the Home Secretary and of my honourable friend Mr. O'Brien when I said that, in terms of what the noble Lord has identified, we inherited a "shambles". That is why we are seeking to try to reorganise the system. I repeat my regret that things are taking longer than we had at first anticipated and hoped.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, on the matter of inheritance, the Minister confirmed last week that it was the relocation to Croydon, which was decided after the election, which was the primary cause of the loss of the passports, not the Siemens contract, although that has obviously also gone wrong. Can the Minister tell the House whether those who need to acquire a new passport either from the United Kingdom authorities or, if they are foreigners, from their own embassies, in replacement for one lost will be compensated at least to the extent of the extra fees as well as for any other loss, such as has already been referred to?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, any neutral or objective observer cannot be in any doubt about the fact that we did inherit a shambles. The relocation caused problems, as did the computer. As regards compensation, I repeat again what I have already said on two occasions: applications for an ex gratia payment will be considered, if properly supported with evidence.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister consider granting ex gratia compensation to an Algerian whose case was approved last August as a refugee, whose wife and six children then entered, but who was unable to obtain benefit for them until late February, and whose case I have taken up with the Minister, Mike O'Brien?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, every case is judged on its own merits, according to the criteria that I set out earlier.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, as regards the ex gratia applications, have those who are entitled to make them. because passports are lost for any other reason, been told that they are in a position to make such applications?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know whether everyone has been told specifically, but those who are careful students of Hansard will know, at least since last Wednesday, that that is the position.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the Minister about an answer that he gave last week which has concerned a number of us? I refer to the fact that there was no penalty clause in the Siemens contract. Given the fact that there have clearly been failures by Siemens, can the Minister give an undertaking that in any future PFI contracts in which the Home Office is involved there will be penalty clauses?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think that it is necessarily appropriate to have a penalty clause in

7
every contract. The guidance given by the National Audit Office pointed clearly to the need to learn lessons. Undoubtedly, the problem which the noble Lord identifies is one of those matters that must be taken carefully into account.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Minister said that he inherited a shambles from the previous government, but does he recall that when the previous government tried to speed up immigration procedures in 1994, or whenever it was, there were howls of protest from the then Opposition—I am sure that the noble Lord joined in—saying that it was not fair?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I did, because it was not!

NATO: Nuclear Weapons Policy
2.52 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether NATO policy envisages first use of nuclear weapons and, if so, whether they are party to that policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, NATO continues to reserve the right of limited first use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence to persuade an aggressor to desist if no other means are available. The United Kingdom has, of course, undertaken not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapons state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty unless it should attack us in alliance with, or in association with, a nuclear weapons state.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does that rather complicated Answer really mean that the Government will not use weapons against any non-nuclear state in any foreseeable circumstances?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Answer means what it says: the Government reserve the right of first use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence.
Lord Carver: My Lords, can the Minister explain how the Government reconcile the policy of possible first use of nuclear weapons with the assurance that they constantly give that our nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is exactly what I said in my Answer. They would be used only in extreme circumstances of self-defence. I do not think that I can give an answer that is any clearer than the Answer that I gave to my noble friend Lord Jenkins.

PDVN: Written Answers
2.54 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will be able to reply to Written Questions by e-mail.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Toronton): My Lords, we are making steady progress. Nineteen departments and agencies are now able to e-mail the Parliamentary Data and Video Network using the Government Secure Intranet. However, although very useful, e-mail alone is not suitable for Written Answers, as neither the time of receipt nor the identity of the sender can be guaranteed. Bespoke software which overcomes this deficiency using a server-to-server link has been developed, and a programme of installation, testing and refinement is in progress. I expect a small number of Questions to be answered electronically on a trial basis before the Summer Recess.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, but it is a great deal slower progress than the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, seemed to indicate that we might be making many months ago. It seems extraordinary that the Government, who claim such technological competence and to be so up to date, should be unable to reply to an e-mail and to make sufficient provision for e-mail replies in two years of asking. They seem to have complicated the question beyond recognition. We need to be able to have copies of Written Answers by e-mail so that we can include them in our files. Why is that beyond the competence of the Government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not outside the competence of the Government. The problem with e-mail is that one cannot determine the time of receipt. In order to prove that, we sent the noble Lord an e-mail this morning. We cannot say what time it arrived and he has not yet acknowledged receipt of it. We are trying to overcome that. Using a server-to-server system can be a means of providing Answers to Parliamentary Questions.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how long does it take to answer a Written Question and what advantage is there in an e-mail Answer?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the time that it takes to answer a Written Question varies from department to department. I can see that e-mail could provide a nice back-up way of getting information.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, do the Minister and his colleagues in the Government welcome

9
correspondence by e-mail? If so, could they publish their e-mail addresses in an easily accessible form, such as in the Palace of Westminster telephone directory?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, many ministerial e-mail addresses are published in readily accessible form. I am not sure whether they are in the guide to which the noble Lord referred, but I shall look into it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that Questions for Written Answer from Members of this House to the Government may be of great interest to individual Members but that they are also a mechanism for holding the Government to account, and that Answers are now published on the internet as well as in Hansard, because of Hansard's input into the internet, should not such a development be welcomed?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful for those remarks. However, we shall, of course, continue to publish all Written Answers in the paper form of Hansard.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me with regard to Parliamentary Answers to Written Questions. Are the Government satisfied that giving a Parliamentary Answer by referring a noble Lord to a website address is a suitable and proper Answer to a Written Question in your Lordships' House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am not sure to what Question the noble Lord is referring. Whether or not the Answer is suitable depends very much on the Question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as we have a little time, may I refresh the noble and learned Lord's memory? He answered a Question from me by simply referring me to a website rather than answering the Question as asked.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my memory is more fallible than that of the noble Lord. I am not sure to what Question he is referring, but if he will draw my attention to it, I shall immediately write and explain why I answered in that way.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, pointed out, Written Answers are published in Hansard on the internet. All that is required from the Government—all that I am asking of the Government—is that they throw a switch and a copy appears in my mailbox. That does not require more than a moment's thought by somebody. Surely the Government need not take two years to say "yes" to that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we are doing more than just providing an e-mail Answer. We
10
are trying to find a means whereby we can time the Answer and also have it as an actual way of answering the Question.

Business
2.58 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the Berlin European Council on 24th and 25th March and on Kosovo.
In view of the long list of speakers for the debate which is scheduled to take place this afternoon and tomorrow on the House of Lords Bill, it might be helpful if I indicate to the House that, while the debate is not time limited, if the average time taken by each of the Back-Bench speakers was seven minutes, the debate would conclude at a reasonable hour on each of the two evenings—using "evening" in this context as a term of art.
As always, in all such matters I can only offer guidance. I remain in the hands of the House. I should say, however, that as a second day has been agreed for this debate, it will be in the interests of all noble Lords who are sitting through the two days for the proceedings not to be unduly extended into the small hours. No doubt your Lordships will agree that it would be particularly regrettable if noble Lords who might have contributed to causing the House to sit later than it otherwise would have done did not remain for the winding-up speeches.
I can only repeat that the time at which the House adjourns tonight and tomorrow night is entirely in your Lordships' hands. A list of speakers will shortly be available but it might be helpful if your Lordships knew that the first six speakers are to be my noble friend the Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers, who will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, to move his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Richard, in that order.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, why is the noble Lord the Chief Whip always asking for restraint? Does he realise that some noble Lords are going to be obliged to be restrained for the rest of their lives? Why therefore should they be restrained on the Bill which is perforce to restrain them?
Lord Carter: My Lords, in the two-day debate on the White Paper, which ranged considerably wider than the Bill, the average speaking time for the Back-Benchers was seven minutes.
Lord Acton: My Lords, can my noble friend say when it is proposed to take the Statement?
Lord Carter: My Lords, we are not entirely sure. We are still waiting for the final Statement to be cleared from the other place and it will be subject to agreement between the usual channels as to when we take it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the Statement is not cleared by the time the sixth speaker sits down, we shall be in ignorance as to whom the seventh speaker shall be.
Lord Carter: My Lords, good try! But the list of speakers will be available shortly. We will then know not only who is to be the seventh speaker, but also the 76th.

House of Lords Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the House of Lords Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is a great privilege to open this Second Reading debate. It is always a privilege to speak from this Dispatch Box or, indeed, from any place in your Lordships' House. The greatest privilege is to be a Member of this House of Parliament. The Bill before us concerns that privilege. It establishes in statute that no one can assert an inalienable right to automatic membership of Parliament. No one can inherit a preordained, reserved seat in this House. Membership must be a jealously protected individual privilege.
The Bill marks a profound change in our parliamentary system, a profound change which the Government feel is long overdue. The Bill is an historic document. Like many historic documents, it is simple and straightforward. It has a clear purpose and it expresses that purpose in a direct and expedient way. Perhaps I may briefly describe its clauses, and as regards this Bill I can be very brief.
Clause 1 removes the right to be a Member of this House by virtue of a hereditary peerage. Clause 2 removes, as a consequence, the bar on hereditary Peers being parliamentary electors, candidates or MPs. Clause 3 governs the repeal schedule which itself consists of the provisions of the 1963 Peerage Act made redundant by the Bill. Clause 4 provides for the commencement of the main provisions of the Act at the end of the Session in which it is passed. It also provides for an order-making power which might be needed to enable provision to be made regarding the entitlement of hereditary Peers to vote in parliamentary and European elections. Clause 5 is the interpretation and Short Title.
As I have just said, the Government believe this change to be both historic and long overdue. Perhaps I may quote to your Lordships from an earlier speech on this theme:
"The quarrel between a tremendous democratic electorate and a one-sided hereditary Chamber has often been threatened, has often been averted, has been long debated, has been long delayed, but it has always been inevitable and it has come at last".
That was Winston Churchill MP speaking 90 years ago in 1909. Two years later in 1911 this House agreed to an Act of Parliament which said that the hereditary basis
12
of its membership was unsustainable. In 1948 and in 1968 proposals for reform were made; all were frustrated.
It is worth considering the political environment in which the first reforms were proposed, nearly 90 years ago. In 1911 some men had two votes; a few still had none; no woman could vote, let alone stand for Parliament. There were still university seats in the House of Commons. Since then the political and social landscape of this country has been transformed. But in this Chamber we still confront an ossified system whose days were apparently numbered in the 1900s. In this, the last few months of the 20th century, the Government believe we must finally close the political chapter of the 19th century.
It is no discredit to any individuals to argue that the continuing system discredits Parliament and must be changed. Anyone with any knowledge of our history understands the immensely important role that the hereditary peerage has played in this country's counsels. I know my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor intends to address this more fully later in the debate. It may also be of assistance to the House to know that, though we are not in the Committee stage of this Bill, my noble and learned friend will also speak about the possibilities of a later amendment to retain temporary membership for some hereditary Peers.
Suffice it for me to say at the beginning of this debate that many hereditary Peers continue to play an active, distinguished part in the proceedings of this House. I am delighted to acknowledge that personal contribution, and to pay tribute to those numbers of hereditary Peers who are extremely worthy recipients of the privilege of membership. Indeed, I have no doubt that most Members by birth recognise the privilege that their inherited right confers. The fundamental point is that the birthright itself can no longer be sustained.
The British are justly proud that we have often led the world in establishing the principles and practice of good government. But we are now alone among advanced democracies in permitting hereditary membership of Parliament. I am not encouraged to discover that the only other parliamentary assembly which has a system anything like your Lordships' House is the Lesotho Senate.
I have also heard some hereditary Peers lament that this Bill means that they will lose the opportunity to serve their countrymen; that their efforts are somehow no longer needed. That, I have to assure the House, is not the intention. After all, Clause 2 of the Bill will enable the hereditary peerage to be elected as Members of the other place. Clause 4 even provides an order-making power to ensure that ex-Members of this House are enfranchised as quickly as possible. They will enjoy all the same rights as all the rest of the citizens of this country.
I must say to the House that there has been some unease at the hints given in our previous debates that somehow hereditary Peers are imbued with a unique sense of duty and public responsibility. A sense of duty, I suggest, unites and motivates all the active Members of this House. Public service is a tradition which spreads

13
widely into our community. It extends far beyond the privileged Chambers of Parliament and has always done so.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn spoke, I thought, most movingly at the end of the debate on our proposals last October about his own ancestors and the service that they had given. He described their quiet, obscure service, one to the country in the trenches of the First World War and one to his local community as its village schoolmaster. There are thousands, millions of people in this country who can make the same claim to ancestors who lived lives of decency, duty and service, and who exhibit the same qualities in their lives today. All those same opportunities are now open to those hereditary Peers who will leave us. I am sure that many will take them up.
Even at this late stage of our parliamentary history the Government do not suggest reform for reform's sake. This Bill is part of our determination to change our country's institutions so that they are fit for the 21st century, to achieve a new constitutional settlement.
I know very well that some of your Lordships are suspicious of the word "modernising". Perhaps I may attempt to explain it in this context. Modernisation is nothing more sinister than allowing our institutions to develop to reflect the changes in our society. That it seems to some to create an upheaval is, frankly, a symptom of how far some of our institutions had been left behind. Let me offer the House some examples. We ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951. This Government have just passed legislation to incorporate it into our law.
There has been a century of administrative devolution in Scotland, with much longer separate education and legal systems. This Government have responded to generations of what one might describe as "alienation" north of the Border by introducing the Scottish Parliament. In Wales, 35 years of administration devolution has now led to an elected Assembly. In London the Government have addressed the issue of a single voice for the nation's capital. We are introducing the new Greater London Authority.
At Westminster, the Government are making changes to enable better scrutiny of legislation, and introducing new measures to reflect the lifestyles and responsibilities of MPs in the 1990s.
We are looking at ways to improve the delivery of the Government's own policies. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his pertinent question on this during Question Time. They will indeed build on the technological developments of recent decades. Tomorrow we w ill publish a White Paper, Modernising Government, which will set out a strategy for implementing change. These initiatives are not based in ideology but in a pragmatic wish to achieve relevance and contemporary authority for our institutions of government. This House cannot be immune from that process of reform.
It is a coherent programme of renewal and modernisation. True, it does not spring from some absolutist theoretical master plan. It is pragmatic, but that is not at all the same as incoherent. It has an
14
overarching aim—to achieve a maturer democracy with different centres of power, where individuals enjoy greater rights and where government is carried out closer to the people. What unites the reforms is that they are sensible incremental responses based on liberal constitutional principles.
That is the Government's position. It is clear, it is straightforward and it has been supported by the electorate. It is reflected in the clear and straightforward Bill which we have before us today.
However, what is unclear is the position of our political opponents. In the 1997 general election campaign, Conservative candidates were told to support hereditary Peers as, "an asset to democracy". "It is important", said their campaign guide.
"to support the hereditary principle in its own right."
I am sure that there are noble Lords opposite who still promote that policy.
Yet, as the Bill before us today progressed earlier through the other place, Conservative spokesmen were extremely reluctant to defend the principle of a birthright to a seat in Parliament. Continuously pressed from the Government Benches the final position seemed to be that the Conservative Party rejects the hereditary system—just as it did, theoretically at least, in 1911 and indeed in 1968—but also rejects the present Bill.
Members of the Conservative Party dislike the present Bill, apparently, not because they support the hereditary peerage but because they do not support the Government's process of reform. The simple question must therefore arise. If the Conservative Party opposes the practice not the principle of reform, why did it not in all its years of government power—during its last administration of 18 years and during its, roughly, 45 years of power since 1911—bring a reform Bill of its own? Why not produce a solution which it did find acceptable? Why do nothing? The answer is easy to answer; it is as simple as the question. The status quo suits the Conservative Party extremely well.
It is worth rehearsing the party political figures in this House again, not least because I note from the draft list that I have been privileged to see, several speakers who have not taken part in our earlier debates on the subject. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, will make his maiden speech tomorrow. We all look forward particularly to hearing his contribution.
The simple numbers are these. There are 475 Conservative Peers and 175 Labour Peers. Of the 475 Conservative Peers, 302 are hereditary Peers. Only 18 of the 175 Labour Peers are hereditary Peers. The Conservative Peers can defeat the Labour Peers in every Division; indeed, in this Parliament they need only to field 37 per cent. of their available strength in order to defeat the Government every time.
I know that the Opposition will reply, "But we don't defeat you in every Division; we exercise restraint". However, that is not the point. It cannot be right for one party, and one party alone, always to be able to have its way, whether in government or in opposition and regardless of the result of a general election. But, say

15
the defenders of the status quo, Conservative governments were defeated too. That is right, but not so often and usually on the votes of life Peers.
In the 1995–96 Session under the last administration, the Conservative government won 91 per cent. of Divisions in this House. Two thirds of those victories were victories only because of the presence in the Division Lobbies of Conservative hereditary Peers. All 10 government defeats would still have been defeats on the votes of life Peers alone. By contrast, in the 1997–98 Session under the present Government, the Government lost 38 whipped Divisions. In all but five of 33 losses, we were defeated only because of the presence of hereditary Peers in the Opposition Lobbies.
Of course, the party opposite is exercising a degree of restraint compared with the position when there was last a Labour government. In the period 1974 to 1979, the Labour government were defeated an average of 68 times per Session. By contrast, Conservative governments between 1979 and 1996 were defeated an average of 13 times per Session.
Does anyone seriously believe that if that situation had been reversed—had Labour had three times as many Peers as the Conservatives and won as many victories—they would not have acted? I do not underestimate the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. I am sure that she would have brought in a Lords reform Bill in her first administration. So, to justify retaining its huge majority, the party opposite has produced elaborate arguments for delaying any change.
Today that argument, as I noted earlier, rests on opposition to the Government's methods of reform—the step-by-step approach. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer will speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, which advances this position, when he replies to the debate tonight, and the House has had the opportunity to hear the noble Lord move his amendment.
However, simple observation suggests that the opponents of this Bill do not want to be caught arguing on principled rather than pragmatic grounds for the retention of a hereditary element in Parliament. So, instead, they argue that we are wrong to deal with one issue without dealing with all the rest. The difficulty with that approach is that we know from history what the end result is likely to be. We have had several attempts already this century to deal with the whole package. Indeed, I have already referred to them. None of them has got anywhere.
The reason is that supporters of the hereditary Peers are always the wild card. Those who do not want to see any change, for whatever reason, join, for example, with those who fear an elected House of Lords to defeat that idea. They then join with those who think an elected House is the only solution to defeat a nominated or mixed House. But no reform ever wins.
We simply do not intend to play the game that way again. This time, the first question is: do you believe that the hereditary Peers any longer have a place in Parliament? The answer can be simply, yes or no. Then we move on to the same question which can clearly be
16
asked about the next stage; namely: do you agree with proposals for further reform? Again, the answer is yes or no. Each question is separately decided on its own terms, debated on the arguments which apply to it, not to some hypothetical alternative.
That is why we set out in our 1997 election manifesto the two-stage approach, and that is the approach on which we have a mandate from the country. In our earlier debates on this subject I have heard some noble Lords suggest that this mandate is irrelevant and that of course no one read the detailed manifesto, understood it or voted on the basis of it. I must say that I find that a dangerous, as well as an insulting viewpoint. I believe it is not one that the Opposition Front Bench endorses.
One thing is indisputable: this Government were overwhelmingly elected on the commitment to govern in the interests of the many, not the few. I can think of few Bills which more clearly fulfil that commitment than the one before us today.
The Government and the party to which I am proud to belong are dedicated to the improvement of our society and its institutions. This basic philosophy is true of New Labour, of old Labour and, indeed—as some Members of your Lordships' House prefer to describe themselves—of original Labour. We are all rooted in our egalitarian, democratic tradition. Our strength of commitment to reforming the House of Lords springs from that tradition. It has been part of our policy for 100 years.
Twice before when we have had commanding majorities in the House of Commons, we have attempted one stage, one-off, full-scale reform. Twice before we have been unsuccessful. So, this third time we are embarked on a different approach. We will deal with each issue in turn. This Bill to end the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in Parliament is a radical and historic first step. It is consistent with the founding principles of the Government's heritage; it is consistent with today's determination to renew Britain for the 21st century. This time reform will succeed and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington).
3.21 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness's speech heralds the start of an extraordinary debate with around 180 speakers over two days, four government Ministers, dozens of former Ministers and, I am delighted to say, a decent turnout from the Labour Party. I welcome Labour Peers to this debate. Last month in the debate on the long-term future of this House, Labour Peers were conspicuous by their absence; today they are out in force. The whole House awaits their contribution on a matter which, if passed, will have more far-reaching consequences for this House than any other this century.
I also mention the speech we are to be denied this afternoon; that is, the speech of my late friend Lord Beloff, who died a week ago today. He was the champion of the unfashionable cause. He feared no conventional wisdom and your Lordships' House as

17
well as the nation is poorer for his death. Lord Beloff was a powerful defender of the hereditary principle, but he was above all a lover of liberty who feared the growth of executive power. That was why he so opposed this Bill. I recall some of his last words to your Lordships in the debate on the White Paper a month ago and I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will enjoy them. He said that government policy was presented as "modernisation" of Parliament, but its true motive was the marginalisation of Parliament. In that, as in so Lord Beloff was right. I share that fundamental objection to this Bill.
This afternoon, we have been treated to an intriguing spectacle. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has had to do an impossible job. To no one's surprise, she has done it well, with the skill and certainty for which she is renowned. Using all the skills at her disposal, she has done a creditable job in introducing this particular Bill to your Lordships. After all, it is a rare art to be able to do something with a straight face which is so palpably absurd.
Am I the only one in this House who believes that there is something perfectly ludicrous in what we are doing today? We are in a wonderland where nothing is quite what it seems. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has spent 20 minutes explaining the thing which is not. Another place has spent six weeks debating a Bill they all know will not become law. When it returns to them, they will have little time to debate the changes and to decide whether or not to accept them. This whole saga has an air of unreality to it. No one knows quite how it will all end, least of all the Government, although it would be changing the habit of a lifetime for them to start something they know how to finish.
But one thing is for sure; no one expects this Bill in this form to become law. This Bill starts with a simple purpose; that the hereditary peerage should be removed from this House. That is all. There is no reason, no purpose and no vision for the future—sadly the noble Baroness has not taken the opportunity to give us much of that today either. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House says that the Government are removing privilege. However, when I look around all the Benches in this House I am conscious as much of a sense of duty as I am of privilege. Noble Lords opposite say that the hereditary principle is an affront to democracy. However, in the conflict over the European elections Act, which House stood up for people's power, and which for party power? Whatever may befall this House, at least it can say that it never agreed to the removal of the voters' precious right to choose their MEP by name.
The Government say they are creating a more democratic House, but where is the democracy in a letter from the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Prime Minister dispensing his patronage? For ancient privilege, read modern patronage. That is the future of this House drawn by this Bill. However much the noble Baroness's right honourable friend the Prime Minister may boast that he is giving up patronage, let noble Lords opposite reflect on the following. The Prime Minister has already created more Peers more quickly than any prime minister in modern history. He is the first modern
18
prime minister to create more than half new Peers from his own party. And when this Bill is through, because the House will be smaller each act of patronage will have a greater impact on the balance of the House than anything seen before. I am certain that this House will not want this Bill to proceed without having examined the power of patronage, what that may mean for the freedom of our Parliament and how it may be circumscribed.
Let us also be in no doubt as to the effects of this Bill. This is the Bill that gives the Prime Minister what he yearns for more than anything else; control of a House that has defied him. This is the Bill that will deliver a House more likely to approve the major constitutional changes for the future: namely, proportional representation for another place arid the introduction of the euro. This is the Bill that removes an important degree of independence from this House, and with it experts on a whole range of subjects and interests who will not easily be replaced. Where will your Lordships be without the perspicacity and persistence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on social security, or the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, on our national heritage, or the noble Countess, Lady Mar?
In her speech, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House made much of statistics. I learnt a long time ago that when it comes to the House of Lords you really can prove almost anything you want by using statistics in your favour. The noble Baroness points to two particular problems. The first concerns the voting statistics. She will know that even in the past few weeks, Divisions have been lost by the Government on majorities of fewer than five. That is not the success of this side of the House; it is a failure of her noble friends. Secondly, if the issue is one of balance—I accept that that is an issue—is there not a better way of dealing with that rather than by this Bill?
This Bill removes from this House significant personalities and characters who have served their nation in Parliament, often at a sacrifice to alternative careers. In particular, it removes my noble friends Lord Carrington, Lord Belstead, Lord Jellicoe, Lord Gowrie, and even the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who was a distinguished Labour Leader of this House. They, among so many others, will be excluded. All were deemed worthy enough to be Cabinet Ministers, but not good enough for new Labour's new House of Lords.
Let us take just one example; that of my noble friend Lord Carrington, whose speech I look forward to hearing later. A long proponent of reform in this House—though not of the half-baked plan we are supposed to be considering this afternoon—his political career sounds almost unbelievable, so distinguished is it. A former High Commissioner in Australia, a Minister in a variety of government departments, Secretary of State for Defence, Secretary of State for Energy, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Chairman of the Conservative Party—the list goes on. But I have no desire to weary your Lordships or embarrass my noble friend further. I would not even have mentioned my noble friend if it had not been for his extraordinary intervention last Thursday in the debate on Kosovo. I cannot but wonder that, if the Bill

19
goes through, this House will lose that wisdom, knowledge and experience collected over so many years and put to such good use in so many different ways. And why is my noble friend to be excluded from this House in the future? Has he done anything wrong? Should he, or any of the others I have mentioned, be ashamed? No, my Lords. Those who should be ashamed sit opposite. Shamed, because they choose to exclude my noble friend Lord Carrington not for what he has done or achieved but because of where he was born.
We are opposed to the Bill for three main and related reasons: it has no vision; it has no principle; and it is part of no strategy at all. First, it offers no vision as to the future second Chamber that the Government tell us this country and this Parliament need; secondly, it makes it less likely that we will ever go on to a second stage reform; and therefore, thirdly, it misses the best chance this century of finding consensus across the parties for a fully reformed, strong, independent and effective second Chamber, by which few hereditary Peers mind being replaced.
For several generations this House has accepted the need for reform, yet it is another place that suffers from a collective schizophrenia. For 30 years, another place has prevaricated, stuck in a mode of, "Don't know what to do so let's not think about it". What thought has taken place is of the "If you make them more powerful they will take power from us" variety. Only recently has the debate become more focused. It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that only last week an Early Day Motion was presented in another place calling for a fully elected House.
Some of those questions will have to be addressed. One cannot cast the hereditary peerage into oblivion without casting the life peerage into doubt. One cannot alter the House of Lords radically without altering the House of Commons too. This House's present duty cannot be thwarted by this Government's fear of the future and hatred of the past.
In contrast to the Government's position, our duty has always been clear. The constitutional landscape we will inherit from the Labour Party will be substantially different from the one we left behind. No one yet knows what effects the new devolved legislative bodies will have on the workings of Parliament, let alone the coherence of the United Kingdom. But it is increasingly clear that we will need to rebalance the constitution to take account of the many and varied changes that have taken place. At its heart, our philosophy is based on strengthening Parliament, to make representative democracy work better and to give government greater authority as they go about their business. The Bill, however, does none of these things. It makes it less likely that we will get the long-term reform that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will shortly propose.
It is not yet too late though for the Government to think again. What is required is not a spectacular U-turn, but a carefully thought through policy decision to await the report of the Royal Commissioners, allow a joint committee of both Houses to sit and then, between the
20
parties, decide on the way forward. Still now, at this late hour, I urge the Government to consider this option: it is not yet too late.
During the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, we will propose and support a number of amendments designed to improve it. I have referred already to some areas that we will want to examine. But one in particular we will support is loosely termed as the "Weatherill amendment". I will not go into its provenance now, nor will I delve into the detail, but the House might expect me to say a couple of things. Perhaps I may first express a wish that the draft amendment and an explanation of the mechanics of the process of election will be made available as soon as possible. That is important if it is to receive support from your Lordships. Nothing succeeds more in a vacuum than rumour and counter rumour. The sooner the House sees what is proposed and understands it, the better.
Secondly, the amendment fulfils two objectives. The first is that we should not allow the Government to create a wholly nominated house of patronage in stage one. That is because we might be stuck with stage one for a very long time. The second is that, in view of the Government's intense antipathy towards the hereditary peerage, the amendment makes stage two a more realistic possibility than would otherwise be the case. But the Government should be under no illusions. The amendment falls well short of making the Bill acceptable. It still fails the first test of creating a more effective second Chamber, better able to check the power of the Government.
In the weeks ahead, we will need to debate a wide variety of issues that arise from questions and matters that are not properly covered in the Bill. The Bill is masterly in its brevity, but it omits much of substance and relevance to the future House. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the arguments put forward and to join us in as far reaching a debate as possible. One cannot rule out from consideration of the future of something so great as our Parliament, more than a half of one of the Chambers of that Parliament. That would be to imagine one could score a knife across one of the great arteries of our history and leave the body politic unharmed.
One of the hallmarks of the debate in another place was Members' inability to discuss a range of issues that need to be aired in Parliament. So I trust that there is no thought of curtailing the debate in this House. The Government have not always been generous on time. The House will know that it was in the face of opposition that the Government insisted on this Second Reading debate in the week before Easter and would not listen to reason when I pointed out that the debate is likely to finish in the small hours of Wednesday morning. The Government believed that I was seeking to delay the Bill. I was not. But what it means is that the nation, over their cornflakes, will be denied a report of the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the debate. I cannot help but believe that the Government do not want anyone to hear the noble Lord's defence of the Government, which is a pity,

21
because the noble Lord normally does a good job for his political masters and I am sure his speech would merit prime time.
Furthermore, it is possible that a Division will take place at the end of the debate. For obvious reasons, we will not support the Second Reading in the Division Lobbies but neither will we support moves not to give the Bill a Second Reading. The Bill deserves proper scrutiny and that is what we will give it in the remaining stages.
The amendment on the Order Paper tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, is, however, a different matter. It is a non-fatal Motion. It will, I hope, deeply embarrass the Government if it is carried, and if it is called at the end of the debate I will support the amendment and encourage my noble friends to do likewise.
I can find nothing in the Bill to commend to your Lordships. I regret that we are now dealing with it at Second Reading. The last time we discussed this issue, in the debate on the White Paper, my noble friend Lord Cranborne said flat we should not be mawkish. He is right. But this moment should not pass without reflecting briefly on the work of the hereditary peerage. We are witnessing in some instances more than 700 years of continuous service to this House washed away on a tide of modernisation. Does it not strike your Lordships as both remarkable and significant that one of the most widely respected Members of this House, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, should hold one of the oldest titles of us all? I sincerely hope that the descendants of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will still be giving public service in the year 2884.
After this Bill is passed, it may well be that people look back on the House of Lords in the 20th century and regard this as the Golden Age. I, for one, hope they do not, as it will mean that our successors in this House will have failed. And so shall we. We shall have failed in our desire to leave behind something stronger, something better. and something that will be worthy of its predecessors. Our responsibility is for the future. But it is how we deal with our future that our past will be judged. Our duty is not to mourn what is passed but to provide for the future. That is, in the end, what is so wrong about this Bill. It gives no thought for the future; it is an ignoble Bill, and it will stand for all time as a monument to how not to progress parliamentary change.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, in October last and again in February we held two long debates on the reform of this House. I do not propose to cover quite the same ground today. We were all totally familiar with the issues before this Parliament commenced because they had been brought into the sharpest focus by the Government's manifesto commitment, which was referred to earlier by the Leader of the House. That commitment was plain; legislation would be introduced in this Parliament. The principle of excluding the hereditary peerage from the House had been discussed from every angle, with many
22
Peers, some of whom are normally silent, contributing to the argument. We know that strong and differing views are widely held.
There is also an awareness in all parts of the House, and certainly on these Benches, that severance from this place will be a painful personal experience for many colleagues, some of whose families have served here for generations. I do not dissent from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about a sense of duty. For those of us who stay there will be a genuine sadness in losing friends with whom we have worked from day to day and others with whom we have profoundly disagreed. After this Bill has been enacted, your Lordships' House will be a different place. Whether it will be as congenial, only experience will show.
The Bill before us has no more than five clauses and the weight of the Bill is carried in only one of them, Clause 1, dealing with the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is concerned entirely with what we must call the transitional House, not with what may come after, when the Royal Commission has reported.
I want to say now that four or five days in Committee and two or three days on Report—not much more—would be, in my view, an adequate allowance of time. If the Bill were taking longer, I should need to be persuaded that that was not the result of deliberate delay and disruption. That could be a decisive consideration—although not the only one—in what these Benches eventually decide about what we have now come to call the Weatherill proposals.
Before ridicule catches fire, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that this House took four days in Committee and two on Report on the Access to Justice Bill. The Bill was complex, and was controversial across all Benches; it had 80 clauses. More to the point, the Bill that is before us today has had four days in Committee and none on Report in another place. We often pride ourselves that debates in this House are characterised by substance, not rhetoric, that we address issues directly and without tedious repetition. It would be a pity if that reputation were in tatters by the time this Bill completed its passage. It would diminish this House.
I fully recognise that some Members of the House are still bitterly and passionately opposed to the Bill. It is, they say—as they are entitled to—a bad Bill, mean and obnoxious. But the logic of such a view is plain. Whatever the conventions, whatever the pressures, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may say, noble Lords who are opposed to the principle of the Bill should speak against it today and tomorrow, as many intend to, and vote against the principle, which means voting against Second Reading tomorrow night. The amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, is a soft and evasive action, as the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, confirmed. To vote against Second Reading would be the bold and honourable course. It would be a step that measured up to the occasion as they see it. It is what I would do if I were in their place.
But I am not, and I welcome the Bill. It is wrong that in a representative democracy Members of the second Chamber should arrive here not on merit—even when

23
that may have turned out to be great; the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, gave a long and uncontroversial list of distinguished Peers who arrived on the hereditary principle. It is wrong that they should arrive by random selection at birth, and change is long overdue.
I have nothing further to say about the Bill as printed. I wish to turn to what the Bill does not presently contain—oprincipally the Weatherill proposals—but also briefly to the political balance in the transitional House, and with it the appointments commission, both of which were referred to in Chapter 6 of the White Paper that we debated some weeks ago.
The Weatherill proposals came in a press release dated 2nd December and were described as "a cross-bench peers' initiative". Almost four months later, that press release is the only authorised text that is publicly available; and it begs almost as many questions as it answers. That is because the initiative was not really a Cross-Bench initiative at all. The signatories, the noble Lords, Lord Weatherill and Lord Marsh, and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon—I make no complaint or criticism—were acting as a vehicle for, or in the knowledge of, an agreement that had already been reached between the Prime Minister, with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor acting as his agent, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, then leader of the Conservative Peers. Only the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, can tell us precisely what the details mean and how the proposal is meant to work.
The nature of the deal is simple. The noble Viscount said, in effect, "Let 100 hereditary Peers survive through the transitional House and I will do my best to ensure the smooth passage of the Bill". The noble and learned Lord the Lord the Lord Chancellor replied: "Done, although the numbers are a bit high". So they settled on 75, which is 10 per cent. of the hereditaries, on the due date, 14 (or 15) Deputy Chairmen and two special cases.
I do not object to a political deal of that kind, subject to the small print. But it is much less acceptable and a lot more complicated than the previous understanding—which I fully supported—that a number of hereditary Peers, and again I refer to the distinguished list mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who have played an active part in the House should become life Peers when the Bill receives Royal Assent. We on these Benches shall find difficulty in supporting the deal if it fails to deliver the Bill without wasted time and unless the details are convincing.
Meanwhile, I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he speaks tomorrow, to set out clearly the precise terms of the agreement that the Government are prepared to honour. I am asking for something rather more on the record to replace the press release of 2nd December. Nominees of all parties and from the Cross-Benches have been informally helping the Government to find suitable administrative and procedural means to implement the Weatherill proposals, should it come to that. Their report is now ready and I assume that in due course it will be made available to the whole House. Here I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said. But important
24
policy questions remain, which I hope the Government will answer, on matters which can eventually only be decided in this House.
The proposals allow for one-tenth of hereditary Peers staying on, 75 in this general group. I had assumed that that meant 75 Peers chosen on merit, once and for all. But I now understand that later vacancies among the 75 would be filled by bringing back into the House Peers who had already departed, thus raising the staying-on proportion to over 10 per cent. What is the case for that? In effect, it means a self-perpetuating block of representative Peers with the right to constant replenishment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will explain why that is justified.
If each party is to retain one-tenth of its hereditary numbers, which is what the Cross-Bench Peers suggested, why should each party not be free to decide how to select them, either by the vote of its own hereditaries alone or of all its Peers, especially when all Peers—not just the hereditaries—are to be allowed to elect the Deputy Chairmen? Again, I should be grateful for an explanation.
As for the Deputy Chairmen, unless this is, as I fear, just a rather clumsy device to bump up numbers, what evidence is there that the 14 or 15 who seem to be required to sit on the Woolsack cannot be found from among life Peers or the 75 other hereditaries who stay on? And what happens to a hereditary Peer who is elected to serve as a Deputy Chairman but who later chooses, for good and sufficient reasons, not to do so or who turns out to be unsuitable? Does he leave the House, which is the obvious and proper course, or does he become a Back-Bencher? Who fills his vacancy: another hereditary Peer who has left the House, one of the others staying on or a life Peer previously judged to be unsuitable or unavailable? Whatever the merits of the Weatherill 75, I can see no case for the proposals with regard to Deputy Chairmen.
I should ask a lot more questions of this kind if time allowed because the deal and the Weatherill proposals are riddled with anomalies. There will be room for endless argument, especially about what should be written on the face of the Bill and what should be given effect in Standing Orders.
The Government will plead that the transitional House will not last long, and I believe that they will say that in entirely good faith. But no one can be sure. Elections are lost as well as won; priorities change. It could well be that, if vacancies are to be filled, there will be many new faces among the 75, called back for duty, before further reform arrives. And, who knows, if there were another deal the 75 (plus 14 or 15, plus two) might even be carried over to the second stage of the reform and go on for ever and ever. For the Conservative Benches, that would be a happy outcome, and I should not blame them for rejoicing. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, would be a hero of our time, a very clever fox if ever there was one. But for many of us that would be an unsatisfactory settlement, the prospect of which is opened, at least in part, by the proposals that we expect to be presented to us before the Bill has completed its passage.

25
I turn briefly to two other aspects of the transitional House, both referred to in the White Paper but not, for obvious reasons. in the Bill. They are relevant to a wholly nominated House or a predominately nominated House, if the Weatherill proposals are accepted in one form or another.
The White Paper referred to progress towards ensuring that the political composition of life Peers in the transitional House more accurately reflected the proportion of votes cast for each party at the last general election. It reminded us that the balance in January when the White Paper was published was way out of line as there were 172 Conservative life Peers, 157 Labour life Peers and 45 Liberal Democrat life Peers, which bore no relation to support for the parties in June 1997. I think it was accepted on all Benches that that distortion could not be immediately remedied in a House of reasonable size, but the Government promised that the movement would be firmly in that direction.
The distortion, which is bad enough already—I have referred to the figures, and they are not in doubt—will be greatly increased if the Weatherill proposals are implemented; and the need to remedy the imbalance will become that more urgent. I hope that, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I understand is to open the debate tomorrow, can give an unequivocal undertaking that the process of remedying the imbalance will proceed without conditions in accordance with the principles set out in the White Paper. We should be grateful to hear that.
As for the appointments commission, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be kind enough to say whether there has been any development in the Government's thinking and when the commission will be appointed. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to "patronage"—a perfectly reasonable expression to use. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have been concerned with one of the consequences of stage one reform. The Prime Minister will decide the overall number of nominations, whatever the appointments commission will do. For that reason, it would be helpful to know what principles will guide him, given the questions of balance and the optimum size of the transitional House.
It would be nice to believe—and it may still be possible—that is Bill will be debated vigorously but without rancour. We on these Benches should be content to see it pass unamended, subject to reasonable scrutiny. Great historic changes are often the consequence of one small step. This is a short Bill but it is one small step towards making our parliamentary democracy complete.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Cobboldrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert ("but this House regrets that the Bill radically alters the historic composition of the House of Lords for party political advantage, without consultation or consensus on the successor House's role and composition and without making it more democratic").
26
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have so far heard the views of the three main political parties on this most important constitutional Bill. I address your Lordships as an independent hereditary Peer. I acknowledge that my presence in this Chamber by accident of birth is hard to justify. However, I, and, I am sure, most of my fellow hereditary Peers, feel a strong sense of duty and of awe in participating in the work of an institution that has such a long and honourable tradition of service to this country; an institution which continues to serve the country well, at very modest cost, and an institution which is respected throughout the world.
I, and, I suspect, most hereditary Peers are not against reform. Far from it. But what really sticks in our throats is being summarily removed from your Lordships' House without prior public consultation or consensus as to the future House's role and composition.
If hereditary membership of your Lordships' House has any value, it must surely be as a long-stop guardian of the British constitution and of the rights and liberties of her people. I believe that before allowing ourselves to be ejected from the House we have a paramount duty to the British people to satisfy ourselves that a successor second Chamber would be better, more efficient, more democratic, more representative, more effective and more respected than your Lordships' House is today. This Bill, if passed, would prevent our doing that. That is the crux of my objection to the Bill and why I believe the measure should be strongly resisted by noble Lords on all sides of the House, be they hereditary or life Peers, Bishops or Law Lords.
Naturally, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House reminded us again of the commitment to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit in this House contained in the Labour Party election manifesto. In spite of that, I do not think that a single noble Lord in this House today believes that more than a handful of people were persuaded to vote Labour at the election as a result of that commitment. The motive of the Labour Party manifesto's stage one-stage two split appears to the cynical to have less to do with reform than with Labour's understandable desire to eliminate as quickly as possible the inbuilt Conservative Party majority in this House. But many less radical and more acceptable methods of eliminating the problem have been suggested in our recent debates, and will no doubt feature in our discussion today and tomorrow.
The Bill is quite simply an act of political vandalism and an insult to the work of your Lordships' House as presently constituted. When we are gone, the transitional House will be no more representative or democratic than the existing House. Furthermore, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said, there is no guarantee that the transitional House will not be extended indefinitely if the findings of the Royal Commission prove to be unacceptable to the Government or the House of Commons. To remove hereditary Peers will break for ever strong historical links and threaten the traditions, pageantry and mystique of a 700 year-old institution that is part of the fabric of this country. It will also expose to threat the hereditary principle of the monarchy.

27
It is much easier to destroy a reputation than to build one. I cannot believe that the British people really want to take these risks. They should at least be asked directly, perhaps in a referendum and not just in the small print of an election manifesto. It is tempting to vote against the Bill at this early stage. However, I believe that that would be wrong and that we should on this occasion properly honour the conventions of your Lordships' House and give the Bill a Second Reading but with the strong reservations set out in the amendment, reserving the right of all Peers to take up the fight at later stages of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert ("but this House regrets that the Bill radically alters the historic composition of the House of Lords for party political advantage, without consultation or consensus on the successor House's role and composition and without making it more democratic").—(Lord Cobbold.)
4.2 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, a great many years ago, long before any of your Lordships were Members of this House, the grandfather of the present noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in the last five years of his life, used to get to his feet and say in a quavering voice, "My Lords, as this is the last speech I shall have the honour to make to your Lordships I ask for your indulgence". As this is probably the last speech I shall make after 54 years in this House I crave your Lordships' indulgence, although I doubt that I shall be as uncontroversial as was Lord Bledisloe.
I say at the outset: I have no objection whatever to the reform of your Lordships' House. I have been advocating reform for the past 40 years from both these Benches and the Benches opposite. I am on record, sometimes to the dismay of my noble friends behind me, as saying that I do not believe that the hereditary principle is the right way to compose a second Chamber; nor do I believe that one particular party should have a permanent majority in it. My quarrel is not with reform of the House of Lords; it is with the manner and style in which the present Government have gone about it.
Previous governments seeking to reform your Lordships' House have always tried first to achieve cross-party agreement among Members of the House of Lords and another place. They have either constituted a committee for this purpose or set up a Royal Commission. A previous Labour government asked Mr. Crossman to chair a committee to decide what should happen to your Lordships' House. Incidentally, that committee came to a conclusion not very dissimilar from the interim proposal of which we heard today which is halfway towards what some of your Lordships want. The proposals were agreed by the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Government; in fact, one thought, everyone. But the Bill was destroyed by a future Leader of the Labour Party, Mr. Foot, in another place.
It may be asked why the Government decided upon this course. They have been forced into setting up a Royal Commission. But why did they start the process?
28
Although it is a fairly unpleasant thing to say to noble Lords opposite, I believe that the Government felt it necessary to take some action before the election to propitiate the unreformed socialists in their party. After all, who cares whether or not hereditary Peers stay in the House of Lords? It had nothing whatever to do with reform of this House. Purely from the party political point of view, the advantage to the Labour Party of a House as at present composed is incalculable. For 10 years I was Leader of the Opposition in this House. Whenever there was a dispute between the two Houses no one ever discussed whether this House was right on the issue. The only debate was about whether this House had the right, composed as it was, to challenge the will of the people. So it suited the Labour Party very well. On the occasions when we challenged another place we were obviously overruled. But did the Government really suppose that after eliminating the hereditary Peers, a wholly nominated House, composed either as of now, and therefore equally likely to be disregarded by another place because it is not elected, or, even worse, one made up of more Peers who support the Labour Party, would be acceptable?
As for style, it is a great pity that noble Lords opposite are so dismissive of hereditary Peers. I am glad that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House made a brief curtsy in their direction today. I say without offence that some of us who are hereditary Peers believe that a number of noble Lords opposite who are basically placemen of a Labour Prime Minister are no more qualified to sit in this House than we are.
Why has this House not been reformed over the past 90 years? The reason is that no one has been able to find a solution. There are all kinds of drawbacks to any proposals. Do we have a wholly nominated House composed no doubt of the great and the good, or some great and all good? Would it really be effective or credible? Would it necessarily do the job that your Lordships now do any better? More particularly, would it not be regarded by another place in exactly the same way as your Lordships are now? I can hear the cry from down the Corridor, "Who are these people to challenge the elected representatives of the people?"
Is the House to be wholly elected? If so, would it be a challenge to the government of the day in another place? Would it have such powers as to disrupt another place and the Government's programme if there were a dispute between the two Houses? Indeed, if it were not given more power why would anyone bother to belong to it?
In the light of the history and the difficulties of the reform of this House, there is probably no ideal solution. For my part—I do not suppose that many of your Lordships agree with me—I would have a wholly elected House. I would have a House elected on a different basis from that of another place, at a different time, and having regard to the regions. I would give it the same power as your Lordships have at present but with one addition, although I confess that I would not like to draft the amendment. It would be that the new House would have the power to call a referendum if

29
there were any proposals made by the Government of the day which touched on the constitution of this country.
One of the objections I have to the manner in which the Government have proposed the Bill is that it is not good enough, on the basis of a large but temporary majority, to tamper with the constitution without trying to get the agreement of the other parties. I have explained what I would do, but I must confess that I do not think it will happen. I shall tell the House what I think will happen. and I say this with great regret. There will be a mish-mash of nominated and elected, no doubt a sprinkling of religious leaders, and it will all be a muddle. I do not think it will be any better than your Lordships' House. at present and, what is much more important, it will be no more credible to another place.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I would say two things to him at the outset. First, he is wrong when he says that the motive for this Bill came out of some sense that the Left wing of the Labour Party had to be propitiated. As someone who was involved in opposition, and in the early part of this Government in producing this policy, I can tell your Lordships that it sprang far more from a recognition that the composition of this House was grotesquely unfair and also that the day of the hereditary peerage had clearly gone. Secondly, perhaps I may say that the noble Lord's own record of wishing to reform this House is well known. It does seem to rue to sit somewhat ill, however, with the attitude of many of those sitting behind him, and indeed with the speech we heard from the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon.
I welcome this Bill; it is right, it is timely and I fully support it. It is important, however, to try to establish the parameters for this debate. It cannot be solely about the rights or wrongs of removing hereditary Peers, nor can it be solely about the advantages or otherwise of the Weatherill amendment. There is a wider debate to be held and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has partly opened it up.
This is in many respects a paving Bill. There are good reasons for looking beyond the issue of hereditary Peers. First, as the Labour Party manifesto made clear, this Bill would be the initial stage of a process. What the second stage should be, is currently before the Royal Commission. We in this House should in no way usurp its role; but it will be for Parliament to approve, or not, proposals when they come forward. In debating this Bill, the House now has the opportunity to lay down markers as to its own future, and indeed to consider how it would wish its representatives on the subsequent joint committee to approach these issues. Debate on this Bill will be the only opportunity that the House has to play such a formative role.
We can spend a great deal of time arguing about whether it is right to remove hereditary Peers from the second Chamber. Or we can do what I hope we will do: that is, look forward and at least start the cross-party debate about what the future shape of this House should be.
30
When I previously spoke on this subject, I detected a growing feeling in the House that what is needed is some indication of the eventual outcome. There is, too, a new mood afoot in the House of Commons. The notion that what one House gains another must lose is increasingly being seen as over-simplified. Almost a third of all Back Benchers across the parties, 143 MPs, have tabled an Early Day Motion calling for the second Chamber to be based on election. I welcome that development, even though I do not go all the way with the solution that they suggest. The principle that our political institutions should be based on democracy is surely welcome. So is the recognition that it is now, when the issues are yet to be resolved, that Parliament can make a contribution on a matter which is central to its own future. We in this House should choose to respond positively in this way and in the way in which we deal with this Bill. It is in that spirit, rather than in the somewhat negative terms of the reasoned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that I hope we can approach this issue, especially given our normal approach to Divisions on Second Reading.
As I said in the last debate we had on reform, there are three reasons this House needs to be reformed. First, the rationale for an aristocratic House has disappeared. Secondly, there is a huge, grotesque, political imbalance. Thirdly, and most importantly, despite much good work, our lack of legitimacy in this House means that the Lords cannot do its job as well as it should.
The rationale for an aristocratic House has long past, as many recognised even in the last century. We should recognise, as I do and have done in the past, the contribution which hereditary Peers and their forebears have made to the history and the governance of this country. Of course they will want to debate die issues concerning them. That is perfectly natural and understandable. If I were in their position, I imagine that would be my reaction too. Today is the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment, but we must move the discussion on. In our debate on 23rd February, I thought I detected some support for that view.
We have an historic opportunity to reform our Parliament of the kind which occurs only once in several generations. We have to grasp that opportunity. This Bill is the first step towards a fully reformed House. That is the basis on which the Government have brought it forward and everybody should work to ensure that there is indeed a second stage; that Lords reform does not remain unfinished business for another nine decades. In winding up this debate, I am sure that my noble friend will wish to take the opportunity to repeat that the Government intend to move to a second stage with all deliberate speed. He needs to refute the claim, heard recently, that the Government intend the nominated House to remain in place for at least 15 to 20 years.
When we last debated this issue, I set out some principles which I suggested should underlie our approach to reform. I do not propose to repeat the speech I made on the last occasion, but I make just two points.
The central challenge for constitutional reform in Britain has to be the planned reduction of centralised executive power. That is the basis of the rest of Labour's

31
constitutional programme. In reforming the second Chamber our aim should therefore be to strengthen Parliament as a whole. We now have a situation where, however frenetic and pressurised life might seem to be to those inside government, the Executive dominates the primary Chamber at westminster—the House of Commons—more than in any other similar system. That is why the overseas examples given in the White Paper, from countries in which the Executive is weaker than ours, expose the issues but do not provide the answers.
The need to reduce or counterbalance that centralised power is at the core of our policies to promote the rights of the citizen, to devolve power to the nations and the regions, to give voters a choice of voting system, to make the workings of government more open to scrutiny and to provide local democracy. Yet that language and that approach to this issue is not yet on the lips of Ministers. It needs to be.
Lords reform will inevitably make the second Chamber more troublesome, but provided the second Chamber is legitimate and credible, that is right. Otherwise we might as well have a unicameral system of government. But a better balance with the Commons is not the same as challenging its supremacy. The right package should leave the Commons pre-eminent as the only wholly elected House, strengthen it in relation to the power of the Lords, and reinforce it as the sole source of a government.
The objective of our reform, therefore, should be to strengthen the second Chamber to the point where it has the legitimacy vis-à-vis the Executive to perform its functions without threatening the position of the Commons. That seems to me to require, first, that both Houses have democratic legitimacy appropriate to their functions; secondly, that their membership puts them into the right balance with each other; and, thirdly, that within that balance the second Chamber has adequate powers to perform its functions. The present powers are substantial, but they are largely unused. It might well be better to have powers which are theoretically lesser but actually more useable in practice.
Perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for a moment in looking at the possibilities of composition of this House. There are only three. It can either be nominated, indirectly elected, or directly elected. It could be a combination of one or other of those. Nomination can claim the possible advantage of continuity and of bringing a range of expert opinion into Parliament. But the basis of a wholly nominated House would remain patronage, notwithstanding the commendable reduction in the Prime Minister's role. Someone other than the electorate would take the decision. Only the non-party Members in your Lordships' House could claim to be independent, and even that would be compromised if we were to introduce "functional constituencies" of the kind seen in, among other places, Hong Kong and which to me carry something of a pre-war corporatist echo.
32
There is, too, the danger of swapping one elite for another. There is no reason why those in poverty or unemployment, and those from ethnic minorities, should regard a life Peer as representing them—nor indeed anyone other than someone for whom they voted.
A wholly nominated House would be the weakest option as the Constitution Unit's study for the Canadian Senate makes clear. There, an ineffective body has been left with strong powers on paper which it cannot use—a situation familiar to Members of this House, and one which holds a natural attraction for any government.
In a wholly nominated House, while not having a majority, the government of the day could expect to be the largest party. With a little support from the Cross-Benches that should be enough to see it through on most occasions. Where it was not, it would be a straightforward matter automatically to overturn the view of the second Chamber on the basis of its lack of legitimacy, also a familiar situation which we have here. Indeed, the second Chamber has been unable to function as it should for nearly a century precisely because of its lack of legitimacy. To create another body with the same problem would simply replicate the existing imbalance not between the Commons and the Lords but between Parliament and the Executive.
Let me say a few words about indirect elections, about which I am bound to say I am equally enthusiastic! I think that that is an inherently unsatisfactory system in that elections from one body affect the outcome of another. It is especially unsatisfactory where, as here, a body with narrower responsibilities nominates to a body with wider ones which Parliament has. The result is a huge accountability gap. To whom, for example, would a regional Member for the north-west be accountable on trade and industry, defence or social security?
Let me deal with the "constitutional glue" point for a moment. It is said that it would strengthen the Union, with the second Chamber acting as a counter balance to the devolved institutions. The objective is understandable, but the method proposed has hidden dangers. It will revive the West Lothian question in a particularly precise form. Members of the Scottish Parliament elected to deal with devolved matters would suddenly acquire a wider remit with the two Chambers added together than the English Members of Parliament themselves. Asymmetry is inherent in devolution, it is true, but giving wider powers to indirectly elected Members who would not be electorally accountable for how they use them compounds the issue. It seems to me that indirectly elected Members would still lack the standing of elected ones.
The striking fact in the White Paper about indirectly elected models is their weakness. Germany is the exception. But the Bundesrat is not a parliamentary body in anything like our sense. It is effectively a forum in which the federal and regional governments negotiate with officials wielding votes.
So the Government's preferred option—they seem to me to have steered the Royal Commission in that direction—is too weak to allow the second Chamber to do its job. Direct election is clearly distinct from indirect

33
election and, crucially, it would produce a second Chamber with the legitimacy to perform its functions. If a second Chamber is to have the power to ask an elected government to think again, it should not only have the power to do so but also be accountable for the exercise of that power. Therefore, I think that it is right in principle. It seems to me that that is why 143 Members of Parliament have supported it.
I wish to make three further points. First, there is the need to avoid a direct challenge to the supremacy of the House of Commons. Secondly, one should consider the value of nominated, independent Members. Thirdly, one should consider the need to avoid one party being able to command a majority. Of those three, I think that the challenge to the supremacy of the Commons is probably the most important.
A partly elected, partly nominated House meets those objections. First, its composition would be less legitimate than the House of Commons. Secondly, it would retain Cross-Benchers. Thirdly, arithmetically it would be almost impossible for one party to control. I think that we should set out, too, an objective and a date. Those are proper things to say to the Royal Commission, the House of Commons and the Government. As I have stated, the objective is that reform should strengthen the second Chamber to the point where it has legitimacy to perform its functions without threatening the Commons.
As to timing, on the claim that the transitional House will last from 15 to 20 years, we should commit ourselves to an indicative timetable into the next Parliament. I do not see why the Government should not say at this stage that the second stage should be introduced not later than the second Session after the next election; that is, at the latest, five years after its introduction.
After two decades of ideological government on a minority of the vote, when the role and standing of this House and the need for it were recognised as never before, we should be on our guard now against repeating by design the very weaknesses that have been handed down to us by history.

