Sitting of 30 March 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    Primary Care Groups
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on the establishment of primary care groups. [77698]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Four hundred and eighty-one primary care groups, covering the whole of England, will become operational from 1 April. They will replace the divisive internal market introduced by the previous Government, which set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. In place of that, the primary care groups will represent all local family doctors, together with community and practice nurses, representatives of social services and lay people. They should ensure more modem and dependable services and less bureaucracy overall.
    Mr. Boswell: Now that PCGs are a reality, is the Secretary of State worried about their management capabilities and about the level of management cost allowance, which was said by John Chisholm of the British Medical Association to be inadequate at £3 a head? Is he concerned about the suggestions by other GPs that PCGs may form a perfect vehicle for rationing health care services?
    Mr. Dobson: Primary care groups were introduced with the consent and agreement of the BMA. The level of management costs is neither a floor nor a ceiling; it varies from place to place, and rightly so. I am confident that, as a result of the introduction of primary care groups, people will have more universal access to top-quality care. What we are proposing goes with the grain of what the professions wanted, and that is what we have delivered.
    Mr. David Hinchliffe: In developing the policy, will my right hon. Friend consider the future capital resourcing of primary care? Is he aware of the
    842
    difficulties with the funding arrangements in respect of GPs' surgeries and health centres, whereby GPs occasionally have to charge exorbitant rents to social services and community health trusts for community psychiatric nurses who are in attendance, which obstructs the close working relationship of health and social services in a primary care setting?
    Mr. Dobson: We want to continue improving primary care premises. We have changed the rules to make it easier for people to develop or improve existing primary care premises in health action zones, and we will continue to try to help. As an indication of the progress that has been made, the Turnberg review of health care in London more than a year ago reported that about 50 per cent. of premises were inadequate. That figure is now down to 32 per cent.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the House on 18 January that "primary care groups provided incentives for all concerned to level up' to the standards of the best."—[Official Report, 18 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 594.]?
    What does he have to say to the 60 per cent. of patients whose GPs were fundholders and who are already finding, in the run-up to the takeover by PCGs, that services such as counselling, alternative therapies and many other innovative services are being withdrawn by those GPs? Can he tell the House by what tortuous logic he can define the withdrawal of services as levelling up?
    Mr. Dobson: First, let us get the facts straight. It is not the case that 60 per cent. of GPs were fundholders when we took over. It was about 50 per cent.—a large number of whom were unwilling fundholders, but had decided to go along with the scheme. We have tried to make it clear to health authorities and others that we do not expect people to withdraw services that are presently being provided.
    Mr. Hammond: It is happening already.
    Mr. Dobson: If it is happening, it should not be—but that is down to local decision making. The decisions will be made by the doctors, the community nurses, the practice nurses, people from social services and lay people who serve on the boards of primary care groups. Decisions will be taken by the people who are responsible for delivering the services in each locality; the first time that that has been the case in the history of the health service.
    Ms Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the success of the primary care group in Northampton, which built on the work of the commissioning GPs—who existed under the previous Government—and did such important work in terms of commissioning emergency pelvic scanning for women, which has helped deal with the problems of the early stages of pregnancy? Does he agree that, if the doctors of Daventry are having problems setting up their primary care groups, they could come to Northampton where they would learn a great deal?
    Mr. Dobson: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the medical profession. Until 1 April, it will have had

    843
    monopoly control over decision making in primary care since primary care was invented. Voluntarily, the profession agreed to give representation to nurses, social services and lay people on the boards of the primary care groups because it thought that that was the best way of serving local people. In nearly every part of the country, the profession has made remarkable strides in developing primary care groups. I emphasise that this is an entirely voluntary arrangement; no law has been changed. However, in every part of the country, the primary care groups have been established with the consent of—and, in most cases, a great deal of enthusiasm from—the professionals on whom we depend.

    Bed Blocking
    Dr. Vincent Cable: How many beds are currently blocked in the district general hospitals in west Middlesex and Kingston. [77699]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): On 19 March, out of 376 occupied beds at Kingston hospital there were 19 containing patients ready for discharge but still in acute care. In the 319 occupied beds at West Middlesex hospital there were 40 such patients.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that the considerable problems that those two hospitals have with admissions are being compounded by the fact that the surrounding local authorities, which happen to be respectively Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative controlled, are all having to cut their services for the elderly because of the local government settlement? At a national level, what is his reaction to last week's Age Concern report, written by a leading NHS geriatrician, which said that up to 70,000 additional admissions could be secured if the Government were willing to co-ordinate, with local authorities, effective rehabilitation programmes for elderly patients?
    Mr. Hutton: That is exactly the direction of our current work within the Government. We want to reduce delayed discharges, and we are working to that end. Last winter, we spent £209 million in additional money on trying to find better ways of managing discharge from acute hospitals into the community. Many of those schemes operated in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Nearly £1.5 million was spent in Kingston and Richmond health authority area, and one such scheme benefited 40 patients. We are pursuing the right policies and additional resources are being spent. The new national service framework for older people, which we launched last week, will include an expert task group working specifically to improve discharge arrangements from acute hospitals into the community.

    Accident and Emergency Services
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: What analysis he has made of the impact on employment in the NHS of his accident and emergency modernisation schemes. [77700]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Altogether, £100 million extra will be invested
    844
    over the coming year in modernising accident and emergency departments. That will be better for patients and staff; it will also help to retain and create jobs. The recent investment of more than £1 million in modernising the accident and emergency department at the Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth provided orders for more than 20 firms from all parts of the country. Rule of thumb suggests that the £100 million investment will provide 100 times as many orders, and that 100 times as many jobs will flow from them.
    Mr. Cunningham: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on one of the biggest hospital development programmes in history, with 31 new hospital developments worth more than £2 billion? Will he publish a list of the companies involved, and the jobs created as a result of that new development?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes, I will. As I have pointed out, more than 20 firms received orders for £1 million worth of improvements in Portsmouth. The developments in some parts of the country—at the Norfolk and Norwich, for example, where the total cost of the hospital is £160 million—will result in huge orders being placed all over the country. That is part of our policy not only to benefit the patients and hard-working staff of the health service, but to create jobs all over the country.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The Secretary of State will know that some people being treated in accident and emergency units have to go into an intensive care unit because of the severity of their injuries. He will also know that the director of the ICU at Bedford hospital wrote to him six months ago complaining about the fact that he had had to turn away 58 patients because he did not have enough beds. Why has the Secretary of State not yet replied?
    Mr. Dobson: Because I went there and spoke to him.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: From among the many advisers and specialists that my right hon. Friend talks to in the Department of Health, has he yet received any clinical explanation for the fact that, whenever he gives us good news about the national health service, Opposition Members look depressed?
    Mr. Dobson: They look depressed today because we can announce that waiting lists in February fell by 39,000, taking the figure 38,000 below the one that we inherited. Over the past year, more than 450,000 extra operations have been carried out. [Interruption.] It is no good idiots opposite talking about fiddling—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that such language is not necessary. The Secretary of State knows what "Erskine May" says about good parliamentary language.
    Mr. Dobson: I withdraw the word "idiots", and replace it with "Tories", Madam Speaker.
    The Tories mock the performance of people in the health service. Nurses, doctors and other professionals put in a huge amount of work to deliver operations to 450,000 more people in the current year, and they will go on doing so. They will bring the waiting lists down, deal with more out-patients and with more accident and emergency cases.

    845
    There has been no fiddling; the figures have been produced on exactly the same basis as under the previous Government.

    Beta Interferon
    Mr. Paul Burstow: If he will make a statement on the provision of beta interferon in the NHS. [77701]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): All health authorities were issued in 1995 with guidance that covered the use of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. It recommended that prescribing should be initiated by hospital specialists where clinically appropriate. The costs of prescribing are expected to be met within health authority allocations, taking account of local priorities.
    Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for that reply. May I draw the Minister's attention to two cases in my constituency? Josephine Timms, a mother with a young family, and Adrian Donno, a young man with a promising career ahead of him, were each diagnosed with multiple sclerosis last July. Both were recommended by consultant neurologists for beta interferon prescription, but both are still waiting.
    Every time they have a further attack, they become more dependent and more disabled. The longer they wait, the more likely it is that they will not fit the health authority's criteria for prescribing, which require them to demonstrate that they can walk unassisted without stopping for at least 100 yd.
    Does the Minister agree that the failure to prescribe treatment that the consultant neurologists say will be beneficial to those patients and to others like them lets those people down and leads to a reduction in their quality of life?
    Mr. Denham: Obviously, I shall take an interest in any individual case raised by an hon. Member. However, we should be clear that there are continuing questions about the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of beta interferon, the level of benefits achieved, which patients will benefit and for how long, and how the benefits compare with those of supporting MS patients through, for example, specialist nursing care. Health authorities and clinicians rightly take those and other factors into account when they set local priorities.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: As the Minister tells us, beta interferon can be prescribed only by a hospital consultant. The problem is, however, that, after initial diagnosis, many people with multiple sclerosis do not see a hospital consultant for years. They therefore do not know whether beta interferon would be the drug to help them. Would it not be sensible to put in place some recall system so that people with MS have the option to see a consultant if they feel that beta interferon or some other drug might help them, or if they are not coping as well as they should with MS?
    Mr. Denham: I shall consider my hon. Friend's suggestion carefully. We must ensure that clinical and cost-effective treatments are spread throughout the
    846
    national health service as quickly as possible, and that is one of the roles of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which will provide clear and authoritative advice on key treatments and procedures. Subject to the outcome of consultation on the discussion document and appraisal by NICE, we are minded to refer beta interferon to the institute.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of an exchange about rationing in the health service that took place last year between me and the Minister for Public Health, in which I asked a very simple question:
    "Is there rationing or is there not?"
    The answer I got was very simple:
    "No".—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 746.]
    In view of the evidence put to the House by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), does the Minister now wish to revise that answer?
    Mr. Denham: No.
    Miss Widdecombe: Is there or is there not rationing of beta interferon? Is there or is there not rationing of Aricept? Is there or is there not rationing of Ironotecan? Is there or is there not rationing of Taxol? If not, why cannot those patients who are prescribed those drugs obtain them?
    Mr. Denham: The reality is that priority setting is a feature of every health care system in the world. It happens to be the case that the national health service is fairer, more equitable and more efficient than the privatised alternative that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) advocated earlier this week. While the Conservatives are giving up on the national health service, new Labour is building a new national health service.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? If he is denying rationing in the health service, will he explain to the House, and to those concerned people who would like to obtain drugs and operations that are not available, his definition of the difference between rationing and a priority?
    Mr. Denham: Under the health system advocated by the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, any access to health care would be rationed by the ability to pay.

    Children's Services
    Mr. Denis Murphy: What estimate he has made of the total amount to be spent in the current financial year on improving NHS children's services. [77702]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): Forecast total gross expenditure on the national health service in the United Kingdom for 1998–99 is £48.1 billion. Overall funding does not distinguish between age groups, although there are specific initiatives in our expenditure plans that will

    847
    be of direct benefit to children's health services. Planned gross expenditure for 1999–2000 is £50.8 billion—an increase of 3.1 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Murphy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Northumbria health care trust plans to build phase 2 of Wansbeck general hospital. When will that building commence and will it include the much-needed children's centre?
    Mr. Hutton: I acknowledge the support that my hon. Friend has shown for the new hospital development in his constituency. The child health centre is an integrated part of the Wansbeck phase 2 scheme, which is now under private finance initiative negotiation. It is expected that a full business case will be submitted to the regional office in May 1999. The trust hopes to be in a position to complete negotiations with a PFI partner within the next few weeks and officials from the regional office and the PFI unit are working with the trust on various aspects of the deal.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is the Minister aware that funding of additional paediatric intensive care beds at Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency is a priority task for the management in the financial year ahead? Is he further aware that Addenbrooke's hospital is forecasting for the first time ever a revenue deficit of £2.5 million in the year ahead? For a well-managed hospital, that is an exceptional situation. Can the Minister explain why the Government have contributed to that difficulty by imposing costs of £622,000 next year to pay for the implementation of the working time directive?
    Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman takes a regrettably negative tone. He has failed to acknowledge the fact—and it is a fact—that additional money is being made available to provide additional paediatric intensive care beds in the national health service.
    Mr. Lansley: indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hutton: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, because that is a fact. Some £15 million is being made available to provide additional paediatric intensive care beds. He let that fact slip through his hands.
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most unpleasant experiences for parents and children in the NHS is being rushed to accident and emergency departments with no separate facilities for children? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had the pleasure of visiting the separate, specialist facilities in my constituency at the Queen Elizabeth II hospital, which provides an excellent service for children admitted to A and E. Can my hon. Friend comment on monitoring the expenditure of the welcome new money going into A and E provision and how it will improve services for children where there is no separate provision for them?
    Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. She is dealing with the reality, which is that the Government are spending significant extra money modernising accident and emergency departments across
    848
    the country. She, like my hon. Friends, but unlike Opposition Members, will be interested to know that some of the money in the modernisation programme will be spent on providing A and E facilities for children. That is good news and it is a pity Opposition Members are not prepared to acknowledge it.

    Nurse Shortages
    Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the level of nursing shortages; and if he will make a statement. [77704]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): From the various figures and sources available, I estimate that there are around 9,000 nursing vacancies in the national health service that have existed for three months or more. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on 1 February we launched a major recruitment campaign. Since then, more than 52,000 people have contacted the national response line. Around 5,000 of them were qualified nurses asking about returning to nursing. Nurses who have to go on refresher courses and return to the NHS will have their fees paid by the NHS; those who have already done so will have their fees reimbursed, including his constituents.
    Mr. George: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that clarification. The Royal College of Nursing estimates that there are between 12,000 and 13,000 nurse vacancies and believes that nurse shortages rather than flu epidemics created the winter crisis. What steps will he take to encourage experienced nurses—the backbone of the NHS—to remain in nursing and not leave the NHS at the present rate?
    Mr. Dobson: The RCN certainly produced estimates different from those of officials of the NHS and my Department. When I last appeared before the Health Committee, I said that I would authorise my officials to get together with people with other estimates so that we can agree how many vacancies there are and not have futile discussion about numbers rather than doing something about it. We are trying to recruit extra nurses. It looks as though the campaign is successful. We are also trying to introduce family friendly policies so that services are available for nurses who want to be able to take their children to school in the morning, take them home in the evening or need a creche so that they can take younger children to the hospital or community service with them. We are determined to bring that about. That applies not only to nurses, but to everyone who works in the NHS because it must provide a top-class service for patients while allowing its hard-working staff to reconcile their jobs with their family responsibilities.
    Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS trust, which held open evenings at the Crawley and East Surrey hospital sites attended by 165 people? Ten at Crawley signed up for the back-to-nursing course. They are delighted. There is clearly a new view about nursing and people feel invigorated that they are getting back into the profession that they love.
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend, speaking from her experience as a qualified nurse, offers me

    849
    some reassurance. In other parts of the country, besides the national initiatives that we have taken, local nursing managements are conducting a variety of initiatives to attract people back. It looks as though they are working. I have recently visited several hospitals with nurse returners. When I asked one why she had come back, she said that her children had reached the stage where it was quieter at work. She was working in the intensive care unit.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The NHS cannot afford to lose any competent and qualified nurses. I certainly applaud the steps that have been taken to follow up the Opportunity 2000 initiatives. The NHS was the first public sector body to join Opportunity 2000. We had a debate yesterday on the Macpherson report. In 1993, the NHS set a target for the number of black and ethnic minority G grade nurses. What further steps are being taken to ensure that we do not lose the skills of public sector workers in the NHS from the black and ethnic minority communities?
    Mr. Dobson: I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is bad if we lose trained nurses from the health service. When we got in there were 140,000 qualified ex-nurses no longer working in the NHS, the odd one or two of whom, I have reason to believe, left when the right hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Health.
    We are doing a lot more than any previous Government about the recruitment and retention of black and Asian staff. One of the biggest problems is that, when one says to Afro-Caribbean young people, "Will you think of taking a job as a nurse in the health service?" they say, "Not if they're going to treat me like they treated my mum." We have to deal with that. We are setting examples in so far as we can. The only appointments that I make in the NHS are of non-executive directors. I am proud to say that since we got in we have raised the number of women on the boards to 50 per cent. and the number of black and Asian people to 10 per cent.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone with an ounce of common sense is highly delighted not only with the recruitment campaign that he has mounted, but with his serious acknowledgement that there is a problem with nurses and nurse retention? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will abandon any idea of introducing schemes for discretionary payments for nurses? We know that within the NHS such a scheme for doctors is unfair, inequitable and expensive.
    Mr. Dobson: I am not entirely clear what my hon. Friend is referring to. We have certainly set our faces against the idea of performance-related pay in the NHS. We want to relate pay mainly to responsibility. With—I think—the likely agreement of the profession, we intend to get rid of the rigid grading system that is holding back the professional development of nurses and holding down their pay.

    Newbury Hospital
    Mr. David Rendel: When he will announce his decision about the construction of the new Newbury hospital. [77705]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Officials at the south-east regional office of the NHS executive are currently in discussion with West Berkshire Priority Care Service NHS trust on the funding mechanism for the construction of the new Newbury hospital. Ministers will consider the project once those discussions are complete.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware that there is a nurse now serving at Newbury hospital who was promised when she did her training as a young person that the new Newbury hospital would be built shortly? As it is still not being built and she is coming up to her retirement, is it not time that the Government stopped saying, "Shortly" and said, "Now"?
    Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the scheme is unusual and complex. For example, it is the first time that a charity has been proposed to act as a private finance initiative partner. It was also important to examine whether the plans fitted the strategic direction of Berkshire health authority. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Berkshire is benefiting from a £73 million publicly funded scheme for the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS trust to resite its services at the Royal Berkshire hospital. That is one of the 31 major hospital developments worth almost £2.4 billion that make up the largest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: How many patients have been removed from central returns health service waiting list statistics since 2 May 1997, without having received the treatment intended. [77706]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): National health service waiting lists are falling because thousands of extra patients are being treated; more than 4 million elective patients have been treated in the first nine months of 1998–99—a third of a million more than a year ago.
    Patients may be removed from waiting lists for a number of reasons other than treatment; for example, if they have recovered from their illness, or have been treated elsewhere. During the first three quarters of this year, 490,000 patients were removed from waiting lists; that means that the proportion of patients removed from the waiting list has remained broadly stable over recent years.
    Mr. Letwin: Why has the number of patients waiting to get on to waiting lists apparently doubled since May 1997?
    Mr. Denham: It would be better for the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge what has been achieved in Dorset, where he comes from and where the allocation of an additional £4.2 million means that 8,000 more people were seen in hospitals in the Dorset health authority area during the first half of this year than in the first half of 1997–98. That additional work is a tribute to the staff of the national health service, whom he should not try to undermine.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend ensure that all people with Down's syndrome have

    851
    equality of access to all waiting lists? According to the Down's Syndrome Association, that is not the case at present; contrary to Government policy, some practitioners are treating those patients as second-class citizens. My hon. Friend will be aware of a recent television documentary that highlighted some cases, and some hon. Members will be aware of other cases.
    Mr. Denham: I shall certainly look into any cases that my hon. Friend draws to my attention. It is the case that clinical need is the principle that governs the national health service.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I hope that the Minister will answer my actual question and not the one he hoped I would ask.
    This morning, we have seen that, for the first time, the figures for waiting lists in England have fallen below the level that Labour inherited in May 1997, and we accept those figures. However, the number of those waiting more than 12 weeks to see their consultant, after seeing their doctor, has risen from about 250,000 to about 500,000, and the number of those still waiting for treatment more than a year after they have seen their consultant has risen from about 30,000 to just over 50,000. Given those figures, when will the Government change from their obsession with lists—which do not matter in the slightest to patients—to an obsession with waiting times, which matter deeply to patients? Will they tell us when those waiting times—between doctor and consultant, and consultant and treatment—will be below the level that Labour inherited from the previous Government?
    Mr. Denham: First, the number of people waiting more than a year has fallen. Secondly, the number of people referred to out-patients includes those—perhaps 150,000—who attend for post-surgery visits. We intend to pay attention to out-patients; we are considering our planning for this year and anticipate that about a third of a million more out-patients will be treated in the coming year. That will take the number to be treated to more than 11 million for the first time.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the past 24 hours have been a significant demonstration of the contrast between the Labour Government's approach to the NHS and that of the Conservatives? The falling waiting lists contrast with the statement made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) articulating the Tory philosophy of the massive expansion of the private health care sector as a solution to the country's health care difficulties.
    Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is right. While the Labour Government are building a new national health service—modern, dependable and there when people need it—the Opposition have given up on the national health service.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Does the Minister recall that, before the election, the objective of the NHS was that 90 per cent. of patients should be seen in out-patients within 13 weeks of their first referral by a GP, and that the remaining 10 per cent. should be seen, at the latest, within 26 weeks of referral? Is it true—
    852
    I cannot believe that it is—that the Government have junked that objective? If it is true, what alternative, tighter target have the Government set in its place?
    Mr. Denham: No, we have not junked the objective, but we are delivering on our manifesto commitment to cut waiting lists, and we have now brought them down to below the level that we inherited.
    Mr. Ronnie Campbell: What advice does my hon. Friend have for a constituent of mine who has been waiting for a heart bypass for many months? In the past few months, he has three times been sent to the hospital, gowned up, given pre-meds and then sent home. I understand that he is to go tomorrow to try again. I also understand that the Freeman hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, has only five emergency beds.
    Mr. Denham: I hope that my hon. Friend's constituent will benefit from the measures that the Government are taking to invest in the NHS: from 1 April begins the investment of an extra £21 billion in the NHS, and we have announced a further £320 million to tackle waiting lists in 1999–2000. The measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on nurse retention and recruitment are the key to ensuring that hospitals are properly staffed and able to meet their commitments to patients.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Today is not the triumph for the Minister that he would like people to believe it is. Instead of a serious improvement in what is really happening to patients who need treatment, there has been a published fall in the number of people on waiting lists together with a parallel rise in the number of people waiting to get on waiting lists in the first place. The real figure is far higher—[Interruption.]—as the Secretary of State, who is barracking from the Front Bench, well knows. People on the lists are waiting longer—[Interruption.]—in the case of the Alexandra hospital, Redditch, they are waiting more than 1,000 per cent. longer. Will the Minister, perhaps to a quiet House, now confirm that he has not yet met his pre-election pledge? In the interests of doing what is good for patients rather than for politicians, will he now drop his ill-conceived waiting list policy altogether and concentrate on what is good for the treatment of people who need it?
    Mr. Denham: All the 450,000 extra operations carried out last year were performed on people who needed them. Which of them would the hon. Gentleman prefer we had not treated?
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend commend the approach to waiting lists adopted by the new Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS trust? In its first year of operation, which ends tomorrow, the trust has achieved not only its waiting list targets, but management savings of a recurrent £400,000 per annum. It has targets of a further recurrent £400,000 per annum next year, and all that money will be diverted into patient care. Will my hon. Friend commend every single person who works in that hospital trust on their excellent work?
    Mr. Denham: I certainly commend all the staff in that hospital trust, and all the staff in the NHS, without whose

    853
    work we could not have achieved the fall in waiting lists that has been announced today. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the efficiency with which his local trust and many others now operate. Supported by the waiting list task force, the NHS is not only treating more patients, but treating them better, and organising services in more effective and more efficient ways. I am sure that my hon. Friend's local hospital is an example to the rest of the country.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Which health authorities have discussed with general practitioners measures to reduce the number of patients which they refer to hospitals for surgery for which there is a waiting list. [77709]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I would expect all health authorities and primary care groups regularly to discuss with GPs arrangements to ensure that patients receive the treatment they need, as quickly as possible. That is the key to improving health, reducing inequalities and modernising NHS services. Reductions in waiting lists are being achieved on the back of record growth in activity, with an extra 460,000 patients expected to be treated in 1998–99 than a year earlier.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: In view of the exchanges that we have heard this afternoon, will the Minister confirm to the House that the number of patients who have waited more than 13 weeks to see a specialist has increased by more than 200,000 since Labour came to power?
    Mr. Denham: I repeat what I said earlier: in planning for next year, we anticipate treating at least a third of a million more out-patients. That will take the number of out-patients to be treated in the national health service above 11 million for the first time.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Does the Minister think it is ethical for GPs to be told that their patients cannot be referred for major operations because hospitals are trying to reduce waiting lists by performing only small operations and spending insufficient money? Does the Minister accept that that practice is prevalent, and will he condemn it?
    Mr. Denham: I assure the hon. Gentleman absolutely that, if he can give me chapter and verse on those allegations, I shall look into them. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not expect and will not tolerate any manipulation of waiting list figures. I shall certainly examine any cases that the hon. Gentleman uncovers.

    Health Professions (Regulation)
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What measures he proposes for improving the regulation of health professions. [77710]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The Government are committed to improving quality in the national health service through the introduction of clinical governance. Strong, open and accountable systems of professional self-regulation play an integral part in that, and we want to work with the
    854
    professions to build on and strengthen existing systems. The Health Bill includes measures to allow for the regulation of new professions and the strengthening of existing regulatory schemes by order.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome any action that is designed to improve the regulation of health professions. I draw his attention in particular to the situation regarding psychologists. It would seem that people can call themselves counsellors, therapists or psychologists without receiving any training whatever. Will my hon. Friend support the current moves by that profession to establish a register of chartered psychologists in order to protect the public from possible exploitation, abuse or harm? If necessary, can such registration be made a statutory requirement?
    Mr. Denham: I share my hon. Friend's concern about bogus psychologists or anyone else who makes false claims concerning health care and treatment. The Government are well aware of the issues involved.
    The order-making power proposed under the Health Bill would allow regulatory schemes to be set up for health care professions, such as psychology, that are not yet covered by statute. Our officials who are directly involved in developing the proposals have discussed those matters with the British Psychological Society, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), will hear the views of the society on 21 April. That will help us to consider the options and reach a decision in due course about the right action to take.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While we may accept that some regulation of the medical profession may be necessary, does the Minister agree that the medical profession across the spectrum requires a boost in morale? Will he follow the example set by the East Cheshire NHS trust and its chairman Peter Hayes and ensure that morale across the hospital service is of the highest order? In doing that, he would ensure the best service provision to the people of this country and treatment of a maximum number of people.
    Mr. Denham: I am very keen, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, to ensure that best practice is spread throughout the national health service. The system of NHS beacons is designed, among other things, to identify good practice in leadership and management. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's local trust will be able to contribute to that process. However, the hon. Gentleman should not underestimate the significant determination of the medical profession to modernise its system of self-regulation, which I think will benefit patients throughout the country.
    Mr. John Heppell: I welcome the Minister's attempts to improve the quality of service in our hospitals. However, is he aware that last week two patients in Nottingham City hospital contracted malaria? Even more worrying, it has been discovered since then that another patient who was discharged from the hospital has died from malaria. Will the Minister assure us that

    855
    there will be a thorough investigation into the causes and that whatever measures are necessary to protect the public in future will be taken?
    Mr. Denham: That is a very unusual occurrence.
    Madam Speaker: It had nothing to do with the question, either.
    Mr. Denham: For the reason given by my hon. Friend, the authorities will certainly establish what happened in that case and whether there are any lessons to be learned from that.

    Regional Specialist Units (Hillington)
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When he expects to announce the conclusion of his Department's reviews affecting regional specialist units at hospital in the borough of Hillingdon. [77711]
    The Secretary of the State for Health (Mr. frank Dobson): The Turnberg report on the future of London's health services recommended a thorough review of specialist health services in west London. We accepted all the Turnberg recommendations, including that one. A group covering all the specialist services involved is now considering how best to provide top-quality patient services, teaching and research in that area, which includes Harefield hospital in Hillingdon. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, be reassured to know that I have discussed the review with Sir Magdi Yacoub on two occasions, that he is content with the proposals and that I have given him my personal undertaking that NHS funding will be available to help to fund the heart sciences centre and the patient services centre at Harefield.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, particularly with regard to Harefield. However, I turn his attention to the future of the regional specialty for burns and plastic surgery at Mount Vernon hospital. There is a grave discrepancy between the right hon. Gentleman's boasts that he will take into account local opinions on the siting of services, and the blithe disregard for the wishes of local people as expressed in a petition with more than 80,000 signatures, as well as an early-day motion in my name and a deputation to the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn).
    Will the right hon. Gentleman now assure us that he will invest in centres of excellence such as Mount Vernon and Harefield, rather than putting all his eggs in the basket of the private finance initiative hospital, which may be seductive for the financiers, but is not necessarily the most cost-effective option?
    Mr. Dobson: The future of the burns and plastic surgery unit at Mount Vernon hospital is being considered by an expert advisory group. The group has not yet reported back even to Hillingdon health authority. If local people and the community health council are opposed to the proposals, the decision will eventually rest with me. No decisions have been made. I shall, in line with the Turnberg recommendations, make sure that the best health services for treatment, training and research are available in west London. That may or may not mean that there
    856
    will be changes at Mount Vernon. I do not know at the moment because I have not received the advisory group's report.
    Mr. Tony McNulty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of specialist treatment centres such as the burns and plastics unit at Mount Vernon would have been better assured if, in 1996, before the election, the Tories had not closed the hospital's accident and emergency department?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes.

    Social Work
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: What action he is taking to promote high standards in social work; and if he will make a statement. [77712]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): We shall promote high and improved standards for all social care staff. We have already announced our proposals to create a general social care council. Before that, we aim to reshape the social work training system and launch a new post-qualifying award in child care later this year. This summer, our new training strategy will allow us to start raising qualification levels in the whole social care work force.
    Mr. Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that a key to high standards in social work is a trained work force? Is he aware that some 80 per cent. of the social care work force do not have any qualifications? Is that a priority for him, and what action is he taking to improve the situation?
    Mr. Hutton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is unacceptable to us—and, I am sure, to everyone in the House—that such an important group of key workers remain largely unqualified. Some of the measures that I have already announced will help to raise the qualification levels in the social care work force, but my hon. Friend may be particularly interested in the steps that we are taking to introduce a new national vocational qualification level 3 award for people working in residential child care settings. It is our priority to improve the qualification levels of all the social care work force, and the programmes that we have set in train will achieve that.
    Mr. Peter Luff: Does the Minister recall the recent letter that he sent to Worcestershire county council congratulating it on the high priority that it attaches to a high standard of social work and social services? Does he understand that that demands an inflation-busting increase in council tax of 9.9 per cent? To avoid any possible charge of hypocrisy, will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in order that the county council is not penalised for protecting social services and social work, to which the Minister says he attaches such importance?
    Mr. Hutton: The local government settlement was a fair one for all authorities. I have recently been to Worcester to see at first hand some of the outstanding and excellent social care schemes that the county council is organising. I pay tribute to the staff there for that. I am

    857
    sure that the hon. Gentleman would join me in welcoming the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that a new hospital costing more than £100 million will be constructed in Worcester, which is good news. It is something, I am afraid, that his Administration never quite got round to doing.

    Smokers (Health Care Charges)
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: If he will introduce a system of health care charges for smokers before they receive NHS treatment. [77713]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Government have no plans to introduce such a system. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend needs no reminding that to do so would be in breach of the founding principles of the NHS: it is open to all regardless of income; it treats sick people when they need treatment because they need treatment, not because of why they need treatment.
    Mr. Sheerman: I know that, like me, my right hon. Friend wants not to penalise smokers but to help them liberate themselves from a disgusting habit that damages their health and future. Does she agree that it is worrying that, after many years of decline in smoking, the use of tobacco is increasing again, especially among young people, and particularly women? Will she stand up to all the pressures on her, unlike the previous Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who, even in the face of a recommendation from three Cabinet Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, would not ban tobacco advertising?
    Ms Jowell: I have seen the reports, to which my hon. Friend refers, of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) not supporting a ban on tobacco advertising. We know that our strategy against smoking, particularly to reduce smoking among young people, will
    858
    not work unless we ban tobacco advertising, which is why we will ban tobacco advertising. We know that smoking is the single greatest cause of health inequality. We know that the right hon. Lady, when she was Secretary of State, banned the term "inequality" in the Department of Health. It is therefore not surprising that she refused to take measures to reduce inequality in health. We will tackle smoking and we will reduce health inequality.
    Mr. John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the Minister on her reply to the original question. Does she agree that there is no reason on earth why smokers, of whom I ceased to be one on 25 June 1986, should pay an extra tax for NHS treatment, given that they contribute approximately six times more to the Exchequer than they cost the NHS in treatment for smoking-related illnesses? Does she agree furthermore, that if she were so foolish—which she is not—to pursue the pernicious nostrum recommended by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), she would in all logic have to extend it to people suffering from alcohol-related illnesses or, indeed, avoidable obesity?
    Ms Jowell: I have from time to time wondered how the hon. Gentleman might be an example to the young people of this nation: this afternoon, he has revealed to the House that young people can admire him for the fact that he gave up smoking.
    Ms Gisela Stuart: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her commitment to reduce smoking among young people, particularly women. Will she congratulate Birmingham health authority on its tremendous work and commitment to make Birmingham a smoke-free city by 2005?
    Ms Jowell: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the leadership shown in Birmingham in declaring itself a smoke-free city. We hope that, as we implement the agreement to extend smoke-free public places, other cities will enjoy the benefits that the people of Birmingham are enjoying.

Modernising Government
3.30 pm
The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Madam Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a statement on the modernising government White Paper, which I am publishing today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office when I sit down. The White Paper sets out the Government's vision of public service into the next millennium. It provides new directions for change. It is also a clear statement that government must be responsive to the public and that policies and services must be shaped around people's needs.
Modernisation is a hallmark of this Government. We are reforming the welfare and criminal justice systems, rebuilding the national health service, raising standards in schools and restructuring our democratic and constitutional framework. To achieve those goals, we must also modernise the way in which government itself works. It is modernisation with a purpose: to make life better for people and for business, too.
The White Paper is based around five principles: first, policy that is forward looking and able to deliver outcomes that matter, and not simply short-term in its aims. Policy must tackle causes, not symptoms, and be measured by results, rather than activity. Policies must be designed around shared goals, not just organisational structures. Policy making must also reflect the needs of different groups—women, older people, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities among them. We want a wider input into policy making from those who deliver it and those who are affected by it.
New initiatives in the White Paper include the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies, identifying and spreading good practice in policy making; joint training for Ministers and officials in policy making; and a drive to remove unnecessary regulation and ensure that future regulations are necessary and proportionate. Where Departments are preparing policies that impose regulatory burdens, high-quality regulatory impact assessments must be submitted to Ministers and agreed by the Cabinet Office before decisions are taken.
The Government also intend, when parliamentary time allows, to increase the flexibility of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to facilitate deregulatory action.
Secondly, public services should meet the needs of citizens, and not just at the convenience of the service providers. People are rightly impatient with ineffective and inconvenient services that stem simply from the way in which government is organised. They should not have to worry about what part of government they are dealing with. They want services that are joined up and responsive to their needs. People are used to private sector services being available when they want them. The Government are committed to delivering public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week, where there is demand.
The modernising government White Paper sets out action to reduce obstacles to joined-up working, commits government to working through local partnerships and one-stop shops to achieve those services and includes clear commitments to making common life episodes, which we all experience, less bureaucratic and less burdensome.
860
The third principle is that of delivering high-quality public services and not tolerating mediocrity. The Government are committed to ensuring that our public services are innovative, effective and efficient. Some of our public services are outstanding. Others simply are not good enough. We intend to bring them up to the level of the best and make sure that the best get even better. I emphasise that we are not prepared to tolerate mediocrity of the kind that we inherited from the previous Administration.
We are committed to quality and continuous improvement of services, and we will use competition to deliver improvement, but the Government will not make the mistake of rigidly preferring private sector delivery over public sector, or vice versa. Instead, we will review all central and local government department services and activities over the next five years to identify the best supplier in each case.
In addition, we will set up "learning labs", encouraging new ways of working by front-line staff by suspending rules and removing red tape that stifles innovation, and, as part of our focus on delivery, we will ask all permanent secretaries to ensure that their Departments have the capacity to drive through achievement of the key Government targets and to take personal responsibility for ensuring that that happens.
Fourthly, we will develop government for the information age. The Government intend that, within three years, people will be able electronically to look for work and be matched to job vacancies; submit tax returns and VAT returns; access health care advice through NHS Direct; apply for regional business support grants; be paid by government for goods and services, and notify different parts of government of details, such as change of address, through one transaction.
Looking ahead, we propose that 100 per cent. of dealings with government should be capable of electronic delivery by 2008. We will achieve that by developing a corporate information technology strategy for government, establishing frameworks across government on issues such as digital signatures, smart cards and websites.
Government must also serve those who feel excluded from developments in information technology. We will ensure that information age government increases the choice of how citizens and businesses receive services, and not restrict it. We must also address people's concern that information technology could lead to "big brother" government. Our belief is that data protection should be an objective of information age government, and not an obstacle to it.
Fifthly, the Government will value public service, not denigrate it. The public service must be the agent of the changes identified throughout the White Paper. We must make sure that it is properly equipped to rise to the challenge and properly rewarded for success. We will remove unnecessary bureaucracy which prevents public servants from experimenting, innovating and delivering a better product. We want staff at all levels to contribute to evaluating policies and services, and to put forward ideas about how they might be improved. We will explore the scope for financial rewards for staff who identify financial savings or service improvements.
The public service must also reflect the full diversity of society. At present, it does not. The White Paper therefore includes a range of measures—linked to tough new

861
targets—to tackle the under-representation of women, people from ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities in the senior ranks of the public service.
The Government will develop a civil service for the 21st century. We will provide incentives for innovation and collaborative working. We will bring in more people from outside, open up recruitment, and create opportunities for able, younger staff to be promoted more quickly. We will bring together key players from across the public sector to exchange experience and work more closely together.
The White Paper is a programme for the whole of the public sector—local government, central Government, the health service—and we have worked closely with them all in developing it. We want to mobilise all the public sector's resources to achieve the outcomes that people want from government.
This not a single event; it is part of a process of change that we will manage, develop and improve over time. But we have set a clear direction for change over the years to come that will make our public services better than any anywhere else in the world. We will drive forward change by setting milestones to chart the course, by publishing the measures of success by which the programme can be judged and by reporting on its progress annually to Parliament.
In the White Paper, the Government have set out the most radical programme of public service reform for a generation, and I commend it to the House.
Sir George Young: We welcome the publication of the White Paper, with its objective of improving the quality of public services. We look forward to debating the important issues in it, and we congratulate the Minister on not appearing on the "Today" programme to trail it. I have to tell him that I preferred the original title, "Better Government", to the one that he has chosen, "Modernising Government".
Does the Minister agree that the foundations of what he calls joined-up government were laid by his predecessors? City challenge, the single regeneration budget and Government offices for the regions—which were all opposed by Labour Members—were pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). In driving this concept forward, should the Minister not re-examine some of the initiatives launched since 1997? In our cities, we now have education action zones, employment zones, health action zones, crime and disorder partnerships and new deal for communities. Will those now be joined up?
Should we not consider other issues? For example, as we just heard in Question Time, there has been more money from the Department of Health for the national health service, which we welcome, but I know that Hampshire has had less money from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for social services. What people gain from the NHS swings, they lose on the social services roundabout. As the Minister patrols the frontiers between Departments, will he tackle these problems of conflict and confusion?
The Minister's statement raises important issues for Parliament. We vote money to Departments and we hold Ministers to account, but, as more money is pooled and spent collectively, the more difficult it is to stick to our historic approach to accountability. Has the Minister
862
thought that through, and are there not issues for our Select Committees to consider? Does devolution not make the achievement of joined-up government more difficult? For example, disabled people need cash and care, but policy on cash is retained at Westminster, whereas policy for care has been devolved.
On the use of information technology, does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the risk of pinning his faith on large IT systems at the moment? All hon. Members have constituents caught up in the shambles of the immigration and nationality directorate at the Home Office, where people have to queue from 4 o'clock in the morning and which it is impossible to get through to by phone. Government there is not so much joined up, as clogged up. The Benefits Agency has had much publicised difficulties with the national insurance recording system. People have not received the right pension, and have been offered £10 compensation.
What the Minister has just outlined is larger than any system that has so far been successfully introduced. Will he approach it with a measure of caution? He recognised the need to deregulate, but there have been 2,000 new regulations since 1997, with schools receiving roughly one communication from education departments every day. Will he reassess that approach?
If the Government are to provide a more coherent approach to the services that the individual needs, how will the individual be identified? Will we all have a number? Are we moving towards ID cards, and how will civil liberties be protected?
What will be the cost and who will pay for the delivery of public services 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Does that pledge cover the whole of the United Kingdom? Will it be possible to retain a unified home civil service after devolution? Will Wales and Scotland end up with their own civil service? Does the White Paper stress the importance of a non-political, impartial civil service? Has not some injury been done to that concept since 1997 by the increase in special advisers, the establishment of a strategic communications unit and the decision to make the Prime Minister's private secretary and press secretary political appointments?
We welcome the Government's stated aims to improve government, to make it more accessible, more accountable and more cost-effective, but we shall watch the details and the implementation with some care.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the White Paper. His tone and comments were in marked contrast to the buffoonery of some Conservative Members, and I also welcome that.
I shall try to deal with his important questions. We have not thrown away successes from the previous Government's policies. The White Paper acknowledges that there were some successes in this area under the previous Government, and we want to build on and retain them. I am pleased to put that on the record.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that action zones should be "joined up". The whole purpose of health and education action zones is to join up local services so that they can deal with problems more comprehensively. Action zones are examples of joined-up government in action.

863
The right hon. Gentleman welcomed more money for the health service—in marked contrast to his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, who opposed such action and described it as reckless. Again, there is a divergence of opinion in the shadow Cabinet on what investment in the health service is welcome and what is not.
There is no conflict and confusion in government. The White Paper covers all the activities of both central Government and local government. Sir Jeremy Beecham, leader of the Local Government Association, has been a working member of the Cabinet Committee preparing the work.
The "invest to save" budget is an example of precisely what the right hon. Gentleman asked us to do. It will target resources for new activities of this kind, in which more than one agency is involved, with the aim of providing services more efficiently. That applies to local government, Government agencies and Departments of State in Whitehall.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals raise questions about accountability. We have asked the performance and innovation unit—[Interruption.] We have asked the performance and innovation unit to examine issues of accountability in one of its first studies, because, understandably, the House will want to know how it may be affected by the pooling of resources and the sharing of budgets. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, notwithstanding the inane mutterings of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Devolution means that elected Governments in Scotland and Wales will have to decide for themselves. Of course we hope that they will join us in many of our initiatives where that is appropriate, but the very fact of devolution will, in some cases, mean diversity and choice. That was recognised when we embarked on the major constitutional reform that has been so widely welcomed.
The right hon. Gentleman may not have heard me say that, precisely because we want to avoid the problems of large single information technology systems that he identified, we are developing a corporate strategy for the whole of government. Such a strategy did not exist under the last Administration; that was rather remiss of them. We intend to establish not a single mega-system. but different systems using nets to avoid the problems described by the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned identity cards. As the White Paper makes clear, there will be no compulsion. If people choose to use smart cards to gain access to government services, that will be a matter for them, but it will be purely voluntary: no one will be compelled to have a smart card.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about making government services available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. People with web television sets will soon be able to fill in their self-assessment income tax forms at home, and send them to the Inland Revenue electronically. Businesses will be able to do the same with their value added tax returns. The idea that that is not a major advance for people and businesses in terms of convenience and efficiency is laughable: it is a major step
864
forward, enabling people to fill up forms conveniently in their homes without all the paperwork that has dogged them in the past. I am sure that both individuals and businesses will welcome this development warmly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the future of the civil service. Civil service unions have been closely involved in the work as it has developed. I see the general secretaries of the unions regularly. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office and other ministerial colleagues have been engaged in a wide-ranging series of workshops with front-line service providers in the public service, learning from them how we can improve the delivery of services. They have many good ideas about how that improvement might be achieved. None of the proposals threatens the future of a unified civil service; nor do we have any intention of doing so.
Dr. David Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and wish him well in his efforts to ensure that the service that our citizens receive in the public sector is equal to the best that they experience in the private sphere. I remind him that, for most of our citizens, government means standing in queues and filling in unnecessary forms. Will he give an assurance that it is his objective to use the best information technology, including voluntary government smart cards, to ensure that unnecessary queueing and form filling are things of the past?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those comments. I also thank him because he was the one who embarked on the radical reforms; he set the work in train while he was working in the Cabinet Office. I was grateful to him for the work that I inherited.
My right hon. Friend is right: we want to take the hassle out of life for people. That is why we need to redesign the provision and delivery of government services for the convenience of those who use them, not of those who provide and work in them. Historically—under all Governments of all parties—that is the way in which public services have been organised: on a nine-to-five, five-day-a-week basis. The private sector has shown the way forward. We must learn from its advances and adopt them, where it is possible and appropriate, in the public services. That we shall do.
As for unnecessary form filling, my right hon. Friend is right about that, too. We have seen from lots of experiences and encounters how it is not only tiresome and time consuming, but distressing for people to have to fill out several forms about someone in the family who has a disability or is ill. When people are under stress, bureaucracy should be helping them and reducing the stress, not placing more burdens on them.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I congratulate the Minister on giving us a joined-up statement, which perhaps is more easy to debate than to ask questions about, as, in some areas, it appears to point in different directions. For example, in respect of the attitudes towards public service, it still seems that the Government are in purchaser-provider mode, yet elsewhere we are told about the importance of the high duty of high-quality public service. Those things are not exactly contradictory, but they suggest that the Government are not quite as radical as they claim.

865
I want to ask a particular question on that score. Why have the Government not proposed a statutory basis for the civil service code of conduct to ensure that the impartiality and, indeed, ethical underpinnings that we look for are put in place by Parliament, and are not dependent on the prerogative powers on which they rest at present?
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the White Paper. It is increasingly apparent that the people who use, need and depend on the services that we are talking about do not care so much about who the provider is; they care about the quality and accessibility of the services. That is why we have not been dogmatic about who the provider should be. The provider may be the public sector, the private sector or the voluntary sector. What matters is that people get easy access to the service when they need it, and that the service is of the quality that they are entitled to expect as local and national taxpayers. That is why we are determined to look at how services are provided, and to test them against the best available. If they are found wanting, we shall have to make changes, whether that means local or national Government decisions.
As for the independence of the civil service, there is nothing in the White Paper that threatens for a moment the long-standing, robust and continuing independence of the civil service.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Paper shows the narrowness of thinking during the 18 years of the previous Administration? Although there were undoubtedly efficiency gains from the setting up of the next steps agencies, the price paid was narrowed departmental thinking; the chief executive of a next steps agency, on performance-related pay, looked after that agency, but lost sight of the big picture. The White Paper helps to restore the primacy of the interests of UK plc.
Is it necessary for the centre to be further strengthened? Will the reforms suggested in the report to the Prime Minister by Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary—which was never made public—have to be followed through to provide the technical and bureaucratic lead, to go with the ministerial lead, to drive the reforms through?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree that the narrowness of thinking—and. on occasion, meanness and cheapness masquerading as efficiency—of the previous Administration left so many of our public services starved of resources in terms of personnel and equipment. We have set about putting that right. I remind the House that we have invested £21 billion extra in the health service and £19 billion extra in education.
The reforms of the Cabinet Office are central to many of the White Paper proposals which we continue to drive through on the basis of the statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last July.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Although I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt—I will certainly read the White Paper—will he, in the interim, say whether he would be prepared to enter his statement in a national competition
866
for a parody of management-speak? Will the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies teach Ministers how to prepare statements as well as to prepare policy?
Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is so curmudgeonly in his response to the White Paper. He was a Minister for many years, and he knows very well that the Government of whom he was a member left our public services in pretty bad shape. We are doing something about that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In 38 days' time, on the morning of Friday 7 May, to whom will Mr. Muir Russell, currently permanent secretary at the Scottish Office, be ultimately responsible—the First Minister in Holyrood or the Prime Minister in 10 Downing street?
Dr. Cunningham: As a member of a unified, United Kingdom civil service, he will be responsible in the way that he always has been.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: What is meant by
"joint training for Ministers and officials in policy making"?
Does that mean that officials will be making policy? Should it read "the policy-making process"? With the greater availability of information technology must surely come greater confidentiality and security. What extra steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to assure the individual about the security of the system that he proposes?
Dr. Cunningham: In the White Paper, we say that we must learn how to develop and implement policy better than Governments have been able to do in the past; that is a modest, but honest, thing to say. If we can do that by working together with the senior civil service, as is proposed, in the new Centre for Management and Policy Studies, we shall.
The hon. Gentleman's question seems to suggest that we already know all the answers to the questions of how to grapple with and solve the complex problems that we face. We do not know all the answers, and we need to develop policies more effectively than the record of failed policies shows us was done in the past. We cannot go back to making the same mistakes that were made then.
We will develop new systems of training and working together for Ministers and civil servants and, as the policies develop, we shall, of course, have to ensure that they are consistent with the Data Protection Acts.
Dr. Tony Wright: One of the principles associated with the present Government is doing what works—contrary to the behaviour of the previous Government, who seemed to operate on the opposite principle. That means finding out what works, ensuring that we evaluate new programmes properly and then disseminating throughout the rest of the public sector information about what works. Will that not be one of the major tasks of the new performance and innovation unit?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree that we need to find out what works and develop policy accordingly. Another of the themes running through the White Paper is the dissemination of best practice, whether that be in local government or in central Government. As I said earlier,

867
it could involve central and local government working together. One of the aims of the performance and innovation unit is to examine how we can do that more effectively, and I look forward to the first of its four reports, which will be available in the summer.
Mr. Eric Forth: I thought that 1 April had come early, and we were being treated to a spoof White Paper. Among the clichéd gems that I made a note of are "vision of public service" and "new direction for change".
When the Secretary of State moves on from the "PlayStation Government" that he is offering us now, will he explain how he squares his claims about deregulation, which he repeated today for the umpteenth time, with the plethora of regulations that the Government have showered on the education and health services and on business since the day they came to office? Until he can explain that satisfactorily to the hapless recipients of the bureaucracy and the regulations, no one will believe a word that has been spoken this afternoon.
Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman used clichés to complain about clichés. As for regulations, Labour Members believe in the national minimum wage—unlike the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, who believe in poverty pay. We believe in necessary legislation to protect both people and the environment, and we shall go on legislating to fulfil our manifesto commitments. That is not inconsistent with taking tougher action and new powers, or with introducing new systems in government to ensure that the regulatory burdens are proportionate where necessary, and, where not necessary, are not imposed.
Dr. Lewis Moonie: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how many members of the senior civil service are drawn from ethnic minorities? What form will affirmative action take?
Dr. Cunningham: In the civil service as a whole, people from the ethnic minority communities are proportionately represented. However, as my hon. Friend suggests, they are not proportionately represented in the higher ranks and the better jobs in the civil service. In 1998, people from ethnic minority backgrounds held 1.6 per cent. of all posts in the senior civil service. We aim to increase that proportion—indeed, to double it—by the early part of the next century. We shall set a target for women in senior civil service posts too, for the same reasons. They, too, are hopelessly under-represented at the top of the civil service.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that, if he employs high-flown management-speak, people will fear that he is concealing, rather than revealing. Much of the language of his statement simply was not the plain English that would have helped many of us.
The right hon. Gentleman did not say a great deal about the civil service. I have not, of course, read the White Paper, as it was not available until he stood up to speak. What plans are there to put the civil service code on a statutory basis? That theme ran through the previous
868
Opposition, and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the Foreign Secretary reached an agreement before the general election. Two years into this Parliament, however, we still have had no announcement.
Dr. Cunningham: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like a modern management approach to reforming government. There was no attempt in my statement or in the White Paper to conceal anything from him or the House. On the contrary, I made sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) had a copy of the statement a full hour before I made it, and a copy of the White Paper. That was much better than the treatment that we used to receive when we were in opposition and some Tory Members were Ministers. I will take no criticism from anyone about concealing anything. The two Tory Front Benchers had more than enough time, and more than we were ever allowed, to study Government statements.
On the second part of the question put by the hon. Gentleman, we have no proposals yet.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend proposes that 100 per cent. of government services should be capable of electronic delivery by 2008. That remarkable proposition will transform people's lives in ways that they currently find it difficult to understand. Can we go a stage further by considering the introduction of national identity cards, which would produce huge benefits to government in savings, the reduction of fraud and service delivery? Surely, only by introducing a national identity card can we fulfil the real ambition that my right hon. Friend has shown.
Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right. It is revolutionary to propose that all government services should be accessible using information technology systems. That is a target that we shall work towards, although it will not mean that everyone will have to use information technology to access services.
On my hon. Friend's second point about identity cards, I have made it clear that there is no proposal in the White Paper to introduce a compulsory card. These days, a great many people—probably the majority of the population—carry a whole series of cards that readily identify them. For that reason, some heat has gone out of the issue. We have no proposal to introduce compulsory identity cards.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: May I share the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) that the statement was packed full of jargon that is every bit as much of a barrier between the general public and whatever it is that the Government are trying to convey to them as Sir Humphrey Appleby-speak would be?
The statement listed as a new initiative the Centre for Management and Policy Studies. Was that not announced last July? It is not a new initiative at all. How many more initiatives announced today had been announced already?
Dr. Cunningham: The Centre for Management and Policy Studies is a new initiative. The first important

869
decision has been made: Professor Ron Amman has been appointed to head the centre and will be in post from June. From then on, the centre will be fully established as quickly as possible.
Ms Tess Kingham: I am pleased to see on page 60 of the White Paper a commitment to improving the system of public appointments. I recently participated in selecting chairs of NHS trusts under the current system, and found it desperately unsatisfactory—I understand that it was inherited from the previous Government. The system is opaque and shrouded in mystery. It places too much power in the hands of too few unelected people, and those who have not been selected do not know the results until the last minute. The current system is not a good way to recognise the hard work that many people put into many years of public service. Will my right hon. Friend improve the system and ensure that it is transparent and open? There must be a better way to reward public service and make it more accountable.
Dr. Cunningham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. More than 100,000 people participate in public life through service on boards, trusts and advisory and executive bodies, so it is a big issue. We need to change significantly the system that we inherited from the previous Administration, and we propose to do that, as set out in the White Paper on page 60 under the heading "Public appointments". Today, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office had discussions with representatives from all Departments to initiate those changes.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Many of us who listened to the Minister's statement will have asked, "Where is the beef?" How will he improve on government? For a long time, I have criticised the time that it takes for Ministers to respond. Members of Parliament are most closely involved with Ministers, but it can still take more than three months to get a simple answer to a simple letter. What is the point of linking all Ministers to the internet if, in the latest edition of the list of Ministers' addresses, only four Ministries include the e-mail addresses of their Ministers, despite the fact that almost all Ministries can be contacted by e-mail?
Dr. Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman seems to be somewhat confused. The White Paper is not describing an
870
event or announcing additional expenditure: it is describing a process of change which will have to be managed over a period of years. His first question demonstrates his lack of understanding of what we are trying to address and how we intend to change the situation.
I take the hon. Gentleman's second point more seriously, because he is right in saying that we need constantly to examine the performance of Departments and Government agencies. We shall do that. New standards were announced last July and I am reviewing that and tightening up the procedures. I agree that people, whether they are Members of Parliament or members of the public, should not have to wait months and months for a reply.
Mr. Peter Bradley: My right hon. Friend will agree that he need take no lessons from Opposition Members who, when in government for 18 years, seemed to know the cost of everything but, when it came to public service, the value of nothing. They contributed more than any other factor to the demoralisation of staff and the degradation of their services. My right hon. Friend took the opportunity in his statement to commend the potential of people working in the public service. How will he release the enormous potential and commitment of people in the public service? Will he recognise that, just as the dead hand of bureaucracy frustrates members of the public, it also frustrates public servants who know that, if they were able to exercise more discretion and flexibility in their work, they could provide a far better service to the public?
Dr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend. We have much to learn about using the talents, skills and knowledge of people in the public service more effectively than we have in the past. The new Centre for Management and Policy Studies is one way to ensure that people, through their training and skilling, will be as sharp and adept as the best private sector managers in managing large public expenditure budgets.
At the other end of the scale, we need to ensure that people in the front line of providing services get a much fuller opportunity to persuade their middle managers and, for that matter, Ministers, that they better understand how services can be made more accessible—or more user friendly, to use jargon that I know Conservative Members will hate—and how we can better serve the public.

Points of Order
4.15 pm
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night, I tabled an early-day motion calling for the resignation of the chief inspector of the Office for Standards in Education because I knew that the Government have received evidence that he did not tell the truth and attempted to cover up a matter of public interest. Today, I have received a copy of the Bristol Evening Post, in which numerous teachers confirm that Mr. Woodhead sought to mislead the Government. Has the Secretary of State for Education and Employment said whether, in view of all the publicity and the claims being made, he will make a statement on what is developing into a serious situation?
Madam Speaker: I have had no indication that a statement is to be made on that issue today.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign Office that they would like to report to the House on contacts yesterday, and possibly today, with the Russians on Kosovo?
Madam Speaker: I have had no indication that any Minister is seeking to make a statement on that issue.

Sexual Offences (Anonymity of Defendants)
4.16 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the anonymity of teachers, etc. accused of sexual offences against children in relation to whom they are in a position of trust; and for connected purposes.
Last year, 700 people attended the funeral of Nick Drewett, a 31-year-old teacher in my constituency. He was a popular, committed teacher who took his own life when facing charges of behaving improperly with pupils in his care. The master who was charged with him was subsequently acquitted.
A significant factor in Nick Drewett's decision to commit suicide was the sensational publicity that attended the investigation of the charges. Sadly, he is not alone. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers has had recent experience of three members who have taken their own lives in similar circumstances. Since 1991, there have been 974 police investigations into abuse allegations made against NAS/UWT members. In 792 of them, no grounds were discovered for prosecution. Publicity in 80 per cent. of those cases did serious injustice to innocent teachers. The Bill attempts to protect teachers from injustice that can do them permanent professional and personal damage.
There is a popular view that an allegation of child abuse, unsubstantiated by investigation, is in itself sufficient cause for concern to disqualify permanently a teacher from being in charge of children. There is little awareness that teachers are liable to be the victims of false or malicious allegations. It is therefore just to take measures to ensure that teachers as well as complainants undergo investigation with their identities protected. That is what the Bill aims to achieve.
I am grateful to the NAS/UWT for its help with the Bill and for supporting data. I am also grateful to the National Association of Head Teachers for its support. Teachers are particularly vulnerable to such allegations because of the nature of their job. Regrettably, often because of wide publicity given to cases, pupils know that such allegations can cost a teacher his or her job. Some pupils have had no compunction in seeking maliciously to make allegations against teachers whom they dislike.
The press has endless opportunities to obtain such stories. Cases are often reported to it at the investigation stage by a variety of people, including the parents of the child concerned, other parents who have heard rumours, and pupils. It is not unknown for the police to assist the press with its inquiries. Press coverage includes the usual harassment of those under investigation to obtain photographs and statements. The combination of sex and teaching does not make for restrained reporting. Sensational news stories are allowed to identify teachers.
Allegations against teachers are investigated under the Children Act 1989. The practical effect of its operation is to reverse the normal criminal law convention. Teachers are suspended and then investigated. The experience of teachers accused of child abuse is that they are presumed guilty by police and social services. In Nick Drewett's case, the assumptions made by the police, no doubt reinforced by the publicity, contributed to his depressive state. Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence?

873
The Bill would not mean that teachers were not suspended while investigations were carried out—a harrowing experience for innocent teachers—but it tries to deliver the simple principle of innocent until proven guilty in the climate that surrounds child abuse allegations today.
Bizarrely, the National Union of Teachers does not appear to support the principle of innocent until proven guilty for its members. It has declined to support the Bill as
"it will protect the guilty as well as the innocent … there is potential that the Bill could shield those guilty of serious crimes until after court proceedings are concluded".
I find the contrast between the NAS/UWT and the NUT most marked. One organisation represents teachers and the other seems more concerned with politically correct posturing. It will be for teachers to decide which organisation best represents their interests, but members of the NUT will have to take comfort from the fact that their union believes that a Department for Education and Employment circular will restrain the press from traducing the reputation of innocent teachers and that an
"accurate controlled statement will stem the spread of gossip and local publicity".
It appears that the NUT does not live in the same world as you and me, Madam Speaker.
Once publicity is given to a case, even after the teacher has been cleared, dismissal or inability to return to work are probable outcomes. Even where the school and its governors are supportive, the publicity can cause serious damage to the teacher. It causes major problems at home, at the workplace of the teacher's partner and at the schools of their children. Health breakdown is not unusual in such cases. The effects of the publicity are devastating not only for the teacher but for his or her family. Constructive dismissal can result because the teacher's position, as a consequence of publicity, often becomes untenable. For example, parents, having read the press coverage and operating on the principle of no smoke without fire, may choose to remove their child from the school. Governors often bow to that pressure.
If our objective is to make education top of our social priorities, the status of the teaching profession is central to that objective. That status should be reinforced and supported by our laws, not undermined by them. No longer should unsubstantiated publicity destroy a professional reputation built up over years, if not decades. If the climate of suspicion and anger that surrounds allegations can be restrained by limiting publicity to the issues and not allowing it to extend to personalities in advance of conviction, the Bill should allow the genuine allegations of sexual abuse to be made more readily. The current system, while it serves to blacken the reputation of innocent teachers accused, also ensures a sensational and sometimes hysterical atmosphere, in which a child and the parents must deal with reporting an offence. That hurdle to reporting an offence would be reduced by the Bill.
The Bill would not only assist teachers and pupils directly involved in allegations of sexual abuse, but contribute to a climate of support for the profession as a whole. Teacher training colleges continue to report a shortage of men training to become primary school
874
teachers. There has been much discussion about the consequences of the absence of male role models for many children, not least those of single mothers. However, if we encourage a climate of paranoia and suspicion, it is hardly surprising that many young men are unwilling to enter the profession. The Bill offers the profession some protection against false allegations and it should lead to men more readily entering the profession and doing so with more confidence.
There is injustice when the principle of innocent until proven guilty is in effect overturned by publicity. There is a general principle of open, transparent justice, but when the sensational handling of cases has the effect of undermining justice, the requirement for open justice must be balanced by the requirement for justice itself. Victims of sexual offences are already accorded that protection.
I hope that the House will accept my Bill as a way of preventing more victims from being created among the teaching profession by salacious publicity in the media climate in which we all have to operate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Crispin Blunt, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Ian Bruce, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Graham Brady, Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. John Bercow, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Mr. Tim Loughton.

Sexual Offences (Anonymity of Defendants)
  SEXUAL OFFENCES (ANONYMITY OF DEFENDANTS)
  Mr. Crispin Blunt accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the anonymity of teachers, etc. accused of sexual offences against children in relation to whom they are in a position of trust; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 April, and to be printed [Bill 78].
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
  That the draft National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

  DELIBERATE RELEASE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS
  That this House takes note of the European Union Document No. 6378/98, relating to a draft Directive amending Directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms; and endorses the Government's approach in the negotiations.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Employment Relations Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Employment Relations Bill
    New Clause 11

      COMPENSATORY AWARD ETC: REMOVAL OF LIMIT IN CERTAIN CASES
      '.—(1) After section 124(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (limit of compensatory award etc) there shall be inserted—
      "(1A) Subsection (1) shall not apply to compensation awarded, or a compensatory award made, to a person in a case where he is regarded as unfairly dismissed by virtue of section 100, 103A, 105(3) or 105(6A)."
      (2) Section 127B of that Act (power to specify method of calculation of compensation where dismissal a result of protected disclosure) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Byers.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.26 pm
      The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 166 and 65.
      Mr. Byers: Most Members will be aware that one of the proposals contained in the Bill is to raise to £50,000 the level of compensation for unfair dismissal. The Government have given careful consideration to the level of compensation for those people who are covered by the provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. At present, no compensation levels have been laid down in respect of that Act. We believe that the time is right to protect whistleblowers by announcing the level of compensation to which they will be entitled and by indicating when we intend to introduce and make effective the provisions in the Act.
      New clause 11 provides that the compensation for people covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act will be unlimited. We believe that the £50,000 limit that will apply in other cases of unfair dismissal will be inappropriate for those individuals coming within the remit of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. The Act was broadly welcomed on both sides of the House. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who was responsible for introducing an earlier measure on that subject, is in the Chamber.
      It is appropriate to delimit the level of compensation to which an individual is entitled. However, we believe that we can go further than that. Another group of individuals can be subject to victimisation and discrimination in the workplace: those who have responsibility for health and safety matters. We have been giving detailed consideration to the level of compensation that should be awarded to individuals who take action on health and safety grounds and, as a result, are unfairly dismissed by their employer. Such individuals should not be restricted to the £50,000 limit on compensation that would normally apply. I am therefore pleased to inform the House that
      876
      new clause 11 will ensure that those individuals will also be entitled to unlimited compensation should they be unfairly dismissed.
      Mr. John Bercow: I understand the rationale behind the proposed new clause. However, given that it could affect businesses operating in the private sector, including small businesses, what account will be taken of the circumstances of those businesses? Such businesses could be forced under, if the new clause is rigorously enforced without regard to their circumstances.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman leads me to the next group of amendments, when we shall discuss the position of small businesses. It is important that the House sends out a clear message to those who are employed in a responsible position and who make a disclosure in the public interest, and to those who ensure that organisations comply with health and safety requirements. There is a common interest and I hope that the House will agree that our approach, whereby unfair dismissal compensation is increased to £50,000 other than in two exceptional sets of circumstances—those individuals covered by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and those who deal with health and safety matters—in which compensation will be unlimited, is the right one. The real objective must be to create the climate in which health and safety issues are addressed properly in the workplace and individuals can ensure that there is proper disclosure where that is appropriate.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the new provision will deter employers who should know better from paying less attention than they should to serious issues of health and safety at work?
      Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a litany of cases in which people were unable to expose wrongdoing at their place of work with tragic consequences. I have examples of cases that would have been covered both by the Public Interest Disclosure Act and the unlimited compensation that we intend to offer. Let us take the case of Bristol Royal infirmary, in which a responsible whistleblower, Stephen Bolsin, raised concerns about the deaths of babies at that hospital. Those concerns were not properly addressed and we know the tragic consequences. There is now a Government inquiry looking into the details of that case.
      In the case of the Clapham rail crash, it was known that loose wiring was a risk to the travelling public, but staff were reluctant to speak out, resulting in tragic and unnecessary loss of human life. Health and safety issues arose in the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster. The Cullen inquiry reported that:
      "workers did not want to put their continued employment in jeopardy through raising a safety issue which might embarrass management."
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I hesitate to say this, because it is slightly ungenerous, but all those cases were cited by hon. Members on both sides of the House to push the Government towards the principle of uncapped compensation; at the time, the Government were not having any of it. Although I welcome the introduction of these provisions, the

      877
      Secretary of State should not attempt to claim credit by giving examples that were previously advanced and rejected by the Government.
      Mr. Byers: I am trying to make the point that we recognise that. In response to the intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart), I am describing events that occurred because the provisions that are now being introduced were not in place. That is why I am pleased to be introducing a measure that will ensure that compensation is uncapped—a measure for which the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has argued for many years. I compliment the hon. Gentleman on his efforts to ensure that the Public Interest Disclosure Act reached the statute book. He campaigned strongly for that legislation for many years, often in opposition to the view of the previous Conservative Government. He stuck to his principles and the Act reflects his endeavours, and the provisions being passed this afternoon are the final element in establishing an effective and proper compensation regime.
      There are many cases in which public interest was important, and the House must send out a clear message underlining how seriously we regard that issue. To say that compensation will be unlimited is the best possible demonstration of the importance we attach to that matter. An even better outcome would be that we succeed in fostering a climate of openness and transparency in which individuals in the workplace do not feel that they will be victimised if they draw attention to wrongdoing or to a work practice that might compromise health and safety. That is what we should aim for, and I hope that businesses, including small business, will adopt best practice to ensure that the measures we are introducing today will never need to be used, because the climate has been created that precludes the occurrence of such wrongdoing.
      Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble the Secretary of State again, but an important principle is at stake. In other Government legislation emanating from his Department, Ministers have recognised the difference between small and large companies—for example, the Competition Act 1998 makes provision for fines that depend upon turnover. Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman at least concede the argument for taking specific account of the circumstances of small businesses in implementing the new clause? That is not an unreasonable proposition, and it certainly does not seek to detract from the force or the logic of his argument.
      Mr. Byers: I assumed that the hon. Gentleman was more knowledgable than he actually is about the method of dealing with such matters. I hope that my response will be informative and helpful.
      Any tribunal can take account of the size of an organisation or company in deciding whether an approach has been fair and reasonable in particular circumstances. I am pleased to put that on the record. If a small business does not have the amount of back-up that is available to a larger company, the tribunal can take that factor into account in deciding the appropriate level of compensation to apply. I hope that I have assisted the hon. Gentleman.
      I believe that extending this provision to those involved in health and safety matters sends an important message. The Health and Safety Executive produced clear evidence
      878
      to show that, when a proper consultation mechanism was in place to address health and safety matters, the number of accidents in the workplace decreased by 50 per cent. A real benefit can materialise for effective health and safety measures. I do not believe that many cases will reach the tribunal stage—at least, I hope not—but it is appropriate that the House gives clear notice today of its priorities.
      Amendment No. 166 would limit the amount of compensation to be paid. Hon. Members will know that clause 12 provides that an individual may complain to a tribunal that his or her employer has failed to comply with the provisions of clause 11, which entitles an individual to be accompanied at a grievance or disciplinary hearing. There is no limit on the award that can be made, and it is right to take this opportunity to clarify the position.
      We intend to link the amount with the upper limit on a week's pay, which is currently specified in section 227(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At present, it decrees the maximum amount as £220 a week, which will be index linked in the future. We propose that there should be two weeks at £220 a week, providing a maximum amount of compensation of £440—I hope that my mathematics have not let me down on this occasion. That is the maximum amount provided under the amendment.
      We feel that it is right to clarify the position, and we believe that that strikes a just and reasonable balance. I hope that the House can agree to new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 65 and 166.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: I welcome the Secretary of State to the Dispatch Box for the Report stage. We understand that other obligations make it difficult for him to appear before Committees, although it is not unknown for Secretaries of State to do so. His presence in the Chamber gives me an opportunity to say on behalf of the official Opposition that we are sorry that the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is still unwell. We understand the circumstances and we do not wish to press him to return. We simply record that we are missing him and his lively contributions to our discussions. While I am handing out the bouquets, I must say that I am pleased to see the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in the Chamber. He did very well in Committee in trying to respond at short notice to at least some of our concerns. Bearing in mind that we have much business ahead of us, I now address new clause 11.
      I shall not advise my hon. Friends to oppose the new clause, but we remain gravely concerned about circumstances relating to the Bill's formulation and presentation. The new clause has been thrown at us, and if I may be at all critical, I point out that given that it alludes to previous legislation and that its words do not leap off the page coherently, it would have been helpful if the Secretary of State had had the time, which he clearly did not, to share with Opposition spokesmen the import of the proposals that he was intending to put to the House. However, he has explained the new clause and we do not find it objectionable in principle.
      I shall deal first with amendment No. 166, because amendment No. 65 is merely a repealing amendment. Amendment No. 166 relates to the maximum level of compensation. I chose not to move an amendment on that in Committee to facilitate proceedings. I was concerned, however, about the other end of the compensation scale

      879
      and whether it is necessary to pay compensation at all if no loss has occurred. The Government have acknowledged that there should be a reasonable limit on compensation in proceedings relating to clause 12. We accept that.
      On the more important issue of public interest relating to the new clause, the Secretary of State made a persuasive case, but I have a question and a couple of comments. As I understand the Secretary of State, the circumstances under that new clause are confined to matters of public disclosure or health and safety disclosure and do not apply to other compensation or special awards relating to, for example, trade union participation or otherwise. We had an interesting debate in Committee, in which I made the point that one of the possible side effects of the Government's proposals for special awards would be to reduce the level of compensation in particular cases. That remains the case under these proposals, apart from the two specific provisions.
      On the substance of the matter, the Secretary of State responded, second time around, to the concerns about small businesses expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), which I intended to voice myself. It is, perhaps, significant that the examples that the Secretary of State cited to the House were disasters which should never have happened involving large corporations. Although such companies might not welcome an unlimited claim for damages, they certainly would not find it difficult to pay a damages claim limited to £40,000 or £50,000 and they might be able to stand the rap for a fairly substantial fine. That would be much more difficult for a small concern.
      The Secretary of State has confirmed that it will be within the power and competence of a tribunal to take into account all the circumstances of the case, including the degree of culpability and the resources of the firm—in other words, whether it will be bust by an unlimited award. I imagine, as the Secretary of State hopes, that that is not likely to happen frequently.
      Another point that needs to be clarified is proportionality. In any case, the tribunal will consider the proportionality of the circumstances and will not automatically be required to set a compensatory award above, for example, what would be the limit for other cases of unfair dismissal. It would have regard to the circumstances, how bad the offence was and how much the metaphorical whistle had to be blown. Will the Secretary of State confirm that in his response to the debate?
      This matter has concerned many hon. Members and some of us have personal concerns on health and safety. Given the context in which the public interest legislation has been proposed and accepted, we accept the Secretary of State's presentation, and look forward to any further comments by hon. Members.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. John Healey: I begin by declaring an interest—an active though not registerable one. I was a trustee—I am still a member of the council of management—of the charity Public Concern at Work, which, along with the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), did so much to get the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 on the statute book.
      880
      I welcome the new clause very strongly, as I know does Public Concern at Work. The proposal to remove the limit on compensation payments for whistleblowers was widely and strongly welcomed and backed by a range of consultees, including the CBI, the Trades Union Congress and a number of key professional groups.
      It takes special courage and a special person to blow the whistle on malpractice in the workplace. They often suffer loss of a job, an income and career prospects—not to mention isolation, pressure and sometimes intimidation, especially in the early stages of making such a move. The cases of Maxwell, Barlow Clowes, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International and a host of lower profile and smaller examples of whistleblowing underline the need for people to be able to report malpractice with confidence. Any cap on compensation would have limited the effectiveness of the Public Interest Disclosure Act to do the job that we need it to do.
      The new clause means that middle managers in industry, doctors in the national health service and even civil servants in Whitehall will be properly protected if they raise and pursue their concerns responsibly. To that extent, the new clause sends out strong encouragement to those who might be considering blowing the whistle on malpractice where they work. I welcome the same provision for health and safety representatives, which simply underlines the importance of health and safety in the workplace.
      I had thought that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was poised to make an announcement on the commencement of the Public Interest Disclosure Act. It is important that an announcement be made in good time—at least a couple of months before we propose that the PIDA comes into force—not least to give diligent employers time to put in place proper internal procedures. I hope that my right hon. Friend might later today be able to announce in the House when the Act will commence. I leave him with this thought: the Act was enacted on 2 July 1998. Would it not be fitting if we marked its first anniversary with commencement?
      Mr. Shepherd: My thunder has been stolen by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey), because he made the points that I would also make. I pay great tribute to the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who throughout discussions on the Public Interest Disclosure Bill was a Trojan worker for a sense of justice in this very important area.
      As the hon. Member for Wentworth said, it is extremely difficult for honourable people to surrender what might be their family's income by disclosing something for which the Act offers protection: a disclosure that is in the public interest. The public interest is the wider interest of us all, as a society.
      It is right that the Government were very nervous about extending compensation along the lines of that available for race or sexual incidents. I am very pleased that, on reflection, they have taken on board the work of the charity behind much of the campaign. The Solicitor-General was also a trustee of that charity. A wide body of opinion had formed behind the campaign. At any time, my Front-Bench team could have stopped the Public Interest Disclosure Bill becoming law. I therefore pay tribute to them, too.

      881
      We are seized of the notion that certain wrongs have happened about which people knew. Barlow Clowes is a very good example; we know of Maxwell, too. Many such instances may be going on even now, concerning which highly paid people in the City or elsewhere will not surrender their jobs for fear that they will never be employed again. The measure will therefore give the tribunal the opportunity to judge what is appropriate when an employer has so wilfully disregarded the law in terms of compliance with that Act. I give a cheer for that and I welcome what the Government and the Secretary of State are doing.
      On the commencement date, it is nearly a year since the PIDA was enacted. The hon. Member for Wentworth made a valiant point: companies must be in a position to prepare themselves and to ensure that their systems for coping with such circumstances are set up properly. We are into a new world, I hope, where our country will be the better, for when individuals know of wrongdoing that has implications, they will know that our law will support them in the quest for justice.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I raise this point as a point of order, because it is not strictly connected with the Bill. Will the Secretary of State make a statement, given the announcement by Professor Joachim Milberg, the chairman and chief executive of BMW, on
      "the slow pace of negotiations with the UK Government over"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I really cannot see that that has any place in the proceedings at present. It is certainly not a point of order for the Chair. There has been no notification of a request for a Government statement on that matter. We are dealing with the Employment Relations Bill.
      Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State might like to comment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State will resist the temptation. We are discussing the Employment Relations Bill.
      Mr. Byers: I shall, as always, try to keep in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your clear guidance.
      A number of issues were raised during the debate and I welcome the tenor of the remarks that have been made. As several hon. Members have said, the PIDA had all-party support in the House, which is why we were able to get it on the statute book last year. Hon. Members have asked about commencement. The Government's objective is for the Act to commence in the very near future. I want to work towards the Act being in operation, with appropriate notification to employers, to meet the anniversary of its enactment. That is a good target to set ourselves. Now that I have said that, hon. Members will want to keep me to it; I shall be pleased to be kept to my task of achieving that particular objective.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is absolutely right that the proposals in new clause 11 are restricted to examples covered by the PIDA and to issues related to health and safety matters, and do not go beyond that. I hope that that reassurance is helpful. On the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)
      882
      and reinforced from his Front Bench, tribunals will be able to take into account the circumstances of a particular employer, including its size, in deciding whether it has acted reasonably or unreasonably, and thus whether the dismissal is fair or not.
      The important aspect is that compensation must be suitable to the particular circumstances, a point that was raised from the Opposition Front Bench. Whistleblowers must have unlimited compensation because they are often in positions of great responsibility and at the higher end of the salary range. So going beyond the cap of £50,000 would be appropriate.
      I confirm for the hon. Member for Daventry that there is no question of exemplary damages being applicable. The measure will give the tribunal the opportunity to award beyond £50,000, if that is appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case before it.
      I hope that I have been able to address hon. Members' concerns and that we can agree to new clause 11 and the consequential amendments.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      SMALL EMPLOYERS' EXEMPTION
      .'—(1) The additional individual rights conferred by sections 8 to 21 of, and Schedule 3 to, this Act shall not apply to any worker unless the employer of that worker, taken with any associated employer or employers, employs—

      (a) at least 51 workers on the day in respect of which the employee claims the right, or

      (b) an average of at least 51 workers in the 13 weeks ending with that day, to be determined in accordance with the methodology established under paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 1 to this Act.

      (2) The lower of the two figures in subsection 1(a) or 1(b) shall be known as the qualifying limit.

      (3) The Secretary of State may make an Order modifying the qualifying limit for workers, or applying, varying or disapplying any rights conferred under this Act for workers employed in numbers below the qualifying limit, but no such order may be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

      (4) An Order under subsection 3 may make provision for the continuation of employment rights mentioned in subsection (1) and already enjoyed by an individual worker or workers at the time of the passing of this Act.'.—[Mr. Redwood.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 2—Microbusiness exemption—

      '.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State may by Order disapply or modify such rights of individual workers under the Employment Rights Act 1996 (but excluding any rights conferred under that Act by the provisions of this Act) as he deems appropriate in the interests of businesses employing 10 or fewer workers (or such lesser or greater number as he may by Order specify from time to time).

      (2) An Order under subsection (1) shall not apply to rights already enjoyed by individual workers at the time at the passing of this Act.