Berlin European Council and Kosovo
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a Statement about the European Council in Berlin on 24th and 25th March which I attended together with my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"This European Council had two principal tasks: to reach agreement on the Agenda 2000 package of negotiations for enlargement of the European Union, including changes to agriculture spending and to the structural and cohesion funds; and to prepare for the appointment of a new European Commission. I should like to pay tribute to the immense skill shown
34
by Chancellor Schroder in bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion. The conclusions of the Council have been placed in the Library of the House.
"The European Council was, however, overshadowed by events in Kosovo, which were constantly in the minds of European Council members during this meeting and I shall begin with this.
"European Heads of State and Government were unanimous in condemning Milosevic's barbarity and intransigence and in supporting NATO's action. Air strikes are continuing and intensifying in the wake of the renewed repression in Kosovo. Thirteen additional RAF planes are being committed to the NATO operation this week. I know Members of this House will join me in giving their continued full support to the British forces engaged. Thirteen different countries have aircraft committed to this operation. Even as we speak, there are continuing atrocities perpetrated by Milosevic against defenceless Kosovan civilians. But one thing should be made very clear. The idea that this barbarity, this renewed ethnic cleansing, started last Wednesday when NATO began its campaign is simply absurd.
"The massacres we are witnessing now were planned by Milosevic over the last two months when he built up an army and special police presence in the Kosovo region totalling 40,000 troops and 300 tanks—a deployment far greater than at the height of last year's fighting and savage repression. In the two days prior to the NATO campaign, 20,000 people were driven from their homes, 65,000 in the last month. That is added to the 300.000 last summer. It is now clear that Serb participation in the Paris peace talks was a cover for Milosevic's offensive preparations. On 20th March, the day after the talks were suspended, we now know armed Serbs started summary executions and ethnic cleansing. They have continued ever since.
"In my view, our response to these appalling acts, far from halting or slowing the Allied action, must be to intensify it and see it through to a successful conclusion. For every act of barbarity, every slaughter of the innocent, Milosevic must be seen to be paying a higher and higher price. I hope no one who has seen the utter, callous brutality with which the Kosovo Albanian people have been treated is under any remaining illusions about the nature of the Serb regime. The proper answer to it is not weakness but strength.
"We are also addressing the growing refugee problem created by Milosevic's brutality. I have today set up a cross-departmental group to respond rapidly to this crisis. A joint military and civilian team will visit Macedonia and Albania later this week, The Department for International Development has allocated an extra £10 million as our initial contribution to this international effort in addition to the help we have already committed.
"I now turn to Agenda 2000. On agriculture, the European Council agreed to phased price cuts of 15 per cent. for milk and cereals, and 20 per cent. for

35
beef. It also set limits on agricultural spending, bringing the CAP under tighter control than before. Agricultural spending by 2006 is planned to be less than 2 per cent. in real terms above its level next year, and falling. Of course, some of us wanted more but it is worth contrasting this outcome with the increase of 9 per cent. agreed at the Edinburgh European Council in 1992. And United Kingdom consumers will, when these reforms have been fully implemented, benefit by about £1 billion a year—£65 for every family of four.
"On the structural and cohesion funds, the European Council agreed that spending in the existing Union should total 213 billion euros in the period 2000 to 2006, an 11 per cent. reduction in the Commission's original proposal. Within that total full and proper account will be taken of the interests of the United Kingdom. Cornwall, West Wales and the Valleys and South Yorkshire will qualify for assistance under Objective 1 of the structural funds for the first time. Merseyside will retain its Objective 1 status. A safety net will safeguard the position of regions of the UK qualifying for assistance under Objective 2 of the structural funds. This will cover 14 million British people. There will be a special package for Northern Ireland assuring assistance at a level equivalent to Objective 1 status. A special transitional programme of assistance totalling 300 million euros for the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, which no longer qualifies for Objective 1 status, has been agreed. This sum is double the amount available for other areas losing Objective 1 status and is comparable to the amount the Highlands and Islands would have received as an Objective 1 area. This is a tremendous deal for Scotland.
"The negotiation also covered the revenue side of the Union's finances. It was agreed that more revenue would be raised from contributions linked to GNP and less from VAT receipts and customs payments. There is also to be a change in the way in which payment for the UK abatement is divided among the other member states. But no change was made to the own resources ceiling, the limit on revenue available for the Community budget. This is significant and welcome. In the last two major negotiations on European finance, in 1988 and 1992, the European Union, when it made changes, agreed an increase in the revenue ceiling; that is, an increase in the share of the European Union's wealth which taxpayers can be required to contribute towards EU spending. For the first time there has been a major Community financial settlement without an increase in the potential burden on taxpayers. In 1988 the settlement envisaged spending rising by 17 per cent. and in 1992 it foresaw spending rising by 22 per cent. This time spending within the EU 15 will fall in real terms over the period covered by the agreement.
"On the abatement, I am delighted to report that the Presidency conclusions say in terms that the UK abasement will remain. In line with the 1988 and 1992 European Council conclusions, the United Kingdom accepted that we should not make a windfall gain out
36
of changes to the method of EU financing; that is, the gains from a switch from VAT to GNP contributions and from an increase in the collection costs for traditional own resources. On the same principle, I agreed that the abatement will not apply, after enlargement, on an amount of expenditure in the new member states equal to the pre-accession aid in those member states which is itself now unabated. So any expenditure unabated now will remain unabated after enlargement. But the vast bulk of expenditure in the new members after enlargement will qualify for the abatement because it is abated now.
"The result is that there will be no reduction in the United Kingdom's rebate. Our objective was secured. I said that the Government would maintain the abatement. We have done so.
"Heads of State and Government also agreed to invite Mr. Romano Prodi, former Prime Minister of Italy, to be the next President of the European Commission. I warmly welcome this appointment. Mr. Prodi has a strong record of economic and political reform.
"The European Council's intention is that the new Commission should be appointed and start work as soon as possible after the European parliamentary elections and remain in office for the remainder of this year and the five years starting from January 2000.
"There was unanimous agreement among Heads of State and Government that the new Commission will need to give urgent priority to a programme of far-reaching modernisation and reform in which Community funds, programmes and projects are properly managed, the Commission's services are correctly organised and the highest standards of management, integrity and efficiency are ensured.
"The Middle East peace process was also discussed at the European Council and we urged that the transitional period established under the Oslo Agreement be extended beyond 4th May 1999 with the aim of reaching agreement on final status issues within one year.
"I am pleased to say that agreement was also reached on the Trade and Development Agreement with South Africa, a historic step in consolidating prosperity and democracy in South Africa and developing the European Union's relationship with that country.
"To sum up, the outcome of Agenda 2000 is an agreement which makes significant reforms to the CAP; puts the Union's financial house in order in preparation for enlargement; brings spending under control and reduces Community spending as a proportion of Community GNP even after allowing for the costs of enlargement; gives a fair deal to UK regions which receive support from the structural funds; and maintains the abatement.
"It is a good result for Britain and has been achieved by a government who have rejected the sterile confrontations and isolationism of the recent

37
past and who engage constructively with Europe to get a deal which is good for Britain. I commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minster in another place. I know that the noble Baroness had no part in the decision about arrangements, but will she take it from me that the duty of reporting to Parliament should run much further than combining an important Statement on the future development of the European Union with another on the prosecution of a war by NATO? Does she accept that each of these great matters merited a separate Statement and that this House should not be denied the opportunity to question the Government on each of the matters in depth? Perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness to take that message back to the Prime Minister when he next visits Parliament.
Turning to the war in Kosovo, the House will have noted warnings from the Defence Secretary today that it could be a long campaign. Will she pass on the sense of gratitude of all Members of the House, whatever their views on the war, for the courage and commitment of our pilots and air crews over what will be a dangerous time ahead?
There are two specific points I wish to raise. I note what the noble Baroness said about the assistance to be given to refugees. As far as it goes, I welcome the initiative. However, the scale of the humanitarian crisis growing day by day is so great that surely it merits more than just the establishment today of an interdepartmental committee. The suffering being caused in Kosovo requires a major, highly co-ordinated international relief programme embracing governments, aid agencies and charities. When the noble Baroness replies, will she say something about her view on the future of such a programme and what the interdepartmental group aims to do? Will she tell the House also what is the latest estimate of the number of refugees on the move from Kosovo since the NATO offensive and what are their destinations? What are the latest reports on the alleged sealing of Yugoslavian borders and what are the British and other NATO governments doing to help countries affected by the influx of refugees?
Secondly, will the noble Baroness tell the House what contact there has been with Prime Minister Primakov prior to his announced visit to Belgrade. In view of his recent refusal to visit Washington, do we know in what capacity Mr. Primakov and the Russian defence minister are now going to Belgrade? Will the Government confirm the importance of the role that Prime Minister Primakov and the Russian Government can now play in resolving the dispute, a critical role which should not be underestimated? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, may well wish to report again to the House before the Recess on events in Kosovo.
I turn now to the summit in Berlin. What was the Prime Minister's objective in going to Berlin? Was it, as he said, the root and branch reform of the European
38
Commission? If so, where is the root and where is the branch? Was it, as the Prime Minister promised, to set up an independent fraud investigation office? If so, how independent will that office be in view of the fact that it reports to the Commission? Was the Prime Minister's objective to safeguard the British rebate? If so, how is it that the Prime Minister managed to accept a climb-down which will cost British taxpayers some £154 million extra per year? Will the noble Baroness confirm that if the concession had not been made, the British rebate would have risen and our taxpayers would have had to pay less money? What will be the effects of enlargement on the contributions made by the British taxpayer?
I move briefly to the loss of Objective 1 status in the Highlands and Islands. I notice that the Statement refers to the fact that there will be a doubling of the transitional programme of aid assistance. But will the noble Baroness say—and if she does not have the details, I am happy to receive a letter—how much the north of Scotland will have lost as a result of losing Objective 1 status.
Finally, what was achieved on the fourth objective which the Prime Minister set himself; namely, to reform significantly the common agricultural policy? Is it not the case that what has been achieved is something of a disappointment, to put it mildly? Can the noble Baroness explain why, in the light of the Statement's claim of substantial reform, President Chirac has claimed that the changes agreed are relatively minor? It is said that the agricultural package has been redesigned completely. Does the noble Baroness agree with the assessment of one independent analyst that President Chirac emerged as the main victor, having neutered and delayed modernisation proposals? The Statement makes it sound as though everyone is a winner. But everyone cannot be a winner, so someone has lost out. Who? Will the noble Baroness tell us whether the Prime Minister succeeded in avoiding any discrimination against British farmers and whether he was successful in opposing modulation?
There is precious little evidence here that the huge concessions which the Prime Minister has made in Europe since 1997 have achieved any benefits at all for Britain. That is something we should all regret.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has a point, as a general principle, about two Statements being rolled into one. But on this occasion we cannot object in view of the extent to which the Berlin summit was naturally overshadowed by the events in Kosovo. One hopes—and one cannot ask for more—that the developments since the bombing began were broadly anticipated by the Government. It is difficult to see where those events lead but the action which we supported and still support was bound to have consequences for the movement of refugees. It would be reassuring to believe that the Government had anticipated the situation before its acuteness became apparent in the past few days.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a different question about the supply of arms to the Serbs. We do not know and now we cannot go back to the origins of

39
the arms which are now available to them. But what steps are being taken to ensure that those arms are not replenished? In particular, what discussions are taking place with the Russian Government and other governments of the federation to make sure that that does not happen?
We are going into Recess on Wednesday. The Government have kept us very well posted about the awful events in Kosovo. I hope that we shall have a Statement before the House rises on Wednesday and that we shall be brought up to date on the assumption that the House is unlikely to be recalled. We hope that it will not be necessary to do so during the Recess as now planned.
On Kosovo, I have one particular question. A report was received this afternoon that a leading player in the Paris-Kosovo peace talks at Rambouillet, Mr. Fehmi Agami, has been executed. Will the noble Baroness confirm whether that report is correct? It would simply add one further infamy to others. But that report has been made and has been attributed to NATO. It would be helpful to know whether that is so.
Because the Berlin summit was overshadowed in that way, it was easy to believe at first that it had been remarkably successful. On reflection, I do not believe it was so successful. However, in that respect, I do not refer to what the Prime Minister may have achieved. After all, it was a summit which was meant to push forward the major reform of the CAP and the finances of the Union. It achieved very little in that direction although, I am glad to say, it settled a number of matters; for example, the government rebate.
The noble Baroness referred to the new Commission being in place as soon as possible. Will she give an indication of what that means? A new Commission would have taken its place at the end of this calendar year. One assumes that it always takes a little time to get the right people in position. How soon is it likely that we shall have a new Commission? Do we assume that the present Commission should continue to act as previously understood in the interim?
As regards Agenda 2000, as I say, the reform of the CAP has continued, as always, to be very slow indeed. Will the noble Baroness say whether there was any provision for the environmental consequences of change in the settlement which was reached?
We welcome the provisions in the structural cohesion funds for Cornwall, West Wales and the Valleys and South Yorkshire, although that is one of the many matters at which we must look in greater detail at a later stage.
Often it is not appreciated—or the truth is hidden—that every summit is a negotiation. There is a starting point and if a compromise is to be reached there will be some satisfaction on both sides. By those standards, the agreements reached in Berlin were satisfactory, as I said, but as regards the longer term perspective of major reform within the Union there is still a very long way to go.
4.50 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their responses to the Statement. On the point of a single Statement on the subject of the Berlin summit, as opposed to a joint Statement incorporating the Berlin summit and the Kosovo situation, noble Lords will recognise, as the two Front Benches have recognised—it was specifically mentioned in the Statement—that both subjects were topics of discussion at Berlin. Therefore, my right honourable friend was correct to include the situation in Kosovo as well as matters specifically related to Agenda 2000 and the Commission, which both noble Lords, quite rightly, raised.
I shall respond first to the points specifically raised about the Kosovo situation. The House will be aware that it continues to be an extremely serious situation and something that we have to keep under clear and constant observation. As both noble Lords have suggested, I am sure that if it becomes appropriate either I or one of my noble friends will bring further news to the House as it develops.
On the specific and urgent point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, about the individual who has reportedly been executed in the past few hours, we do not have immediate confirmation, but I shall report personally and directly to the noble Lord and place such confirmation in the Library if it becomes apparent shortly. That would be an extraordinarily serious development.
On the refugees, the Statement points out that the organisation of the joint committee dealing with that appalling problem was, in a sense, co-ordinating efforts which were already under way but giving them a new initiative and a new impetus with the extra £10 million agreed today. All noble Lords will recognise that those kinds of sums and that kind of effort are a drop in the ocean in terms of the terrible tide of human suffering seen on our television screens. I am sure that no-one would expect us to do nothing in the face of the rising figures of people on the move which, in response to a specific question, we now believe to be about 250,000 as a result of the events of the past few days.
Both noble Lords raised the question of relations with Russia and Russia's attitude. The Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have been in constant contact with the Prime Minister, Mr. Primakov, and the Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov. We await the outcome of their contacts with Milosevic with interest. Of course, noble Lords will be aware that although there has been disagreement—to put it at its lowest—with the Russians over the military action in the past few days, they have played an active and important role in the contact group and it is to be hoped that their visit to Belgrade will be in that spirit rather than any other. We know that they share with the NATO allies a sense of outrage at Mr. Milosevic's callous acts in Kosovo. I should add that there is no immediate and precise evidence about new supplies of arms.
Perhaps I may turn to Agenda 2000. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked what was the purpose of the summit. It can be summarised quite briefly. It was to

41
achieve the revision of the economic and financial arrangements, which was achieved; to maintain the British rebate, which was achieved; and to try to take forward some of the complicated and difficult issues arising from the report about mis-management within the Commission, of which noble Lords are aware and which we had the opportunity to debate last week.
Perhaps I can emphasise that the abatement has been safeguarded. We have forfeited only the windfall gains, which is something that previous administrations have done before us, and the value of the abatement will go up. With enlargement, of course, there will be the additional costs to which the Statement referred, and the UK taxpayer will in some way have to pay more for that enlargement. However, spending in the new member states will be abated and will be small relative to the economical and political gains of achieving that degree of enlargement.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised the question of the Highlands and Islands and whether the equivalent funding under Objective 1 would have been much higher than that under the special arrangements now agreed. My understanding is that the special financial arrangements will be approximately £200 million and that that is roughly equivalent to what would have been achieved under Objective 1 funding.
On the overall position, I simply quote from what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said at the news conference at the end of the Berlin summit. He said that we have achieved a position that I think can be described as,
"not a euro more, not a euro less".
That position was acknowledged by other members of the European Council. For example, President Chirac talked of the United Kingdom having obtained "virtually all she wanted". As I said in repeating the Statement, that is a demonstration of the advantage of a government engaging constructively with Europe to obtain a better deal for Britain.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, inevitably the summit was overshadowed by the tragic events in Kosovo. I think we all understand that. Nevertheless, the conference was addressed to Agenda 2000 and to enlargement. Does my noble friend agree that although—thank heavens—we retained the rebate and some assistance for our own regions, the outcome of the agricultural negotiations, the long-awaited major reform on which it looked as though we might win, has been frustrated once again? Is it not equally disappointing, and perhaps even more surprising, that in spite of the damning report of the committee of experts on the Commission and all its works it will be at least three months before arty change takes place at all? The Commissioners remain in office and President Santer will be replaced by yet another committed and active federalist in the person of Mr. Prodi.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in repeating the Statement, we would have liked to have gone further on agricultural reform and the CAP reform
42
is not as extensive as we would have hoped. However, I hope that my noble friend will agree that there are substantial benefits to consumers and taxpayers alike in what has been achieved. When reforms which have been agreed are implemented, UK consumers will benefit by £1 billion which, as the Statement says, is about £65 per family of four per year.
On the continuing difficulties with the Commission, I agree with my noble friend that we need to make progress as rapidly as possible. I believe it is good that Mr. Prodi was appointed at this time and that further negotiations and discussions between the members of the Council were not needed on that significant appointment. Of course, it will now be for him to consult further on the arrangements for his fellow Commissioners. I can assure my noble friend that the British Government are anxious that that should proceed as rapidly as possible. We are encouraged by the fact that it has now been agreed that the further report on the Commission—which I am sure my noble friend is anxiously awaiting—will be published, admittedly not until September. However, at that time it will be forthcoming.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain what arrangements are in train for reporting to Parliament the success or otherwise of Mr. Prodi's reforms? What mechanisms are being put in place for transforming the Commission in the way in which the Government would like, in the unlikely event that Mr. Prodi were to fail?
On Kosovo, can the Leader of the House point to any single example of a sustained bombing campaign doing anything except unite a proud people behind a government, however undesirable? At a time when it behoves all of Parliament to support British troops and British servicemen and women when they go into action, is the noble Baroness able to say what the result will be if the bombing campaign were to fail, as other bombing campaigns in similar circumstances have done, and whether we shall therefore be forced to put in troops on the ground in Kosovo to prevent the tragedy to which she alluded? Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the tragedy of what is happening in Kosovo has been accelerated by the bombing campaign rather than the reverse?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount who made an important point about how we shall monitor the progress or otherwise of the presidency of Mr. Prodi. I am sure that noble Lords, like Members of another place, will he very active in carefully monitoring how things go forward. I rely entirely on my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, whom I see in his place. as well as on my noble friend Lord Shore and on many other noble Lords of all parties to be absolutely up to speed in their ability to ask the relevant questions. The Government will, of course, make the appropriate statements when required.
On the timing of progress, the noble Viscount will know that in reply to my noble friend Lord Shore I said that the British Government were intent on moving

43
forward as rapidly as possible in establishing the new Commission. I am sure the noble Viscount will be aware that there is some concern about the exact legitimacy of the transfer of the arrangements between the old treaty and the Treaty of Amsterdam, which will come into force in either May or June. Progress will be made as soon as possible, legitimately and politically.
With regard to the noble Viscount's various points about the bombing in Kosovo, we all agree with him. I should have said in response to the initial remarks from the two noble Lords on the Front Benches that we totally support, and are aware of, the enormous courage and the difficulties which our troops and air crew face. We saw an example of that with the shooting down yesterday of one of the American planes. Perhaps the term "shooting down" is inaccurate. I refer to its loss. It came down and we do not know—at least I do not know—how it came down. However, if I am allowed to do so at a later stage, I shall inform noble Lords about that. As I said, I do not know the exact military circumstances.
In a way, it was unfair of the noble Viscount to suggest that we should draw on history with regard to that situation. After all, the precision and accuracy of the type of bombing in which our forces are now engaged in Kosovo is totally different even from that of Desert Storm. It is now possible to expect that a limited number of military targets and of engagements will change the situation. The same was not true of any previous military activity. Therefore, we should be optimistic and not deal at this stage in what are rather pessimistic hypotheticals.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will help me with the answer to a very short question. Was the decision to take the action we are witnessing now in Kosovo and Yugoslavia taken on the positive advice of the chiefs of staff leaving political considerations out of it, or was it against it?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the chiefs of staff were totally content with the decision that was taken. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that this was done also on the basis of the unanimous agreement of the NATO Council.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, may I give my total support again to the Royal Air Force and to the other servicemen in the present conflict? Will the Leader of the House answer a question on agriculture, which seems to have been in a bit of a muddle over the past few weeks? The noble Baroness stated today that £1 billion would be saved on food prices for the housewife in the coming year. Bearing in mind that farmers have already had a terrible year with farm-gate prices down one-third or perhaps one-half, how does the noble Baroness expect to save £1 billion for the housewife in 12 months?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord refers both to the reduction in world trade prices and to the compensation which will be
44
agreed with farmers. I stress again that the new arrangement reached at the discussions in Berlin does not go as far as the Government would have liked. However, compensation will make up for the prices and this agreement will benefit both efficient farmers and the consumer.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, in the interests of time, perhaps I may say just a few brief words about Agenda 2000. My noble friend Lord Shore may be surprised to learn that I agree with him at least to the extent that it was particularly difficult to get a deal on this occasion and there was no root-and-branch reform. The Government will do themselves some good by admitting that. On such occasions, with 15 member states present, compromise is inevitable. That will be even more true when there are 20 member states. The Government do not need to apologise for that. Of course, it was a compromise—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, on the other hand, does not my noble friend agree that if the Government or the Prime Minister had not insisted on claiming a great victory over no reduction in the £2 billion abatement, and that if they had been satisfied with a better package all round through conceding perhaps a few coppers, that might have been better for both the United Kingdom and the European Union?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. The abatement was retained. Agenda 2000 achieved a degree of budget reform and strict control of spending. It also permitted an enlargement of up to six member states between 2000 and 2006 within the existing resources ceiling. Those are perfectly legitimate claims for success.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, while recognising that the NATO alliance is entirely defensive and that the United Nations does not seem to have given specific approval to the attack launched under NATO's auspices, will the noble Baroness the Leader of the House explain the legal basis for that action internationally?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that in our previous Statements on the Kosovo intervention we spelt out precisely those UN Security Council agreements and resolutions under which it is possible for military force to be used to abate a humanitarian disaster of the scale that we see now.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, we have heard in recent days that refugees in Kosovo are on the move in their tens of thousands—now, in their hundreds of thousands—but where are they going? They are not, of course, going into the main part of Serbia; they are crossing international frontiers into Macedonia and Albania to the south. There is no possibility of our stopping them doing that; nor is there any way in which from the air we can help them on their way. But in what

45
relationship does that leave us with Milosevic? Are we not now functionally on the same side? We have given Milosevic the excuse to increase his persecution and the result is that a whole people are now moving abroad.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot accept the logic of my noble friend's position. As I said in repeating the Statement, the disastrous ethnic cleansing in Kosovo did not begin at the time NATO took action. In response to my noble friend's point about neighbouring countries, there are now thousands of people in Macedonia and Albania as well as in Montenegro. The joint team from the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development will visit those countries this weekend to explore the needs and the possibilities and to develop the kind of negotiations to which I referred in the Statement. That will enable us to spend most effectively the additional £10 million which my right honourable friend announced today and to make a further contribution to the international effort.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that since the Prime Minister's Statement last Tuesday to the effect that ground troops would not be needed, the scale of refugee flow has become so great shat it is not going to be possible to handle them other than inside Kosovo? Is it not now necessary therefore to contemplate a limited area of Kosovo being secured by ground troops so that the refugees can be kept there pending the outcome of this terrible war?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only repeat what I said last week; that is, that we have no intention of fighting our way into Kosovo. If there is a peace agreement then, as was discussed at Rambouillet, we will expect to support that with a military implementation force.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with two short sentences I included in a letter I sent to the Prime Minister? The first sentence is as follows:
"If we let it he known that you favour a pause in the raids so that discussion can be resumed, we may yet be saved".
The final sentence is this:
"War cannot be controlled and this may be the last time to give peace and humanity a chance".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am well aware of how strongly my noble friend feels about these events. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be pleased to respond personally to his letter. All I can say at this stage is that there is nothing that the British Government or indeed anyone involved with the NATO alliance has said which indicates that we would be anything other than extremely pleased to engage in further discussion. However, the initiative for that must come from President Milosevic, given the situation we are now in.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, is it not a fact that these terrible massacres and this ethnic
46
cleansing began not just recently but as long ago as last August? Although those actions may have been exacerbated to some extent by NATO action, that was not the beginning of it. One of the reasons for our going in was the massacres. Would it not be a suitable occasion now to ask the disasters relief committee of the NGOs to help with the refugee crisis?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about the length of time over which these events have been building up. The problem, as she will be aware, is that they have been accelerating over a period of time. As I said when I repeated the Statement, there were already 300,000 refugees last summer when this situation began to be clear. Matters have now accelerated to the point where, in the two days prior to the NATO campaign, 20,000 people were driven from their homes.
The point relating to voluntary organisations is a good one. I am sure all noble Lords will be aware of the enormous role they often play in these difficult humanitarian situations. I believe my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development was speaking today to Mrs. Ogata, the executive director of the UNHCR. It is already understood that the World Food Programme, the International Red Cross and other NGOs will he involved in the humanitarian effort.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, relating only to the Berlin conference, will my noble friend inform the House as to whether any discussions took place about the holding of a special intergovernmental conference at which institutional and administration changes within the European Commission can be discussed? Also, can some consideration be given to taking away from the Commission the sole power of making proposals for action by the Council of Ministers itself in order that the nation states, through the Council of Ministers, may once again resume the control they had initially over the policies and actions of the European Commission?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my brief reading of the conclusions of the Council, which perhaps my noble friend read in more detail, as he usually does read any document related to Europe that is hot off the press, does not suggest that such a proposal was discussed. It is probably something the new President of the Commission, Mr. Prodi, may wish to consider as a way forward in precisely the way we discussed other questions from noble Lords about the sort of reform by which we will judge his success or otherwise in achieving a different type of Commission activity.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, the Leader of the House referred to precedents at previous summits on budgets and CAP spending increases. Can she say whether there is any precedent for heads of government watering down their farm Ministers' agreement on CAP reform, which they did this time? Is it not disappointing that the governments have not achieved sufficient

47
reform of the CAP and the budget to prepare for enlargement or the WTO negotiations? How is further reform to be achieved?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in reply to other noble Lords who raised this question, the British Government were not entirely satisfied with the outcome of the CAP discussions. However, we felt that it was an achievement to make some progress. It is true that the arrangements and agreements of the agricultural Ministers are always the subject of consideration and agreement by the European Council. There is nothing new in that. The main problem of the settlement reached by the Agricultural Council in this instance, before the meeting of the full Council, was the cost. The European Council has now agreed changes that substantially reduce the budget cost of that agreement and I am sure that that is something the House on the whole will be glad to hear.

House of Lords Bill
Second Reading debate resumed.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this is one of the saddest days of my political life. Unlike defeat in an election, when one may not only hope, but possibly expect to win on a future occasion, this Bill means the end of the House of Lords; the end of hundreds of years of history.
I stand by what I said last October: the Bill is a constitutional outrage. The Bill is nasty, short, and based largely on political prejudice. It will contribute nothing to better legislation, nor to more legislative control over the Executive, or benefit the British people at large in any respect whatever. It is not supported by a single serious political commentator or historian and, if public opinion polls are to be believed, nor by the public at large. No one has said in the course of the debates, letters, discussions or papers, that the House of Lords does a bad or ineffective job; quite the contrary. Above all, it will not lead to a Chamber with democratic legitimacy. We should all understand that life Peers are just as undemocratic as hereditary Peers. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, when looking for legitimacy in the future, this is something we should recognise in whatever follows from this Bill. It will not be a House that has any more political legitimacy.
The Bill will not lead necessarily to a stage two House based on any kind of political consensus. Indeed, in my view, it is the ultimate political irresponsibility to dismember the present House without saying what, if anything, will take its place. Any slight concessions have had to be dragged out of the Government and in my opinion it is a prime example of this Government's general contempt for Parliament and constitutional practice. It is for that reason, above all, that I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, with whose speech and argument I agree.
48
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, her colleagues in government and those on the Government Benches, may feel pleased with themselves this afternoon; but I wonder how history will come to judge them and the Labour Government. Destruction of institutions without reason or argument does not usually stand the test of time and is not usually well thought of. What business, what educational establishment, what organisation of any kind whatever would allow its destruction without saying what it intended to put in its place?
What are we destroying? The House of Lords is unique. It is a House of Parliament that regulates itself, whose members are courteous and whose customs and procedures are civilised and maintained by agreement. It is a House in which both sides of the argument are put with reason and indeed are listened to. Because of its character, the House has attracted very many distinguished men and women to come and participate in its debates and committees. I wonder whether such men and women will be as willing to come to the future House, particularly in stage one.
The present House is one in which women have done particularly well. They have been able to occupy all the top jobs. There is no glass ceiling and there is no intense power struggle or, indeed, a "macho" atmosphere about which so many women Members of Parliament complain. I believe that it owes these important characteristics above all to the presence of the hereditary Peers, many of whom have given great and distinguished service both to this House and to the country at large. It would be very wrong to let an occasion like this pass without recognising what they have done. Whatever may be the outcome, we must ensure that we manage to secure a House which works as well and which will attract people to give similar service.
I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Carrington speak this afternoon. He has given such long and distinguished service. I was also delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his place. He was the Deputy Labour Leader when I came to the House. Indeed, I recall so well his predecessor, Lord Shackleton. There are many hereditary Peers from all parts of the House to whom I should like to pay compliments if time would only allow me to do so.
This House has nothing to hide and nothing of which to be ashamed. After all, it was the first Chamber to allow in the television cameras. A surprisingly large number of people watched the House of Lords at work day by day and recognised its value.
As the Bill proceeds there will be a great deal of debate. Like other noble Lords I, too, have my views on what a future House might be like. However, perhaps I may answer three points which have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that reform was frustrated in 1968. However, it was not frustrated by Conservatives; indeed, it was lost in the House of Commons. One of the people who contributed to that loss, as my noble friend Lord Carrington said, was Mr. Michael Foot.
When people talk about modernisation, I should point out that some of us are very sceptical about what it means. We have all watched the spectacle of the election

49
regarding the leadership in Wales, which was not exactly a democratic election judging by the standards of most of us. Those of us who take an interest in education are well aware of the unbelievably doubtful and rigged elections to get rid of grammar schools. There are many who are far more competent than I who would say that both referendums in Scotland and Wales left much to be desired.
I turn now to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers—a classic example, if I may say so, of the work of the Lib-Lab Pact. He compared the Bill before us to the Youth Justice Bill, which I recognise to be a very important piece of legislation. However, I should point out to him that there is no comparison to be drawn between that Bill and this constitutional measure and the time which should be allotted to it.
I had a great deal of sympathy with large parts of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. However, I hope that he is right to say that we shall have some cross-party debate. If this could only really be so—indeed, if any of us could believe it—we might view the coming procedures with something approaching a modicum of confidence. In my opinion, this is a bad day for the House; it is a bad day for public life; it is a bad day for Parliament; and it is a bad day for Britain.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, it is with a sense of some surprise and trepidation that I rise to address the House, as I am not accustomed to being so highly placed in what is a very long list of speakers. I hope that I may not owe my exalted position to the expectation of a final family flourish on this most longstanding of issues. Things were very different in those days, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said earlier. I would only remind noble Lords that the Budget of 1908, which, to coin a phrase, nearly brought the House down, involved many all-night sittings in another place and ran to some 550 Divisions in all. I hope—and I am sure that the Chief Whip hopes with me—that even with the intensive and constructive criticism of the Bill, which we all anticipate, we may nevertheless escape with rather less strain on our constitutions.
I would not be presumptuous enough to suppose that anyone would be swayed by anything that I have to say or anything I do in this debate, unless perhaps it might be to follow my example by only speaking for a few minutes. I take it to be correct that I should confine my remarks to the Bill itself and to the intermediate stage which it creates. Therefore, I will resist the temptation to observe that, in my view, it would be a very great mistake indeed to have an all-elected second Chamber. So, with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I have to declare myself as a mish-mash man or a pot pourri Peer. On this issue the noble Lord, Lord Richard, has my vote—much good will that do his reputation, I fear.
The proposal to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House was contained in the victorious Labour Party's election manifesto. Although, of course, no one would seek to claim that it was that
50
promise which swayed the electorate more than any other, I must say to my noble friend Lord Cobbold that, in our democracy, such speculation is pointless. Accordingly, the Government are implementing what they have every right to implement; namely, their election pledge. However, perhaps I may be permitted one mild observation. It is perhaps a little disappointing that a party which has had this aim as an act of faith for so long should have devoted so little time to studying how it might be accomplished when it was in a position so to do.
Much has been made of the undesirability of proceeding on the path of reform until the composition of a revised second Chamber has been agreed. In the best of all possible worlds, that is undoubtedly right. Indeed, if there were time enough and the will, we should surely embark on the root and branch reappraisal of Parliament itself, for few can doubt that another place could do with the treatment as well.
On the other hand, deciding on the second stage is the difficult bit. It always has been. That is precisely why only minor progress has been made towards solving the problem in the past 87 years. Further, although there are many who believe passionately that an all-in-one reform is the only way to tackle the problem, I nevertheless wonder if there are not some who see this position as offering the best let-out, tactically, for doing nothing at all.
However, be that as it may, we now have the Bill. It is a comparatively short one given the complexity and sensitivity of the subject. The Government will hope, just as their opponents will hope to the contrary, that its draftsmen and advisers have got it right. There will be many tremors of excitement, as one legal hare after another is flushed from the undergrowth. But let us all keep a sense of proportion in the weeks to come.
The principal innovation following the Bill's publication has been the production of the so-called Weatherill amendment. I am sure that it is not necessary for me to emphasise that this is not an official Cross-Bench amendment, that being impossible in the nature of things. It is an amendment by three distinguished Peers who happen to be Cross-Benchers. I very much hope that as many noble Lords as possible will vote for it as it provides a constructive and practical means of carrying on the work of this House in the interim period. To seek to change its content fundamentally—by, for example, increasing the suggested number of Peers to be retained—would be at best unproductive and at worst might jeopardise the amendment itself.
In my view the selection of the 92 Peers to be retained is a matter of some importance. Some would see the correct procedure as being the establishment of an electoral college of hereditary Peers only, rather on the historical lines of the Scottish and Irish electoral colleges of former years. I believe, however—and it is only a personal view—that this is to run counter Ito the point which is surely behind this Bill. Such an election implies the continued legitimacy of the hereditary principle in this House and additionally disenfranchises those Peers—that is, the life Peers—who will have to

51
work alongside them. It would undoubtedly be too prescriptive to observe that we are not electing friends to a London West End club, but, coming at the problem from the opposite direction, it must surely be right to take the view that we should select the most competent Peers to facilitate and enhance the work of this House in what is likely to prove an indeterminate period. Accordingly, a case could be made for not only including life Peers in the electorate but also for confining the voting to those who are regular attenders of this House and who might therefore be supposed to have some knowledge of the capabilities of those offering themselves for election.
Some of us have been pondering on this problem for what seems to have been an eternity. Some four years ago I was privileged to be invited to join a group formed by the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, to investigate the subject of Lords' reform. I recall thinking at the beginning, with all the certainty of the uninformed, that the solution was a simple one: just do this, and a little bit of that, and hey presto, end of problem. Six months, and a great many distinguished witnesses later, I was fairly sure that I did not have the answer. Indeed, I was not even certain what the question was.
I wish the Royal Commission well in its daunting task. When we began our survey we took the view that we would not look back at all with sadness at what had been, provided that what came after was better in every way. Let us in our future deliberations try to make this hope a reality. Let us in the weeks to come act in such a way that people will say of us, "Nothing so became them as the manner of their leaving".
5.32 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not want to weary the House and I hope that the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not follow him in my speech as I wish to concentrate on one important point. This is not a transitional measure. I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that this is not a paving Bill, or anything like a paving Bill. There is nothing on the face of the Bill to suggest that it is a transitional measure. There is nothing in the preamble which suggests that it is a transitional measure. There is no sunset clause. There is no clause saying that it will cease to have effect on a particular event or after a particular length of time has elapsed. That is the legal position and that also is the practicality of the matter, and we had better keep it very much in the forefront of our minds.
The Government say that the Bill is intended only as the first stage in a two-stage process. I do not doubt for one moment that that is the Government's intention. But the reality is that the Government cannot guarantee that there ever will be a second measure providing a replacement for the nominated House created by this Bill. I have been over this ground before but we really must remember that history shows how difficult it is to get any consensus on reform. Anyone who has read the Second Reading debate on this Bill in another place will have seen that there is no consensus now in another place as to what kind of House should take the place of
52
this House, or take the place of a wholly nominated House. It is unlikely that there will be any consensus in the future.
It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and other noble Lords give us their views on what should be the shape of ultimate reform. But as the House created by this Bill may never be replaced, the real question is one which has not yet been addressed. We should ask ourselves whether the Bill as at present drafted contains all the safeguards one would expect to see in a Bill creating as a more or less permanent feature of our constitution a House wholly nominated by government. That is the real question. I ask Ministers to address it because it certainly has not been addressed yet.
In our debate a month or two ago I reminded the House that a government with dictatorial tendencies could pack the House with its own supporters and procure the passage of any legislation it wanted. In his response the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that I was scaremongering. He said that what I feared had never happened in the past and that, indeed, I was impugning the integrity of life Peers who could always be relied upon to do the right thing in any circumstances. The noble Lord was wrong for three obvious reasons. First, the hereditary Peers are a uniquely independent element in the present House simply because, unlike anyone else here, they are beholden to no one. It insults the intelligence to suggest that a wholly nominated House would be as independent; quite clearly, it would not. Secondly—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords—
Lord Waddington: My Lords, let me finish this passage and then I shall certainly give way. Secondly, the removal of the hereditary Peers—constituting more than half the total membership of the present House—will obviously make it easier for a government to dominate the House by packing it with people prepared to do their bidding. Thirdly, now that the Government have embarked on constitutional change, it is no answer to a demand for safeguards against possible abuse to say that that has never happened before. Our job, when we are creating a new House which may well be a permanency, is to make sure that this new House will be an effective barrier against the abuse of power. If it is not going to be that, there is little point in having it at all.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The noble Lord said that hereditary Peers are independent. Can he explain why 300 hereditary Peers take the Conservative Party Whip and only 18 take the Labour Party Whip?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, clearly they have come to the conclusion that the Conservative Party better reflects their values than the Labour Party. The noble Lord fails to recognise the fact that they do not have to take any Whip. They do that of their own volition. They are beholden to no one. They could

53
decide tomorrow not to take the Conservative Whip if they decided it no longer reflected their views. The noble Lord was wrong in what he said.
I must emphasise that in The Times last week a common misunderstanding of the Government's position was given further currency. Valerie Elliott wrote,
"Mr. Blair has already announced that he intends to give up his powers of patronage for life peerages".
Of course he has done nothing of the sort. What Mr. Blair has said is that he will relinquish his powers to make recommendations for Cross-Benchers, but he has not given up his power to decide the total number of nominations to go forward from the various parties and the Cross-Benchers. All we have got is the passage in Chapter 2, paragraph 19 of the White Paper which states that,
"the Government will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in the Lords".
Pious declarations—particularly pious declarations which can only reflect the views of the present Government and cannot possibly be an instruction to future governments—are no substitute for statutory safeguards. I want to suggest what I believe is the very minimum safeguard which should be written into a Bill such as this creating a Chamber which is wholly nominated.
In my submission the Bill should put appointments in the hands of a statutory appointments commission charged with the task of recommending appointments from the various parties in numbers which ensure that the government of the clay have a small majority over the other parties but not in the House as a whole. Your Lordships will recognise those words. As such an amendment would reflect more or less precisely what the Government say in their own White Paper, it should not present any problem for them. I hope to get an encouraging response from the Government. I certainly hope that I will not be told that that is merely a Committee point, let alone that it is outside the scope of the Bill, because—I emphasise this point—the question of whether there will be adequate safeguards should be at the very centre of the debate. Without such safeguards, the Bill is a constitutional enormity.
I believe that we should go further than the modest proposal that I have just made. It would be a massive mistake—I am repeating myself now, which I do not often do, but I have an excuse for doing so because I want to support what was said by my noble friend Lord Carrington—if the Government, now that they have embarked on a sweeping change to the composition of this House, did not make another change, which would chime in well with the Government's enthusiasm for referendums. Now that we are embarked on great constitutional change, we should bear in mind that there are few safeguards in this country against a government, supported by a hefty but perhaps very temporary majority, destroying our most precious institutions, including the monarchy. And yet most people recognise that these institutions are not the playthings of politicians, to be tampered with at the whim of a temporary majority, but are held in trust by us for our children and our children's children. Should there not
54
therefore be a special procedure, as was suggested by my noble friend Lord Carrington, whereby Bills which are certified by the Speaker as constitutional. but are rejected by the second Chamber, become law only if endorsed by the electorate in a referendum? Alternatively, in the case of constitutional Bills alone, the delaying powers of the second Chamber should be restored to the 1911 Act position and there should be no further change in the second Chamber's powers without the second Chamber's consent.
It is wrong that we should be required to debate this Bill without the Government revealing their long-term plans. If the Government were determined on the two-stage process they could easily have postponed the introduction of the Bill until they had decided on their reaction to the conclusions of the Royal Commission. Instead the Government have decided to pander to the class warriors in the Labour Party. Now that they have introduced this measure—which they may never be able to replace—we are entitled to insist that it contains provisions which prevent the kind of abuse of power which must be a risk if one of the two Houses of the legislature is composed wholly of the Government's nominees.
I have one last point. In our debate on 17th March the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, said that the House of Commons needs rather more reform than this place. He said:
"Unhappily, the Chamber of the other place is no longer the forum of the nation".—[Official Report, 17/3/99; col. 750.]
He added that the job of holding the executive to account is done rather better in this place than it is down the corridor. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was coming very close to the same position. It is a sad and grave matter that the Government should be reducing the independence of this place at the very time when the authority of the House of Commons has been so sadly diminished and when it has become almost a part-time House playing little part in checking the executive.
I am prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt and assume that they embarked on this exercise without realising how gravely weakened was the other place. But they must know the score now and, given the present position, this Bill, far from being, in the words of the Labour Manifesto,
"the first stage in a process of reform to make the House of Lords more democratic and representative",
is an act of constitutional vandalism that could well result in this place becoming as ineffective a check on the executive as the House of Commons has already become. The country may finish up paying a fancy price for a mean and spiteful measure which will not further parliamentary democracy but weaken it. I shall vote for the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, it is with great personal regret that I have not been able to attend the previous two magnificent debates which have been held

55
in your Lordships' House on this subject, but that does not mean that I have not followed them line by line and word by word. Indeed, I have.
It seems to me that the underlying current of feeling of many noble Lords is that nothing should be done or any definitive action taken until the Royal Commission has reported and put forward proposals on what it believes will be an independent body, or a body as independent as possible. Until its report has been carefully considered, it would be wrong to tamper with your Lordships' House.
I take issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I do not agree that that is a devious method of trying to scotch the whole Bill. I can speak only personally, obviously, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I am in favour of reform. Reform is necessary. We are on the eve of the 21st century. I felt uncomfortable—particularly when I was with the party opposite—that there was perceived to be an in-built majority on that side of the House. It is a privilege for any Member of your Lordships' House to sit here and to speak. I question—and always have questioned—whether that privilege was not perhaps undermined a little when the Conservative Party, on very few occasions, used the big stick and whipped in a great many Peers, who are commonly called backwoodsmen, who were seen very little from one year's end to another. I always thought that that was perhaps taking things too far. If that limited point could be addressed I should have thought that the fundamental principle of objection by the Labour Party would have been removed. Unfortunately, when it says that that objection would not be removed, it leads me to feel that the Bill stems from the politics of envy. The Labour Party does not like privilege. I can understand that.
Other noble Lords who have spoken at length have said that the present system undoubtedly has its merits. I believe sincerely that, by and large, the pros of your Lordships' House outweigh the perceived cons.
I referred to reading the reports of previous debates. In the debate on the White Paper the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said:
"The Government have taken no steps. carried out no study, to determine the consequences".—[Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 883.]
What is more, he made it plain that the Leader of the House had made it clear in writing—not by insinuation—that the Government had no intention of so doing. It strikes me as most peculiar, indeed awful, that anyone running any organisation could possibly screw the whole thing up by not having the faintest idea of what is to take its place. The British people deserve better. The matter should be thought through very carefully.
Furthermore, I question whether Parliament as a whole, and even this House, should be deciding upon the principles of the Bill. We all have parochial interests; we all have our own axes to grind; we all have vested interests. It is better that as independent a body as possible does all the thinking about this issue. It should listen, find out what functions the House has, and recommend a measure for Parliament to ratify. I do not
56
refer merely to rubber-stamping; but in principle the underlying proposals should come from an independent body rather than politicians, including ourselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, made an interesting speech in which he put forward a suggestion in broad outline and said that we need to achieve a balance in this House. That is right. His words are worth reading. I hope that the Royal Commission will take that point on board. It is close to the views that I have held for some time.
It will be argued that the removal of the hereditary Peers is part of the Labour Party's manifesto. I read in one newspaper this morning that it had emerged in a poll that only 2 per cent. of those who were asked remembered that this proposal was in the manifesto in the first place. I venture to suggest that if people had realised that such dramatic effects would be visited upon this House without there being the slightest idea as to what would come after it, 2 per cent. of those who supported the Labour Party in the polls might have voted the other way, and possibly more. It is a terrible thing to do.
We must not pre-empt matters before the Royal Commission reports, but it has been said that a few hereditary Peers might remain in the transitional stage. I may be a bear of very little brain, but I really do not understand that. I honestly believe that it is grabbing at the wrong end of the stick. We are here to consider whether or not there should be hereditary Peers in this House; that is a matter for the Royal Commission. I do not believe that the House should be tampered with. I believe that the idea of a suggested number agreed by both sides is an artificial fix, a sop. I do not like it. Something about it "smells a funny colour". Why not 121? Why not 11? I do not follow that argument. I thought it was Conservative Party policy, before that suggestion was mooted by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—for whom I and everyone in this House have the greatest regard—that we should resist most strongly, with all the power at our disposal, any Bill to alter the framework of this House until the Royal Commission had reported. I may be mistaken, but I believe that was the policy. If it was not, it should have been.
This is a bad Bill, produced at the wrong time, in the wrong way. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of Hilaire Belloc's Cautionary Tales, which are all rather jolly. There is a cautionary tale in this:
… always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse"
I suggest that we keep a-hold of this particular nurse until another one can be found with impeccable references and undoubted abilities. We should remember that we act in haste and repent at leisure. I very much hope that, even at this late stage, we shall act at leisure and have no cause for regrets later.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, this is a momentous debate. There are nearly 200 noble Lords who wish to speak and I am sorry that the Government have insisted that the Bill be compressed into two days. I very much

57
share the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde last week and I do not understand why the Government decided that the two balloted debates on the Order Paper for Wednesday were apparently more important than this Bill.
A number of us on this side of the House had intended to intervene during the discussion last week. Unfortunately, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor rose so swiftly to put the Question that we were not able to do so. Perhaps we should have stood up more quickly, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take great care in the future proceedings on this Bill to allow all of us to express our view.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, has suggested that we should confine our speeches to seven minutes. A number of noble Lords no doubt wish that mine should be confined to even less. Be that as it may, on a Bill of this nature that is not an appropriate suggestion. I confess that I have no intention of being so confined, except in accordance with the Standing Orders of this House.
On numerous occasions during the various discussions on this matter before the Bill came before the House, a number of government spokesmen, including in particular the right honourable lady the Lord President of the Council and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, chose to make some pretty disobliging remarks about the motivations, qualities and antecedents of hereditary Peers which many of us have not much cared for. Happily, the noble Baroness did not repeat those remarks today and I very much welcome that.
I turn now to the Bill itself. The Government stated in their manifesto, and again in the recent Queen's Speech, their intentions to bring forward this measure. The noble Baroness is right to say that it appeared in the manifesto, and we are right to acknowledge that fact. That said, it is clearly a constitutional measure of momentous importance and has not yet been adequately considered in parliamentary terms, less still in the country. I hope that we can correct that in this House.
As our debate on the White Paper demonstrated, this debate is again showing the depth of interest among your Lordships on reform of this House. I wonder whether the Government have yet realised how tough a battle they now face.
It will come as no surprise that I am opposed to this legislation. I am not opposed to the principle of reforming this House if the outcome leaves us with a second Chamber in a stronger and more independent position in its relationship both to the other place and to the Government. As was stated in today's Daily Telegraph:
"Like it or not, the Upper House is an integral part of our Constitution. We already suffer from an overmighty executive. Removing the hereditary peers will make that much worse".
Indeed, the Bill quite clearly and somewhat fundamentally ignores any discussion on the powers and independence of Parliament, which surely must be addressed when considering Lords reform. That lack of
58
vision is very worrying for those of us who are genuinely concerned about the independence of Parliament.
In his important speech, my noble friend Lord Carrington referred to his view as to what the future constitution of the House of Lords might look like. I rather share that view. A wholly elected Chamber is perhaps the most intellectually sustainable of all the solutions that have been canvassed. But Ministers often point to their manifesto commitments. Let us take just one of them. The Labour Party manifesto stated:
"The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered".
How interesting—because if we look at the White Paper we see that the Government argue that,
"a better approach might be to reduce the theoretically available powers recognising that they might as a consequence be used more frequently".
This Bill is not driven by what is necessarily right for the future of parliamentary democracy, but by a long-held and well known political disrespect. not to say contempt for this House in its present composition.
I have heard it said that Ministers, especially in the other place, do not understand the workings of this House—for example, the fact that we do not need an umpire to help us get through our business or to keep order. And the very fact, which perhaps rankles most, that the Whips cannot hold patronage over Peers, sends shivers down the backs of the apparatchiks in Downing Street and Millbank. It therefore comes as no surprise that the Government should introduce this Bill that ends the right of hereditary Peers both to sit and to vote in this House without offering any serious alternative.
Of course, Ministers will argue that it will be the job of the Royal Commission to come forward with proposals for future reform. But let us not forget that the decision by the Government to establish such a commission was a belated and reluctant concession. And, as many of your Lordships have said previously, it is wrong to have stage one reform without stage two. That view is also held by the Financial Times, a newspaper which more often than not supports this Government. It states today that the Government are wrong,
"to pull down this venerable part of Britain's constitutional edifice before it had even the architect's drawing for the new structure".
All this raises additional questions. What is to stop the Government making the so-called transitional House a permanent fixture? What will happen if the Government are opposed to the recommendations of the Royal Commission? Again, to quote the Financial Times,
"finding the right formula will be difficult".
Will Ministers be willing to accept recommendations, regardless of whether they agree with them or not? I very much doubt it. I suspect that, in such circumstances, they will opt to do nothing.
What have Ministers told us about the composition of this House in the transitional stage and their reasons for removing hereditary Peers? They have this obsession with the so-called built-in majority of the Conservative Party. They forget the number of defeats inflicted by

59
Peers on the previous administration. Ministers make the claim that in removing the so-called Conservative majority in this place it is not their intention merely to replace it with a Labour one. All they would seek, they say, is broad parity of numbers with the Conservative Party. But what guarantee do we have that the Government will retain that view; and, anyway, what does it mean? Perhaps the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal could point to the relevant clause in the Bill or explain the position more fully.
What is the view of the Labour Party at large on this matter, including, in particular, the more venerable members? Experience confirms that the Labour Party will go to great lengths to ensure that the leadership maintains its steely grip whenever it can. Look at how they ensured that only Blairites were chosen to fight seats in the Scottish Parliament, at how a splendid Blairite candidate has become the leader of the party in Wales and at how the members of the NEC are not allowed to say anything after they have attended meetings.
My suspicion is, therefore, that, once the Bill has cleared its parliamentary process, the Government will do more than seek broad parity of number; they may even ensure that they have an overall majority, and this House will then lose its independence. We shall be left with a wholly nominated House, with all the obvious disadvantages of that arrangement.
Perhaps I may refer to two other matters connected with reform of this House: what we now understand as the Archer amendment and the Weatherill amendment.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare intends to propose an amendment restricting the right to vote of Peers who do not attend sufficiently regularly. I do not see my noble friend in his place. This topic has been discussed as a matter of principle by noble Lords who have spoken earlier and believe I am entitled to refer to it. Such an amendment will need careful drafting, but I do not necessarily disagree with it. Peers who are Members of this House are in a special position and we must be certain that in limiting one right we do not inadvertently undermine another. Furthermore, we shall need to have regard to the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which has a great deal to say on parliamentary and related freedoms.
In his proposed amendment, my noble friend is no doubt responding to the oft-repeated criticisms—which we have heard again today—of so-called backwoods Peers who choose to come to the House only on selected occasions. But it is a fact that many life Peers, especially, I am sorry to say, some of quite recent creation, also choose to come only infrequently, and I very much hope that any amendments that are proposed will not be confined to hereditary Peers but will also include life Peers—and, for that matter, right reverend Prelates and Most reverend Primates.
I turn now to the so-called Weatherill amendment, by which the noble Lord apparently plans to allow 91 hereditary Peers to be elected by their colleagues and to remain in the House during stage one only. Since
60
many of us doubt the Government's determination to proceed to stage two, this amendment, if agreed, may take on some importance. While I welcome this obvious reversal of the Government's position, I have to say plainly that 91 is nothing like sufficient for the intended purpose. The day-to-day business of this House is largely run by hereditary Peers and there is no evidence that life Peers are willing to take on the numerous detailed duties performed by hereditary Peers in anything like the numbers required. As I indicated earlier, the attendance record of life Peers is in many cases patchy at best. The House simply cannot function on that basis. I therefore hope that, if the Bill is to proceed as the Government wish, the Government will demonstrate some flexibility on this matter and agree to a greater number of hereditary Peers remaining, one way or another.
Perhaps I may add one further point. Among the hereditary Peers to be excluded under the Bill are a small number of very senior Peers, to whom my noble friend Lord Strathclyde referred, who may well not choose to offer themselves for election but whom we should all wish to remain as Members of this House. I hope that the Government will find a way of making that possible.
I turn now to the reasoned amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. That amendment enshrines many of the concerns that I have about the Bill, and I shall therefore support it.
I conclude by confirming my opposition to this measure. As drafted, it undermines the independence and effectiveness of your Lordships' House in a way which one day we shall all regret. I and others shall therefore want to suggest a range of amendments to correct these shortcomings. I anticipate lengthy discussion on these matters, but these are issues of momentous importance and I make no apology to your Lordships for the prospect of a long and difficult progress through this House. It would be so much better if the Government would wait for the views of the Royal Commission and then proceed on an agreed basis, but they have chosen not to do so. So be it. I consider that we have a duty to oppose with all the vigour at our command, and I pledge myself to that process.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his very kind association of my name with the names of old friends from the other side of the House. It is certainly an honour to be associated with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I felt that there was a name missing, that of Lord St. Aldwyn, but he is dead, of course. I shall always remember him with affection. He was the party opposite's Chief Whip for many years. They were my tutors in my early days in this House, just as, in 1945, when my father came to the House, where he became Chief Whip, the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was equally helpful and solicitous on all occasions. I believe that that has provided the continuity of this House.

61
However, it has to be recognised that it was a dying House. Due to the economic circumstances, the hereditary principle was not throwing up sufficient men of nobility and experience to maintain this House and enable it to perform what were then its duties. When the first life Peers came to the House—whom I remember with great affection and respect—they brought a new life and a new approach within the traditions of the House, and I believe that that led hereditary Peers to feel that this was a place worth coming to. This was not a dying House but a place in which something could be done. To he frank, I believe that friction that once did not exist is beginning to build up between the hereditary Peers and the life Peers. Here we are allowed our personal opinions.
I support the Bill, but do so with some sadness having been in this House for some 44 years. I have had my best times and my best friends here. However, I understand, as do noble Lords opposite, that my son and particularly my grandson will not have the privileges that I have enjoyed in this place. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was less than fair in observing in his remarkable speech that my noble friend the Leader of the House had not been well disposed to hereditary Peers and failed 10 acknowledge what they had done in the past. I believe that taking the speeches that have been made overall that accusation is not sustained. My son and grandson accept that by birth they have no right to legislate in the 21st century in a civilised and democratic state.
There has been criticism of the Bill itself. The Government have done exactly what I said they should do: they have kept the Bill short and dealt with one issue only. They have learned the lessons of 1968 when one of the most complicated Bills was introduced and frustrated on the issue that we are now discussing, because reform of this House made this place more respectable and therefore was a challenge to another place. It is unfair to place the entire blame on Michael Foot. I believe that Enoch Powell was somewhere on the scene. It is also true that the Conservative Party removed the whip at the very moment that they should not when there was agreement to the White Paper and the principles within the Bill. Therefore, the Government are right in what they have done: they have kept the Bill short and precise.
I do not believe that this Bill should deal with anything about the future. I doubt whether the Government are right to expect that the Royal Commission will deliver forth a major paper in such a short space of time. I say to its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that I thoroughly approve of what (I hope) is his order of priorities: role; function; power; procedure; and, finally, composition. Unless one can deal with those earlier issues one cannot appreciate the form of composition of this House. I heard my noble friend the Leader of the House refer to various other modernising Acts. I do not believe that we are part of the wind of change, to use that great phrase coined by Mr. Harold Macmillan. There is a great wind of change in our constitutional structure. It may well be that there will have to be some adjustment—though not a dramatic one—and reform in the other place and here so that the
62
two Houses are more complementary one to the other, although both Houses exercise control over the executive.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Despite his vigour, I do not believe that his heart was really in the amendment. I suspect that he would have preferred to move a Motion that this House do not approve the Bill. The noble Baroness nods her head and I am glad that she endorses my impression. It has been said that we should regret party political interest. I am all for the Labour Party seeking a degree of parity with the party opposite. I do not regard that as party political interest in the way that it was meant to be. I believe that this House would be a healthier place with parity. It is not right that we should have to retain a large number of Peers here night after night, no matter how immaterial the Government legislation may be, just in case the noble Lords opposite decide to call a Division or merely to maintain a quorum. I am all for parity. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, drew attention to the 1968 agreement that the Government of the day should have only a bare majority over the other two political parties. I do not know whether an amendment to that effect can be drafted, but in principle I go along with it. It would apply to the two parties in this House. Therefore, there would have to be some adjustment to the composition.
I turn to the last point made by the noble Lord relating to consultation and consensus. It has been with us for the whole of the century. In 1948 we had an agreement, but it all fell apart because of disagreement on powers. In 1968 we had an agreement. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, we had a massive majority in this House to abolish the hereditary principle. It must be remembered that a massive majority of Conservative Peers voted with us for the abolition of the hereditary principle but it was lost in another place. As it is a simple Bill the issue is now before us at the end of March. We have all the time in the world, although the Government Chief Whip may not think so. We have at least three months in which to examine the Bill. Sooner or later we shall recognise whether or not there is a degree of frustration.
I turn quickly to the Weatherill amendment. The Leader of the House has made it clear that the Weatherill amendment depends very much upon the way in which the Conservative opposition react to the Bill. I should like an assurance from the Government that even if that amendment were passed in Committee and later the Opposition sought to frustrate the matter, the Government would take the necessary steps in another place to overturn it. Unless it is clear that that is what we shall do, I do not see how we can accept the Weatherill amendment. I much prefer that it be done in a different way if hereditary Peers are seen to be necessary in a transitional House. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, believes we shall vote for hereditary Peers. Will it be done by the hereditary Peers in the Conservative Party or by all members of the party? I have not heard from my noble friend how it is intended to do it. We have only two. I do not know

63
where we will find volunteers. But it is essential that if this understanding is accepted, the party opposite plays fair and straight in the matter. I support the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Richard Cromwell, our second Lord Protector, was a victim of the hereditary principle. He did not share his father's reputation sometimes, but he did make one memorable remark. He said,
"I will not have one drop of blood shed for the preservation of my greatness, which is a burden to me".
I would not wish to pretend for a moment that the position we enjoy here could be described as greatness, and it would be a gross discourtesy to pretend that membership of this House had been nothing but a burden; but the desire to avoid bloodshed often has something to be commended. When the King returned in 1660, Richard Cromwell was allowed to resume the life of a Hampshire country gentleman. It may please some of your Lordships and alarm others to learn that he continued to ride to hounds until his death, 42 years later. Peace has a price and that price is often worth paying.
I listened with great care to what the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal had to say about the concept of birthright. I was reminded of one of my current pupils who is writing a long essay on the philosophy of liberalism, advised, I hasten to say, by someone a great deal more impartial than myself. She has seized on one quotation to argue that one of the keys to the whole philosophy is a belief in equality of birthright. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would put it, "Well, there is no arguing with that". Since I intend to insist on that principle on behalf of those disentitled to benefit or on behalf of asylum seekers, I must equally insist on it against myself.
The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal will remember that when we were undergraduates I could see no reason why, by a mere accident of birth, I was allowed membership of the Oxford Union and she was not. Equally, I can see no reason why, by a mere accident of birth, I should have an automatic right to membership of this House when she did not. She has known me long enough to know that this is no abandonment of competition; but I hope to compete on equal terms without hiding behind a tariff barrier of privilege.
It is often said that we do a good job. I believe that on the whole we do; but it is not a sufficient answer. The question is why we should have the right to do the good job. The only defence is on the ground that our selection was a lottery; but a lottery which has produced about 10 old Etonians to every old Harrovian is one which the noble Viscount, Lord Long, might have some difficulty in defending.
Some resent privilege. It has usually done them no harm. The noble Baroness, after all, is now Lord Privy Seal. If it does harm, it is to those who accept it, who believe therefore that they are lesser people than we are.
64
I recall an occasion on which I had been agreeing exam marks with David Starkey, my fellow examiner. I was driving him home very late one Saturday night and was stopped at the wrong end of Islington by police who clearly suspected that we were drug-running. I told them that my name was Russell and I lived in Kilburn, which did not appear to reassure them—until David Starkey adopted his very highest moral tone, which as some of your Lordships know is positively stratospheric, and said, "This is Professor the Earl Russell". whereat the police all scarpered! The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, knows very well that we have deplored the process of stereotyping in the police force. I must admit that I enjoyed that moment, but I do not think that I should have benefited from it.
At the same time, however, we have the same right to scrutinise proposals for our successors as we have to scrutinise any other government proposal. There are real fears, which the noble Lord, Lord Richard. has addressed in a speech which I heard with great pleasure, about the composition of the future House. Ministers will say that those fears are misplaced. I will be very glad indeed if I find that is true; but I beg Ministers to recognise that those fears are perfectly genuine. Our chances of getting this Bill through peacefully and quietly depend on the Government's success in reassuring those fears.
I agree precisely with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the purpose of this House is the reduction of executive power. I therefore also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and I do not look with favour on any suggestion that the powers of this House should be reduced. We need to be able to challenge the Government in the Division Lobbies. We need to be able to send legislation back to another place a second time. We need to recognise what this House has described as its unfettered freedom to vote on secondary legislation. However, perhaps most important of all, one of our greatest powers is our freedom to control our own allocation of time.
I hope that those fighting the abolition of the hereditary peerage in the course of this Bill will remember that in defending one thing which is precious to them they would be unwise to threaten something which is even more important, because that freedom, like others, survives only so long as we do not abuse it.
Since legitimacy has been put in issue, election is now the only thing which is widely recognised as conferring legitimacy. We need predominantly an elected and not a nominated House. Were a proposal to appear for election by a closed list, there would be room for dispute in which of those two categories it should be placed. I do not, however, join those who say that it should be all election.
In the defence of the hereditary peerage which we have heard, and which I must admit I heard with some element of pleasure, one also hears a distrust of the party machinery and of its tendency to drift towards oligarchy rather than democracy. That feeling is real in the country at large. I do not believe that we are the right mechanism to carry that feeling, but it is there and the lightning needs a conductor.

65
It is vital to bear in mind that speeches in this House do sometimes change votes. I believe that we need Cross-Benchers. My position therefore remains the position of the Cook-Maclennan talks: a predominantly elected House in which there should be a nominated element. That might be something which we could keep hold of and take forward. If we look in these directions, I hope this Bill may survive, like Richard Cromwell, without undue bloodshed.
6.28 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps I may start by congratulating the Government on this Bill. Congratulations do not come thick and fast to governments, so I thought that they might like that. I congratulate them on the length of the Bill and not on its composition.
The Bill ends a 700 year-old right for some 700 Peers to sit in Parliament. Whatever views one might have about the worthiness of that, it is pretty heady stuff. I can well understand noble Lords opposite thinking that it is wrong for hereditary Peers to have a place in Parliament. That is a perfectly respectable argument and one which is often deployed, even though I do not share it myself. Members of another place have always disliked your Lordships' House and none more than the Labour Members of Parliament. The curious thing is that they all queue up to come here. And they do. We see serried ranks of them—slightly less serried at half past six in the evening than at three o'clock in the afternoon. But we love them and I like to think that they love us too. But once they are here a curious thing happens. They metamorphose into cuckoos and try to hook out of the nest the eggs already there, the very eggs that have given the nest its character and—dare I say it?—possibly a little of its attraction.
Whatever happens as we progress through the Bill, I hope that we shall be able to treat each other with courtesy. I congratulate the noble Baroness the Leader of the House on her opening remarks, in which she showed greater understanding. That was not exactly the case heretofore from Members of the Front Bench when there was a certain amount of spikiness. Whatever happens, the chances are that the hereditary Peers will go, and too much war-whooping for joy or vitriol is rather like kicking spaniels. I hope that we do not have too much of that. Even those accused of the most heinous murder are given the best possible breakfast before they go to the gallows. It does not do them much good, but it is a nice, thoughtful gesture.
Where the Government stand condemned over the Bill is that they are upheaving one of the Houses of Parliament without agreement, discussion or consensus, and no one has the slightest idea what is to follow. It would at least be understandable if the Government said, "We're going to get rid of hereditary Peers and remodel the House of Lords in this way". But to set up a commission of political people who have been appointed by the Prime Minister to say what they think should happen, but after the Bill has been passed and after the constitution has already been altered, seems to me to give scant respect both to the constitution and to Parliament.
66
Stages one and two of the reform should have come together. It is literally beyond comprehension that the Government should have deliberately separated them. After all, what is the hurry? Is 12 months in 700 years that much of a delay? I do not think so. The motivating force seems to be based on no greater intellectual basis than the beat of the tom-toms: "Get rid of hereditary Peers; get rid of hereditary Peers". That is the theme which underlines everything, as though it was the only thing that matters.
But is it? What do the Government want? They do not seem to know. They do not want to get rid of all hereditary Peers. That is what the Bill states. Members of the Government have spent the past 18 months castigating hereditary Peers saying that their presence in Parliament is an offence to democracy. But then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says that he is quite prepared to retain 91 hereditary Peers. What do the Government want? Do they want 91 hereditary Peers? If they do, why do they introduce a Bill which says that there are to be none? If they want 91 hereditary Peers, why do they not say so in the Bill? It seems to me illogical.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made an extraordinary remark. He has vanished already, but he is allowed to do that. He said that it depends upon the way your Lordships behave as to whether or not 91 should be allowed. That is a most astonishing way to seek to alter the constitution. We should be a little more grown-up than that.
In my view of this Bill, the Government have a tiger by the tail. It will pull them heaven knows where, and the effect will be felt not just by hereditary Peers but by the House of Lords as a Chamber, by Parliament, the constitution and the people. No one knows where we are going, and no one knows where we shall end up. I hesitate to say this to noble Lords opposite, but the fault lies entirely with the Government for their impetuousness in bringing forward a totally inadequate Bill.
We have heard possibilities discussed by my noble friend Lord Carrington and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, today. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that now is the time to start debate. That should have been done before the Government introduced the Bill. For example, are the Government right to ask Parliament to override the Writ of Summons from the monarch? The Writ of Summons summons a Peer for the lifetime of a Parliament. The Bill states that that will cease in mid-Parliament. Can a government or Parliament usurp the command of the monarch when they or it feel like it? It is the command by which we all justify our presence here. Can the Government say to some Peers, "You may continue to have the authority of your writ", but to others, "You may no longer have the authority of your writ". I well remember the aircraft and shipbuilding industry legislation of 1976. It was a hybrid Bill because some ship repairing firms were being nationalised while others were not. It became hybrid because there was discrimination against people who were doing similar work. Is there not discrimination in this Bill against people who are doing similar work?

67
It does not seem to have occurred to the Government that when the hereditary Peers go and your Lordships' House consists of appointed people it will be no more democratic than it is now. Let us remember that. The life Peers will say, "Thank goodness for that. Now we have got rid of the baggage. Now we can do the job we were sent here to do", and the House of Lords will perpetually amend legislation without the restraint which the presence of hereditary Peers provides. And it will do so on secondary legislation, where until now it has always been a convention that your Lordships' House does not usurp the supremacy of another place. But that will happen; and another place will hate it and the relationship between the two Houses will be one of growing acrimony.
I fear that the smile on the face of the life Peers over the demise of hereditary Peers will soon vanish because life Peers will be the next to go. If there is to be an elected Chamber, or a partially elected Chamber, will many of your Lordships feel motivated to go to the hustings and seek the approval of the voters? Will the voters want to vote for many of your Lordships who are left here? But if there is to be a House in which some have been elected and some have been appointed, is that not a recipe for first and second class citizens in your Lordships' House?
Do people really want to have a second elected Chamber? Most people think that one is quite enough. Will people want to have to vote not just for the House of Commons, the European Parliament, local authorities, national assemblies and possibly the regional assemblies, but also for the House of Lords? Will people want to come to this House with its limited powers and no pay? Of course not. As sure as night follows day, we can see what will happen. They will want to be paid. Then the Peers who are here will want research students. They will want more and better accommodation. The costs of the second Chamber will soar. For all their Early Day Motions, the last thing another place wishes for is an elected second Chamber. They will hate that, too.
Do the Government want a stronger or weaker second Chamber? The Prime Minister has said that he will pack your Lordships' House with his own people so that the elected Chamber can get its way. At the same time, the Government say that they want to have a strong second Chamber in order to act as a check on the Executive. That is what they say, but they rise up in fury if your Lordships exercise even a scintilla of strength. Who will believe that that will change just because there is a change in the composition? If there is to be a stronger Chamber, it will be of necessity at the expense of another place because power is finite and will shift from one place to another.
Your Lordships may say that this is fantasising and nothing to do with the Bill, but I suggest that it has everything to do with the Bill. The Bill lays before your Lordships a Pandora's Box, full of the unknown. The Government refuse to open it because they have not thought it through, but in their obduracy the Government are wholly responsible. Is it not a sign of extraordinary pettiness that if and when the hereditary
68
Peers go they will never be allowed back into the Chamber again, other than as a guest? In another place, when a Member ceases to be a Member, for whatever reason, he is allowed back into the premises for the remainder of his life, and he can have his meals there. But not so in your Lordships' House.
We were glad to listen to my noble friend Lord Carrington this afternoon. He has had a distinguished record in public service. He will not be able to come back. The doors will be barred against him and all other hereditary Peers, too. What an astonishing reward that is for a lifetime of public service! And it will be the hapless doorkeepers who will be given the jolly task of keeping your Lordships out. Whether they have been trying their skills at a half-Nelson or in rugger tackles, I do not know, but it is pretty indecorous stuff at the best.
The Government obviously think that your Lordships' House, or anyhow the hereditary Peers, are either old-fashioned, too traditional or ought to be extinct. I think it is important to remember the difference between "old-fashioned", "traditional" and "extinct". The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—he is not here today because, if I might respectfully remind the Government Chief Whip, this is Holy Week and he has other things on his mind—put those definitions very well, in circumstances which have nothing to do with this Bill at all. He said:
"Old-fashioned is flared trousers, Morris Minors, the quickstep, Bing Crosby, stone hot-water bottles and",
in relation to his prelatorial peculiarities,
"gaiters.
Tradition is Trooping the Colour, the State Opening of Parliament, getting married in church and the 10 Commandments.
Extinct is the dodo, the brontosaurus and gramophone records which break when you drop them".
The right reverend Prelate went on to say, again in a context which is wholly different from this Bill and which therefore makes it all the more important:
"Fashion often changes. Tradition contains elements that have shaped our present and have influenced the way we think and act: but those who have the power to change traditions should think very hard about what they are doing as they often have a deeper significance, the loss of which would harm our life as a community or as a people".
This Bill, limited in scope, as the Government would have us believe it is, will have an effect on our country, on our constitution and on our people which will be far, far greater than ever the Government have begun to realise. I regret that and I think that for that reason if for no other—and there are plenty of others—the Government are wrong.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I probably have the most unenviable speaking position in the whole of this debate in following the noble Earl. He is of course the quintessential hereditary Peer. He is an extremely good example of the service given to this House by hereditary Peers and there is no doubt that he could have made a tremendous career wherever he wished. Nevertheless, the noble Earl, whether he is pulling the tiger by the tail or a cuckoo pushing others out, will be able to roam free in whatever comes naturally for hereditary Peers once this Bill has passed.

69
The noble Earl made much of the rights of hereditary Peers who attend this House once this Bill is passed. It is my understanding—I am sure that my noble friends on the Front Bench will correct me if I am wrong—that that would be a decision for the new House, and the new House will decide whether certain hereditary Peers, or indeed all of them, will be able to come back and use the facilities of this House. I think that the noble Earl was wrong on that point, if I may say so.
I wish to concentrate my comments on one point: that is that the transitional House will be a strengthened House and it will be the better for that. I will quickly rehearse some of the figures which we have heard, but which have been skipped over. There will still be over 500 life Peers. This House will still be the largest second Chamber anywhere in the world and so, for goodness sake! it is still going to be able to operate very much as it does now.
We have heard that no party will be in overall control and that the Prime Minister has said that he seeks to have broad parity between the two main parties. But the Prime Minister of course has done much more than that. He has said that he will give up the right to appoint Cross-Bench Peers and he has also given up the right to veto the nominations of the other parties. No other Prime Minister has done that.
Another point which should be made is that of course life Peers are more legitimate than hereditary Peers. It is a point that a number of your Lordships have made, including my noble friend Lord Shore. The legitimacy of the life Peers will inevitably legitimise the transitional House. Another, perhaps less palatable. fact is worth repeating: some 70 per cent. of the contributions in this House are made by life Peers and not hereditary Peers. Yet another point which has not been made, which probably reflects the composition of this House, is that women and ethnic minorities are a very small minority here. That can never be rectified while the hereditary Peerage remains, arid that is something which can be done during the transitional period.
A final point, more constitutional, is whether the Salisbury-Addison Convention will apply in the transitional House. I would argue that the removal of the hereditary Peers will lift a dead weight from the party opposite who are inhibited from working properly. They will be free to act in a more "free and easy" way.
I notice that a Labour Party press statement came out today which pointed out that Labour's life Peers work far harder than Conservative life Peers. So once the hereditary Peers go, if Conservative life Peers wish to take advantage of their new-found freedoms they will have to start working a lot harder. Although I do not think he is in his place at present, I should like to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, at col. 1067 on 15th October last year. He said:
"The Salisbury-Addison Convention, which was devised to enable a massive Conservative majority in your Lordships' hereditary House to live with a massive Labour majority in the elected House, will have lapsed the moment that the preliminary Bill becomes law. Its Members will no longer be under the same constraints in exercising the considerable powers which we still possess…".—[Official Report, 15/10/98; col.1067.]
70
If that is not strengthening the House of Lords I really do not know what is. It seems to me that the transitional House will be strengthened.
I will say just one word about the second stage. Everybody has his or her own model, but it is absolutely unthinkable that hereditary Peers would be part of this House after the second stage and, if I am to put myself in a particular camp, I would be a "mishmash man" of different elements and different methods displayed by people coming into this House. However, I have one criterion above all: that is that the House of Lords should be different from the House of Commons.
In the opening speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House, she paid a very fulsome tribute to hereditary Peers in general and made it clear that this Bill in no way undermines the work of individual hereditary Peers. The Leader of the Opposition the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also paid tribute to many of the hereditary Peers and he named a number of them. Of course we can all point to individual hereditary Peers who have made a tremendous contribution to this House, but I really think it is incumbent on the Opposition Front Bench to say whether in principle they approve of the hereditary Peerage. Do they approve of the hereditary principle: yes or no?
In my maiden speech some eight years ago. I spoke about the mixed feelings which I had on entering this House. I have to say that I still have mixed feelings about being a Member of this House, even though I readily acknowledge that it is a tremendous privilege. I think I understand better the sense of history, vocation and service which many Peers have who contribute to the business of this House. I have to say that I have discovered many more noble kinsmen than I would care to admit to my Front Bench. However, none of this adds up to a justification. It is simply a reflection of many a late night spent in the Bishops Bar, chewing over old glories of our families. That is not a justification of the hereditary principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, spoke about the European Convention on Human Rights. I have to say that I thought this was a bit rich because it is very doubtful whether, if we were to apply to become members of the Council of Europe even now, we would ever be accepted with a wholly nominated House.
One of the privileges that I have through being a Member of this House is that I go to the Council of Europe. When I explain to members of parliament from the countries of the former Soviet Union how I came to be a Member of Parliament, they laugh out loud and think it is extremely funny. There are light-hearted exchanges about why I am a Member of Parliament.
But there is a more serious side to that because they believe that democracy applies to them as members of the Council of Europe but that we have found some clever way of circumnavigating democracy in the House of Lords. And of course that is true.
It is not only hereditary Peers who have a sense of duty and public service. I am struck constantly by the MPs, the life Peers, councillors and school governors who I know who also have a sense of public duty which

71
they have derived through their families. They do not have preferments and do not ask for them. They continue their family traditions through their own merit and work.
I want my son to grow up in a world where he can continue my family's tradition, and do so where the Parliament is democratic and meritocratic. This Bill offers a decisive step in that direction.
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, it is particularly appropriate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This will probably be my only contribution on the Bill and to the debate generally about reform of this House. As is usual, I declare an interest both as an hereditary Peer but also as a Peer who has an active dislike of party politics. But, contrary to popular belief, my blood is indeed red and the commonest of all blood groups that can be found. I went to one of the greener of the red-brick universities.
I must make an apology to the House. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend tomorrow's debate and it is with great regret that I say that. I am sorry also that I shall not be present to support my noble kinsman Lord Cobbold. Although I am not sure that his amendment would achieve much, I very much agree with the sentiments it expresses.
Heredity is not an inherently defensible principle, as we have heard; it is a fact of life. I regard accident of birth as being at least as irreversible as colour or race. No one sits here by dint of democracy. We are all nominees, whether for several lives or for one. While the manner of my admission here may be disliked, it was perfectly valid, legal and accepted by your Lordships' House at the time and commonly assumed to be for life. As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, termination of the hereditary seat sits uncomfortably with continuation of life peerages. So the Bill's effects are asymmetric.
This House clearly helps to hold the executive to account. When faced with a bundle of manifesto commitments and a huge parliamentary majority in another place, that is obviously an extremely necessary safeguard. But in this House we have never been able to hold out indefinitely against the will of another place. So there is no fundamental operational reason for change; merely, I suggest, political ideology.
I do not fear reform but this Bill is not about reform. The Government make their case based only on party mantra. They talk of a more modern and efficient House but do not want to see any shift in the balance of power with another place. They talk of more professionalism. What profession would that be? They support a large Cross-Bench element consistent with present proportions but then they wish to enlarge their own representation to achieve parity with their political opponents. They parade hereditary Peers as an undesirable societal élite—I believe I can quote the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on that—but they are in fact settling an old political score.
72
I support the setting up of the Royal Commission but this Bill seeks to pre-empt its work, as we have heard. That is a political fix and not a candid attempt at an independent assessment of functions and membership and constitutional need. The public may assume that the commission's findings will be taken as read but, as we know, they will not. They will be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses appointed by I know not what method but as a non-party politician I can make a good guess. The Bill sets out to preserve a reduced membership of pure appointees with or without 90-odd hereditaries to be added on. For how long would that be? Would the powers and duties of the job description remain the same or will it just be a caretaker role? We are not told.
Fewer Peers producing the same output means more work per capita. Speaking from experience, I should say that to give up much more than one day per week to come here one needs to be retired, unemployed, wealthy with time on one's hands or in extremely accommodating professional employment, preferably living and working in London or, perhaps, on the payroll vote. To me, a substantial contribution on those terms hardly equals occupational normality. Hence the need for a large pool of Members in what is ultimately a voluntary Chamber.
So what is the future of this House and will it be operationally competent during the transition? None of that seems to have been considered. Politicians do not create power; it is earned by commanding respect. Let us compare National Trust membership with that of the political parties and noble Lords will see what I mean. The precipitate and ill-considered haste with which this Bill is being pursued is typical of the political disrespect for Parliament. Reform is undoubtedly necessary. There are practices which are rightly criticised, although many could be removed by internal rule changes. Packing the Lobbies with people who have no interest in the matter being debated is matched only by threats of reform to ensure co-operation. Both are perpetrated for party political advantage and, I am afraid to say, enormously damage the authority of this House. It leads to accusations of toothlessness followed by complaints that we defy the elected will of the Commons. Now we have the spectre of a party manifesto bypassing the constitution. But the message is that Parliament is there to be bypassed. I disagree with that most profoundly. That must change.
The Cross-Benches are chided for their voting record. What about the attendance and voting record of the Prime Minister? For myself and in all conscience, I feel that it is wrong to vote on an issue that I have not understood or on which I have not heard the arguments. The criticism is dishonest and conceals another practice—that of putting party policy before the free and principled thought with which this House is especially associated.
I made my maiden speech on what became known as the poll tax but there are other examples of incompetent legislation forced through by political force majeure in another place. The system as we have it is neither honest nor trustworthy. Ministers give misleading answers; governments are less than candid about what Bills

73
actually mean; and parties—I use the plural—in power regularly seek to bypass parliamentary scrutiny altogether. All too often, open government means deliberate obfuscation or the dispersal of powers to where they are not so easily noticed but just as readily controlled. All that needs reform too.
I am a technician, not a politician, as now must be apparent. The only amendment I would make would be to defer consideration of this Bill altogether until a referendum has been held on the proposals following the Royal Commission's deliberations. But I very much doubt that that will be an option. This Bill will make the House more partisan. If the Government cannot guarantee pre-eminence of the Commons by effectively making this place its poodle, then it will simply not be worth having a second Chamber at all. The power of the political parties should be reduced, but that is a forlorn hope.
My position here is in the gift of the nation, not, I suggest, of a particular political party. I am a volunteer, a kind of unpaid trustee. I do not regard myself as being here as of right but through an honour with duties attached. Equally, I do not believe that a manifesto commitment alone should form the basis of abolition.
I do not represent the interests of vast landed forebears. It is true that I still have an amount of land but I am primarily a working professional chartered surveyor. Party politics mean little to me. I am certainly in touch with the great and the good but also with the lowly and impecunious. My constituency is the cause of the average middle-class person who simply wants fair play and straight dealings. Such people often write to me here as an independent parliamentarian or consult me as a professional.
I have enjoyed coming here over the past 14 years. I hope I have made a useful contribution during that time but I am not hooked on parliamentary life. Of course, I shall miss the company of your Lordships. I shall probably miss even more the wonderful staff within the Palace of Westminster who look after us and who are absolute gems, as I am sure we all agree. But, like the first 35 years of my life, I can spend the next 35 in the political wilderness and I am sure that there are other ways in which I can usefully serve my country, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House.
I accept that my time is up in every sense. Most people subjected to a vote of no confidence of the kind implicit in this Bill would conclude, as I have, that they are not indispensable. In recent years, I have felt that my contribution in your Lordships' House has counted for less and less. However, I regret my inability to defend economic sense, common decency and moral principle. My feat is for the future scrutiny of legislation and my dismay is for a so-called reform that starts with destruction but without any tangible vision of what is to be created thereafter. In the meantime, I shall continue to serve this House as best as I can, but, speaking purely personally. I am not unduly dismayed at the prospect of going.
7 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I begin with humble and sincere apologies for missing the first two speeches due to a series of misunderstandings. From what I have heard, I believe I am the loser.
Perhaps I can say, unusually, that I absolutely and entirely agree with almost everything that the noble Earl has said. I do not go quite so far down the road that leads him to dislike political parties, but I go quite a long way with him. However, I cannot echo him on his promise that this will be his last contribution on the subject. This is my first—the ground has been well travelled before me—but it will not be my last.
Perhaps I may begin by reflecting on the virtues of your Lordships' House, which are sometimes ignored by those—who, one feels, ought to know better—who enjoy sneering at almost everything. When I entered the House for the first time in 1983 I was struck, principally, by the fact that here was an assembly of people with a great deal of experience who were not looking for anything for themselves. A second point that struck me was that in the Cross Benches—I do not want to flatter them too much—we had an assembly of people unique in the world. I do not believe that any other country in the world offers facilities to a group such as the Cross-Benchers, who owe absolutely no allegiance to any political party and, as far as I am aware, have very scant respect for them.
Perhaps I can briefly refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said. I thought he was very kind and honest because he gave me, as a life Peer, the credit for being more legitimate than he was. I have never regarded this House as embodying competition between those whom I shall describe as illegitimate, people who are partly illegitimate and people who are thoroughly illegitimate. It seems to be a totally bogus affair.
Facing this terrible little Bill, this absolutely miserable, pedestrian measure of which the Front Bench ought to be thoroughly ashamed—I know very well that they will not be—I would have thought, being optimistic, that at the moment the Government have more than enough on their plate. I do not want to go into any of the issues, but the Government are involved in Kosovo, the Good Friday Agreement is at a most perilous stage and, to put it politely, European arrangements are in a state of some confusion.
If the Government had said that Parliament, as a whole, could do with some improvement, I would have been noisy in my approval. Had the Government said that we must have a second Chamber, but that they cannot tolerate a second Chamber with a permanent in-built majority for one party, and that they must have a Royal Commission and the guidance to that commission will be to avoid the present situation, I would have found it extremely difficult to oppose them.
As it is, I am very confused. We have a second Chamber which revises and restrains an over-eager House of Commons. The House of Commons, in its eagerness, may be spontaneous, but it is more likely that it is engineered by the Government Whips. Just how far will the second Chamber be permitted to restrain an over-eager House of Commons or to put any holding reign on the executive? We have been told in the White Paper,

75
which bears the Prime Minister's picture, that a new second Chamber must not be allowed to usurp or threaten the supremacy of the first. What does that mean? Does it really mean that the Government are contemplating a second Chamber that will be entirely acceptable to the House of Commons? What a dreadful thought.
I was in the House of Commons at the time when the last effort was made by Harold Wilson's government to reform the House of Lords. I was a very junior, totally unimportant and insignificant member of a coalition of people who disliked the ideas then being put forward. Michael Foot, Nigel Birch and others came together in a rather unusual assembly. My own particularly strong reason, and it is still my reason, was my dislike of giving to any government such wide patronage as to enable it to handle the second Chamber. Immediately, the independence of the second Chamber would disappear. At the moment, I can say with affectionate admiration that the party Whips are of no inconvenience whatever to me. I very much fear the time when the party Whips may become seized—I dare say it will not happen at my age—of new powers which will make younger, more hopeful, more vigorous people much keener and easier to control.
The Government have not done what I hoped. They are seeking to manhandle your Lordships' House, largely because from time to time your Lordships' House is a source of slight inconvenience to them. On the other hand, it is a matter of regret to me that the House of Commons has been a source of nothing but comfort to a government I am not inclined to applaud wholeheartedly.
Incidentally, I am rather inclined to give to my noble friend Lord Wakeham, whom I greatly respect, more credit on this occasion for his courage than for his wisdom, but we shall see. How long do the Government expect the Royal Commission to take? What guidance have they given the Royal Commission or its individual members? Presumably, they have passed down the line the word about what they would like to see—if they know. That is an inquiry which I hope that Ministers will find the time to answer.
I turn to the question of the powers of the new second Chamber. Am I right in thinking that under no circumstances will either the Government or their legions in the House of Commons agree to any increase in powers here irrespective of whether they claim to have produced a more powerful, more enlightened, more tolerable second Chamber? That is a real fear for the Government, to which the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Waddington referred earlier. The Government are sowing a seed of great distress and anguish for themselves if they produce anything like a respectable second Chamber, anything other than a mere kennelful of tame poodles. That is what they will be doing if they produce a second Chamber which is sufficiently virile and robust every now and again to be a source of inconvenience to themselves. Am I right, however, in thinking that the Government have no intention of doing that? If so, the alternative is a collection of tame, docile creatures who will go along with the Government's wishes.
I shall not prolong my remarks, but my main question is: what safeguard will there be against a government in the future, conceited as governments ordinarily are,
76
deciding that they are so good, so deserving and that they stand so high in public opinion that they should, in the national interest, prolong their life? Let us not have any nonsense about the Prime Minister giving undertakings and the rest of it, because that is a genuine and real fear and, in the present circumstances, it is a real possibility. Let us have a clear answer to that question, if to no other.
I sit down on this note. Whereas the Government could have handled this in such a way as to attract sympathy—even if some anxiety on the part of those like myself—as it is, they have simply awakened my very strong hostility to what I regard as a pettifogging and mean measure.
7.13 p.m.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Peyton, whose spicy, attractive and humorous style of address always hits the nail smartly on the head. But it is preferable to speaking before him in case he were to lash out at me! My noble friend said that it would not be his last speech on the subject—thank God for that! However, I must take issue with his concluding remark. I thought that the one important power we possess under the Parliament Acts is to reject absolutely a proposal from the other place to prolong its life. We should hang on to that power. I hope that both he and my noble friend Lord Wakeham are not considering altering that in any way.
I join others in saying that this is a bad Bill and that the Government's behaviour in failing to try to seek any consensus is wrong. The reasons are well set out in the amendment and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on his speech in moving it. However, bad and wrong as the Bill is, it would be bad and wrong for this place to fling out what is manifestly a manifesto Bill. It would also be silly to do so because we have an opportunity and, indeed, a duty to try to improve it. That is our duty today and in Committee.
I say that this is a manifesto Bill. What reasons for it did the Government give the people? In so far as anyone read that part of the manifesto or talked about it in pubs or anywhere else, what did people understand about it? They understood that the Government were saying that this House is undemocratic and must be made more democratic. This Bill does not add one jot of a democratic element to the composition or role of this place, so we should get that idea wholly out of the way.
In Chapter 5 of the White Paper, the Government viewed the issue differently. They referred to the fact that this House is dominated by hereditary Peers. Actually, in my recollection of the voting of the past 10 years or so, that is quite untrue. It is also untrue on the face of the White Paper. Chapter 6 is perhaps not as honest as it could be. The graphics indicate that life Peers, and particularly Conservative life Peers, dominate the place. A little later the figures show that that is not true at all.
Like a number of my noble friends, I do not believe that those are the motivating reasons for what is now being done. What motivates those who attack the composition of this House was mentioned earlier. I refer to the political imbalance in this place and the fact that many more Peers, both hereditary and life, take the Conservative Whip than any other. I happen to think that it is wholly respectable