      883

      (3) No Order under subsection (1) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

      Amendment No. 5, in schedule 1, page 19, line 39, leave out '21' and insert '51'.
      Amendment No. 6, in page 19, line 40, leave out '21' and insert '51'.
      Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68.
      Mr. Redwood: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential on new clause 1, should the House agree to that, and I have no objection to Government amendments Nos. 66 to 68, subject to anything that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary may wish to say by explanation.
      I remind the House that I have declared an interest in certain companies in the Register of Members' Interests. I am not speaking on their behalf or at their request today, but all companies are obviously affected by these new clauses and amendments, so it is right that I should remind the House of those interests.
      I thought it curious that the Secretary of State was so generous to whistleblowers but not others until I remembered that it is to a whistleblower that he owes his job. We were grateful to the whistleblower who exposed the goings-on at the Department under the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It was good that we were able to find common cause on the issue of whistleblowers in the first exchanges.
      I hope that we can make similar progress by tempting the Secretary of State to live up to the fine rhetoric that he has placed in the newspapers in recent weeks about the need to deregulate. Some of the words which have been planted in the press, perhaps at his request, allegedly on his behalf, could have been uttered by me. They were fine deregulatory statements, saying that the costs of business must be cut, that the burdens on business must be reduced, that the Government have at last got the deregulatory message coming loud and clear from businesses, small, medium and large.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend think that, with regard to deregulation, that is just rhetoric, not actual delivery? Could that be why Joachim Milberg today said that BMW is thinking of moving the Longbridge operation to Hungary, where there is not only little regulation but low pay and no excessive charges on top of employment?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will take a gentle reminder from me that that can hardly be answered in the context of small employers.
      Mr. Redwood: I take your warning, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is noted for his persistence and I know that he has the interests of all British business at heart. With your permission, I shall answer within order by saying that I fear that, on the issue of deregulation in general, and deregulation for small businesses in particular, there will be many more words than actions from the Secretary of State.
      The right hon. Gentleman has a marvellous opportunity tonight to prove me wrong. if he would like to intervene at this moment and welcome the new clause, I would
      884
      forgo the advantage of the rest of my speech, congratulate him warmly and say that he has at last understood some of our message on deregulation. However, I see the right hon. Gentleman is not about to leap to his feet, so I fear that we must tease him a little further about the big gap that is growing between the rhetoric, the spin, in the unattributable briefings in the press and the reality of a Government who put cost upon cost, burden upon burden, regulatory requirement upon regulatory requirement upon small and big businesses alike.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend, as the House knows, is renowned for his generosity of spirit, but on this occasion, I hope that he will not over-egg the rhetorical pudding. To that end, does my right hon. Friend recall that, in the course of 46 minutes of speech from the Secretary of State during the Budget debate—a 36-minute opening speech and a 10-minute statement on enterprise and competition—the word "deregulation" did not come forth from his lips once?
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has a better memory than I do, but I am sure that he is right. It would be a notable omission to go through such a speech with no reference to deregulation. But that is symptomatic. There has been no such reference in the House of Commons because my hon. Friends or I might cross-examine the right hon. Gentleman and discover that there is no back-up to the rhetoric that he wishes business chiefs outside to believe. This is a regulatory Government who are presiding over an industrial crisis. We propose this modest measure of relief for small business because we are worried by the climate now confronting small industrial companies in particular.
      5 pm
      Let us consider today's news. The pound hit a new high against the euro this morning: there has been a 7 per cent. or more devaluation of the euro in three months. BMW says that it still has not settled its future at Longbridge despite long and protracted negotiations, and that threatens many firms that depend on the jobs at that most important plant. Four hundred jobs have disappeared at Marks and Spencer, and there is a strike at National Power. What is the Government's answer to all that? Yet more regulations, which interfere with the rather good employee relations we left the Government when we were removed from office, and yet more costs to be placed on small and big business at a time when it is already too dear to make certain products in Britain. The Government have gone out of their way to make it too dear to make goods in Britain by having a high exchange rate, high interest rate, high tax and high regulatory cost policies, which they have pursued come hell or high water over the whole of their two years in office.
      In the lifetime of this Parliament, small and big firms face £8 billion of extra charges from the national minimum wage bureaucracy and policy; £6.65 billion extra costs for the working time directive; £85 million for European works councils; £110 million extra for parental leave; and £90 million extra for the Food Standards Agency. That is on top of the massive stealth taxes, wealth taxes and company income taxes that have been imposed through the back door in three successive Budgets. It is no wonder that small business now finds it extremely difficult to prosper, and we see factory closure after

      885
      factory closure day after day, and redundancy after redundancy as the full impact of these taxes and extra costs is felt.
      Worse still, from the Secretary of State's point of view, is the fact that the big impact is in his constituency and in the constituencies of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the northern and midlands manufacturing heartlands. I am glad to say that it is not being felt in my constituency.
      Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman should stand against me.
      Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State rather foolishly says that I should stand against him in his constituency. Why should I let my constituents down? Why should I throw away all that hard work for them, and why should I have to apologise to him for the fact that, despite Labour Government policies, they are prosperous and succeeding and do not have an unemployment problem? I have every right, as a member of the shadow Cabinet, to speak out for his constituents if he fails to do so. The industrialists and the industrial employees in his constituency and in neighbouring areas are getting tired of the Government, who are long on promises and short on delivery. They are unable to understand that their policies are doing enormous damage to industry and companies in that part of the world.
      The Secretary of State, in his rhetoric, says that this legislation is about a new culture of partnership. How can he believe that, when the Bill is about compelling people and companies to do things that they otherwise would not voluntarily agree among themselves to do? His idea of partnership is like the idea of partnership entered into between the chicken and the pig for the breakfast business: it might be all right for the chicken, but not very good for the pig. The Government have such a partnership in mind in this legislation.
      Our proposal would exempt all small firms with 50 employees or fewer from the impact of the Bill. It would not prevent them from going ahead by voluntary agreement with best or better practice than is recommended in the legislation. It would not prevent them from offering even better terms and conditions of employment to their staff. Many of them already do, and I hope that many of them will be able to do so in the future.
      Does the Secretary of State realise that if a firm has fewer than 50 employees it is possible for the boss to know them all, to like them all, to have individual business relationships with every one of them, to understand their requirements and needs and to negotiate with each of them on what is best in their circumstances? He can negotiate individually on hours, pay, conditions and family circumstances. There can be give and take between employees and the employer: employees understand that in a small firm there has to be more give and take on their part as well. If there is not, the life of the small firm may be jeopardised.
      Mr. Geraint Davies: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not opt for a limit of 100, 150 or 200 rather than 50, given what he has said? If he were sincere, he would admit that he does not want any of this legislation: he does not want any additional rights for any
      886
      workers, or the partnership and prosperity in industry that it envisages. Why does he not come clean and say that we should get rid of the 50 limit and abolish the lot?
      Mr. Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause, he will see that it gives power for the number to be varied. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I discussed the matter, and decided to go for a modest proposal. We are offering it seriously, because we hoped that the Government might accept it. We had read all the rhetoric suggesting that they were now very worried about small firms.
      As I have just explained, in a company employing 50 people or fewer, it is normal for the employer to know all those individuals, to have hired them personally and to be able to negotiate with them separately. That might be a little more difficult with 100 or more employees. Personally, I favour the 100 figure, and some small business organisations have made representations to us suggesting that we opt for it, but we chose the more modest figure, because it can be convincingly argued that, in a firm employing 50 people or fewer, the problems resulting from the introduction of a statutory framework applying to much bigger companies will be greater. In a company with 50 or fewer employees, employer and employee will obviously know each other, and will be able to work things out on an individual basis.
      The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) and his right hon. and hon. Friends may be interested to hear some of the views of the business community, if they are not sure about my powers of persuasion. The London chamber of commerce and industry is very worried by the alarming increase in costs. In one of its recent press releases, it says that the Government's measures
      "will result in added costs and bureaucracy for firms when they are already having to comply with the Working Time regulations and preparing for the minimum wage legislation… Furthermore, measures such as the introduction of parental leave will be a greater burden on small firms than on large ones. We want the Government to lighten these burdens on small firms".
      Surely the Government want London to prosper. Do they not understand that jobs are more likely to be created in the difficult areas of London by small firms than by large ones? That is the historical experience, and it is the likelihood for the future. Jobs are created much more in the United States of America, where there is a larger population of small firms, than on the continent of Europe, which relies on large firms and ends up with mass unemployment.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend is making an particularly important point about London following the representations that he has received from the London chamber of commerce and industry, which—as I know from my former professional capacity—does an excellent job.
      The LCCI has further cause for concern. Not only will these measures hit small businesses in the capital; there will also be road user charges and parking charges. Let us at least get these measures right, so that small businesses can survive to face the other imposts that the Government have in mind.
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of London. As he knows, there is high unemployment in parts of the capital, which will be

      887
      particularly badly hit by yet more costs of the kind that he describes, in addition to those that we are discussing. They will have a bigger impact on many businesses that would otherwise be able to create some of the jobs that we all want to see.
      The Government love quoting the Confederation of British Industry, with which they seem to think they have a special relationship. I do not think that they can have been reading the CBI policy statements of recent months; if they had, they would have noted that on most issues the CBI is now more in line with the Opposition than with the Government, because of the damage that the Government have been doing to the interests of larger as well as smaller companies.
      According to the most recent statement by the CBI's director general, published in the Financial Times this month:
      "Good employee relations should be built on trust and this is not best fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can work where it has two willing partners, but not where there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred the last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and indeed the legislation proved to be unworkable."
      Exactly. I am worried that the Bill will prove to be most unworkable in the sector that is most at risk: the smaller firms sector.
      Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend will be aware that I used to run a broadcast electronics company: one might say, an engineering company. Is he aware that the Engineering Employers Federation says that small engineering companies will be stifled by the Bill? Is he further aware that the CBI is also saying that the Department of Trade and Industry has over-egged the directives from Brussels and that there can be no future for engineering if such small firms are stifled at birth?
      Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is ahead of me because I was going to refer to the plight of engineering firms. He is right to say that the Engineering Employers Federation is worried by the changes. It stated in January:
      "The proposed changes to the law on industrial action will inevitably change the industrial relations climate and may make industrial action more common."
      It said elsewhere that it was against the measures because it feared that they would be yet another blow to the independence and success of small and large engineering companies alike.
      The Institute of Directors has been even tougher in its opposition to the Bill. That may come as no surprise to the Secretary of State, but the IOD may be right; he should bear that in mind as a possibility. It has stated:
      "The Bill is entirely inconsistent with its"—
      the Government's—
      "objective of creating a competitive economy. The legislation imposes a raft of new costs and burdens on firms, including compulsory trade union recognition, higher compensation for unfair dismissal and the Parental Leave Directive. These measures will sap the competitiveness of British Firms."
      The Institute of Personnel Directors is against the proposals. The Chemical Industries Association has also said that it is worried about the measures. It says that it
      888
      does not welcome the Bill and thinks that there are alternative ways in which to promote partnership which fall short of the compulsion in the Bill.
      On the specific matter of small firm exemption, the CBI proposed that the threshold should be raised to 50—another part of our case in going for the lower number, rather than 100. The CBI says:
      "Members believe that direct relations between management and employees is the norm in businesses with far more than 20 employees."
      It proposes 50 as a reasonable, prudent guess of a sensible limit. The British Chambers of Commerce has also said that 50 is a reasonable limit, rather than the 20 in the Bill.
      The Federation of Small Businesses has proposed a threshold of 100 and would obviously prefer 50 to the threshold in the legislation. It is worth dwelling on its quotes because it speaks for many small businesses. Its voice should be heard in our important debate. In a press release in February, the federation stated:
      "Small firms are now being over-regulated to such a degree that it is too costly and too risky to employ staff … The provisions of the Employment Relations Bill will place them under further pressure and the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit will mean the onus of administering more benefits falling on to employers."
      In an earlier submission, it made it clear that it was against the union measures in the White Paper and draft legislation. Firms across the spectrum—the CBI, the IOD, small firms and chambers of commerce—are saying that they do not want the legislation and that, if we have to have it, small firms must be exempted because they behave differently and would be particularly vulnerable to its measures. Will not the Government listen?
      The Government came to office saying that they were going to be different, that they would listen and understand, that they cared about companies. We now have the united voice of business. We have the united voice of the Opposition. We are all telling the Secretary of State the same thing. We are telling him that his rhetoric in the newspapers on deregulation is promising, but that the actions in the Bill show that he does not mean a word of it. We are giving him a simple way out of the conundrum by asking for a modest improvement: an exemption of small firms with up to 50 employees.
      5.15 pm
      We have just heard from the Minister for the Cabinet Office something about "joined-up government". That is an extraordinary idea from this Government, who have nothing joined up about them at all and who make disjointed statements from day to day, based on their idea of media management and what might make a good headline or news story the following day.
      We are told that there is to be a regulatory impact assessment for every new measure that is proposed. Whoopee, Mr. Deputy Speaker; but that is not new. There have been cost assessments of regulations for many years. We want the Government to produce honest assessments, rather than fiddled ones, and then to understand what the assessments are telling them. The regulatory cost assessments of these and other measures that the Government have introduced should be telling them that they are taking too much money out of British business, and that the reason why factories are closing and people are being sacked day by day in the industrial sector has something to do with the Government's policy.

      889
      If the Government take out too much in tax and regulation and push sterling too high, it will become difficult to compete and jobs will be lost. We do not want more regulatory impact assessments. We want the Government to come up with some honest figures, to understand the voice of business, to understand what business is saying and to do something about it.
      The Secretary of State's usual defence is to say that the previous Government introduced regulations. That is quite true; they did, and those regulations also increased costs. However, the Secretary of State is proposing far more expensive and damaging regulations than did the previous Government, on top of the regulations introduced by that Government. If the Secretary of State wished to identify regulations introduced by the previous Government that he thought we could do without, nobody would be more delighted than I. I am sure that I could persuade my right hon. and hon. Friends to see the wisdom of repealing those regulations, as well as those that he is proposing. We would be delighted. Rather the sinner repenteth before it is too late than that the sinner should go on to his inevitable doom.
      We are giving the Secretary of State a chance to repent with new clause 2. As we are prepared to trust him in this respect, we are offering him the power to choose those items in the Employment Rights Act 1996 that he thinks should no longer apply to very small firms: those employing 10 people or fewer. We are leaving it to his judgment. He will be in a good position to consult and to find out from business which parts of the legislation are most damaging and which could be removed without doing overwhelming damage—something that he and I would not want. We are being true to our word. We are happy to look at past as well as future legislation.
      The main burden of the Opposition's charge is simple. There are already too many regulations. The Government have introduced some big and expensive ones already which business is having to digest, the minimum wage and the working time directive being two of the most obvious and expensive. We say to the Government, "Please do not put on top of that all the additional requirements of the Bill. Please exempt small firms. Please do something for very small firms."
      If the Secretary of State does nothing for those categories, it will reveal that he is not interested in deregulation or British business, that he does not understand the catastrophe in modern British industry and that he will do absolutely nothing to stop those job losses and factory closures.
      Mr. Bercow: I support new clauses 1 and 2, which offer a lifeline to the small businesses of this country. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had to say in support of the clauses demonstrated beyond doubt that, in the context of this Bill—as in other aspects of Government legislation and public debate—the official Opposition are on the side of small business and the Government are working against it.
      Six reasons occur to me why the new clauses should be accepted. The first is the background to them. The circumstances in which we find ourselves are serious indeed for the small business sector of our economy. In 1998, 38,000 small businesses in this country closed. That represented a 6 per cent. increase on the figure for 1997. I hope that the House will be interested to know, and disturbed to learn, that in the first quarter of this year, no fewer than 11,000 small companies have ceased to trade.
      890
      There are a variety of reasons for closures and cessation of trade, but two reasons are paramount. [Interruption.] Before the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) chunters on any further, for all the world as if his main ambition this afternoon were to resemble the village idiot, let me favour him with the facts—[Interruption.] I shall continue to be as polite as I ordinarily am. Let me favour the hon. Gentleman with the evidence of the Federation of Small Businesses. As he was a doughty contributor to the proceedings of the Standing Committee, I hope that he will be interested to know the verdict of that organisation, which is the authentic voice of small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom.
      The federation says—not anecdotally, but on the basis of all the evidence of its members—that there are two main problems. One is cash flow; the other is the burden of regulation on enterprises. In the context of the first reason, to prove that I am being scrupulously fair, I say at the outset that although far too many of the companies that have ceased to trade have gone bust, several of them have not.
      Some of those companies—especially micro-businesses, although larger businesses are also involved—have made the decision to cease to trade while still relatively profitable, because they think that the odds are stacked against them, and that the Government seek to thwart rather than to assist them.
      Some relatively successful business people, suffering the avalanche of additional regulation that the Government have produced in their first 22 months, have said to themselves—or rather to their employees—"I am sorry, but this is no longer a culture in which I feel comfortable to continue. I no longer want to get up and face the problems, surmount the challenges, market and sell products, make profits, keep you in work as my employees, and say to others, 'Come and work for me.'"
      I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that if we believe that small businesses will be the engine of employment growth and commercial advance for the United Kingdom in the 21st century, the anxiety of those business people should be uppermost in his mind. Many of them are saying, "We don't want to face that burden any longer. We'll sell the company; we'll retire; we'll go and play an extra round of golf or buy an apartment in Marbella—but we don't want to operate small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom when Ministers don't seem to want us to do so."
      Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is making an important point. It is in the micro and small business sector, among the family businesses, that personal sentiment is most prevalent. Our constituents who have been in that sector, and who have come to tell us that the game is not worth the candle, are absolutely right. They are sick to death of the hassle, and they do not see why they and their families should be subjected to health risks and protracted aggravation for so little benefit.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend, as usual, is right. I can testify to the truth of what he says not only on the basis of the comments and evidence of the Federation of Small Businesses, but from personal experience in my constituency. The small business sector is well developed in my constituency, in Milton Keynes and in the rest of north Buckinghamshire.

      891
      Time and again, people say to me, "We don't think Ministers are on our side. They utter soothing words, but they do not will the means to help us." What my hon. Friend said reflects what people in business at the grass roots are really saying.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I am worried that we have already persuaded Ministers on this point and that my hon. Friend may therefore be over-egging the pudding. Does he not remember the excellent speech made by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—an unpaid Under-Secretary—who said, when he was asked by the Liberal Democrats for further regulations on discrimination against people on age grounds, that they would not be appropriate? That statement came during the last part of the Standing Committee's deliberations. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have at long last realised the damaging effect of all their regulations and may accept the new clause?
      Mr. Bercow: I should like to think so, and hope springs eternal, but although I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's truly elephantine memory, I cannot in all candour pay similar tribute to his judgment or his generosity of spirit. I should be delighted to be disabused of my suspicion, but I fear that Ministers will not be willing to accept our new clause. If I am wrong, I shall happily donate £100 to my hon. Friend's favourite charity, but I do not think that I am likely to be so impoverished.
      The second reason why new clauses 1 and 2 should be accepted lies in the pronouncements of senior Labour Members before and since the election. Before the election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in the foreword to Labour's business manifesto:
      "We will not impose burdensome regulations upon business because we understand that successful businesses must keep costs down."
      That statement was supposed to betoken a light-touch regulatory approach which has not been reflected in practice. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out, the Government have imposed 2,400 additional regulations on business during their first 22 months in office. They have discarded only 20 regulations, which makes a net increase of 2,380.
      If the Government want to honour their pre-election commitment, they should be prepared to accept the new clause as it would remove burdens otherwise imposed on small companies. I am particularly sorry that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has wafted out of the Chamber. I thought that he might be good enough to stay for the exchanges on new clause 1, because, as he does on other matters, the right hon. Gentleman has form on this subject. Under the protection of parliamentary privilege, I can even go so far as to say without fear of a writ for defamation that the right hon. Gentleman has previous convictions on the subject of regulation.
      If the right hon. Gentleman were here, I am sure that he would not mind my reminding him that when he was Secretary of State, he said that:
      "we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms."—[Official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
      Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend may wish to know, as a point of information,
      892
      that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) is sitting in the No Lobby, where he is, perhaps, preparing to vote no on Third Reading for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Comments should relate entirely to what is taking place in the Chamber.
      Mr. Bercow: I shall confine myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the hope that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool will prove to be a sinner who repenteth, and that he will join us in the Division Lobby. He need be in no fear of being traduced or attacked if he does so. If it would be helpful for him, I shall, on this one occasion, make the very dangerous commitment to hold his hand as we walk through the Lobby in support of new clause 1, at the risk of considerable damage to my own reputation. I should be happy to do that for the benefit of having the right hon. Gentleman on side.
      It is entirely characteristic of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), as a member of the Opposition Whips Office, that he should be the source of such invaluable information. The information of the Whips is always the most up-to-date of all.
      The commitment made by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool on 25 November has not been followed. What I find most extraordinary about the Government is the wholly laid-back way in which they make commitments, do not honour them and then think that there is something curious about our pointing out the contradictions between rhetoric and reality. In days gone by, there was at least some assumption that people would follow their commitments with action, but that does not happen under this Administration.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Graham Brady: It is not only Conservative Members who have noted the Government's practice. The director-general of the Engineering Employers Federation said in February that the Government appeared to be doing one thing and saying another on the Bill.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend reinforces my point. He is right and he would have been right also to allude to the evidence of the president of the Confederation of British Industry. Exactly 22 days before the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, the former Secretary of State, made his declaratory statement about not introducing burdensome regulation, the president of the CBI, Sir Clive Thompson, said that there was a creeping paralysis of regulation on British industry and commerce, and that unless the Government took action to arrest and reverse that trend, regulation would
      "be the only growth marker in the British economy in 1999."
      I challenged the Secretary of State on that point following his statement on enterprise and competition on the day after the Budget. With respect, his response on that occasion—for a rising star of the Blairite faction—was limp in the extreme. He told me that his statement was not about the Budget and, therefore, he did not propose directly to respond to my challenge. If the Government want to reverse the tide of regulation and the

      893
      creeping paralysis from which business is suffering, they should accept the new clauses and free small and medium-sized enterprises from their impact.
      The third reason why the Government should accept new clauses 1 and 2 was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and reflects the opinion of the business organisations. I understand that Governments have to take account of a variety of representations about the content of Bills. Some will be for a proposal and others against. The task of Government is to exercise judgment. They have to make the decisions, defend them in Parliament and seek approval for them, and I do not cavil at that. If business opinion were mixed on the subject, the Government could opt for their own preferences in the Bill. However, business opinion on family friendly policies is not mixed. The business organisations are against the thrust of the Government's policies and are supportive of the thrust of the proposed improvements to the Bill contained in new clauses 1 and 2.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred to the opinions of some of the business organisations. For example, the Institute of Directors has said that the Government's proposals would sap the competitiveness of United Kingdom firms. Ministers have not offered a response to that. They have not justified their position or shown why the Institute of Directors, one of the foremost business organisations in this country, is wrong. If the Government have an answer, we would be fascinated to hear it. They have not offered an answer to the British Chambers of Commerce, which has predicted that the proposals, if not withdrawn or amended,
      "will slow or stop growth in the small business sector."
      The Government have not provided an answer to the observation by the Federation of Small Businesses that, as a result of these proposals, it will become too costly and too risky to employ staff. The Government have offered no rebuttal of the view of the Forum of Private Business, which is that the proposals could be "disastrous" for small firms. What answer has the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry to the London chamber of commerce and industry, which fears the impact of the proposals and has said that they will be more damaging and burdensome to small firms than to their larger counterparts, and that action is needed now to help those small firms? We do not get answers from Ministers. They merely blithely assure us that the injurious effects that we predict will result from the legislation will not occur. That is not good enough, and that is why it is necessary to have the new clauses.
      The fourth reason why the new clauses are necessary is that the Government are guilty of gold-plating the parental leave directive, which will be burdensome to British firms. I say without apology that Ministers were naive in the extreme to sign up to the European social chapter, which has obliged them to accept in toto the content of the parental leave directive, because the chapter is subject to qualified majority voting. A Conservative Government would not have signed up to the social chapter in this Parliament any more than we did in the last. We would not have been subject to the directive's damaging effects. It was the Government's choice to sign up to the chapter and the directive that flowed from it.
      894
      It is unfortunate that instead of interpreting the directive in its least damaging form for British micro, small and medium-sized enterprises, the Government have overzealously interpreted it, especially in relation to time off for domestic incidents.
      Mr. Fabricant: I would not like to accuse my hon. Friend of plagiarism, but the House should know that it was not he who said that the directive was being gold-plated, but the CBI.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I, too, have had the benefit of the excellent, copious CBI brief, which speaks for itself. It is particularly lamentable that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry sits on the Front Bench without offering any answer. With no disrespect to the Secretary of State, I hope that the Minister will reply to the new clauses, or at least make his views known at some point in our exchanges. It is a matter of great importance because he is responsible for small firms. We need to know why he rejects the view of the authentic representatives of British business that small companies will be damaged by the proposals.
      Gold-plating is unhelpful and unnecessary. It probably results from Ministers' lack of control of their officials. A good Minister guides officials. One has to assume from Ministers' rhetoric since 1 May 1997 that they do not want to gold-plate. If they do not want to, they should keep control of the process. If they wish to gold-plate, and I have underestimated their zeal in these matters, the logical corollary is that they have no right to claim to be small business-friendly. They cannot have it both ways. Whichever way they have it, they are the losers.
      Miss Julie Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is perhaps a little unfair to officials. The Government do not understand what they signed up to with the European social chapter. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), having signed it on behalf of the British Government, said that he would not accept any regulations that he did not like the look of. He clearly did not understand what he was talking about.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool is a man of the broad brush. Far be it from me to accuse him of excessive preoccupation with detail or to suggest that beads of sweat appeared on his brow late at night as he ploughed through his red boxes, attending in the greatest detail to every feature of the legislation that he would subsequently have to defend in the House. He is a man of the general principle—the grand, high-falutin' declaration. Others have to pick up the debris from the ill-informed, misguided judgments that he habitually made as a Minister.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who accused me of being a little ungenerous—perhaps I was—to officials, should not understate her case.
      Not only the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was naive and ill-informed on these matters. The Prime Minister himself is and has long been singularly under-briefed on the contents of the proposals and treaties to which he has given his signature. It is precisely because the Prime Minister frequently imagined that he did not

      895
      have to sign up to or accept things that he did have to accept that it has been necessary for the Conservative Opposition to table the new clauses. The Prime Minister sometimes fondly imagines that if he goes to a summit or conference and says that he is against something, it will not happen in this country. That simply is not the case.
      We all know that there is an agenda in the European Union. The Foreign Secretary certainly knows it. It is called the European social model. EU countries want to impose it on us and export to Britain the high costs, slothful growth and increasing unemployment that they have long suffered. We are in favour of lower costs, better growth and higher employment, not unemployment. That is why we are against the Government's proposals and in favour of the sensible new clauses tabled by the Opposition.
      Mr. Redwood: While my hon. Friend is speculating on Secretaries of State of the broad brush and what they may have read in their red boxes, will he answer this question? Does he think that in recent days, when the Secretary of State received a copy of the oral statement that the Minister for the Cabinet Office was to give on modernising government, he read it, saw that it was a strong statement of the need to remove unnecessary regulation and fired off a letter to the Minister saying that the statement would embarrass him greatly today as he was unable to accept sensible deregulation proposals in new clauses tabled to the Bill? Or does my hon. Friend think that the Secretary of State just did not bother to read it?
      Mr. Bercow: I do not know what accounts for this extraordinary state of affairs, but my right hon. Friend, as usual, makes a highly pertinent point. The Minister for the Cabinet Office made a statement only a couple of hours ago on the modernisation of government and said, in response to questions, that regulations should be proportionate. That was the word that he used. It is a good word, and one that I commend to the House—proportionate—
      Mr. Redwood: And necessary.
      Mr. Bercow: And necessary, as my right hon. Friend helpfully points out from a sedentary position. I commend it to the House. The Secretary of State was no doubt genning up on his remarks for the afternoon at that point so whether he had the benefit of hearing from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, I know not, but he should have seen in exchanges of letters between Cabinet colleagues what the Minister proposed to say. In the light of that, it is extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not put his hands up this afternoon and said to my right hon. Friend, "You are absolutely right. We agree to the new clauses. We can proceed to make further progress on the Report stage of the Bill."
      Mr. Boswell: Is not one of the difficulties that the Secretary of State faces the fact that some of his other clients or friends take a different view. For example, the TUC explicitly acknowledges:
      "The arrival of the full Social Chapter procedure is both timely and crucial for the creation of a European system of industrial relations."
      It goes on at length in exactly the same vein.
      Mr. Bercow: I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend says because we have always known that the
      896
      cloth-capped colonels of the TUC are enthusiasts for greater regulation. As they could not get it through the front door because of the admirable stewardship of this country's affairs by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven, they decided some time ago that if they could usher it in through the back Delors, they would happily do so. They have made strenuous efforts to see that they are on the winning side as often as possible. Now that they have a Government in office who are sympathetic to their general viewpoint, they are determined to extract the maximum in return for the enormous donations that they made to that party when it was in opposition for 18 years. What my hon. Friend says is highly relevant to our proceedings.
      I referred a moment ago to the statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the proportionality of regulations. That is relevant to what I have to say about my fifth reason why the new clauses should be accepted by the House this afternoon. My fifth reason is the regulations that flow from the Bill.
      It is important that the public outside this place should be aware that the Bill is substantially a skeleton Bill. The devil is in the detail, and it is a lamentable abdication of responsibility on the part of the Government that there will be no opportunity to debate on the Floor of the House the detail of the regulations that will implement the Government's intentions as set out in the Bill. I am extremely anxious about the burden that the regulations will impose and that is a further reason why the new clauses should be accepted.
      The regulations will be burdensome in terms of time. Companies will have to devote much time to familiarising themselves —
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been extremely generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make certain general points in relation to the new clause, but I have reached the limit of my patience. The hon. Gentleman is now moving away from the kernel of this particular group of new clauses; the new clauses relate to exemptions for small businesses rather than to general matters in the Bill.
      Mr. Bercow: As you would expect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall immediately comply with your helpful guidance. That is why I say that we should support the new clauses. If they are passed, they will give small businesses an exemption from the regulations that will accompany the Bill. That seems to be at the heart of the debate.
      In Committee, we explored the whole subject and discussed the possibility of exemptions for small firms. One of the reasons we did so was that, as Ministers are aware, the regulations flowing from the working time directive, which will have an impact on small and medium-sized enterprises in Britain, currently stretch to 72 pages of A4 paper. If people outside this place are surprised to learn that, they will be even more surprised to learn that the regulations that flow from the requirement to impose a national minimum wage—a requirement that is as applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises as it is to others—stretch to no fewer than 112 pages of A4 paper. Part of the rationale behind the introduction of the new clauses is that the Opposition are the friends of small and medium-sized enterprises and do not think that they should have to face

      897
      that burden. Quite apart from the work that those in such enterprises do to keep their companies afloat, to make them profitable, to sell products, to keep and, if possible, increase their staff, why should they have to devote a great deal of time to studying the regulations to see that their companies conform to them? That is a key weakness of the Bill as it stands and a good reason why the new clauses are required to improve it.
      The cost of compliance—and the cost of discovering whether one is complying—will be a further burden on micro, small and medium-sized companies. Although business organisations have been almost uniformly critical of those aspects of the Bill, little attention has been paid to the comments of our old friends the lawyers. I am not a lawyer—I say that with pride—but I am aware that many make their living from the practice of the legal profession. A leading member of Bevan Ashford said recently that the passage of the Bill would result in a great deal more work for him unless certain provisions were removed or amended.
      The reason why that greater work will result is that companies will not know whether or not they are in conformity with the regulations, they will naturally consult and pay lawyers, time will be taken, and references to the courts will be required—none of which activity is remotely relevant to the overriding task of a small business, which is to stay afloat, make a profit and keep its staff. It is precisely because of that damage that we need to act.
      The sixth and final reason why we should embrace the new clauses with enthusiasm is that, if we do so, we emulate the spirit and the practice of the United States of America. In an important recent speech, the Secretary of State said that the creation of wealth was now more important than its redistribution. I welcomed that statement and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having made it, but I want it to be reflected in practice. If we are to adopt a policy under the Bill that is helpful to SMEs, we have to free them from the burden I have described. The reason why I refer to it in the context of the new clauses is that, when my right hon. and hon. Friends discussed this matter before coming to the House today, we became conscious of a pattern of which the Secretary of State is one part, and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool and the Prime Minister are two other important parts.
      I see that the former Secretary of State has been jolted from his private conversation with the deputy Chief Whip. The right hon. Gentleman will know that as Secretary of State, when talking about business growth, he made frequent references to the importance of learning from the United States—indeed, in the course of one speech, he referred several times to visits he had paid to the United States. He will recall that I raised the matter with him, because I thought it important, in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 4 November last year. I politely challenged him about what appeared to me to be the conflict between the commitment to American practice and the reality of Government policies—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is spinning wide of the scope of this group of new clauses and amendments. I suggest that he gets back to the main subject very quickly.
      Mr. Bercow: I shall come back to it immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had not thought that I had strayed, but I accept your judgment in these matters.
      898
      We need light-touch regulation and, in some cases, businesses to be free of regulation altogether, in line with the American model. The direct relevance of that, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will now be blindingly obvious to every right hon. and hon. Member present. The relevance of my invocation of the example of the United States is that there, a directly comparable provision on parental leave is applied very differently from the way it is to be applied in this country. That is the relevance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will accept that it is within the scope of the new clauses.
      In the United States, as I have reminded the Minister for Small Firms and the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), there is legislation on family and medical leave—the Family and Medical Leave Act 1993. Moreover, that legislation does indeed provide for 12 weeks unpaid leave for parents and guardians in certain circumstances. However, it does not apply to firms with fewer than 50 employees, which is one good reason why we adopted the figure of 50 as the basis of our new clauses. I ask a simple question of the Secretary of State: why talk about American practice unless he is prepared to emulate it? It is not good enough for the Minister for Small Firms to tell me in his letter of 25 March that, in incorporating American ideas in the British context, one has to take account of British traditions and institutions, as an excuse for not doing in this country that which works extremely well in that country.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker, as ever, you have been a model of tolerance and I am grateful to you for that, as it has enabled me to give six reasons—of the no doubt 666 reasons—why the new clauses should be accepted by the Government.
      Mr. Wilkinson: The previous speech was a tour de force and I shall not attempt to emulate it. Nor could I emulate the authority with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) spoke. Suffice it to say, if I can be forgiven for being subjective, that my impressions of the merits of the new clauses stem less from long hours in Standing Committee—I applaud my right hon. Friend and his colleagues for their persistence in trying to amend the Bill in Committee, and regret that we have had to return to these issues on Report—than from my experience of running a small company of my own for 12 years.
      I cannot believe that, in the current climate, it will be easy to induce people to enter the small business sector, because everything is stacked against them. The background is grim. Given that we have an overvalued currency, following the plunge of the euro, and given the imposts and directives under which a small business has to labour, those who run such businesses face an exceptionally difficult task. However, the Government should show willing and at least recognise that it is time to match their rhetoric with action. The new clauses contain proposals that are exactly in line with best practice, to use the current jargon, in the United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) clearly explained. I cannot see any reason other than bigotry and dogma why the Government should not wholeheartedly embrace the new clauses. I cannot see what they would lose by so doing.
      Speaking as a London Member, I am grieved that the Bill will have an especially hard impact on family businesses, which in my constituency in the north-west of

      899
      the capital are often run by members of the ethnic community. We hear time and again from the Government protestations that they are on the side of the ethnic community and that their legislation is drafted to demonstrate that commitment. However, members of the ethnic community who start up small businesses will be extremely vulnerable to the complications of the plethora of burdens that are inherent in the Bill. Those who run a family business do not need explicit provisions on parental leave, because they know what is appropriate in their family's circumstances and in the interests of the business. I find the Government's prescriptive, dogmatic attitude objectionable.
      Likewise, there is a huge divergence between the Government's protestations and rhetoric and their actions in respect of women, who will suffer especially from the Bill as it stands. Part-time workers, a large proportion of whom are women, are less likely to be taken on by small businesses because of the provisions of the Bill. This is exceptionally sad.
      It is the experience of every economy that, time and again, small businesses prove to be the engine for growth. If they are to be fundamentally inhibited, the chances of our getting out of the proto-recession into which we have slumped under the current Administration will be fatally compromised. The process of emerging from the proto-recession will be protracted, more difficult and more painful. Many people would lose their jobs unnecessarily.
      I do not understand why the Government refuse to listen to the wise counsel of my right hon. Friend and those who support the new clause. The Government should accept it wholeheartedly and demonstrate thereby that they are genuinely on the side of business. They should not use small business simply as a slogan in an attempt to beguile the electorate into acquiescing to their policies. My constituents in the small business sector tell me that the Government's rhetoric is all very well, but the prescriptive nature of their regulations is a disincentive. It is about time that that disincentive was removed.
      6 pm
      Mr. Christopher Gill: My family has run a business in Wolverhampton for five generations, but I am somewhat diffident about taking part in this debate when I see so many experts aligned on the other side of the Chamber. However, the Government and I have different perspectives. I have run a business and converted a small enterprise into a bigger one, facing many trials and tribulations in the process. My son continues that business—he is the sixth generation family member to do so—and we have a joke in our family that I am here running the country while he is at home running the business. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I must admit that my son is having much more success than I—but not because of this Government. The Labour Government have continued to put obstacles in his way, as they are doing tonight.
      There is a huge gulf between those who come from the public sector and big business and those who come from a small business background. Small business operators recognise that employment relations problems exist and that the Government wish to tackle them. However, as my
      900
      right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been at pains to point out tonight, many of those problems either do not affect small business or cannot be solved by legislative means. Legislation is singularly inappropriate in many cases, given that so many small businesses are struggling to keep their heads above water because of the existing legislative burden.
      In my earlier days, I ran my own business when there were industrial training boards. I had served in the Royal Navy—the finest training organisation in the world—and, when I returned from sea, I was intent upon training my employees. The industrial training boards killed my enthusiasm and destroyed my involvement in training by imposing a huge bureaucracy upon that vital work. As a consequence, I had to employ a training officer and training personnel to assume those duties. The situation led eventually to an industrial tribunal hearing, which I won. I could tell you much about that case, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I must not digress.
      The consequence of the Bill will be a downsizing of private businesses. Private businesses have no incentive to employ a lot of labour. The burden of employment laws—which are being added to tonight—leads many entrepreneurs to seek constantly to diversify into areas where they do not have to employ so many workers. The unemployment that results from such practices affects almost exclusively the least qualified section of society: those employees with fewer skills and qualifications.
      For the benefit of the Secretary of State, I point out that the only practical difference between a successful business and an unsuccessful business is the people we employ. Many of us in the marketplace buy the same raw materials to which we do the same things and then sell them to the same customers, often at the same price. The difference between success and failure is our people. I do not need the Secretary of State or a Labour Government to tell me about the importance of personnel: any small business man knows that his success depends upon his employees. For that reason, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make an impassioned plea that businesses employing fewer than 51 people be excluded from the legislation.
      The reality of running a small business—this may be entirely alien to the Secretary of State's life experience—is that the owner is the production manager, the sales manager, the administrator and the personnel manager. He must also perform a raft of other functions. The more legislation of this sort that we impose upon the owner, the more difficult it is for him to attend to his most important function: creating a product to sell on the market at a profit, thereby generating wealth for the nation and employment in our constituencies.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was absolutely correct to refer to the difference between this Government's rhetoric and the reality. That difference was summed up for me on Budget day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that he was keen to encourage small business and to do his best to keep overheads down. However, he went on to say that he was reducing employers national insurance by 0.5 per cent. I do not know how the Government do their arithmetic,

      901
      but employers national insurance presently stands at 10 per cent. and will be 11.7 per cent. as a result of the Budget. That does not help small businesses.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend recall that, shortly after the Chancellor's Budget speech, the Secretary of State said, in what should have been a joke but apparently was not:
      "I am reviewing arrangements for business rescues"?—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 367.]
      Was that not a good idea, given the likely exponential increase in the number of candidates requiring rescue as a result of the Government's policies?
      Mr. Gill: I understand my hon. Friend's very good point. Most business people do not want help from the Government, but neither do they want hindrance of the sort represented by the legislation before the House today.
      The Secretary of State may say, with some justification, that he receives relatively few complaints from the small business sector. I understand that, and I shall explain why that is so. The small business man is employed every waking hour trying to keep his business afloat and successful. They do not want to waste time appealing to politicians—particularly those from the Government party—because they know that their appeals will fall on deaf ears.
      I am conscious of the fact that my hon. Friends wish to speak in the debate, so I shall conclude by informing the Secretary of State that I and my family have survived in business not because of Government, but in spite of them.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) think that his comments have fallen on deaf ears? Although the Secretary of State and his Ministers are quite charming, they have had no experience in business. A few years spent working as a polytechnic lecturer or working for a large public corporation does not equate with building a business for oneself.
      When I rose on Second Reading, I spoke about Abraham Lincoln, and there was talk earlier about the American message for us, which is often seized on by the Labour party in its bid not only to gain power, but to hold on to power. Abraham Lincoln said, "You cannot make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor." That applies not only to large corporations, but to small businesses, which the Bill will strangle at birth. The legislation owes much to the tenet that he who pays the piper calls the tune. Where does most of the Labour party's money come from? It comes from the trade union movement.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) pointed out that, in this quarter alone, 11,000 small businesses have gone bust. They needed to be rescued from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I anticipate that, when he winds up the debate, he will say, "Ah, but many new small businesses have been formed." Let me pre-empt him. Information from Dun and Bradstreet reveals that the net losses in that quarter are the greatest for the first quarter of the year since the depths of the world recession—I emphasise the word "world"—of six or seven years ago. It is no use the Secretary of State saying that small businesses are being formed to compensate for the 11,000 that have gone bust—that is not so.
      Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that the Dun and Bradstreet report reveals that 11,000 businesses
      902
      have gone bust in the first quarter and that the last time the figure was considerably higher was back in 1992, when the right hon. Member for Wokingham, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, was Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. The fact that records were far worse then than they are now owes much to his legacy.
      Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State points out that the figures were worse in 1992, but I repeat that we were in the middle of a world recession, and that was at the time of the exchange rate mechanism. Does the Secretary of State not take Cabinet responsibility for his Prime Minister, who, far from gearing up for the ERM, which at least allowed us some latitude, wants to gear up for a common currency, which will make pressures on small businesses far worse?
      I shall return to the new clause. The CBI, as hon. Members have already pointed out, says that the directives on parental leave that will apply to small businesses are gold-plating the EU directive. I shall let the House into a little secret. I recall that, soon after I entered the House in 1992, early in the Parliament, the Secretary of State's predecessor and then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), faced a similar situation with an EU directive that was not desirable for small businesses. He was advised by his officials that he had no choice in the matter—the directive had to be introduced. A few months later, the draft legislation appeared, and, like this Bill, it was gold-plated.
      I therefore give the Secretary of State advice about gold-plating, which he could take from the former President of the Board of Trade. My right hon. Friend asked his civil servants, "Why is the document so thick? Why have we gold-plated the legislation?" They answered, "If we did not gold-plate it, it would be unenforceable. There would be too many loopholes." As I understand it, my right hon. Friend said, "Great! We do not want the legislation. Let us put it through Parliament without gold-plating it." It was passed and it was unenforceable.
      Far be it from me to suggest that Parliament should occasionally pass laws that are unenforceable and contain loopholes; but, when they are forced on our nation by unreasonable, ill-thought-out diktats from Brussels which will result in not only small, but large businesses going under, let us pass such legislation for the sake of businesses at home. That is exactly what France, Italy and Spain do. They have to do that because they want to keep their businesses solvent.
      6.15 pm
      Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who has now left the Chamber, asked a perfectly reasonable question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the shadow Secretary of State. He asked, "Why is the threshold in the new clause set at 50? Why not 20 or 100?" One of the reasons is that many of the states in the US use the threshold of 50.
      The Secretary of State's view is that 20 is a reasonable figure, and that is backed up by all those who are concerned with the welfare of small businesses. However, let me tell the Secretary of State, if he does not already know, that a survey conducted by the members of the