77
for the Government to try to put that right. Indeed, that would be to the advantage of this House and would strengthen democracy. However, I also happen to think that there are several other ways of bringing that about than by destroying the parliamentary rights of hereditary Peers to sit and speak in this House.
I should like to consider at some point, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested in a recent debate, the question which was considered in 1968. I refer to allowing some noble Lords sitting and speaking rights, but not voting rights. If this Government or any future government, or our constitution, are to be adapted so that the composition of this House somehow or other reflects either parity between the main parties or the majority of the government party, consideration will have to be given to the idea in the 1968 settlement of some Peers having the right to sit and to speak but not to vote. After all, we know—the White Paper shows this well—that one of the strengths of this place is the contribution made by individual Peers on the great subjects of the day. Many of the contributions that I remember best in my time here have been made by my hereditary friends and by hereditary Peers on the Cross-Benches and opposite.
One's time is constrained today. It is almost a scandal that on a Second Reading debate, on a subject of this importance, noble Lords cannot put their points for longer than seven or eight minutes. I notice that most of those who spoke before me were not able to keep within that rule. I cannot understand why the Government Chief Whip, who is much liked and respected, decided so to torture your Lordships' procedures as to cram 180 speakers into two days. We can imagine them as two dungeons, worse than the Black Hole of Calcutta. It tortures the procedures, not just noble Lords. We have no chance of putting in front of the Government the reason for the amendments we are likely to propose. In my two remaining minutes I should like to mention those that I have in mind.
I am in favour of the so-called "Weatherill amendment". I happen to link it with my noble friend Lord Cranborne. The proposals set out in the statement of the noble Lord. Lord Weatherill, if followed in the amendment, will prove to be for the better for this House. I believe that the reason the Lord Chancellor accepted it was because the Government were persuaded that it would he for the benefit of the running of this House and the effectiveness of this House if those 91 hereditary Peers were kept on during the transitional phase. For this Bill is about the transitional phase. It is a bad thing that it comes in two stages, but we have got it and we must look to the transitional phase. I hope that we will consider and support that amendment.
I am not minded to take seriously the threats put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—or at least I was not minded to take them seriously until I heard to my astonishment today a declaration of the policy of the Liberal Democrat Party. It was said that it would decide whether or not to back the Weatherill amendment solely on the grounds of whether we had taken more than four days in Committee stage. That is a form of Liberal policy I do not understand. The party must want to rid itself of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, very much indeed.
78
I was rather depressed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, follow the same lines. I believe that he had disclosed his discomfort with the Bill and that this was his way of getting back on side with his noble friends on the Government Benches. I am sad about that because I felt it was a good solid reason for supporting the Weatherill-Cranborne-Lord Chancellor agreement. I look forward to seeing it. We should have seen it in draft form already. I do not know what has gone wrong in that regard. I wonder whether there is a hybridity hitch or whether it is just tactical. I feel it is just tactical. However, we will wait and perhaps hear from the noble and learned Lord tomorrow morning.
The other block of amendments I should like to see were touched on by my noble friend Lord Waddington in an excellent speech earlier today. I am minded at the moment to suggest to the House that we should try to incorporate in the Bill a number of points contained in the White Paper chapter on the transitional stage, including the methods of appointment. But in particular we should include in the Bill, with the Government's acceptance, that in the transitional stage the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—will be limited in his appointments to a parity between the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. That is what the White Paper said, and if so it was said for a purpose. Presumably the purpose was that the Government wanted people to understand that that was what they were going to do. They wanted the press and the public to understand what a fair government they are. We should test that and press for it to be included in the Bill. One of the dangers to any reform of this place is that an unscrupulous government—I do not suggest that those opposite are unscrupulous—could simply pack this Chamber, as a number of my noble friends have said.
If both those amendments could be included in the Bill, they would improve it and it would become a much less horrid Bill. However, in my opinion it is still a horrid Bill and the wrong way to go about tackling the important matter of this second Chamber.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I want to confine myself to speaking in support of the Bill and therefore by definition against the amendment. I do so not in criticism of any individual Members of the House, to whom my noble friend the Leader of the House rightly paid tribute for their contributions, but against the principle of inheriting a seat in this Chamber.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the great service that a number of hereditary Peers have given to the nation, many of them holding high office. No one would want to detract one iota from that. But I suggest that even without the privilege of membership of this House, because of what, not who, they are, they would have found other ways of giving distinguished service to the nation. In those circumstances, they would not have expected an automatic right to a seat in the legislature of the country.
During the final debate on the Access to Justice Bill on 16th March this year, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, expressed gratitude to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the explanations he had given to the House, and congratulated him on the open-mindedness

79
with which he accepted amendments in Committee and on Report. That was a cameo of this House at its best. It is not normally a confrontational Chamber, and it is at its best in revising legislation or debating Select Committee reports in an objective and non-partisan way based on the wide experience of its Members. I would expect, when we come to discuss the matter, that a reformed House would retain those characteristics.
I am sorry it has not been possible to approach the Bill before us today in that same spirit. I do not believe that any Member of your Lordships' House can, in an objective way, defend the principle of the automatic right of hereditary Peers to a seat in this Chamber. Even the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did not say that he supported that principle, nor did the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. Certainly, over the years there have been many written and spoken words from all sides of the House against that principle.
In my years of membership of the House, I have never tried to defend that principle, but in talks to schools and other organisations I have said that while it is an indefensible principle, making a strange legislative Chamber in the 20th century, somehow it works. It did. It worked well under a Conservative government for the simple reason that no matter how many coalitions across the House were brought into play, the government could, if they were really determined, bring in sufficient supporters to carry the day. The community charge or, if you like, the poll tax, is a prime example of that. But that is certainly not the case with the present Government.
I am not saying that there were not defeats in this House for the previous administration. Indeed, all of us know that there were: on average, some 13.5 times per Session, as my noble friend the Leader of the House indicated, compared with 38 defeats in the first Session of the present Labour Government. The truth is that when a Labour Government are in power the situation is exactly reversed, with the official Opposition having an overwhelming majority over the government party.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Shepherd, who said that this situation does not make for a good revising Chamber. It inhibits and makes more difficult to form those ad hoc coalitions that can come together from time to time in opposition to government proposals on individual issues when the Government of the day are in a majority situation. Instead, it fosters a partisan approach on both sides. That is not the best role for this Chamber.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he reiterated this afternoon his previous views that there were two problems facing the House of Lords; the hereditary system and is its inbuilt Conservative majority. How right he is in that view. However, I did not agree with his accusations against the Labour Party's 1997 manifesto, nor his reference to placemen on the Labour Benches. I would remind the noble Lord, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who referred to Labour packing the House, that when their noble friend Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister she appointed 98 Conservative Peers, compared to 56 Labour Peers. Moreover, their honourable friend Mr. John Major, in his shorter period in office, appointed 75 Conservative Peers
80
compared to 40 Labour Peers—and this at a time when the Conservatives were already in an overwhelming majority in this House.
There are some who criticise the Bill on the grounds that we are rushing it and it is too early. Those who say that forget that this issue has been on the agenda for many years. In a memorandum to Queen Victoria, Lord Rosebery (when he was Prime Minister) referred to the Conservative Members of this House as being a permanent barrier to a Liberal government. I think that they have been a permanent barrier to any government, other than a Conservative government, throughout the century.
As I said, the issue is not a new one. The first Bill to remove the hereditary principle came in 1907 and was promoted by a Conservative Peer. The issue was a live one in the early part of the century and in the 1920s and 1930s. Indeed, it returned to the agenda in the 1940s after the 1939–45 war and has been with us ever since. I reckon that there have been at least 10 attempts to reform the composition of the House in this century. However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, that they have been abortive, like the 1968 White Paper, or that they have merely made the House appear a little more acceptable, as did the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts and the Life Peerages Act 1958. They have not removed the fundamental anachronism of the House; that is, its reliance on the hereditary principle. This Bill deals with that fundamental anachronism and prepares the way for further reform which the Royal Commission is now examining.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, in a recent newspaper article, a government Minister, Mr. Peter Hain, told us:
"On constitutional reform, Tony Blair's Labour Government is proving to be the most radical in memory. So much so that the old British state … is being dismantled".
It is useful to be reminded that the consequence and perhaps the intention of the Government is the dismantling of the old British state. It is because I fear that we are indeed going down the dangerous road of dismantling institutions and the British state, without knowing into what abyss we may be plunging, that I am so strongly opposed to this Bill.
I have spent nearly 29 years in Parliament—a mere flash in time, I know, compared with some who sit here. However, eleven-and-a-half of them have been in this House. I believe that your Lordships' House does an important job and that it does it rather better, I have to say, than the House of Commons now performs its role. Yet, for understandable reasons, many hereditary Peers find it difficult to defend themselves, although they are frequently traduced and caricatured. I believe that life Peers who have had the opportunity to observe the remarkable contribution of many hereditary Peers over the years, and who share their legitimate concerns about the way in which the Government are handling reform, have a particular obligation to play a vigorous part in the examination and amendment of this Bill. That contribution is made by Peers both young and old. There is no sound case for age limits and we need to find a way

81
of attracting young people of ability to this House. This Bill will chuck out 36 of the 38 Peers who are under the age of 39.
Like many who have spoken in recent debates, I believe that a central purpose of a reform Bill should be to improve the performance of Parliament; and that must include the House of Commons. In recent years the other place has ceased to be an effective forum for national debate, for the proper examination of Bills; or an effective check on the executive. The power of the Government Whips now seems almost absolute and Ministers appear to hold Parliament in contempt.
The lack of a proper respect for Parliament is reflected in a sentence in paragraph 4.5 of the White Paper, which advances an improper and dangerous doctrine. It says:
"power must reside with those on whom it is conferred by the people for the formation of a government".
The explanation that follows—namely, that,
"this is the party or parties that can command a majority in the primary chamber of parliament"—
misses the most fundamental point and misrepresents the constitutional relationship. Arrogant governments say to themselves, power has been given to us and we can do whatever we feel like so long as we can, by whatever means, maintain a majority in the House of Commons. Wise governments recognise that their power and legitimacy derive from a Parliament that is there to limit as well as to give power; and they come to Parliament to seek authority for everything significant that they do.
The claim implicit in that sentence of the White Paper is not one that would have been made by any previous Prime Minister—certainly not by Churchill even when he was at the height of his own personal power and the British state faced its greatest ever threat. His immediate predecessor had learned painfully that power does not reside with those on whom it is conferred by the people for the formation of a government. He was removed from power by the House of Commons. It was an assumption that was never made by the Prime Minister under whom I served, who was punctilious in her attendance and in seeking support in the House at all hours of the day and night.
One virtue of this House is the wide variety of its interests, knowledge and experience; another is that most of us are not beholden to Ministers and Whips for future employment or place. Since I joined the House of Commons in 1970 there has been a decisive shift to a Chamber in which a high proportion of Members have no other profession than politics, and in which too many of its Members are office holders. One of the several drawbacks of the proposal that the second Chamber should be wholly elected is that it is likely to produce a House which mirrors the faults of the present House of Commons.
This Bill is not just about the House of Lords; it also provides for membership of the House of Commons. Perhaps we should pass amendments reintroducing the rule that newly-appointed Ministers must stand for re-election, or that there should be an upper limit to the number of Ministers and PPSs. The number of PPSs has
82
grown as absurdly and unnecessarily as the number of research assistants. Better still, we should incorporate into the Bill virtually the whole of the admirable Parliamentary Government Bill of my noble friend Lord Cranborne.
One difficulty that faces those of us who agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that our object should be to strengthen Parliament as a whole and that reducing the scale of central power is, or ought to be, the main priority for constitutional reforms, is that for all the talk of redistributing power from the centre to the citizen, there are not many indications that Ministers have any real intention of surrendering power if they can avoid it, as recent events in Wales so clearly show. Nor have they given any indication that they have even begun to think about the proper role of the two Houses of Parliament in their new constitutional arrangements.
The Royal Commission has an immensely difficult task, made much more difficult because it is asked to make recommendations about the role and functions of the second Chamber without being able to make proposals about the role and functions of the House of Commons. It is a huge mistake that the Royal Commission, charged with such an important task, is being asked to work to a timetable decided only for the convenience of Ministers.
On 22nd March the Leader of the House defended the timetable on the grounds that the issues had been extensively discussed for a hundred years. However, her own White Paper emphasises the complexity of the task and underlines the point in paragraph 8.17 that we are in a period,
"of fundamental change in many aspects of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements … more so, probably, than at the time of any earlier attempts at reform".
The Royal Commission's lengthy list of difficult questions posed in its consultation document alone demolishes the argument advanced by the Leader of the House; and The Times reports my noble friend Lord Wakeham as saying that it may not be able to complete its work this year.
We are having to deal with this Bill when there can be no certainty that the Royal Commission can complete its task within the timetable suggested by the Leader of the House, or that its proposals will be accepted by the Joint Committee speedily and without disagreement and change, and no certainty that the commission's conclusions will be acceptable to the Government. We on these Benches are not alone in doubting that the second stage will come quickly, if at all. Mr. Benn speaking in the other place on 16th February said,
"I believe that there will never be a second stage".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/2/99; col. 799.]
That is one of many reasons why I deplore the two-stage approach and why I believe that an amendment should be passed to delay the implementation of this Bill at least until we have the conclusions of the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee and can he certain that there will be a second stage; and we should include the safeguards referred to by my noble friend Lord Waddington, including referendums for constitutional Bills.

83
Then there is the question of numbers referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. It does not arise only because of the proposed amendment on the retention of some hereditary Peers during the transitional period, which will itself create a requirement for the creation of a substantial tranche of life Peers to balance the numbers. It arises as well from the easily stated, but much less easily implemented objective that over time party appointees as life Peers should more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. Let us assume for a moment that such a rebalancing takes place in the transitional House, but that in a subsequent general election the Government's majority is overturned. Are we to have another large-scale creation of life Peers to adjust the balance, followed as the years pass by another, and another, and another? As Mr. Benn, looking back all the way to Adam and Eve, told the other place we would be faced with,
"creation on a scale for which there is no parallel in religious or constitutional history".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/2/99; col. 684.]
As to the Cross-Bench amendment which we have yet to see, the Government refused to accept an amendment with a similar objective moved in the Commons, but will apparently accept it if it comes from this allegedly illegitimate House, but only if we behave ourselves. It is always a mistake to give in to blackmail.
The final subject that I shall refer to is, I believe, of central importance, although its significance seems hardly to have been recognised in the other place. We are to have an appointments committee which will have the function of nominating Cross-Bench Peers. It is supposed to take over that responsibility from the Prime Minister, yet it is to be set up by the Prime Minister. That fact astonishes me. Surely this Bill now before us should provide the authority, and provide for necessary and appropriate safeguards. It is to be a non-departmental public body. I have been the chairman of a non-departmental public body and I have been closely involved with others as a Minister. On the basis of that experience I am concerned and puzzled. Whatever the good intentions at the start, Ministers and civil servants do not much like NDPBs that are genuinely vigorous and independent; and this is an NDPB that has to select those whose role is to be so independent that they may well prove an irritant to Ministers. Government departments have much experience and are skilled in techniques of neutering such bodies. I am far from convinced that it is enough to say that the appointments committee will be appointed in accordance with the rules of the commission for public appointments.
There are to be representatives of the three main political parties and independent "figures" who will comprise a majority, one of whom is to be the chairman. Who will select the "figures"? Who will appoint the chairman? Why include representatives of the three main parties and, if it is only three, what happens if the nationalists have sweeping gains in Wales and Scotland? One of the great virtues of the Cross-Bench Peers is that they are self selected; they are not there to fit a profile
84
or to achieve a quota. In the other place there was a remarkable and wide-ranging debate about the appointments committee and patronage initiated by Mr. Marshall-Andrews. Unfortunately the debate became so wide-ranging that those taking part almost forgot the immediate and important issues that I now raise. The Minister who replied was allowed to get away with one of the most mind-blowingly inadequate answers that can ever have been given even in the modern House of Commons. He said,
"we have undertaken to set up an independent Appointments Committee to make recommendations for Life Peers. I will not go into the detail of the arrangements now".
We must and will go into the arrangements on this and on a whole range of other issues. There is a huge and important task ahead of us during the Committee stage of this Bill.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise to make a brief protest because this Bill has no vision. It is basically founded in the politics of envy which should be outdated by now. I do not defend the hereditary peerage; I ask who will govern our grandchildren, because that is what we should be worrying about? If these people over-reach their powers, who will be able to remove them, because that is what a democracy is about?
People have complained about the length of time we have been debating this matter. However, we are not here to debate the pros and cons of a policy; we are deciding how those decisions will be made for the future. Noble Lords should not kid themselves that we are talking only about a brief transitional House. Actions speak louder than words. We are looking at rule by regulation; we have been for many years. We are looking at closed-list party choices at elections. It has been 88 years since the 1911 reform of the House. Why should the next stage of reform go through any quicker? We have to remember that the Executive and the legislature are now totally intermingled in another place and it is a question of who controls whom. I think we know that the balance has shifted. So when people start talking about unicameral systems and whether a strong House of Lords matters, the answer has to be that somehow we must check the Executive. To do otherwise is not an option.
The Labour manifesto stated that this House requires democratic authority. We need a system of governance that will separate the powers properly again. This may be an opportunity for change that would improve the accountability of the Executive. But there was no thought of that. This House was irretrievably weakened in 1911. Efforts to improve it were approved by our collective forebears, but the reforms were not turned down here; they were turned down in the Commons. It is not a party issue—it is not a Labour versus Tory issue—but an issue where the Commons has resisted reform, particularly when it has seen that the moment one starts considering reform it must impinge on the Commons as well. That is the real problem.
I concede that perhaps the hereditary Peers should go, but they should go only if the result is something better. I suspect that there will have to be an elective system. I

85
shall not go into great detail today because to do so would lead to the House sitting late. As a Cross-Bencher, I do not trust the party in power because by the time we reach stage two the party making assurances at the moment may not be in government. Once parties are in power they enjoy the game. That is why I am a Cross—sometimes a very cross—Bencher. I have watched the game from both sides.
As someone who works to earn money—like 80 per cent. of hereditary Peers, the taxman has taken the estates and everything else—I am very aware of the consequences for ordinary people in the street. I would be very worried if Parliament were filled only with professional politicians. As a businessman and a citizen of this country, I am worried about the lack of vision in the Bill. There is no objective. The transitional House will probably go on for another century. Noble Lords should not be deceived; it will be like a rudderless ship. If one does not know where one is going, one will not get there. Noble Lords' grandchildren will probably be living with what the Government and the Bill give us. I find the belief that there will be a stage two rather naïve and touching in many ways, or even the belief that stage two will be acceptable.
At the moment, the Bill does not contain any safeguards. I think any responsible government should insert safeguards I will vote for any proposed safeguards.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I can agree with practically everything that the noble Earl has just said. That is strange because, subject to a little matter of illegitimacy, he is a noble kinsman and I do not usually agree with my noble kinsmen.
My main concern about the Bill is that the Government seem to have forgotten the song "We don't know where we're going until we get there". Of course, if the Government do know where they are going, then they can easily prove it by accepting some of the amendments that will be tabled along the lines of no change until the reformed House is agreed", a matter mentioned by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell a moment ago and by my noble friends Lord Waddington and Lord Strathclyde. This must be agreed and passed by the Commons; or should I say "the Government", because, as has already been mentioned, the Commons do not seem to have any influence these days.
I am highly suspicious about the arrangements for any interim House for I see it remaining in situ forever; and why should interim turkeys vote for Christmas? Moreover, when the Royal Commission comes up with recommendations, we must remember that they will be recommendations for the Commons and the Government to approve, recommendations that are sensible, democratic, in line with what my noble friend Lord Carrington said and which spell out the powers of the reformed House—powers that are conspicuously absent from the face of the Bill—to enable the House to be an effective revising Chamber. I cannot believe that the Commons and the Government will agree to those recommendations unless the new Chamber is deprived
86
of some of the limited powers which your Lordships have today. If such a House were born, the public would soon wake up to the fact that it was ineffective and useless. So why not do away with it altogether?
Perhaps the Government do know where they are going and wish to end up with a unicameral Parliament. I am sure that the Government will say that my logic is flawed and that come hell and high water they will press on with their interim Chamber, followed by a guarantee that soon there will be a fully reformed House. As has been mentioned before, the Liberal government said that in 1911. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was pleased to quote in a debate in your Lordships' House two years ago, my grandfather supported such a reform. I agree with my grandfather, but even to one as aged as I am, 1911 is quite a long time ago and nothing happened. Why oh why should it happen now?
Assuming this botched, if I may use such a word, and ill thought out situation is to be what the Government will force upon your Lordships, not least because the public is not in the slightest way interested in your Lordships' House—only 2 per cent. remembered that the proposal for reform was in the Labour Party Manifesto—I shall be interested in some of the amendments that will examine the Government's good faith as regards the composition and powers of any future House.
The Leader of the House in the Commons kept saying that this is "a simple Bill", but it is simple only because neither the future composition nor the powers are spelt out. As your Lordships know, it is your Lordships's decision as to what can and cannot be discussed in Committee. I know that only too well from nearly 30 years in your Lordships' House. I trust that your Lordships will accept the vital importance of deciding what we may or may not discuss in Committee. I am not objecting to being removed or, perhaps as the Front Bench opposite would like to say, guillotined while the Government Front Bench sit there doing their knitting and giving no effective plans for the future of our House. It is like a dentist taking out all your teeth and giving you no suggestions as to how in future you should eat.
I hope, too, to see amendments to ensure adequate agricultural and rural representation and to ensure that, if any future House is to have similar powers, or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, suggested, fewer powers, its members will receive the same or lesser expenses and, of course, no pay. I hope, too, that the noble Baroness will follow up her suggestion as to what future Members of the House should be called, a matter supported in a recent debate by her noble friend Lord Judd.
Provided that the Government spell out and guarantee what the future House will do, how it will be constituted and what powers it will have, this turkey will happily vote for Christmas, and return to my farm—to be eliminated, no doubt, there, experiencing the lack of foresight that this Government have shown in so many ways recently. I shall need an awful lot of persuading.
8 p.m.
Lord Acton: My Lords, in the debate on House of Lords reform on 14th October, the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, said:
"If we take away the right of all hereditary Peers to sit and vote, I believe that we endanger the monarchy".—[Official Report, 14/10/98; col. 973.]
A number of noble Lords have subsequently echoed his fears.
In the European Union, Sweden, Belgium and Spain have kings, while Denmark and the Netherlands have queens. All of those countries have thriving monarchies, yet none has a hereditary aristocracy in its legislature.
Swedish history is especially instructive. In 1865, during the reign of Carl XV, Sweden had four longstanding parliamentary estates—the nobles, the clergy, the burghers and the farmers. A Bill was brought forward to abolish the parliamentary estates and replace them with two chambers elected on limited franchises.
The leader of the opposition to the Bill was a prominent member of the House of the Nobles, Count Henning Hamilton. He urged that the parliamentary estate of the nobles was the bastion of the monarchy, the chief support of the king.
In the event, the farmers' estate and the burghers' estate approved the Bill by massive majorities. The House of the Nobles debated the Bill for four days, finally voting in its favour by 361 to 294. The clergy concurred, and thus the parliamentary estate of the nobles passed into history.
One hundred and thirty-three years and four reigns later, Count Henning Hamilton's forebodings have proved groundless. Carl XV's great, great, great nephew, Carl XVI Gustaf, is the monarch today. Year in and year out, surveys show him to be the most popular man in Sweden. I commend Swedish history to those of your Lordships who—like Count Henning Hamilton—fear that the Bill before us endangers the monarchy.
I come to my second point. One argument raised against the transitional House is that the Prime Minister might seek the creation of a Labour majority in that House. However, the Labour manifesto and the White Paper both pledge that no one political party should seek a majority in the transitional House.
Looking at the record, the Prime Minister has been in office for nearly two years. He has not even sought to increase the Labour life Peers to equal the Conservative life Peers, let alone to establish an overall Labour majority in the House of Lords. My noble friend Lord Callaghan did not seek such a majority, nor did any previous Labour Prime Minister.
While the Liberals in 1911 and the Whigs in 1832 threatened to secure majorities in the House of Lords, a Tory ministry is the only one that has ever actually done so. In December 1711, the Tories lost an important Division in the House of Lords by eight votes—54 to 62. Within weeks, Queen Anne, at the request of her Tory Ministers, created 12 Peers for the express purpose of ensuring a Tory majority to approve the Treaty of Utrecht.
88
Three centuries later, should the Conservatives come to power during the currency of the transitional House, I should not expect them to emulate their ancestors and, contrary to the Government's undertaking, establish a majority in that House. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, or both, would declare in your Lordships' House whether the Opposition in this House are committed to the principle that no one political party should seek a majority in the transitional House.
This is a solemn occasion and a time to pay tributes. I think of my fellow hereditary Peers, many of whom have worked so hard in this House. I think of those individual hereditary Peers on all sides of the House who would grace any second chamber anywhere—for instance, on these Benches, my noble friend Lord Shepherd; on the Benches opposite, my noble kinsman Lord Cranborne; on the Cross-Benches, my noble kinswoman Lady Darcy de Knayth; and on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Finally, I think of my only child, my son. Some day I should love him to sit in this House. But if he ever does, it is right that he will do so not because of his title, but rather because of his talents.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when I tried to distil my thoughts on what to say about this Bill today, despite all that has been said over many months and all that I have felt about the Government's proposals I was surprised to find it enormously difficult to know how to tackle it. I attempted to analyse why that was. In the end, I put my difficulty down to one simple reason: the constitutional enormity of the Bill based upon the intellectual bankruptcy which is its genesis.
The Government have offered no valid or coherent reason for ejecting hereditary Peers from this House in the way that they propose. They can only claim that it is unfinished business from 1911, but not their business; that their intention was set out in their manifesto: and that there is therefore a popular mandate for this Bill.
Many of us, most perhaps, would accept reasoned consideration of the composition of this House either on its own as part of a review of the constitution as a whole, or of the totality of Parliament. But no, the Government, true only to ideology and pandering to egalitarianism and those who cannot abide any institution which appears élitist, introduced this Bill to change massively one House of Parliament, one immensely important part of our constitution, whose Members owe only a small part of their allegiances to party politics, or none at all.
The Government cannot seriously claim that there is a huge popular demand to reform this House substantially in the way they propose. There may be perceptions, and possibly misconceptions, about what this House does and the role of its Members. But I suspect that there is a broad understanding of what it does and the real role of hereditary Peers within it, and in particular the independence for which they stand. It is revealing to know that recent opinion polls on this issue do not support the Government's proposals—quite the reverse.

89
Practical examination of any complex matter requires a sensible appreciation of the factors surrounding it, a clear understanding of the subject and its strengths and weaknesses, a proper evaluation of alternatives and careful consideration of the courses open to achieve the chosen alternative. But in this case, the Government simply take a stab in the dark without thinking through the consequences of their misconceived ideas.
Even the Government's reluctant agreement to a Royal Commission would carry more conviction if they were to have it report, and even have a joint committee of both Houses meet to consider the recommendations, before considering whether to proceed with reform. That point has been clearly articulated by nearly everyone who has spoken in this debate. The consultation paper which the Royal Commission has just published—thin as it is in so many ways—sets out many of the imponderable issues which any responsible government should consider before emasculating the present House.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the four elements contained on page four of the consultation paper: role and functions, powers, procedures and composition. The noble Lord said how right it was that composition came last; but nevertheless the Government seem to have tackled it before they have even thought of the Royal Commission, let alone given any advice on the contents of that consultative paper.
If there were ever a case of putting the party political cart before the constitutional horse, this is it. It lends credence to the view that the Government do not want, and may not have, a stage two. They do not even have to accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission; they can thwart its recommendations just as readily as they try to thwart any view which is not theirs. Their blind arrogance will not let them temper their attitude with common sense.
Anyone who has contemplated or studied peerage law and how it relates to the constitution will realise that it is a hugely complex and even arcane subject. I am no expert on it, but it is the stuff of history, part of the fabric of our constitution and as relevant to the role of the hereditary peerage in the House of Lords as it is to the hereditary principle itself.
Let me give one example, relating to Letters Patent, to which the Government will have to give consideration in due course. Letters Patent become effective when they pass the Great Seal. Once the Great Seal is affixed, there is no way in which they can be altered except by an individual Act of Parliament relating to those Letters Patent. Letters Patent are instruments which are individual to each Peer. They contain hallowed, historical phrases which not only grant an hereditary Peer and his or her heirs and successors a seat, place and voice in Parliament, but also bind the heirs and successors of the sovereign under whose sign manual the warrant for the patent is granted to continue to allow the Peer and his heirs and successors that seat, place and voice.
The Bill sweeps away all of that. It therefore diminishes and devalues the finality and validity of the Great Seal. It destroys precedent. The very
90
ill-considered simplicity of the Bill and the Government's enthusiasm to live up to their manifesto by removing the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords may well prove to be the Government's greatest miscalculation.
As has been said so clearly this afternoon, the other place barely touched on the practical, legal and constitutional issues surrounding the Bill and, unsurprisingly, dwelt mainly on the political aspects. Here things will be different. There is a host of exceedingly complex issues to explore, and we shall explore them with all the vigour that we can muster.
This is a vindictive Bill. It rides roughshod over history and part of a constitution which has served this country well for hundreds of years and still serves it with independence to protect the interests of all its citizens against abuse of power by governments. It pre-empts any serious consideration of the working of the constitution or Parliament within it. Its foundations lie in dogma and spite. It is of doubtful constitutional validity and its legal basis will be tested to the full. On these grounds, and on many others, this House must examine thoroughly what is proposed and take whatever action is necessary to maintain or devise the independent legislative safeguard which the people of this country expect of us. I support the amendment.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, this is a very sad debate for all of us who have, for however short or however long, enjoyed the privilege and the happiness of serving in your Lordships' House. It is even sadder when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, makes such lovely jokes. It is being so cheerful that keeps us going. It is also sad because it is unnecessary. All that any government ever needed to do to reform your Lordships' House was to remove voting rights—but not, of course, speaking rights—from all Peers, hereditary and life, who did not attend and contribute on a regular basis. This would, at a stroke, remove all the so-called backwoodsmen, life and hereditary, trundling in to vote, but would not deprive your Lordships of the pleasure of hearing the voices of noble Lords on matters that they really know about. It would also restore to your Lordships the proper name of "Peers" for, whether we are dukes or barons, life Peers or hereditary, men or women, we are all equal, we are all peers.
The House of Lords has its origins in the Saxon witanagemot, and William the Conqueror created something very similar, which was first described as a parliament in 1181. And so the House evolved, with more hereditary Peers being created over the next 900 years, a current renewal and refurbishment like the tide and the seasons. In the 19th century Law Lords were introduced as life Peers and the House of Lords became the highest court of appeal in the land. Nineteen fifty-eight brought life Peers, and some were ladies. By 1961, hereditary ladies had set in, too.
I should like to talk briefly about trees, a subject about which many of your Lordships know a great deal. Trees have long roots going back into the soil. Trees live longer than human beings and are possibly more

91
useful. Our House is like a tree; it has roots going back into history. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was kind enough to mention some of my own older ancestors, the de Veres. I am, in fact, the senior heir-general of Aubrey de Vere, Lord Great Chamberlain in the reign of Henry I. I am as proud of these distant ancestors of mine as I am of my great-grandmother, Sarah Piercy, who worked in a pub in North Wales.
Because ancestors are part of our heredity—and we are all in this world hereditary—we all have parents and grandparents and remoter ancestors, and we are all proud of our own ancestors. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, moved us all when he spoke of his own ancestors with such love and pride. That is part of our humanity. We are also proud of our children and grandchildren. My eldest son, the future Lord Strange, is today sitting on the steps of the Throne and my youngest daughter is also present in the Chamber. Last week my noble friend Lord Northbourne introduced a debate on marriage and the importance for children of growing up in a family. That is what heredity, and the hereditary principle, is all about. To use it as a smear word is to smear all of humanity.
Our world is daily becoming swifter and more instant. Messages flash backwards and forwards on e-mail. We are as aware of the weather in Auckland as we are of the weather in Aberdeen. But we still need stability and continuity—boiled eggs and grapefruit for Sunday breakfast, turkey and Christmas pudding on Christmas Day. We are all as ephemeral as the flowers of the field. But we need to be aware of yesterday's flowers, for we are as much part of them as tomorrow's flowers will be of us.
I have talked briefly of the continuity of time. I should also like to mention the continuity of space. In this House we have noble Dukes of Argyll and Fife, noble Earls of Glasgow, Perth and Dundee (or, indeed, their Royal Highnesses, Edinburgh, Rothesay and Inverness). I will not venture south of the Border, but the picture is the same. Many noble Lords have lived in the same place for a considerable time. They are "of' the place. My Drummond ancestors have been at Megginch only since Whitsun 1664, but there have been Drummonds living in Perthshire, as my noble kinsman and clan chief, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, can confirm, since the Hungarian sea captain Maurice, who brought Queen Margaret to Scotland, was shipwrecked at Queensferry in 1066.
But I have digressed from trees and their long roots. If you want to improve—perhaps I should say reform—a tree, you cut out the dead wood; you prune it; you may pollard it. You do not pull it up by the roots, for then you will have no tree left.
8.19 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I know that a number of your Lordships who will speak in this debate, like many who have already done so, will cover the intellectual, philosophical, constitutional and historical arguments. I shall not do any of those things.
92
I want to speak mainly about my personal feelings that I confess are emotional. It grieves me greatly that a Bill like this should ever have come before this House.
I came into this House in October 1993 and was immediately struck by the uniqueness of this Chamber, not simply because I was privileged to join what is regarded worldwide as the finest revising Chamber anywhere but because I was overwhelmed by the one thing that could not be recreated anywhere else. I refer to the blending together of the past and the future with history and tradition on one hand—the many years of public service of families whose descendants sit here—and the careful work that we do today to create new legislation in this House and to revise legislation that comes from the other place, to debate on Wednesdays and on Unstarred Questions matters for which the other place has neither the time nor in many cases the same expertise, and our attempts to hold the executive to account at Question Time.
I make no apology for believing in the hereditary principle. Like most people I believe that husbands and wives who are blessed with children work hard in order to pass on to their descendants not just their names but their values, what they want from life; and some of the worldly goods they may have been fortunate enough to collect. Family businesses have formed the backbone of this country. It is interesting that many families enter medicine and the law. Certainly, farmers have great pleasure in ensuring that their descendants inherit the land so that it passes from generation to generation. I believe that families who have served this country well through decades of public service have brought to this House a stability and continuity that is practically unknown in any other legislature. I only wish that their devotion to duty and service was properly recognised and acknowledged. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House refer to that matter earlier today.
However, we are told that this House must change because the manifesto for which the people of this country voted overwhelmingly stated that hereditary Peers had to go. But the manifesto referred to four other things to do with reform of this House. Most people have little or no idea of those other four matters. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has already referred to the statement that,
"the system of appointment of life Peers will be reviewed, and our objective over time is to see that life Peers more accurately reflect the proportion of votes cast at previous elections".
I find the latter part very worrying. How faithful will the scrutiny of this House be if it is no more than a mirror image of the other place? Another point was referred to by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. Is this House to grow like Topsy every time there is a change of government? How will the system of appointment change? Will it be an elected second Chamber or a totally appointed one? What about the number of leaks we have read and the number of kites flown about age limits, appointments for five to 10 years and so on? It is important to realise that once the genie is out of the bottle no-one will know where it will end.

93
The third part of the manifesto refers to the commitment to maintain an independent element, but nearly 70 per cent. of Cross-Benchers are hereditary. Therefore, how can we be sure that this will happen in practice? The fourth part refers to a committee of both Houses to undertake a review of possible future change. How wise that is. But in normal circumstances should not consideration be given to that before the destruction of one part? Would not a serious attempt at reform not include consideration of all the issues before destruction of just one part? Would the Royal Commission that the Government announced have come about had there not been so much pressure for it from this House?
We come to the fifth part. I would have been much more confident if it had said, "We will not abolish the monarchy", or, "We are committed to retaining the monarchy". However, it said:
"We have no plans to replace the monarchy."
We all know what "no plans" means to politicians. The Government could make it clear now by saying that this Government and any future Labour Government (should there be one) are committed to retaining the monarchy. I hope that the Minister will unequivocally confirm that in his reply.
I am also concerned by the words of the Deputy Prime Minister who, at the end of the first paragraph of his speech on Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, said:
"Later in the Session, we shall at long last start to remove the hereditary principle from our system of governance".—[Official Report, Commons; 14/12/98; col. 623.]
My Lords, he said "governance", not "government". Quite apart from the relevance of making that statement in the context of the Greater London Authority Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister should know that the governance of our country includes the Monarch as the essential third part.
This House suffered a grievous loss last week with the death of Lord Beloff. He would have spoken in this debate far more eloquently that I can. He would have drawn to your Lordships' attention the fact that in the last two years power has been gradually slipping away from Parliament. He would have mentioned too the rigid discipline imposed on members of the Labour Party in the other place, with the threat of de-selection for those who go "off message"; the devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly; the intended regionalisation of England through the regional development agencies; the ceding of a huge number of powers to the diktat of unelected officials in Brussels; and now the proposal to turn your Lordships' House into a giant quango in which the complementary system of the two Houses working together will be changed. It may be a competitive system, but certainly the balance will be destroyed for all time. I, for one, support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I believe that the situation is now so dangerous we must do all that we can.
I also support the Weatherill amendment. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne and others have said, that amendment makes a bad Bill better. But we all need to know what the amendment says in much more detail. I
94
am not as concerned as other noble Lords about the number of hereditary Peers who remain. What is of extreme importance to me is that the hereditary principle stays in the frame. I only hope—I go as far as to say I pray—that if and when the second stage comes about, although I am by no means certain that it will, it will be an accepted fact that the hereditary principle can still be so regarded.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, there is an old chestnut about the later stages of very long debates. A younger statesman says to an older statesman, "Surely, everything that can be possibly said on this subject has now been said". The older statesman replies, "Yes, but not everybody has said it". I am not feeling like that at all. I expected to be, after so many hours; by tomorrow night everyone will expect to be. I am finding this a fascinating debate, because noble Lords of all parties and none are bringing out so much of their own experience, their own personal history, their own education and bringing it to bear on what is, for the hereditary Peers, an existential question. There is nothing like an existential question to bring out the best in speakers.
I am one of those hereditary Peers who believe that we ought no longer to sit as such in Parliament. We were once necessary to good government because we owned most of the land and commanded the subordinate feudal allegiance of most of the people who lived where we lived; but by now we are the result of chance among the better-off.
I thus accept this Bill, though its character and timing—out there by itself, way ahead of the general reform either of this House or of the other, and unconnected with other concurrent constitutional changes—seems to betray a lack of self-confidence on the part of the Government; even perhaps a lack of ambition. The ship of state is being re-engined, but there are no designs and the new machinery has not been ordered. We must therefore make up our minds about the Bill in vacuo. We must also remember that the interim House will be no more democratic than this one, despite the importance of the decisions it will have to take about the long term.
If I knew that the composition of the eventual House was to be half or more elected and was to be sufficiently independent of the executive to take the broadest view of the national interest, then I would depart in peace. The possibility remains, however, that we may be succeeded by a bureaucratic body or one representative of partial interests and not those of the people as a whole.
I have been in this place 39 years. When I succeeded to the peerage I wondered whether to renounce it, because I believed that hereditary peerage was unjustified. I was then a member of Harold Wilson's advisory panel on disarmament and international security, he being leader of the Opposition. I asked his advice. He said, "You go in. We are going to need you". I did and, in due course, they did need me. I have spent 17 of those 39 years on various Front Benches and thus

95
gained some experience, the most relevant perhaps during the abortive attempt to make a much lesser reform of this House in 1968.
I regret that the Bill is being put through in advance of the report by the Royal Commission. I know that many hereditaries throughout the House would go with a good grace in the interests of democracy but dislike going into a void, where we could see ourselves replaced by creatures of bureaucracy, faction and global Mammon.
I shall vote for the Bill if a Division is called at this or any other stage, since its principle was in our party manifesto and I have supported the principle for a very long time. By far the greater number of upper houses in the world's democracies are elected or have a large elected element, so there is no lack of models.
A lot rests on those who, if the Bill passes, will then take the responsibility of completing the package of Lords' reform. I wish them success in helping to create, from this stumbling start, a Parliament worthy of the people it is to govern.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, when I entered this House I was introduced by a much loved and admired Tory Peer, now dead, Lady Faithfull, and by a Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. The first time I voted was on an educational issue and I voted against the Government. The Labour Peers in the Lobby helpfully said to me that I was in the wrong Lobby. I said no, I wanted to vote that way and that was at once understood. My maiden speech was immediately preceded by the exodus from the Chamber of nearly all my Tory colleagues. They had gone to hear the Prime Minister speak, but I did not know that and was much taken aback. The warm reception I had from all sides of the House as a maiden speaker completely reassured me, however.
Since then I have voted in the same Lobby with Peers of every party and from the Cross-Benches on such issues as student loans and fees, health, the public service, foreign and defence policy, and Northern Ireland. They were all issues of principle and right across party lines.
I hope I have said enough to explain why I value and admire the generous and civilised society that is the House of Lords. Until recently battles have been fought with passion and conviction but without personal rancour. I want to make an urgent plea for the same spirit of mutual respect to inform the passage of this Bill. There will be time in Committee to argue the detail. We are one of the two Houses of Parliament debating the first step in a major constitutional change, even more significant than devolution in Scotland and Wales because we are still the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
This Bill is not, as the media and the other place would have it, simply a measure to remove some irrelevant dinosaurs who, as a Minister in the other place who should know better has said, are trying to continue "Living like a lord at the taxpayers' expense". We all
96
know what a travesty of the truth that is. Incidentally, each of us costs the country only one-tenth of the cost of an MP. Money is not the issue.
The hereditary Peers must, because their forebears are in many cases part of the history, tradition and the very fabric of the House—their coats of arms hang in this Chamber—feel a particular sense of loss. Many have served their country well, both here and in their professional lives. There are plenty of them who are doughty fighters still.
It is worth remembering that, when the House of Lords voted for its own reform in 1968, of the majority of 251 who voted in favour 128 were hereditary Peers. It was the House of Commons under a Labour Government that killed the Bill.
The hereditary Peers are realists. They believe, as we do, that we have a duty to ensure that the work this House does so well—work which requires, for instance in the European Committees and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee designed to keep the executive in check, considerable experience which many of the new Members of the House have not yet developed—shall continue to be properly done until the Royal Commission and, after that, the Committee of both Houses say what is the future role of this House.
The Cranborne-Weatherill amendment proposes what the Government themselves should have been considering: an interim arrangement to retain a proportion of the hereditary Peers who play so necessary a part in the work of the House, until the future nature of this Chamber has been determined.
It is amazing that the Leader of the House should have indicated that this proposal must be regarded as conditional on good behaviour; namely, an agreement not to do our plain constitutional duty of scrutiny and amendment. That apparently constitutes "Pitched battle which would jeopardise the proposal". Is the House then to be neutered even before the future is defined and decided? It is only too clear from the White Paper that the Government would like to see our powers yet further reduced. It will not be for the good of the country to remove the checks and balances. The battle is about the best way to effect constructive constitutional change and all Peers, hereditary and appointed, care about that equally.
I dislike the Bill and I believe that the Government have failed in their duty of thinking out the consequences. We have a duty, however, to ensure that we do not allow the question to become trivialised. We must fight a clean battle, with mutual respect, without rancour, without personal animosity and what I can only call class bitterness.
I am sure that the late Lord Dean of Beswick, who I was proud to count as a friend and who will be sorely missed, would have fought robustly to remove the hereditary Peers on principle; but he would have done it decently and would not have assumed, as some do now, that all hereditary Peers are effete and useless. He knew better and he would have treated them as opponents worthy of respect but not as enemies.

97
I was glad to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House speak in the way that she did today. It was right and reassuring. This House has produced such universally beloved and respected figures as Lucy Faithfull and Nancy Seer, life Peers now dead, and also such equally respected hereditary Peers who are still with us: the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, my noble friend Lord Carrington, and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, to name only a few. It is too valuable an institution to be treated as just one more political pawn on the board for the spin doctors to play games with and the media to mock.
Although my noble friend Lord Ferrers said this much better than I can, I still wish to say that we, the servants of this House, owe it to the many other loyal and infinitely valuable and devoted servants of the House—the officers, the Clerks, the doorkeepers, the attendants, those who have helped and guided us all especially in our first years here—to conduct our proceedings throughout the Bill with honour and restraint and to come, if we can, to a wise conclusion. They are as proud as we are of the traditions and work of the House. I think that they must find it as disturbing as I do that lately there has been a miasma of uncertainty and insecurity and a degree of personal rancour and triumphalism which is both alien and unwelcome. An example of that new pettiness and meanness of spirit is the provision in the Explanatory Notes that hereditary Peers may no longer use the Library or the facilities of the House. I hope that that will go by the board, and that we can fight a good fight on issues of principle and not allow the media or the other place to demean a great institution which is ready to change but wants to change for the better.
I just hope that in the immortal words of that great and beloved man Ernest Bevin we do not find that we have opened Pandora's Box only to have a Trojan horse jump out.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Plant of Highfield: My Lords, I support the Bill and wish to dwell for a few moments on the issue of heredity, in particular since it was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Strange and Lady Miller of Hendon. The noble Baroness, Lady Strange, worried that the principle of heredity is being seen as a smear. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, spoke about everyone having pride in his own family. That is entirely right. One is proud of one's own family and background. I usually have to disabuse people: most of my colleagues seem to think that I am the son of Sir Arnold Plant, the economist, and not Stanley Plant, the Grimsby fireman. Nevertheless, having overcome that hurdle I take pride in my own family.
However, the critical difference is surely whether heredity gives a right to political power, however limited in this House. It is not a question of whether we have pride in our families; of course we all do. With due respect to the noble Baroness, it seems wrong to consider bequeathing a business through generations as analogous to bequeathing a kind of property right in the governance and administration of the country. If the
98
nation is "owned"—it is the wrong word to use—it is by the people generally not by a specific group of people who claim some hereditary right.
The usual Burkean justification for heredity cannot now work because it rests on two assumptions which have become fatally eroded. The first is the shared notion of authority, natural hierarchy, natural authority, prescriptive rights and a loyalty and deference to that structure of natural order underpinning natural authority. That has disappeared and cannot be reinvented. Once it has been eroded, one cannot put it back together again, no matter how much one might want to. Let us put it another way. If one asks, "What is the authority of tradition?", then tradition has already lost its authority because it is only authoritative when it is a matter of custom, practice and habit. Once one seeks to rationalise it, it has lost its authority.
Secondly, the hereditary principle has rested on the view that political wisdom and judgment is vested in a hereditary political class. That seems to me incredible these days. It would make a mockery of what all governments have sought to do over the past years; to improve education, civic standards, and so forth. We cannot surely think that those insights, and so on, are available only to a hereditary class. The notion of heredity has to be left behind.
However, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said, there remain the considerable qualities of the hereditary Peers as individuals. Most of them are assiduous and conscientious in the performance of their duties. Many of them are independently minded. They have wide experience and discharge many public duties and services. As President of the NCVO, I am always running into hereditary Members of this House who are actively involved in charities, and so on. That is all true. The hereditary peerage brings with it a geographical spread of Members of the House and an age spread. But those qualities of mind and character of hereditary Peers are nothing to do with the principle of heredity. They are the characteristics and qualities for which the individuals themselves should take credit and responsibility. There is no genetic stream that creates a sense of public duty and service. Those are qualities that hereditary Peers have but, as my noble friend Lady Jay said in her speech, they are widely shared across the population. Those qualities of mind and character do not of themselves confer a right to sit in Parliament.
Several noble Lords opposite have said that the case to remove hereditary Peers has not been deployed. There is a strong argument to remove the hereditary principle in the exercise of political power. But the important point is that the qualities that hereditary Peers have—they are shared by many other people—are preserved in a reformed House while enhancing the legitimacy of that House compared with the present Chamber and enabling it to use its revising and deliberative powers more effectively than it is able to do because of the constraints of hereditary membership. In the later stages of reform, I hope that a greater role will be given to this House in relation to constitutional affairs.
If one removes the hereditary element, and considers the main issue of legitimacy, it is strongly arguable that the basic condition of legitimacy in a mature western

99
society with a strong sense of individualism is the individual consent of the governed. That means elections. Prior to the 1992 elections, I was proud to have been involved in the formulation of the then Labour Party's constitutional proposals, including the proposal that the House of Lords should become a wholly elected body. The proposal formulated, and in the manifesto, was that the size of the second Chamber should comprise 250 to 300 people; it should be elected regionally rather than by constituencies, and therefore would differ from the Commons; and it should be elected on a form of proportional representation. That again would make it different from the Commons and unlikely that any party would have an absolute majority in the second Chamber. The view then was that such a House should be made more legitimate than the House that we currently have, but would be constrained in its legitimacy vis-à-vis the Commons because it would have a different electoral base. It would have a different electoral system. Crucially, it would be a great deal smaller.
Expertise—it is a feature I am happy to concede to hereditary Peers—could be introduced by having a more imaginative committee system. There could be pre-legislative debates and debates on White Papers and Green Papers which would bring expert testimony to committees considering those issues. We could have expertise in a different kind of House. Nevertheless, as they say, things have moved on and I do not think it is very likely that we shall end up with a wholly elected House. There are four or five arguments that are now being deployed against it, which obviously have to be taken seriously.
The first is that the House of Commons will not wear it; an elected second Chamber would have too much authority relative to the House of Commons. Secondly, there would be few, if any, independent Members. We could get the expertise in by the means I have suggested, but not independent Members who would vote. Thirdly, there might be "election fatigue". I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, listed the number of different elections that we currently have. Finally, there is the worry about possibly having a Chamber of purely professional politicians. Therefore, it Is much more likely that we shall end up with a mixed Chamber, or what was called earlier in the debate a "mish-mash" kind of Chamber; perhaps that is rather a pejorative way of describing it.
I am not against the idea of a mixed Chamber, both to enhance legitimacy and also to constrain it, vis-a-vis the House of Commons, but there are a number of issues which the Royal Commission will have to look at carefully. First, how the elected and unelected Members will cohere together. It has been an argument with regard to electoral reform in the other place that you could never have constituency members and list members in the same House, because they would have a different kind of relationship with their electorates. How much more would that be true of an upper House if one group stood for election and the other did not. There are great dangers there which we shall have to look at.
100
Then there is the question of pay and conditions. This brings me back to one of the issues concerning hereditary Peers. One of the great things about this Chamber is its geographical spread. However, let us suppose that we move to a mixed House of nominated and elected Members, the nominated Members not being paid a salary. The nominated Members would have to be retired, of independent means, or live within such a distance that they could actually make their living somewhere else in London. The issue of how to create a new House with the geographical spread of the current House of Lords is very important.
Finally, if we opted for a mixed Chamber there could be the anomaly of nominated people holding the balance of power in a clash between the two elected groups, or more, in that Chamber. There are some difficulties about that. Nevertheless, the hereditary principle has had its day and there are good reasons for thinking so, as I have tried to indicate. We must make sure that we focus on all that has been good about this Chamber and I think it can be recreated, with imagination, in a new Chamber. I look to the Royal Commission to do that.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, this Bill will have the most profound effects on the history of the Parliament of this nation since the time of Oliver Cromwell, because as it stands, without amendment, it will emasculate and render impotent this House during the transitional period that is being proposed. It is such an important constitutional matter that I find it deplorable that threats should be made against these Benches and that this issue is treated as a party political one, and not as a seriously important constitutional matter.
This is widely illustrated by the refusal to allow your Lordships to debate for more than two days, when there are some 176 speakers. I find it unreasonable that speakers should be restricted to seven minutes for such an important constitutional matter. This Bill, as envisaged, with its proposed transitional stage, does not in any way improve your Lordships' House: in fact the exact opposite will occur. It will be weakened.
There is a further point that I should like to make, which relates to the effects of this Bill and the longer term proposals for the future of this House when the Royal Commission reports and when the joint parliamentary committee deliberates its report. It is a very simple point: that is that if hereditary Peers confine their remarks solely to this Bill, the abolition of hereditary Peers, and if this Bill is passed in its present form without considerable amendment they will never have the opportunity to make their thoughts known about the future of your Lordships' House.
Perhaps that is the very intention of the Government, to muzzle the voices and opinions of the hereditary Peers. There is therefore good reason for us to speak out now in this debate about our ideas on the future reform of what has generally become known as stage two of the reform of the House of Lords.
However, I would like to bring to your Lordships' attention some aspects and attitudes that have prevailed so far. These have amounted to some Members of

101
Parliament on the Labour Benches in another place adopting an irresponsible, naïve and ill-informed commentary, which has merely displayed their intense hatred for hereditary Peers and not identified any intelligent proposals as to what may happen during the transitional stage. This has been particularly unhelpful because it has shown clearly that they have no knowledge and little understanding of your Lordships' House. They seem only to have the desire to abolish the hereditary Peers without taking into account in any way how this House will function during the transitional stage, or in the future. With such an important issue facing the nation, surely a more intelligent and responsible line should have been adopted, with less chastising of hereditary Peers, who for centuries have done and continue to do their duty in your Lordships' House.
This is probably the most important constitutional matter that has come to your Lordships for some 700 years. As such, it is far too important to be dealt with on a petty party political basis. Every one of us on all sides of the House must do our duty and put aside our party political feelings so that we can debate, amend and work on this Bill to improve your Lordships' House in the interests of the nation.
I should like to turn attention to the Bill and I should like to emphasise the fact that the Government stated in the White Paper that they are minded to accept the proposals to allow a small number of hereditary Peers—currently 92—to sit temporarily in the transitional House if an amendment to the legislation is supported. I have also noted that there is to be no change in the role, function and powers of this Chamber during the transitional period. Therefore the burden of work will not decrease.
I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention that the records show that this current workload requires 400 Peers on a daily basis, in order that this Chamber can function effectively. It is therefore logical to assess figures for the transitional stage of the Chamber on a daily attendance of 400 Peers if all the work is to be done. I regret having to worry your Lordships with some statistics, but on this occasion to understand the logic it is necessary to refer to a few figures. Based on a working House of a minimum of 400 Peers, and knowing that a maximum of 228 life Peers attend daily, if you add the prospective 92 Peers to that figure there will be only 320 Peers to run the Chamber, leaving an overall deficiency of 80.
The Leader of the House, during an earlier debate on this matter, informed the House that approximately 500 life Peers will remain. That is true, but this figure is not relevant, as only 228 attend daily. There is very little likelihood that any more will ever attend.
I do not believe that 320 Peers is a sufficient number to run this House during the interim period if the existing roles, functions and powers are retained. Therefore, I suggest that illustrates that there could be a case for increasing the number of hereditary Peers by an additional 80, giving an overall figure of 172 hereditary Peers to cover the shortfall during the transitional period.
102
However, it is not as simple as that if parity between the two major parties is to be created—a factor required by the Government—because there would be a preponderance of Conservative hereditary Peers. It should be possible to adjust the daily attendance figures for Conservative hereditary Peers from 97 to about 75, for the Liberal Democrats from about 14 to 10, the Cross-Benches from about 46 to 35, or some such similar adjustment. That would give a figure of about 135 hereditary Peers to be retained during the transitional stage, which includes the 14 existing hereditary Labour Peers.
There will also be a requirement for parity so that an extra 37 Labour life Peers will have to he created in order to achieve that. If all that is done, it might just provide the knowledge, experience and wisdom for this Chamber to function effectively in the interim period. However, a word of warning should be sounded, as currently the House achieves a daily attendance rate of 400 Peers from a total availability of 1,170 Peers.
How can a figure of 400 Peers be sustained to sit in this House when it is possible to draw from an entitlement of a future total of only 400 Peers? I suggest that it is totally unrealistic and, indeed, impossible. I shall return to that point in Committee. The Government's planning figures for the transitional stage of your Lordships' House are deeply flawed.
I turn briefly to the powers and composition of your Lordships' House in stage two, should that ever come about because, if I do not comment now, I may never have the opportunity to do so again. I have already covered the roles and functions of a stage two reformed House during our previous debates and I shall not say any more about that.
That brings me to the future powers of the House of Lords and to the problem of legitimacy in its composition. If this House is to be made more legitimate, it could become so only by changing to a fully elected Chamber. If that occurs, the upper House will inevitably demand increased and formidable powers which may well bring the two Houses into direct conflict. Furthermore, it will lose its independence. and that can only be to the detriment of Parliament. Alternatively, if the House is wholly appointed, it will retain its lack of legitimacy. I believe it to be far better for the House to retain its independence with a strengthening of its powers as opposed to an elected House with formidable powers which, as I said, may bring it into conflict with another place.
I have commented on the composition of this House in the transitional stage. However, in stage two, if it ever occurs, there may well be additional responsibilities and therefore there may be a requirement for a daily attendance marginally larger than 400 Peers. That new figure could be based on 450, of which there would be about 250 life Peers and up to 200 hereditary Peers, which would then ensure that the additional work would be undertaken effectively and the parliamentary committees and all-party groups properly sustained.
Would it not be possible in the future for this Chamber to appoint a leader and for government Ministers and their teams to present Bills in this

103
Chamber for scrutiny, debate and, where necessary, Division to ensure that decisions are taken in the interests of the nation and not on a party political basis?
I remind your Lordships that only 31 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Labour Party in the last election; that an opinion poll revealed that only 2 per cent. of the electorate recalled the promise to reform the House of Lords; that in a recent opinion poll only 25 per cent. stated that they would like to abolish hereditary Peers now whereas 75 per cent., which included 7 per cent. with no opinion, said they wished to keep the status quo or at least wait until the proposals for long-term reform are known. I have not met anyone, nor do I believe that there is any sensible person, who supports the Government's proposals for a transitional stage. People are completely unable to understand why the reforms are not being undertaken as a complete package.
In conclusion, I believe that the proposed reforms in this thoroughly bad Bill will weaken the authority of your Lordships' House during this transitional stage. This Bill does not change the role, functions and powers but changes only the composition of the Chamber during that interim period by removing all the hereditary Peers, except perhaps 92 of them. That will leave the House with fewer Peers. Without the 92 hereditary Peers, there would be only 228 life Peers to do the same amount of work.
Irreplaceable knowledge and expert advice will be lost to the nation, and the reduction of Peers will leave a Chamber with about 320 Peers to undertake the same amount of business. As many of your Lordships have said before, it makes no sense whatever to decide on the composition of this House before determining its roles, functions and powers. It is totally illogical and an act of madness to proceed in that way. It is an act of vandalism.
I remind your Lordships that this is not a party political matter but an issue of grave constitutional consequence. The checks and balances on the executive so well imposed by this Chamber may disappear with the weakening of this House. A citizen of the United Kingdom is in danger of losing his liberty and protection and guardianship from an over-demanding Government. Parliament will be damaged for ever and the status of the nation will be degraded. The government of this country will not be better but infinitely worse and the country must be protected from any elected dictatorship now or in the future, whichever political party is in power.
I ask your Lordships to cast aside any thoughts of party politics and personal preferences. This is far too grave a constitutional matter and must be given the greatest consideration and thought to ensure that the constitution of our nation is improved. With that in mind, I ask the Government to think again about this Bill and its very many shortcomings.
9.8 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Vivian as I wish to reinforce a central point of his argument. The noble
104
Baroness the Leader of the House sought to distinguish the principle from the details of the Bill. One has only to look at previous measures—constitutional or otherwise—to recognise the dangers of rushing to legislate for a particular principle without adequately contemplating the consequences of change.
As we have heard, the justification for the Bill is a manifesto commitment. The Government appear to believe that that commitment is necessary and sufficient for the purposes of enacting the Bill. The manifesto commitment may be necessary, but it is not sufficient. It is not sufficient because it embodies a false premise. The Bill is put before us as a,
"self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future".
The Bill, as drafted, does not and cannot deliver a "self-contained" reform. To remove hereditary Peers from membership has consequences for the work, indeed the very nature and role, of the House of Lords and for the constitution of the United Kingdom.
The House of Lords has several functions and, by general consent, fulfils them well. Let me single out one in particular. The House scrutinises and revises public Bills. In so doing, the House plays to its strengths and adds value to the political system. It is qualitatively distinguishable from the first Chamber. By fulfilling that function it does not challenge the democratic accountability of the House of Commons. It is complementary, although not subservient, to the elected Chamber.
Scrutiny in this House is frequently informed scrutiny. The knowledge and status of those engaged in debate induces Ministers to engage in a real discourse with Members. Ministers not only respond to, and engage in, debate; they also variously concede the points made and agree to amendments or agree to introduce amendments of their own. As Ministers concede, the result is better legislation. There are some good recent examples.
The essential point is that the hereditary Peers help to make that possible. They comprise over 40 per cent. of the active—the very active—membership of this House. The organisation, Common Sense for Lords Reform—I declare an interest as a patron of that organisation—has produced figures showing the extent of the involvement of hereditary Peers in the running of your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lord Vivian produced detailed figures. I do not propose to repeat them. The point is that hereditary Peers help to keep the House going and enable those who are engaged in outside work to contribute to debate.
Without the active hereditary Peers, it would be difficult to maintain a full-time House based on part-time membership. A substantial burden will fall on those who have outside jobs. They will either have to curtail or give up their jobs, in which case their expertise will no longer be current, or the House will not be able to fulfil its present functions. In other words, this House will suffer if the hereditary Peers are taken out. The House simply cannot carry on as before. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has claimed in a Written Answer,

105
"that the House will continue to function perfectly well after the hereditary Peers have left".
For the reasons I have given and on the basis of the figures given by my noble friend Lord Vivian, I do not believe that that is a sustainable claim. If the Government wish to continue to advance it, they have to demonstrate, clearly and unequivocally, how my thesis is flawed. They can no longer simply assert that. They have to prove their case.
To assert that new life Peers will be created for the purpose of political balance, or that the Government are minded to accept the Weatherill amendment, does not challenge my thesis but, if anything, reinforces it.
The measure cannot be seen as "self-contained" in terms of its effect on the workings of the House. Nor can it be seen as "self-contained" in terms of the constitution. The Government have embarked on a number of changes to the constitution They treat them as being disparate and discrete. Each is seen, in effect, as self-contained. That is a false and dangerous perception. Each impacts on the other and on the constitutional framework of this country. The constitution is being changed, and changed fundamentally, but without a clear view of what will be the end result.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has sought to justify the Government's approach on grounds of pragmatism. Pragmatism can be used to justify a singular change within the existing constitutional framework—that is quite a good conservative approach—but it cannot be employed for a raft of changes that will replace the existing framework with something else. In constitutional terms, we have left the port, but we have no idea which destination we are heading for. Those on the bridge do not appear to have a chart. The likelihood is constitutional drift.
The Government should have identified the constitutional framework that they favour before embarking on change. The Bill should come as a result of considered debate, as a consequence of a clear approach to constitutional change. At the very least, we should begin by looking at Parliament as a whole. That point was well made 30 years ago during debate on the 1969 Parliament (No. 2) Bill. On that occasion, one Member of the other place declared:
"We should have considered not what we should do with the House of Lords, but what we wanted the Houses of Parliament to do. Having considered that, we should have decided what was required, and then fitted in the House of Lords. What we did was to arrive at a solution, and then find that the problem was still with us".—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/69; col. 112.]
Those words were spoken by Mr. Robert Sheldon, a distinguished Labour Member who still sits in the other place. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, explaining why he believes that his right honourable friend got it wrong.
The case for looking again at this Bill, and for waiting until the Royal Commission has reported, has been made by no less a body than the Royal Commission itself. In its consultation document, published last week, it recognises that consideration of powers and functions should precede discussion of composition. The document also lists 11 characteristics that membership of a second Chamber may collectively fulfil. In my
106
estimation, nine of those 11 functions are fulfilled by the present Chamber. I very much doubt whether anyone can devise an alternative Chamber that can fulfil anything approaching nine of those functions. That should give cause for reflection. It should certainly give pause for thought to those who now rush around advocating an elected second Chamber.
My short analysis leads me to conclude with three questions for the Government. First, what serious study have the Government undertaken as to the effect on the functions of this House of the removal of hereditary Peers? As I said, assertion is no longer adequate.
Secondly, why bring forward the Bill at this time, ahead of the report of the Royal Commission? The manifesto commitment may justify the introduction of the Bill, but not its timing. The Government are committed to a step-by-step approach to reform. A step-by-step approach implies caution, but usually some awareness of where one wishes to step. Waiting for the report of the Royal Commission is thus completely compatible with a step-by-step approach.
Thirdly, what is the approach—the intellectual approach—to constitutional change which the Government have adopted and within which this measure can be located? The noble Lord the Government Chief Whip studiously avoided answering that question during the two-day debate on the White Paper. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House sought to answer it today but failed adequately to do so. The time has come when we are entitled to an adequate and substantive answer.
9.16 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is very difficult to defend the hereditary principle. Indeed, the tide of history is probably against it. Having said that, I believe that hereditary Peers, in their individual capacity, have contributed much not only to our history, but to the present House. Furthermore, I do not believe that an appointed system would be any better because it would lead to all kinds of problems, cronyism being one. I think that we have too much cronyism these days; we do not want to make it worse. If we leave this by abolishing the hereditaries, all that we shall have, as my noble friend Lord Desai pointed out in his brilliant paper, is the biggest quango in the country. I am sure that none of us wants that. What is more, if we have an appointed House, we shall lose the benefit of randomness which the hereditary principle gives us.
I want something more than is in this very short Bill. In fact, the Bill is far too short. I regret its piecemeal approach. At present there is a great opportunity to reform the whole institution of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, has just said. I refer not only to this House, but also to the House of Commons. The House of Commons is going down the drain and it needs a great deal of reform. This opportunity for reform may not come along again for a very long time.
It would have been far better to have had one all-encompassing reform of the parliamentary institutions through, if possible, all-party agreement. That is the way reform sticks. That would have been far

107
better than tinkering around the edges of the problem as we are doing today. A Speaker's Conference or a Royal Commission should have been set up in 1997—we have wasted two years—to consider the reforms needed and with adequate time to do it without being rushed. However, we now have this Bill to abolish the hereditary element, and there is no consensus; there is no all-party agreement. So in fact there is going to be one hell of a fight about it. That is a great shame when we are reforming a great institution such as this House.
But we are not getting rid of the hereditary principle. We are going to retain 91 hereditary Peers, for what period we do not know. They will be allowed to remain for an interim period—whatever that period will be—provided the House votes for what I consider to have been a disreputable deal cooked up by some noble Lords and the Government without proper consultation with the hereditary Peers and other Members of this House; and if this House behaves itself, as one of my noble friends said.
But this is only an interim stage. A Royal Commission will report on the next stage apparently by December, whether or not it has done a good job. That is most unfortunate and I hope members of the commission will protest and not be put under such a constraint. Otherwise it will be another rush job. But we already know the Government's intention, through their White Paper and Statements. They do not want a more effective second Chamber; they want a less effective Chamber, preferably one with some existing powers removed, such as secondary legislation, and the length of delaying powers reduced. In other words, the House of Lords will simply be an advisory Chamber in what will effectively be a unicameral system without proper checks and balances on the House of Commons itself. Indeed, that is taking place at a time when the Government are treating the House of Commons as their poodle, and the House of Commons is behaving like a poodle, even to the extent that British Armed Forces are sent into battle without parliamentary approval or proper debate beforehand. That is a great shame.
I do not necessarily disagree with unicameral legislatures, but they must be under the proper control of the people, probably through a written constitution, the courts and by means of shorter parliaments and referendums on great issues and constitutional changes, with a 60 per cent. vote necessary to make any constitutional changes. But I do not believe that there is any great support for a unicameral system. Therefore we ought to create a bicameral system which has authority and strikes a proper balance of powers and duties between both Houses, and which ensures a real parliamentary democracy to hold government to account and to prevent arrogant administrations riding roughshod over the sovereignty and the rights and powers of Parliament.
In my view that calls for a second Chamber with stronger, not weaker powers. If it is to have reasonable and adequate powers, and parity of esteem with the first Chamber, then it must have the same legitimacy; and that can only come about if the second Chamber is elected. There is no getting away from that. If the
108
hereditaries are undemocratic, then so, too, are the appointed people. If you want accountability, there is only one way to do it and that is to elect such a Chamber. We ought to understand that fact.
In the past, the greatest opposition to an elected second Chamber has come not from this House but from the House of Commons, which has been unwilling to have its sovereignty constrained by a second Chamber with electoral authority. However, that might be changing. We have heard about the EDM, which now apparently has nearly 150 names with, no doubt, more to be added. So perhaps this is the time to be really radical. We should consider supporting a fully-elected Chamber—one, incidentally, that cannot be abolished at the whim of the first Chamber. That is most important. I say that because, apparently, what we will see here if this House disagrees with the House of Commons is an Act of one House being able to abolish part of the other House. We should think about that most seriously.
I hope that this Bill proceeds to its Committee stage; indeed, I am sure that it will. I look forward to taking part in further debates on the issue.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so we are on our way at last. One knows that one is a lost cause when one is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. It is not so much that we are riding off into the sunset, but rather that the rest of you are riding off into the night. Indeed, you do not know what the next day will bring and you do not even know how long the night will last. This seems an extraordinary way to conduct constitutional reform—to pitch one into such chaos and uncertainty when everything could have been resolved by taking time. Surely this Government believe that they have plenty of time to do this properly. However, that is the way it is to be.
As someone who will be departing, I cannot see that I have a role to play other than perhaps corresponding with the Royal Commission in saying what the stage two process should be. We have an absolute and overriding duty as guardians of the powers and privileges and place in the constitution of this House to ensure that we pass that guardianship on to a House—the transitional House—which is capable of performing that role at least as well as we can.
If we were to introduce a Bill into this House to remove the wheels from a car, everyone would know that the important question was, "What use will the car be afterwards?". Even though the rest of the car was not mentioned in the legislation, we would still know what the question was. If we had a Bill to remove all light from a library in which books were not mentioned, we would still know that the important question was, "What use would the library be afterwards?" So it is with this Bill. It talks about the removal of hereditary Peers, but the legislation is really about what the transitional House will be like afterwards. In other words, it is what is not in the Bill that is important. It is our duty to concentrate on putting into the Bill provisions that will ensure that what we are looking at as guardians of the powers that

109
we pass on is a House that the life Peers who remain here will be proud to he Members of and one in which they will feel inclined to be active and useful.
It is our duty to judge the proposals for the transitional House. We have to form a view of what we want to see in that House. I believe we all know that we want to see an independent and useful House, with quality Members, who are independent of the whims of government and of another place, that can continue to play the role in the constitution that we have played with reasonable effect. I am sure that we can be improved on. Doubtless my noble friend Lord Wakeham will find ways to improve us. However, in the transitional House we are merely looking at something that will serve as well as we have done.
To my mind there are two key propositions which need to be inserted in the Bill. The first is to set out what proportions the various parties and elements of this House should bear one to the other. The Government have said that they have no present intention of seeking a majority and will merely try to look at coming up to parity with the principal opposition party. That just will not do for an important constitutional edifice like the House of Lords. It leaves it totally open for the Government to change their mind at any time. It cannot matter to a government who are really determined on seeing the end of the transitional House within a couple of years if we have some safeguards in the Bill that would bite on the only if we found the transitional House running for much longer than that. Therefore I hope that the Government will look favourably on enshrining what they have already said in the substance of this Bill.
The other aspect that needs to be in this Bill is something on the way in which Cross-Benchers will be selected in future. It is crucial that the Cross-Benchers should be truly independent, that they should have a great breadth of experience and that they should be people who will contribute time to this House. There is nothing in this Bill about how the committee, or commission, which will appoint Cross-Benchers will be appointed, about what its mandate will be and about how its performance will be reviewed. All these matters need consideration. We perhaps do not need to go into every detail in the Bill, but we need an anchor for it. We need to know that as regards that crucial part of the transitional House—the transitional House which will play a part in deciding what stage two will be like—the anchors for the make-up of the Cross-Benches should be in the Bill. Again, the Government have been equivocal but, again, they have pointed in the right direction.
I view with optimism the discussions we shall have in Committee. The Government have shown in their acceptance of the Weatherill proposals a willingness to look at compromise and improvement. That, to my mind, is wholly laudatory. But those who are departing must look at these proposals that the Government make with fairness and with individual independence, not swayed by some party political games being played by our parties down the other end. It is an individual decision for us. Beyond anything else, we must not be bought. The Weatherill proposals will be worth nothing
110
if the transitional House is not worth being a Member of. But even if it was a half-way good House, to sell our duty for a small possibility of remaining in this House would be a disgrace and not in any way worthy of us.
We shall have to work hard in the course of the Committee stage and we shall have to work with a will to make this a Bill which is worth passing. I am sure that we will all do it. But if we cannot do that, we must face up to our duty and to the consequences of that duty and not shirk taking this Government to the wire if they make us do so.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, like so many of your Lordships I much regret that the Government have not seen fit to announce their full, long-term intentions for the composition and constitution of this House. Of course that places an additional burden on the Government. It means that they are obliged to listen to advice on the subject from doomed hereditary Peers like me.
I notice that a number of your Lordships are keen on the notion of an elected second Chamber. I rather wish that I could think so too, but in my heart of hearts I cannot because I fear that if this House was subject only to election, those selected would not be the ideal Members of your Lordships' House; they would he selected according to the party they most faithfully served. Like a good Cross-Bencher, I believe that party politics play far too big a part in the life of the nation as it is and an elected second Chamber could only make that worse. If anyone wants to see the effect of two really powerful Houses in a legislature where politics and party politics rule, one has only to look at the dismaying events in the United States over recent months to see where that can lead one.
But there has been a great deal of debate today about the danger of an elected second Chamber in relation to another place. There are fears that it could lead to rivalry and, indeed, to open hostility. That is quite possibly true, but I think there is something more to it than just the dangers of political warfare. I believe that a reformed House will need, as it has at the moment, an extraordinary width of experience, knowledge and expertise. If all the hereditary Peers are to leave in a body, that expertise will be sadly lacking. That is what appointment can do. It can seek out people of real wisdom and expertise.
I am not as frightened of the dreaded word "patronage" as some of your Lordships seem to be. Sooner or later people have to choose the best man and, with a degree of good will in the world, which I believe exists on all sides of the House, I do not see why they should not do so. There have been several notable additions to your Lordships' House in recent months and many of them have already contributed enormously to our debates. I am not too frightened of that principle.
Some noble Lords have a particular corner to fight. I have spent almost 40 years in your Lordships' House defending the arts from all the dangers that continually beset them and I would hate to think that this House did not have a good number of Peers ready, able and willing

111
to do that. But there are so many more kinds of expertise from every known walk of life. Every industry, every profession, every conceivable activity in the country seems, miraculously, to be well represented in your Lordships' House. It might be quite an exercise to look at the curriculum vitae of all hereditary Peers to see what will disappear and what might need to be replaced. If that expertise, that good will and that (dare I say it?) wisdom—at least of my fellow hereditary Peers if not of myself—disappears without being replaced it will reveal an enormous hole in the activities of Parliament and will be a dreadful loss for the nation at large.
9.37 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, I warmly welcome the Bill and its lucid introduction by my noble friend the Leader of the House. It is not spiteful, petty or small minded, as some noble Lords opposite and their colleagues in another place have claimed. Nor is it, perhaps, as momentous as the most extravagant of the contrasting claims would have it. The Bill proposes a simple change in the composition of your Lordships' House, one that was envisaged at the time of the Parliament Act in 1911, discussed regularly thereafter and clearly and specifically foreshadowed in the Labour Party manifesto in 1997. The abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to speak, sit and vote will certainly change the membership of the House, although I think proportionately among active Members, it will not be significantly more acute than what has occurred in the House of Commons following a single landslide general election such as those in 1906, 1945 or 1997.
To those of us in your Lordships' House—particularly those of us who are hereditary Peers—it will represent a great change, but we should not deceive ourselves that, to the world outside, this limited reform of a revising Chamber with generally modest powers will seem all that earth shaking. As my noble friend the Leader of the House has already argued, the underlying principle nonetheless attracts widespread popular support and, whatever the attempts by the Opposition and their allies to make people's flesh crawl, there are no great constitutional threats arising from the Bill.
The Bill is not spiteful or vindictive, as I can bear witness to the strong appreciation among its supporters on all sides of both Houses for the work done by hereditary Peers and a recognition of the personal impact the changes will have on the most active Members who may leave your Lordships' House. The Government's motivation for introducing the Bill is based first and foremost on democratic principle, the inappropriateness of hereditary as a qualification for membership of the legislature. Of course there is also a sense that the innate unfairness of the party balance in this House should be addressed. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, argued last October from the Benches opposite, that would surely be felt by all noble Lords opposite if the situation were reversed.
Let us be clear, therefore, that the Bill sets out to introduce a long-awaited, limited, but worthwhile reform, with no malice or spitefulness towards the
112
hereditary Members of this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, confirmed with the authority of his past involvement in the process.
I make no claims to be able to reflect the feelings of the most active of the hereditary Peers, since, as a Baker Street irregular, I have always combined my participation in this House with a full-time business career. Nonetheless, the pride and satisfaction that I have gained from my time in this House and the loss that I shall feel when I leave, only partly mitigated by relief from chastisement by my noble friend the Government Chief Whip and his cohorts, give me a clear idea as to how much the proposed change will take away from those of my hereditary colleagues who, unlike me, have chosen to make this House the main focus of their energy and attention.
I believe that that is felt no less acutely by my noble friends on the Front Bench and their colleagues in another place. But rightly, it has not diverted them from introducing this Bill in order to address what is now widely acknowledged to be an indefensible anachronism, a shadow over our parliamentary system. The Government have, moreover, always made clear their openness to facilitate the return of the most active hereditary Members, as their willingness to consider the Weatherill amendment as one means of achieving that demonstrates.
Of course, with any change, large or small, we move into the unknown, and there is a risk that not all will go as we expect. In winding up the debate last October, my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn spoke strikingly about the desirability of change generally and its beneficial effect on our lives and the society in which we live. I suppose that, just as in 1984, George Orwell suggests that everybody has their secret fear, there are particular changes to which I am resistant. But, in general, as my noble friend expressed more articulately than I can, I find that the prospect of change excites and invigorates me, adding a dynamic to our democracy, as much as it does to our economy.
I believe that the appetite and enthusiasm for carefully considered change expressed in the Labour Party's manifesto and by the Government's subsequent actions have struck a chord with the country at large, explaining the unprecedented level of the Government's continuing popularity. That, in turn, reinforces the argument that the manifesto commitment to this specific measure of constitutional reform justifies the applications of the Salisbury-Addison Rules to allow the fair passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords opposite, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, in last month's debate, have attempted to argue that the length of modern manifestos makes the electorate unable to absorb specific commitments such as this. Even if that was the case, which like my noble friend the Leader of the House I doubt, the Bill is so representative of the broad reforming thrust of this Government that I believe there can be no question of the mandate in that regard bestowed on the Government by the electorate.
What, then, is this change, which I vigorously welcome yet so many noble Lords opposite deplore? And what lies behind our difference? The Bill will leave

113
for the time being a House comprising wholly or predominantly nominated Members representing the major parties and including, with substantial representation, Cross-Benchers. With or without the Weatherill amendment, it is likely that a proportion of the most active hereditary Peers may return. As I argued last October, if the process of reform went no further—which I hope and expect will not be the case, again with or without the Weatherill amendment—I believe that there would still be a better and fairer House.
The relentless chant of "patronage" from the Benches opposite can only be described as rich since the exploitation of patronage to a point close to abuse was polished to a fine art during the long period of the last government. Unabused patronage, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, said a moment ago, seems to be an essential part of the political process, whether in nominating life Peers, members of public bodies or any number of men and women to arduous and usually unremunerated positions.
While I believe that there are many challenges to be faced in determining the right balance of power, and the means of enforcing it, between the executive and Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Richard said, this should not lead us to denigrate the political process and the position of political parties within it. It is easy—as I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is wont to do—to elevate independence to a fetish, but the flip-side of independence is accountability to nobody but oneself.
I have felt that my membership of a political party and the taking of a party whip, which has been the case for most of my time in your Lordships' House, has conferred a small degree of democratic legitimacy on my participation in the House. A willingness to be guided by the work and thought of fellow members of a party, colleagues in this House or another, informed and moderated by reasonable independence of judgment, seems to me to lie at the heart of healthy and productive political activity. I see many noble Lords on these Benches and elsewhere who achieve that amalgam to an extent that I can only aspire to—and they are in overwhelming numbers life Peers who have, in many cases, been nominated by the leaders of their particular political party.
I do not believe that the consequences of this Bill will be to diminish the independence of the continuing life Peers—I shall not embarrass my noble friend Lord Desai by again singling him out as an example—nor to lead to the arrival of a kennel of poodles, as the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, offensively suggested. I therefore believe that the central role of the political parties in the transitional House, and indeed in the fully refonned House, should be enthusiastically confirmed.
This should not be taken as in any way a denigration of the role of the Cross-Benchers, who I fervently hope will be as vigorously active in a fully reformed House as in the transitional one. One of my most memorable experiences was working with the then Italian Minister of Finance. Guido Carli, a nominated independent senator, whose courageous pioneering of privatisation in
114
Italy was based on the need to free major companies not just from the shackles of the state but even more from the control of the political parties.
On the other hand, I was struck while reading the journals of Woodrow Wyatt, the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford, by the following entry shortly after his nomination for a life Peerage by the then Prime Minister and his decision to sit on the Cross-Benches:
"Bertie Denham says that he will let me know if my help is urgently required to defeat the Opposition in a vote. It would not be proper for him to send me actual copies of the Government whips because that would compromise my independence. He takes my telephone number instead which will amount to much the same thing".
While I do not believe that that account of Cross-Bench co-operation is in any way representative of noble Lords generally on those Benches, it is a fair warning that aspirations held by some for an ostensible purity—a politics-free House—are probably illusory, and certainly impossible to police.
I shall end, therefore, by reiterating my passionate belief that the hereditary principle for the legislature is fundamentally wrong—and I remain unclear as to whether the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, unconditionally shares this view—that the two-stage reform as started by this Bill is the best way to proceed, and that the proposed transitional House will be no less effective than the present one and indisputably more fairly balanced. I strongly support the Bill and reject the reasoned amendment.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I was slightly surprised by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, to whom I believe I may refer as my noble kinsman. He said that in his view everyone on his side of the Chamber was totally behind the Government. Just before his contribution, an interesting speech was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, which did not reflect what his Front Bench had said. It is a pity that the noble Viscount is not now listening to my comments.
Undoubtedly, during this debate with some 200 speakers there will be a degree of repetition which I believe is perfectly legitimate. The whole attitude of the Government to this Bill and to this House, let alone another place, is nothing short of outrageous. To allow against all entreaties only two days for this debate on Second Reading, even if one day is extended, is discourteous in the extreme, to say nothing of the unnecessary impingement on our loyal and supportive staff in this House. At this early stage of the debate, I should like to thank them for their unfailing good humour, courteous manners and devotion to duty. I wish that I could say the same for the Government but nobody could. I believe that the last straw was the suggestion by the noble Lord the Chief Whip that speeches should be restricted to seven minutes. The Government have been reminded that this House is responsible for running itself and does not need self-seeking political intervention in the way that it conducts its business. I am sure that many other noble Lords will take the time that they need to make their

115
points on what is undoubtedly one of the most major constitutional issues to be considered in this country for many years.
When, if ever, have a government embarked on major constitutional reform without giving the electorate any indication of what may replace it? The politicisation of constitutional reform, notwithstanding the protestations of the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal, can only be the politics of envy. Have we perhaps reached the stage where there are five types of Peers; hereditary Peers, Lords spiritual, Law Lords, life Peers and now, it appears, dynastic Peers? Why one type should be singled out for exclusion over any other holds no water on a constitutional argument, ergo it must be political. Why should a hereditary Peer be less legitimate, or "hardly legitimate" (in the words of the noble Baroness), than a dynastic or life Peer?
I turn to the specifics of the Bill to which a number of speeches have made no reference. I am amazed that the Bill makes no reference to Letters Patent. As I understand it, my forebear was rewarded for services rendered to this country with a peerage. Such Letters Patent appear to be a personal contract between the Monarch and his or her heirs and successors and my forebear and his heirs and successors to have a voice and seat in the Parliament of the country. The Government now wish to intervene in this personal contract. In the same breath they say that that does not impinge on the Monarchy. There is no logic in this argument.
A hereditary Peer is an unusual animal and I do not believe that the Government have understood that. A hereditary Peer is solely a life tenant of his title and cannot bind his heirs and successors. In evidence of this, a hereditary Peer may disclaim his title within a period of time after that inheritance. However, he may not, and cannot, disclaim it on behalf of his heirs and successors. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, I repeat, has described hereditary Peers as "hardly legitimate". Surely it would be totally illegitimate for any hereditary Peer to do anything other than vote against this Bill; otherwise they would be binding their heirs and successors in a way that they have absolutely no power to do under their Letters Patent and which is not covered by this Bill.
Do the Government believe that their wheeze of withdrawing writs of summons answers the question of personal contracts into which the Government appear to want to intervene? I believe your Lordships are entitled to know whether this is to be effective and whether indeed it is legitimate.
The next issue on which I wish to address the House is the Statute of Westminster 1931 and its relationship to the House of Lords. Any hereditary Peer who is a Commonwealth citizen is entitled to claim his right to sit in the House of Lords. In contrast to MPs, their citizenship does not disbar them from being members of the UK legislature. In effect, and at least in theory, this supports a mechanism whereby Commonwealth representation is delivered to the Westminster Parliament. Indeed, there are a number of hereditary Peers who currently attend the House as passport-holders of Commonwealth countries. I myself am one,
116
in that as well as being a British citizen I am an Australian citizen. Is it possible that I could be thrown out from this House as a British citizen but not as an Australian citizen? If people are talking about anachronisms, that would have to be one of the greatest.
By extension, the Commonwealth has a vested interest in the provisions of the House of Lords Bill in that it will, at a stroke, remove the mechanism for this representation. The preamble to the Statute of Westminster states:
"it is in accord with the established constitutional position that no law hereafter made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall extend to any of the said Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that Dominion".
This is given statutory force in Clause 4:
"No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after commencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that the Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof".
This is unequivocal in maintaining that the UK Parliament cannot legislate for the Commonwealth unless it specifically requests and consents that it should do so.
As drafted, the House of Lords Bill manifestly contravenes this. Within the terms of the clause cited, it extends to a number of the dominions referred to but nowhere on the face of the Bill is it expressly declared that those dominions have either requested or consented to its future enactment. I would like to know whether the Government have such consent from Commonwealth countries to this Bill. If they have not, I believe that the Bill is flawed and this must obviously lead to a number of amendments at later stages.
The current Government set great store by the Statute of Westminster. During the Second Reading of the Succession to the Crown Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare on 27th February 1998, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, stated that:
"before any alteration in the law touching the succession to the Throne can take effect the assent of all those countries of which Her Majesty is Queen is required. The United Kingdom cannot act unilaterally".—[Official Report, 27/2/98; col. 917.]
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was of course dealing with the specific point of the succession to the Throne, but the sense of his comments must apply equally to the provisions in Clause 4 which I have cited. In effect, given the Commonwealth's vested interest in its provisions, the Government "cannot act unilaterally" on the House of Lords Bill without breaching the terms of the Statute of Westminster.
9.59 p.m.
Lord Bragg: My Lords, I feel diffident about speaking in this debate, being new alike to this House and to the expert and opaque art of politics. Therefore, if I may, I shall take a rather personal tack.
At school I had a history teacher, Mr. James, who said that everything that ever happened came from three causes. I have observed this often enough in today's debate. Perhaps we all had the same history teacher. However, I am grateful to him today because I am

117
offering three causes for this diffidence. The first is history itself. No one taught as I was the history of this country, of Europe and the European world, could fail in the 1950s to be proud of much of what we the British had done. Although other stories, other versions, other truths have since seen well aired, there still remains in me a pride and even a wonder that these small, damp, unpromising islands exerted so much influence, had so much imagination, bred and provoked so much knowledge, and irradiated so much that was positive around the globe.
There is of course a negative side, a darker seam—and how we have been made aware of it over the past 50 years, when our history has not only, rightly, been scrutinised from the outside but, less acceptably, often turned inside out in a mistaken zeal to revisit the past using only the lamp of a current fashionable correctness.
But the history I was taught, and was lucky enough to go on to study at that historic university, Oxford, though not blinding me to the sewers under the roads to greatness, left me in some awe that fallible individuals ever came together with such force to do what they did here in this country and over centuries. One of the great creations of the British was a constitution which, despite expert battering and acidulous attacks, most fiercely from critics in our own country, has in a relative world served better than most, even any—though sometimes most reluctantly and late—to represent and express the people in whose name it exists. Two cheers for democracy, said E. M. Forster, and our least worst of systems has weathered well.
Such a constitution is not likely to be subjected to radical surgery. The fact that it is at this time—and that the electorate agreed that it should be done, which gives it all the legitimacy it needs—does not dent or lessen the momentous and solemn nature of the debate now before your Lordships' House. It gives us all pause.
The second cause of diffidence was well expressed, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Stafford, in his maiden speech last November, on the day when I, too, made my maiden speech. In the final paragraph of the speech, which he called a digression, he said:
"I hope that this maiden speech is not the first and last speech that I shall make to this House, possibly closing a chapter in our family's history as I do so. It was in 1299 that the first member of my family was called to Parliament, 700 years ago next year, while just over 600 years ago we were elevated to the peerage. In the succeeding six centuries three members of the family had their head chopped off—not entirely careless to lose one ancestor every 200 years, particularly as we kept choosing the wrong side".—[Official Report, 30/11/98: col. 267.]
As I listened to that, and more, I was moved by the tradition, the length and strength of the service, the sheer virtue of continuity, and the quality of long persistence which informed that modestly described digression, as indeed I am moved by other hereditary noble Lords.
Perhaps I may mention just one out of many: my fellow Cumbrian, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, whose care of his family's past and his country's best interests has been exemplary. Of all the silent choirs which haunt even this comparatively modern building, surely the most resonant are those ancient voices, the chorus of past noble Lords. Their names and deeds, at
118
their best, stand high in our history. Moreover, I would guess that the guile of centuries will not have slackened over the past few months and a number of your noble hereditary Lordships will find a way to change into a suit which fits the modern cut, and we shall see some resurrected in this place—the place which bears so much witness to their ancestral histories.
But I have ancestors too. I did not find their names in the books of history I read at Oxford. But they too had fought in wars: my grandfather, Herbert, and several of his brothers served in the Army in World War I:, my father, Stanley, and his brothers were in the Air Force in World War II and doubtless before then they made up the numbers in battles which raged in the Borders between England and Scotland for several centuries and in bloody battles various around the world and in other battles here at home.
Just as they added to the wealth of the country by ploughing its fields and digging its coal, the women, too, strained to bring up decently its often inadequately provided for children: foot soldiers, housewives, manual workers, men and women, and as far as I can discover any records, decent people whose patience and tolerance helped this country, and so this House, to be what it was and what it is.
As your Lordships would expect, I am proud of my ancestors—as proud, I may say, as any hereditary Peer. They wanted betterment for themselves and their families; they wanted what was fair; they knew that the world must change and, perhaps of all people anywhere, they stalked change with caution and forbearance. But one well defended castle after another finally fell: in the franchise, in education, in health, in housing, and in a multiplicity of areas and in the sense that opportunity is equally possible. Now, perhaps the last citadel is reached: the constitution. Perhaps I feel a little less diffidence here.
But my third cause of diffidence is that I am no constitutional historian. Nevertheless, even as a new Member of your Lordships' House. I believe that to function with the power which will be of the greatest benefit to this country your Lordships' House can no longer be so spectacularly tilted and biased to one form of entry—thus by a chain reaction causing disproportion in gender and background and, to an overmarked extent, in political allegiance. To legislate for the country, even to amend legislation; to debate for the country, even though such debates can be lonely vigils—this demands that the House represent far more truly the vivid, changed and varied groups in this country now taking us beyond the year 2000.
Will the new House be elected or will it be representative—or to some extent both, to the advantage, I hope, for the former? Whatever it is, I am sure that the very newness will release new energies and new vigour. Will it be as independent as before? Will it be as eccentric as before? Will it have the style it had before? I hope so and I believe so. Style is not the monopoly of one section or class in our society; neither is eccentricity, and neither is independence of mind. All these qualities are liberally dispersed across all sections of the British people.

119
What most of us want, I am sure, is a stronger House, a more grounded House, a House able to look another millennium straight in the eye because the tradition it calls upon and the new ancestors it serves come from a far wider, more diverse, less-the-icing, more-the-cake, an unconfined range, able to give Parliament and our democracy the best energies of the British people and so be in safe hands. For that reason, I support the Bill.
10.8 p.m.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. He is right. To anyone with a sense of history this Bill does indeed arouse very strong feelings in all of us. For me, it arouses feelings rather akin to watching the close of Empire in Hong Kong. While one knows that what is happening is right and timely, at the same time one is allowed a moment of sadness at the closing of an important chapter.
It is quite right that we in this House should take the matter very seriously. It affects all of us personally as part of our lives and our work, but I think that we delude ourselves if we imagine that for the woman on the Clapham Tube it is quite such a vitally important matter of debate. Indeed, my concern is that to the general public the House of Lords has been so lampooned and caricatured that if you ask the average person, the woman on the Clapham Tube, or even your London taxi driver, the image of the House of Lords has become one of elderly gentlemen eating cream buns in the Tea Room or nodding asleep on the red Benches. That is a much more common view of what happens than the day-to-day work which those of us who are privileged to be here know takes place.
Before any further reforms of the House take effect, I hope that there will be a real attempt to inform the general public and to bring them into the debate. I hope that that is done much more realistically to help them to understand what the House is really like. In particular—and I speak with personal interest—it would be good if the general public understood the role of the life Peers. We have heard a lot today about the contribution of the hereditary Peers and the importance of all that they have done. We have heard less about what life Peers have brought to this House. The Life Peerages Act 1958 was a major breach of the hereditary principle and I believe that on every Bench we have distinguished life Peers, many of whom are able, although some of us are not, to give a full-time commitment to the work of the House.
As has already been said, even in recent months some extremely distinguished Members on the Benches opposite as well as on the Cross-Benches have entered this House, much to its benefit and to the benefit of the country and the passage of legislation.
I rather resent the assumption that life Peers are all mere "placemen", as though we had all been brought in from some kind of political secret list. Many of us do not see ourselves as recipients of patronage. The letter which I received from the Prime Minister over eight years ago did not mention on which Bench I should sit, how often I should attend or how I should vote. I regard myself as independent in the best sense of the word.
120
I do not subscribe to the idea that an elected second Chamber would be as independent and free as those of us who are life Peers have been able to be. An elected upper House would create a political and whipped upper House which would be extremely detrimental to the work of the House of Commons and also to the passage of legislation. I see no reason why nominations, if widely and wisely distributed, could not provide the same breadth and independence. Why not disperse the power of patronage from the Prime Minister, as the current Prime Minister has said he will willingly do, and give such power of patronage, for example, to professional bodies, the trade unions, the CBI, the financial sector, various faiths and so on?
The House has proved itself as regards three important traditions over the years. First, and many noble Lords have referred to it, Members of this House bring a sense of duty which is enshrined in the restriction of our powers. We cannot be power-mad in a House which has those restrictions. Moreover, there is the absence of any remuneration or pay for the work that we are doing. An elected House would not bring those two principles into play.
Secondly, there is a tradition of independence which is greatly valued. Life Peers are made permanent Members of this House and therefore they neither suffer fear nor seek favour.
Thirdly, there is the expertise to which many noble Lords have referred. A wide distribution of patronage should be designed in such a way as to reflect that wide expertise. I have often had a sense of privilege in this House merely through sitting and listening to the expertise which those who know and understand a subject bring to bear. Although most of us try to speak only on subjects about which we know well, we are privileged to sit and listen to that expertise. That is possible with a nominated House.
I hope that we can move towards such a House in the future. That will bring with it all the traditions which we rightly cherish but which will make a House of Lords a second Chamber fit for the next millennium.
10.14 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the distinguished life Peeress, the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark. I agree with noble Lords who have called for good humour and tolerance in debate on the Bill. We can all agree about the great amount of humour and tolerance that has been displayed and the very moving moments that have occurred throughout the debate. My noble friend Lord Bragg's intervention was extremely moving.
This Bill represents a great deal more than its two pages and its 29 lines. It represents the first stage of Labour's clear election manifesto pledge, a manifesto responded to with record-breaking enthusiasm and gusto by the British people on 1st May 1997.
In my time as an elected MP I have known many attitudes to manifestos, many of them quite eclectic. I have known the manifesto skimmers, the manifesto devourers and those who use manifestos as suitable material for the art of origami. However, I worry about a

121
certain tendency among some noble Lords who dismiss democratic manifesto pledges on the grounds that noble Lords do not have actual clinical evidence that the entire British population has read and retained every single sentence and paragraph of the last Labour manifesto. This Bill will implement a clear manifesto pledge.
The Bill alto represents the Government's unwavering determination to bring an end to the hereditary principle as a part of British government on the grounds that we do not believe any longer that government influenced by the hereditary principle is the best democratic model that should be on offer to the British people today.
We begin the next millennium in the sure knowledge that the world's most developed and successful countries are also its most successful democracies. Better government is our goal and this Bill assists us hugely in the realisation of that goal. The British people know that nine months before the 21st century we cannot run a modern, dynamic, devolved democracy on ancestor worship.
For most families in Britain today it is only their talents and hard work, their effort and energy that give them rank and reward. In a modern democracy the values and structures of the government are expected to reflect the best of your own. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said in his excellent contribution, duty and public service are not, and never have been, the sole domain of only certain British historic families.
This Bill also represents a recognition that the Britain of 1999 is changing, that it is gloriously multi-racial and multi-cultural and that the majority of its private and public institutions take for granted the principle of gender and race equality, even if the practice still has a long way to go.
As an elected representative, I have spent much of my time dealing with issues of gender equality. I can report from the front line that modern Britain is packed with women who have rightful ambitions at local, regional and nation al level to influence and change our institutions for the better.
It is a fact that many private and public organisations in my present constituency of Birmingham, East have women as their chief executive officers and leaders. That rapidly evolving race and gender profile of a vibrant British society is not, and never can be, reflected in the profile of the hereditary peerage.
For all its clarity, its brevity and its simplicity, this Bill has endured more name calling by noble Lords on the Benches opposite than the worst England manager at the most unpopular phase of his footballing career. It has been described by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the Opposition as "narrow", "offensive", "evasive" and "betraying the spitefulness of small minds". The noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, today told us that it is "miserable and pedestrian" and a "pettifogging. mean measure".
I have to say that such accusations are more appropriately laid at the door of those noble Lords who, during the many hours of debate on this subject so far, have quite outrageously questioned the legitimate
122
authority of our democratically elected Government, with their undeniable mandate, to bring forward this Bill in the first place.
The reason given by many noble Lords who oppose the Bill is that they are genuinely concerned that the Government's reform plans will not bring forward a new second Chamber fast enough or effectively enough. Despite the fact that I am not by nature a cynical person, I do believe that such supposed "concern" for the process of reform is a tactic hidden behind a red herring which in turn is lurking behind a smokescreen—a smoked red herring in fact!
It is an old trick, deployed for nearly 100 years by noble Lords and, in the belief that it might still just work, noble Lords are mercilessly trying it on. hoping that once again reform will be derailed, as it has been so many times in the past. How much better it would be for the dignity of this House and the proper functioning of the legislative programme arising from the Queen's Speech if noble Lords opposite would accept that the Bill represents the will of the people and if they used their considerable skill and energy to find ways of working together across the Chamber to find the most appropriate way forward within the terms of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, talked earlier of guillotines and front-row knitting persons. In that context, I was reminded of a recent visit to the bleak old prison known as the gendarmerie in Paris. Indeed, as we all know, in the 1790s in France, aristocrats had their heads—how shall I put this delicately?—chopped off, for their pains. How differently we approach these things from our European partners! In the 1990:3 in Britain, we are asking our aristocrats to leave government with all our thanks, with dignity and with their heads held high. This time, however, despite the occasional appearance of the excellent red socks of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, I do not see the Scarlet Pimpernel swinging down from the rafters to save the day for the hereditary peerage. It is time for a dignified exit—and this Bill is that dignified exit.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, perhaps I may bring the House back for a moment from the subject of the French Revolution. Over the past year, I have followed with great interest the debates on the future of this House, but did not speak as the arguments from all sides were effectively rehearsed in a rather predictable fashion. Now comes the crunch: the Bill is before us. I shall not repeat the many points that have been made so far, but I should like to cover one particular point which, happily, I see is one which has been chosen to be discussed by the Royal Commission. I refer to the desirability and importance of young persons being Members of this House. It has been the tradition for Peers who are minors to join the House soon after their 21st birthday and subsequently to serve an apprenticeship, which stood them in good stead for future contributions to the work of the House.
My own experience is perhaps worth recalling, as I took my seat aged 21 and made my maiden speech within a few weeks. Indeed, I spoke several times while

123
I was still a post-war Oxford undergraduate. In fact, I had to ask the Warden of New College whether I was allowed to come here to speak in your Lordships' House. It may sound old-fashioned, but I joined the House then as I felt that it was my duty as well as my privilege. There were no expenses in those days and, under the post-war Labour government, we were housed in the rather cramped quarters of the Robing Room while the new House of Commons was being built. I was personally congratulated by the grandfather of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on my speech and saw the beginnings of the famous Salisbury-Addison agreement.
Recently it came as rather a shock when I realised I was one of the few Peers who have sat in the House for more than 50 years. Now I am sad, but resigned to the fact that probably my time is up. But looking back on the subjects in which I specialised, I see no reason to feel ashamed of what I have contributed since those early days.
So it would appear that young Peers under 30 will almost certainly disappear, in spite of exemplary efforts of such hereditary Peers as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who, in his early twenties, won pension rights for war widows. If ever there was a case for retaining and encouraging such young Peers, this is it. Otherwise, who will represent the young? To appoint them from the outside world would be very difficult, as they would have to live and work in London. Most of today's young Peers, have jobs, but many of them still attend because they have a special commitment born out of a deep-seated sense of family duty. However, I am sure that the committee of my noble friend Lord Wakeham will discuss this matter seriously.
One is always hearing criticisms of the House as being unchanging and unrepresentative, right-wing dominated and hostile to any radical decisions; and when we do defeat governments, we are blamed or praised depending on who is in power. But I should like to point out, as one who has served for over 50 years, that unchanging the House of Lords is certainly not. Since 1947 I have witnessed that small traditional House of the 1940s welcome life Peers, women Peers, trade union Peers, Peers of Commonwealth origin, showbiz Peers and celebrity Peers. I submit that when its history is written it will conclude that the House has never been better composed or offered more comprehensive expertise or conducted better informed debates than it does today. I doubt it will ever be better, regardless of the Royal Commission—that is, if the Government accept its recommendations.
The media and parties opposite love to scoff at the claim that many hereditary Peers do in fact pursue an independent viewpoint. But such independence is very much reflected in the Lobby, as Chief Whips know to their cost. I have never hesitated to vote contrary to the Whip if I was convinced I should, and once even led a revolt in alliance with opposition parties to defeat a government amendment to a Bill. But to build such independence into any new House will be very difficult, given the overtly political selection procedures that are now in operation. However, it would be a triumph for
124
all concerned if party politics could be removed from appointments of new Peers and merit regarded as more important than political leanings.
Finally, I find it sad that previous statements about the present House and future plans with regard to hereditary Peers, however hardworking they may be, were tinged with a certain amount of malice and meanness. But that was certainly corrected today and I thank the Leader of the House for her remarks about hereditary Peers which were supported by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. For we have sat up all night; we have done a lot of Committee work. Now, apparently, it is the intention to deny past Members all access to the House, which is sad. I suspect the biggest sufferers will be the bars and the catering department.
Throughout its history, particularly in the 18th century, Members of the House of Lords have never shirked from raising taxes in time of national crisis, even if the burden fell most heavily on them. So the final chapters are being written, sadly, without any formal recognition of past work—just good old class hatred. How sad, how undignified, and how typical. Naturally I am confident that my fellow Peers will work to the end, when I suppose we will be expected to fold our tents and silently steal away. Perhaps some of us may be a greater nuisance outside the House than we are today. Only time will tell.
I firmly hope that the new House of Lords will emerge stronger and more credible in order to act as a much needed bastion against the dictatorship of the ruling party. After all, second Chambers must be "conservative", with a small "c", as a radical second Chamber is a nonsense and would be unable to play its proper part in the constitution. Let us hope that a reconstituted House of Lords will at least sometimes be in a position to point out that the government of the day might occasionally be wrong. But it will need adequate powers; indeed, powers are the whole point.
I may be rather suspicious and cynical, and perhaps it was a red herring on someone's part, but I believe that attacking the hereditary principle all the time was a smoke screen to divert public discussion from powers. That is what really matters to the country in the future. So the country wants to know what the Labour Party's plans are with regard to powers. Do they really want lots of yes-men who will not have the courage to take objective and independent decisions? I believe that we ought to do everything that we can to prevent that happening.
10.30 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, my father was a very competent Greek scholar and, therefore, when I went to school I thought that it would be a very good idea if I also took Greek. Unfortunately, Greek and I never got on one little bit and I achieved 9 per cent. in my Greek O-level. However, I am left with one phrase—namely, I have probably got that wrong, but, roughly speaking, it means, "rosy-fingered dawn". I do not know why I should be sitting here in the Chamber at this time of night thinking of rosy-fingered dawn, but I do hope we will get through the list of speakers before that time.