      903
      Institute of Directors said that 28 per cent. of respondents believed that firms employing up to 50 people should be exempted and only 13 per cent. were happy with the Government's definition of a small firm.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are inconsistent in their approach? Is he aware that, although the Government have opted, in this context, for the definition of a small firm as one that employs no more than 20 employees, Ministers have chosen the threshold of 50 employees for the purposes of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998? Why can they not make up their minds?
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is right. I could talk about the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. I shall not say much about that because I know that you will rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I talk about it at length.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Or, indeed, almost at all.
      Mr. Boswell: While my hon. Friend is getting his angle straight, I remind him that in the United States, to which he has referred, the minimum wage is comparatively acceptable precisely because it is set at a reasonable rate and not applied to small businesses.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend anticipated my next point, and I am delighted that you did not rule him out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The Institute of Directors "Fairness at Work" research paper of September 1998 quoted a company that said:
      "We employ less than 20 people at present and with the Government's current attitude we're likely to stay that way".
      That echoes the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who asked what incentive there was for a small business to expand. The Bill is absolutely symptomatic of the Government: they are full of bright ideas that are never thought through. They do not empathise with business, because their paymasters are the trade unions and because they do not come from a business background.
      As I said on Second Reading, one can read about and study business as much as one likes, but, if one has not immersed oneself in it, one cannot understand the pressures that small businesses are under.
      I shall quote a business man—I anticipate that I will be receiving a brown envelope from Hansard—whose name I shall try to pronounce correctly. Mr. Darsghan Thiara, a clothes factory owner from Birmingham who has a staff of 85, was reported in the Financial Times in January as saying: "Overall it"—this legislation—
      "puts a big pressure on employment; we are seriously considering cutting the number of people we employ."
      We must ask ourselves what the company will do. Will it cut staff to 20 or 19 to try to avoid the provisions of this legislation?
      Ministers, who are used to teams of civil servants, believe that understanding and implementing legislation are easy. They think that civil servants have all the time in the world. I know—this is certainly the experience in
      904
      the Treasury—that civil servants work all the hours that God gives them. Ministers arrogantly take such an attitude, but small firms simply do not have such teams of people. As has been pointed out, the managing director is often the finance director, and often also the personnel director—or the director of human resources, as they now call it. The Government Front-Bench team will like that term because they like modern jargon and slogans.
      Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Like joined-up thinking.
      Mr. Fabricant: We have joined-up running of companies simply because one poor guy has to do it all. On top of that, such people will have to try to implement the Bill's provisions.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Is my hon. Friend not being too generous about the Government Front-Bench team? Ministers completely ignore the regulations that they introduce. They do not seem to worry about the working time directive. We even have a Minister—the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry—who is working for nothing, despite the minimum wage regulations which are coming into force on 1 April.
      Mr. Fabricant: The Minister is to be complimented on working for nothing. Under minimum wage legislation, one can be paid nothing, such as when one works for a charity. Of course, when people are paid under £3.60, it does not exactly help other charities—but I will not go into that, because it would be out of order.
      The legislation will put people in a very difficult position. The whole situation was summed up by Mel Lambert, who is head of human resources at IVEC/Fiat, when he said—I do not have the memory of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, who can quote from a marvellous mind without referring to paperwork, so I shall use my notes for accuracy:
      "It puts these (small) companies in a very difficult position. They are minnows compared to union professionals."
      In the short term, trade unions will fight for the so-called rights of their employees; in many ways, that is laudable, but it will be at the expense of their long-term security and long-term employment. The House should mark my words: these provisions will be a long way from fostering the growth of small business. Let us remember that it is the small business that becomes the large business. ICI did not suddenly appear out of the blue. It was originally a small company which was set up in the 19th century. Even BT was once a very small corporation.
      Mr. Bruce: And Sainsbury.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend reminds me that Sainsbury plc started as a small corner shop.
      Mr. Stephen Day: And Marks and Spencer.
      Mr. Fabricant: Indeed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough of historical tales.
      Mr. Fabricant: All large businesses start as small businesses. If small businesses are strangled at birth, there

      905
      will not be large businesses. Without large businesses, unemployment will grow. That is, of course, what we have been experiencing over the past two years.
      This Government are fond of using clichés; I shall use one that is accurate. They inherited a golden economic legacy, they have started to ruin it, and it will be destroyed still further by this thoughtless, pernicious, vindictive legislation.
      Miss Kirkbride: I rise to continue the plea from the Opposition Benches for the Government finally to listen to our concerns and adopt our amendments, so that some of the most onerous restrictions on business will not be placed on those that employ 50 or fewer employees. We on these Benches feel so passionately because we cannot understand why the Government, having learned many lessons from the previous Conservative Government—we should bear in mind some of the programmes that they have instituted and some of the messages that they gave the electorate during the general election campaign—cannot learn one of the most serious ones from our period in government and our record on employment.
      When the Labour party was elected in May 1997, it inherited rapidly falling unemployment. In 1995, it had a programme to put 250,000 young people back to work. By the time it came to office, half those young people were already in work. We must ask ourselves why that happened. Unlike countries on the continent, we in the United Kingdom have a relatively unregulated economy. Obviously, we have provisions on health and safety at work and the right conditions for people at work, but we do not have the onerous regulation that has resulted in unemployment of about 12 per cent. in comparable countries on the continent. Over here in the UK, unemployment is 6 per cent. Indeed, due to our inheritance, there has been some further success in reducing unemployment and increasing employment.
      Some of us on the Opposition Benches, who, sadly, have been considering these regulations in great detail over the past few months, see the Government's complete failure to understand why they inherited such a fantastically performing economy. We fear that we are seeing the trade unions' payback after years of a Labour Opposition.
      Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend talks about the Government failing to learn such an important lesson. Perhaps our hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was right in saying that such a lesson cannot be learned academically, but must be learned through experience and gathered wisdom. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) agree that, as not a member of the Cabinet has ever bought or sold anything for a living in business, they are very unlikely to have that necessary experience and wisdom?
      Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend is entirely accurate. One would have thought that the Government might be capable of learning from our experience in power and from our record on employment when we started getting things right—sadly, that is not so.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend seen the long-term unemployment and youth unemployment statistics? After
      906
      six months of the new deal, youth unemployment rose by 9,000—for the first time for almost four years. After nine months of the new deal, it went up by another 22,000. That surely demonstrates that the Government have not a clue when it comes to creating jobs.
      Miss Kirkbride: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been very assiduous in studying the real statistics on the new deal and youth unemployment. Despite Government statistics, which are deliberately intended to confuse the picture, the record on youth unemployment is not anything like the Government pretend it to be in public pronouncements.
      In considering the new clause, and bearing in mind all the debates in Committee on the new regulations, I think of all the people in my constituency whom I meet in the Conservative club, on the street or in my surgery, or who write to me. They, like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), are the unsung heroes of our community. They make our communities tick. They provide employment for the people we represent and the wealth that the Government redistribute. They are the people who make this country work. When I think of them and what is about to be imposed on them, I feel desperately sad and desperately frustrated that we clearly are unable to make the Government understand what they are doing.
      6.30 pm
      I shall provide some elucidation. A couple of weeks ago, I spoke at a business breakfast club, and I was pleased at the attendance for a speech by a Conservative Member of Parliament. Indeed, the number of people turning up to listen to a speech by a politician at 8.30 am was much greater than normal. I wonder whether that was because the message about how unfriendly the Government are to business is finally getting through. I told the people there many things that the Government propose to do and gave them a copy of the 76-page working time directive, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred. I suggested that they might want to go home and read it, because they would certainly have to know of its provisions.
      Sadly, I was not able to give the people present a copy of the 112-page minimum wage regulations. They had not been published, despite the fact that the minimum wage is being introduced on Thursday, and were not even available two weeks ago for my constituents to read so that they might be aware of the conditions.
      Then I began to tell my constituents what else was coming down the track, which was unfair: it was Friday morning and they were looking forward to the weekend, but I was busy telling them that, if all that was not enough, they had to consider other measures, such as three months paternity leave for staff: a small business may have secured a big contract, but the production manager may want his three months paternity leave. One can think of legioned examples where dislocation and huge upset would be caused for small businesses, denting their production and wealth-creating capacity.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing an extremely powerful argument. Given that the Secretary of State did not dispute in the debate on Second Reading on

      907
      9 February that America's job creation record is superior to that of the European Union, can she fathom why he wants to incorporate the EU method for family friendly policies, rather than that of America?
      Miss Kirkbride: My hon. Friend again makes an excellent point that goes to the heart of our concerns about the Bill. We hear one thing from the Government, but we get another. We hear that they are against regulation, but the regulations that they are introducing are so fantastically complicated and expensive that they are sufficient to make our eyes water. We hear that they think that America has some really good ideas about how to do things, but they suggest that the American model is not the one that they are introducing to the United Kingdom.
      Labour Members often said that America has a minimum wage, but we were never told that it does not apply to small firms or that it was considerably less than the minimum wage that the Government intend to set in the United Kingdom. Although some of the provisions that the Government intend to introduce through the Bill are in force in America, others achieve precisely what we hope to achieve through the new clause: they exempt from regulations small firms employing fewer than 50 people.
      The impact is obvious for us all to see. Over the past 20 years, there has been no net creation of private sector jobs in the EU. Some companies have gone to the wall and others have been created, but the private sector has not created any extra jobs. America's record on net job creation runs into millions. If we are to have a successful and prosperous future—not only in the United Kingdom, but throughout the whole EU—we have to get real. We must understand that the world is changing and that many other countries seek a standard of living similar to ours. We are being caught up, rapidly.
      The Secretary of State will be only too well aware of the situation that we face in respect of Rover. Serious threats are being made by BMW about taking to Hungary the car-making capacity that we all want to go to Longbridge. Why is BMW making those threats? Because Hungary does not have anything like the number of employment regulations that we have, and it certainly does not have the restrictions and regulations that the Government will introduce through the Bill.
      I ask the Secretary of State to hear the pleas of Conservative Members, which are earnest and honest. This is not the right way forward. The Government will impoverish our constituents by introducing the Bill. We do not necessarily dispute the point that the Government are seeking to help our constituents, but they are misguided in seeking to help them in this way.
      Mr. Bercow: Well-meaning fools.
      Miss Kirkbride: Sadly, I cannot disagree.
      What the Government are seeking to do will have such an impact and import. I hope that they will listen to Conservative Members. I hope that, if they must go ahead on this basis, firms with fewer than 50 employees will not be affected by these provisions.
      Mr. Brady: It is a great pleasure to speak after my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), as
      908
      it must have been a great pleasure for the many business people in her constituency to attend her business breakfast and see her smiling face at 8.30 am—until, of course, she embarked on telling them the most devastating news about what the Government are seeking to do to damage the businesses on which her constituents and, indeed, people throughout the country depend for their well-being.
      I shall be brief, not only because my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) is keen to speak, but because as many as four Labour Back Benchers of the dozen or so who were members of the Standing Committee have managed to come to the Chamber to see the Bill through. I am pleased that they are here, although a little disappointed—
      Mr. Bercow: As my hon. Friend knows, I always seek to be fair to Government Back Benchers, so it is only right to point out that five Labour Back Benchers who were members of the Standing Committee are present.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The presence of hon. Members has nothing to do with the new clause; we must come to a discussion of it.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish to pay tribute to one or two Labour Members who made worthwhile comments in Committee, and I hope that they will make further helpful and intelligent contributions to our debates tonight.
      I am keen to contribute, albeit briefly, because new clauses 1 and 2 are central to the question of the Government's belief in enterprise and whether their protestations about that are to be taken seriously. I have witnessed the repeated onslaught of new regulatory burdens, particularly on smaller businesses. As many of my hon. Friends have said, the burden being placed on people who run businesses—particularly smaller businesses with no recourse to professional advice, no human resources manager and no means to afford the best advice from employment lawyers—is enormous. In turn, that has enormous implications for employment in the small business sector. I hope that Ministers will start to understand the damage that their proposals will do to that sector, which is critically important in the current economic climate.
      Those burdens are relevant to the road haulage industry, which has many small businesses. The contrast between what Ministers say about that industry and what they are doing to cause problems for it is quite staggering. It is also instructive in the context of the Bill. In response to complaints that road fuel duty is driving people out of business, or forcing them to reflag their businesses on the continent, the Government say that other costs here are lower than those on the continent. The Bill, however, contains precisely the measures that will remove any current competitive advantage that those small businesses enjoy over their European competitors. That will therefore compound the difficulties that the Government are already causing for that industry.
      I suspect that the apparent absurdity of the Government's position is due to a fundamental misunderstanding of what we are dealing with here and its implications for businesses in what many hon.

      909
      Members may choose to call the real world. That was illustrated by the Under-Secretary, in response to an amendment which I tabled in Committee seeking to limit the practice of gold-plating, when he said:
      "I would like to give some examples of the benefits that businesses with a positive attitude to family-friendly work can gain from the regulations. They gain a competitive edge, as we have said many times during the progress of the Bill. They gain improved returns on investments, because by offering good working practices they can attract the right people".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 551.]
      I shall not quote at length because the point is made.
      Ministers labour under the delusion that, far from the Bill costing jobs and being a burden and additional cost on businesses, particularly small businesses, it will do the small business sector a favour, improving returns and reducing costs by increasing regulation. That is palpable nonsense, but Ministers appear to be wedded to it.
      Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend also understand the further ludicrous nature of the Government's position in that almost all the bodies that represent small and medium businesses in Britain have repeatedly pointed out to the Government the ridiculous error of what they are doing and how damaging it will be to the competitiveness of the sector of our economy that has the greatest capacity to create jobs? How will that help the British economy?
      Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes an important point in his usual magnificent style. The important point that has been made during the debate is that small businesses, business generally, business organisations and Conservative Members understand the damage that the Government will do by refusing to accept our commonsense new clauses and amendments. But Labour Members and Ministers refuse to accept what is simple logic and common sense.
      As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall bring my remarks to a close, but I hope that Ministers will think again before causing irreparable damage to the small business sector.
      Mr. Michael Jack: I am deeply surprised that the Government do not welcome the new clauses and the consequential amendments. The Secretary of State recently addressed the Federation of Small Businesses conference in Blackpool, where he was heckled, booed and hissed because small businesses felt that that was the only way tangibly to demonstrate their revulsion of yet more regulations.
      I recently met representatives of the Lancashire branch of the Engineering Employers Federation, and they told me that their main worry at present was overburdensome regulations. They said, "We are relatively small-scale enterprises and we have enough problems as it is dealing with the strength of the pound. Please, no more regulation." They said that, to deal with the working time directive alone, the federation had had to issue a 200-page guidance document. They are struggling so much that the Minister for the Cabinet Office has agreed to see a delegation from the federation to try to sort out the mess.
      The federation would, to use common parlance, freak out if it saw schedule 3, to which the new clause relates. That is what the Government will impose on small businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the new clause is not agreed to.
      910
      I always worry when Ministers smile at Opposition Members as though we had a screw loose. On this occasion, we do not. Many Conservative Members, such as myself, were involved in modest enterprises before we entered the House. We understand that if a key member of staff is sick, or absent for maternity purposes, someone else must do the job or be brought in. Ministers do not seem to understand the impact that schedule 3 will have on such businesses.
      The Government are fond of talking about the rights of individuals, but it is no good individual employees being affected by these proposals if they are not working because their former company has said that enough is enough in terms of the burden of these regulations. It is at that level that the Government have failed to put forward coherent, well-argued points to support their reasons for placing these additional cost burdens on this sector of industry. If the Secretary of State wants to avoid being booed again next year in Blackpool, he should adopt our proposals.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Byers: I enjoyed my morning in Blackpool speaking to the Federation of Small Businesses. I was told by an official there that the reaction to my speech was one of the most positive ever given to a Minister. As the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, the very nature of small businesses means that they do not care too much for Governments of any political persuasion. Apparently, when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) addressed the conference as President of the Board of Trade, the reaction was far more hostile than anything I had to suffer. The federation made me feel very much at home.
      Government amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 simply mean that workers who ordinarily work in the United Kingdom will count towards the minimum of 21 workers required for the purposes of statutory recognition. At present, the Bill does not clarify that point and these three rather technical amendments seek to do precisely that. I hope that the House will agree to them.
      With regard to new clauses 1 and 2, Conservative Members failed to reflect on issues to do with interest rates, inflation and sound public finances. Small, medium and large businesses want economic stability and an economic climate in which they can plan ahead with certainty.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Byers: In a minute.
      Those are the issues that concern business, but there was not one reference to them this evening.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress. We have had a long debate and I know that the House wishes to divide.
      That is why it is important to create the right economic climate so that businesses can plan ahead with certainty. Particularly noticeable was the reference to the Dun and Bradstreet survey, which showed that there was some 11,000 business failures in the first quarter of this year.

      911
      I shall take that on board and reflect on it. However, it is worth noting that one quarter of the world is in recession and Japan, the world's second largest economy, is in the depths of a deep depression. That is bound to have consequences for the United Kingdom.
      But 11,000 business failures in the first quarter of this year pales into insignificance compared with the 62,000 business failures in 1992 when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. That is the right hon. Gentleman's golden legacy.
      Mr. Fabricant: The right hon. Gentleman made that point earlier, but surely, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was Minister there was a world recession. If people lose their jobs now, it will not be because of a world recession but because of this Secretary of State's legislation.
      Mr. Byers: The problem was that we were going through a Tory boom and bust. Interest rates were at 15 per cent., inflation at 10 per cent. and we had lost more than 1 million manufacturing jobs. That was the right hon. Gentleman's legacy as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, and I shall not let him forget it. He has form: he has a record, and people need to be reminded of it.
      Mr. Redwood: That is a tired old erroneous charge. Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem was caused by our membership of the exchange rate mechanism? The Labour party supported that policy. Will he now apologise, as the Conservative party has done, for the fact that that policy went wrong?
      Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge the fact that he was a Minister who signed up to the ERM. He could have stood by his principles and resigned office, but he failed to do so. We do not judge people by the apologies that they make five years too late: we judge them by their actions at the time. The right hon. Gentleman could have resigned from his ministerial position and stood by his principles. He failed to do so, and he put his personal position before a principled approach. In 1992, he did not resign: he held on to his ministerial position. That is his record, and he will be reminded of it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying from the subject of small businesses.
      Mr. Byers: Yes, we must come back to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall do so.
      When the right hon. Gentleman moved new clause 1, which would exempt companies employing 50 or fewer people, he admitted that that was not his personal option—he would favour an exemption for firms employing 100 or fewer. I am bound to ask whose policy it is that we are debating. Is it the right hon. Gentleman's policy, although he personally favours exemption for companies employing 100 or fewer, or is it the policy of the Conservative party? We need to know whose policy it is. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman to allow him to clarify the position.
      Mr. Redwood: I have said that the Opposition would welcome an exemption for companies employing fewer
      912
      than 50. We moved the new clause because we thought that we were more likely to get an exemption for those companies than we were to get an exemption for companies employing fewer than 100 people. If the Secretary of State were to offer an exemption for companies employing fewer than 100, I would be very grateful.
      Mr. Byers: So the official spokesman for the Opposition favours one position—that is worth noting—but moves an amendment that takes another. The figure of 100 is relevant because such an exemption would cover well over half the working population. Those people would be denied the basic entitlements provided by the Bill.
      What are these basic entitlements that are apparently so dangerous to the future of small business in the United Kingdom? One entitlement is time off for a parent whose child is sick. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that parents should not be able to have time off if they happen to work in an organisation that employs 50 or fewer? That is the implication of the new clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman. A mother with concerns about the welfare of her child would not be able to have emergency leave to look after that child.
      We are providing the right for part-timers no longer to be discriminated against, but Opposition Members are seeking to take that right away from millions of employees. The provision of unpaid parental leave to carry out the responsibilities of bringing up a child would be denied if the Opposition succeeded with their new clause. Millions of people would be denied those basic entitlements. We shall resist the new clause, because it would discriminate against millions of people in the most gross and unfair way.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Byers: No, I shall not.
      Opposition Members raised the genuine issue of the burden of regulation. The Government must address that issue, and we intend to do so. During questions last week, I said that the Department of Trade and Industry is reviewing every regulation to see whether it is worth while and, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office this afternoon, to ensure that it is proportionate and necessary. That is the Government's policy, and it applies across all Departments.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Byers: No, I want to make this point, because it is important.
      That is why, just 10 days ago, I met representatives of business to identify an agenda on which we can jointly make progress on regulation and the steps that need to be taken. What we have heard tonight from Conservative Members reminded me of the debates that were held when the House debated the Equal Pay Bill, which became the Equal Pay Act 1970. Conservative Members said that that

      913
      legislation would destroy jobs for women: that was their constant refrain. It has not done so, and women in the workplace have gone from strength to strength.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
      Mr. Byers: No, I shall not give way.
      Conservative Members sought to talk down small business. They spoke about small businesses being in a desperate situation because of measures introduced by the Government. They spoke of business failures. This year, 400,000 new businesses will be established because of the framework that we have created in government. Barclays bank says that the small business population has risen by 58,000 in the past two years. More importantly, survival rates are now improving. More than 80 per cent. of new businesses now survive their first year of trading compared with 75 per cent. in 1994. That is because we are creating the right climate and the right framework for businesses to prosper.
      There will be support for innovation, and we shall work to increase finance for small businesses. We introduced legislation to tackle late payment of commercial debts. The Conservative party in government did nothing to address those issues.
      If the new clause were to be introduced, millions of workers would lose basic entitlements. Part-timers would be denied minimum rights. Parents would denied the security of knowing that they could take time off to look after their children.
      Ours is a balanced approach that recognises the needs of small, medium and large businesses. We also recognise the responsibility that we have to ensure that all workers, whatever the size of the firm for which they work, have decent minimum standards of employment. The new clause seeks to deny that, which is why we shall resist it and vote against it in the Lobby.
      Mr. Redwood: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for the leadership that he has shown on this and other issues in Committee. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends who not only worked hard in Committee in the interests of all businesses, but have been present in this debate, unlike some of the Labour Members who were on the Committee. They either did not come to the Chamber for the debate or came but said absolutely nothing either in defence of the Government's policy, which is indefensible, or in support of our new clauses, which would make life a lot better.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman is not aware that at times in Committee not one Conservative Back Bencher was present behind his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
      Mr. Redwood: I am well aware from the evidence of those Committee sittings that my hon. Friends made all the running. They had all the good ideas, took the debate to the Government, and Labour Members were remarkably silent on most of the important issues, as they have been today.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) produced a tour de force and gave six very important reasons why these new clauses should be
      914
      accepted. I shall not repeat them, but I remind the House of the strong case he made. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) set out why it mattered to London that small businesses should be exempted so that they had more chance of flourishing and creating the jobs that parts of London still desperately need. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made a passionate case on behalf of small business, drawing on his own experience and that of his son, who now runs their successful family business despite the many burdens and costs imposed on it by the Government's policies.
      7 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) put up a robust performance in support of the new clause and amendments, explaining why it was important for us to emulate the American model. We hear from Labour Members that they have been converted to parts of American enterprise capitalism, but they still do not seem to understand that small businesses are flourishing in the United States of America because they are exempt from most of the regulation that Labour proposes to inflict on British business in this and related legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) made a strong case for businesses in her area, drawing on her constituency experience. My hon. Friend always puts the case for her local people with passion and skill. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) explained how absurd it was for the Government to claim that they believed in deregulation, while introducing measure after measure that imposes cost after cost on business—which in turn creates job loss after job loss, as we see every day.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that the Secretary of State had been heckled at a recent small business conference. I am not surprised that he was heckled; it was entirely predictable. If he had listened to small businesses, as we have in recent months, he would know how angry they are about this legislation, and about all the legislation that has already been foisted on them by a Government who do not understand their requirements.
      The Secretary of State tells us that he now knows that small business wants more deregulation. He has promised small firms a pow-wow—a conference with him, enabling them to explain the ways in which they want more deregulation. We have been telling the right hon. Gentleman for months that they want more deregulation, and tonight, we have offered him a chance to show how that can be done. We have tabled two new clauses. If he accepts them after this short debate—he can do so, even at the eleventh hour—he will show not only that he has begun to understand that business is cross, but that he wants to do something about it. He should be saying sorry for the regulations that he has introduced, and for those introduced by his two predecessors, the two previous Presidents of the Board of Trade—as they liked to be known. Instead, we see a Secretary of State who has learned nothing, and who wants to do nothing to help the business cause that he should be furthering.
      Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that, despite the Secretary of State's honeyed words

      915
      in the Chamber tonight, his hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has refused to give any undertaking that the regulations resulting from the Bill will be shorter than those relating to the working time directive and the national minimum wage, which fill 72 and 112 pages respectively?
      Mr. Redwood: They will doubtless be as long or longer. The Secretary of State clearly finds that amusing. He should try responding to that degree of regulation while running a small enterprise with only a few staff, and trying to make ends meet under Labour's economic policies.
      The Secretary of State does not seem to understand that the problems caused by high interest rates, high exchange rates and high taxes—all of which I mentioned in my opening remarks—are being greatly compounded by legislation such as this, which leaves business chronically short of the cash that it needs to employ people, to invest in the future and to modernise—something of which the present Government might be expected to approve. We have heard a series of cheap, juvenile debating points from the right hon. Gentleman, which we have heard many times before and to which we have responded adequately in the past. Yes, there were job losses and closures in 1992; but when will the Labour party apologise for supporting the policies that were being pursued then, and when will it learn from them? When will it understand that it is beginning to replicate exactly the conditions that obtained at that time? We have listened; we have learned; we know that the present position is wrong. Why cannot the Secretary of State appreciate the damage that his rerun is doing to industry in this country?
      Mr. Ian Stewart: It is a bit rich for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, given the inheritance left by his Government. One family in five in this country contains not one working person, and that does not include pensioners.
      Mr. Redwood: We left a golden economic legacy of falling unemployment, low inflation, growth and prosperity, and a flourishing small business enterprise culture. That is being destroyed by this Government—by their wanton economic policies, and by the regulation and laws that they are introducing.
      The Secretary of State says that I should show a little less passion, but I will not. This matters. The Secretary of State should try listening. He should understand that many livelihoods are being destroyed by this Government's policies, and he should wake up and do something about it.
      The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry dared to smile when it was suggested that he should be worried about the shrinking of the small business sector as small businesses went under. He smiles again, in a rather lacklustre way. I assume that he is giggling now because he realises that the small business sector will not shrink. For every firm that goes under while this Government are in office, another medium-sized firm will shrink and replace it, becoming a new small firm. That is the Minister's small firms policy: if the medium-sized firms are damaged, he will have more candidates to preside over in his inimitable way.
      916
      The overwhelming weight of evidence from business organisations, Members of Parliament and constituents in businesses who lobby us points in the same direction. It suggests that small business must be exempted from these and any other regulations introduced by the Government. Does the Secretary of State understand that, if a firm with 21 employees which will be caught by the legislation in its present form needs one extra person to handle all the regulation and bureaucracy, that will constitute a 5 per cent. increase in its costs? For a firm with 1,000 employees, which may need only three extra people to handle the bureaucracy, the increase in costs will amount to only 0.3 per cent.—not welcome, but much less serious than the impact on the small firm. Is that fair? Does the Secretary of State wish to encumber small firms in such a way, allowing big firms a competitive advantage? That is one of our main reasons for proposing this important exemption.
      An entrepreneur in a business with 20 or 30 employees may be the leader of a sales team. He may supervise production. He may be involved in design. He cannot take on more; yet the Secretary of State expects him to implement these measures, and supervise the company's response to a new range of statutory requirements.
      The right hon. Gentleman asks whether my hon. Friends and I want people to be denied leave when their children are ill. Of course we do not—that is an outrageous suggestion—but in a small business, in which employer and employee have an individual relationship, such matters can be sorted out without the law intruding. The law is far too clumsy. Resort to lawyers will not help relationships in small firms; it will hinder them. It will generate another unnecessary cost for a small firm that may go under as a result, because the burdens will be far too great.
      It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to promise some new review of the regulatory burdens that he and his predecessors have introduced. It is not good enough for him to blame past Governments. The burden is much greater now, the protest is much stronger now, and the small business community is much angrier now, because of the huge burdens imposed by taxes and regulations under the present Government. They are throwing away our golden economic legacy. They are making it too dear to make things in Britain.
      Labour is undoubtedly bad for business. If this Secretary of State wants to do some deregulating, he should start now by instructing his team of Members to back our new clauses.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 348.

      Division No. 133]

      [7.8 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Brady, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baldry, Tony

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Beggs, Roy

      Burns, Simon

      Bercow, John

      Butterfill, John

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Blunt, Crispin

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Body, Sir Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Boswell, Tim

      Clappison, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      917

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Collins, Tim

      Madel, Sir David

      Colvin, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Maples, John

      Cran, James

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

      Nicholls, Patrick

      & Howden)

      Norman, Archie

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Ottaway, Richard

      Duncan, Alan

      Page, Richard

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Paice, James

      Faber, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Prior, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Randall, John

      Flight, Howard

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gale, Roger

      Ruffley, David

      Gibb, Nick

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Gill, Christopher

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gray, James

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Green, Damian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Greenway, John

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Grieve, Dominic

      Spring, Richard

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Steen, Anthony

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hayes, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Horam, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Townend, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tredinnick, David

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Trend, Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Viggers, Peter

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wardle, Charles

      Waterson, Nigel

      Key, Robert

      Wells, Bowen

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Whittingdale, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Lansley, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Leigh, Edward

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Letwin, Oliver

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Lidington, David

      Yeo, Tim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and Mr. Stephen Day.

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Ainger, Nick

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Allan, Richard

      Benton, Joe

      Allen, Graham

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Berry, Roger

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Best, Harold

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Betts, Clive

      Austin, John

      Blackman, Liz

      Baker, Norman

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Banks, Tony

      Blizzard, Bob

      Barnes, Harry

      Borrow, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Battle, John

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Beard, Nigel

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      918

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Gardiner, Barry

      Burgon, Colin

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Burstow, Paul

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gerrard, Neil

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caborn, Richard

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Cann, Jamie

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Grocott, Bruce

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Grogan, John

      Chaytor, David

      Hain, Peter

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hancock, Mike

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hanson, David

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Cohen, Harry

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Hill, Keith

      Colman, Tony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoey, Kate

      Corbett, Robin

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cousins, Jim

      Hope, Phil

      Cranston, Ross

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Crausby, David

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hurst, Alan

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hutton, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Dawson, Hilton

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Donohoe, Brian H

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Drown, Ms Julia

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Efford, Clive

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Etherington, Bill

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kemp, Fraser

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fisher, Mark

      Khabra, Piara S

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kidney, David

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Flynn, Paul

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Follett, Barbara

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      919

      Laxton, Bob

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Lepper, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Leslie, Christopher

      Radice, Giles

      Levitt, Tom

      Rammell, Bill

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rapson, Syd

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Linton, Martin

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rendel, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rogers, Allan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Rooney, Terry

      Lock, David

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Love, Andrew

      Rowlands, Ted

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Roy, Frank

      McCabe, Steve

      Ruane, Chris

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Ruddock, Joan

      Macdonald, Calum

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McDonnell, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sanders, Adrian

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McLeish, Henry

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McNamara, Kevin

      Sheerman, Barry

      McNulty, Tony

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      MacShane, Denis

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      McWilliam, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

      Martlew, Eric

      Snape, Peter

      Maxton, John

      Soley, Clive

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Merron, Gillian

      Spellar, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Miller, Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stevenson, George

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stringer, Graham

      Mountford, Kali

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mullin, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      (Dewsbury)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Norris, Dan

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Timms, Stephen

      Olner, Bill

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Todd, Mark

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Pearson, Ian

      Touhig, Don

      Pendry, Tom

      Trickett, Jon

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Truswell, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pike, Peter L

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Plaskitt, James

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pope, Greg

      Vaz, Keith

      Pound, Stephen

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Wallace, James

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Wareing, Robert N

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Watts, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Webb, Steve

      920

      Welsh, Andrew

      Winnick, David

      White, Brian

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wood, Mike

      Worthington, Tony

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wray, James

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      (Swansea W)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Willis, Phil

      Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Clelland.

      Wills, Michael

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      CODES OF GOOD EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may prepare, with the assistance of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and after consultation with representatives of employers and employees, a Code or Codes of Good Employment Practice.

      (2) Adherence to such a Code or Codes may be relied on as a defence to any proceedings before an employment tribunal by any employer who can demonstrate that his actions and procedures in connection with employment were reasonable in relation to the circumstances of his business, including its scale, turnover and labour force.

      (3) No Code shall be issued under subsection (1) unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 57.
      Mr. Boswell: I declare an interest in respect of a number of amendments and new clauses that I have tabled. I do so as the employer of one full-time employee, and the occasional employer of others. I do so as a purely precautionary measure, because it is clear that almost any of the new clauses and amendments could bear on my position as an employer. I hasten to say that I have not been commissioned or encouraged by outside interests to table any amendments or initiate any debates. It is wise that everyone should know where we stand, and I may be able to draw briefly on my experience.
      The new clause and Government amendment No. 57 clearly have a certain affinity, in that they relate to codes of practice for employment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has said that there were no extensive Government contributions to the Committee. That is true in relation to Government Back Benchers; although, to be fair, some—including some present in the Chamber—made interesting and constructive, albeit brief, contributions.
      Some effort was made by Ministers to answer the points that we made, although that was a little uneven, depending on the complexity of the points. I am awaiting some answers, including a definitive answer to the 13 points that I raised on a Government amendment.
      I feel myself to be in the position of the lamp to which the moth is attached. Every time I table an amendment or new clause, lo and behold, a Government amendment attaches itself by a process of osmosis or suggestion. I can see nothing difficult about Government amendment

      921
      No. 57. Unless the Secretary of State succeeds in putting me off my stroke in his explanation of it, it seems to me that it has two great and welcome merits. First, it is shorter than the text that it proposes to replace. Secondly, it appears to introduce an affirmative rather than a negative procedure.
      The idea in the code may have been instrumental to the idea that came to me in relation to the new clause. The code of practice that is set out in clause 19—with supplementary material in clause 20—concerns part-time work. This subject will repay further study before it comes into force, as I can see problems ahead. Just as in the debates on the minimum wage proposals on the subject of au pairs, we keep finding additional problems of one kind or another that must be resolved.
      In terms of part-time work, a clear agenda is afoot. The TUC document on preparations for the euro states:
      "European collective bargaining is already under way. Two framework agreements have been signed on parental leave and part-time work."
      Clause 19 suggests that one of the materials to appear in the code should be
      "any matter dealt with in the framework agreement on part-time work".
      What might be termed the euro-industrial relations agenda is buzzing away merrily.
      Such documents are not my usual nightly reading, but the other day I was reading representations from the Fire Brigades Union which analysed the position of retained firepersons. They are treated differently in a number of ways—in Committee, we referred to the training requirements of part-time work as additional costs of recruitment or retention—but they are paid a great deal less. If the Secretary of State persists with his equalisation in relation to part-time work, he may find that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary comes back to him to ask what he is doing to fire service finances.
      New clause 3 is complementary to the approach set out with such eloquence by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and other hon. Friends, in the previous debate. It rehearses some of the problems that affect real-world employers, such as me. New Labour might take comfort from the fact that the new clause is grounded in the drive towards the statement that all parties are in favour of consensus and partnership. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham rather brilliantly exposed some of the equivocations in that statement.
      I do not find it easy to understand the concept of compulsory partnership. I believe that a partnership is one freely made by persons for their mutual advantage, rather than one imposed by an external force—the Government, or regulation—which seems to make people, as my late father always used to say, "good by Act of Parliament". It is much better, where possible, to seek agreement. In fairness, some Government Back Benchers have made those points also.
      As a result of the progressive changes in trade union legislation and the change in culture effected by my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), there has been a significant shift in attitude or, more fairly, a confirmation of the more positive attitudes in the trade union side of industry. There are many on all sides who want partnership, consensus and constructive working together.
      922
      I am prepared to concede, as I have readily done in Committee, that there are from time to time bad employers and bad employment practices, which I would not condone. In all such matters, the issue is how much legislative intervention is appropriate to deal with the ills from which we may or may not suffer—and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham eloquently said, whether the cure is worse than the perceived disease.
      7.30 pm
      It is no good our seeking to iron out every last infelicity in industrial relations by imposing yet another tissue of regulation, which increases businesses' costs and destroys their ability to run themselves effectively and to employ labour.
      In his telling interventions at the beginning of the Bill's Committee stage, before he was taken ill, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), agreed with me when I made the fairly blunt point that if there is no job there will be no employment rights either. One comes logically before the other.
      It is in that context that we offer the idea of codes of good employment practice. The suggestion—the Secretary of State may take this either as a compliment or as an attempt to wheedle—is grounded in what the right hon. Gentleman proposes in clause 19 in connection with part-time work. After consultation with the representatives of employers and employees, a code or codes of practice should be prepared with the assistance of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, which I hold in considerable regard.
      The code or codes should embrace matters of good employment practice. They could be freestanding; there may be no need to legislate for them or to tie them to other legislative requirements. We had constructive debates in Committee about the fact that ACAS and both sides of industry, through the TUC, the CBI and others, such as the Engineering Employers Federation, can seek to achieve good standards of employment practice, and to improve those standards where possible. I hope that that is not an issue between the parties.
      The distinctive feature of the codes that I propose is the way in which they may bite in connection with other employment rights, or with the way in which matters are dispatched at an employment tribunal.
      We had a dry run for this debate in the exchanges at the beginning of our debate on new clause 11, relating to the removal of the limit on special damages. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the Secretary of State rightly said that an employment tribunal would be able to take into account many circumstances.
      By definition—I am sure that if I did not say this, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) would remind me of it—a tribunal seeks to deal with matters involving failure or delinquency. If an employer behaves reasonably and in accordance with agreements he is not, in principle, likely to end up before a tribunal.
      I understand that, and it is a fair point to make, but there are still some concerns, which can be illustrated in several ways and which underlay many of the contributions made by my hon. Friends in the debate on clause 1. Their experience, which I share, enables them to see the practical problems that small employers face.

      923
      In the nature of things—at least until the Bill takes effect—small employers are unlikely to be able to employ human relations specialists, or specialists of any kind. Small employers are multi-functional. They may be sole proprietors with one or two employees, but they still have to understand the law. There can be few people who are such paragons that they combine the ability to run a farm or small engineering or service business properly with the ability to be fully conversant with the provisions of the working time directive, the minimum wage regulations and the new regulations that will follow when the Bill becomes an Act.
      The Secretary of State may rightly say that small businesses have access to employers' organisations and trade associations that may be able to steer them through. In my experience, for example, the National Farmers Union issues guidance to its members. I see the Secretary of State nodding; no doubt that response was in his mind.
      The question is whether that guidance is sufficient to enable employers to comply with the regulations. In principle, they should be able to comply, but concerns arise in two respects. The first affects "genuine" employers. The House will know what I mean when I use that term—people who try to behave respectably and treat their employees decently, and to comply with the law as precisely as they can.
      Even with such people, difficulties can occur. The Government's track record of having to amend their legislation, and their advice on the working time directive and the minimum wage regulations, as they go along, shows us that it would be a paragon indeed who did not occasionally slip up.
      The general conduct of a business, and the bona fides with which it is carried on, must be—at least, should be—a relevant factor in any deliberations that take place before a tribunal hearing a claim for, say, unfair dismissal. In principle, a tribunal ought already to be able to take that into account. However, the fear remains in employers' minds that they may slip up on a technicality—that something may go slightly wrong and trigger a course of action leading to undesirable and expensive consequences.
      The second concern is connected with the first. Even if a business is conducted to the highest possible standards, it may from time to time have a difficult employee who does not always behave reasonably—although I am not saying that simply because someone is unreasonable he has no employment rights. Even an employer who wishes to conduct his business to the highest possible standards may fall foul of a tribunal—not necessarily in substance, because he may win his case eventually, but because of the sheer hassle of having to engage lawyers and explain actions that were probably not written down formally, because they never had been before. For small businesses that may have a seasonal turnover or other complications, life is too short for all that.
      The employer may lose or win, but whatever happens, the costs will have been incurred and the hassle endured. Those considerations operate as a considerable disincentive to people in small businesses who are considering whether to make the "step change" decision to move from self-employment to taking on one or two people and becoming an employer. That is a shame,
      924
      because so many small businesses have been fruitful in creating employment when larger businesses have been shedding labour.
      Small business people may say, "It isn't worth the candle; I'm not going to become an employer and risk all that." That is the context in which we propose our new clause, the operative part of which is subsection (2):
      "Adherence to such a Code or Codes may be relied on as a defence to any proceedings before an employment tribunal by any employer who can demonstrate that his actions and procedures in connection with employment were reasonable in relation to the circumstances of his business, including its scale, turnover and labour force."
      We do not expect to impose significant changes of practice on Sainsbury's, ICI or other major household names, yet those businesses may not be creating the employment opportunities that they created in the past when they grew from small to very large businesses. However, the codes are primarily related to new businesses, or those struggling to keep going which have one or two employees. There is no reason why good practice should not be codified for all businesses, but there may be cases in which an employer can say, "I did my best under the circumstances. You can look back at my track record to see that I tried to do a good and honest job, which I hoped conformed to the code."
      Clearly, a lot of flesh remains to be put on the bones, but the Secretary of State laid down the skeleton with his code of good practice for part-time employment, and he would do well to consider our idea. We all want good practice and good relations in the workplace, but they may be better secured by our approach than by a narrow, regulation-driven philosophy. Essentially, good industrial relations should be forged in the workplace, not brought out by contentious litigation.
      Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) presented his proposals with characteristic modesty. As one who has worked in companies that varied from having 19,000 employees down to 25, I can assure the Secretary of State that one sometimes comes across an awkward employee. One tries to reason with him or to help him, but if he continues to be awkward, one must get rid of him.
      Some employees have milked the system—particularly the employment tribunals—time and again, and it sometimes takes time to find that out. No sensible employer wants bad working practices. A good product requires a contented work force.
      Legislation is an extremely crude instrument. It cannot deal with all the different types of companies, whether they are services or industrial firms. It cannot deal with companies of different size and ethos. It can, however, impose onerous regulations and rules on companies that cost money and, consequently, jobs.
      In law in general, acting in a reasonable manner is a satisfactory defence, and it would be sensible to translate that principle into employment law. First, that would overcome the crudity of exercising the law alone. Secondly, it would provide flexibility to deal with different types and sizes of company. Thirdly, it would provide a defence against a bloody-minded or awkward employee who has to be got rid of.
      I can tell the House how much it costs to get rid of an awkward employee. The minimum is likely to be between £12,000 and £15,000. Preparing the case will take at least

      925
      two days of senior management time. For two more days—often longer—senior managers will have to leave the workplace to present the case.
      Mr. Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the normal and rational reaction of a management faced with that kind of cost is to settle out of court for almost any lower sum?
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend has shot my fox. In addition to preparation time, the business may require to hire legal counsel. An appearance in person is also required. I have asked the Secretary of State whether it would be possible for small businesses to put their cases to tribunals in writing, but he said no. I have seen the problems from the employers' side. With a minimum cost of £12,000 to £15,000, one realises that one has a better job to do—actually running the company. Often, therefore, the employer gives in and pays up.
      That encourages the awkward employee. I have come across multiple-claim employees who make a nice little living by doing just enough to ensure that they are entitled to take an employer to tribunal for unfair dismissal or whatever, whereupon they rake it in.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: The hon. Gentleman paints a picture of an aberrant worker who puts in multiple claims. Is he aware, from all his experience, that there is a two-year time limit on making a claim for unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal? Is he aware that the average award amounts to hundreds of pounds, not thousands?
      Mr. Sayeed: I agree. I do not say that the problem I have outlined is common or normal. Most employees work hard, want their companies to do well and want themselves to do well as a result. The Bill seeks to reduce the time limit referred to by the hon. Gentleman from two years to one.
      I recall the case of an employee who had had maternity leave and sick leave and a whole variety of other things, in a very small company in which her job was so critical that another person had to be hired to do it. The employee could not physically manage a return to the specific job and would not do any other job. She claimed unfair dismissal. I do not say that that case is normal. The point is that there are sometimes abuses of the system. Companies should have a defence of acting reasonably.
      Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a case for a new provision, but, under existing provisions, an industrial tribunal may hold a pre-hearing assessment to consider several criteria, one of which is whether there is any merit in the case or whether it is frivolous or vexatious.
      Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. However, before an employer gets that far, he must have done all the preparation and spent a considerable amount of management time gathering the documents and evidence together. The smaller the company, the more important the manager is to it.
      I do not suggest that abuse is widespread. I do not suggest that most employees are on the fiddle: they are not. However, two things are required. First, a defence
      926
      must be provided, and that can be done by creating a code of practice acceptable to and understood by employees and management. The second point, on which I am on all fours with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, is that there should be a code or codes. We will need codes, because they will have to cover different types and sizes of companies that operate in different ways. Once those codes are agreed, they can be adapted over time.
      New clause 3 would be a valuable addition to the Bill. The House should not make unnecessary laws, because they are held in contempt and constitute a legislative and financial burden on companies that have to implement them. I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry and I hope that the Secretary of State will implement them.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: It is always nice to support the Government in some small way, and I welcome the fact that Government amendment No. 57 will introduce the positive resolution procedure for the regulations proposed under the Bill. However, my understanding is that a single regulation or number of regulations made under the Bill would be discussed for only an hour and a half, and that is not enough for regulations of such complexity. I appreciate that that is not necessarily a point for the Minister, but perhaps the House authorities could address the time that is allowed to consider detailed regulations. I am concerned that the Government cannot properly do their job if they produce an unamendable regulation with only an hour and a half for discussion. Colleagues sometimes want to get away as quickly as possible and the House often does not scrutinise such regulations properly.
      The Opposition would prefer not to have the regulations, because we would not wish to be so prescriptive. I pray in aid of new clause 3 the excellent speech in Committee by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, in which he rightly pointed to the good sense of adopting codes of practice, as opposed to the letter of the law. The problem that arises when tribunals are asked to judge issues against the strict law is that the situation becomes legalistic, not one in which both sides address what is reasonable. Both the employer and employee have to be reasonable. The Opposition do not condone bad business practice or bad practices by employees: we simply say that the best solution is often to use a code of practice, so that if a small business is taken to a tribunal, it can claim that it acted reasonably and be judged on that basis.
      The Minister for Small Firms—who is unpaid and likes me to remind the House of that, so that someone will hear and ensure that he is eventually paid for his excellent work—made a very good speech about age discrimination and the difficulty that one has in nailing down any discrimination in a strict law. I shall paraphrase parts of his speech. He said that the Government were taking a measured approach and intended to use the lessons learned from the initiatives to form future plans. He said that we needed to change the attitudes of employers and that the results of consultation published last year pointed to a non-statutory code of practice as the best way to encourage this process of change. He added that if we did not change the culture, we would not solve the problems. What good common sense from the Minister! It was almost his last speech in Committee and he was beginning to understand what the Conservatives were saying. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats were not saying the same things, because they wanted even more regulation.