125
When I put down my name to speak in this debate, it was my original intention to give the Bill a brief but warm welcome and to suggest one possible small area of improvement. However, as the debate has gone on and I have listened to it, I have felt that I might perhaps like to expand a little on my welcome and explain why I believe that the Bill is both a good and necessary one.
When I came into your Lordships' House some four years ago, I had never actually expected to be here. There were two reasons. The first was that I did not expect my father to die quite so young and, secondly, I thought that your Lordships would have got around to reforming the place before I ever got here. As it had never been my expectation that I would be a Member of this Chamber, I have rather viewed the past four years as an unexpected boon and one which I hope I have been able to make some little use of. I came here with the very typical view of the outsider who perhaps has not given it a great deal of thought. I clearly understood that the hereditary principle was intellectually indefensible; in other words, there is no defence of it. However, it rather seemed that your Lordships were mucking along rather nicely and that it sort of practically worked. So why not leave it alone?
My experience over four years has radically changed my view to one of understanding that this House is actually fundamentally flawed. It seems to me that the fundamental flaw is not quite so much the hereditary principle itself, although that is quite clearly fundamentally flawed: it is the fact that every time your Lordships take an important decision and every time your Lordships have a very valid argument with another place, this House is held up to ridicule because of the heredity element. That is why the time has now come without any question to change the composition of your Lordships' House.
It seems to me that the role that this House must play in the future is that of strengthening the checks and balances on the executive. I have heard that from all parts of the House; indeed, I have heard it from the Government Front Bench, from the Opposition Benches and from the Cross Benches. I believe we all agree that the role of your Lordships' House is to produce a strong, effective and proper check and balance on another place. We can only do that if the composition of this House is such that the people generally, and those who occupy another place, feel that we have some legitimacy. Ultimately it may well be that that means election. However, what is quite certain is the fact that the hereditary element detracts from that ability. Therefore, I have come to the view that I am very happy to accept this first stage of reform on its own as it will make this House a more valid Chamber. Even if the second stage is not reached, at least the House will be a better place for that first stage of reform.
Having expanded slightly more than I meant to on my welcome to the Bill, I should like to turn to one small specific point which the Government may like to bear in mind. While this is a stand alone measure, and while it is very much hoped that it will be a transitional measure—I do not doubt the Government's integrity and I do not doubt they have every intention of producing
126
full reform in as short a time as possible—I believe we should at least consider the possibility, even if it i s not a probability, that this Bill may last for some time.
If that were to be the case, I wonder whether we would not be wise to look at one or two possible additions to the Bill which might make that transitional period more sensible over a longer period. I stress that I do not necessarily believe that to be the case, but I think it is wise to plan for the unexpected. I have one particular suggestion to make to the Government; namely, to allow Peers to resign their place in this House after this first transitional period is over. I believe there are two reasons which make this a good idea. The first is that there are a number of Members of your Lordships' House who have successfully reached a great age and who have expressed their desire to give up. But for so long as the law obliges them to attend your Lordships' House they have no means by which they can honourably give up membership of your Lordships' House. For those who want to—there should be no compulsion—it might be worth creating a mechanism which allows Peers who wish to do so to retire.
The second reason is that I have noticed. particularly on the Government Benches, the arrival over the past few years of a number of extremely able and quite young new life Peers. That is admirable. Those younger life Peers may find over the next few years that they develop a taste for politics and they may wish to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament, the European Parliament, or whatever. I believe fundamentally it is wrong that anyone should be able to be a Member of two Houses of Parliament. My proposal would allow a mechanism whereby someone who was a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the European Parliament would be able to resign his or her writ in this House.
I make that suggestion as one of the possible improvements which might be made, bearing in mind that this transitional Bill may be with us for much longer. However, I return to my early theme which is warmly to welcome the Bill as a much needed improvement in the workings bf your Lordships' House and to say that perhaps we have looked at it very much through the spectacles of history in today's debate whereas I would rather look forward. I believe this to be a Bill about the future. Perhaps, after all, I come back to where I started: perhaps it is a rosey-fingered dawn.
10.37 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I refrained from taking part in the two earlier debates on this great issue. I told myself at the time that it was because I preferred to await the Second Reading of the Bill on the first stage, but I think that if I am honest with myself it was probably because as an hereditary Peer taking the Labour Whip I found the whole exercise extraordinarily intimidating.
Having said that, I do not suppose that Socrates would have been all that keen on making a commercial endorsing the efficacy of hemlock! I find, as a much lesser mortal than he, that it is rather difficult to support a Bill looking to one's own demise from this House. But there are good reasons for doing so and in a few short

127
words I shall share that feeling with your Lordships. I begin by placing on record my profound respect and affection for your Lordships' House. I had the privilege of entering it some 22 years ago. However, 17 of those 22 years I spent as an international civil servant, always abroad. Therefore, during those 17 years, my visits to your Lordships' House were few and far between and, following the traditions, they were normally silent visits.
My father, on the other hand, had the good fortune to sit in your Lordships' House for 49 years. I like to think that in many ways he was the very model Back-Bench hereditary Peer. He was assiduous in his attendance; I am told he was a very good committee chairman; and he confined his speeches to subjects of which he had knowledge and experience. Outside the House he was active on his local hospital board and pursued with great energy and devotion, right up until the day before he died, his charitable activities, notably and for a very long period, for the mentally handicapped and for invalid children. He was very fond of quoting the words of a famous kinsman of his, Sir Wilfred Grenfell, the missionary doctor and explorer of Labrador, who said that,
"service to others was the rent we pay for our room here on earth".
My father, in a sense, regarded your Lordships' House as his room on earth, and I feel that he paid his rent in full. I very much honour the memory of a man who lived very modestly—he had no estates, no wealth—who was an exemplary servant of the people and a very loving father.
We hereditaries can, and we certainly should, honour the memory of our hereditary predecessors in the House, but we can no longer claim the rights through which so many came to be deserving of our admiration. The time has simply come for us to go and for your Lordships' House to be reconstituted on lines that better reflect the imperatives of the end of this millennium and to become the kind of House which in its composition my noble friend Lord Bragg so brilliantly depicted just a few minutes ago.
I therefore warmly support the Bill as a means of ending the anachronism of a second Chamber based on the hereditary principle. Whatever the merits of the presently constituted Chamber—they are very many—a right to legislate based solely on the accident of birth has long been unsustainable and can be sustained no longer.
But I would be less than honest with your Lordships today if I did not tell you that I would have preferred the reform of the House to have been elaborated as part of a reform of Parliament as a whole. I do not often have the pleasure of agreeing with my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but on this matter, happily, I find myself in agreement with him. I believe he is gaining new friends in the House today. While the removal of the hereditary Peers should undoubtedly be a central pillar of an overall reform, and would probably and properly have been the first stage within an overall broad reform of Parliament, a piecemeal approach seems to me to make a wider reform rather more hazardous and uncertain. I fear we may be building to incomplete specifications on inadequately surveyed terrain, with the risks that that entails.
128
But the Government, for their own very good reasons. have decided otherwise. I have to say that I feel a little uncomfortable about that but I will vigorously support the Bill because to refrain from doing so would be totally inconsistent with my fundamental belief that the hereditary element in our composition no longer has a place here and that a House condemned to an eternal lack of parity in a modern democracy is, frankly, intolerable. Above all, to be a more effective check on the Executive, the House must have unquestionable legitimacy. No one has better made that point than the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, a few moments ago.
I believe that we are moving inexorably towards a predominantly elected second Chamber, if not a totally elected second Chamber, somewhere in the future. I do not believe that it is beyond the genius of the British body politic to devise and agree upon a proper balance of power between two elected Houses. So for many reasons I would welcome an elected Chamber. But that is not precisely what we are debating today. I raise the matter because regrets have been expressed about the inevitable reduction in your Lordships' House of that vital element of youth. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, spoke eloquently about it a few moments ago. It is bound to happen with the departure of the hereditary Peers. However, election to a second Chamber could. and I am certain would, ensure a proper age balance in a way that membership by appointment is less likely to do. So the greater the elected element the better, and I hope that one day, within the framework of a broad constitutional settlement, election will be the primary method of filling these hallowed Benches. That said, I believe that an appointed element would also be highly desirable to ensure that a revising and scrutinising Chamber, which this must continue to be, is free to add as it sees fit to the sum of its expertise and to the diversity and independence of its views.
Let me close with this final thought. I am a strong believer in a constitutional monarchy. I believe also in the peerage as a keystone supporting the edifice of monarchy. That keystone risks being progressively weakened if doubts and resentments over the rights of the peerage to exercise legislative powers and privileges are left unresolved. They can be resolved in only one way. I therefore take the view that the peerage as an institution will be better safeguarded and less contested by its withdrawal as an institution from the strictly legislative arena. With that prospect in mind, I shall leave your Lordships' House with the all the regrets of one departing from a well-loved place. but I shall be sustained at the same time by my belief that the hereditary peerage, if true to its spirit of public duty and service, can remain a force for good within a constitutional monarchy. I pray that, by example, we may prove that to be so. In the meantime, I wish the Bill safe passage through your Lordships' House, followed soon, I hope, by a broad reform of the whole of Parliament.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords appreciate the sincerity of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and perhaps the dilemma he

129
has been placed in by the past history of the matter. If the Bill before the House were a race card, the horse in it would be called Vindictive, by Jealousy, out of Ignorance, because this House works very well. The Government are occasionally inconvenienced by losing a vote but that is due entirely to a lack of attendance by Labour working Peers.
I know that earlier today the Leader of the House gave statistics showing that that was not necessarily so and indicating that it was the attendance of the hereditary Peers that made the difference. But when the balance is around 100 to 120 on either side, she knows quite well that if all noble Lords in her party had turned up to vote, the Government would have won most of the Divisions that they have lost in the current Session. The noble Baroness knows, too, that if there is severe opposition to any measure in this House, there is always the fallback position of the Parliament Act.
But if this House has no right to delay or amend legislation, one begins to ask oneself: why do we have this Chamber at all? It must be here to deal with the duties that we have had for generations. We are certainly not in favour of a unicameral Parliament. But, given the way in which the Government view our achievements in this place, it makes one begin to wonder.
Our duty is the scrutiny, revision and improvement of legislation, and there is opportunity for the Government to introduce amendments to improve the legislation, either in another place or as a result of what happens in Committee, Report and Third Reading debates in this Chamber. But it seems that the present Government object to that. It confirms our view that the Labour Government are not interested in democracy but are just forcing their policies through Parliament. Parliament is sidelined. Everyone agrees with that, from the Speaker to the Doorkeepers. But now, at last, I believe that the media are beginning to see through the spin doctors who have worked so assiduously for the past two years.
I have spent 35 years in Parliament, half of that time as a Front Bench Member. Two things stand out. The first is the skill and experience in legislation of the hereditary Peers in government or opposition. It has been a tremendous asset to this Chamber. As a life Peer, I am proud to serve with them now on the Back-Benches. Both as Ministers and Opposition Members, they take on highly complicated Bills from the Commons and progress them through this House. Continuity of membership is a great asset. All governments, including this Labour Government, should be loud in praise of what this Chamber has accomplished since the war and for generations in the past.
The second is the matter of youth, touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. The Government are always shouting about youth, and rightly so. This Chamber gives youth a chance through the hereditary system. Frequently, younger Members are able to operate as Ministers on the Front Bench or in opposition. It is an opportunity that they would not have so early in another place. Noble Lords in their twenties or thirties with no constituency to serve and no axe to grind, free to express sometimes radical opinions, are
130
just what we need in a debating Chamber. They provide a wide geographical spread of opinion throughout this country.
That variable and unique contribution is to he scuppered by this Bill. One begins to ask how the Prime Minister or any committee could appoint Members of this House in their early twenties with no track record or experience of life to entitle them to a life peerage; and with the Peach Nolan arrangements for appointments to quangos and other bodies it will be even harder in the future.
For those reasons our hereditary system has been an outstanding success. It is comparatively rare for Members of Parliament to be elected in their twenties. Constituencies just will not select people without experience, and rightly so. But that is not a problem when it comes to this Chamber, with the number of hereditary Peers who can come here in their early twenties. Yet that system seems to be attacked continually by Labour and is not supported by Liberal Members either.
The questionnaire provided to us last week by the Royal Commission was fascinating. Over 120 questions were posed. One begins to wonder how many tens of thousands of responses the Royal Commission will receive. Any government with an element of fairness, not merely a throw-away line in a manifesto, would have postponed this legislation until after the Royal Commission had reported and we could have seen what stage two was going to be.
We should be discussing the role of the House, not its composition, at this stage. We want to see what is best for Britain, not what is best for the Labour Party. Everything this Government do is for political expediency or advantage: the referenda; the constitutional changes; the failure to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster by the next election; the West Lothian question, still unanswered; and the voting systems. whether for Scotland, for Wales or for Europe. Everything is done for the advantage of the present Government, with their vast majority. We are worried that the Bill is not in the best interests of the country but merely in the best interests of the Government.
Whatever the Government do, the new House is bound to be more powerful relative to the House of Commons than before. I do not think that the Commons will like that at all.
As the noble Lords, Lord Vivian and Lord Norton, showed in their fascinating statistics, the new House would have of the order of 200 to 300 new Members, however appointed or elected. The difficulties with regard to an election cause me great concern. Those 200 or 300 new Members will be professional politicians. They will want to be paid. They will want accommodation and facilities on a par with those of the other place. They will note that the other place is spending £250 million or so on a new building. They will want individual rooms and accommodation for secretaries and computers. I wonder where that could happen in this building. It could certainly not be down

131
the road in Millbank. If the structure of this House is changed, the Government will need to think about the physical difficulties that we face in this building.
In conclusion, I am very depressed about this Bill. It is a shocking Bill, the worst I have ever known in all my time in Parliament. It deserves to be defeated, or at least drastically modified.
10.57 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, with so many speakers on the list, I intend to be as brief as I can. It is almost impossible to avoid mentioning matters on which others have already spoken.
Much has been said about the present composition of the House. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government Chief Whip:
"In our view its present composition means that it lacks the legitimacy to do properly, and with confidence, the tasks entrusted to it".—[Official Report, 23/2/99; col. 1086.]
How much more will that be true if this Bill is passed in its present state, when Members of the hereditary peerage have been dismissed and all that is left are those Peers who have been nominated at different times by nine different Prime Ministers? In no way is their position to be considered as having more credibility than that of the hereditary Peers.
As I have said before, I am in no way opposed to a reform of your Lordships' House, but I can see no argument for leaving its reform to what in the 17th century was called a rump Parliament. It is true that there has been debate on several occasions in this Chamber, but that is not the same thing as consultation, which can only be done systematically. It is surely for this reason that no consensus as to the future role of the House has been achieved.
I can see nothing particularly democratic about the temporary survival of 91 Peers. The present Bill leaves the floodgates wide open to any of the options proposed in the White Paper, or even to the options not contained therein. This is an empty Bill which is not constructive and which does not even enforce what has been promised—a stage two reform. It puts an unnecessary burden on the Royal Commission, whose report should properly be discussed by the whole House, not simply a surviving part of the House. These are flaws which will need detailed discussion when we reach Committee stage.
I call particular attention to Clause 2 which provides for the removal of disqualification of hereditary Peers from membership of the other place. On the face of it, it looks very handsome. Hereditary Peers can vote in elections to the other place and stand as candidates for or serve as Members of it. The first part puts all hereditary Peers into a kind of limbo, for we shall have no voice or vote in those constituencies in which we happen to reside until there is a general election. Clause 4 states that the Bill will come into force at the end of the Session in which it is passed. Can the noble and learned Lord who is to reply say whether it would be more democratic to await the dissolution of Parliament?
132
There has been a great deal of talk about the Government's election manifesto. I believe I am correct in saying that no government have ever fulfilled all of their manifesto commitments, so what is the hurry now? I detect no general feeling in the country for the abolition of the rights of hereditary Peers. One can subscribe to a manifesto and vote for any party who proposes it without committing oneself to any particular detail in it.
A poll released on 18th November last suggested that no less than 68 per cent. of voters would prefer to leave matters as they are until every detail of Lords reform has been decided. In such a case it seems to be entirely appropriate to have a fairly conducted referendum on the main issue. If the projected reform of your Lordships' House is to stand the test of time, there should be a firm disclosure of the Government's intentions in regard to stage two; otherwise, we shall be left to wonder what the final result is intended to be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that the Government should proceed with the second stage as fast as possible.
Would not one solution be to allow only those Peers who attend and listen to a debate to speak, and, in the case of a Division, to vote? Those who do not attend would lose those rights. I believe that the Bill requires much scrutiny and attention to detail as it appears to raise more questions than it answers.
11.2 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I very much agree with what she said. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that I feel a sense of guilt at taking part in this debate. Great events are taking place outside this House, some outside this country, that affect us and the future of our nation: the fact that our forces are currently engaged in warfare in Kosovo; the deep uncertainty hanging over the developments in Northern Ireland in relation to the Good Friday agreement; the extraordinary situation that has overtaken the European Commission; and the rather unsatisfactory outcome of the deliberations in Berlin. Yet here we are in the second Chamber of the British Parliament spending two days debating a Bill which will change the composition of this House. That is why I feel a sense of guilt. I believe that it is wholly irrelevant to the needs of this country.
The Government propose to affect the composition of this Chamber without giving any indication of what they regard as the future powers of this House. It is a most extraordinary time for the Government actively to take steps to weaken the House of Lords, which is what they are proposing to do. The noble Lord is frowning at me. He will have an opportunity to explain his frown later this evening.
By removing the right of so many distinguished Members of this House to continue to take part in our proceedings and to be Members of this place, the Government are weakening Parliament. They are doing so at a time when they should be concentrating on other, greater, more significant matters and when we should be debating those issues, not debating this particular Bill.

133
The Bill is before us, however. It has been described as short and simple. As the debates continue and we move on from Second Reading into Committee and then into Third Reading, Government Ministers may well find that it is anything but simple. They have set their hands to something which is immensely profound in altering the composition and nature of this House.
I was grateful, as I am sure were other noble Lords, for the kind remarks of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House concerning hereditary Peers. That is a change—a considerably important one—from her observations when the subject was first raised. It is certainly a change from the observations of the Leader of the other place, who seemed to take great delight in making her views on hereditary Peers abundantly clear.
I should add here that we are not considering the ending of the hereditary principle. Many say we are. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, most eloquently stated, the hereditary principle will continue. I believe that that is the view of Government Ministers. In fact, I ask them: is it their view that the hereditary principle will be supported by Her Majesty's Government in the future? It is not the hereditary principle which is under examination in this Bill; it is the right of anyone to be a member of this House by virtue of heredity. The hereditary principle as such will continue, even after hereditary Peers have ceased to have the right to sit in this place. It is very important to underline that and I hope that Government Ministers will support it because, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, again said, it supports and gives strength to the position of the monarchy in this country.
The question which has to be asked over and over again is what function or what role do the Government see for this House The Royal Commission has asked a large number of questions. One of my noble friends indicated the number. The questions begin by referring to the powers, functions and role of the second Chamber. They do not begin by asking questions about its composition. That indicates to me that the Royal Commission believes that priority should be given in its consideration to the examination of the role, function and powers of this House. Yet we are invited to support the Government in taking a step which will alter fundamentally the composition of this House before we know what they intend shall be the powers and functions of this House. I hope that we shall hear more about the functions that the government foresee for this revised second Chamber before the Bill progresses much further through Parliament.
Some noble Lords—one or two of my noble friends among them—suggest that it would be appropriate to replace the hereditary Peers with a fully elected Chamber. I do not support that view. If this were to be a fully elected House a constituency basis would have to be established for elections; there would have to be some form of electoral procedures; there would have to be some means of paying the Members so elected; and there would be enormous complications resulting in the variations in the election of Members to this House and to another place. There would be a conflict in the mind of the electorate.
134
I believe that it would be wrong to have a fully elected Chamber. But I can see that there might be the opportunity for some element of election to this House. If that were so, then elected Members would find themselves alongside nominated or life appointed Members. I see no difficulty with that. I believe that all Members of this House are first and foremost Members of this House. One of the worst things that could happen would be for Members to come to this House believing that they represent a specific narrow interest, section or faction and speak only to that. That would gravely weaken this House. Therefore, every emphasis should be given during whatever may lie ahead to ensure that those who have the privilege of ultimately serving Parliament through membership of this House recognise that their commitment is to Parliament and not to a narrow sectional interest.
Like other noble Lords who were formerly Members of another place, I have seen changes take place in that House because of the development of a large number of committees and standing committees resulting in much of the interest and debate being taken away from the Floor of the other place. If that were to occur in this House, it would weaken Parliament.
Much needs to be discussed and considered. I find it extraordinary that we have no indication, no hint, of what is in the Government's mind. They must have some vision of the future. They must be able to give some indication of what is going on. They must have discussed it at some stage. Why do they not share that knowledge with this House during the course of the debate?
I said that there might be some elected element to membership of this House in the future. The Bill will give an opportunity for Members who are barred from sitting here by virtue of their being hereditary Peers to be able to stand as candidates for the lower House. It might be a worthwhile proposition, if this House has really effective powers and functions and if it had been the intention of the Government that this should be a strong second Chamber, that Members debarred from entering the House because they are hereditary Peers should be free to seek election to this House as well. There is no reason why that should not happen. If they are going to be debarred from attending this House by right of heredity then that is one bar against their membership. But it should be the only reason why they are excluded for all time. This matter could, I believe. be considered at a later stage.
Most important of all is that this Chamber, whatever happens to it in future, does not become an enfeebled echo of the other place. We now have colour and diversity: do not let us follow a course of action which would introduce drabness and uniformity.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, let me speak to the amendment first, because we are technically discussing that. The noble Lord. Lord Cobbold, stated in his amendment that:
"…this House regrets that the Bill radically alters the historic composition of the House of Lords for party political advantage …".

135
I would say that needs a little bit of rewriting. I would say: "this House rejoices that the Bill moderately alters the historic composition of the House of Lords for party political balance". That is what the Bill does.
The noble Lord then went on to say that this had been done without consultation. I would argue that we not only put this matter in our election manifesto but, if that is not regarded as sufficient, we have put it in every other election manifesto that we have ever had. In addition, there has been widespread consultation in the country for the last 88 years. No one has suggested anything other than that the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote in this Parliament should be removed.
Therefore, I would have been much happier if the noble Lord had, as it were, rejigged this amendment and said that, "After consultation with the electorate and consensus, thanks to 80 years of debate on the reform of the House of Lords", and so on. It is obviously a moderate, modest Bill. I will give it two cheers, but let me say this. Many speeches from noble Lords opposite have suggested, first, that the Bill is small, modest, mean and despicable, and, secondly, that it will do a lot of harm, is enormously important and is very dangerous. I would say: make up your minds!
Obviously what happens—and it happens in a variety of majority cultures—happens between men and women in a patriarchy. What men do is natural, good, honest and truthful by definition and men are always superior to women. Women can never do anything better than men—until of course women challenge and then things happen. We suddenly find that men are not always superior. The same thing happened in the colonies. The British were the best when I was a child because the Indians did not know how to do anything for themselves. Of course, it was the assumption of the system.
Noble Lords opposite assume that what they do is always in the national interest and what we do is in the party political interest. When they have a majority, they look after the nation's interests. When we have a majority, it is an elective dictatorship. That is an interesting contrast. Therefore, whatever this Government did, even if they had incorporated all the various suggestions made by noble Lords opposite, it would not have been right because it is this Government who are doing it.
I have been surprised by the rather tepid response by noble Lords opposite. Not one of them has defended the right of hereditary Peers to sit. What has happened to English romanticism? I could have done a better job, but I have other things to do right now.
The best that noble Lords opposite can do is to say, "We do not defend the hereditary principle but we do not like this Bill. It does not go far enough. It does not do everything holistically in one stage. We are only reforming the House of Lords and not the House of Commons, local government and everything else as well.".
I had a post-colonial education in England, as I have often said. I was always taught that the great genius of the British was that they never made changes by using
136
jumbo-big, architectural schemes but rather, they always do things bit by bit. That is a good pragmatic philosophy.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said that pragmatism is all right if used in a small way as the Conservatives do, but pragmatism is bad when adopted by the Labour Party because, obviously, 'too much harm is done by being pragmatic. This Bill is extremely pragmatic for the simple reason that it has been shown, since 1911, that anybody who tries to introduce a two-stage Bill will not succeed. If noble Lords have read the history carefully and reflected on it, they will know that there is a better approach. It is like railway privatisation in that the problem must be "unbundled" and dealt with in two stages.
Noble Lords opposite do not like the fact that it is going to work this time. That is the beauty of doing it in two stages. That is precisely the point of not discussing the second stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Eden, asked: what are the Government's intentions; what are they hiding? The Government intend to have a Royal Commission and for that Royal Commission to consult the people. The Royal Commission will decide what the shape of the second stage will be. As regards the first stage, there has been a consensus for 88 years. Nobody from the party opposite has ever said that the hereditary Peers should stay for ever.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not believe that the noble Lord could have been in the Chamber when I spoke because I certainly defended the principle that hereditary Peers should stay and I suggest that tomorrow, he should read what I said in Hansard.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I have not been here throughout all the speeches. I shall look forward to reading that speech tomorrow in Hansard. With that one exception from a life Peer, which I welcome, we have not had a good defence of the hereditary principle.
There has been a string of proposals from the party opposite—from the noble Lords, Lord Carrington, Lord Home and so on. It has been agreed that hereditary peerages should not survive. Therefore, the first stage is beyond controversy. We are all agreed on that. There is a national consensus and agreement on that. So let us get the first stage out of the way.
However, we are not agreed on the second stage, so let us consult. As regards the second stage, I do not agree with what is said in the White Paper and I have said so. That is partly why I give the Bill only two cheers. The Bill is short, but not short enough. I would remove the word "hereditary" everywhere that it appears as an adjective for "peerage" and then the Bill would be perfectly satisfactory for me.
I want all peerages to go. Ideally, I want a directly elected Chamber. I said that many years ago and I say it again today. I say to my noble friend Lord Plant, who made an excellent speech, that in order to show independence of party political influence perhaps a

137
directly elected Chamber should be modified by a Cross-Bench element. As I said in my speech on the White Paper, the Cross-Bench life Peers are the only people who should be allowed to stay. The rest should compete for Parliament, or do whatever else they wish in their spare time. I believe that there should be 120 Cross-Bench Peers and 240 elected Peers, making a total of 360. Whether or not the Bishops should stay is a matter of taste, and my taste is low in that respect, so I will go no further on that.
Therefore, there would be a moderate House with 360 to 385 Members and it would work perfectly well. There has been talk of 700 years of history, and so on, but in 1788, when Pitt the Younger entered the House of Commons, the membership of this House was only 290. The expansion has occurred due to the number of Peers created in the 19th and 20th centuries. Let us get rid of all that and return to a smaller House which will be efficient and a good thing. This Bill is the beginning of that reform.
11.26 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I am sure he will forgive me if I do not agree with everything that he has said.
First, I want to say how pleased I was to hear the gracious words about hereditary Peers from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. That was quite a tonic.
I believe in the concept of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As a result, I regard with deep suspicion and doubt anything that seems to diminish that and break the unwritten contract which is our constitution. Devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are in progress. Reform of the House of Lords is another link in the chain which is being broken without, it seems, any real concern for the consequences. Viable reform, as so many have said, requires a comprehensive reassessment of the parliamentary functions, powers, composition and procedures of both Houses.
I believe in the force and power of tradition. The mood in the country today—one might almost call it a mania—is all for modernisation. Tradition is misunderstood everywhere and, therefore, misrepresented as something stuffy, sterile and primitive, a useless relic from a bygone era. It is also regarded as hidebound and inflexible.
That misrepresentation is perverse and probably deliberate. However, it is contemporary decrees, diktats, and the many invented ideologies of our time which are stultifying and exclusive. Tradition, on the other hand, is flexible, adaptable and living, for it is not the dead letter of ideology, from wherever it comes, but the spirit that gives life. Therefore, it is the traditionalist alone who has the scope to be truly inventive, precisely because he understands what has gone before.
Tradition and freedom are parts of the same whole and they must, like friendship, be kept constantly in good repair. The way in which we do things says a great deal about who we are and what we want. I am an hereditary Peer. What does that mean? To some people, particularly within this Palace, it means nothing at all.
138
To me it means that I am lucky enough to have been born to succeed to a title. That makes me proud and most definitely not in any way apologetic. I have privileges, but also duties—and for me, as for a great many other noble Lords, it brings with it a certain desire to serve, and that I have tried to do to the best of my ability for most of my life.
Working and, one might legitimately say, particularly tonight, almost residing in this wonderful building with its overwhelming feel of living tradition has been for me an enormous privilege. Lucky me! Quite clearly, too lucky me in the eyes of a Labour Government bent on changing everything in their power, particularly if it is old and especially if it works well.
It is strange—is it not?—that in Britain today, when every citizen is almost desperately concerned for his or her rights to be upheld and jumps headfirst into litigation if those rights are in any way challenged or impugned, we are having our rights taken away from us and our descendants, not because it is part of a reform package, but because of what seems to be part of a deep-down and no doubt deeply felt desire for revenge. Revenge for what?
The contempt shown for Members of this House and for all its works, particularly its reviewing and revising activities, by members of this Government betrays, it seems to me, a simple envy regarding something and some people who dare to be different. But, stay, is this primitive urge to change and destroy really a true reflection of the motives driving this Bill, I ask myself. What if there is a different scenario? Suppose this contemptuous attitude, so unnecessary if this was a genuine desire for reform, is actually directed at the House of Lords itself and not at us poor hereditaries whose powers are really not that great. Some Socialist manifestos in the recent past have been much more forthright—in 1983, one stated:
"to take action to abolish the un-democratic House of Lords as quickly as possible, and as an interim measure to introduce a bill in the first session of Parliament to remove its legislative powers".
I believe that this Government, with their manifest desire to control everything and everybody, would really like to rule by decree and media leak, to have a completely subservient House of Commons and no House of Lords at all. Even an emasculated House of Lords would put a brake on the Government, and this they claim they do not want at all.
I find a certain parallel with the activities of the Parliament in the 1640s and 1650s. Trouble with the House of Lords? Abolish it. Trouble with the House of Commons? Suspend it. Trouble with the King? Chop off his head. What is the end result? A Lord Protector? A President? Or a Lord Destroyer? Fanciful I may be, but I am talking about power and an old apposite cliché—power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.
With the hereditaries gone, where is the underlying stability for this country? What is left to provide the essential backbone? The monarchy? The Labour manifesto said there are no "plans" to change the monarchy. That might be thought in the present atmosphere of vandalism to be a touch equivocal. I call

139
on the noble Lord the Minister to say whether that means that there is no threat, and never will be a threat, to the monarchy by any Labour administration.
Too many of our fellow citizens were beguiled by the phrase "Education, education, education". May I suggest that for all our sakes "Stability, stability, stability" would be a most welcome watchword? This formerly united and stable kingdom is rapidly and disastrously being demolished. We hereditaries are a small but significant part of that process. When we go, it is vital to the House and hence our constitution that the right answers are found. Therefore, I welcome the appointment of the Royal Commission. Function first, then composition. Do the Government care? I believe that at least some still believe in the eventual abolition of the second Chamber and I am very worried indeed for the future of this sceptred isle.
11.35 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Benches opposite believe that they can view the massed ranks of protests from this side of your Lordships' House with complete indifference. They believe we will object in principle but do nothing in practice. That is because they believe they have read our minds about this Bill, and that we have concluded that it is either wrong to oppose it because of the Salisbury convention; or futile because of the Parliament Act.
But suppose that by some chance they were mistaken in that judgment. Then they could become embroiled in what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House memorably called a "pitched battle". Can that be prevented?
The deep problem is mutual suspicion. The Government believe that our Benches are insincere when we say we welcome reform. They believe we only want to delay because then, as the saying goes, "the horse might sing". The Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said as much in relation to the timing of this debate today, about which he suggested we complained for no reason other than,
"the simple desire to hold up progress on the Bill".—[Official Report, 17/3/99; col. 733.]
For our part, we believe it is the Government Benches that are insincere when they say they welcome reform. We suspect that they only want stage one and there will never be a stage two. As Dr. Fox, our constitutional spokesman, said in another place, the idea is,
"to scrap the hereditary peers"—
the Tory majority—and then,
"kick the whole process into the long grass".—[Official Report, Commons. 1/2/99; col. 619.]
Would it be completely naïve to suspend disbelief just for a moment and consider the remote possibility that both sides of the House may be sincere in wanting reform? If that were true—that is, that each accepted the sincerity of the other—then perhaps we could come to an agreement. Was that not the insight of my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the Prime Minister? Did not those two exceptional men, from wholly different political backgrounds, briefly conclude that there is
140
more that brings us together than separates us? Can we go further? Can we build on what they did? We should try because, as the Leader of the House of Commons said, the Government would prefer to proceed by consensus. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, this House usually tries to proceed by agreement.
But why should the Benches opposite agree? They have the power; they can proceed by force. They do not need agreement. I suggest that there are two motives for seeking agreement, and as is often the case, one is emotional and the other practical. The first, the emotional reason, is in fact guilt, because they want to do the right thing and deep down they know it is wrong to create a House of Lords, even for a few weeks—even for a day—over which the Prime Minister of the day has total power. The Prime Minister's office already has enough power. They must know in their heart of hearts that it does not make it right to do the wrong thing simply because their intention to do so was included in the small print of their manifesto and noticed by 2 per cent. of the population.
The second reason, the practical political reason, is that the Benches opposite do not wish to repeat the mistake they made in Scotland. Them the Labour Party raised the flag for democracy as a modernising stick with which to beat the Conservative Party, and very effective it was too. But then they found that a supposedly reasonable, small, democratic step, giving more local democracy to the Scots, led to powerful pressure to go the whole way and grant full independence to Scotland. I am sure they must feel the same process starting here in this House. They heard, for example, the Liberal Democrats' constitutional spokesman in another place stating categorically that,
"legitimacy requires a predominantly elected Chamber"
and that 113 MPs of all parties concurred.
They might perceive therefore that they need an agreement to stop something happening that they do not want—an all-elected second Chamber. They will surely then begin to see that if they do not do this job properly and if they leave a half-baked House of prime ministerial patronage, the pressure for a directly democratically elected House of Lords will grow and become irresistible.
So, if for those two reasons, the Government need an agreement, what prevents them seeking one? As I said, it is mutual suspicion. The Government believe that any concession made to this side of the House would only be taken as a device to delay. If it would help to relieve them of that concern, I, for one, would offer my commitment to vote in favour of the Royal Commission's recommendations for this House and to give my metaphorical proxy to my noble friend, Lord Wakeham. I would hope that others might follow. If others did do so, that would truly put the Government's own sincerity to the test. We would all see if they were willing to return the compliment to make a commitment to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or at least to enter into a serious dialogue between the parties about the future of this House. If they did that, then history would surely judge all of us more kindly.

141
I am told that in the normal course this Bill will receive Royal Assent and become law in October. Within 60 days of that date the Royal Commission will report. Is it really necessary to throw away 600 years for 60 days?
11.41 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, it is claimed that your Lordships' House is the oldest legislative assembly in the world and one of which we should be rightly proud, but it is also one of the most undemocratic. As my noble friend Lord Chandos indicated, the Bill before us is based on the need to make this House more democratic. It is not, as has been suggested, being introduced for political expediency. We are the only civilised country in the world (no Commonwealth country, no new democracy, has adopted the practice) where a part of the legislature comprises Members who are there for one reason only—by virtue of birth—and have been born to rule. No one today would dare to invent such a concept.
No one would deny the useful work and role played by your Lordships' House. No one would deny that the House of Commons is far from being a perfect legislature. There is plenty of work for a second Chamber to do, not least in containing the executive. But whatever the usefulness of the present House, this should not be used as an excuse for avoiding, delaying or, as my noble friend Lady Crawley said, derailing the question of reform. The present composition of the House, the imbalance in party strengths, means that the House lacks the legitimacy to resist government effectively.
I recently re-read a fascinating article by Donald Shell, lecturer in politics at Bristol University, in which he imagines the challenge of explaining to a group of East Europeans how the hereditary principle equates with democracy. That is a path I should like to follow having been actively involved in helping a number of the new democracies of east Europe to write their constitutions and establish their parliaments. I felt an empathy with his dilemma. Sometimes it also helps us to try to see our Chamber as other people see us.
How does one explain to a group of young people from, say, the Czech Republic that Britain, which pioneered the development of democracy in other countries, still retains such an archaic and unrepresentative structure? How does one explain logically the case for someone who, by birth—not ability or experience—has the right to participate in our legislative process? I do not believe that that would be found to be an easy task.
As my noble friend the Leader of the House said some hours ago, being a Member of your Lordships' House is a privilege not a right. I am proud to be a Member. It is an amazing atmosphere to work in, and I have always found it: friendly and welcoming. I am sure that I shall miss many friends I have made, but we cannot continue to defend the indefensible.
I return to my young friends from the Czech Republic. I think they would find it strange that not only do we have parliamentarians in this House because of
142
reward given to their forebears, but also that we have continued to accept how little they reflect the cultural diversity of our society being, as they are in the main and by definition, white, upper class and male and possessing little experience of universal education, public healthcare and the housing available to, and used by, most of the population.
The passing of this Bill will, at a stroke, produce a legislative Chamber which goes some way honestly to represent society, not only in terms of background, education and employment but also in respect of gender and ethnicity. Among the hereditary Peers only two come from the ethnic minority communities and only 16 are women.
When there were opportunities to provide a better gender balance they were rejected. I wish to spend a moment illustrating the resistance to achieving that gender balance, which has not yet been referred to except in passing. In 1953 Lord Simon introduced a Bill to create a limited number of life Peers and providing for women to be eligible to be created Lords of Parliament on the same terms as men. During the Second Reading debate one noble Lord, who I think should remain nameless, opposed the Bill because he did not want,
"bossy political women disturbing the peace".
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Too late, my Lords. He went on to say,
"a lot of these ladies have bees under their bonnet".
I can only say that I am glad that we have bees under our bonnets and that because of that we have passed such worthwhile legislation as the sex discrimination and equal pay Acts.
We heard similar sentiments being reiterated during the passage of the Life Peerages Act in 1958, a long time ago, but we heard them again many years later during debate on the Bill of my noble friend Lord Diamond designed to give women a greater chance of inheriting peerages. I wonder how the young Czechs I mentioned would have reacted had they been able to listen to a debate in which more concern was expressed about the expectations of male heirs rather than any thought of equality except for the rather patronising offer that consideration might be given to a female having the right to succeed if the peerage was in danger of becoming extinct. The rejection of that Bill was to me a classic example of a defence of the rights and privileges of the very few.
Having fought for the introduction of parliamentary democracy in their own country, I am sure that the young Czechs would be bewildered at the concept that for half of Parliament the presence of hereditary Peers creates a built-in majority for one political party irrespective of the popular vote. That is not a democracy they would understand.
Noble Lords have illustrated the effects on voting patterns created by the so-called independent Conservatives, so I shall not repeat the figures. I make the point that I have always believed that taking the

143
Whip of a political party aligns one to that party and one ceases to have the right to be considered independent. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said earlier, all Peers, life or hereditary. can withdraw from the Whip at any time they wish.
I came into your Lordships' House in 1993. John Major was the Prime Minister. I believe the intake that year was three Labour, one Liberal Democrat and 10 Conservatives, adding to the Conservatives' already huge majority. Surely that was an example of party political advantage. By contrast, the current Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that rather than packing the House with placemen and women, no one party should have a majority in the future. That will make the House of Lords more independent of any government of any party than it is at the moment. That is one of the reasons why the transitional House will be better. I believe it will also be better because it will be smaller, more representative and will better reflect the society of which it is part. It will also be better, stronger and more legitimate because its Members will have earned their place to participate in this country's legislative process.
In the past 50 years your Lordships' House has seen many changes: the conservation of a sagging House by the introduction of life Peers; women Peers being important Members of our Front Benches; our deliberations being watched by television cameras; procedures being adapted to take account of the increased volume of legislation; and the average working day doubled from four hours in the 1950s to our current average of eight hours. Now we take another step, albeit the first step, to remove its deficit in terms of balance. representativeness and legitimacy—actions that I am sure my friends from the Czech Republic would understand, and actions which are fully supported by 60 per cent. of the public according to a recent MORI poll. In 1908 Lord Rosebery said that the dignity of a Peer and of a Lord of Parliament should be separated. After many attempts, 91 years later, that is to happen.
11.50 p.m.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, the Bill represents a massive constitutional change. It takes something like a massive constitutional change to bring me to inflict myself upon your Lordships, especially at this time of night and especially when the 49 speakers before me have said most of what there is to say. However, it is worth repeating one or two points.
I am astonished that such a massive constitutional change could be brought forward under the protection, as it were, of a manifesto commitment and with the threat of the use of the Parliament Act by a party which, after 18 or so years in the wilderness, comes to power with a large majority which practically ensures the passing of the Bill. I am disturbed by one or two of the comments that have been made in the debate.
I refer specifically to the importance attached by the Government Benches to the bringing to an end of the hereditary principle, which is not I hope what the Bill is about. It is about bringing to an end the right of
144
hereditary Peers to sit in the House, but surely, as the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, said, it is important that the hereditary principle is retained. I am also conscious of the fact that we are not allowed to wait for the recommendations of the Royal Commission. As my noble friend Lord Saatchi rightly asked, what is 60 days after 700 years? For us not to be allowed to take part in the debate on the future constitution of the House after such a time will be regretted by the country as a whole.
In the transitional period, some of the hereditary Peers will be allowed to stay. I do not count myself among the top 200, let alone the 91. My father was one of the last four hereditary Peers to be created, apart from former Speakers and so on. I did not have long to think that one day I would be a Member of this House. In fact, my father died within nine years of becoming an hereditary Peer, and because of illness he hardly attended the House. I did not have behind me centuries of anticipation by my ancestors of becoming a Member of the House. So it was with a certain incredulity that I came to your Lordships' House. That was probably when I realised what an anachronism was. Until then I probably did not know what an anachronism was. It has been a most instructive and valuable experience from my point of view and also, I hope, from the point of view of your Lordships' House.
It is 25 years since my noble friend Lord Radnor and I made our maiden speeches from these Benches. I am one of your Lordships' Back-Benchers. I attend meetings outside the House and upstairs in the House more than I attend debates on the Floor of the House. Nonetheless, if the Bill passes into law, I hope I shall take away some very happy memories.
The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, who is no longer in his place, referred to change. In my book there is one inevitability in life, and that is change. However, when change is imposed without proper management, it can be extremely damaging and destructive. If the Bill goes through, as seems inevitable, the House will go through a period of very destructive change. I believe that it is only the unexpected that happens in politics, so perhaps there will be a rosy-fingered dawn. You never know.
11.56 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, we have heard some excellent thought-provoking speeches from all sides of the Chamber, very many of them from hereditary Peers. I feel quite diffident as one of only a very few independent life Peers to be speaking at all in this Second Reading debate.
I have been thinking about how things might appear to a future independent Member. The Prime Minister has stressed that the new second Chamber should have a strong independent element. I was very fortunate to become a life Peer. It was awarded as an honour for my part in the Gulf conflict. I feel very privileged to have been given this mark of esteem. But there is no obligation, even if the wording of Her Majesty's summons strikes a chord of obligation, to attend at all, let alone regularly. It is the interest of this place and all it involves which keeps me here. And when one brings a guest, it is a great experience for them.

145
The place is redolent with our history. It captures the imagination. There are wonders to behold, wherever you look. The Library is fantastic. And, seriously, the House is a working part of Parliament. It does its job as the second Chamber in an effective and widely acceptable way.
I enjoy the subject of politics. I have always taken an interest in it even though I have never had any desire to fight for a seat in Parliament. I have served the government of the day over many years in my profession, so much so that my loyalty to the government of the day was more important than casting my vote at a general election. I never voted while I was in the services. Now I cannot! My five years on the Science and Technology Select Committee has been a great experience. I have relished the work. It is stimulating. It often has some impact for good. But now we peer into the unknown.
We face change in two stages. This Bill addresses only the first. That is wrong, as so many other noble Lords have stated. What is not clear is how the new independent element, a responsible and respected cohort, is to be found. If we continue the present life Peer arrangements will their like be attracted to serve as independents in the second Chamber? What is here today will no longer be. Its living history, its sense of continuity, its mix of individuals, the unique way that we do our business, will all change. Even the dropping of the title "the Lords" to describe the Second Chamber is significant.
Some assert that the best of what is the Lords will remain. I doubt it, apart from the red carpets and the leather seatings and these marvellous surroundings, and, it is to be hoped. the great Doorkeepers and Attendants. With a sizeable body of elected Members, with their commitment to their particular party, the second Chamber will come to mirror the other place, not this place as it today. We may start without a Mr. Speaker, but will that last?
Even today we have to be reminded, and not all seem able to remember, what our self-regulation requires to keep not only the Lord Chairman of Committees happy, but the Chamber itself able to deal with its work. So I muse, were it possible (I am not of course suggesting that it should be, I am fantasising to make a point) to be offered an appointed, independent seat in the other place, how attractive would that be, without the gravitas, without the special atmosphere which is the Lords? In The Times on 1st June 1988, the late Lord Wyatt of Weeford wrote,
"Many industrialists, businessmen, vice-chancellors, heads of colleges and others distinguished in their fields would not accept peerages in a House of Lords bereft of the romance of dukes, marquesses, earls and other hereditary peers.
"The glamour of the Lords is a factor in the enterprise culture in which one notable achievement is to become a Lord. This is now enhanced because for long it's been impossible to buy a peerage and its bestowal must seem to be recognition of merit. If the Lords was composed of the meritocracy without the aristocracy, many meritocrats would think the place not worthwhile. It is impossible to start a meaningful House of Lords with a clean slate, because it has evolved as a changing part of British life, like the Monarchy".
146
In his journal, Lord Wyatt says that this article was praised and endorsed by a number of your Lordships. Noble Lords, particularly independent life Peers, may like to ponder how they would have reacted if the second Chamber to which they were offered appointment were more like that down the corridor.
It would be nice to know whether the Prime Minister's concept of a strong independent element is a continuation of what we have today without the hereditaries, or whether it is to be a quite different beastie. I fear that it will not be the former. The appointments commission can choose only from those who are keen and willing to serve.
Finally, I wish to record my undying admiration for the role that the hereditaries have discharged for centuries right up to the present day. Their contribution to the good governance of the country has been remarkable, as the history books will surely record. It has all been done out of a strong sense of duty to the Monarch and their country. They should be thanked mightily by all. It saddens me when some of those who cannot wait a moment for their departure seem to take a vicarious pleasure in demeaning the hereditaries' contribution. It is not right. Their contribution has flowed from what in the catch-word of the moment, but none the less deserved for that, might be termed institutionalised duty.
Let the knockers desist. Let them show the appreciation which is called for, or at least keep their mouths shut. I salute the hereditaries. The country has been well served by them. With no clear path to a new Second Chamber, it is premature to ditch that which we have. As my remarks have indicated, I favour the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
12.4 a.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I support the Bi11. However, I should have been happier if, instead, the Government had merely taken out the 1968 Bill, dusted it down, updated it, brought it in and pushed it through. I say that because that Bill was based on cross-party agreement and not on a sentence in a party manifesto, which I confess I did not read. In fact, I would not think of reading such a piece of literature.
I have no problem with the hereditary Peers. In my 20 years in this House, I have worked with them perfectly happily and made if not close friendships at least acquaintanceships. One of my noble friends spoke earlier about ancestor worship. While she was speaking, I was looking at the Liberal Democrat Benches opposite, where the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, was sitting. I remember his grandfather, who was a beacon of the socialist movement when I was young, in the days of what was then known as "red Clydeside". Every time I see the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, which I often do as we are colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, I am reminded of his grandfather, David Kirkwood, and of my own roots and past. That is not ancestor worship; it is ancestor admiration, and it is not all that bad.

147
The problem is not one of hereditary Peers but one of arithmetic. In a formative part of my political life, I was a government Whip in another place and was therefore schooled in a somewhat brutal view of politics. I believe the arithmetic of this House is the key, not the heredity element. We have been very philosophical until now, but let us fantasise for a moment. Suppose it had come about that the vast majority of hereditary Peers, several hundred of them, had been not Conservatives but Labour. I imagine that when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, then Mrs Thatcher, came to power in 1979 she would have dealt with that situation pretty promptly. She would have looked at it arithmetically, as I would have done, and we should not be having this debate now. That thought puts the matter into perspective.
Looking ahead, I do not fancy working towards an elected Chamber. That is because I have seen elections in operation, in this country and elsewhere. We have confused "democracy" with "election", as though an election naturally leads to democracy. It does not. You will recall the doctrine of elective dictatorship put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It can be a real thing. It is certainly electoral, but it is not democratic. It is too easy. Our present electoral system has resulted in not one Conservative MP in Scotland or Wales. Some of us might rejoice in that. It is electoral, but it is not democratic. The Scots and the Welsh are entitled to two or three Conservatives MPs, if only to abuse them!
The system of elections is to be reformed by having closed lists and things of that nature. Closed lists may well be electoral, but they are not very democratic. I am what one might call an unenthusiastic admirer of elections, though I do like democracy.
Let me turn to the Bill and mention two matters. The first is what might be called the Weatherill amendment—or perhaps the Cranborne accord. I do not believe that we have seen it yet, but there has been a good deal of talk about it over a substantial period. It allows 91 hereditary Peers to survive in the following proportions: 42 Conservative; two Labour; three Liberal Democrat; and 28 Cross-Bench. I have in my hand a chart from tonight's Evening Standard which many noble Lords may well have seen. It is said that my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who is the hardest worker, will probably go. That would be a great pity. As a fellow civil engineer, he is an ornament to this House and should remain. But what I find interesting about the table is that part which describes the most active 91 hereditary Peers. That is the figure which is booted about. It turns out that of those 91 hereditary Peers, 12 are Labour, 49 Conservative, 12 Liberal Democrat and 18 Cross-Bench. That does not really fit with the figures that have been put before us.
I do not object to the Conservatives having 42 because that is reasonably close to their 49. I do not object to the Cross-Benches having 28, although that is substantially more than 18. But the Labour and Liberal Democrat hereditary Peers are due more than two and three and probably should have a dozen apiece. I sincerely hope that when the Weatherill amendment
148
appears it will be amended along those lines, if not by anybody else certainly by me. We will have an interesting debate upon it.
I turn next to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I believe that it would be acceptable were it changed slightly. It suggests that,
"the Bill radically alters the historic composition of the House of Lords for party political advantage".
I believe that instead of "for party political advantage" it should read "to redress improper party political disadvantage". That would make his amendment quite acceptable.
I conclude by referring to a matter alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in his extremely elegant speech, as we have come to expect of him during the four years that we have known him. Although he did not want it, he hinted that phase one might last. I sincerely hope that it does, for the very simple reason that the 1911 solution was supposed to be phase one but lasted for quite a time. Incidentally, it did not ever suggest what phase two would be. Therefore, a good deal of the current dispute about having phase one without phase two being put before us is fantasy. I believe that phase one should remain. Whatever the commission comes up with—and I believe that it will produce something pretty ingenious—it will be no better than phase one; possibly it will be worse. I do not go as far as to commend the Bill to the House, but I support it and hope that it proceeds relatively quickly with the Cranborne-Weatherill accord amended along the lines as I have hinted.
12.14 a.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Waddington and others on these Benches and the Cross-Benches, I cannot help feeling that this is a somewhat mean-minded little Bill, the introduction of which owes more to a kind of messianic fervour cloaked in democratic sheep's clothing than to sound common sense. Along with Scottish devolution and other matters, it aims to cause a further quantum leap in the unpicking and destabilisation of the British constitution. Further, we are led to believe that provided we, the hereditary Peers, go quietly a small rump will be permitted to remain, albeit for a year or so, although many of us suspect that it will probably be for rather longer than that. I certainly do not believe that we should go quietly.
I shall reserve my judgment on the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment, but I believe that we should preserve the conventions of this House, at least for the present, and give the Bill a Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold has given us the opportunity to do this with dignity and I have no difficulty, indeed I have pleasure, in supporting his amendment.
Like many noble Lords, I am astounded by the Government's arrogance in treating a major constitutional matter in much the same way as any other Bill. This could be a Bill on dog licensing or on newt-fishing rights, for all the difference it seems to make.

149
I am sure that the Government are aware that there may be some technical challenges to this Bill as it progresses. I want to pick on just one or two of these and consider the consequences of any such challenge. I want to fantasise, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie said.
I cannot say that all the technical arguments which are likely to be advanced are legally watertight; but if any of them are—and certainly some of them are—the Government have problems. My noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Chesham both touched on the matter of Letters Patent. My noble friend Lord Norrie first raised this in the debate on the White Paper. He said:
"I have a right to a seat, a place and a voice in the parliaments and assemblies in the United Kingdom, according to Letters Patent, which are not revocable by Parliament or any other authority in this state".—[Official Report, 22/2/99; col. 911.]
In other words, he sits, as do all hereditary Peers, by reason and virtue of a personal undertaking, in the form of Letters Patent, given to his forebear by the Sovereign of the time and such—I shall call it a compact—is irrevocably binding and inures to the benefit of the heirs of both parties.
The Bill now before the House commences with the words:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
I find that rather strange. It seems to be simply a statement and doe' not require an Act of Parliament to make it so. I cannot help but agreed with it. No one is a Member of this House simply by virtue of a hereditary peerage. For example, no holder of an Irish peerage is allowed to sit in this House by virtue of his hereditary peerage. That is not what permits the hereditary Peers here present to enjoy their position. What entitles a hereditary Peer to sit in this House is the possession of Letters Patent.
I repeat my noble friend Lord Norrie's assertion that he and I, and those like me, sit in this House as a result of a personal compact with the Sovereign, which is not revocable by a Bill such as that before the House. In fact it may not be revocable by any Bill at all. It is even questionable whether it is revocable by mutual consent between the Peer and the Sovereign, since both are only life tenants, as my noble friend Lord Chesham said, of rights and obligations which are unassignable.
The Bill before us, however, seems to recognise its own flaws because it makes the assumption, quite correctly in my view, that even when the Bill is passed hereditary Peers will all continue to sit in the House after the passing of the Bill. Therefore, to sweep them out it employs the mechanism of terminating their Writs. That is fine. The Bill possibly can make it legal to terminate an existing Writ. The Peer whose Writ is withdrawn would seem to me to be within his rights to demand a new one. By custom and usage, a Peer who is the beneficiary of Letters Patent has the right to a Writ, unless he is either bankrupted, convicted of treason or mad. The Bill does not address that point, largely. I suspect, because it cannot.
The Government. in their usual arrogant way, will bulldoze this Bill through, with or without the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment. They may, come the
150
opening of the next Session of Parliament, give orders to the doorkeepers to deny access to hereditary Peers, or at any rate those who are not members of the "rump". The problem if they do so, however, is that there must arise the question as to whether the House, and therefore Parliament itself, is properly constituted, since the Government would be excluding the beneficiaries of binding Letters Patent. If this contention is correct, then it is questionable whether any subsequent legislation can be validly enacted. Constitutional legitimacy rests in the trinity of Parliament as a whole: the Commons, the Lords and the Sovereign. If any part thereof is improperly constituted, then the whole is bereft of its authority and any legislation passed henceforth could be subject to challenge in the courts. This would in turn produce the extraordinary anomaly that the highest court in the land could also be bereft of its authority since it could be a committee of an improperly constituted House of Lords.
If my contention—I am far from alone in contending it—is valid, then the Bill should fall.
There is also the question as to whether the Government can reasonably ask the Sovereign to sign into law a Bill which breaches some 750 contracts to which she herself is a party by succession. Recent governments of both persuasions have already mucked about with the contract law in the housing field. So far as I know, however, no Bill has heretofore put the monarch in the position of being required to change the law to allow unilateral changes to contracts to which she herself is directly a party.
The conclusion which follows these arguments—the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, touched on it—is that, contrary to popular belief, there may actually be an immovable and immutable brake on constitutional change in this country. That brake may be the hereditary peerage; and if, as I suspect, it is possible that no legislative process could remove them, then it is, de facto, the ultimate guardian of both the constitution and of the residual powers and privileges of the Sovereign. That is an awesome responsibility, which hereditary Peers would have a duty both to discharge and to protect against an overbearing executive.
I do not wish, and I know that most of my hereditary colleagues do not wish, in any way to impede genuine constitutional progress, improvement and modernisation. But a less arrogant government would have approached the entire matter from a different perspective. Instead of regarding the hereditary Peers, notwithstanding a few modest pats on the back from noble Lords opposite, as a gang of reactionary eccentrics and leisure park operators, they should have come directly to the hereditary Peers and ascertained whether they were voluntarily prepared to restrict their rights. It might well be that they would have been prepared to do so as they were in 1968, and still would be if the Government withdrew this deeply flawed and offensive Bill.
I suggest that hereditary Peers might well be prepared to undertake the role of a standing committee on the constitution and to use their votes only on a restricted basis on other matters according to, perhaps, a new

151
constitutional convention which could be drawn up by—who better?—my noble friend Lord Cranborne, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and an appointee of the Government Front Bench. In the meantime, my noble friend Lord Wakeham and his Royal Commission should perhaps have a contingency plan to decide who should sit in this House alongside the hereditary Peers rather than instead of them.
This is, of course, all idle speculation. Her Majesty's Government will dismiss it as wishful and reactionary thinking. When they finally bar the doors to the hereditary Peers, they could well find that their authority and the legitimacy of subsequent legislation is called into question in the courts. My Lords, they have been warned.
12.22 a.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, this little Bill with the deadly sting of a scorpion concerns the composition of this House. What is the point of altering the composition when the future role of the House has not been decided? The role of the House will probably be influenced by devolution, and certainly by the Royal Commission which as yet has not even sat.
Government thinking regarding this Bill is completely back to front. In fact the situation is so bizarre that anyone must wonder whether it is a case of muddled thinking by the Government or part of a sinister ploy. My suspicions are that the Government's immediate priority is to weaken the second Chamber by altering its composition so that they can then steamroller their ideas for the reform of this House through Parliament; or, if it suits them, come to the conclusion (as has happened in the past) that the matter is so complex that it must be shelved. Either way, having altered the composition of the House by virtue of this Bill, Ministers will become more powerful, and Parliament will become sidelined. Indeed, a situation such as this would have the great danger of leading to abuse of power. Abuse of power, as history tells us, often brings disaster in its wake.
Before supporting this Bill, one has to be convinced that it will lead to a more efficient second Chamber. In fact until the Government can state categorically the reasons why the workings of this House will be improved, this Bill will continue to lack all credibility. So far we have heard very little from the Government on this matter.
The people of this country feel that this House is doing a good job. Why, therefore, do the Government bring this Bill before us? Let us be honest: the reason is that there are too many Conservative hereditary Peers today who can pass through the Division Lobbies. So let us be constructive. There is a way to overcome this problem without taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut, as the Bill does. It can be done by limiting the number of Conservative hereditary Peers who can sit and vote. A certain number of those Peers could be elected to sit and vote. they would be elected by all Conservative hereditary Peers as representatives, rather like the Scottish representative Peers used to be elected. Election of Scottish representative Peers came in under the Act of Union and continued right up until 1963.
152
Those Conservative hereditary Peers not elected would be denied voting rights. However, there is no reason why any of them who so wish should not sit and speak in your Lordships' House. Indeed this would be desirable, because any Conservative hereditary Peer could stand for election at the next election. After the initial election there would be a further election each time there was a new Parliament.
One of the great merits of adopting this course of action would be to cause the minimum constitutional upheaval and would leave the whole matter of the reform of this House wide open until at least after the Royal Commission had reported. If the Government were to amend this Bill to accommodate this idea I would have little objection to the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, who follows me, has even more experience of the election of Scottish representative Peers than I do, and I hope he will say something on this subject.
I have tried to suggest that a very fair way of limiting the voting rights of Conservative hereditary Peers could be achieved by amending this Bill and would still leave the House as an effective second Chamber until such time as full reform of the House could be considered. If the Government would do this I would support them. If the Government are unwilling to amend the Bill to bring about this change, one has to conclude that this Bill as it stands will do absolutely nothing to improve the working of Parliament. If that is the case, the Government should think again before proceeding further with the Bill. They simply have not thought through the reform of this House, and it is another instance of the Government having ideas but being unable to think things through.
Absolutely no government have the right, even under the guise of modernisation, casually to cast away any of our great institutions which have served our nation so well. My ancestor first sat in Parliament in 1445. I support the amendment.
12.29 a.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I am happy to be following a fellow Scot and I shall try later to touch on the points he raised.
The Bill we are considering today and tomorrow has only one great merit; namely, its brevity. I shall follow its example by making only two points.
Constitutional change is in the air. We face the possibility of the break-up of Great Britain and, at best, its division into four parts—and the central Westminster Parliament is to be divided into two Houses. I believe that the year 2005 is rather optimistic for that. Even that may be changed if Scotland opts for independence, which I much hope will not be the case.
Again, there is also our role in Europe. That is an important constitutional issue. I hope that we shall contribute to Europe in an appropriate way.
But today we are considering change in the composition and powers of our House. Anyone who studied the debate last week on democracy initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—and I recommend its study by all noble Lords—will know that things in the Commons are also changing; for example, its ways,

153
its procedure and its powers. It is a very different House of Commons from that which existed 40 years ago. I suppose that is due partly to the advent of television, spin doctors and so on.
I repeat that constitutional change is in the air, wherever we look. That takes me to my first point. Whatever may be the respective powers of the two Houses, the Lords must—I underline the word "must"—retain the power of veto over any Bill which seeks to extend the life of the Commons. Page 24 of Modernising Parliament Reforming the House of Lords is intended to mean that, and the Cabinet Office agrees with that. But we must remember that we are legislating for many, many years to come. Therefore, I ask the Government to confirm that the power of veto will remain in the hands of this House; and the best way to achieve that is by statutory amendment to that effect.
My second point concerns Scotland's position in the modernisation process. There is an all-party association of Scottish Peers, generally known as the Scottish Peers Association. Its origin lies in the Act of Union of 1707. Because there were too many Scottish Peers relative to the number of English Peers, it was agreed that we should elect only 16 of our number to watch out for and take care of all matters affecting Scotland. In 1963, as your Lordships have already heard, a change was made by which all Scottish Peers became UK Peers. Some of us protested, foreseeing what possibly lay ahead. However, it went ahead, and the 16 Peers have vanished as representative Peers. Indeed, I suspect that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who was part of that regime.
With the experience of the Scottish Peers Association, I am very much afraid that Scottish affairs may suffer neglect in this House because most members of the Scottish Peers Association are hereditary Peers.
We are minded to submit a paper on this point to the Wakeham Royal Commission. I shall say no more, except to stress to the Leader of the House that this is a matter of real importance and to express the hope that a way around it may be found in any reform.
I have one last, unplanned point. I refer to the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Not only was it very good, but it was potentially very important. I read it as a potential olive branch, giving the House a chance to achieve what we all want: the proper and fair role and composition of the two Houses. He suggested a date by which that could be achieved, the year 2005. I beg the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Cross-Benchers to study that speech and to follow it up in the hope that the Government will recognise that it could be a basis for the olive branch blossoming into what we all want, to the great benefit of our country.
12.37 a.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I rise with a great sense of humility and of sadness because, with the passing of the Bill, we shall be losing both friends and colleagues. I have made my views clear in previous speeches, and I do not intend to go over old ground. Above all, I do not intend to reiterate what various noble Lords have
154
said about the hereditary peerage. To do so would simply be patronising, and I do not think that that would be appropriate.
I was deeply impressed by many speeches from hereditary Peers, particularly the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. They advocated the abolition of the hereditary peerage. I am a life Peer, and as a life Peer it is not easy for me to be objective about the abolition of a different category of Peer. It is a strange situation to be in. It is not easy to be objective about things that do not directly concern me. I can put myself in the position of the hereditary Peers only by thinking how I would feel if I were called upon to support the abolition of the life Peers. In many ways I would feel easier about voting in that direction because I would be taking responsibility for myself and not for others. In fact, I believe that we may well be in that position in due course and that we may well have to vote for our own abolition. I recognise that we have to face that, and possibly quite soon.
My key problem in voting for the Bill is not just that we would be voting for reform, which I believe is undoubtedly and clearly needed—reform is good—but that, effectively, we may be voting for revolution. There is a risk that any such constitutional reform, even that which is most carefully controlled, well thought out and orchestrated, could lead to totally unpredictable consequences for which our democracy and government did not wish or even envisage. Inevitably, one must also be concerned about, and must think through carefully, how the law, the Church and, indeed, the monarchy would be placed with the passing of the Bill.
We do not seem to have an absolutely clear idea of what we want from our bicameral system. We do not fully understand what we need our second Chamber to do. That is a serious issue. It would be best to have a strategy, a mission statement for the House, and, indeed, a job description for the occupants of the House.
The basic problem for me is the very random nature of the life peerage. Let us make no bones about it: we talk glibly, and we hear glib talk, about hereditary Peers not contributing. Many life Peers do not contribute either. Many seem to use this House as a resting place. There has been a tradition on all sides of the House that this is a good place to lodge people who have perhaps extended their usefulness in a different place.
However, I am also conscious that I feel genuinely unfit in many ways to be a life Peer. I have said before in this House that I know very many doctors and scientists who are undoubtedly more qualified than I for membership of this House. I recognise that there is a random nature about my appointment. That very much concerns me because I believe that if we are eventually to end up with a predominantly unelected House, we must consider how to get the best expertise into this House because it then becomes an expert revising Chamber. It has been a real privilege for me to be part of one of your Lordships' expert Select Committees, the Select Committee on Science and Technology. When I sit in that committee I do not know who is a hereditary Peer, who is a life Peer, who is Labour and who is Conservative. It does not matter. I see a group of people

155
who are using their expertise to arrive at decisions which benefit and affect the Government. That seems a fine tradition.
The problem about being a life Peer like myself in one's 50s—I believe that to be a very good age to be a life Peer because one is in one's prime—is that one is constantly compromising. It is a constant juggle. It is extremely difficult to get here, to vote, to contribute and to be effective. I recognise that I am even more diluted and even less effective as a life Peer than I was before becoming a member of this House. However, I also feel that if I am useful at all, it is because I have training, expertise and a background in science which may contribute in some way to the working of Parliament. Generally, we cannot get that from an elected Chamber. That is a difficult consideration.
As I have said, many successful scientists and doctors are much better placed than I for membership of this House, but they would not be encouraged to become Members, even if asked, because of the requirement to take sides—to take the Whip. I wonder whether, if we were to have a largely unelected Chamber, we should consider the possible removal of the Whip because that would demonstrate the independence of the House.
Let us have no more talk of class war, rancour or arrogance. Those words do not sit well. They diminish Parliament. We are not here for personal reasons or to vote because we have certain feelings about class. We are here surely because we want to promote good government for the benefit of our nation.
In the second century there was a great rabbi, Rabbi Hillel, who, it is said in the Mishna, a book of the Talmud, saw a skull floating on the water. He said to the skull, "Because you have drowned others, they have drowned thee. And at last they that have drowned you will in turn themselves be drowned".
Let us recognise that we cannot continue our discussions with rancour. We have to do what is best for the nation. We are not drowning; we are reforming. We are not committing a crime; we are trying to do something which is best for our democracy and for the health of the nation. In a modern democracy, however we look at it, it is now absolutely clear that we cannot defend the principle of a hereditary peerage. I shall support the Bill.
12.45 a.m.
Lord Denman: My Lords, at this late hour, I shall not detain the House for long. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Eden who described so graphically how Britain faces the world tonight. I do not believe that sufficient emphasis has been given to the cataclysmic events. The events inside Europe, starting with the Strasbourg-Brussels problems, which are deeply acute, are a national disaster.
I have never been through a hurricane, but I am told that when they build up it is customary, when the damage is assessed, for countries to declare a national emergency in order to deal with all the aftermath and the problems. I suggest that this is very much the
156
situation in which we now find ourselves and I am astonished that this House is discussing the reform of the House against this appalling background.
It is necessary for this House to join with the other place in order to work out a unified policy for dealing with these crises. That would be an extension of the work done by the Prime Minister last week, which must have been superficial. What one can acquire and do in only one day must be trivial.
To achieve what I have in mind would mean our adopting exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, suggested; that is, to have dissent across the Floor of the House removed. That can be done in the case of a national emergency. The Conservative Peers would be willing to retract from their present position; to take leave of absence or relinquish their voting powers, in order to achieve a settlement of the dreadful situation which is in front of us.
12.47 a.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, if axed as an hereditary Peer, I shall not be moving out of politics altogether. Rather, I shall continue with my present work on usury and bankruptcy arising out of the unfortunate experience of my own family, in the hope of moving towards a conference at the QEII Conference Centre. It could all be very timely bearing in mind that in a recent Mansion House speech the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said that at last the Government will be taking a fresh look at bankruptcy.
I cannot be accused, as an hereditary peer, of being out of contact with the bread and butter concerns of ordinary people; far from it. Most of the electorate live in houses on which they take out a mortgage and so have to be worried about the unfair balance of creditor over debtor and the tricky problems of foreclosure. If axed from this House, I shall persevere with those questions and express the confident hope that in this House, especially on usury, to which the Koran objects, one of the Prime Minister's most recent creations, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, will follow in pursuit.
Scepticism has to be expressed about the Cranborne deal, conceded by the Government not as a matter of principle, but with alarm because the House has to obstruct what the Government regard as more significant legislation. The House of Lords holds many of the weapons, and if my noble friend Lord Cranborne had been a businessman and not a politician, he would have negotiated for far more.
With the deal as it stands, it appears to be a trap set by the Government. Stage two is likely to mean the removal of the remaining 91 Peers; indeed, any other form of stage two is unlikely due to the inherent intractability of the problem. The other place would hardly tolerate another elected Chamber in competition with itself. So we will be left by default with a quango of the Prime Minister's nominees which will put at risk the exercise of the quinquennial Act whereby we have to have an election every five years. Therefore, we will be easing the Government's road towards totalitarianism and dictatorship.

157
We would all like to see useful reforms to provide a better and stronger House. There are only nine Ministers on the Government Front Bench and that could be usefully expanded. The excellent work that the Government do to scrutinise the legislation of the European Union and the work of the committee on science and technology could be expanded into further areas. But such practical reforms to strengthen the House do not seem to be in the mind of the Government at all; instead, they are moving in the opposite direction to weaken the House. They are going down the path not of construction but of destruction.
It has emerged from debates in the other place that half of the work is still done by the hereditary Peers. There is no depth in the White Paper. Modernisation is assumed to be a good thing and anachronism a bad thing, without any argument about why. The Government's position is founded not on argument but on prejudice. There may be nothing wrong with prejudice, but the Tory political philosopher Edmund Burke said that it was the bank of capital of ages and of nations. It is odd to see this particular mantle assumed by the Labour Party. Having won the election by stealing the Tory clothes over the economy, no doubt the Prime Minister became alarmed about the danger of members of the Labour Party becoming divided against one another and so has sought soft targets—hereditary Peers and the kidnapping of General Pinochet—to hold his own side together. He has done so even in defiance of public opinion, which we know from a Gallup poll resists stage one without enactment of something more satisfactory to take its place.
Part of this prejudice in the Labour mind arises from the objection that hereditary Peers are not accountable to anyone. But is it really like that? No hereditary Peer
158
can successfully raise an issue in a vacuum without the confident knowledge that there is a significant body of public opinion to support him. When I cleared my prayer book protection Bill in 1981, it was in response to a Gallup poll which showed that most of the laity preferred the old book. If, as an hereditary Peer, I had not taken that initiative, it is not clear to me at all that any elected parliamentarian would have done so and the laity of the Church of England would have gone unrepresented.
As the debate develops I hope that the argument will shift away from the red herring of the hereditary peerage to the real issue; namely, the proper control by Parliament of the executive. For that, we have to go back to the barons' insistence on Magna Carta, and how many of our liberties flow from that. Here we cannot be encouraged by a report in the Observer on 7th March stating that the credibility of the Select Committee system of the other place suffered a serious blow when a committee chairman admitted that his clerk sent advance notices of questions that Ministers would have to answer to Whitehall departments.
In their assumption that they can force through stage one of House of Lords reform, are the Government riding roughshod over the constitution? We do not yet know the answer to that question. The reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to my Question for Written Answer before Christmas, about whether it was legal or constitutional for one House of Parliament to dismantle the other without its consent, was evasive. Her reply was restricted to what I already knew—namely, that financial legislation in the other place can be delayed for only a month and that there is also the reserve power of the House of Lords to insist on the quinquennial Act. Here we have an important legal question for which the full answer may yet have to be decided in the courts.
12.53 a.m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, this debate is about the powers of your Lordships' House being emasculated by the Bill, as well as the future of the hereditary Peers. That has been the essence of today's debate so far and no doubt it will continue to be so tomorrow. The removal of the rights of hereditary Peers raises the question whether it is the intention to secure the long-term future of the House without weakening its power. Unless that position is secured, the Government's contribution to the revision of the constitution will remain in question.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his usual eloquent speech, spoke of the wind of change running through the country. Indeed that is so, but we have not yet reaped the whirlwind of devolution which may have unforeseen consequences for the unity of the United Kingdom. This is no time to be fiddling with the constitution in the face of all the other enormous events that are happening around the world.
It is the privilege and duty of the hereditaries to ensure that a viable alternative is secured in place of them. To have a situation where Parliament is dominated by the Executive while the Parliament consists of an elected first Chamber with a large majority and an Upper House appointed by it is unacceptable. Indeed the words, "a strong and effective House of Lords" have been accepted ever since they were incorporated into the 1911 Act.
Such a House, if it evolves, by definition, would have more authority from a credibly elected and appointed membership. It might consist of Members representative of professions, academia, industry and particularly agriculture which incidentally will lose a large degree of expertise with the removal of the hereditary Peers. They should be chosen on a proportional basis, either elected or nominated, preserving a level of independence while retaining that remarkable element unique to this House, the Cross Benches.
There is nothing on the face of the Bill to provide for the arrangements necessary to set up the committee that the Prime Minister has spoken of. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has said, there is no mission statement. That is an enormous failure of the Bill. For that reason it is right that this House should insist that the Bill does not take effect until the nature and structure of the reformed House have been debated and referred to the electorate through a referendum. This is particularly important in the light of the feelings in another place about the powers of this House and the importance of retaining the right of this House to vote down a Bill extending the life of a Parliament. As my noble friend Lord Carrington has suggested, it should have the right to call a referendum on matters of constitutional importance.
The present ethos of this House is one of duty and responsibility to the Government and the people, and it is in those names that the hereditaries have served for
160
many centuries. Heriditary Peers are not unique in this respect, but that fact as expressed by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal turns the argument on its head. Such a sense of service should be preserved in any new arrangement.
The undemocratic nature of the present House as described in the much vaunted manifesto was a clarion call to the republican element in the Labour Party which hid the main thrust of the leadership to replace us with a unicameral system. This has been borne out by the statements of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. Our removal, she has said, is a stand alone clause which is not dependent on further reform. That is an uncompromising threat—your Lordships may agree—to cross-party consensus.
However, hereditary Peers—and life Peers no less—can be, and may have been elected to public office and have thereby proven their status as elected representatives of the people, a qualification which is much in the thoughts of the present Administration and has been referred to as its legitimacy. I therefore propose an amendment that will allow those hereditaries who have been elected to and held public office, and have thereby proven their worth at the ballot box for a period of seven years, to claim their Writ of Summons to sit and vote in the revised House of Lords. Such Peers will not only have to establish their legitimacy on one side of the blanket but also at the ballot box. I intend to speak in greater detail to that amendment at the Committee stage.
While I personally do not claim any residual right, nevertheless there is a strong feeling among many people who approach me on the matter and demonstrate that there is a great deal of support for the new Chamber to include the ancient right of hereditaries to sit and vote because of the service they are seen to have given to the country and to Parliament. As I have said, the claim in the manifesto was a clarion call for the republicans which misled the public to think that that was all there was to it. Not so. As we have seen with the separation of the act of removal of the hereditaries from the resulting need to reform the House, there has arisen the possibility of a reduction of the powers of this Chamber. That is what I am here to obstruct.
1 a.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, this very important debate has begun to reveal some extremely complex constitutional issues. In seeking to remove the sitting and voting rights of hereditary Peers from the House the Government are relying on the mandate given to them by, I understand, some 43 per cent. of the electorate, arising from a pledge that appeared in the Labour Party manifesto. It is becoming clear, however, that this move has far wider constitutional implications that will gravely weaken this House and will, in effect, remove the only true brake on the growing and over-bearing powers of our government executive.

161
Already a number of noble Lords have indicated that a real problem arises over the definition of a hereditary Peer. Any definition must be subject to the analysis of the origin of the creation of each peerage, and it is clear that the method by which some of our peerages were created were by no means uniform. Here I refer to my own peerage and a e debate ensuing, following my late noble kinsman's succession to this peerage, in June 1977 in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, said:
"It would be possible perhaps to introduce by Act of Parliament some form of prescription of peerages, a species of limitation, but that would be an exception to the basic principle of Scots law that heritable rights never prescribe. There is this consideration too, my Lords: that having in view that every peerage not extinct or attainted is vested in someone, even though he does not at present receive a Writ to attend, to introduce this prescription would involve taking away vested rights, and I do not think that this is a principle which is readily accepted in any Act of Parliament, at least not without some compensation being provided for".
It is interesting to read further in that debate and to find the contribution of the late Lord Henley, the kinsman of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He said:
"The claim that we are debating today is not an hereditary one. There is not one drop of the original Peer's blood in the present claimant, so it is not in any sense hereditary".—[0fficial Report, 27/6/77; cols. 902–5.]
The real right of most hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordships' House, I would contend, arises not by virtue of the Writ of Summons but by virtue of our Letters Patent, granted to us by the Sovereign. Our constitution has evolved over time and has served us well. First we had an absolute monarchy. Those powers were diluted at Runnymede by Magna Carta, leading to the power of the sovereign being shared with the barons. This situation was institutionalised into the embryo of our present House, with the sovereign acting on the advice of his Council of barons, whose number was extended from time to time by the creation of new barons by Letters Patent. Later, as the concept of representative democracy grew, the power of the barons was shared with the Commons and, as we all know, the Commons appropriated more and more powers, leaving your Lordships' House only with such powers as it retains today.
The House of Lords remains, however, essentially that same body of barons, sitting by virtue of their Letters Patent, to give counsel to the sovereign. In that sense, our House has become an enduring guardian of the constitution and of the residual privileges of the sovereign. I would contend, therefore, that the only way that the rights of hereditary Peers can be removed is by the removal of the sovereign herself.
None of this means that we should oppose sensible reform. As I have outlined already, reform has been an endemic part of the evolution of our constitution. A very real problem arises, however, in that interim period of intermediate length after hereditary Peers have been removed from the House but before the new arrangement, which yet has to be proposed and agreed by the Royal Commission and the joint committee,
162
comes into force. One interim solution is that outlined in the proposed Weatherill amendment. We can by no means be sure that that will be accepted.
It seems clear that, as we dig deeper into the manifest and genuine concerns that have already been raised by so many noble Lords in this debate, issues will be raised at the Committee stage which will be almost impossible to resolve in the timescale proposed. We have in your Lordships' House a working institution that is acknowledged to perform an extremely important constitutional role, and perform it well. No case has been made for proceeding with the unseemly haste that has been forced upon us by the Government in their rush to make ill-considered change before we know the recommendations of the Royal Commission. The Government have an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons and are using that to force through a plethora of constitutional changes, many of them ill-considered. We have a duty to use those residual powers that we still retain to urge more considered reflection.
I have already taken up some time with a history lesson about the origins of the House. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the words of William Blackstone in his commentaries on the Laws of England in 1765. He stated:
"All Bills likewise, that may in their consequences in any way affect the rights of the peerage are by custom of Parliament to have their first rise and beginning in the House of Peers, and to suffer no changes or amendments in the House of Commons".
The other evening, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave me a ride to the railway station, for which I said "thank you", but I should like to say "thank you" again. During the journey he used the term "scriptured aggression", which fascinated me. He was referring to some Members of your Lordships' House who spoke in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the phrase I used was "scripted abuse".
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I apologise. That sounds much better than my translation. I tried to find an example of "scripted abuse" and I did so. I was reminded of the words of Kipling in 1914 when he was describing the Liberal government of that time. He said:
"They're behaving like a firm of fraudulent solicitors who have got unlimited power of attorney by false pretences and can dispose of their client's estate how they please".
I am sure that no such "scripted abuse" could append itself to the Government.
In conclusion, I urge caution and restraint. I would counsel that we delay this unnecessary measure for as long as possible, at least until the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee have reported.
1.10 a.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, this point has already been made by a number of my noble friends, but it bears repeating. The Bill is not a reform Bill; it is

163
constitutional vandalism. The Government are intent on dismantling one House of Parliament without having any coherent ideas as to what should replace it. If proof of that were needed, one has only to read the White Paper, which was the subject of a debate in this House five weeks ago, and couple that with debates which have taken place in another place on this Bill. Proposals have drifted between sweeping away the House of Lords altogether and moving towards a unicameral system of government, on the one hand, and a growing movement towards a wholly elected upper House, on the other.
At a time of unparalleled parliamentary reform, which the Government are intent on taking at a gallop, one has to ask oneself: why are they in such a tremendous hurry? I do not believe it is because they want to throw a bone to the Labour Left. Nor do I believe that it is because they cannot abide the perceived, and to some extent illusory, political imbalance of your Lordships' House. Might it not have more to do with the fact that we are soon to be asked to make one of the most important decisions that this country will ever have to make; namely, whether or not to join the euro, with all the constitutional issues that will follow?
We have recently been told that Mr. Blair and his colleagues have changed gear in their approach to this vital issue. During the next two years, many millions of pounds will be spent on a programme to prepare us for the possibility of joining. I recognise that this is not the moment to debate the rights or wrongs of that policy. But it is absolutely vital that no one should be under any illusion that if this Bill were to be passed, the Government would have succeeded in getting rid of the only parliamentary brake which currently exists. Mr. Blair will not then only be able to change into top gear; he will also be able to place his foot firmly on the accelerator.
It is no good the Government repeating that there will be a referendum. What form will it take, and when will it be offered? Probably not before the next general election. And is it not within the bounds of possibility that the Labour Government, if re-elected, might say that there was a paragraph somewhere in their manifesto giving them the mandate for joining, thus rendering a referendum unnecessary? Alice in Wonderland stuff? I think not. Only time will tell. We should not forget that the present Labour Government, with their massive majority in the other place of 178, got there with just over 30 per cent. of the nation's votes.
In moving on to my next point, I pray in aid another statistic that has been referred to in previous debates and again today. In a recently conducted poll, under 3 per cent. of those questioned remembered that the Labour Party manifesto contained something about getting rid of hereditary Peers.
There may be an argument for reform of this House, although there are many both within and outside who subscribe to the view, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". We shall have to wait and see what is contained in the Royal Commission report, chaired by my noble friend
164
Lord Wakeham. However, this is a massive constitutional adventure into the unknown. It is unreasonable to expect that in a mere seven and a half months, allowing for holidays, the commission will be able fully to address all the implications and weigh up all the knock-on effects. And the knock-on effects worry me. As I said during the debate on the White Paper, we have a largely unwritten constitution which is in times of stability its greatest strength, but in times of upheaval its greatest weakness.
I now turn to what has become known as the Weatherill amendment. The argument runs that keeping 91 hereditary Peers in this House is our best chance of making sure that the Government see through the reform of this House, whatever that reform may be. I say, with respect and deference, that that is nonsense. I believe that it may have exactly the opposite effect. Having effectively neutered this House in its traditional role of being the conscience of the people and viewing the political landscape conservatively—with a small "c"—they will, by judicious appointment, achieve a House which is Labour, with a big "L", and the most diligent efforts of the Royal Commission, and even of the all-party Select Committee which will follow, will be kicked summarily into the long grass, which is where many a past Royal Commission report now languishes. That was a point well made by my noble friend Lord Waddington.
Even if some form of Weatherill amendment is passed in this House, there is no guarantee that it can be delivered in another place, and I shall therefore take a great deal of persuading that this is the right way to proceed. I agree with my noble friend Lord Sudeley; it has the hallmark of a gigantic Pooh trap, set by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister. We should beware, particularly as the clear and present danger exists, that, having neutered this House, there will be nothing to stop an overbearing and mighty Government, led by a Prime Minister with presidential tendencies, deciding to bypass the electorate and vote themselves another term in office.
The right way to proceed is comprehensively, by which I mean "no stage one without stage two". This is not some mindless mantra spoken in an attempt to retain the status quo. Many of my noble friends accept that times move on and that some kind of reform may be desirable, but it should be carefully thought out in the round and should not take place in this piecemeal way. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, agree with that point. The Government proudly proclaim that they have invented what they call joined-up government. This, of all times, is the moment when we need to see evidence of its existence.
While preparing for the debate, I recalled that my great-great-great-uncle had lived in some fairly interesting times and so I thought I should seek some illumination by reading a biographical account of my ancestor's administration, written by Dr. J. E. Cookson. I did not have far to look. On the jacket cover I found an

165
illustration in the form of a political cartoon by George Cruikshank, which is exhibited to this day in the British Museum. I should be trying the patience of your Lordships if I attempted to describe the fairly complicated picture in detail, but I should like to quote the caption under it. It reads:
"Death of Liberty! or Britannia & the Virtues of the Constitution in danger of Violation from the [great] Political Libertine, Radical Reform!"
The date of that cartoon was 1819. I venture to suggest that if Mr. Cruikshank were alive today he might have felt compelled to use those self-same words.
Some interesting questions have been asked on Letters Patent and on the Commonwealth. Those questions must be addressed by the Government.
The Bellman in Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark says,
"What I tell you three times is true".
I expect that by the end of this debate the Government will have heard 100 times and possibly more remarks similar to those that I have had the temerity to make to your Lordships. I hope that they will not only accept them as true, but also reflect on them.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on his excellent speech and on arguing so convincingly and concisely for his reasoned amendment. I assure him that I shall certainly support him in the Division Lobby should he choose to press it.
1.19 a.m.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak to your Lordships at twenty-past one in the morning, having risen at half-past five in order to attend your Lordships' House. I do not say that the Bill before us is the worst Bill I have ever seen, but it is certainly a bad Bill. I shall come to my reasons for saying that in due course.
The sole purpose of this Bill is to end hereditary membership of your Lordships' House. I am a hereditary Member of your Lordships' House and feel none the worse for that; it has been a duty of my family for many years. It has been alleged that one of my ancestors was bribed to agree to the Act of Union, but that is still undecided. I speak in this debate because I believe that it is my duty to do so. I do not do so because of whim, self-seeking or anything else, but as a duty to ensure the stability of the government of this great country of which we are all citizens. I consider that to be important.
The Bill seeks to remove hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House, which is a perfectly reasonable thought to which I have no objection. My reservation is about whether the plans put forward by the party opposite—I hope that the Front Bench is paying attention—will make things better, leave matters as they are or, as is possible. make things worse. That may be thought a rather severe stricture, but we are dealing with an important matter, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said today and on an earlier occasion. I fully support his remarks about the necessity to get things right. There is no point in change if it is not for
166
the better. I am perhaps a shade older than I have the good fortune to look. In over 70 years of life one has learnt that sometimes change looks attractive and at other times unattractive. Even when it looks attractive it is not all that good; it usually goes sideways and so one is no better off after all the messing about. Let us be cautious.
This Bill proposes to abolish people like me. I have no complaint to make about that. My family has clone its duty as we understand it for hundreds of years to keep the government of our great country on an even, steady and progressive course. Now the party opposite proposes that by abolishing a large proportion of the membership of your Lordships' House everything will become much better. I venture to disagree for the following reason. I understand that the Bill, which has been drafted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quite deliberately to minimise the chance of being amended in a helpful way, proposes a vacuum. As everybody knows, nature abhors a vacuum. If one has a vacuum with nothing to look forward to and no further stage, how can one be sure that it is worth while to vote for such a state of affairs? That would be folly.
I venture to repeat the very unpopular remarks of my very good friend the late Lord Beloff, whose intellect, industry, knowledge and many other virtues were mentioned by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Strathclyde. I have had the happy occasion to share a room with Max Beloff, if I may refer to him in those terms, for quite a number of years. I have never known anybody whose knowledge, experience or wisdom were greater. I draw attention again to the remarks which he made towards the end of his life on the subject of the dangers facing a post-imperial nation such as ours, brought about through apathy, and to the nasty analogies he drew with the progress of the National Socialists in swallowing up the political machinery of Germany. I hope that he is not right. He was a distinguished member of your Lordships' House and a man of the greatest intellect, and his words should be thought about. I fear that the party opposite has not considered these possibilities. It is a gloomy prospect that I offer. I hope that I am wrong and that the late Lord Beloff too was wrong, but the omens are not good.
I got up yesterday; it is now tomorrow, and it will not be long until it is the morning. Some noble Lords may recall that Winston Churchill gave a stinging rebuke to Bessie Braddock on the subject of what happened in the morning.
Unhappily, everything that I have thought about on this subject points to a single set of targets by the party opposite to neuter this House, to fill it with place-men, ruled because they are paid by whipping. That would not be a good state of affairs.
As to the preparatory work for this Bill, I acknowledge the great intellectual input of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who I am happy to see in his place. It nonetheless puts me in mind of the problem faced by Mr. Attlee's Government when they wanted to draft a Bill. I have drafted a Bill, of extreme obscurity but it nonetheless became an Act. Mr. Attlee's Government wanted a Bill to nationalise the coal-mines. The mine

167
owners were portrayed as wicked, idle, grasping and all of those other descriptions which have been bandied about since then. When parliamentary counsel asked, "Where is your plan, Mr. Attlee?", there was a bit of a hoo-ha and everybody hunted high and low. It had been in the Labour manifesto for many years: "Nationalise the mines. Do down the mineowners". My grandfather, who for 18 years was a Member for a mining constituency, had the slogan, "Eight hours work, eight hours play, for eight bob a day".
They hunted high and low but could not find the plan. Eventually it was found in the possession of the South Wales Federation of Miners, written in Welsh. From that proceeded much disaster.
I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I pray that the Royal Commission's report will precede rather than follow enactment of this spiteful Bill.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he accept that the Bill which he has castigated accords precisely with the commitment in the Government's manifesto which won a popular majority of 179? Will he also accept my personal assurance that the Bill as drafted was exclusively the product of the First Parliamentary Counsel?
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, it is indeed an honour to have clarification from the noble and learned Lord. On the first point, I disagree with him. On the second point, I am most happy to accept his assurance.
1.31 a.m.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Cochrane of Cults, and many other interesting and constructive speakers. The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, and other noble Lords have ably described the history of this House on many occasions, a history with which my own family has been involved on and off since 1455. Although I appreciate the principle behind the decision to end the role of the hereditary peerage, I find it extraordinary that this narrow Bill seems to ignore the contributions made by those hereditary Peers who are active in this House.
In the three years I have been a Member of the House I have seen the work of many noble Lords who, as hereditary Peers, derive little income from their position yet dedicate themselves entirely to the issues which concern them. The contributions made by those noble Lords and many other hereditary Peers over the years have been significant in political life in our country. Indeed, for many centuries the hereditary system was the only system of government.
Bearing that in mind, I find it extremely offensive that the Government propose to abolish the position of hereditary Peers without reasoned argument or a satisfactory proposal for our replacement. This is not
168
reform; it is abolition. The motive is unclear; the outcome undefined. Contrary to popular belief, many hereditary Members are concerned for the future of this Chamber as a revising watchdog of the executive. But in such an atmosphere of uncertainty what motivation is there to offer considered advice and opinion on the future of this House if indeed the Government are at all interested in hearing any?
On behalf of all the members of my family privileged to have been involved in the political and, in some cases, the cultural history of this country over the past 500 years, I should like to express my sadness that an era of our participation in political administration may now be over. By accident of birth, we have been given an opportunity to serve our country in government. Some of us have been better at it than others, but I am sure that many noble Lords will agree that this system has not always been a bad thing. In fact it has served us rather well in the absence of any alternative.
Let us hope that the Government will in the fullness of time find a better alternative than that which has served us well for almost 700 years. I support the amendment to the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
1.35 a.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, the monumental length of the list of speakers on this Bill certainly indicates that the House will not just tamely acquiesce in such a fundamental and sweeping measure. I suppose it must be rather galling to the Government that in pursuing this vendetta—because that is really what it is—against hereditary Peers there is absolutely no public outcry about the House of Lords as it is at present constituted: in fact, far from it. Opinion polls indicate no enthusiasm for the removal of hereditary Peers before full reform, and indeed most people realise that something which has lasted for so long must have something going for it.
It cannot be stressed too often that everything is being done in the wrong order. As with other constitutional measures of this Government, this Bill is incoherent in that it does not take us clearly from one stage to another. Functions and powers should be decided before composition, and it is most regrettable that we will not know for some years what form of electoral system may be decided upon for the House of Commons, or indeed its size, and above all, whether we continue as a nation state or become regions of a Euro federation. Thus we do not know for what purpose the reformed House is needed, but this Bill, unless it is very substantially amended, will undermine one of the main pillars of the constitution which has given us such stability over three centuries.
Already another main pillar, the House of Commons, is treated with undisguised contempt and has been greatly diminished by this Government. As an illustration, one can take this House of Lords Bill, which was rushed through another place and in the middle of the Committee stage there, what happened?—the other place simply went on holiday for half a week. Prime Minister's Question Time was just abolished for that week and so there were no parliamentary Questions for the Prime Minister for a full fortnight.