      927
      The Minister continued by saying that the code would bring real benefits in promoting good recruitment and employment practices. That is a sensible approach. The Government went further and said that they would monitor this code's effectiveness, but that they would not evaluate it until February 2001. It will be too late for them to legislate by then and they have, therefore, made it certain that legislation on age discrimination has been kicked into the long grass.
      New clause 3 reminds the Government that codes of practice and reasonableness are the way forward. The Conservative party has a proud record. For years, Governments of all colours tried to solve the problem of strikes. I remember the wonderful document, "In Place of Strife" produced by Barbara Castle, now Lady Castle. That became a reality under Conservative legislation. We are proud of that record and willing to pass it on, as part of our golden legacy, to the Labour Government. They have said the right things when talking to business audiences, but unfortunately, the Bill does not deliver. New clause 3 would give the Government a chance to add reasonableness to the Bill and it would be better for it.
      Mr. Byers: As Opposition Members have pointed out, Government amendment No. 57 requires the Government to subject the code of practice on part-time work to the affirmative resolution procedure. I understand that it fulfils a commitment given in Committee and I am pleased to honour it this evening. I shall, however, ask the House to resist new clause 3. In so doing, I should add that there is not much that divides the comments made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and the approach that the Government intend to take to the issue.
      The debate about regulation versus codes of good practice reflects the points made in discussion of new clauses 1 and 2. The Government are considering carefully in which areas a code would be more appropriate than the introduction of a raft of regulations. Many of the comments by Opposition Members were well made and, when we talk about reducing the burden of regulation on business, it may be that the adoption of codes will be a better approach, especially if those codes are discussed and the business community—and employee representatives—are consulted. We can then bring the proposals before the House and discuss them, even if only for an hour and a half—I understand the reservations that have been expressed on that point. That would represent a new approach and an attempt to create a consensus on these important issues.
      Mr. Bruce: I have tried to demonstrate the Conservative Government's experience of such legislation and I urge the Secretary of State to be very careful. Two of his colleagues have already fallen foul of the employment law, although I am sure that they have dealt with the situation honourably. The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) will have to appear in front of a tribunal and the Lord Chancellor has lost before a tribunal. I am sure that both of them have a reasonable case, but they have had to go to the trouble and expense of trying to defend themselves, their honour and their political reputations.
      Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman makes a case for the issues to be dealt with by codes rather than by detailed
      928
      regulation. Our difficulty with new clause 3 is that it would give an umbrella right to the Secretary of State to introduce codes wherever he or she felt that that was appropriate. The Government prefer a more targeted approach. We acknowledge that codes will be more appropriate in some cases, but a power already exists, under sections 199 and 203 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, that enables the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service or the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice containing practical guidance for the purpose of promoting the improvement of industrial relations, much as the hon. Member for Daventry suggested.
      Such codes must first be published in draft for consultation, after which they may be modified before being submitted to Parliament for approval by affirmative resolution of both Houses. Where we consider it necessary, we will use the powers to issue codes of practice on certain aspects of this Bill. I have already said that we intend to do so in relation to part-time work. We feel that that would be welcome.
      8 pm
      We also intend to draw up a code on grievance and disciplinary procedures to complement the Bill's provisions, especially in relation to the right to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary proceedings. Some hon. Members may have thought that we would introduce a raft of regulations to do that. We feel that a code would be more appropriate.
      We will also produce a code of practice on access to the work force in relation to our proposals on statutory trade union recognition. Again, we feel that that area is far better dealt with by code than detailed regulation. The important thing to remember, as with all statutory industrial relations codes, is that the new codes will make recommendations on good practice and prescribe the law to which they relate. Most importantly, they can be taken into account by tribunals and courts, particularly when they have to decide whether the behaviour of either party, the employer or the employee, is reasonable in the circumstances.
      Mr. Sayeed: The Secretary of State has said that the codes "can" be taken into account. Could he be more robust and say "should"? When a company has demonstrated that it acted reasonably, the ability to take that into account is important.
      Mr. Byers: Tribunals generally take codes into account. That is why the codes are there.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will seek leave to withdraw new clause 3, but, if the measure is pushed to a Division, I ask the House to resist it because it could make all tribunal rights subject to a code of practice as it would introduce an overriding power. I have reservations about that which reflect our previous debate. The new clause could introduce a raft of quasi-regulation in the form of codes. It could be very wide-ranging. There is a strong argument for being focused about the areas that we subject to code of practice procedures.
      I fear that if there are minor transgressions by either party, the code of practice under the new clause could be used against their interests. An employee or employer who failed to comply with the code's details could be in

      929
      some difficulty. The better approach is to have a focused code of good practice which will come before the House to be debated and consulted upon. We can then move forward and hon. Members will know exactly which codes we intend to introduce, rather than going down the route of prescriptive regulation.
      As we look forward to creating a climate in which regulation is not automatically the first option for Ministers, I hope that they will consider codes of practice as a better avenue down which to go. We shall then be able to make progress using the powers that we already have under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 rather than the wider-ranging powers that new clause 3 would give the Secretary of State. For those reasons, I hope that the House will accept Government amendment No. 57 and that the hon. Member for Daventry will seek leave to withdraw his new clause in the light of my comments.
      Mr. Boswell: This has been an unusually thoughtful and fruitful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), who did well to remind the House of the practical problems of employers in compiling and defending cases at employment tribunals. The considerable costs may lead them to make decisions that are not in their best interests, or that they might have chosen not to make, but found to be the least bad alternative in the circumstances. It is important to put that on record to give the lie to the assumption that things are always all right under the umbrella of reasonableness at employment tribunals. As the Secretary of State intuited, the difficulty is that once regulation is in place, it can be something of an unguided missile. It is not always possible to produce a result that is felt to be just while being legally coherent.
      I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) for his remarks and for reminding us of the comments of the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in Committee on what is rapidly becoming in this respect—perhaps we should pass on hastily—something of a consensus about the approach. That characterised the Secretary of State's response to my suggestions. He might even have mentioned that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act dates from 1992 and reflects the wisdom of his Conservative predecessors and, in fairness, the considerable custom and practice that has built up around ACAS and its ability to advise on such matters.
      It was refreshing to hear a widening in the Secretary of State's remarks of the concept, in clause 19, of the part-time work code to other areas, including grievance and disciplinary procedures and access to the work force. I had not wholly anticipated those points, not least because they are not set out in the Bill, whereas the code in clause 19 is explicit. Those announcements were welcome, as was his general approach. I understand what he was driving at. Targeting is interesting, and we might debate it in the context of social security legislation, but not tonight. The exact balance of rights and responsibilities that can be carried by codes or by other means is difficult to follow.
      I see the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) across the Chamber. We are all striving to find ways, as he did with his Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Bill last year, of alternative dispute resolution. We do not want disputes to go to the wall
      930
      if it is possible to avoid that by good practice and common sense. I recognise the interest of all parties, including the trade unions, in that matter. Let us work on the presumption that the Secretary of State is driving in the right direction. We need to see more; we will need to see the codes. It would help him if, instead of having them thrown at us in the confrontational atmosphere of a 90-minute debate, we could have a pre-draft hearing, or a look at a draft, so that we could talk about it and see whether we could contribute ideas, as I am sure that my hon. Friends would wish. I do not ask him to respond to that now. On that note of qualified consensus, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK—PLACE ON GROUNDS OF AGE
      '—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's age.

      (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

      (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

      (b) the termination of employment;

      (c) terms and conditions of employment;

      (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

      (e) promotion and career progression.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

      (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

      (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

      (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above;

      (d) specify exceptional circumstances in which, in any proceedings arising under this section, it would be a defence for an employer to show, having regard to the nature and commercial viability of the business or undertaking in question, that—

      (i) it was reasonable for him, in deciding to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter, to take account of the respective ages of the relevant employees, or

      (ii) age was not a significant factor in any decision to treat one employee differently from another in relation to an employment matter.

      (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Chidgey.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. David Chidgey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 5—
      Discrimination in the work-place on grounds of sexual orientation—

      '—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's sexual orientation.

      (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

      (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

      (b) the termination of employment;

      (c) terms and conditions of employment;

      (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

      (e) promotion and career progression.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

      (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

      (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

      (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

      (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

      New clause 6—Discrimination in the work-place (general prohibition)—

      '—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on any grounds specified in the regulations.

      (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

      (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

      (b) the termination of employment;

      (c) terms and conditions of employment;

      (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

      (e) promotion and career progression.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

      (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

      (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

      (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

      (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

      Mr. Chidgey: The new clauses deal primarily with discrimination in employment. New clause 4 would prohibit discrimination on the ground of age, new clause 5 on the ground of sexual orientation, and new clause 6 on any grounds that the Secretary of State may from his experience see fit to specify.
      The new clauses expose a glaring omission in the Bill. The Government failed to grasp the opportunity to end discrimination in the workplace. They also expose a basic breach of a pledge made by the Government during the general election. Having made such a blatant remark,
      932
      if Labour Members doubt me I refer them to their manifesto, which I happen to have in my hand. I am sure that we all remember it. Page 35 talks in glowing terms of equal rights for the citizen. It says:
      "We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists."
      That is a sound sentiment, and it is one that I am happy to endorse.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Chidgey: I shall make a little progress and then I shall be happy to give way. It should be a fundamental right that no person should suffer discrimination on the grounds of race, creed, gender, age or sexual orientation. I hope that that is a view shared by every hon. Member, regardless of party. I give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant).
      Mr. Fabricant: I wished to make a comment that was appropriate to the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, but he has moved on and I do not want to break his flow.
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman is so kind. Sadly, the moment comes and then it goes.
      It surely must be the view of each and every Labour Member who campaigned throughout the general election on the basis of new Labour's manifesto pledges that no person should suffer discrimination. Discrimination on the grounds of age and sexual orientation is not prohibited by law, yet it is just as prevalent and pernicious in the workplace as any other form of discrimination.
      New clause 4 would prohibit discrimination on the ground of age. I want to take a few salient examples of areas in which such discrimination is rife. The teaching profession is one. We are told that there is a crisis in teacher supply, but it could be that schools are guilty of ageism. Whenever we have reports of shortages of teachers, a few days later there is a flurry of letters in the broadsheets from older teachers who complain that they cannot get jobs even in maths and science, which are areas of scarcity.
      I raised this matter in Committee, and it is worth emphasising the work of Alan Smithers, a professor of education at Liverpool university. He cites many examples of discrimination on the ground of age. A gentleman referred to as Bob has a degree in chemistry and 22 years of experience in industry. He trained as a teacher in 1997 as a second career. He applied for more than 50 jobs and received just six interviews, but each time the post went to a younger person. All that he can get is part-time supply work.
      The second case is a woman called Melissa, a teacher of secondary maths—another area of shortage. She broke off to do educational research and she has come back with a PhD in education, but she is unable to get a post as a teacher. A gentleman called John happens to live, and previously worked, in my constituency in Eastleigh. He has a 2.1 honours degree and a PhD in modern languages—supposedly very much a shortage subject. He qualified as a teacher 27 years ago and at that time had no problem getting a job. Since then, he has worked for many years as a teacher, three as a head of a modern languages department. He then spent eight years training

      933
      teachers as a senior lecturer in a local college of higher education, but following a change in the college's curriculum his post was declared redundant when the language teaching area was closed down. That was three years ago.
      In the past three years, John has applied for more than 160 teaching posts. Not one has resulted in a job offer, even though he has kept his teaching experience up to date and modern by working continually as a supply teacher. On the rare occasions on which he has reached the shortlist for a job, he has been told, "You were the best candidate, but we chose someone less well qualified because we thought they would fit in better with a younger team." Or he was told, "We are under a lot of pressure these days to appoint bright young people." John is an extremely successful teacher. His referees confirm that he delivers considerable value for money, but his problem is that he is 47.
      Mr. Brady: Many of the cases that the hon. Gentleman cites are worthy. Will he comment on the situation that I know frequently to be the case in the employment of teachers? The reason why an older teacher is not engaged is not simply age but the fact that he would be more expensive to recruit because he is more experienced. I wonder how the hon. Gentleman's new clause would apply in those circumstances.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If he will allow me, I will come to that and explain the position. Interestingly enough, John has gone through just those hoops. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a moment, I will come to the point that he makes.
      John is told by the Association of Teachers Against Ageism that his case is typical. The statistics show that teachers of 45 or over are twice as likely to be unemployed six months after completing their training as new teachers in their 20s.
      Ageism is by no means confined to teaching. John wrote to me in August last year and to the Department for Education and Employment at the same time. The DFEE replied sympathetically. It said:
      "Ministers believe that schools recognise that more experienced teachers have much to offer … They are also aware that experienced teachers entitled to a higher salary felt they could be at a disadvantage. They have, therefore, introduced"—
      not are taking, but have introduced—
      "a measure to assist schools who employ teachers with an entitlement to a higher salary."
      That was last September. I went to see John in Eastleigh at the weekend. His job applications tally has now risen to 185 and he still has no offer of a post.
      Ageism is by no means confined to teaching; it can be found in many professions. It is certainly present in the mercantile marine—an area of employment that is, or at least used to be, prevalent in Southampton, with its shipping interests. I know of many examples of ageism. One is of a chief engineer with 30 years of experience, 10 years as chief officer. He applied for a job on an oil tanker, but was told that the company did not employ chief engineers over 45.
      A deck officer qualified as a pilot and went on deep sea duties to acquire the experience that he needed at sea to apply for the senior positions for which he
      934
      was qualified, but by the time that he had acquired a suitable certificate, he was 39. He was refused the post as a pilot because he was too old. He had to go to sea to get the experience, and that took time, but by the time he got back he was too old to get to the job.
      There is a wealth of experience to show that age discrimination is prevalent. The over-40s find themselves bypassed for promotion. The over-45s have less opportunity for job-related training—a matter that we should look into. The over-50s find it difficult even to get an interview—John is in that situation, although he is younger. The over-55s are more likely to be long-term unemployed. Age discrimination in the workplace curtails individual opportunity. It wastes resources by forcing many older people into early retirement. Negative and inaccurate assumptions about the capabilities and abilities of older people are reinforced in many organisations.
      The Secretary of State talked a few months ago about changing the culture. Well, here is where he could start. Many organisations have pay and conditions structures that make it financially more attractive to replace older people with younger people. The experience and skills of older workers are often undervalued and unrecognised by employers and older workers can be regarded as less capable and adaptable than younger people. Studies show that older workers may give better service, have lower rates of absenteeism and stay in the post longer than younger people. Older people have staying power, and I say that from the heart.
      Mr. Brady: I confess that I am guilty of the age discrimination that the hon. Gentleman highlights, in that I tend to favour employing older people because I find that they have greater staying power and more commitment to their job. Surely, under the proposed new clause that practice would be illegal.
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman usually looks through Bills with forensic skill, so I am surprised at his comment. Perhaps he was half asleep, because if he had read the new clause carefully he would know that it refers to "age", not to a particular age. The clause covers age discrimination, whether the person is young or old; it applies—although not perhaps equally—to many age groups.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, because I want to clear up this point. I fear that I have been the subject of an unjust calumny. I do not necessarily claim to be forensic, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is making my point. The fact that the new clause would outlaw discrimination on the ground of age, whether old or young, is precisely my point; there may be extremely good reasons for choosing to employ an older person, but that would be outlawed under the new clause.
      Mr. Chidgey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making the point a little clearer. My point is that people's employment should be based on their ability; the only discrimination that should exist in the workplace is over a person's competence to do the job. That is what the new clause is about.

      935
      I readily accept that anti-age discrimination legislation would not in itself change the underlying negative attitudes that exist, but it would be an important step towards ensuring that employers change their practices. There is strong support from industry.
      Mr. Brian Cotter: My hon. Friend refers to the possibility that legislation might not change attitudes. That was also true of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill 1998, which was adopted by the Government on the understanding that we needed a stick, but that we also needed to change the culture.
      Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Time and again, the Government have told us that the legislation that they wanted to have the power to enact through enabling Bills was merely a background to the problems that they hoped to solve through discussion and consultation. I accept that, but I do not see why we should not have the necessary sticks to back up the consultation that the Government hope will be successful.
      There is strong support for legislation to tackle age discrimination. In a recent survey, the Institute of Management found that about 60 per cent. of managers favoured legislation to restrict the use of age limits in job advertisements and about 65 per cent. favour comprehensive employment protection legislation. Some organisations will argue that a voluntary code and the promotion of the advantages of older workers is enough and that legislation is not necessary. From its briefing notes, the Confederation of British Industry appears to be a case in point. The CBI argues that age discrimination is extremely difficult to define; so are many elements of the Bill, but that has not prevented the Government from introducing legislation. The CBI asks:
      "What should be the comparator age?"
      I dealt with that point earlier. The CBI argues that not all differential treatment on the ground of age is unreasonable, giving the example that older workers do not have comparable training needs to younger workers—what an admission. Throughout industry and commerce, firms are suffering from severe skills shortages, yet according to the CBI it is okay to discriminate against older workers in investment and training. No wonder the highest levels of unemployment are among those aged 45 or older, whose skills have not been kept up to date and who find themselves with obsolete techniques in industries that also deserve to be obsolete.
      Mr. Boswell: I hold no particular brief for the CBI, but I think that the point its members were making is that older workers might not need training because they were already fully trained. Although some of them might need training, their entitlement to training might be somewhat different from that of other workers.
      Mr. Chidgey: I should very much like to agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but the CBI briefing refers to
      "older members nearing retirement age".
      936
      The CBI completely missed the point of the clause; its briefing refers only to older workers. As I have pointed out, younger workers are often stifled and prevented from getting promotion on their ability because they happen to be too young according to the practices of the firm for which they work. I disagree with the CBI. Apparently, the Government disagree with the CBI too—or at least they did disagree.
      In 1996, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), spoke in a debate on the Employment (Upper Age Limits in Advertisements) Bill. Incidentally, I am sad that the right hon. Gentleman is not able to be in the Chamber today; I know that he has been unwell and I wish him a speedy recovery. I mean no disrespect to the Minister on the Treasury Bench when I say that I would have been pleased to see the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box; I know that he would have wanted to be here to defend what he said when he was in opposition. He stated:
      "The Labour party's position is quite clear … an incoming Labour Government will introduce comprehensive legislation to make age discrimination in employment illegal. We shall consult on the legislation. We want to ensure that not only will workers have a remedy in law against discrimination, but the appropriate legal framework will be put in place to enable employers to change their workplace practices, with co-operation between management and workplace representatives. —[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]
      A well-made speech. I can hear the right hon. Gentleman saying those words in ringing tones. I agree; those are my sentiments exactly.
      The CBI has made a range of "what if" objections to the clause; they are not dissimilar to the probing amendments to the Bill introduced in Committee. However, in each case the Government responded to those amendments by saying—more or less—that the carrot of voluntary codes is not sufficient, and that that carrot needs to backed up by a legislative stick, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) pointed out. In every case, the Government made the point that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations should he see the need to do so and only after consultation. However, the power to make such regulations will be in force in law.
      With new clause 4, I am not asking for any more than that. If the Government accept the new clause, they will have grasped the opportunity to ensure that, in employment relations, discrimination in the work force on the basis of age will be prohibited, with the force of law to back up that prohibition.
      New clause 5 would, in relation to employment, prohibit discrimination by an employer against another person on the ground of sexual orientation. The issue first came to my notice when I was first elected in 1994, because in my Eastleigh constituency a case involving such discrimination came to light and subsequently became internationally known. The case involved two women—Lisa Grant and her partner Jill Pearcey—who happened to live not far from my offices in Eastleigh. Lisa told me that, as an employee of South West Trains, she was entitled to privileged rail travel; and that, if she had been married, that privilege would have extended to her husband, or, in these enlightened times, to her common law spouse if she had had one. However, because her partner is the same sex as her, she has been denied those travel rights, even though the policy document issued by

      937
      the previous employer and kept in place—British Rail's employment policy document—stated that such discrimination is unacceptable.
      Many hon. Members will recall the case because Lisa and Jill took their case to an industrial tribunal, which in due course referred it to the European Court of Justice. Their case was presented for them by an eminent and, I believe, very able Queen's Counsel—none other than Cherie Booth, QC. The outcome was that although the European Parliament has declared that it deplores all forms of discrimination based on an individual's sexual orientation, the European Union itself has not yet adopted rules to provide for such equality.
      In most member states, a stable relationship between two people of the same sex is treated as equivalent to a stable relationship between a heterosexual couple who do not happen to be married. It is important, because that is not true in Britain. As a consequence, the European Court of Justice found that although in principle the European Parliament and the European Union deplore discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, no EC law currently exists to cover such circumstances; and, as no such law exists in the UK either, the court had no option but to find against Lisa and Jill. However, at the same time, the court called on the British Parliament to close the loophole that allowed the discrimination to continue.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Wilkinson: Although I have no truck with the European Union arrogating to itself a function that rightly appertains to member states—namely, to decide social policy within them—is it not true that, had that action been successful, it might have opened the floodgates to all sorts of spurious claims, with people purporting to be partners when they were only friends and individuals and thereby gaining rights and entitlements that were not rightfully theirs?
      Mr. Chidgey: I can respond only by saying that the ECJ's point was that no such law or regulation exists in the UK, although it does in many other European countries; and that because of that, the ECJ was not able to try or come to a conclusion on the case—it was outside the court's jurisdiction.
      Mr. Fabricant: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some companies have overcome the problem of determining what is or is not a spurious claim? For example, the John Lewis Partnership offers discounts to partners and to the partners of partners, entitlement being based on the number of years the partners have lived together. There are ways of getting around the problem.
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The key word in the description is that it is a "stable" relationship—a phrase which could apply equally to a heterosexual couple who do not happen to be married and to a same-sex couple, the key test being whether the relationship is long term and stable. Many of Britain's top 100 companies have policies ensuring that they do not discriminate against people on the ground of their sexual orientation.
      The new clause provides an opportunity for the UK to introduce laws that match those of our neighbouring European countries—an opportunity to end that type
      938
      of discrimination. The case of Lisa and Jill is by no means unique: recent surveys among gay men and lesbians show that 16 per cent. have faced discrimination at work and another 21 per cent. suspect that they have suffered discrimination on the ground of their sexuality; and 48 per cent. have faced harassment, including ostracism, threats and even physical violence. In 1995, Social and Community Planning Research undertook an independent survey of employees of all sexual orientations. It found that one in three heterosexuals is less likely to hire an applicant if they know the applicant to be gay or lesbian—a telling fact. In 1998, the Equal Opportunities Commission, in its publication "Equality in the 21st Century", included a recommendation that:
      "There should be legal protection against discrimination for lesbians and gay men.
      In another place, the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill was passed, but there was insufficient parliamentary time for it to become law by passing through this House.
      As the law stands, it is not unlawful to refuse to appoint someone because of their sexuality. Treating someone less favourably because of their sexuality is not unlawful; harassing someone because of their sexuality is not unlawful; and dismissing someone because of their sexuality is not generally unlawful. New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to extend protection.
      Mr. Healey: This is a useful rehearsal of the problems of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and age and reinforces the argument for some action in that area. However, does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Department for Education and Employment is currently receiving representations from various agencies, including the Equal Opportunities Commission, about the need to consolidate and update discrimination legislation across the board? Might it not be better to deal with those issues in consolidated discrimination legislation rather than in this Bill?
      Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful for that intervention. I am aware that the Department for Education and Employment is panicking about the problem as it affects teachers. However, I imagine that its legislation will cover only the teaching profession. I contend that the problem of discrimination is endemic in all of industry and commerce.
      Mr. Healey rose—
      Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman is eager to contribute—he must have been briefed about this issue. I have followed the Bill through the Committee stage, and I do not accept the Government's "wait and see" approach. During consideration of the Bill, the Government said time and again that they wanted the power to make regulations in case they were needed. What is so different about my proposed new clause? I shall give way for the last time.
      Mr. Healey: I have also followed the Bill through every stage, I have attended every Committee sitting so far, and I have not been briefed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am talking not about teachers but about responsibility. The Department

      939
      for Education and Employment is responsible for anti-discrimination legislation. It holds that brief, not the Department of Trade and Industry.
      Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. However, I do not foresee any problems if such legislation were to be on the statute book. I do not think there would necessarily be a clash of responsibilities. I do not profess to be a legal or a parliamentary clerk, but that is the sort of excuse we tend to hear when Governments do not want to do what most people think they should.
      New clause 5 would give the Secretary of State the power to extend protection from discrimination in employment to lesbians and gay men. Like so many others in the Bill, it is an enabling clause. It would give the Government the opportunity at last to prohibit discrimination against sexual orientation in the workplace. The Government are on record in another place as expressing reservations about only the scope and timing of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill, not its good intentions. This new clause is specific in its scope. Its intentions are clear and precise, and I urge the Minister to grasp this opportunity to convert the Government's rhetoric into law.
      In Standing Committee, the Minister acknowledged:
      "a gap exists in the protection that we offer some individuals. The Government deplore discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
      The Minister then admitted that the Government had no clear plans to deal with the issue in the foreseeable future, and said:
      "it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 580.]
      That is not good enough. The Government have made much of codes of practice on ageism and have commissioned research to test their effectiveness. However, they are silent about discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. At the very least, they should make a commitment tonight to draw up a code of practice on sexual orientation rather than simply promising to consult.
      New clause 4 refers to the general prohibition of discrimination in employment, as the Secretary of State may specify from time to time in the regulations. Time and again, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to make regulations as he thinks fit—and when we probe the Government on the detailed applications of the Bill, they reply that it is an enabling Bill and that detailed regulations will be introduced after consultation and as appropriate.
      If the Secretary of State finds new clauses 4 and 5 too specific and rigid, perhaps he will accept new clause 6, which would provide a general power following precisely the line that the Government have taken throughout our debates on the Bill. New clause 6 would, in the words of the right hon. Member for Makerfield—now the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry—enable the Government
      "to ensure that not only will workers have a remedy in law against discrimination, but the appropriate legal framework will be put in place".—[Official Report, 9 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 618.]
      940
      It would also allow the Government to keep their election manifesto promise to
      "seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
      I look forward to the Minister accepting new clause 6 and demonstrating that that is one promise that the Government will keep.
      Mr. Gordon Marsden: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) about new clauses 4 and 5. I pay tribute to him for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. As he said, it is nonsense that the rulings that have been made in our courts—although they must abide by existing legislation—clearly discriminate against lesbians and gay men in partnership arrangements.
      I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objectives in tabling new clause 4 because, like other hon. Members, I have had constituency cases involving people who were clearly victims of age discrimination. Teachers, in particular, experience such problems.
      It is absurd that, as the Court of Appeal held in Smith v Gardner Merchant in 1998, the proper comparison for a claim under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is between a male and female homosexual, and where an employer can show that a lesbian and a gay man are treated equally badly, there is no case for sex discrimination. What we have, according to the present law of the land, is equality of misery or injustice, and clearly a Government who are intent on equality of opportunity and equal rights should not be prepared to countenance that for longer than is necessary. I therefore have enormous sympathy with the aims of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
      The question is: what is the appropriate mechanism within government for remedying that problem? It is well known—we should be cheerful about this fact—that increasing numbers of employers in the private and public sectors have introduced equal opportunity policies that include anti-discrimination terms for lesbians and gay men. That is to be applauded, but there will always be those who fall through the gaps. The survey to which the hon. Member for Eastleigh referred underlines the need for us to introduce legislation to deal with that problem.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) referred to the Department for Education and Employment. In certain circumstances, it would be most appropriate for that Department to introduce legislation on this matter.
      Equally, it is important that, whatever the House decides, we send out a very strong message that hon. Members and the Government will not tolerate discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation for longer than necessary. I shall therefore be looking to the Minister to comment in his reply on what he believes is appropriate. In Committee, he said that it was too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would he the appropriate way to proceed. I am in no doubt that the time for some legislative measure to proceed is well past. It is extremely important that this injustice is remedied.
      If we are to remedy an injustice, it is important that we have evidence on which to proceed. I shall look to the Minister to comment on what can be done in his Department to produce evidence that shows an awareness of this problem and therefore underlines the need for legislative activity.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that we must consider this matter not just in the employed sector, but in the professional sectors—whether it be in medicine or dentistry, at the Bar or in the Law Society—where discrimination on the ground of gender, as well as on other grounds, often occurs?
      Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am particularly grateful to him for highlighting that point. That was precisely why I particularly approved of the intention behind new clauses 4 and 5. A range of issues in this area—not least ageism—should be addressed. I do not wish this debate to be seen as taking place in a ghetto. I agree absolutely that the professions have a particular responsibility in this area, which, in some respects, has been indifferently discharged. It is important that we ventilate this issue. I shall be looking for some assurances from the Minister on it.
      Mr. Fabricant: I align myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), although I shall mainly address my remarks to new clause 4, which concerns ageism. I suppose that I ought to declare an interest. My ex-bank manager, Ken Stevens of Lloyds bank in Brighton, said when I was 33 years old that I was a young whiz kid. Now, at the age of 48, I am just an old has-been. Nevertheless, this matter needs to be taken seriously; things cannot continue as at present, for three reasons.
      First, ageism is fundamentally unfair and immoral. It is the very issue that the House is here—and has been here for hundreds of years—to address. Ageism is quite simply wrong. The second reason is that older people have a lot to offer new companies—companies with fewer than 50 employees, about which we heard earlier, and large corporations, too. Mature people have not only staying power, but experience and solidity. I shall say more about that later.
      The real reason why I say that the present situation cannot be sustained is that we are facing a demographic time bomb. I shall cite a couple of statistics. It is estimated that, by 2000, one person in three in employment will be over 40 years of age. More worryingly, by 2025, if present trends continue, less than 20 per cent. of the population will be working. All the rest will be unemployed, enjoying leisure or students, so 20 per cent. of the population will be paying the tax and the benefits for themselves and 80 per cent. of the population. That is unsustainable, and we should think twice before we reject the new clause.
      In opposition, Labour Members also took the view that the position was unsustainable. I, too, am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), is not here today, and I hope that he will soon recover; but, back in 1995, when he was Labour's employment spokesman, he promised to introduce legislation, when a Labour Government were elected, to make age discrimination illegal. That has not happened.
      Mr. Bermingham rose—
      Mr. Fabricant: I will give way in a moment, but, in case the hon. Gentleman—my good friend in the corner—
      942
      thinks that that remark was a fluke, I shall quote the Minister of State again. Before the 1997 general election, the Conservative Government blocked a private Member's Bill to make ageism illegal. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government had made a serious miscalculation in opposing that Bill and that a generation that either had lost its jobs or feared unemployment expected Parliament to act. So here we are, two years on. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government, but what do we see? Unless there is a change of heart, the Minister will oppose the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
      Mr. Bermingham: I agree that all those comments were made in the previous Parliament; I was there.
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that any society that says that people who reach 50, 55 or 60—I notice some of my hon. Friends nodding sagely—are therefore barred from applying for jobs is a society that loses and wastes talent?
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he does not speak only for people aged 50 or 55; he speaks for the nation. It is in the nation's interest to make ageism a thing of the past.
      Sally Greengross, the director general of Age Concern, said,
      "Age discrimination"—
      this echoes what the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said—
      "is a national shame and should be outlawed. Action to eliminate it is essential. The Government must introduce legislation and not hide behind rhetoric."
      I hope that the Minister will do just that and not hide behind rhetoric.
      Earlier in the debate, I talked about my own experience, in which I, too, have found that older people offer not only maturity, but a calming influence. When my mother wants to irritate me, she comes up with German proverbs. I do not know why, because she was born in south Wales. When I went into business with a friend of mine, whom I have known since I was 16, she said, "Freundschaft und Brüderschaft machen keine Handelschaft." I think that that means, "Friendship and brotherhood make no businesshood." I do not think that there is a translation for "Handelschaft", but colleagues will know what I mean. Friendship and brotherhood do not necessarily make for a good business partnership.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful case. Does he agree that it would be helpful if businesses followed the example of our institutions of further and higher education, which, on the whole, practise sound policies in relation to this matter? They do not discriminate against, for example, older people—a fact to which, I hope my hon. Friend recognises, I can testify by virtue of my own experience. My mother, who is a lady of mature years, graduated last summer with an honours degree in English.
      Mr. Fabricant: I am delighted to hear that. It was the previous Government's policy to ensure that people could be educated throughout all the ages of their lives.
      I thought that I was going to have to disagree with my hon. Friend because I thought, as other hon. Members might have done, that he was about to say that institutions

      943
      of primary, secondary and higher education did not discriminate when employing teachers. My hon. Friend did not say that, but they do. The new clause would stop that.
      To carry on with my story of Freundschaft and Brüderschaft, my fellow director, a friend whom I had known since the age of 16, and I squabbled like two cats in a bag. Our small company expanded into a much larger company, employing several hundred people, and indirectly more than 1,000—if this Bill had been in place, we would have been strangled at birth and gone bust, never growing at all. I realised that some members of the company felt a little uneasy when, on one occasion only, my fellow director and I had fisticuffs in a corridor. We brought in John Ball—with whom I went out last night for a drink—then aged 64, who brought calmness, stability, wisdom, insight and maturity to the company. Had I been ageist, my company probably would not have survived. Certainly my partner, Mel, and I would not have survived, because we would have beaten hell out of each other, and most of our employees would probably have left. Older people have a lot to offer.
      In principle, the new clause is good. However, two matters bother me. I am not exactly sure how the new clause would be implemented. I note that it would require secondary legislation. I am not convinced that secondary legislation is a good thing. More and more legislation goes Upstairs and is passed almost on the nod. Journalists say that the House is being supplanted by Whitehall, and I believe that the Chamber is being supplanted by secondary legislation. I am a little concerned that, if the new clause were passed, it might leave a number of options open.
      My other concern relates simply to promotion and promotion prospects. If the new clause were law, could an employee who could not obtain promotion claim that that was due to ageism? That needs clarification.
      I must tell my Whip that, in the event of a Division, because of my concerns I will not vote for the new clause, but I shall abstain. I hope that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, who has listened carefully, recognises that there is demographic time bomb, that the status quo is not an option and that, as the right hon. Member for Makerfield made promises two, three or four times immediately before the general election, the Minister has a moral obligation to support the new clause. He also has an obligation to support the new clause for the sake of British industry and the greater benefit of the nation.
      9 pm
      Mr. David Borrow: The issues raised by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), particularly on new clauses 4 and 5, fit fully into the Government's policy. They are, and should be, the Government's objectives. It is unfortunate that these areas of discrimination are not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, which sponsors the Bill. I shall be seeking some undertakings from Ministers.
      I want to deal particularly with discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation. There have been major changes in the past 10 or 15 years. My judgment is that, if members of the public were asked
      944
      whether people should be discriminated against in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, the overwhelming majority would say that it was wrong to discriminate.
      I remember the arguments that were advanced when organisations introduced equal opportunity policies. For a number of years, I was a member of Preston borough council, and, as chair of the equal opportunities committee, I was involved in the introduction of equal opportunities employment policy, which included provisions against discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. When we discussed that issue 10 years ago, it caused a major row, and there was a big fuss about it. A few years later, when I was the chief officer of a tribunal, I drew up an equal opportunities policy, which included provisions on sexual orientation. It went through the annual meeting of the tribunal on the nod, and was accepted as what a good employer should do.
      We must recognise the fact that, in the past 10 or 15 years, many organisations in the public and private sectors have introduced policies to outlaw discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. In that area, therefore, we are clearly moving with the grain.
      The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the case of the two women who worked for the railways and the discrimination in that organisation. I am sure that he is aware that similar discrimination exists in the House. We cannot say that we have good employment policies in those respects.
      If it is not possible to use the Bill as the vehicle for the Government's policy objectives, I shall seek from Ministers an undertaking to use their powers to influence the public sector. It is wrong for any employee in the public sector to face discrimination on the ground of age or sexual orientation. They are employed and paid to do a job for the public, and they should not face any discrimination.
      I realise that legislation may be required to introduce regulations for the private sector, but I would look to the Government to introduce a code of best practice before doing so.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should set an example? In their employment practices, they must ensure that there is no discrimination on the ground of age or sexual orientation, and that no one in a profession is, by the nature of his or her employment, precluded from applying for promotion or advancement within that profession because of such discrimination.
      Mr. Borrow: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Government should set an example.
      If there is a message that I want to convey to the House, it is with respect to new clause 5. The majority of homosexual men and women in employment do not need to bring their sexuality to the notice of their employers when they are taken on as employees. It gives some comfort to homosexual men and women to know that the organisation that employs them has a policy that will not discriminate against them, and that will give them some safeguards against bullying and discrimination in their employment. That is the most important aspect of new clause 5.
      I realise that Ministers have a problem with this, but I hope that the Minister's winding-up speech will be positive, and that, if the Government are not able to

      945
      incorporate the new clauses at this stage, they will undertake to tackle the issues seriously between now and the next general election.
      Mr. Brady: This has been an interesting debate, to which I shall contribute briefly, concentrating on new clause 4.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on the way in which he has presented his arguments, tonight and in Committee. I especially congratulate him on his avoidance tonight of one of the great traps, into which I fear my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) fell. I refer to the "demographic time bomb" argument. There is no danger of a falling out between my hon. Friend and me in that regard, although I did rather lose track of the German proverbs.
      Mr. Fabricant: So did Hansard.
      Mr. Brady: No doubt, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's mother will provide any guidance that is necessary.
      I think that arguments based on demographic time bombs, skill shortages and the supposed need to tackle the issues because of perceived constraints on the labour market are entirely spurious. If companies cannot find employees, from whatever age group, they will naturally look elsewhere. That is one of the reasons why it is unnecessary to legislate in this regard. As the constraints on the labour market increase, along with shortages of labour and of skills among certain groups that may currently be benefiting in employment terms, companies will have no option but to look to older workers.
      Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend—I say "hon. Friend" advisedly—for giving way to me.
      I, too, am a great believer in market forces, and I hate to intervene, not on my hon. Friend but in the free market. I fear, however, that the position is simply not as my hon. Friend has described it. Shortages occur from time to time, in connection with not just age but skill, and, for all sorts of reasons—illogically—companies do not take up the opportunities that are available. There is a lag. Although I think that by 2035 or 2040 the situation may be forced to rectify itself, I do not entirely share my hon. Friend's belief in the free market: I think that it will need a gentle nudge to overcome human prejudice.
      Mr. Brady: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I could agree with a gentle nudge, but I fear that the new clause may constitute rather more than that. I fear that it may cause significant problems for employers and, potentially, for employees.
      Let me return briefly to a point that I tried to make in an intervention on the hon. Member for Eastleigh, which I think is also relevant to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield. I admitted to ageism in my practice of choosing to employ older workers, and the hon. Gentleman admitted to having done the same. According to my reading of the new clause, his conduct would be prohibited, because the new clause seeks not only to make it impossible to discriminate on the grounds of someone's being older, but to make it impossible to discriminate on grounds of age. A good example is the
      946
      policy of B and Q, which for many years has voluntarily exercised a policy of employing older workers because it regards them as loyal, steadfast and reliable. That policy in itself would be prohibited if the new clause were adopted.
      I strongly believe that employers should take an enlightened view. I think that they should employ people on the basis of merit, regardless of whether they consider them to be too young or too old. It is important that employers move in that direction. A gentle nudge may be required, perhaps through a code of practice—indeed, some exhortation may be appropriate—but some problems could arise from the legislative approach of the hon. Member for Eastleigh, and he needs to deal with them.
      I have mentioned companies that choose to employ older workers, sometimes for good reasons in particular circumstances. There may also be instances where the age of an employee is relevant. One could imagine instances where particular physical work needed particular physical strength or resilience, which may favour younger employees. In the acting profession, it may be appropriate to employ a young actress rather than an old, although glamorous actress in a particular role. In the modelling profession—I do not wish to dwell on the issue because the hon. Member for Eastleigh will become over-excited—
      Mr. Chidgey: I am not getting over-excited. It is just that I suddenly got a flash of the possible history of the acting profession. Perhaps if we had followed the views of the hon. Gentleman, women would still be prohibited by law from appearing on the stage in this country.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is leading me more into the territory of new clause 5, which I am not speaking to, and new clause 6, but he did not deal with those issues in his remarks on new clause 4. Perhaps he will return to the matter later in our proceedings.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if a proprietor of a fitness or health club opted for a younger rather than an older candidate when choosing between different candidates of otherwise equal merits, he should not be chastised in law for so doing?
      Mr. Brady: I have not given great thought to the merits of that case. As a matter of principle, the difficulties that are thrown up by the legislative approach in new clause 4 would intrude into many areas, and that may be one of them. Equally, in retail sectors—perhaps fashion—where products are being sold to younger people, it is clearly the practice to employ younger people; frequently, people working in that sector are younger. Employers choose to take on young people in shops that seek to sell goods to young people.
      Mr. Fabricant: There is a bit of stereotyping going on about not only age and sexuality, but the type of jobs that older people can do. In my speech earlier, I mentioned my partner, Mel. He subsequently left the company that I founded and collected his money. He then decided that he was getting bored and became a tennis coach; he is the same age as me: 48. He went through a course with the

      947
      Lawn Tennis Association. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is not implying that Mel could not do something physical at the age of 48.
      Mr. Brady: I am sure that there are many physical things that one could do at the age of 48; I had not sought to imply that there were not. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) sought to imply that, but the fact that a man of 48 can work as a tennis coach suggests that such discrimination is not happening and that legislation is unnecessary.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is probably not aware that I am a qualified tennis coach and that I received worthwhile instruction in the playing of tennis from a relatively elderly man, who was an exceptionally good coach, so I do not suggest that an older person cannot be a good coach. My point, which is a serious one, is simply that someone who runs such a club, or conducts a course in relation to which qualified people are needed, should be entitled to exercise his judgment as to what factors are material in the choice.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying his views, and I suspect that there is not that much distance between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield on the point.
      It is important to deal with situations where someone might be a good candidate—apart from the fact that he or she is approaching retirement age and there would be insufficient time for training. I have no difficulty with the spirit of the new clause, but the hon. Member for Eastleigh has not addressed those factors.
      In the City, certain types of employment are appropriate to younger, rather than older, people. In such situations, I would be regarded as too old for many jobs.
      Miss Kirkbride: Surely not.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expression of disbelief, but in some City occupations it is considered that someone aged 30 is too old and ought to move on to other occupations in the financial sector. In addition, there may be difficulties with military and police recruitment, where age limits are regularly imposed.
      Even the Government's own minimum wage regulations accept the principle of different pay according to different ages. I can understand the embarrassment of Ministers at the possibility that they will be invited to agree to new clause 4, which may be in accordance with their manifesto pledge but which will directly contradict earlier legislation implemented by the Department. With good will on both sides, some arrangement could be made to remove the Government from a difficult situation of their own making.
      I endorse the spirit behind the new clause introduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh, but I fear that the direct approach that he is advocating is not entirely appropriate and will cause difficulties. However, I commend him for his efforts.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Cotter: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). Discrimination must be outlawed firmly; surely no one could disagree with that contention. In Committee, it became clear that many accepted that unfairness was intolerable. However, on age discrimination—as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has mentioned—we have had an about-turn from the Government.
      Instead of having legislation—as they promised before the election—the Government have backed away with the weaker alternative of a code of practice; something that many, including John Monks, the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, believe will not be effective.
      Legislative difficulty is no excuse in such a matter. On that premise, we would still have slavery in this country. Equally, we would not have passed race and sex discrimination legislation. These matters are difficult to address, but we have proved that they can be addressed. In this case, they must be addressed. The issue will not go away, and action will have to be taken sooner or later.
      I do not wish to be accused of supporting the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant); it would damage my reputation with the Liberal Democrats. However, reference has been made to the demographic time bomb. By 2000, 35 per cent. of the labour force will be 45 or over. By 2010, it will be 40 per cent. A recent survey in The Sunday Telegraph found that, 20 years ago, the employment rate among 55 to 64-year-olds was 84 per cent; it is now down to 58 per cent. The situation is scandalous, and in general people accept that there is a problem.
      It is the qualifications and suitability for a job that matter, whether a person is young or old. There have been two recent examples of attempts to legislate on the subject, the first of which was the Employment (Age Discrimination in Advertisements) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham). It was not adopted.
      More recently, last week, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) promoted a short Bill entitled the Age (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill. In presenting it, my right hon. Friend said:
      "Costly training, acquired skills and valuable experience are all being wasted."
      He was talking about older people who have been trained and yet are still not employed.
      There is an Act in place in the United States. As my right hon. Friend said:
      "job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses"—
      in factories that would be called redundancy—
      Mr. Bermingham: Downsizing.
      Mr. Cotter: I thank the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend said that
      "job losses in the United States from the delayering of businesses—as it was called in the 1980s—were more evenly spread across age groups than in this country". —[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 175–76]
      In Britain, however, downsizing usually involved older people.

      949
      Age discrimination gives rise to tremendous costs. The Employers Forum on Age estimates that it costs this country £26 billion a year.
      In The Guardian of 18 March, Barbara Nemeth described what happened last year when she was put out to grass by a social work organisation that prided itself on its human resources. She had been involved in child protection, in which accumulated experience is surely of value; yet, despite being an experienced occupational therapist and family therapist, she was turned out of work. Barbara Nemeth wrote that her manager had wanted to keep her, but higher management insisted she had to go on the grounds of her age.
      Canada provides another example, which covers all the—
      Mr. Bermingham: It is estimated that, in 40 or 50 years, people will live to 130. Indeed, my son told me the other day that he was looking forward to his 140th birthday, which gave me a heart attack on the spot. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with such projected longevity, it is time that we rethought all our employment policies so as not to waste the experience and knowledge that comes with age?
      Mr. Cotter: I more than agree.
      In some Canadian provinces, one's date of birth is classed as personal and private information. Similarly, one's religion, ethnicity and sexual orientation are not considered relevant to employability. In the interests of brevity, I shall say no more about that aspect, but I must tell the Government that the issue will not be lost, but will be brought up more and more. The Liberal Democrats will certainly want to draw attention to it.
      New clause 5 is about sexual orientation. This is not the first time that such a clause has come before Parliament. In June 1998, Baroness Turner introduced a Bill in the other place, and Baroness Blackstone, on behalf of the Government, said that they supported the principle but were waiting for a report from the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC reported more than four months ago, recommending that
      "there should be legal protection against discrimination for lesbians and gay men."
      The Government were waiting for that report; it is now in front of them.
      The Government have clarified the position. In Standing Committee, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry said that they were committed to considering the report's recommendations, and added that it was too early to be clear whether legislation would be appropriate. Several other statements made in Committee would support my case.
      Let me turn to sexual orientation. A recent Stonewall survey found that 48 per cent. of respondents had experienced harassment at work from which they had no legal protection. That is a sorry tale. A survey in 1995 found that one employer in three was less likely to employ an individual whom he knew to be lesbian or gay. Official tolerance of such discrimination is an affront to civilised values. I was shocked when, in preparing for debate on this issue, I learned for the first time that such discrimination existed.
      The Government must not tiptoe around the sensibilities of bigoted employers. They must recognise that hard working and talented individuals are open to
      950
      discrimination. They should not have to wait further for long-overdue employment protection. The legal situation is a ludicrous mess which should be cleared up. The Government have ratified the International Labour Organisation's convention 111 on discrimination. They have therefore undertaken to
      "declare and pursue a national policy designed to promote … equality of opportunity and treatment … with a view to eliminating discrimination."
      The Government commendably included provisions on this matter in the Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, they have done nothing to create employment rights for lesbians and gay men in England. I could say much more and give many more examples, but as it is late, I simply urge the Government to accept our new clause. There is absolutely no reason why they should not.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The new clause would outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. I was proud to sponsor Baroness Turner's Bill when it came to the House of Commons during the previous session of Parliament, although the pressure on private Members' time meant that it was not afforded a Second Reading. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for the way in which he introduced the new clause, and to others who have spoken tonight and in Committee, including Labour Members.
      A lot of work has been done by Lesbian and Gay Employment Rights—LAGER—to battle against the vacuum of legal protection for lesbians and gays. In addition, Stonewall has been active, and I pay tribute to that organisation and thank it for its briefing on this matter.
      People's lives are being destroyed all the time. I read recently of the teacher, Shirley Pearce, who took her case to an employment tribunal. Having taught for 20 years in a school, she was outed as a lesbian and was harassed by her pupils. She was not given adequate protection by the school, but the employment tribunal was unable to rule because it was deemed that a lack of protection against harassment on the grounds of sexual orientation did not constitute sexual discrimination.
      Time and again there is a problem when people seek to use sex discrimination laws for protection but find that the courts cannot provide it. There is a legal argument for plugging the gap. The cases that come to court require courage from those concerned, as their cases are dealt with very publicly. I am sure that the cases that we know about are only the tip of the iceberg.
      I see no difference in terms of human rights, and little practical difference, between discrimination against someone on the grounds of sexual orientation and discrimination against someone on the grounds of gender or race. We see things happening in employment every week that would be deemed intolerant if they were directed against people who were Jewish or black. This Government and previous Governments have acted in such cases, and I can see no reason why they cannot act now.
      9.30 pm
      Stonewall has launched an Equality 2000 campaign. It requires various campaign objectives to be met in order

      951
      that lesbians and gay men enter the new millennium as free and equal citizens. One of those objectives was equal protection from discrimination in the work place. In December 1997 I was privileged to attend a Stonewall lecture given by the eminent human rights barrister, Peter Duffy QC, who tragically died some weeks ago. He pioneered the promotion of lesbian and gay rights in the European courts. In a superb lecture, he was optimistic that the European courts would find a way to provide equal rights for lesbians and gay men in employment law in this country, with especial regard to the Grant case and the Perkins case. He lived to see those hopes dashed, but there was cause for optimism at the time of his death that this Parliament will provide employment rights for lesbians and gay men. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that such rights are available in this Parliament, because in that way they could deliver their manifesto commitment to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists. That should happen before the next general election.
      In Committee, the Minister rightly said that the Government have consulted on the issue of age discrimination and that they have made proposals for codes of practice. However, it is hard to see that any progress has been made in the first two years of this Government on the possibly more significant case—it is difficult to rank such things—of discrimination against people on the grounds of sexual orientation. I have seen nothing from the Department for Education and Employment, which could take the lead in such matters, and the outside world is moving ahead of the Government. Before I was elected to Parliament, I steered through the council of the British Medical Association a wide-ranging equality provision that would outlaw discrimination in the medical profession on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is a model for others. The public and private sectors are now waiting for the Government to act; they have an excellent opportunity to do so tonight.
      During consideration of the Sexual Orientation Discrimination Bill in June 1998, Baroness Blackstone reminded the other place that the White Paper "Fairness at Work" proposed
      "reducing to one year the length of time which an employee must be in work before gaining protection from unfair dismissal. It is hard to imagine circumstances in which an industrial tribunal would find sexual orientation fair grounds for dismissal".
      That is not the case. People are still being sacked on the basis of their sexual orientation in cases in which, if the dismissal was based on grounds of gender, it would clearly be sexual discrimination; and if the dismissal was on grounds other than sexual orientation, there would be a case for unfair dismissal. Baroness Blackstone added that the Government were committed to giving serious consideration to the issues raised by the Bill.
      Consideration is all very well, but people are anxious to see action and the new clause provides an opportunity for the Government to act. Baroness Blackstone added that she looked forward—as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) said—to the report of the Equal Opportunities Commission, and that she hoped that Baroness Turner would accept that it was reasonable to await the final views of the specialist equal opportunities body. It reported four months ago that there
      952
      is a need for protection in the law—which could be achieved if the Government were to accept new clause 5. She also said:
      "the Government are committed to looking seriously at the issues raised in the context of the wider review of equality legislation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 1998; Vol. 590, c. 655–57.]
      Nearly a year later, we have still to find out what those sentiments mean. We hear much about thinking seriously and consideration but there is no legislative action.
      It is not only a question of unfair dismissal. Under the Bill, if one has been employed for more than a year, one can claim that dismissal is unlawful, but there is also discrimination in recruitment and promotion. That is not illegal if based on the grounds of sexual orientation and difficult to bring to court because it is difficult to prove why one has not been employed.
      There is also the problem of harassment on the ground of sexual orientation and the failure to deal with it. The Minister may know the case of Burman v. Trevor Page, in which the employer dismissed the victim of the harassment, not the perpetrators. That was thought fair. He will know of other cases that I do not have time to expound. I hope that he recognises that the Government's record leaves a lot to be desired.
      In passing another Act that dealt with equal rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government rejected an amendment to put sexual orientation specifically into the provision relating to article 14 for British courts to use. No action has been taken on discrimination in the armed forces, other than an open-ended review. The time is now right. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment and deliver equal rights tonight.
      Mr. Bermingham: I will not be long. I have listened to repetitive speeches that have all missed the point. No hon. Member would discriminate, or permit or support discrimination, on the basis of sexual orientation. We have said that time and again. Let us say loud and clear that we do not tolerate such behaviour. The Government seek to emphasise that point in the legislation. Why come back to it time and again unless we want to make fallacious points?
      Mr. Mike Hancock: What?
      Mr. Bermingham: Fallacious points. I can spell it for the hon. Gentleman if he wants.
      Should we not make an advance? We live in a continually ageing population. I am one of them, being not far short of 60. I do not want to be put on the scrap heap when I am 60, 65 or 70. If I retain my faculties, I hope that I will still have something to offer. Ageism is a matter of concern not only to me but to the thousands of my constituents who lost their jobs when they were 45 under the Thatcher Government, who told them that they were no use to society and put them on the scrap heap. They are now 65 and still have 20 years to go but have no pensions, support or anything else. They were destroyed by a philosophy that said people were good if they were young. The flash boys in the City grabbed their money.
      As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, at 37 he is too old for the City. He is not prepared to do 24 hours a day, drink champagne and

      953
      cream off everyone. That is what the City of London did in the 18 years during which we had to tolerate the destruction of our industrial society.
      We have to face up to the reality of society and where we are going. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) may laugh, but in days yet to come, there is a chance, regrettably, that he might make 110, according to the medical evidence now available. Members of Parliament could serve for 80 years.
      Mr. Bercow: Do not tempt me.
      Mr. Bermingham: Please God.
      Our society must face the fact that people are living longer. To support that society, we must find useful employment for those who pass the age of 65 and still want to work. There is a vast number of people in that category. In considering discrimination, let us think not only about sexual orientation, but about ageism and the restrictive practices that still deny, in certain professions, the right of promotion to people in particular sectors. That happens in government and elsewhere.
      This is a far more serious problem than people realise. If we are to have a society that is worth while, every person must have a right to contribute, regardless of age, sex or colour. That is what we should aim for. That is where I think that the Bill is heading, but I warn Ministers that they are not going far enough yet.
      Mr. Boswell: I shall be brief. This has been an interesting and eloquent debate, very well introduced by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). It reflected a number of views. I made a speech on the matter in Standing Committee and I have little to add except for some brief comments.
      All hon. Members who have spoken are in principle in favour of selection for employment on the basis that the person is the most suitable to do the job. That was well expressed by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). It is perhaps a more positive way of looking at the matter than in terms of discrimination against people. The difficulty with which this Government and successive Governments have wrestled is finding the best way of meeting the general aspiration, whether by codes of practice, legislation or a mixture of the two. It is not always easy.
      To return to my exchange with the hon. Member for Eastleigh on the criteria that he set out in introducing the new clause, I still have some concerns, as does the CBI, about the practical possibilities of preventing ageism, especially in promotions. There may be a perfectly good reason for not advancing the employment of a young person of 25, such as experience, ability to cope under pressure and so forth. It is not always easy to articulate such reasons in a formal policy, especially for a smaller business that does not have a sophisticated human resources department. It may be very easy, if we go down the legislative route, to promote, as the CBI warned, continual trouble with definitions and litigation.
      As for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, I draw to the attention of the House the distinction between discrimination in employment on the grounds of sexual orientation and concerns that hon. Members clearly have about, for example, certain practices and the age of consent for them. Those things should be clearly
      954
      distinguished. I am conscious that on the latter matter there are widely held and intensely felt differences of view which should not be allowed to intrude into the debate about employment policy.
      I remind the House that, as some people feel strongly on the issue of homosexuality and homosexual practice, that is likely to affect their attitude to employment, perhaps irrationally, in a way that would not necessarily apply to some other forms of discrimination. However, that is, in a sense, speculative.
      It is for the Government to decide what they need to do about the matter. I have given some little study to the Under-Secretary's response to our debate in Standing Committee. Having reflected on it, it is clear to me that he will have to grasp a few nettles. The ghost of Sir Humphrey has been stalking the Standing Committee. On ageism, he said:
      "That is why the Government are taking a measured approach, taking forward a range of initiatives that will help older people and bring cultural change, and using the lessons learned from those initiatives to inform future plans."
      I think that that is an elegant piece of Whitehall-speak for, "It is all rather painful." In exactly the same context, and taking up a quotation that has already been given to the House, the Under-Secretary said of the Equal Opportunities Commission, which had proposed specific legal protection for lesbians and gay men:
      "We remain committed to considering that, and the EOC's other recommendations, carefully. However, it is too early to be clear whether a legislative measure would be the appropriate way to proceed."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 23 March 1999; c. 578–80.]
      We know from lobbying material presented to us that there is some concern that the Government are making haste not slowly but imperceptibly. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister told us what the Government proposed to do in these difficult areas of discrimination and gave us a sense that they were coming to grips with these difficult problems.
      9.45 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Wills): We have had an important debate. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made important points and articulated powerfully held views. I am wholly sympathetic to the concerns that prompted the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) to table the new clauses. He outlined them cogently and gave some poignant examples.
      Our manifesto commitment has been referred to many times this evening. I am happy to stand by it and to remind the House that we pledged:
      "We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists."
      That remains our position. It is precisely because we share the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and because we are committed to tackling discrimination that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities is taking action to combat unfair age discrimination.
      The Government are committed to promoting age diversity, and tackling age discrimination in employment is an essential element in our strategy of building a country in which everyone—young and old alike—can play their full part, as my hon. Friend the Member for

      955
      St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out so eloquently. From an extensive consultation exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, however, it was clear that effective legislation to tackle age discrimination raised complex issues. For example, is the retirement age itself discriminatory? Some hon. Members spoke of the value and commitment that older workers can bring to the workplace, and I can only endorse that. However, an insistence on maturity of approach and experience might be seen as at least indirectly discriminatory. Those are not straightforward questions; they need to be tackled in a measured way, and I make no apology for saying that.
      Changing the culture is the key point that we must address. As the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has already reminded the House, I said that in Committee and I stand by it. Employers need to believe in the value of people whatever their age. Employers need to recognise that unjustified age discrimination is unjust; it is irrational and damaging, not only to the individuals who are discriminated against, but to the businesses in which they work. The culture needs to be changed. The only question is how, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) pointed out.
      Mr. Fabricant: The Minister says that the culture needs to be changed. Would he be surprised to learn that, in the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said just that, and would he be equally surprised to learn that, in opposition, his colleagues—including the present Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)—argued that my right hon. Friend was wrong and that a Labour Government would introduce age legislation?
      Mr. Wills: I should not be altogether surprised by anything said by the hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that we have to change the culture, and we are setting out to do so.
      We realise that legislation is not always a solution. That point has already been made, but I want to make it clear: legislation is not always a solution, but sometimes it can be. Sometimes it must be a solution, but not always. In this case, the evidence is mixed. The French and Spanish already have legislation against ageism, but their older worker employment rate is lower than ours. The Canadians have age discrimination legislation too—
      Mr. Chidgey rose—
      Mr. Wills: If I can finish the point, perhaps it will be clear to the hon. Gentleman.
      The Canadians also have such legislation, but the economic inactivity rate among Canadians aged between 55 and 64 is higher than in this country. It is a complex matter and the lessons are not clear. The results of the year-long consultation exercise carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities point to a non-statutory code of practice as the best immediate way to bring about that change in culture. That is why we shall launch such
      956
      a code in May, backed up by detailed guidance and illustrative case studies. The code has been drawn up with the involvement of many key players from both sides of industry and from voluntary bodies active in the field, such as Age Concern.
      We believe that the code will command widespread support. To help the evaluation process and to ensure a fully informed debate, we are already carrying out a baseline survey of employers and older people. In addition, we shall publish, every June, key indicators showing the position of older workers in the labour market. We shall also carry out a full evaluation of the effectiveness of the code by February 2001, which will help to inform our plans for future legislation. I hope that that will reassure those hon. Members who need reassurance on that subject.
      New clause 5 deals with discrimination based on sexual orientation. As I acknowledged in Committee, there is a gap in the protection we offer some individuals compared with the law on sex, race and disability discrimination. We are appalled by the discrimination that is experienced by some gay men and lesbians; it is a disgrace to any decent and civilised society. I have some personal experience of that: a good colleague and friend with whom I worked in the 1970s was driven out of his profession in the 1980s because he was gay. The employer lost a talented, skilled and motivated employee and my friend lost a profession he loved. Such discrimination is disgraceful and the DTI takes the issue extremely seriously. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a meeting with Stonewall to discuss such issues; the meeting was constructive and we intend to continue that positive dialogue.
      However, it has already been pointed out several times this evening that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has primary responsibility for tackling discrimination in employment. In November last year, the Equal Opportunities Commission presented several recommendations to my right hon. Friend, following a review of sex discrimination legislation. I know that my right hon. Friend is studying the EOC' s recommendations carefully, and I do not want to pre-empt those conclusions today. At this stage, I simply remind the House of our manifesto commitment:
      "We will seek to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists."
      Sir Robert Smith: Does the Minister not realise that earlier today, there was a statement, accompanied by a glossy brochure, all about joined-up government? If a legislative opportunity presents itself to do something about a problem, the fact that another Department has the lead should not prevent Ministers from taking advantage of that opportunity.
      Mr. Wills: We have made our attitude toward unjustifiable discrimination extremely clear; ending such discrimination is a manifesto commitment and we shall deliver on that, just as we deliver on all our manifesto commitments.
      In new clause 6, the hon. Member for Eastleigh urges on the Government a power to prohibit discrimination on whatever basis the Secretary of State may specify in

      957
      regulations. Although I sympathise with the instincts that led the hon. Gentleman to table that proposal, it is puzzling to have such a broad and unfocused power proposed, especially when attempts were made in Committee to criticise the Government for taking far more specific powers where we were clear about what they would be used for.
      As I said, discrimination in employment is largely a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment; however, the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for some aspects of that—for example, discrimination on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership. If Opposition Members have in mind some further specific problems that are not already under consideration and in respect of which there is clear evidence that individuals are suffering unjustified discrimination in employment, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I would be happy to consider them. However, we do not want to have the sort of sweeping powers proposed in new clause 6.
      If there are specific problems of discrimination, such as those addressed by new clauses 4 and 5 or relating to protections for whistleblowers, the proper approach is that we should debate them, consider the policy options and then decide whether to act and, if we decide to do so, how to act. Legislation is not the only option, as we have shown in respect of age discrimination, although it might be appropriate, as we believe it is in respect of whistleblowers.
      Dr. Harris: Does the Minister understand that, every time he talks about how appalling and disgraceful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is, it brings into sharp relief his Department's refusal to take this legislative opportunity to tackle it? The Minister has not said what is wrong with this legislation compared with future legislation that may emanate from another Department. There is an opportunity tonight to remedy the situation. Why will he not take it?
      Mr. Wills: The Equal Opportunities Commission has provided detailed recommendations on precisely those issues. We owe it to that body and to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who has primary responsibility for these matters—
      Mr. Borrow rose—
      Mr. Wills: I shall address the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and then I will be happy to give way to my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is addressing these matters, and I do not intend to pre-empt his conclusions tonight. I am sorry, but I have made my position clear.
      Mr. Borrow: I recognise my hon. Friend's difficulty in giving assurances on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. Will my hon. Friend ensure that he conveys to the Secretary of State the strong feeling expressed in the Chamber this evening that the matter must not be allowed to drag on? Many Labour Members will expect the Department for Education and Employment to move on the issue very quickly.
      Mr. Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point so passionately and so well. I assure him that I
      958
      will pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment the views that hon. Members have expressed so powerfully tonight. I shall also convey the real sense of urgency that has been communicated.
      As to new clause 6, we believe that it would be wrong to adopt such sweeping and draconian powers without the slightest idea of how they might be used. That would not set a good precedent. Discrimination is a serious matter which we take seriously, but I have already said, with genuine regret, that we cannot support new clauses 4 and 5 because we have announced our policy on the former and the latter needs further consideration. While I sympathise with the good intentions that undoubtedly lie behind its tabling, 1 am afraid that I cannot support new clause 6 for the reasons that I have given.
      Mr. Chidgey: This has been a good debate to which many hon. Members have made valuable and thoughtful contributions. Sadly, the end was not as good as the middle—or perhaps even the beginning. The Government are in a fix; they have been caught out. The Government promised the electorate that they would provide employment rights through legislation, but they have not even begun to consult in some areas. The Government have not begun to consider the issues, let alone produce a famous code of practice.
      The Minister's contribution has left me feeling rather depressed and sad. He went on at length about the importance of commitment. He professed to be very upset, and almost cried as he addressed us. However, he must understand that saying something is not the same as doing it. I have yet to see any sign that this Government—
      Mr. Andrew Miller rose—
      Mr. Chidgey: I will not give way. I have had just about enough.
      I have listened to the debate for five hours, and the Government have made no promises that even faintly resemble the commitments that they set out in their election manifesto—let alone the comments that they made in opposition. It is a disgrace that Labour Members should change their position so rapidly after coming to power. They wonder why, having done nothing in this area for two years, there is so much anger on these Benches and throughout the community that they are supposed to represent. I shall press the new clause to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 318.

      Division No.134]

      [9.59 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Baker, Norman

      Hancock, Mike

      Beggs, Roy

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Breed, Colin

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Livsey, Richard

      Chidgey, David

      Llwyd, Ellyn

      Dafis, Cynog

      Moore, Michael

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Rendel, David

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      959

      Sanders, Adrian

      Willis, Phil

      Stunell, Andrew

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wallace, James

      Mr. Brian Cotter and Sir Robert Smith

      Welsh, Andrew

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ainger, Nick

      Cummings, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Allen, Graham

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Darvill, Keith

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Austin, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Banks, Tony

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Barnes, Harry

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Barron, Kevin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Battle, John

      Denham, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dismore, Andrew

      Beard, Nigel

      Dobbin, Jim

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Dowd, Jim

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Edwards, Huw

      Benton, Joe

      Efford, Clive

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Berry, Roger

      Ennis, Jeff

      Best, Harold

      Etherington, Bill

      Betts, Clive

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Blackman, Liz

      Fisher, Mark

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Blizzard, Bob

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Borrow, David

      Flint, Caroline

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Follett, Barbara

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Fyfe, Maria

      Burden, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Burgon, Colin

      Gardiner, Barry

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Caborn, Richard

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Canavan, Dennis

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Cann, Jamie

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chaytor, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Clapham, Michael

      Grogan, John

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coaker, Vernon

      Heppell, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cohen, Harry

      Hill, Keith

      Coleman, Iain

      Hinchliffe, David

      Colman, Tony

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Connarty, Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hood, Jimmy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cousins, Jim

      Hope, Phil

      Crausby, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      960

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hutton, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jamieson, David

      Norris, Dan

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pond, Chris

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Ann (Brenfford & Isleworth)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kidney, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Radice, Giles

      Laxton, Bob

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooney, Terry

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roy, Frank

      Lock, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Love, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAllion, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McCabe, Steve

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sawford, Phil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonnell, John

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McLeish, Henry

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Singh, Marsha

      McNulty, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Snape, Peter

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Spellar, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Maxton, John

      Stevenson, George

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stoate. Dr Howard

      Miller, Andrew

      Stott. Roger

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stringer, Graham

      Moffatt, Laura

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      961

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Watts, David

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      White, Brian

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Timms, Stephen

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd Mark

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Touhig Don

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Trickett, Jon

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Truswell, Paul

      Wood, Mike

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Worthington, Tony

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Wray, James

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Vaz, Keith

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Mr. David Hanson and Mrs. Anne McGuire.

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Employment Relations Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

    New Clause 5

      DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORK-PLACE ON GROUNDS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
      '—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the purpose of prohibiting, in relation to any employment matter, discrimination by an employer against another person on grounds of that person's sexual orientation.

      (2) In subsection (1) "employment matter" includes—

      (a) the offer or refusal of employment;

      (b) the termination of employment;

      (c) terms and conditions of employment;

      (d) the provision of training or skills development opportunities;

      (e) promotion and career progression.

      (3) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

      (a) specify the types of action, or failure to take action, which are to be taken to constitute discrimination for the purpose of this section;

      (b) confer jurisdiction (including exclusive jurisdiction) on employment tribunals and on the Employment Appeal Tribunal in relation to cases brought under this section;

      (c) provide for penalties to be imposed or, as the case may be, compensation to be awarded in respect of offences committed under paragraph (a) above.

      (4) No regulations shall be made under this section unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Chidgey.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 28, Noes 313.

      Division No. 135]

      [10.12 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Livsey, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Beggs, Roy

      Moore, Michael

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Rendel, David

      Breed, Colin

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Chidgey, David

      Stunell, Andrew

      Cotter, Brian

      Tonge, Dr Jenny

      Dafis, Cynog

      Tyler, Paul

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Wallace, James

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Welsh, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Willis, Phil

      Hancock, Mike

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dr. Evan Harris and Sir Robert Smith.

      Kirkwood, Archy

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Clwyd, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Coaker, Vernon

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cohen, Harry

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Coleman, Iain

      Austin, John

      Colman, Tony

      Banks, Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Barnes, Harry

      Corbett, Robin

      Barron, Kevin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Battle, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benton, Joe

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Darvill, Keith

      Berry, Roger

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Best, Harold

      Davidson, Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, John

      Borrow, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Edwards, Huw

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Efford, Clive

      Burden, Richard

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burgon, Colin

      Ennis, Jeff

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Etherington, Bill

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Caborn, Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Fyfe, Maria

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Chaytor, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clapham, Michael

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      963

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McLeish, Henry

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Grogan, John

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWalter, Tony

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      McWilliam, John

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Healey, John

      Mallaber, Judy

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Heppell, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hill, Keith

      Martlew, Eric

      Hinchliffe, David

      Maxton, John

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Home Robertson, John

      Merron, Gillian

      Hood, Jimmy

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Hope, Phil

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mitchell, Austin

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hurst, Alan

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hutton, John

      Mountford, Kali

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Mullin, Chris

      Illsley, Eric

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Jamieson, David

      Norris, Dan

      Jenkins, Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Osborne. Ms Sandra

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Pollard. Kerry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pond, Chris

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Pope, Greg

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Pound, Stephen

      Kemp, Fraser

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Kidney, David

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Radice, Giles

      Laxton, Bob

      Rammell, Bill

      Lepper, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Leslie, Christopher

      Raynsford, Nick

      Levitt, Tom

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rogers, Allan

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooney, Terry

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lock, David

      Roy, Frank

      Love, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      McAllion, John

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Macdonald, Calum

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonnell, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      964

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Todd, Mark

      Singh, Marsha

      Touhig, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Snape, Peter

      Vaz, Keith

      Soley, Clive

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Spellar, John

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Wareing, Robert N

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Watts, David

      Steinberg, Gerry

      White, Brian

      Stevenson, George

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Stott, Roger

      Wills, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wood, Mike

      Worthington, Tony

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wray, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. David Hanson and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Tipping, Paddy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 7

      STRIKES TO ACHIEVE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHTS NOT PROTECTED FROM LEGAL ACTION
      'After section 225 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 insert—
      "225A. An act is not protected if the reason, or one of the main reasons, for which it is done is that an employer has refused to recognise to any extent a trade union for the purposes of collective bargaining.".'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—
      Assessment of working days lost as a result of Act—
      '.—The Secretary of State shall prepare and present to Parliament annually an assessment of the total number of working days lost owing to industrial action in the previous calendar year, with particular reference to action arising in connection with recognition disputes between employers and trade unions.
      (2) If at any time it appears to him that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has exceeded five million in any one year, or is likely to do so in the current year, he may make an Order suspending all or part of the provisions of this Act.
      (3) No Order under subsection (2) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Boswell: It may be for the convenience of the House if I explain that I am moving new clause 7 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), if he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will thereafter speak to new clause 10. We are co-signatories to both new clauses.

      965
      New clause 7 is a small provision, but there is an important point of principle that has exercised, among others, the Engineering Employers Federation, which has written to us on the matter. The new clause would remove the immunity available to actions in tort from trade unions if they sought to take industrial action to secure collective bargaining rights.
      Ministers and others who are experts in this area will be familiar with the concepts of part V of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Acts in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute are broadly protected under section 219, but there are a number of exclusions from protection beginning at section 222. New clause 7 would insert a further exclusion.
      The argument for this measure is simple. If the Government are bent on bestowing collective bargaining rights or a procedure to secure collective bargaining rights through statute, we fail to see why there is a need for a parallel protection for trade unions seeking to achieve collective bargaining rights by taking industrial action. Why should both routes be open? That could only be an invitation for industrial action to continue, when the right course would be negotiation—ideally—or, if necessary, for the Government to avail themselves of their own proposals in schedule 1.
      I see only one defence, or lacuna. Interestingly and irrationally, in view of the Secretary of State's earlier suggestion that the legislation constituted a seamless web, the Government have provided that in a firm employing 20 or fewer people there should be no collective bargaining rights. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman could tell the House that it would be all right for members of a labour force that size to strike to secure their rights, whereas employees of a firm employing more people could adopt the statutory route; but I think that the essential principle remains. We do not want to encourage people to strike when they already have recourse to the law.
      Mr. Redwood: I urge the Government to think again about disrupting industrial relations in our country. Many hon. Members who are present tonight will recall the bitter disputes that characterised the 1960s and 70s. They will remember that such disputes took place during periods of Conservative, Labour and Labour-Liberal government, and that the Labour-Liberal coalition elected in the 1970s to control strikes presided over some of the worst years of strike and turmoil in our country's history. They will agree that the last thing that we wish to do is return to any of that.
      I remind the Government that it took Conservative Administrations led by my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher many years to introduce enough changes to the inherited industrial relations legislation to solve the problem. The strike record of the early 1980s was better than that of the worst years of the 1970s, but it was not nearly good enough, and it in turn was marred by the year of the miners' dispute.
      After 1985, when the main part of the reforms finally materialised, we transformed ourselves into a country with relatively few strikes and relatively few days lost. Indeed, in the 1990s, under the Conservative Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), we achieved a record second to none in Europe—a proud record compared with that of any of our major competitors in the world. I well
      966
      remember businesses around the world saying some years earlier that they had no intention of coming to the United Kingdom because its strike record was so bad.
      Mr. Fabricant: Not only did businesses not invest in the United Kingdom, there was a brain drain in the 1970s. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Labour Members who have suddenly appeared from the Kremlin Bar to comment. They are old Labour. They cannot be expected to understand, especially as they have had a few drinks too many
      Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That remark should be withdrawn forthwith. It is not within the remit of the House for any hon. Member to suggest that another is participating other than with good—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it would be wise of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to withdraw his remark.
      Mr. Fabricant: I abide by your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and withdraw the remark.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Redwood: As I was saying—and as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was trying to say in his intervention—we were in a parlous situation in the 1970s. Other countries and companies did not rate our industrial relations highly, and they had plenty of evidence for that from the number of days lost. It took time. Indeed, if a criticism can be levelled at the Conservative Administration who were first elected in 1979, it is that it took time for that Administration to realise how much reform was needed in industrial relations legislation to achieve the desired result of better employer-employee relations.
      That Administration were cautious in the early days. I wish only that the present Government were similarly cautious when setting about reversing Conservative policies. They should have gone much more steadily and carefully. I understand the pressure that they are under from the trade unions, but would it not have been better to introduce a more modest measure to test whether the successful industrial relations record that had finally been established by 1990 under the new Conservative settlement would be damaged? Instead, the Government are blundering in. They are reversing many of the important elements of our hard-won trade union settlement. All they do is assert that there is no danger of a return to the bad old days and bad old ways of the 1960s and 1970s.
      The Secretary of State assures us in every way, apart from firmly on the record, that there will be no increase—or a very small increase—in strikes, that this country will not go back to the bad old ways, that it will still be one of the best locations in which to invest, that he will be able to say to visiting companies that our industrial relations record is still good and a reason why they should come here, rather than go elsewhere—[Interruption.] There are a number of sedentary interventions. As the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will know, I am happy to take a proper intervention if he wants to make one.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is mathematically simple that, if one decreases the

      967
      number of manufacturing jobs, one decreases the number of strikes? That was the approach that was adopted by Baroness Thatcher, from which we are seeking to recover.
      Mr. Redwood: That is a futile intervention. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is possible for there to be strikes in service sectors and in public services. Indeed, some of the worst strikes under Labour Administrations have been in the public services. As he should also know, it is the present Government who are shrinking manufacturing at an awful pace. We keep warning them not to do so, but they do not listen. Every day another factory is closed and there are more job losses.
      Mr. Soames: I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the words of a cocky little barrack-room lawyer about strikes.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that we should use temperate language in the House. It always helps with our proceedings. Perhaps we can leave it at that.
      Mr. Soames: I withdraw the remark, "a little barrack-room lawyer".
      What does my right hon. Friend think is the likely contribution of the new clause to the improved competitiveness of the British economy?
      Mr. Redwood: The new clause, as I am about to explain to an impatient House of Commons, would provide some protection—not sufficient, but some—in the event of things getting out of control. I am trying to explain to the Government that their legacy is a very good one, that their experience and that of other Governments in office in the 1960s and 1970s should warn them that it is easy to lose control and to have damaging and bad strikes, and that, if they are wrong about their legislation, they will rue the day.
      The strikes will become most intense in the run-up to the general election. That will be extremely damaging. It will bring back memories of how Labour lost control in the past. Therefore, in a spirit of generosity, for which I am renowned, through the new clause I offer the Government the chance to back off and to ensure that not all the legislation will apply if they start to lose control of industrial relations.
      Given the lateness of the hour and the generous nature of my offer, one would have thought that the Secretary of State would leap to his feet, say that he was happy to accept the new clause, that he did not believe that more than 5 million days a year would be lost in strikes—which is the threshold in the new clause—and was happy to accept it to reassure all the listeners and viewers out there who may hear about the matter in due course, if the media allow. The Secretary of State is resolutely sitting in his seat, implying that he wishes to vote down this generous offer.
      The new clause proposes that should the Secretary of State be wrong and should the number of days lost through strikes go back up to 5 million—massively higher than anything that we have experienced in the 1990s so far—it would be within his rights, without the need for new primary legislation, to suspend the parts of the legislation that were causing difficulties in industrial relations in this country.
      968
      Five million is a high threshold. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I had a good debate about how high it should go. Our generosity overcame us and we set it at 5 million. We have not seen 5 million days or more lost to strikes in this country since 1985. It was, of course, regular in the 1970s under the Labour Administration; in four of the five years from 1975 to 1979 more than 5 million days were lost to strikes. From 1980 to 1996 inclusive, there were only three years when more than 5 million days were lost to strikes—and that was three years too many.
      I am pleased that there have been no such occasions for more than a decade as a result of the settlement that Conservative Administrations finally achieved in the 1980s, against the advice and bitter opposition of the Labour party, which thought that industrial relations should remain poor and that the legislation that it had left to the incoming Conservative Government in 1979 was perfectly reasonable.
      Why does the Bill represent a threat? Hon. Members who have read schedule 1 will have seen the incredibly complicated machinery that is being put in place to put through the Government's proposals on union recognition where there has not been agreement between the two parties in the normal way. These powers, given to the Central Arbitration Committee, are many and rather vague.
      We could face disputes in which unions were squabbling over who was entitled to seek to represent the work force. We could have several unions trying to enrol sufficient members to get to the threshold to demand a ballot. There might be some difficulty in deciding which of the competing unions would be entitled, and we could get action between unions as they move to try to get control of that bargaining unit.
      We could have considerable disagreements between management and the work force over what is the bargaining unit; something that is left rather vague in the Bill, giving plenty of scope for further trade disputes and for resort to expensive lawyers and court actions. The proposal for the derecognition of so-called sweetheart unions could cause difficulties in deciding whether a union qualified for such a term, and whether it was right to go ahead with its derecognition if the employers felt that it was a good union. Many of the members of the union may take the view that that was a reasonable way of proceeding for representation—[Interruption.]
      If the hon. Member for Workington wishes to contribute to the debate, would he like to make an intervention? He should either make an intervention or keep quiet and listen to an important debate. He may think that it is amusing that we are facing more strikes and industrial relations disruption in this country. We do not.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are two hon. Gentlemen who should be behaving themselves. It is unfair. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) should be heard.
      Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your courtesy, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The House should recognise that good industrial relations are crucial to jobs and prosperity in our country. Have we not been through enough in the 1960s and 1970s? Did we learn nothing from that bitter experience? Did we learn nothing from the disputes in the 1980s to establish better trade union law?