169
This is all part of the insidious way in which this so-called New Labour Government are proceeding by stealth under the guise of modernisation to change this country from a unitary kingdom and submerge it into regions of a Euro federal state. Noble Lords may laugh, but the general public are not fully aware of how these constitutional charges will affect them—certainly not least the English, over the West Lothian issue, which is still ignored. I hate to say this, but I am afraid that the Prime Minister is in danger of going down in history as the Prime Minister who presided over the disintegration of the Union and the constitution, and he may well bear the ignominy of being the last Prime Minister of the United Kingdom as we know it today.
In the circumstances, this Bill removing hereditary Peers should not be enacted prior to a post-legislative referendum when people can see what form the transitional House replacing that of hereditary Peers will take, which may last for many years. There is no mention of the word "interim" in the Bill. There is absolutely no guarantee that any full reform will take place. It would be outrageous if this, the most important of all the constitutional measures, were to be the only one not subject to a referendum—I hasten to say a post-legislative referendum in this case, not a pre-legislative referendum, involving such a fundamental and radical change in the composition of this House.
I refer briefly to the Weatherill amendment, wrongly put about by the media as a "Cross-Bench proposal"—as if there is such a thing as a Cross-Bench party, which of course there is not. When I hear that the Government are in favour of something, I become worried and suspicious. Despite their cynical manoeuvring and voting against an identical Opposition amendment in another place, of course the Government are minded to accept the amendment. "Minded" is an extraordinary word which, in Blair-speak, means endorse enthusiastically. By doing so the Government expect to have a much easier ride and, from all accounts, look upon it as just about the best thing since sliced bread. A derisory number of 91 hereditary Peers may have a reprieve. But I implore my own Front Bench to be extremely wary and not to become too enmeshed or enthusiastic about it.
Already the media are speculating on who will be elected, or is it chosen or selected? We do not know. I shall not repeat in detail what I said in the recent debate. However, I feel that if the Conservatives and Cross-Benchers salvage a little on one side and the Government achieve most of their goal on the other, both will he disinclined to hasten in implementing any conclusions reached by the Royal Commission and the Select Committee. Thus, what is supposed to be temporary, as is often the case, becomes permanent.
I am one of the considerable number of noble Lords who feels that the Government should consider, at least as an interim measure for the transitional House, the much better two-tier system of a House consisting of
170
voting and non-voting Peers. That was dismissed rather inadequately by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. in his summing-up speech on the White Paper.
After all, the proposal that hereditary Peers, who, for the most part at any rate, would lose their voting rights should still be able to attend and speak during their life-time was the brain child of such senior figures in the Labour Party as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who I believe is to speak tomorrow, and the late Richard Crossman and others and was adopted by the Labour Government in 1968.
The whole emphasis was on the need for the participation of a considerable number of part-time Members with wide interests and experience who could make a useful contribution. Both the Opposition amendments to that effect and the Weatherill amendment were discussed and defeated in another place. But if the Government can be so flexible as to change their minds on the one, so they should be able to do so on the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, who I see is now in his place, made the criticism that hereditary Peers would still retain considerable power if their speaking rights were maintained. That is rather ridiculous. If a number of hereditary Peers—100 or whatever the figure turns out to be—can be allowed to retain their full voting rights, that would represent some power. But the notion that hereditary Peers who speak, but not vote hardly, represents power. Quite often, such Peers would impart some much-needed common sense and advice. A proposal on those lines should be far more amenable and acceptable to most noble Lords on all sides of the House than the Weatherill plan. The main advantage is that it would deal successfully with the problems of the in-built Conservative majority, and the hereditary principle and provide continuity. It certainly deserves further scrutiny and attention. In the meantime, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he willing to answer two straight and simple questions? First, does he accept that the Labour Party manifesto had a clear and unequivocal commitment to remove the hereditary peerage? That is the first question.
The second question to which we invite a clear and unequivocal answer is whether the noble Lord accepts—yes or no—that that gives this Bill a total democratic validity.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, the answer to both questions is yes. It was in the Labour Party Manifesto, but I do not accept that millions of people turned out to vote for the Labour Party because this measure was proposed in the manifesto.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, when I spoke in the debate on the White Paper on reform of this House on 22nd February I proposed a resolution of the

171
constitutional issues produced by this Bill. My suggestion was a compromise: a constitutional convention by which hereditary Peers would not have their votes counted in the passage of Bills and approval of procedures in this House.
The hereditary Peers' rights to attend, sit and speak would remain intact, as granted by letters patent. My proposal was an attempt to resolve the perceived problems of an embedded Conservative majority in this House, thus avoiding a constitutional conflict.
My desire was, and remains, to encourage your Lordships to remove the arguments about reform of this House from parliamentary conflict and even litigation in the courts. Further, it was intended to take our debate and decisions about reform out of the heated realms of partisan politics, bound up with dogmas and opinions about class and so-called privilege.
I hoped to draw your Lordships' attention to aspects of the constitutional issues involved. I did that, not as a lawyer—which I am not—but as a citizen with an abiding respect for the laws and precedents of our constitution. I asked your Lordships to address reform dispassionately and to look away from conflict.
However, as I indicated, I do not wish to protect and preserve what is indefensible in a modern democracy—that hereditary voting should determine the passing of Bills and rules of procedures in this House. My assertion was, and is, that Peers by inheritance have rights just like any citizen. To deny me, an hereditary Peer, access to sit and speak in this House is unlawful. To accept this Bill would be a denial of my personal and property rights granted by the sovereign.
Thus, I ask in signing this Bill into law, would the sovereign annul my rights? If so, by what power? Even Peers, beheaded as traitors on fields of battle, were permitted by law to pass on their rights to their successors. Those in this House and Parliament who seek reform by statute do so by rescinding property rights granted by the sovereign. That would be expropriation without compensation, even in law.
Is that to be the power and example of this new state? Have this Government a mandate to abolish personal property rights? I do not believe so. If the Government prevail with this Bill, would that not be the finest argument yet for a Bill of Rights such as the Canadian statute which specifically protects the enjoyment of property rights from the attempts of a parliament to remove them? Do we now meekly accept that our new Labour democracy should abolish any personal rights, or do we have to resort to the European Court to assert them?
Various politically motivated proposals have emerged involving a selection of hereditary Peers remaining in a so-called reformed House. Such proposals ignore the rights of those not selected to continue to sit and speak in this House. By letters patent I inherited a specific
172
right to sit in this House. That did not include a right to vote and, therefore, I cannot claim it. So I propose that hereditary Peers allow their voting to fall into abeyance, by consent of the Government and their parties.
In our new Labour state, must we now fear for those with personal rights but without the sovereign's guarantee? I believe that everyone should be apprehensive about this Bill. Many citizens who have freeholds or leases are better protected than are my property rights which were granted by the sovereign. Citizens have the freedom to enter, sit and speak in their own houses. I am a citizen too. How is it that my rights will be denied so easily? Because of my perceived political allegiance? Because I am part of that embedded Conservative majority? Is it because I am not politically acceptable at present?
I oppose the Bill not because it seeks to enact greater democracy, but because it denies it. I shall support a Bill which achieves greater democracy, but it must also protect personal rights. I see on both sides of this House a resolve to proceed with interim compromises or, as journalists have said, "political fixes", which no party has the moral right to do. I wonder how deeply politicians see into the mind of British people who, throughout the history of our culture and our country, have opposed sovereigns and governments who revoked personal and property rights.
It seems clear that reform of this House will be decided only by politically expedient compromises to end the hereditary Peers' rights no matter what. Some magnify and theorise about the real politics involved, unconcerned about the cancellation of personal and property rights. Even the media debase the issue and denigrate personal rights as mere privilege. I wonder whether this is true for every citizen or is true only for hereditary Peers.
May I now draw attention to a matter of more profound concern? Your Lordships may wish to note that the Government have not, during the parliamentary course of the Bill, mentioned their statutory obligation to consult and agree with all the 54 sovereign Commonwealth states concerning the abolition of the rights of hereditary Peers. I realise that the remark may surprise your Lordships. But by this Bill, the Government have made a daring attack on the hereditary rights of our sovereign Queen.
Since the accession of Henry IV in 1399 a reigning sovereign is an hereditary Peer. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. That is Her Majesty's hereditary title and peerage. The fact could not have escaped the Government's notice since the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is a member of the Cabinet. I do not see the Queen's hereditary rights as Duke of Lancaster excluded by the Bill. Abolishing the rights in this House of all hereditary Peers must therefore include the rights of the Duke of Lancaster, our Queen. It is clear that the way in which the Bill has been drafted proposes also to remove the Queen's rights as an hereditary Peer. This

173
being so, the Bill changes and "touches upon" the Queen's title. For that reason alone, the Bill is flawed.
Perhaps I may refer your Lordships to the preamble to the Statute of Westminster which declares that each Commonwealth parliament must consent to any alteration in the succession or the royal style and titles. Has this consent been sought? If so, what are the responses of the Commonwealth states? Why has this requirement not been mentioned in the Government's presentation of the Bill?
Would not your Lordships agree that the Bill's conformity to our human rights laws is as important as its conformity to the Statute of Westminster and agreements from the Commonwealth states? If so, why have the Government stated the Bill complies with our human rights laws, but been silent about the Commonwealth's consent? Now we have a Royal Commission, I hope that my noble friend Lord Wakeham will consult most closely with leaders of all the Commonwealth states on this statutory requirement.
I believe the Government could well consider that they have more important matters on which to legislate than to run any further headlong into a morass of laws which block the path of this Bill. It is better for us to find ways to clear that obstructed path. In doing so, I mention the observation of perhaps the greatest and most acerbic of all Political journalists, Walter Bagehot. He said of our constitution:
"Our danger is not in assassination, but atrophy … not in abolition, but decline".
That statement is so apt to the Bill. Should it be passed, it will not present a renewal or strengthening of our constitution, but signal a death-throe of our modern democracy and a profound loss of trust. That is compounded by a transparent and infamous indifference to the protection of personal and human rights. I ask: what stronger justification is there for any state to exist than its protection of individual personal rights and liberties? This is a principal achievement of our history.
I respectfully recommend that the Government accept the benefits of a constitutional compromise, devoid of partisan politics and of class attitudes. Could we not for a moment in our parliamentary history imagine ourselves as statesmen and adopt a compromise—a convention of the constitution—which, although ending the hereditary Peers' power through votes, preserves personal rights to sit and express their views?
As I proposed to the House on 22nd February, the votes of hereditary Peers would no longer be counted in determining the passing of laws and rules in this House. If that were to be our practice by convention, this Bill would be superfluous, and for that reason should be withdrawn quickly.
In the interests of legislative progress and of supporting good government, could we not all agree that such a constitutional arrangement, if proposed by this Government, could replace this ill-drafted Bill? Would
174
that not satisfy the Commonwealth states too anti conform with our customary and common laws?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Norrie, sits down, will he confirm that his proposition is that all hereditary Peers have a right of property to remain as hereditary Peers with a right to sit and vote in Parliament? Is he challenging the sovereignty of Parliament to remove them?
Lord Norrie: My Lords, I said that by Letters Patent hereditary Peers inherited a specific right to sit and speak in this House but that did not include a right to vote. What I proposed was that the votes of hereditary Peers would not be counted.
1.56 a.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, your Lordships' House is an important institution and however undemocratic we are told it is, it works. I do not believe that anybody anywhere has ever suggested that it does not. And it must surely work better than any of the suggestions that we find either in this Bill or in the White Paper that accompanies it.
It works so well because we are not paid. So we are here because we want to be. Will any other body do it dispassionately? I am an hereditary and proud of it. I am fighting for my future here because it has always been impressed upon me by my father, my grandfather and my great grandfather who was in the other place as well, that this is what I should do.
I have been accused, because I take the Tory Whip, of being not independent of mind. But I believe that I am independent of mind and hope that I have proved it. I have voted many times against my party Whip. even when there have been two lines. I have voted with my party on many occasions when I am sure other people would prefer I did not. I feel that after the Easter Recess there is definitely another subject coming up which will lead me into controversy again with my party. It is therefore unfair to label everybody, carte blanche, with the fact that they are not independent of mind.
However, the right for one is not necessarily the right for all. This Bill has been the most thoughtless measure brought forward by this Government for one very good reason only. It has not been followed through to a total conclusion; it is only a half-measure as it has been presented to us. As a result, it will take up an enormous amount of valuable government time when other matters could be dealt with, probably of more benefit to this Government.
The case for the removal of hereditaries under this Bill has not been made. I accept totally what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been asking in the last few moments of about the last six speakers; that is, whether it was in the Government's manifesto. Without any question of doubt it was. But I am led to

175
believe that only 2 per cent. of the people remember that it was in fact a commitment. Nevertheless, the Government are determined to carry on and do this and that is their prerogative. That is why they are in government.
However, the upper House is an integral part of our constitution. This Bill does not set up a new one—a finished variety—it just destroys the old. We are told that the new House will be more democratic. That is nonsense. Democracy is an absolute and final thing; it is either democratic or it is not. The only way for full democracy in this House is to have it fully elected. Personally, I like that idea. I do not like the Cranborne/Weatherill amendment at all. I believe that all Peers are equal and that that has been a great institution of this House. It would be very sad to differentiate now as we seem to be doing. My feeling is: all in or all out. That is the way it should be. I hope that that suggestion will be considered.
The new House would draw its authority from neither the people nor the establishment. Therefore, it would have to be a poodle to whatever Prime Minister is in power at that time. He would have to make up the relevant number with life Peers to ensure that his government had control in this House. You cannot effect changes in one House without it affecting the other. With Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Europe all coming up in the near future, we should wait and see what happens in that respect before we start to tinker with the constitution in a small way. This is a much bigger picture. With the report of the Royal Commission coming up, I venture to suggest that we should also wait and see. This is a vital Bill which deals with the constitution as a whole. It is a great shame that we seem to be dealing with just a very small part of that constitution.
I turn now to my final point because this has been a very long night. As I have said before—and I am not ashamed to say it again—I really think that to remove the club rights from the hereditary Peers as proposed in the Bill is, at worst, spiteful and, at the least, churlish. Members of Parliament in the other place have those club rights regardless of what they have done. I believe that we should also continue to have such rights. I hope that the Government will reconsider that decision.
2.2 a.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, so here we are today at the start of this momentous and ill-conceived Bill which sets out to deprive so many of your Lordships of the right ever to set foot in this Chamber again. I have in mind those families, so much older and greater than mine, who have given continuous service to this House and who have asked for nothing in return other than that their offspring should be allowed to serve in the same selfless way. All this is because the party opposite
176
believes that it has an undisputed mandate to rid the country of this so-called "unfairness", this alien species of parliamentary membership.
These are devilish deeds of the party opposite, devilish deeds packaged and parcelled in the name of democracy. Reform is obviously needed, they claim; it is the will of the people, they cry. The clear and shining alternative of which they talked—a more effective and improved second House—was there for all to see. But there was nothing to see—indeed, the space was blank—until, pushed and pulled, they scrambled for safety. They kicked for touch and out of the hat was pulled a Royal Commission.
As your Lordships know, for many years there have been very different views on how to reform this House. Why has it not been done before? Very simply because, somehow, it worked. There was no obvious solution for making it work better nor was there huge clamour for it to be changed. If only I could be convinced that the Labour Party wished this in the name of democracy. I genuinely long to be convinced, but I am not. Instead, my conviction lies elsewhere. All political parties have characteristics of which they are not proud. but those of the Labour Party, those of vindictiveness and envy, still abide. And profoundly unattractive they are, really dreadful to behold. After this, whither the monarchy, whither primogeniture?
While the Government over the next few months pilot this nasty and ill-thought-out Bill through your Lordships' House they might do well to consider just how utterly distasteful this side of the House finds the whole affair. In these circumstances I suggest to the Government that they try to understand the sense of despair and frustration that exists among so many on these Benches. After all, suppose it were they to whom this was happening. Perhaps, therefore, when the going gets rough and tough, as it surely will, they might show a little grace, a little niceness, perhaps a gesture of generosity, even perhaps a grain of gratitude for what so many of your Lordships, through so many generations, have done. Perhaps in so doing they might help a little to soften the increasing resentment between we on this side and those on the Benches opposite.
2.5 a.m.
Lord Birdwood: My Lords, in these last offerings of a long day, I want to enshrine one word, one idea. The idea is guardianship. Because we were the inheritors of a continuum, an inheritance not of our making, the privilege strangely is doubly precious. My own inheritance is as nothing in time terms to the names in this House which have rung like bells across the centuries, defining so much of what we understand by country. I am only the third bearer to sit, and my grandfather, the first, seemed to care little for the business. But I feel the press of years, I feel the continuum, as deeply as if I had the perspective of generations. I feel the obligation of guardianship stretched out into the future.

177
My noble friend Lord Ferrers said, "Power is finite". We are onlookers today of power on the move everywhere in the machinery of state. Power is being leached away from the elected Chamber and ferried noiselessly into the mysteries of European integration. Power is packaged as information, and manipulated to where it is indistinguishable from propaganda.
The voice of government has never been clearer, and perversely it has never been more obscure. "At last", we are told, "there is a people's government". "Everything to be done", we are told, "is being done for the best". "At last", we are told, "power is in the hands of those who really care". How guilty we are made to feel if we, the people, harbour a scintilla of mistrust. A tiny chip off some ancient freedom, what of it, it will never be missed. One thing this bland, smiling assurance cannot tolerate is dissent.
So I said that the voice of government was obscure. A consequence of soothing reassurances that it is all for the best, you are in safe hands, do not worry, is that the challenge, "What is your policy?", is answered by, "what do you want it to be?". Dear heaven, we now have the world's first post-modern Parliament.
In the context of this Bill, the continuity of any hereditary presence was an offence. Presumably, here was a point of principle. But now we have the signals that 90-plus of these democratic offences might continue for a while. So the vaunted principle is not of rigid iron but plasticine.
How tiresome it must be to have argument when one's motives are so elegant, so obviously right. How intolerable to have opposition to cloud the prompt execution of such well-intentioned ideology. Yet I have the impertinence, without the democratic mandate, to claim that I and my ilk are guardians of certain bedrock freedoms and, above all, one absolute duty: to prevent a parliament perpetuating itself beyond five years. But the guardianship is greater than the man. I am just, for a time, a curator. Reassure me that this role is sacred in other hands and I am content.
One of the characteristics of regimes such as this is that the dissenter is regarded not as mistaken but as mad. The grit in the New Labour Utopia has to be eliminated. I fear, I really do, that this bitter little Bill, framed to erase the mild dissent offered by the hereditary elements in this House, is the blueprint for future executive actions of a deeper, more sombre purpose.
2.11 a.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and shall support him in the Lobbies tomorrow if he chooses to press it. However, there are one or two other things to be said.
The Government have sought to justify the Bill, over and over again, on the grounds that it was a manifesto commitment and that therefore the electorate wished for it. It is worth pointing out yet again that a manifesto is
178
like the varied selection of goods available in a department store. One customer will enter the store to buy certain things, another to buy other things, but hardly anyone will buy everything on sale in the shop. Many, of course, having had a look, will shop elsewhere. The premise that the majority of people in this country elected this Government because their manifesto said that they were going to get rid of the hereditary Peers from this House is absolute nonsense. Furthermore—I am not very good on specifics—I do not think that the majority of people in this country voted for the Government anyway, which makes their claims doubly false.
In any case, it is not widely understood in this country that the hereditary Peers are to be removed lock, stock and barrel from the House. The press, and the BBC in particular, have repeatedly put about misinformation on this subject by referring to the hereditary Peers losing their voting rights. Whether this has been a genuine mistake or whether they have been under pressure to do so in order to prevent the public knowing what was really afoot is open to speculation. If that cap should happen to fit anyone—such as the Government, for example—let them wear it.
For those reasons I consider it essential that a referendum is held before this Bill, incorporating one of the most important constitutional reforms of this century, becomes law. After all, referendums were held on the questions of Scotland and Wales having their own parliaments and on Britain joining the European Union, so why not on this fundamental constitutional change?
The more I reflect on the proposed so-called Weatherill amendment, the less I like it. To start with, to try to trade our present rights for 91 hereditary Peers is quite unacceptable. The number is totally inadequate. If the proposed number were more realistic, it might be a different matter. That curious number of 91 was cooked up between the parties in a sort of Mandarins' stitch-up. I suspect that the Government had worked out that that was the largest number which would not pose a threat to their nefarious plans, so that it was a small price to pay for not having their legislative programme disrupted. Had the number been 200 or 250, it might have been acceptable to the House, although not to the Government.
After the Cranborne/Blair deal was stitched up, the press, even those elements of it which should have known better, took the line that the noble Viscount had done it in order to save his and his noble friends' skins. Of course we in this House know better. We know much better. We know that it was done for totally honourable reasons, certainly on the part of the noble Viscount, in order to maintain a modicum of independent-minded Peers in the House until stage two, which many of us believe we shall never see. But the general public, having been misled by the media as usual, do not. Their opinion of hereditary Peers has been damaged. That is one very strong reason why I dislike the proposition intensely. Anyway, the price is too high. Acceptance of

179
this amendment is accompanied by threats from the Government. If the Bill does not get a smooth passage, if too many amendments are moved and divided upon, if we talk too much, in short, if we do not do exactly as Nanny Government say, the Government will not accept the famous Weatherill amendment and we shall be back to square one; that is to say, the Bill as is stands.
My Lords, the Government have resorted to blackmail, for that is what it is. I, for one, and I am not alone, am not prepared to be blackmailed. My Lords, stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, and do not be browbeaten!
If a referendum is held, the Weatherill amendment becomes irrelevant. Should the Government refuse to accept an amendment providing for a referendum, it can only possibly be because they know that the public are likely to reject this Bill.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lady sits down, does she accept, yes or no, that a democratically elected government are entitled to carry into legislation their manifesto commitments?
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think that I answered that point in my speech.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the noble Lady help me on this point? Does she understand why the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wants to filibuster on his own Bill?
2.16 a.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, when my friends ask me what it is like in your Lordships' House, I confess that I say that it is really like being in the best daycare centre in London. I have to say that it is rather less attractive as a place for full-time residential care such as it has become during the course of this debate and will no doubt become again at later stages of the progress of the Bill as a number of your Lordships have made it clear that we will be spending a great deal of time on the Bill's Committee and Report stages.
I do not begrudge the length of the debate. It is an historic occasion, and I mean that not just because it seems like getting on for a century since we started today. Natural justice requires that all those who are threatened with the loss of their parliamentary rights should be heard by your Lordships' House if they wish to speak. It is right and proper that many have done so today and that more will do so tomorrow. I say that even though the standard Conservative speech becomes just a little boring after one has heard it for the forty-fifth time. It is, of course, from time to time pleasantly varied by the Mark II Conservative speech, which raises the interesting though not entirely convincing argument based on the legal effect of Letters Patent and, in the case of the noble Lords, Lord Chesham and Lord Norrie,
180
the Statute of Westminster as well. I am sure that they should take that important point up with the Commonwealth High Commissioners, who will surely take up the cudgels on their behalf.
I am sorry that so much of this debate has to take place in the middle of the night. But at the personal level, I cannot avoid sympathy with those hereditary Peers who have served here for years, and in some cases for decades—in the case of the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, as they have told us, for more than five decades.
The hereditary Peers have attended your Lordships' House; they have spoken here; they have voted here; they have taken part in the work of Select Committees; they have sat on the Woolsack. They have performed their duties honourably and in many cases assiduously. But none of that in itself justifies the presence of hereditary Peers in Parliament simply by the right of descent.
The House of Lords goes back to the days when the great nobles of this country exercised economic, political, and even, in the early days, military power. The composition of this House reflected that power. But that power has gone with the snows of yesteryear. Economic power has gone to the City, to the industrial boardrooms, to the insurance companies and to the pension funds. Political power went with universal suffrage, the secret ballot and the end of the rotten boroughs. In this more democratic age the hereditary Peers cannot justify their claims to remain here.
By way of example, perhaps I may talk about the particular hereditary peerage with which I am personally most closely connected. My wife's grandfather was Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons and, on his retirement in 1943, was created a baron and became the first Lord Hemingford. That barony was created for distinguished public service. That is the typical background for hereditary peerages. It is far more typical than the absurd description of Peers as descendants of royal liaisons. But there is no possible reason why the first Lord Hemingford's services to the state should have entitled his son or grandson to sit for life as Members of this House. It is a view that is entirely shared by my brother-in-law, the present Lord Hemingford, as he made clear in the debate that was held in this House a few weeks ago. At the end of the 20th century the parliamentary rights of the hereditary peerage are a complete anomaly and have gone on for far too long.
Perhaps I may point out one curious historical fact. It is now 88 years since the Parliament Act restricted the powers of this House and promised that the House should be reconstituted on a popular, not a hereditary basis. That is nearly a decade longer than the period that separated the Parliament Act from the Great Reform Bill of 1832. While the whole process of democratic reform of our political system which started with the Great Reform Bill was in all other respects completed with the full enfranchisement of women in 1928, only this last

181
piece of reform, the composition and role of your Lordships' House, was left outstanding and has remained so for decades.
It is clear that, whatever form a new second Chamber takes, it should not, and will not, include a hereditary element. The suggestion put forward first in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, followed by others, that hereditary Peers might have a right to sit and speak but not to vote is simply unrealistic, if only because, I suspect, those Peers to take advantage of such rights would be those whom your Lordships' House would least wish to hear.
It is difficult to see in principle why the rights of the hereditary Peers should not be removed now, while stage two remains undecided. The only rational argument for retention, made many times, is that it presents a compromise that makes it more likely that an acceptable long-term solution will be achieved. If I believed that argument, I should argue against the Bill; but I do not believe it.
It may be that the Weatherill amendment makes it more likely that the Government will proceed to stage two. But that is not the problem. Unlike my noble friend Lord Thurso, I have no doubt that the Government will go ahead with stage two. What I am increasingly worried about, particularly since the publication of the White Paper, is that they will go ahead with the wrong stage two. The Government appear to be steering the Royal Commission towards a second Chamber which will look too much like the transitional House, with at best only a minority of elected Members. That, I believe, is profoundly wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a. powerful and convincing speech in favour of a second Chamber which will be predominantly elected. I agree with him, and I hope that the Government are listening.
There has been a certain unreality about this debate. Most speakers from the Conservative Benches and the Cross-Benches have in effect argued that the Bill should never have been introduced. That is indeed an arguable question, but it is irrelevant because the Bill is here and clearly the Government will not withdraw it. There are therefore only two alternatives to passing the Bill as it stands. One is to pass it with the Weatherill amendment; the other is to defeat it, either by a direct vote or by a wrecking amendment.
As I have indicated, it is doubtful whether the passing of the Weatherill amendment will make a better outcome at stage two more likely. We shall reserve our position on that until we see exactly what is proposed. But it is, in my belief, certain that the defeat of the Bill will make a better outcome less likely. What will happen? The Government will push the Bill through under the Parliament Act next year. They will then proceed to stage two on whatever basis they think fit.
What matters for stage two is not the views of your Lordships' House bat public opinion. If public opinion insists on a democratic second Chamber, the
182
Government will listen. They will not listen to your Lordships' House on its own. Rejection of the Bill will not help to shift public opinion. It will not be seen as a defence of the rights of the people, any more than the Opposition's crocodile tears over the European Parliamentary Elections Bill were seen as motivated by a genuine wish to defend the rights of the people to vote on open lists. Rejection will be seen, rightly or wrongly, as the last-gasp effort of some hereditary Peers and their allies among the Conservative life Peers to prolong their right to remain Members of your Lordships' House for a few more years. The Government will then be able once again to raise the old battle cry of "the Peers against the people", and the serious arguments about the role and composition of the second Chamber will be lost in the noise of that battle. I believe that, with or without the Weatherill amendment, the Bill should be passed by your Lordships' House.
2.28 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, over the past 11 hours or more of this Second Reading debate your Lordships have listened with great interest and attention to speeches that have ranged widely over a large number of issues which are thrown up by the Bill before us. Issues will also be raised tomorrow during the continuation of the debate on Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, suggested that some of the speeches from these Benches were of a somewhat repetitive nature. Perhaps I may respond to that mild criticism by saying that it is for me a matter of great regret that we have not heard more speeches from the Liberal Democrat Benches on this occasion. If I may say so, all four that we heard were of outstanding quality. It is surprising, to put it no higher, that we have not heard the usual divergence of opinion from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I am tempted to observe that, after so many hours of debate and so many fine speeches, it is doubtful whether the combined ingenuity and efforts of those members of the Mackay clan who are Members of your Lordships' House could come up with anything more to say. I am conscious, however, that I speak tonight after approximately 70 speeches and that tomorrow my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will be required to speak after some 170. Accordingly, daunting though my task may be, I accept that it is nothing to that which faces my noble friend and other Front Bench speakers who will conclude this historic debate some time during the course of tomorrow night.
In seeking to comment on some of the themes that have arisen and recurred during the first day's debate perhaps one starting point is to acknowledge that on this side of the House many recognise that the Government feel confident about their electoral mandate to bring forward this Bill, however misconceived many Members of this House may consider it to be. For my part, I fully understand the Government's position on this matter as explained by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. That point was reinforced more

183
than once by recent interventions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. To save him rising again, I accept the point that he makes. I do not consider the fact that this is a manifesto commitment to be the Government's most powerful argument. The more they repeat it and seek to rely upon it the more of a fig leaf it appears to be. But I accept that it exists and they are right to stress it. However, I am informed that the government of which I subsequently became a member sought to justify the poll tax legislation on the basis that that, too, was a manifesto commitment. It did not dissuade the then opposition from criticising the legislation up hill and down dale.
I hope, however, that for their part the Government will recognise that many noble Lords consider it to be not only their right but their duty to express their concerns about the limited scope and timing of this particular piece of legislation. Equally, they consider it to be their duty to do everything possible to ensure that the changes in the composition of this House, which the Government seek to implement by means of this Bill, should do nothing, whether by design or inadvertence, to weaken the scope or practical potential of the important constitutional role that this House is currently able to perform. Whether that approach is taken by hereditary Peers or life Peers who may have concerns about the Bill, I hope that those concerns will be listened to and that those who advance them will not be accused of lacking dignity or common sense.
I am very heartened by the tone and tenor of the debate that we have enjoyed over the past 11 hours. By and large, it has been conducted in a constructive manner. That was well illustrated by the approach of my noble friend Lord Saatchi who referred to the need for us all to show mutual respect for one another's position. I very much hope that the conciliatory approach that he advocated will permeate not only tomorrow's debate but the rest of our deliberations on this important Bill. Equally, this may be the appropriate time for me to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, whose speech was a typically independent and courageous contribution to your Lordships's deliberations. The speech confirmed what many of us have recognised for some time; namely, that the noble Lord was lucky to stand for elected office before the days of closed lists.
No doubt the time may come when hereditary Peers are required to leave this House. I believe that when that time comes they will do so with dignity. But in the interim there is no need for them to maintain a dignified silence. I, for my part, hope that they will not do so. That point was made very elegantly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his highly persuasive speech and by my noble friend Lady Park of Monmouth in her quietly delivered but very telling contribution. The value of such contributions has been well illustrated by the speeches of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. I know not whether any of those speakers
184
intends to stand for office or election if the Weatherill amendment comes forward. If they do, one must observe that their speeches tonight have been excellent audition performances.
One problem we all face in considering this Bill is that it has been put forward by the Government on the basis that it is a self-contained reform, designed to do no more than take away the rights of hereditary Peers to speak and to vote in your Lordships' House. The fundamental flaw in that description was ably exposed and dissected by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who drew attention to the unavoidable consequences that will follow when the Bill becomes law. That is one of a number of reasons why we object to the terms in which the Bill is currently framed.
While the British constitution over the centuries may have prided itself in its flexibility, in its ability to move on, as opposed to the more rigid terms of written constitutions of other modern democracies, I doubt whether Parliament has ever been asked to enact major constitutional legislation of this nature on the explicit representation of the Government of the day that the legislation in question, while it will bring about some permanent and fundamental change, will also bring into effect what at best could be described as a temporary constitutional settlement. The Government may be over-optimistic as to how soon they are able to bring forward the second stage of their reform. Certainly it might take much longer than is currently planned because, as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, indicated, no one can be sure for how long the proposed transitional House will last.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to it as being a paving Bill. It has been disputed as to whether he was correct to do so, and it will be interesting to hear tomorrow whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor accepts such a description. I think I understand what the noble Lord had in mind in giving the Bill such a description, and he may well have been correct to do so. Where the noble Lord was clearly correct was in his assertion that the debates on this Bill require to be forward-thinking and should have the objective of starting to build, albeit rather late in the day, a cross-party consensus as to the future composition and role of your Lordships' House. In another place a very strict view was taken as to the range of amendments that it was competent to debate and, when the final stage of the Bill came to be heard, the Government imposed a guillotine Motion.
I hope that a more liberal and constructive view will be taken of the issues which it is appropriate to discuss. In that regard I suspect that the estimate of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, as to the probable length of the Committee and Report stages was put forward more in hope than in earnest. Indeed, I have the distinct impression that that part of the noble Lord's speech had been drafted for him by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
This debate has demonstrated that one major issue which has arisen is the problems faced by the House in the Government's attitude to the mooted Weatherill amendment. The very possibility of such amendment being brought forward and being agreed to by the

185
Government casts, if I may say so, doubt on the validity of the approach of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to the effect that the issues relating to this Bill can he focused in two simple questions. The first of these, as she posed it, was, "Do you accept that hereditary Peers have a role in Parliament?"; to which, it was suggested, there are only two answers: yes or no. The fault may be mine, but I have some difficulty in fitting the Weatherill amendment into such an analysis.
The problems associated with the Weatherill amendment were well illustrated by the penetrating questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to which we look forward to hearing the answers tomorrow. No doubt, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, such an amendment could improve the Bill in a number of material respects. When we come to prepare for the Committee stage of the Bill, however, we are undoubtedly hampered by the fact that we have not yet seen the terms of the amendment. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will find it possible to respond positively to the suggestion made by my noble friend that a draft of such an amendment might be made available as soon as possible, presumably by depositing it as an informal paper in the Printed Paper Office.
It would also be helpful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would indicate whether the Government have it in mind to accept the amendment at Committee stage; or whether they intend to reserve their position on that issue until Report stage or even Third Reading. Unless the amendment is tabled for Committee stage, and accepted at that stage, I believe that this House will he deprived of adequate opportunity to give proper scrutiny to the detail of the amendment.
I pose one further question. It was foreshadowed in the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. If the amendment were accepted by the Government in this House, whether at Committee stage or later, do they guarantee that the amendment will remain part of the Bill: or is it suggested that it might be removed when the Bill returns to another place forcing this House to remain on some form of parliamentary probation until Royal Assent has been given?
These are serious and fundamental questions about the amendment to which it would be extremely helpful to have an answer tomorrow.
I touch on one further issue in a little detail before I close. It is the fact that in the event that the Bill becomes law, the number of Peers who will remain Members of the House, and remain available to be active in the House, will be reduced in number. All the work of the House is carried out by Members of the House who, with very few exceptions, receive no remuneration and comparatively modest expenses. While travelling expenses are met in full, only a minimum of other expenses is available and then only to Members who physically attend in the Chamber. It is essential that in the transitional House there be sufficient number of Peers available and prepared to carry out the work of the House efficiently and to good effect.
186
It is my submission that as a matter of urgency, in proposing a Bill which will bring about a transitional House, the Government must bring forward some proposals for making more funds available for those who will remain actively involved in the work of the House. It is not a new issue or a new concern. When yesterday's papers carried articles about possible increases in the remuneration of Lords Ministers, tonight seems as good a time as any to raise the subject once more. Before I go further, I should make it clear to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who will reply, and his ministerial colleagues, that I wish them every success in the discussions in which they may be involved. For my part, I consider it essential that Lords Ministers should be properly remunerated for the work that they have to undertake.
However, I raise the equally important consideration that Peers actively involved in the work should have sufficient funds made available to enable them to undertake that work without unacceptable financial sacrifice. What I suggest requires to be looked at is, first, that arrangements are put in place which provide adequate funding for support and research for Front Bench spokesmen; secondly that Short money (as such funding is currently called) should be made available to Cross-Bencher and Back-Bencher Members throughout the House who wish to take a detailed involvement in a particular Bill; and, thirdly, and importantly for those Peers who live some distance from London, arrangements should make it possible for such Peers to be compensated when they are working on behalf of the House at some distance from the House and therefore deprived of qualifying for any expenses.
There was unfortunately some dispute as to whether or not this debate should take place this week. One advantage of it having done so is that it will leave much more time to draft amendments over the Easter Recess than might otherwise have been available. I assure all my noble friends who have spoken that every effort will be made to table amendments which focus the concerns raised: concerns about arrangements for the transitional House; the writ of summons; Letters Patent; the sunset clause; the position of Scottish Peers under the Act of Union; and many others.
The need for such detailed amendments was well illustrated by the question asked of me by the noble Lord, Lord Acton. For those of your Lordships who were not present at the time, the question I was asked was whether the Conservative Party is committed to the principle of no political party having a majority in the transitional House. I have no hesitation in giving that question an unequivocal answer, and that answer is yes. But the very fact that the noble Lord thought it appropriate to ask that question illustrates the practical problems associated with legislating for the transitional House.
If one looks at the table on page 18 of the White Paper, it is quite clear that, contrary to popular myth, the Conservative Party does not currently enjoy a majority in your Lordships' House. Furthermore, what is meant by the question? Is it membership of a particular political party? Is it the taking of the Whip of a particular party? How often and how finely does the

187
political balance require to be adjusted? These are examples of the details we will require to examine at Committee stage—over many days, I suspect.
Tonight's debate has got the Bill's passage off to a good start. I look forward to tomorrow's debate with eager anticipation—not least because I shall not be required to speak at the end of many hours of listening. In the meantime, I can confirm that, like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, if he presses his amendment to a vote.
2.46 a.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe this has been a very stimulating debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, said, over 70 Peers have spoken today, and their speeches have been in many respects exhilarating.
A number of complaints have been made, inter alia, by the noble Lords, Lord Chesham, Lord Monro and Lord Trefgarne, that not enough time has been set aside for the debate. We have had almost 11 marvellous hours of debate and we may have 11 hours tomorrow. Before this debate, in this Session we had spent 40 hours or more on this topic. We had two days of debate in October, a two-day debate on the White Paper, and a one-day debate on the subject following the Queen's speech. I believe that a very considerable amount of time has been set aside, more than adequate time in relation to the stages so far concerning this great issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton, said that we should not be talking about this at all but should be discussing important issues like Kosovo and the European Council. There should be all the time that is appropriate for a debate on this issue, but your Lordships will become more aware than anyone, I suspect, when people outside this House think that too much time is being spent discussing our own future and too little time discussing issues that the great majority of the people out in the country are more concerned about.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, who said that one of the most impressive aspects of this House is the mutual respect in which we hold each other? I very much hope that the debate conducted today will be reflected in the debates that go on about this issue: namely, that whatever issues may divide us that mutual respect will continue to be shown.
There are a number of things that this debate is not about. It is not about depriving hereditary Peers of the opportunity to serve. True, they will not have the opportunity to be legislators by birthright. But they will not lose the opportunity that they and the generations who have gone before them have had to serve the community, just as so many other people have served the community in functions and places other than in the legislature. Nor is it about the politics of envy, vindictiveness, bitterness or class warfare, as has been suggested by a number of your Lordships. This Bill is about one simple proposition. The time has come—and it is long overdue—to abolish the right of people to legislate as a result of who their kinsmen are. We
188
believe that that is an idea which has had its time. It is time for us, as legislators, to come to grips with that issue, to face it and to deal with it appropriately.
Those on the Front Bench opposite did not indicate whether they support the hereditary principle. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, indicated what was their view one way or the other in relation to it. They made speeches of commanding brilliance but with, to a large extent, intense vacuity when it came to the detail of their party's position.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, speaking, whether significantly or not, from the Back Benches, indicated that she was defending the hereditary principle. As I have no idea what goes on in relation to the councils of the Conservative Party, I have no idea whether it was significant that she was speaking from the Back Benches or whether it was merely because there was not room on the Front Bench. Do I take it that the Front Bench view is that the hereditary principle should be defended or not? Therefore, we have no idea where the Conservative Party in this House stands on that issue.
A number of noble Lords sought to defend the hereditary principle. Two main points and a barrage of subsidiary points were advanced in relation to defending the hereditary principle.
The first is that the hereditary Peers constitute a group of very able people and it would be wrong to get rid of them. The second and most sustained argument in that respect was expressed very ably and forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. That was that the House has worked well with hereditary Peers; those who propose that it should be changed should make a case for changing it. It was asked how the House will be able to conduct its business if the membership is reduced, depending on whether or not the Weatherill amendment is passed, by approximately 659 or 750. I deal head on with both of those arguments of principle.
The first is that the hereditary Peers represent an able group of people. So indeed they do, but that is not the issue. There are great groups of able people out in the community who do not have the right to legislate because they are the children of people who had hereditary peerages. The fact that they are individually able does not of itself even begin to justify why they should have that right by birth.
I turn then to the propositions of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He said that the House has worked well. Indeed, it has done in a large number of respects; but at no stage did he address the argument as to whether it is right that people should be entitled to legislate by birth. He never addressed that. Secondly, he failed to point out to your Lordships' House that even with the removal of hereditary Peers, this Chamber, as a second Chamber, would be the largest second Chamber in the world. Please do not suggest to this House that with 500 life Peers it is not able to conduct its business as well as other second Chambers.
The present position is that in relation to people on this side of the House, not all of them are deployed on,

189
for example, committees which sit in this House. A number of people are keen and able to serve on committees, but there are not sufficient places for them to do so. I do not believe that this House is not able to cope with the demands that would be put upon it as a revising, debating, Chamber, even when hereditary Peers go.
There was nothing in the arguments put by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, even though they were put forcibly and well. As a House, I believe that we shall cope extremely well under the new conditions.
The next main argument advanced was as to how the Government could move to abolish the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in the House without knowing where they are going: that is the issue of whether or not we are right to adopt a step-by-step approach. I have no doubt that that is the right course to adopt. I have absolutely no doubt that that is the right way to do it. History throughout this century tells us, as every noble Lord knows, that on each occasion that attempts have been made to reform the House of Lords by both abolishing the right of the hereditary Peers to vote and putting together an alternative against that, everybody seeks to resist the abolition of the hereditary Peers and resist the particular proposal that is put. As a result, nothing is done to move the agenda forward.
I believe, without doubt, that this is the right way to do it, as a matter of history and as a matter of pragmatic common sense. There is a consensus behind that view and so there is a majority in both Houses for the removal of the hereditary Peers. Having done that, a consensus is sought about what should happen next, first, through the medium of the Royal Commission, and, secondly, through the Joint Committee of both Houses. That is a typically British way of going about things.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is my impression that the noble and learned Lord is wrong about the history. It is because it has always been done in two stages that a proper reform has not taken place. One has only to look at the precedent of 1911, where the Preamble said that the House should be elected on a more popular basis. That did not happen because it was a two-stage process. That is why the noble Lord is wrong about the history. Does he not accept the point that we have made, that if he is so serious about long-term reform, and if he is so serious about getting rid of the hereditary peerage, it is far more likely to happen if it is done in one go.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, in 1911 neither stage happened. He will recall, as he sits there proudly as an hereditary Peer, that no hereditary Peers were expelled at that stage. In 1968, again it was tried in two stages and again it failed. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I believe it is he who is wrong about the
190
history. We have learned from history, whereas he has not even learned his history, let alone learned from it. I believe that we are doing it in the right way; I believe—
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord is so certain that he is right and that we will go to a stage two, why will he not provide any guarantees on the face of the Bill that that is what will happen?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe it is neither appropriate nor necessary to give—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe it is neither appropriate nor necessary to give such guarantees or to tie our hands in any way because the appropriate course is a move, first, to abolish the rights of the hereditary Peers to sit and vote, secondly, to get the views of the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee, and, thirdly, to move to the next stage. With the greatest respect, that seems to us, and I believe it would seem to objective observers, to be a sensible way of moving and a sensible way of building a consensus in relation to it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. There was a bit of a roar from this side when he said that it was neither appropriate nor necessary. Could the noble and learned Lord take on board that if, on the one hand, he is saying, "Oh, but we will operate by consensus"—the noble and learned Lord has been saying that—how on earth can he also say that it is not appropriate and necessary to deal with the matter as suggested?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was asked about matters on the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord probably heard. The consensus that we seek to obtain is one in the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, ultimately it is a matter for a consensus that embraces the whole of the nation in relation to what happens next, not just a consensus in this place.
I move from that point. The next point made, which was a theme throughout the debate, concerned the transitional House. Many noble Lords have complained about the terms of the interim House. Some—although not many—have said that it will be worse than the existing House. As I understand it, the argument goes that the random nature of the selection of the hereditary Peers provides a particular sort of protection against abuse that would not be present with only 500 life Peers. As I understand it, that is the argument advanced in this respect.
Perhaps I may identify the characteristics of this House before the passage of any Bill. The Prime Minister of whatever party has at the moment an unfettered right to appoint life Peers or hereditary Peers to the House. The Tories have an inbuilt majority in this House which could not be got rid of without the most massive creation of new Peers. There is an identifiable

191
independent element in this House which includes the Bishops, the Law Lords and the former Law Lords. After the Bill has passed, the absolute majority of the Conservative Party will have gone. The Prime Minister has said that he will not appoint to this House except to create broad parity. The appointment of Cross Benchers will be in the hands of an appointments commission. The Bishops and the Law Lords will continue as before. The Prime Minister has indicated that he will accept and pass straight to the Queen all of the appointments recommended by the appointments commission.
Which of the two arrangements gives rise to a more independent House? With the greatest respect, I suggest that it would be the House after the Bill is passed rather than the one before—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord explain to the House how enough of the 500 life Peers will attend to execute the business of the House? Many have a living to make and therefore cannot be here on a daily basis. A good many are not well enough to attend on a daily basis. And there is no requirement on any Peer, either life or hereditary, to attend this place. In what way would the noble and learned Lord ensure that there are enough life Peers to keep the business of the House going, given that I have looked at all the statistics over the past five years and the average daily attendance of life Peers would not be enough for the Government to be able to conduct all the business of the House?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that intervention. I speak having been a Member of your Lordships' House for only two years, so I lack her great experience in relation to these matters. However, on this side of the House we have 175 life Peers and 18 hereditary Peers, and we have been able convincingly and happily for the two years during which we have been in government to conduct a reasonable government side of the House—
Baroness Blatch: You have not!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I see the noble Baroness saying, "You have not". Speaking from my perspective, we have been able perfectly adequately to conduct the business of the House on this side of the House. I have no idea whether the noble Baroness thinks that the life Peers on her side of the House would not give that degree of devotion and duty to the conduct of the business of the House—I suspect that they would—even though they have livings to earn and are not compelled to be here. Looking around, I see a large number of life Peers on the Conservative side of the House, and on the Liberal Democrat side—
Noble Lords: Not many!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, at this time of the night, I am compelled to agree with that remark about there not being many on the Liberal Democrat
192
side. Those life Peers give selflessly to the House and I have absolutely no doubt that they will continue to do so in the future.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, before the Minister continues, may I develop that argument for a moment? According to the records based on a daily attendance figure of 400 Peers, only 228 life Peers attend daily. If one then adds perhaps 92 hereditary Peers, one still reaches a figure of only 320 Peers. This means that if we wish to run this Chamber with around 400 Peers, with the present business, functions, roles and powers, there will be a shortfall of 80 Peers. My question is, therefore, that on the basis of the facts, can the Minister confirm that 228 life Peers attend this House daily?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have not had an opportunity independently to check the figures. But even on the figures the noble Lord has given, I cannot see much difficulty in relation to the business of the House being carried on. The business of the House involves Committee sittings, Questions, debates; sometimes there are votes and sometimes there are not. There would be little difficulty in the main business of the House being carried on the basis suggested by the noble Lord. I have no doubt that our side of the House would be able to do it. I have no doubt that circumstances would be adapted even on the noble Lord's side of the House to ensure that, when necessary, Peers would turn up to do what was required of them. I am not as pessimistic as he. nor do the figures indicate that the business of the House would not be carried on.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that what he is saying demonstrates that the discussion should be in terms of the active Members of this House? Also, does he not agree that the more he speaks, the more he reinforces the point I was making earlier in the debate? All he is doing is building assertion on assertion. No study has been undertaken to bear out his claim. Can he say what he has looked at to bear out his statements?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, active membership is the vital point. The noble Lord constantly comes back to the point that a House with 500 life Peers would not be able to carry on the business of a second Chamber. He may recall that in the United States of America the second chamber has 100 members. So we have five times that number. I ask your Lordships to look around the House at five past three in the morning.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, will the Minister confirm my belief that each senator in the Senate of the United States is assisted by at least five research assistants, inquirers or other nosy parkers in the pursuit of their duty?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot confirm the exact staffing arrangements in the Senate.

193
I do not know how the noble Lord is so accurately informed. But how is that relevant? The noble Lord does not need to answer that question.
Lord Cochrane of Cults: My Lords, perhaps I may answer.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not intend to give way any more. It is now five minutes past three in the morning. My point was simply this. I believe that the effects of the changes made by the Act will make this House much more independent; that is, less dependent on the patronage of others. I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, confirmed that a Conservative government would not seek to move from parity. In those circumstances we have
194
a House that is not dominated by one party, preserves the independent element, and has a means of appointing to that independent element that does not depend on the patronage of the Prime Minister.
I believe that the way we are going about things is correct. It will achieve two purposes. First, it will actually achieve movement on this issue, which has not been achieved for over 100 years. Secondly, it will build in the country a consensus for change through the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee. This House would be wrong to seek to thwart the wishes and the need for change.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned to tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes past three o'clock.

  Arms Embargoes
  Arms Embargoes
  EU: Procedures for Choosing President and Commissioners
  EU: Procedures for Choosing President and Commissioners
  British Council: Grants to Artists
  British Council: Grants to Artists
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Sudan: British Council Budget
  Sudan: British Council Budget
  European Commission: Membership
  European Commission: Membership
  Iraq: UN Sanctions
  Iraq: UN Sanctions
  Rwanda: International Criminal Tribunal
  Rwanda: International Criminal Tribunal
  Russia: Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Russia: Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Prisoners' Healthcare
  Prisoners' Healthcare
  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Drugs Prevention Initiative
  Handguns: Compensation Claims
  Handguns: Compensation Claims
  Trials of Children who Commit Grave Crimes
  Trials of Children who Commit Grave Crimes
  Enforcement Cameras
  Enforcement Cameras
  Crime (Sentences) Act, Section 4
  Crime (Sentences) Act, Section 4
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Computer System
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Computer System
  Asylum Decisions
  Asylum Decisions
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Asylum Applications
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Asylum Applications
  Salvador Allende
  Salvador Allende
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Children: Age of Consent
  Children: Age of Consent
  Referendums: Nolan Committee Recommendations
  Referendums: Nolan Committee Recommendations
  Children and the NHS
  Children and the NHS
  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Watercourse Pollution
  Watercourse Pollution
  Photocard Driving Licences
  Photocard Driving Licences
  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Severn Rail Tunnel
  Vacant Council Housing
  Vacant Council Housing
  Shipping
  Shipping
  Receipts from Sale of Council Housing
  Receipts from Sale of Council Housing
  Traffic Control Systems: Millennium Compliance
  Traffic Control Systems: Millennium Compliance
  GM Crop Trials: Risk Assessment
  GM Crop Trials: Risk Assessment
  Nesscliffe Bypass
  Nesscliffe Bypass
  Caravans Occupied by Travellers
  Caravans Occupied by Travellers
  Contaminated Land
  Contaminated Land
  Regional Development Agencies: Membership Nomination
  Regional Development Agencies: Membership Nomination
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Leasehold and Commonhold
  Leasehold and Commonhold
  Business Aviation in the South-East
  Business Aviation in the South-East
  Northern Ireland Community Attitudes Survey
  Northern Ireland Community Attitudes Survey
  Assisted Areas Map
  Assisted Areas Map
  Arms Procurement
  Arms Procurement
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Equine Viral Arteritis
  Lobsters and Crawfish
  Lobsters and Crawfish
  Intervention Board
  Intervention Board
  Badger Culling
  Badger Culling
  Genetically Modified Seeds
  Genetically Modified Seeds