      969
      Before the election, the Secretary of State and his friends in the Labour leadership were seeking to reassure people that they accepted the Conservative trade union settlement. They were even prepared to say that they thought that it was one of the better things that the Conservative Administration had done.
      Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Rubbish.
      Mr. Redwood: The Labour leadership agreed that too much power had gone to the shop stewards and to disruptive forces in the 1970s, and that it was important to have a new settlement. Why are the Government now backing away from that, having won the election?
      Mr. Bercow: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend heard the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) saying "Rubbish." Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why the hon. Gentleman is opposed to the new clause is presumably that he was a keen supporter of the Government under which the streets went unswept, the sick went untended, and the dead went unburied?
      Mr. Redwood: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was talking about rubbish in the streets, rather than rubbish in my speech. That would have been wise of him, but as I have offered him the opportunity to intervene, it is a pity that he could not have made such a contribution in open debate.
      Mr. Mike Hall: Get on with it.
      Mr. Redwood: I am getting on with it—and it would be easier to get on with it if Labour Members behaved themselves instead of trying to disrupt the progress of their own legislation. They have made a good job of disrupting the Bill so far, despite the considerable help that we have given in trying to get it through. I am beginning to wonder whether we have been too generous on that score tonight, in view of the way in which the parliamentary Labour party is now behaving.
      The new clause would provide an important safeguard. If the Secretary of State is right and no increase in strikes results from his legislation, he has nothing to fear from it. If he is wrong, and there is a danger of the number of strikes getting out of control, the new clause would be a welcome salvation, whereby he could avoid the delay and difficulty involved in coming back to the House to amend primary legislation. It would give him the scope to suspend the complicated and difficult features of the Bill that are likely to become a cause of trade disputes and strikes in themselves.
      If hon. Members consider some of the complex detail in schedule 1, which runs from page 19 to page 56 of the Bill, they will see how much scope there is for dispute, and how much power rests in the hands of the Central Arbitration Committee. For example, paragraph 21(5) tells us:
      "In deciding how the ballot is to be conducted the CAC must take into account—

      (a) the likelihood of the ballot being affected by unfairness or malpractice if it were conducted at a workplace or workplaces;

      (b) costs and practicality;

      (c) such other matters as the CAC considers appropriate."

      970
      In other words, the CAC can do whatever it likes without reference to Parliament. The House is being asked to approve legislation so loose, general and vague that it provides enormous scope for disputes, rows and strikes over its interpretation.
      Similarly, paragraph 18 is very vague about how the "appropriate bargaining unit" should be defined. That gives plenty of scope for argument and dispute. Under paragraph 17, considerable judgment will have to be exercised in deciding how many workers would have to vote for compulsory negotiation by the trade union—a judgment that could easily be made badly by the CAC, and could easily be disputed. That, too, could lead to strikes and court action.
      Given the lateness of the hour, I shall not pursue all the flaws and holes both in the schedule and in the other parts of the Bill that introduce it. I rest the Opposition case and plead again with the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, a junior Minister who has now been left on his own on the Treasury Bench—
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I notice that the right hon. Gentleman and a few of his right hon. and hon. Friends have registered an interest with regard to the new clauses. It would be interesting for the House to know what those interests are.
      Mr. Redwood: Had the hon. Lady been present at the beginning of our proceedings, she would have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and myself explain that we had interests in companies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]. Companies would be affected by all the measures in the new clauses—[Interruption.] Neither my hon. Friend nor I spoke on behalf of a particular company, nor did we table our new clauses at the request of particular companies. We are being extremely careful by saying, "Yes, we are practical people with knowledge of the business world"—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Sedgemore and Mr. Campbell-Savours should know better. It is not good for the House to behave in that manner.
      Mr. Redwood: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      If the hon. Lady reads the record of our proceedings tomorrow, she will see that what I have said is true. We have behaved very carefully, although we have no specific interests to declare in connection with the new clauses.
      I sum up by urging the Government to recognise the fact that damaging the settlement that they inherited could prove more dangerous than they realise. There could be a further increase in strikes; there is already some increase in strike activity at the moment, for a variety of reasons. Damaging that settlement could put off investors, affect jobs and lead to all sorts of trouble. We are offering the Government a way out, and I hope that they will accept it.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Sayeed: When two parties enter into a contract, it is beholden on both to keep to it. New clause 7 would get rid of one of the most damaging parts of the Bill. At present, an employee who violates the terms of his contract can be dismissed. Under the Bill, that protection of the employer will go, because the employee will have the right to sue the employer and, possibly, to be

      971
      reinstated and compensated. When a contract is broken by one side, the employer should have the right to dismiss the employee. The Bill will not permit that to happen.
      In relation to new clause 10, it is worth remembering that 29 million days were lost to strikes in 1979. In 1996, the number had fallen to 1.3 million days, a testament to the step-by-step approach towards industrial relations taken by the then Conservative Governments. Despite the fact that the number of people in employment increased, the number of people striking, and the frequency with which they did it, fell dramatically.
      New clause 10 would set a limit much higher than 1.3 million days at which, if the number of days lost in strikes were so great as to be deeply damaging to this country, some of the Bill's more expensive proposals could be cut away, at least for a time. It is a fairly modest proposal, and any sensible Government would adopt it.
      Mr. Fabricant: New clause 7 is mainly concerned with collective bargaining. The Bill is flawed. Adair Turner, writing in the Financial Times on 18 March, said:
      "Good employee relations should be built on trust and it is not best fostered if collective bargaining has been imposed on an employer by a trade union. Collective bargaining can work where it has two willing partners, but not when there is only one. No real improvements in industrial relations occurred the last time we had compulsion in the 1970s and, indeed, the legislation proved to be unworkable."
      I need not remind the House that Adair Turner is director general of the Confederation of British Industry.
      The Bill is outrageous. It will bring about disruption in industrial harmony. To make matters worse, employers will be expected to meet 50 per cent. of the cost of each ballot. That is money that most small firms can ill afford, if I may echo our earlier debates on exemptions for businesses that employ fewer than 51 people.
      What estimate has the Minister made of the total cost of arranging ballots and the accounts that are to be made by third parties? I appreciate that he may not have the figures to hand, but I hope that he will answer the question in his summing up.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) mentioned that 29 million working days were lost in 1979. However, the numbers of strike days in other years between 1974 and 1979 were also high. In 1974, almost 15 million working days were lost; in 1975, the figure dropped to 6 million; and, in 1976, a relatively good year, it dropped to only 3 million. However, in 1977, the figure went back up to 10 million; in 1978, it was 9 million; and, in 1979, it was 29.5 million. I shall give the figure for 1990 after I have given way to the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner).
      Mr. Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman referred to the figures for 1974, but they were conditioned by the fact that we had just had a Conservative Administration who presided over one of the most bitter strikes ever. We still remember the power failures during the miners' strike, when three working days a week were lost. The figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned may have been affected by that fact.
      Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman only amplifies my point that the Bill would return us to those days. Even if
      972
      we discount 1974—I shall not repeat the figures for the later years, because they will be in Hansard—the figures are high. How do they compare with this decade? In 1990, almost 2 million days were lost in strikes—2 million days too many. In 1991, 761,000 days were lost; in 1992, 528,000; in 1993, 649,000; in 1994, 278,000; in 1995, 415,000; in 1996, 1.3 million; and, in 1997, 207,000. Those figures are a long way short of the 5 million figure that appears in new clause 10.
      What are the Government worried about? Do they believe that 5 million working days will be lost at some time in the future, or are they aware that people such as Rupert Murdoch, whom they so confidently hope will be on their side at the next election, realise that the saving of The Times in the 1980s would have been impossible if the Bill had been in force? Does the Minister accept that? The Times was bankrupt and its workers had been on strike for six months when Rupert Murdoch took it over. He could not have done that under the Bill's provisions. This legislation is not for the future; it is going back to the past. For that reason, I support new clauses 7 and 10.
      Mr. Wills: As we have heard graphically from Opposition Members, the new clauses would evoke the spectre of times past and of irresponsible trade unions. That might have worked in 1979, but it will not work now. Times have changed. People know that trade unions have changed and that industrial action is now genuinely used only as a last resort.
      New clause 7 seeks to remove immunity from trade unions if they call industrial action in recognition disputes. That is a one-sided measure, and the Opposition clearly intend it to be so. It would leave employers holding all the cards. The Bill's provisions are carefully designed at every stage to provide incentives for employers and trade unions to agree sensible arrangements. We are confident that, in the vast majority of cases, they will do so, but we cannot force people to agree. Therefore, in the last resort, the possibility of industrial action must remain. The statutory procedure will provide an alternative that will lead to almost all disputes being resolved without industrial action. That, and the other measures in the Bill—notably, the right to be accompanied in disciplinary and grievance hearings, and some of the other changes which we propose on industrial action ballots—will reduce the risk of industrial action, but the right to strike is a fundamental and internationally recognised freedom.
      The previous Government restricted the ability of unions to organise industrial action, especially through the complicated ballots and notice requirements, while doing nothing to protect workers once their unions had complied with those requirements. That is the reason for clause 15. It would be unfair and wrong to limit further the right to organise industrial action in the way proposed by the new clause. It is already more tightly constrained in this country than in most comparable ones. Further tightening lacks any justification. I am confident that the House will reject that tonight.
      New clause 10 is a little highly flavoured, coming from the Conservatives. I, too, have some figures. The average number of working days lost each year through industrial action in the 1980s, when they were in power, was 7.2 million, nearly 50 per cent. above the level that they propose as the trigger for special action. The average number of working days lost over the past two years under

      973
      this Government is 256,000, less than 4 per cent. of the average for the 1980s. As the figures are published each month by the Office for National Statistics, with annual analysis and international comparisons, an annual report to Parliament would be redundant.
      Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister complete his mathematics by telling us the Conservative average in the 1990s and the Labour average between 1974 and 1979?
      Mr. Wills: I was merely pointing out the ulterior motive behind new clause 10. The Opposition are not really concerned to propose anything that will make a substantive difference; they are interested only in the misleading innuendo contained in new clause 10. It implies that the Bill, as they have actively stated this evening, will lead to increased industrial action. In fact, the opposite is true: the Bill will help to resolve industrial disputes without industrial action. It will promote a partnership approach. It works with the grain of industrial relations.
      Mr. Bercow: In the light of what the Minister said about the Bill's likely beneficial effect on the industrial relations climate, will he confidently predict that, in each remaining year of this Parliament after its passage, there will be a reduction in the number of days lost through strikes?
      Mr. Wills: The hon. Gentleman well knows that that is an intellectually bogus proposition, and I do not intend to engage with it. He proves my point that the new clause is a debating point that seeks to promote a spurious innuendo without basis in fact. He sat through the Committee, during which at every point it was driven home to him that the Bill was based on a partnership approach. He still has not got the message, but, no doubt, in time he will.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Wills: I would like to make some progress, as it is nearly 11 pm.
      It is interesting that none of the seven pieces of employment legislation that the Conservative party passed while in power contained provisions such as those proposed by the new clause. If they believed in the need for such measures, why did they not use one of those pieces of legislation to propose them? That makes my point. The new clauses are futile attempts to resurrect ghosts from the past. The world has moved on, but the Conservatives have not noticed. If they insist on pressing the new clauses, those of us who live in the real world will go happily into the Lobby to oppose them.
      Mr. Redwood: Will the Bill lead to a fall or a rise in the number of strikes in the remaining years of this Parliament?
      Mr. Wills: I had finished, but I am happy to answer that point. I confidently predict that the Bill will underpin a spirit of partnership through legislation in the workplace. I encourage the Conservative party to vote in support of that.
      Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked the Minister an
      974
      unanswerable question and, inevitably, he failed to answer it. He could not explain to the House why he was not prepared to avail himself of our modest proposal in new clause 10. He said that he did not need it, but it would have provided an insurance for him. He was asked another unanswerable question about whether the number of strikes would increase. He demurred on that as well, although he had already asserted that the number of strikes would fall as a result of the beneficial effects of his measures.
      The reason why no Conservative Government found it necessary to include a clause of the type that my right hon. Friend and I have tabled was simple. We did not decide to legislate with a 37-page schedule 1 to give collective bargaining rights in the way that the Labour Government have done. With the greatest possible respect, I remind the Minister that he argued in Committee that the main flaw in the Employment Protection Act 1975 was that it contained only six clauses. I agree that the Minister has done better than that in terms of productivity. He has given us 37 pages, but I have news for him: instead of the lawyers scrapping and going to judicial review on six clauses, they will have 37 pages to go at. I make a counter-prediction to the Minister that the Bill will be not in place of strife, but a case for strife. It will cause more trouble and more dissent. We are in the business of trying to protect Ministers from their own folly.
      In that context, I will give one piece of good news to the Minister. Although I am tempted to do so, I will not press new clause 7, but we wish to press new clause 10. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 10

      ASSESSMENT OF WORKING DAYS LOST AS A RESULT OF ACT
      '.—The Secretary of State shall prepare and present to Parliament annually an assessment of the total number of working days lost owing to industrial action in the previous calendar year, with particular reference to action arising in connection with recognition disputes between employers and trade unions.
      (2) If at any time it appears to him that the number of days lost in industrial disputes has exceeded five million in any one year, or is likely to do so in the current year, he may make an Order suspending all or part of the provisions of this Act.
      (3) No Order under subsection (2) shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 123, Noes 320.

      Division No. 136]

      [11.2 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Boswell, Tim

      Amess, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Brady, Graham

      Baldry, Tony

      Brazier, Julian

      Beggs, Roy

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Bercow, John

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Burns, Simon

      Body, Sir Richard

      Butterfill, John

      975

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Chope, Christopher

      Mains, Humfrey

      Clappison, James

      Maples, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Colvin, Michael

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Moss, Malcolm

      Gran, James

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Norman, Archie

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltempnce & Howden)

      Page, Richard

      Paice, James

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Pickles, Eric

      Duncan, Alan

      Prior, David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Randall, John

      Faber, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Fallon, Michael

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Flight, Howard

      Ruffley, David

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gale, Roger

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Gibb, Nick

      Shepherd, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gray, James

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Green Damian

      Spring, Richard

      Greenway John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Steen, Anthony

      Hammond, Philip

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Hayes, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Horam, John

      Townend, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Tredinnick, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Trend, Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tyrie Andrew

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Viggers, Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wardle, Charles

      Key, Robert

      Waterson, Nigel

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Wells, Bowen

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Whittingdale, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Leigh, Edward

      Wilkinson, John

      Letwin, Oliver

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lidington. David

      Yeo, Tim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Loughton, Tim

      Luff, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Mr. Tim Collins and Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Berry, Roger

      Ainger, Nick

      Best, Harold

      Allan, Richard

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Blizzard, Bob

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Borrow, David

      Austin, John

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Baker, Norman

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Banks, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Barnes, Harry

      Breed, Colin

      Barron, Kevin

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Battle, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Bayley, Hugh

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Burden, Richard

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Burgon, Cohn

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Benton, Joe

      Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Caborn, Richard

      976

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Cann, Jamie

      Grogan, John

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hain, Peter

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chidgey, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clapham, Michael

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Healey, John

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heppell, John

      Clelland David

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hill, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coaker Vernon

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Coffey Ms Ann

      Home Robertson, John

      Cohen Harry

      Hood, Jimmy

      Coleman, Iain

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Colman, Tony

      Hope, Phil

      Connarty, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbett, Robin

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Crausby, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hutton, John

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Illsley, Eric

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jamieson, David

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Dowd, Jim

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Efford, Clive

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ennis, Jeff

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Etherington, Bill

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Kemp, Fraser

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Fisher, Mark

      Khabra, Piara S

      Kidney, David

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Flint, Caroline

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Flynn, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Follett, Barbara

      Laxton, Bob

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Fyfe, Maria

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Gapes, Mike

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Gardiner, Barry

      Linton, Martin

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Gerrard, Neil

      Livsey, Richard

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Llwyd, Ellyn

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Lock, David

      Godsiff, Roger

      Love, Andrew

      Goggins, Paul

      McAllion, John

      977

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ruddock, Joan

      McCabe, Steve

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      McDonnell, John

      Sanders, Adrian

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sawford, Phil

      McIsaac, Shona

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Singh, Marsha

      McNulty, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      MacShane, Denis

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Snape, Peter

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Spellar, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Martlew, Eric

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Maxton, John

      Stevenson, George

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Merron, Gillian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Miller, Andrew

      Stott, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stringer, Graham

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mountford, Kali

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Timms, Stephen

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Todd, Mark

      Norris, Dan

      Touhig, Don

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Neill, Martin

      Truswell, Paul

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pearson Ian

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Pendry, Tom

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Vaz, Keith

      Pickthall, Colin

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Pike, Peter L

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Plaskitt, James

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wareing, Robert N

      Pond, Chris

      Watts, David

      Pope, Greg

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pound, Stephen

      White, Brian

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Purchase, Ken

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Willis, Phil

      Radice, Giles

      Wills, Michael

      Rammell, Bill

      Winnick, David

      Rapson, Syd

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wood, Mike

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Worthington, Tony

      Rogers, Allan

      Wray, James

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roy, Frank

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. David Hanson.

      Ruane, Chris

      Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 12
      DUTY TO AVOID CONFLICTS OF INTEREST IN EMPLOYMENT
      —'(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations prohibiting employers from knowingly engaging an employee in a position where a conflict of interest could arise which might expose the employee to criminal, civil or regulatory proceedings.
      (2) Regulations under this section may provide for the imposition of a fine, not exceeding level 6 on the standard scale, on a person convicted of an offence under subsection (1).
      (3) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before, and approved by a Resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Brady.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. Brady: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am pleased to have this opportunity to explore some of the Government's views on this matter. In Standing Committee, some Labour Members suggested that Conservative Members adopted a Scrooge-like tendency when it came to matters of industrial relations and employment rights. However, I was heartened to see the Government's seeking to assume that Scrooge mantle this evening by opposing the new clauses regarding discrimination on the basis of age and sexual orientation.
      To complete the process, I thought that I would experiment by proposing a new individual employment right and employee protection in new clause 12, which would impose a duty of care on an employer not knowingly to engage a person in circumstances where he may put that person in a position of conflicted interest, particularly when some civil, criminal or regulatory proceedings could arise.
      Such circumstances could arise in numerous ways. For example, a former police officer might have personal knowledge or information of a private nature about certain individuals. A person employed in the City might have prior knowledge that is relevant to his duties in managing a fund. A new employer who is familiar with the financial circumstances of a particular company might be charged with the disposal of shares in that company.
      I do not seek to introduce an onerous burden in such situations. New clause 12 would give Ministers the power to bring an order into effect. I hope that it would impose the lightest possible burden because it would prohibit employment only when that would knowingly put an employee in a difficult and potentially dangerous position. My new clause recognises what many Labour Members know: there are sometimes imbalances in employment relationships. For example, an employee might be pressured—financially or by some other means—to accept a position.
      Following on from the statement earlier today, as we move into an age of electronic government, an increasing amount of knowledge, information and private data may be held by Government bodies, Departments and agencies. That might cause difficulties if a person were to move into another sector of employment. For example, somebody who owns or runs a building firm might be put in charge of a public building project and of awarding contracts in that connection.
      The importance of this measure in public sector terms has been thrown into sharp relief by recent events in the European Commission, where we have seen clear

      979
      evidence of fraud, corruption and nepotism. There are real pitfalls. For example, employees might be put in control of public funds and of decisions that might seriously compromise them. Another relevant instance in the context of this new clause may be the power to take action that may influence markets to the advantage of a particular individual. In that context, one might consider appointments to the Bank of England, the European central bank or other agencies that handle market-sensitive information or statements.
      Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will remember that there was a little conflict between us earlier on ageism, when he argued that self-regulation was more important than legislation. Does he believe, as I do, that in the past our financial institutions have been particularly effective at self-regulation? Why does he now think that it is necessary to impose additional regulations on those financial institutions?
      Mr. Brady: As always, my hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have already mentioned the example that has been set by the European Commission, but clearly the Government, particularly the Department of Trade and Industry, have been setting an appalling example. It sends out signals that conflicts of interest are not only tolerable but perhaps positively to be encouraged, and there are now reasons why the Government might consider correcting those messages. I hope that my reply reassures my hon. Friend that I have not gone soft on self-regulation or other aspects of market control.
      The Prime Minister has appointed one DTI Minister to oversee genetically modified food and science who has large shareholdings in GM food companies, while another Minister appointed to control the offshore oil industry still held £2 million-worth of British Petroleum shares. If the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), had been responsible for controlling or regulating the financial services industry while engaging in creative mortgage practices, he might also have been put in a difficult position by the Prime Minister. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We cannot have noise from hon. Members on the Government Benches—it is wrong. [Interruption.] Order. We must have more order in the House.
      Mr. Brady: I seek to be brief, and I am grateful for your assistance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in bringing the House to order.
      Given the worrying signals and mixed messages that the Government have sent out by allowing conflicts of interest at the very highest level of public service, it is now appropriate that they consider ways in which they may redress that balance. They should send out a new message that conflicts of interest are not to be tolerated and certainly not to be encouraged. Even if Ministers are not inclined to accept new clause 12, at least I have given them an opportunity to send out that message, to suggest ways in which they want to put their house in order and achieve better standards and to set out their views on containing and preventing conflicts of interest.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: I must admit that I had difficulty in understanding new clause 12, to which my hon. Friend
      980
      the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) ably spoke, until he got towards the end of his speech and stated exactly what he was driving at. I understand that right hon. and hon. Members on the Treasury Bench may feel somewhat embarrassed because the issue goes to the heart of the cronyism within the Government.
      My hon. Friend was a little remiss in not describing the problems that the Government or any employer would face in taking on a person with a large number of interests. He made a strange decision to leave out of his speech any mention of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), whose case clearly goes to the heart of the problems—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Personal remarks against other hon. Members are uncalled for. [Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members should realise that it is best to let me deal with the chairmanship of these proceedings. I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider what he is saying.
      Mr. Bruce: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not intending to be personal in my remarks. The difficulties that any Government—any employer—might have in taking on people and thereby putting them into a difficult position go to the heart of this new clause.
      It is important when we are legislating for the rest of country that we put such issues into contexts that we can understand as small employers and as people involved in the nature of government—we did so regularly in Committee. Time and again, the Government have totally ignored their own provisions. The unpaid Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry has made speeches about ensuring that people's employment rights are preserved, yet he is simply a volunteer in the Government. I hope that somebody, somewhere is providing him with additional remuneration, which he obviously deserves. If so, we should be careful about whether that poses a conflict of interest. I do not make any accusation; that is not a personal comment. I sure that he is as honourable as any Labour Member—in fact, more honourable.
      Mr. Fabricant rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member intervenes, may I ask what the remarks directed at the Minister by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) have to do with new clause 12? I am at a loss to understand.
      Mr. Bruce: I shall relate my remarks directly to the new clause. The new clause would help to address the problem that arises when somebody who accepts a job in good faith and works with the very best of intentions is then criticised for having to resign—as has happened with two hon. Members, and could happen in industry as well—
      Mr. Desmond Swayne rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Bruce: If I may, I shall finish the sentence. The new clause would address the problem of people who have to resign, who then lose financially and have their careers cut short—in the case to which I referred, the employers were

      981
      the Government and the decision was taken by the Prime Minister—even though that was the fault of the employer. That goes to the centre of the new clause.
      Mr. Swayne: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) drew parallels with recent events in the European Commission. Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that, had Edith Cresson's dentist had the good fortune to have been an Englishman, he might have benefited from the protection of a clause such as this?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the new clause.
      Mr. Bruce: Edith Cresson's dentist was not an Englishman and, therefore, unfortunately, would not be protected by the new clause.
      Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's most recent remarks. Does he agree that to meet the requirements of new clause 12, it would often be necessary for employees or potential employees to divulge to the employer past, present or potential conflicts of interest?
      Mr. Bruce: That would be very important. It is interesting that, under the provisions of clause 28, which are about to be amended by new schedule 2, employment agencies alone must make proper checks on individuals entering employment. If we accepted the new clause, such checks would have to apply to all employers and employees. That is the important issue.
      We are probing to find out how Ministers intend to stop employees being put in an embarrassing situation and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West rightly wants to know how the Government believe that this matter should be dealt with.
      We have tried to put those serious points into context, not because we want to embarrass individual Members of the House, but simply so that people can understand them. I invite the Minister to enlighten us.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Wills: I, too, was baffled when I read the new clause, but I was reassured when the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) told me that it was an experiment. I hope that he keeps practising, because he has a lot of work to do, but I shall pay him the respect of treating the new clause as a serious experiment and will address it as it has been tabled.
      Throughout our debates on the Bill, the Opposition have fought our proposals for underpinning in law basic, decent standards of employment practice. They appear to have been motivated by a doctrinaire dislike of the necessary legislation, so I was rather surprised to see in the new clause a proposal for new regulation-making powers, giving the Government powers to intervene where we see no need to do so. Indeed, those powers are backed by such draconian penalties that they reach level 6 on the standard scale—past the standard 5-level fine.
      Why is it proposed that the Government should intervene in this area? What employer in his right mind would choose to employ people in positions where they are likely to finish up on the receiving end of criminal,
      982
      civil or regulatory charges? What benefit would an employer derive from having a person in their employment in such a situation? Of course employees, like others, may find themselves in a position where conflicts of interest arise, but the new clause assumes that employers are likely deliberately to employ people in such positions where serious conflicts could arise.
      Sensible employers would do no such thing, and I suspect that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West knows that. If conflicts arise, they will have every incentive to make sensible arrangements to sort them out. In the circumstances in which conflicts of interest are most likely to arise—for example, in local government—there are rules requiring interests to be declared and for councillors to take no part in proceedings in which they have a financial interest. In other such areas, there are similar ways of dealing with those matters, but the onus to act with propriety must be on the employee—who knows when a conflict of interest is likely to arise—and not on the employer.
      The hon. Gentleman has once again produced a solution for a non-existent problem and there is no case for his experimental new clause. I very much hope that he will withdraw it and not waste any more of the House's time.
      Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the Minister for his typically courteous response. I shall not detain the House for long, but it was well worth flushing out the Government's position on this important issue.
      My only real disappointment was the Minister's suggestion that the Prime Minister, by engaging people who were then subject to a conflict of interest, was behaving as no employer in his right mind would behave. From the Minister's point of view, that was an unfortunate suggestion, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) will doubtless point out, he is unsalaried already, so perhaps he has less to lose than other Ministers.
      It is unfortunate that the Minister did not stress the seriousness with which the Government take these matters and did not send out a message that they wish to put behind them some of their own difficulties with conflicts of interest. It would have been nice if a stronger message had been sent out to the private sector that it is possible for higher standards to be observed than some of those in the public sector.
      Mr. Redwood: Does my hon. Friend find it curious that the Minister should take our line against more regulation in the only matter where he fears that the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers might be caught by the legislation?
      Mr. Brady: I do not find that curious at all; I find it entirely predictable and typical of the conduct of the Government. It is disappointing that there was not a more convincing condemnation of those practices, and a more convincing attempt to show that the Government have turned over a new leaf. However, having made my point, and having heard the Minister's rather disappointing response, I have no desire to press the matter to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      BLACKLISTS
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'compilation' and insert 'use'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in page 1, line 21, leave out from 'unions' to end of line 4 on page 2.
      Mr. Boswell: We move from the consideration of general issues to a more pointillist analysis of the Bill, and if we receive satisfactory responses from the Government, it may be possible to accelerate the pace slightly.
      Clause 3 and amendments Nos. 11 and 12 relate to blacklists. We are far from certain that it is necessary to legislate on blacklists, but we are not reopening the issue of principle. However, a point in this regard arose in Committee which is embodied in the amendments.
      If the amendments were agreed to, one of the two possible offences in connection with blacklists would be removed. As the Minister will no doubt wish to say when he replies, the clause is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have not seen the details of what is to be proposed and they have not peen consulted upon. However, the amendments allow me to outline some of our concerns.
      The amendments would confine an offence to the use of blacklists by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment. They would remove the offence of compilation of blacklists, for which there are at least three reasons.
      First, as I said in Committee—in our haste to make progress, the Minister did not respond—it is possible for the compilation to take place outwith the jurisdiction altogether. For example, an agency in, for example, the United States, where the practice of union busting is a little more prevalent, might compile the list and post it on the internet. It is unclear whether an offence would then take place in the United Kingdom. Where that might take place is one of my concerns. On the other hand, the use of the blacklist in relation to UK legislation would be an offence which was tied to UK employees and would take place in the UK.
      Secondly, lists could be compiled for a number of reasons, which may or may not, within the Government's terms, be malicious. One could compile a list at random. One could compile a list of trade unionists because one liked them or even wished to give preference to them rather than to discriminate against them. [Interruption.]
      I am interested in the comments made from a sedentary position by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). I am sorry that he is not addressing himself to the details of the point. It is important that we get the matter right. We are not contesting the principle; we are concerned that the legislation should be viable.
      My third consideration relates to what might be termed the possession of a list. There is no provision in the Bill for the mere possession of a list to be an offence, nor am I canvassing for that. But the point at which the compilation is complete is a matter of interest. I can understand that a list which has been compiled with the
      984
      intention of being used to bust a union might be of concern to the Government, but what would happen if the list was in the process of compilation? When would we know whether it had been completed? When would we be able to say that it was definitely a list for the purposes of being used by employers or employment agencies for the purposes of recruitment? Those are legalistic points, but they have some merit.
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the hon. Gentleman not simply tell the truth? The truth is that the Tories favour blacklists.
      Mr. Boswell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting—because if he is I am sure he will want to reconsider—
      Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is the hon. Gentleman arguing for them?
      Mr. Boswell: The argument is simply about whether the offence that the Government are proposing should be confined to the use of blacklists.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend will remember the debate we had in Committee. The Bill does not ban blacklists: it bans lists of trade unionists. Clause 22 requires the Secretary of State to have a list of trade unionists to appoint to the Central Arbitration Committee.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. The essential point is that, if the Government want to go down that road, they can probably insist on banning lists or blacklists, but it may be speculative to create a separate offence of compilation, however well secured by preparation of regulations and consultation on them and by the affirmative resolution procedure; and I cannot see that it is necessary. If there is a problem, it consists in the use of those lists for the purposes of employment, and I think that that is what the offence should be.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I am puzzled about what the Conservatives are contriving to do, because on three separate occasions in the past 10 years I have tried to make blacklisting an offence and on each of those occasions the Conservative Government used their majority to defeat those aims. Now we hear that the Conservatives do not support blacklisting: they merely want to ensure that the Bill is amended to prohibit the use of a list instead of the compilation of a list. That is an extraordinary proposition. Those of us who are against blacklisting—the Tories apparently include themselves in that—want such lists to be neither compiled nor used. They cannot be used if they are not compiled.
      If a group of people in another country compile a list and put it on the net, that is obviously not within our jurisdiction. However, we can deal with offences within our jurisdiction and take action against those who compile or use such lists in this country.
      Amendment No. 12 is plain silly, because it would prevent trade unions from making a list of members to ask them if they want insurance on loans, credit cards or holiday bargains. What is the sense in that?

      985
      I am glad to see this clause in the Bill. I have been campaigning on the issue for many years. In 1989, when I proposed this measure for inclusion in an Employment Bill, the Tories rejected it. That night, 170 hon. Members supported it, including my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I am pleased that this measure will go through the House on this occasion.
      Mr. Fabricant: I support the amendments because I believe that the days of the Economic League in the 1980s are past. I also believe that the Bill, as it stands, is unenforceable. 0I suspect that the Minister believes that too. Clause 3(2) says:
      "The Secretary of State may make regulations".
      It says not "will" make, but "may" make regulations. The Secretary of State knows that, if he were to make such regulations, they would be unenforceable.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, when is a list a list? When is a list compiled, and when it is merely half completed or fully completed? There is no clarity in the law. Is a series of post-it notes a list?
      Mr. Ian Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fabricant: I shall not give way, because it is in the interests of the House that I finish my speech relatively quickly, and interventions take time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the House up, far be it from me to prevent him.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Stewart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
      My point is very clear and very simple. There is a dissuasive element in the Bill in relation to the compilation of blacklists, but the hon. Gentleman is right that a decision on whether a list is just a list or a blacklist must come after the list has been compiled. That dissuasive element must clearly be in place, so that people know that it is not right to do it in the first place.
      Mr. Fabricant: I do not think that the purpose of law is to influence opinion; I think that it is to legislate. I am saying that clause 3 is a bad clause because it is unenforceable in many ways. I think that it will be challenged in the courts, and I do not think that the question of when a list is a list is at all clear.
      In fact, the whole clause is unnecessary in any case. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was right to claim that she had consistently argued against blacklists. She may remember that on 12 April 1988 she presented a ten-minute Bill
      "to give persons a right of access to any information held by any organisation for the purpose of blacklisting."
      I think that that was an excellent idea.
      We expected today, when a statement was made on the modernisation of government, to hear when there would be a freedom of information Bill, but nothing was said. Such a Bill would have given further access not only to blacklists held by individuals, but to blacklists that may well be held by the Government in relation to certain people. Why is there no such thing as a freedom of information Bill? What are the Government frightened of?
      986
      I believe that clause 3 is impossible in terms of legislation, and impossible to maintain in a court of law. I think that the amendment, which simply suggests that use of a blacklist should be deterred, is far more useful and sensible than the provisions in the Bill; and, as I have said, it is clear from the words "may make regulations" that the Secretary of State accepts my argument.
      Mr. Byers: For the record, the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) is right to say that clause 3(2) gives the Secretary of State a power which he may exercise, and I certainly intend to exercise that power if I stay in my post long enough. To be blacklisted from employment—to be unable to work in one's profession or trade—simply because of trade union membership or activity is entirely unacceptable, and many of my hon. Friends have fought and campaigned for years for the day when, through legislation, we can ensure that such blacklisting is no more. That is exactly what clause 3 does, but we have to do this by way of regulation. I look forward to the time when we can debate in the House regulations that will, in detail, introduce the prohibition. There can be no place, in the last year of the century, for people being blacklisted for trade union membership.
      The hon. Member for Lichfield spoke of points of law. There is a legal position underpinning the legislation, but we also believe that there is a responsibility in legislation to reflect public opinion. The message is simple. We do not believe that we should tolerate the keeping, the compiling or the use of lists that can be used to deny people work and the opportunity to earn their living, which is what blacklisting effectively does.
      Mr. Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Byers: No. We have heard many exchanges this evening; some have been significant, many trivial in the extreme, but the time has now come to make some progress.
      Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would ensure that it would no longer be a criminal offence to compile a list of people relating to their trade union activities. We believe that that should be a criminal offence. We also believe that it should be a criminal offence to use such a list for the purpose of blacklisting individuals.
      With respect to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), there is no earthly reason why compilation should not be an offence. I agree with some of my hon. Friends that it is more of a wrecking amendment than one that seeks to deal with the issue of individuals being blacklisted from work. That is why I will invite the House to resist the two amendments.
      On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Daventry, it is true that compilation outside the UK will not be subject to our legislation; it is like any other area of law. It is a loophole, but one which it is not within our power to control. I regret that, but that is the reality. However, it is no reason not to move forward with clause 3.
      The hon. Member for Daventry says that lists could be held for a number of reasons, but then fails to outline what those reasons might be in the context of clause 3.
      Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Byers: No; I am not giving way.

      987
      Our view is that it is inappropriate to give people a power to compile a list for the purposes that are outlined in clause 3. One must ask why people need to possess such a list if they are not going to use it for purposes that we believe are wholly unacceptable.
      I had hoped that even the Conservative party in 1999 would support measures to stop blacklisting. I regret that it is unable to do that and that its two amendments seek to water down clause 3. I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, will reconsider the matter, look carefully at the effects of his amendments and agree that it is far better to keep the robust approach in clause 3 than to water it down.
      Mr. Boswell: I suppose that the Secretary of State might expect me to defer to his superior legal knowledge in the matter, but with respect, I do not think that he has entirely addressed himself to the legal difficulties that I sought to outline, other than to concede that some of them were valid because we could not control the compilation of lists outside our jurisdiction.
      I also noticed that the Secretary of State inserted into the various tests what he described at one point as keeping a list and at another point as possessing a list; it is not clear whether he has taken the relevant powers under the clause, or whether keeping or possessing a list is subsumed under the use of a list. It will be a matter of some concern if people who have a list in their possession—however they have come by it; perhaps they have inherited it from a parent—are guilty of a criminal offence even if they have never used it or intended to use it.
      Nevertheless, having raised those points and invited the Secretary of State to reconsider them in preparing his regulations, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      NOTICE RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL ACTION
      Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 2, leave out from beginning of line 22 to end of line 17 on page 3 and insert—
      '. Schedule (Ballots and notices) shall have effect.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 5, page 3, line 17, after 'union', insert
      '(or, if acting together, unions)'.
      Government new schedule 1.
      Government amendment No. 52.
      Mr. Byers: I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13.
      I will be brief but, obviously, in reply to the debate, I will try to answer any questions that might be raised. However, I hope that we can make progress because some important groups of amendments are coming up, on which hon. Members want to speak.
      988
      The Government have made it clear that they intend to retain the key elements of the law on industrial action. Nothing in the Bill or in the amendments infringes that principle. For example, ballots will still be held, notices must still be given and secondary action will remain unlawful. However, by common consent, current law on industrial action and, in particular, on balloting is extremely complex. In some cases, the burdens arising from the present procedures serve no useful purpose in extending democratic accountability within unions; nor do they always help employers to resolve a dispute or to mitigate the consequences of action.
      Our amendments seek to make the situation easier for trade unions and employers. Our approach will ensure that both parties can concentrate on resolving a dispute, rather than being bogged down in detailed discussions about whether the complexity of the present procedures has been followed in all its forms. A number of proposals achieve those ends. They are relatively technical, and I hope that the House will be able to agree with them in that spirit. However, I will reply to any questions that hon. Members may have.
      I invite the House to resist amendment No. 13. I believe that the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) tabled it in a genuine spirit to try to foster good industrial relations. However, there are difficulties. The existing procedures, and those in new schedule 1, require trade unions to ballot independently. It is important that that should be continued. However, there is nothing to prevent trade unions from voluntarily doing that in a concerted way, so that ballots can be held at roughly the same time, and so that results can be declared and employers informed. There is much merit in that joint and co-operative approach, which we commend as good practice. However, we are not convinced that adopting the rather restrictive approach suggested in amendment No. 13 would be in the best interests of good industrial relations.
      Following that brief explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Daventry will feel able to withdraw amendment No. 13, and agree that our proposals will address some of the present complexities and ensure that we can make good progress in supporting good industrial relations.
      Mr. Boswell: The Secretary of State correctly interpreted my intentions in relation to amendment No. 13, which I will not press in light of what he has said. However, I re-emphasise that it is important for unions to work together whenever possible. It will look odd if one union has not applied the four-weeks rule and another has. Circumstances could arise where that was the case.
      New schedule 1 appears to be broadly acceptable. In certain respects—particularly the notice provisions—it seems positively sensible to enable unions to comply with a court order or an agreement with the employers to suspend the period. I wish to refer to proposed paragraph (2)(bb) because I simply do not understand what it means. Perhaps the Secretary of State could drop me a line about that.
      Could the Secretary of State confirm that the intention is that, on the voting paper,
      "action short of a strike"
      should include an overtime ban and a call-out ban? Reference has been made to consideration in due course to a proposal to reduce the period of protection to four weeks. We would not wish to concede that at this stage.

      989
      On inducement, the new schedule does not make clear the circumstances that are envisaged. I am not sure whether a member of a union who does not join in a ballot would be protected. I think that he would be for the protected period, but not thereafter. Perhaps the Secretary of State can look into that and respond in due course. Like the rest of the schedule, it may well be better addressed by those who brief us, and they may need a little more time to look at the implications. If they do, further amendments could be considered in another place.
      12 midnight
      Mr. Byers: I shall try to respond briefly to the specific issues that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman is right about overtime and call-out bans; they are included in action short of strike action. He also mentioned the health warning on the ballot paper, and I can confirm that we shall ensure that the attention of individual members is drawn to the effects of the measures—a point that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
      As for non-balloted members being invited to take industrial action, the alteration is designed to deal with individuals who may have changed jobs in the period between the ballot and the taking of the action.
      I think that those were the three main issues raised by the hon. Member for Daventry. If there are any others, I shall respond to them in writing.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11

      RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED
      Mr. Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 5, line 38, at end insert—
      '(1A) This section shall not apply to an employer who shows that to comply with it would conflict with his religious beliefs.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 41, in clause 12, page 6, line 33, at end insert
      'but such a complaint shall not succeed if the employer can show that he was unable to comply as a consequence of his religious conscience.'.
      No. 39, in schedule 1, page 26, line 23, after "22', insert
      'except for reasons of religious conscience.
      Mr. Brady: In view of the lateness of the hour, I shall endeavour to be brief. However, I would not wish any hon. Member to draw an inference from that that the matter was any the less serious. I tabled the amendment with particular regard to the rights of some of my constituents who are members of the Plymouth Brethren. Many other hon. Members also represent communities of Plymouth Brethren in different parts of the country.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and I spoke in support of amendments that would have protected the freedom of members of the Plymouth Brethren to practise their religion in the way that they believe is appropriate and right, and which they have followed for some 150 years in this country.
      990
      During that time, members of the brethren have benefited from the religious freedom and tolerance of which many of us are proud. They are a decent, God-fearing group of people who seek to live their lives strictly according to holy scripture. I note that some Labour Members seem to find that amusing. I find that rather disappointing; I regard the matter as having the gravest significance. Members of the Plymouth Brethren and other religious communities will be disappointed by the reaction of the Labour Members who find what I am saying amusing.
      Mr. John Maxton: It will not make the slightest difference to any Member of the House of Commons what the Plymouth Brethren thinks of us, because its members never vote in general elections.
      Mr. Brady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is important, because to some hon. Members, it matters what people in our country are free to do, regardless of their ability to reward either individual Members or political parties with their votes. I take pride in the fact that I am speaking for a group of people who do not participate directly in the political process. That is all the more reason why they need Members of Parliament who are prepared to speak for their interests.
      I do not share the brethren's religious beliefs—and I do not wish to be diverted by Labour Members who clearly do not take religious freedom and tolerance seriously. It is disappointing, and embarrassing for the House, that some Members take that stance. However, I shall return to my main point.
      The Plymouth Brethren is a fairly small community, but its members run 1,200 businesses, mainly small ones, which employ 6,500 people, all but 2,000 of whom are members of the brethren. In general, they are among the best of employers, and I have heard no one question that assertion. In the conduct of their businesses, and in the relations between employer and employee, they are beyond reproach.
      The Plymouth Brethren's interpretation of scripture is that the master-servant relationship is God-given. It is not appropriate, therefore, for any organisation to intervene in that relationship.
      Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend fear that some people may claim to be members of the Plymouth Brethren in order to extricate themselves from the Bill's provisions?
      Mr. Brady: No. Members of the Plymouth Brethren live a particular type of life. My hon. Friend's point could be made on virtually any aspect of the Bill. Every other part of it can be established before an industrial tribunal, and I cannot see why the validity of someone's claim to be a member of a particular religious community cannot come into the same category.
      The Plymouth Brethren's religious beliefs mean that its members do not think it appropriate for trade unions or trade or employers associations to intervene in the relationship between master and servant. That has important implications for the recognition aspects of the Bill and for representation in grievance hearings.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has pointed out that the Plymouth Brethren does not participate in the political process. That is no reason why

      991
      we should not seek to defend its freedom. This is not a party political matter. When it was debated in Standing Committee, Labour Members gave a more mature response than some of them have tonight. This is a fundamental matter of religious freedom and tolerance. Earlier debates have related to tolerance for other groups, and I cannot see why the Plymouth Brethren should be treated with any less respect, though others clearly take a different view.
      The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), said in Committee that the Plymouth Brethren, of which he has had some experience in his constituency, is
      "a religious community beyond reproach".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 25 February 1999; c. 164.]
      He said that he had some difficulty understanding the community's position, and that difficulty goes to the heart of the matter. Many of us, on both sides, may find it difficult to understand the position adopted by the Plymouth Brethren. Perhaps none of us chooses to live as its members do. However, that does not make their choices any less valid, and it does not constitute a reason not to tolerate their religious views, or not to give them the freedom that we enjoy.
      The Minister of State also said that the accompanying person in a grievance procedure would be there to advise and support, not to intervene or answer questions. However, the Bill says, in clause 11(2)(b) and (c) that the person is
      "permitted to address the hearing"
      and
      "is to be permitted to confer"
      during the hearing.
      The Bill clearly intervenes in the relationship between master and servant, and between employer and employee. The amendment is of the utmost importance because it goes to the heart of the religious freedom and tolerance for which our country is known and in which we—at least, the Conservatives—believe. I hope for a constructive response from the Minister.
      Mr. Bercow: I am pleased to rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). In so doing, I say at the outset that I am genuinely saddened and shocked by the reaction of a number of Labour Members. In particular, it is a source of regret to me and—I suspect—several others that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who is a long- serving Member of Parliament and someone who sits on the Chairmen's Panel on behalf of Members of this House, should behave with such gross disrespect to a community of people who wish to defend and uphold their right to live their lives in the way that they think fit. If the hon. Gentleman does not have the nous to appreciate that he has behaved contemptibly, that says more about him than it does about the Conservative Opposition or members of the Plymouth Brethren. The same goes for other Labour Members, many of whom are in a tired and emotional state tonight. If they think such behaviour is funny or clever, or that it elevates them to a higher plane than the people on whom they sit in judgment, it is lamentable. Tolerance is not about putting up with people of whom or activities of which one
      992
      approves: it is about putting up with activities one dislikes and people of whom one disapproves or whom one does not understand. If right hon. and hon. Members are not open to that blindingly obvious point, it is very regrettable.
      Members of the Plymouth Brethren, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West pointed out, are God-fearing people. There are members of the Plymouth Brethren in many constituencies and at least 50 in my constituency. I know that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, to whom we wish a speedy recovery, has had several meetings with members of the brethren over many months. He was good enough to say in Committee that they had always made their case effectively and courteously to him.
      Mr. Byers indicated assent.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's assent to that point. The Minister of State added in Committee that he wished that other people who had come to see him had been as courteous. They had not, and the fact that a member of the Chairmen's Panel does not have the manners to listen to the views of the Plymouth Brethren is a sad commentary indeed.
      Members of the Plymouth Brethren made it clear that nothing can interfere with the sanctity of the Lord's supper in the conduct of their lives. They have no personal hostility to trade unions or to members of trade unions, but because of their religious convictions, they do not recognise trade unions and, in the running of their businesses, they are not willing to accept the presence of union officials in the circumstances provided for in the Bill. In a letter of 22 February to the Minister of State, the members of the brethren made it clear that they had no intention of derailing the Bill: they simply sought an exemption from it.
      The estimable commentary on the European convention on human rights by Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick states that it contains a strong affirmation of the power and even the duty to protect manifestations of religious belief. The Human Rights Act 1998 underlines the importance of respecting individual human rights, including the entitlement to practise one's religious beliefs. If Ministers do not accept the amendments, will they explain to the House, the brethren and the country why they do not accept them? If Ministers will not accept the amendments, by what practical means do they intend to safeguard the interests and the freedoms of the Plymouth Brethren?
      At least one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson), said in Committee that he hoped that the Minister of State would have some kind and helpful words to meet the interests of the community. Though he endeavoured to do so, he did not offer reassurance. I hope that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry will tonight, and that he will reaffirm his respect for communities whose practices he does not share and with whose beliefs he disagrees. If he does, he will signally distinguish himself from several of his hon. Friends.
      12.15 am
      Mr. Wills: As hon. Members who served on the Committee, particularly the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Buckingham

      993
      (Mr. Bercow) know, we discussed the Plymouth Brethren and matters of religious conscience at length. The Government made clear our respect for all those with religious consciences or who believe in religious practices.
      The Department of Trade and Industry has had numerous contacts with members of the brethren. Officials met them before the Committee and again last week to discuss their concerns. I understand that many of the employees under discussion are members of the brethren and would therefore not wish to be accompanied by trade union officials at disciplinary or grievance hearings. It is therefore in practice most unlikely that one of the very few brethren businesses—I think that we are talking about some 35 in all—with more than 20 employees would face an application for membership that passes the test that we have set. In the unlikely event of such an application, the Central Arbitration Committee would no doubt take account, subject to the law, of the constraints imposed on the employer by religious conscience.
      I do not doubt that the amendments are well meant, but they raise the difficult issue of whether workers' rights under law can or should be curtailed because of an employer's religious beliefs. Of course the Government respect religious freedoms, but we also respect the right to freedom of association and to form and join trade unions. Both those freedoms are enshrined in the European convention on human rights, so we face a conflict between two fundamental principles.
      I have no reason to doubt that members of the brethren are good employers. We do not underestimate the sincerity of their beliefs. However, as my right hon. Friend the sadly missed Minister of State made clear in Committee on 25 February, the Government cannot accept that the religious freedom of employers, who are, after all, free to choose whether to employ others and how to arrange their affairs, should take precedence over the rights of individuals to form and join trade unions for the protection of their interests. The Government cannot agree that workers should be deprived of their statutory rights to recognition or to be accompanied at grievance and disciplinary hearings, which are fundamental human rights, because of the religious beliefs of their employers. Moreover, there must be a danger that any religious exemption would be a loophole through which unscrupulous employers would seek to exploit the Bill.
      I repeat that the beliefs of the brethren are sincerely held. The Bill could pose some real problems for the members. I listened carefully to what has been said today and in Committee. I undertook then to continue to look at these issues carefully and to consider whether we can reasonably do anything to take account of the situation of the brethren without undermining the basic principles of the Bill. I undertake to continue so to consider.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Wills: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have discussed this at great length, and I want to come to the nub of my remarks.
      Unfortunately, we cannot accept the amendments for the same reasons that we could not accept them in Committee. To do so would put at risk fundamental freedoms and rights of individual workers. However, as I
      994
      have said, we shall continue to think further about the matter and we will of course examine any further proposals that the brethren may care to put to us. I hope that, in the light of my remarks and reassurances, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Brady: I thank the Under-Secretary for his courteous and thoughtful response, which was in marked contrast to the comments of some Government Members. I am grateful for his conduct on the matter, as I am for the thoughtful response from the Minister of State. However, I cannot accept the arguments that the Under-Secretary makes. Although a very small number of businesses may be affected, the sincerity of the religious principle is not any the less real.
      The question of recognition procedures may affect very few employees, but for grievance procedures there is no minimum threshold for employee numbers. I do not believe that there is any genuine conflict between articles 9 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. There is no problem in the amendments and the right to free association and to membership of a trade union is not in question. It is simply that a question is posed in certain circumstances in relation to recognition proceedings. There is no contravention of the convention.
      I think that I heard the Minister say that the brethren were free to employ whom they saw fit, which is perhaps an invitation to them not to employ people who are not brethren, which would be an interesting response.
      I am deeply disappointed that the Minister has not felt it possible to go further on behalf of the Government and that the best that he could offer was respect for, not tolerance of, religious beliefs. That really is not good enough. Given the lateness of the hour, I reluctantly do not intend to press the matter to a vote, but I feel deeply aggrieved, as will many of my constituents, that more progress has not been made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Brady: I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 6, line 6, at end insert
      '(d) is to be permitted to speak only on matters which are directly relevant to the subject of the hearing'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 4, in page 6, line 9, at end insert
      ', provided that he is a full—time official.'.
      No. 50, in clause 13, page 7, line 33, at end insert—
      '(6) In the application of subsections (1)b and 3(b) above, where a worker seeks to accompany another worker not of the same employer, the employer of the accompanying worker shall be entitled to require that worker to take unpaid leave while absent from their place of work during the relevant period or periods.'.
      Mr. Brady: The amendments relate to a tighter definition of the circumstances at a disciplinary or grievance hearing. They seek to tighten up the circumstances within which—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These are all serious amendments and the House must listen to the debate.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Buckingham

      995
      (Mr. Bercow), the pompous person, called a name across to one of my hon. Friends which was quite uncalled for. He should withdraw it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not hear anything called across the Chamber and I suggest that we return to the amendment in hand.
      Mr. Brady: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to move matters forward for the benefit of the House, but with little co-operation from Labour Members, it must be noted. It is important that the circumstances in which a person accompanying someone at a disciplinary or grievance hearing can act—in what ways and on what matters that person can speak—should be properly defined. The amendments would define the principle of the matter, in a way that would not affect the nature of the Bill but would clearly limit the activities of trade unions in this context to proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.
      Mr. Boswell: I rise to comment on my amendment No. 4. The concern underlying it has been expressed by the Engineering Employers Federation and others. It is that persons may be brought along to a disciplinary or grievance hearing who may be inappropriate for the case in point.
      I want to confine representation outwith the firm to full-time union officials, because concern has been expressed to us that unless representation is thus tied down, it might include, for example, a shop steward from a rival firm, who might be a trade union official but whose presence might prove difficult in the circumstances. I invite the Government to consider that matter further.
      Mr. Wills: In respect of amendment No. 4, it appears that despite the fact that a Conservative Government enshrined in law the right to belong to a union of one's choice, the Opposition seem unable to accept the logical consequence: that trade union representatives should be allowed to represent their members in crucial matters. We see no compelling reason why that right should be denied to union members.
      Presumably, if Conservative Members had had more time, they might have argued that employers would not feel free to discuss a sensitive subject before an outsider—perhaps someone employed by a competitor. There is no force in that argument; it is highly improbable that genuine issues of commercial confidentiality would arise and such issues would have to be revealed if the event led to a tribunal. The amendment is unnecessary and unacceptable; it would limit an important right and I hope that hon. Members will withdraw it.
      Amendment No. 44 would qualify and narrow the range of functions that the accompanying person may perform when fulfilling that role. We should not lose sight of the purpose of that right; it will enable vulnerable workers to have support and a helping hand in presenting their case cogently and effectively when that might otherwise be impossible. There is no reason to limit the scope of the clause in that way.
      Amendment No. 50 covers situations in which the accompanying person is not employed by the same employer as the worker who is being accompanied.
      996
      Conservative Members want to limit the costs incurred by the accompanying person's employer. I shall put their minds at rest: the measure will not be a burden on employers. Several options are available to them and the arrangements that we have in hand adequately deal with the issue. The Bill will involve minimal disruption to third party employers; it does not require such employers to give paid leave. I see no reason for qualifying that right further. The amendment is as unnecessary as the others in the group and I hope that they will not be pressed.
      Mr. Brady: I am disappointed in that response, but given the lateness of the hour, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 12

      COMPLAINT TO EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
      Amendment made: No. 166, in page 7, line 9, at end insert—
      '() The limit in section 227(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (maximum amount of week's pay) shall apply for the purposes of subsection (3) above.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

    Clause 13

      DETRIMENT AND DISMISSAL
      Amendment made: No. 53, in page 7, line 30, at end insert—
      '() Sections 128 to 132 of that Act (interim relief) shall apply in relation to dismissal for the reason specified in subsection (3)(a) or (b) above as they apply in relation to dismissal for a reason specified in section 128(1)(b) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

    Clause 17

      AGREEMENT TO EXCLUDE DISMISSAL RIGHTS
      Amendments made: No. 54, in page 9, line 12, leave out '(4)' and insert '(5)'.
      No. 55, in page 9, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
      '(4) In section 23 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, for subsection (4) there shall be substituted—
      "(4) This section does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of—

      (a) Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), or

      (b) Part XI of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),

      except where in relation to Northern Ireland the person in question is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of Article 240 of that Order (fixed term contracts), Part XI does not apply to the dismissal."
      (5) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Tax Credits Act 1999, for sub-paragraph (3) there shall be substituted
      "(3) This paragraph does not apply where the detriment in question amounts to dismissal within the meaning of—

      (a) Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (unfair dismissal), or

      (b) Part XI of the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (corresponding provision for Northern Ireland),

      997
      except where in relation to Northern Ireland the employee is dismissed in circumstances in which, by virtue of Article 240 of that Order (fixed term contracts), Part XI does not apply to the dismissal."'.—[Mr. Wills.]

    Clause 20

      CODE OF PRACTICE: SUPPLEMENTAL
      Amendment made: No. 57, in page 11, leave out lines 13 to 18 and insert—
      '() If the draft code is approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the code in the form of the draft.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

    Clause 23

      CAC: PROCEEDINGS
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 13, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '(5) If—

      (a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and

      (b) a majority of the panel have the same opinion,

      the question shall be decided according to that opinion.
      (5A) If—

      (a) a panel cannot reach a unanimous decision on a question arising before it, and

      (b) a majority of the panel do not have the same opinion,

      the chairman of the panel shall decide the question acting with the full powers of an umpire or, in Scotland, an oversman.'—[Mr. Wills.]
      Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Pope.]
      Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
      That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rural public passenger transport for 1999–2000 (HC 283), which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (ENGLAND)
      That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 45) (Metropolitan Railway Passenger Services Grant 1999–2000) (HC 305), which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
      LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
      That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rail services in the Strathclyde Passenger Transport Area, which was laid before this House on 18th March, be approved.
      BROADCASTING
      That the draft Limit in Relation to Licences to Provide Radio Multiplex Services Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
      ROAD TRAFFIC
      That the Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) (Wales) Order 1999, dated 9th March 1999, which was laid before this House on 10th March, be approved.
      PRISONS
      That the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Amendment) Order 1999 (S.I., 1999, No. 525), dated 3rd March 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd March, be approved.
      That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
      Question agreed to.

    Motor Cycling
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    12.30 am
    Mr. Stephen Pound: I had presumed that, as I rose to my feet, most hon. Members would choose to leave the Chamber, but I have not been quite as disappointed as I feared I would be. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the important subject of motor cycling as part of an integrated transport strategy. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me when I say that the words "motor cycle" are interchangeable with "powered two-wheelers", as I mean no prejudice against riders of scooters—or sewing machines, as we used to call them.
    More than most groups in society, motor cyclists are victims of image. Many of us were brought up seeing, and have never quite escaped from, the image of Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" riding his Triumph Bonneville 750, but some us have striven to see beyond the stereotype of the biker, because we have suffered from that stereotypical view of bikers and biking. Motor cycling—the use of powered two-wheelers—is not about speed, image, or leather. It is not necessarily about laying the needle against the pin, red-lining it and getting your knee down—practices of which I know, or at least remember, little. Motor cycling is now an informed, responsible and mature choice.
    Like many people in this country, I was delighted in February 1997 to read the then Labour Opposition's policy document entitled, somewhat infelicitously, "Bike to Basics". The author of that document was at that time shadow Transport Minister, and is now the Minister for Transport in London. I was delighted to read her pledge that motor cycling would be at the heart of the national transport agenda. Nothing that has happened since then has disappointed me. Like many bikers, I welcome chapter 3 of "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in July 1998, which spoke about the policies that the Government are introducing for powered two-wheelers. I and many of my colleagues welcome what has been done, but, sadly—perhaps not surprisingly—we look for more.
    We look for some indication from the Government that local authorities will be persuaded, cajoled or possibly even nudged in the direction of including within the five-year transport plans a motor cycling strategy along the lines pioneered by the former Avon county council. We look for such things as secure parking at modal interchange points, in line with the transport White Paper, and for infrastructure improvements, because the riders of powered two-wheelers suffer disproportionately from problems of potholes, loose gravel, diesel spillage and poor road surfaces. Powered two-wheeler exemption from local road user charging and restrictions on bus lanes and higher occupancy vehicle lanes would also be greatly appreciated, as would permission for powered two-wheelers to use the advance stop lines that have proved so successful with pedal cyclists. Powered two-wheeler access to urban centre clear zones would also be appreciated—where that has been tested, it has not proved to be a problem.
    1000
    I am not submitting a shopping list, but simply asking for recognition. There are 629,000 registered motor cycles in the United Kingdom, and motor cyclists—many of whom are in the Chamber tonight, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears)—contribute, not personally but collectively, £75 million per annum to the Exchequer through fuel and vehicle excise duty. Sadly, some people still believe that more bikes will lead to more accidents. In 1996, 440 riders of powered two-wheelers were killed and 22,604 riders were injured on British roads. However, before people gain the mistaken impression that this is a lethal mode of transport, I must inform the House that powered two-wheelers are the only group to have met the year 2000 safety target. In fact, a reduction of 62.5 per cent. against a target of minus 40 per cent. was achieved by 1997 using the 1981–85 baseline figures.
    Riders and the industry are responsible. In March 1998, Honda introduced the Honda motor cycle appreciation course, and 6,000 students have been trained to date by the 75 ex-police instructors who operate that excellent course. Motor cycling is about freedom, but it is also environmentally friendly and fuel efficient, and eases congestion. Bikers may be serious, by biking is fun. Anyone who has swooped like a swallow around the A roads of our nation will know the joy of motor cycling.
    I think that motor cycling's time has come. It is a mode of transport for the 21st century. I welcome the commitment to the industry that the Government have made collectively and that the Minister has made personally. I am grateful for this opportunity tonight to speak for a few moments about a subject that means a great deal to me and to many others in this country. I apologise for the discourtesy of not apprising you of this sooner, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall now conclude to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Salford to make an informed contribution to the debate.
    12.36 am
    Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) has secured tonight's Adjournment debate, and I am very grateful to him for allowing me to contribute.
    Unlike my hon. Friend, I am a relative newcomer to biking, having passed my test only two years ago as a present to myself on my 40th birthday. I have just bought my first big bike—at least, it is a very big bike to me. As my hon. Friend said, motor cycling can help to cut congestion in urban areas and reduce pollution, and it is environmentally friendly. At long last, we have a Government who are prepared to acknowledge the role that motor bikes can play in our transport system.
    If we are to encourage more people to take to two wheels, we must take action to make their bikes more secure and to reduce bike theft. I know what that feels like, because it has happened to me: my motor bike was stolen. Having a motor bike stolen is like losing a best friend; it is devastating. Preventing that crime in the first place must be a top priority.
    As my hon. Friend said, there are thousands of motor cycle owners in this country. In fact, 25,000 motor bikes are stolen every year, but the recovery rate is only 14 per cent.—a mere 3,500 bikes are recovered each year. In the past three years, 52,000 motor bikes have been reported stolen and not been recovered. We should contrast that

    1001
    with the recovery rate for stolen cars. About 400,000 cars are stolen every year in England and Wales, but the overall recovery rate is 65 per cent. Something like 260,000 stolen cars are recovered every year, but the recovery rate for stolen bikes is much lower.
    Vehicle crime costs this country about £3 billion a year in total; so, cutting motor cycle theft not only makes good economic sense, but will reduce the distress and heartache caused to many riders who lose their pride and joy. The Home Office has set a tough target of reducing vehicle crime by 30 per cent. over the next three years, and cutting motor cycle theft would assist it enormously in that endeavour.
    I can offer a few suggestions for reducing motor cycle theft. First, all motor bikes are required to have engine and chassis numbers that tally with the vehicle registration documents. We must ensure that that requirement applies to off-road and racing bikes also, because a whole industry is devoted to stealing, stripping, ringing, selling and shipping bikes abroad. We must have better identification of bikes in this country. In America, the Vehicle Theft Law Enforcement Act 1984 requires manufacturers to mark 12 different components of the motor cycle with identification, which not only helps to deter theft, but enables the police to identify the owners when their property is recovered.
    My second suggestion is that more motor cycles should have built-in alarm systems fitted at source. We expect that of cars in this day and age, but bike manufacturers have been appallingly slow in introducing them for motor bikes. I understand that Kawasaki have just produced two bikes with built-in alarm systems, and I want the Government to encourage manufacturers to do much more.
    The third and, perhaps, the most important point is the need for secure parking. About 80 per cent. of motor cyclists say that parking is the most important issue in deciding whether to use their bikes.
    Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a welcome fact that a first Conservative Member, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), has joined the debate? So far, several Labour Members and two Liberal Democrat Members have been present to support this Adjournment debate—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to study the nature of Adjournment debates.
    Ms Blears: I am aware that the hon. Member for New Forest, East has a personal interest in motor cycling.
    Provision of secure parking is important, because many bikes are stolen by being manhandled into vans. Opportunist thieves can steal a locked bike in seconds. I am delighted that, in our document "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", the Government have said that, in drawing up local transport plans, local authorities should consider specific measures to assist motor cyclists, such as secure parking at public transport interchange sites.
    I know that many local authorities, with the Government's backing, are now embarking on positive measures to provide secure anchorage points at the
    1002
    kerbside or by using hoops and rails. Several experiments in Coventry and Bristol have provided effective low-cost schemes utilising areas of pedestrianised roads where railings have been erected to which people can lock their bikes. That costs next to nothing, but provides a tremendous degree of security.
    The Motor Cycle Industry Association has produced excellent guidelines about the location, construction and value for money of various initiatives. I do not have the time to describe all of them now, but there are three particularly welcome pieces of advice. The first, which relates to location, says, "Please do not place the secure parking facilities on steep gradients." As a relatively short rider, I appreciate that.
    The second piece of advice is that sites chosen should not be susceptible to environmental disadvantage such as flooding, falling tree sap or bird droppings. Most bikers would appreciate not having bird droppings on their bikes.
    Thirdly, and intriguingly, secure parking should not be situated over gratings and grids where people might drop their keys when they go to move their motor bike.
    It is also important that we try to involve local sponsors in those schemes. We might be able to get insurance companies, motor cycle dealers and local businesses to sponsor secure parking. Now that we have a Government who are positive about motor cycling, we can make progress on that.
    On an entirely separate matter, I make a plea to the Government promptly to consider the automatic ban that applies to learner motor cyclists who do not pass their test within two years of getting their provisional licence. That can put many riders, particularly young people, off motor cycling, and they then turn to cars. That ban is viewed as unfair and discriminatory because it does not apply to car drivers. I know that there has been extensive consultation by the Driving Standards Agency and a number of options were suggested. I am delighted that the Government are reconsidering that issue, because our policies should be directed towards encouraging learner drivers to gain better road skills and training, rather than penalising them and putting them off motor cycling for ever.
    Motor cycling has changed dramatically in recent years. It is becoming respectable with people of all ages and from all walks of life. Respectability will no doubt damage the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, but I, for one, am glad of that respectability. Perhaps there will always be an element of rebellion about riding a motor bike, but, for thousands of people in Britain, motor cycling is an affordable, efficient form of transport. Let us not forget that, for all of us riders, it is great fun, too.
    Motor cycling is exciting; it is exhilarating; it can be done alone or in a group, but, whichever way it is done, it is the best way that I know of to blow away the cobwebs at the end of a long, hard parliamentary week. I hope that many more people will join our ranks and discover the joys of riding. When they do, I hope that they will have the support of the Government, who want to make motor cycling a real part of our transport policy, and will ensure that the voices of riders are heard loud and clear.
    12.44 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson)I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) for raising the issue of motor cycling, for his generosity in affording the opportunity for our hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) to add her particularly informed contribution to the debate, and for raising the memory of Marlon Brando in virtually anything.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North for raising the issue of motor cycling as a component of our integrated transport policy. Even in opposition, we were actively considering the issue, resulting in "Bike to Basics", which helped us to develop informed views.
    In November 1997, following the publication of "Bike to Basics", we consulted widely among motor cycle, environmental and safety groups. We continued and completed that process by publishing our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" in July last year—the first major transport policy statement for 20 years. We believe that motor cycling does have a role to play in integrated transport. Mopeds and motor cycles are a sensible means of transport for many journeys. At the most recent count, there were 626,000 motor cycles in the country.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North referred to the undoubted reduction in motor cycling accidents, but we must still be concerned about the safety of this form of transport because, in 1997, there were 509 motor cycle fatalities. In the same year, motor bikes comprised under 1 per cent. of road traffic, but their riders suffered 14 per cent. of deaths and serious injuries on the roads. We must reduce that appalling toll. We believe that that can best be achieved through better education—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford—and, where necessary, regulation.
    As long ago as 1990, the requirement was introduced for all new learner motor cyclists and moped riders to complete a course of compulsory basic training before being allowed to ride on a road. Many learner motor cyclists at that time were choosing not to take any form of professional tuition. Training has played an important part in reducing the number of casualties, which until 1997, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North pointed out, had been falling. But we must do better.
    We are also addressing licensing. Currently, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said, a provisional licence is valid for two years. After that, if a full licence has not been gained, a year must elapse before a provisional licence can be renewed. As she said, some regard that as unfair and unnecessary. We have consulted widely on the relaxation of the rule, and are reflecting on the responses.
    Safety is, of course, not just about the action of motor cyclists. Motor cyclists are vulnerable to the behaviour of other road users. We have therefore introduced more questions in the driving theory test to increase the awareness of drivers to the vulnerability of others, and from next week, such questions will be added to the theory test for learner lorry and bus drivers. From May, extra driving is being added to the practical test to allow a broader assessment of behaviour toward vulnerable road users, including motor cyclists, on a wider range of roads.
    1004
    Motor cycles must be safe, too; so, after 17 June, all new models must meet the requirements of European whole vehicle type approval, as cars do already. From June 2003, that requirement will apply to all new motor cycles. That move will provide greater assurance that motor cycles that enter this country are constructed to high levels of rider safety.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Salford referred to an increasing need for the security of motor cycles. Whole vehicle type approval will require all new two and three-wheel motor vehicles, except mopeds, to be fitted with a locking system for the steering mechanism, thus preventing unauthorised use of the vehicle. Vehicle identification plates must be fitted, showing such information as the manufacturer's name, a unique vehicle identification number, the whole vehicle type approval number and certain technical information relating to noise output.
    At present, there is no mandatory pan-European requirement for motor cycles to be fitted with alarm systems. However, we would certainly look carefully at any future European proposal to require alarm systems to be fitted.
    Despite the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North that motor cycling is not about speed, speed is a road safety issue that applies to all road users and is probably the single biggest road safety problem. My noble Friend Lord Whitty launched a speed management review last October. Part of that work will be to look at ways of managing vehicle speeds to improve the safety of all road users, including motor cyclists.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North listed some of the dangers experienced by motor cyclists in respect of the state of our roads. Regrettably, we inherited a legacy of under-investment; so, to tackle the backlog of maintenance required to bring our network up to a safe and serviceable condition, we will be spending £2.3 billion on that project over the next three years. In December, we announced an increase in funding for English principal roads, from £80 million in 1998–99 to £113 million for 1999–2000. For other local authority roads, there is an increase of £46 million each year during the next three financial years in the highways maintenance standard spending assessment.
    Local authorities are asked to take account of the contribution that motor cycling can make to their integrated transport plans, and we hope to see some firm proposals. A measure that we floated in the White Paper was secure parking at public transport interchange sites. We do not believe it right to require operators to provide secure parking—that is a matter for them—but local authorities can consider what they can do and we would like to help them.
    Local authorities do not have the power to provide devices for securing motor bikes at the roadside, so we have agreed to support a private peer's Bill, which Lord Rotherwick introduced today in the other place, to enable local authorities to provide such facilities. If a local authority made a soundly based proposal for a pilot project allowing motor cycles to use bus lanes, we would seriously consider it. There are places where that is allowed already, but we need to be able to monitor a project—with data on conditions before and after—so that we can make an informed decision about whether the practice might be adopted as policy.

    1005
    Motor cycles do not have the same implications for congestion as cars—their numbers are few in comparison and they take up less road space—but, on the other hand, we are considering encouraging high vehicle occupancy and a motor bike can carry a maximum of two persons, compared with four for a standard car.
    Charging policy is also an issue. In December, we issued the consultation document "Breaking the Logjam". The consultation period ends tomorrow. We sought views on a general exemption for motor cycles from user charging and the workplace user charging levy. Our provisional view, which is set out in the consultation document, is to leave decisions to local discretion.
    We have been considering the environmental benefits of motor cycles. Emission standards for new motor cycles and mopeds are due to be implemented later this year, but there is still some catching up to be done, especially on carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions. Oil-burning two-stroke machines are also a concern due to particulate emissions.
    1006
    Motor cycle and moped noise levels are also being reduced, and the European Commission is considering future standards for emissions and for noise as part of a scientific review being carried out with the motor cycle industry. The review will establish the technical feasibility of further controls and the costs and benefits of such measures. The proposals that the Commission may make as a result of the review are expected next year.
    It is clear that there are arguments to balance before we can reach conclusions, and, as foreshadowed in the White Paper, we will be setting up an advisory group to look into some of those issues. The group will be chaired by my noble Friend Lord Whitty and we intend that it should meet soon, thereby fulfilling our commitments and our belief that motor cycling—and, indeed, motor cyclists—can be part of an integrated transport policy.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Strategic Defence Review (Joint Initiatives)
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made on implementation of the Strategic Defence Review joint initiatives. [79609]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Joint Rapid Reaction Forces (JRRF) concept builds on the Joint Rapid Deployment Force to provide a pool of highly capable force elements, maintained at high and very high readiness and trained to undertake short notice force projection operations of all kinds. We plan to have this larger, much improved and more balanced capability in place by October 2001. The forces that are needed to meet the JRRF requirement have already been identified and an initial operational capability will be achieved on 1 April 1999.

  The Joint Force Headquarters, which is co-located at Northwood with the Permanent Joint Headquarters in peacetime, will be expanded to enable it to command two simultaneous operations. It will be provided with a dedicated signals squadron drawn from 30 Signal Regiment based at Bramcote in Warwickshire.

  The authority of the Chief of Joint Operations, based at Northwood, will be increased and he will assume greater responsibility for Joint training, standards and exercises. To assist him in this task, a new 2* post, that of Chief of Joint Force Operational Readiness and Training (CJFORT) will be created from 1 April 1999.

  To meet the need for increased deplorability and flexibility in ground-based air defence, a Joint Rapier Training Unit will be formed at RAF Honington on 1 April 1999.

  Recognising that the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons programmes presents a continuing threat to our deployable forces, a Joint NBC Regiment will be established from 1 April 1999, initially at RAF Honington for at least four years. The Regiment will consist of Army personnel mainly from 1st Royal Tank Regiment and RAF personnel from the RAF Regiment. It will also include elements of the Territorial Army and Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

  A Defence NBC HQ will be established at Winterbourne Gunner on 1 April 1999. It will control both the Joint NBC Regiment and the Defence NBC Centre, command responsibilities for which will transfer from the Army Training and Recruiting Agency to RAF Strike Command on 1 April 1999.

  A Joint Doctrine and concepts Centre will be formed, located at Shrivenham. An Implementation Team will form at the beginning of April in London and will establish an Initial Capability at Shrivenham from September this year. It is planned to achieve a full capability from April 2000.
  560

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to continue to call out reservists to support military operations. [79665]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  A new call-out order will be made under Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. This will allow members of the reserve forces to continue to be called out to support operations in Yugoslavia and in the region of Iraq. The order will cease to have effect on 31 March 2000.

  Chemical Defence Programme
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's chemical defence programme. [79669]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The UK's defence programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the Convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. In accordance with the Government's commitment to openness, a copy of the summary which has been provided to the Organisation outlining the UK's chemical defence programme for 1998 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces (Uniforms)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries whose textile companies have been awarded contracts from his Department for armed forces uniforms for the last five years. [77469]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: Textile companies from the following countries have been awarded contracts by my Department for Armed Forces uniforms over the past three years:

  United Kingdom

  Germany

  Belgium

  Italy

  Spain

  Canada.

  Details are available for the last three years only as before this time information on clothing and textiles procurement was not recorded centrally.

  Training Costs
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average cost of training a new recruit in each of the armed services. [78782]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Transmissions (Interference)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of potential interference to military transmissions from the
  561
  development of technology to deliver high-speed internet connections via powerlines; and if he will make a statement. [78868]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence and the Radiocommunications Agency have investigated the potential for such technology to interfere with military communications. The indications are that it has the potential to interfere with military and other users of the radio spectrum. I understand that the Radiocommunications Agency is consulting affected parties and is preparing to place limits on levels of emitted radio interference to safeguard military and other transmissions.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of the bombs dropped on Iraq by British forces in Operation Desert Fox and subsequent military actions over Iraq. [78972]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The costs to date of bombs dropped on Iraq by British forces in Operation Desert Fox and subsequent military actions over Iraq is approximately £4 million.

  Mesothelioma
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have(a) been diagnosed as suffering from and (b) died from mesothelioma in the last five years. [77638]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: There have been no recorded incidents of Service personnel suffering or dying from mesothelioma in the last five years.

  Plutonium Processing
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what capital spending is planned on plutonium processing(a) by his Department and (b) by Hunting Brae in Aldermaston; and if he will make a statement; [79512]

  (2) what environmental impact assessment has been made of the effect of new plutonium reprocessing at Aldermaston; what consultation there has been with the Environment Agency; and if he will make a statement. [79511]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and place copies of my letters in the House of Commons Library.

  RAF Wittering (Air Crash)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the report on safety procedures in respect of the crash of an RAF harrier at RAF Wittering on 31 October 1997. [79509]

  Mr. Spellar
  The RAF Board of Inquiry process into the accident involving a RAF Harrier GR7 on 31 October 1997 is nearing completion and a summary of its findings will be published in the next few months.
  562

  Chinook Helicopter
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the Air Accident Investigation Branch was able to extract a complete full authority digital engine control fault history from the digital electronic control unit that was destroyed on impact following the crash of RAF Chinook ZD576 in June 1994; [78422]

  (2) if the full authority digital engine control system fitted to the Chinook Mk2 was validated before it was brought into operational service; [78423]

  (3) if the surviving digital electronic control unit retrieved from the wreckage of RAF Chinook ZD576 in June 1994 had the capacity to record the complete full authority digital engine control fault histories of both engines. [78424]

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

  Departmental Food (Sourcing)
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of pigmeat consumed by his Department's personnel is sourced from outside the United Kingdom. [79337]

  Mr. Spellar
  The procurement of food for the Armed Forces is contracted to Booker Foodservice who import some 50 per cent. of the bacon and gammon required by the Armed Forces. The balance of the requirement for bacon and gammon and 100 per cent. of the pork requirement is presently sourced in the UK.

  MOD Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with whom he has entered into agreements or contracts or signed memorandums of understanding which extend to Ministry of Defence police officers the powers and privileges of constables(a) on land in respect of which he has agreed to provide the services of the Ministry of Defence police under notices published in the London, Belfast and Edinburgh Gazette and (b) in relation to matters connected with anything done for the purposes of the Ministry of Defence or the Defence Council. [75276]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Secretary of State for Defence has agreed to provide the services of the Ministry of Defence Police to:

  (a) the Royal Mint, Llantrisant, concerning which a notice was placed in the London Gazette on 5 May 1987;

  (b) Devonport Dockyard, concerning which a notice was placed in the London Gazette on 3 March 1997;

  (c) Rosyth Dockyard, concerning which a notice was placed in the Edinburgh Gazette on 28 January 1997.

  The Secretary of State does not have to enter into an agreement for members of the MOD Police to have the powers and privileges of constables in relation to matters connected with anything done under a contract entered into by him for the purposes of his Department or the Defence Council: jurisdiction is conferred by section 2(2) or section 2(3) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987.
  563

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Territories
  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his statement of 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 1125–27, if he will list the British overseas territories that meet in full international standards on money laundering, transparency in regulation of their financial sectors, co-operation with law enforcement authorities and independent financial regulation. [78002]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: None at present meets all these requirements. The Overseas Territories are at differing stages of developing regulatory regimes which are acceptable to the international community.

  The White Paper on the Overseas Territories expands on the measures we consider necessary to ensure the OTs meet accepted international standards of financial regulation by the end of 1999. HMG will monitor progress in the OTs and continue to provide them with advice and support in drafting and effectively implementing legislation.

  An independent review of financial regulation will be conducted in the OTs to check what progress has been made in implementing these measures. The review will also make recommendations on how to deal with issues outstanding and to what timetable. If any OTs are found to be inactive or behind, HMG will seriously consider whether to use our powers to ensure the standards are met.

  Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) of 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 399–400, on exports, what the role of British Trade International will be in respect of the promotion of the export of British nuclear technologies. [78975]

  Mr. Fatchett
  British Trade International will support the promotion of the export of British nuclear technologies, as Overseas Trade Services did in the past, in conformity with our export and non-proliferation obligations.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in response to Recommendation 1382 (1998) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe concerning the drawing up of a European code of conduct on arms sales. [78874]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Recommendation 1382 (1998) calls for a number of actions by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Committee of Ministers has instructed the Ad Hoc Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law to prepare an opinion on the Recommendation. It is our understanding that there will be no further consideration of the Recommendation by the Committee until the opinion has been received.
  564

  Falklands (Human Rights)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many suspected or actual cases of human rights violations connected with vessels operating in the waters surrounding the Falklands took place in each of the last three years. [79039]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No cases of human rights abuses involving fishing vessels were recorded by the Royal Falkland Islands Police in 1996. In 1997, three incidents were reported in which mistreatment of seamen was suspected. These were pursued to the extent possible, but legal action could not be taken. Of two reported incidents in 1998, one resulted in the successful prosecution of the Captain of a fishing vessel. Both HMG and FIG take human rights violations seriously and continue to monitor the situation.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the four British officials who were expelled on 7 March were visiting the Democratic Republic of Congo. [79165]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Three of the officials were in Kinshasa to conduct a routine review of the Embassy's civil contingency plan, the fourth (a State Department employee on an exchange programme with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) was there to provide temporary cover for staff absences in the Embassy.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence the Democratic Republic of Congo presented to his Department in support of the detention and expulsion of British Embassy staff and four British officials on 7 March. [79164]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None.

  Algeria
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will urge the Algerian Government, bilaterally and through the EU, to co-operate with the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance and to facilitate a visit to the country in order to conduct an independent investigation of disappearance cases. [79014]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We will continue to urge the Algerian Government to co-operate with all UN human rights mechanisms, including the UN Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, both in our bilateral dialogue and through the EU.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Algerian Government calling on them to release all prisoners held in secret and unacknowledged detention unless they are to be charged with recognisably criminal offences. [79068]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We regularly raise with the Algerian Government our concerns about alleged human rights violations, both bilaterally and through the EU. To this end we support the work of the UN Working Group on Enforced Disappearances and urge the Algerian Government to honour their obligations to co-operate with this and all other UN human rights mechanisms.
  565
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for a resolution on Algeria at the United Nations Commission for Human Rights at Geneva. [79013]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are our EU partners are considering our positions for this year's Commission on Human Rights, which runs until the end of April. Much will depend on the position taken by the Algerian Government to acknowledge their obligations under the UN Charter and agree to allow in UN Special Rapporteurs on Extra-judicial Executions and on Torture, and co-operate with all UN human rights mechanisms.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current human rights situation within Algeria. [79012]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The human rights situation in Algeria continues to cause us concern. In its latest report, the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances of the United Nations Economic and Social Council lists 731 cases of disappearances in Algeria since 1991. Only 11 have been addressed by the Algerian government to the Working Group's satisfaction. Over the same period there have also been numerous allegations of extra-judicial executions and torture by the Algerian security forces.

  It is fair to say that the number of new disappearances cited by the UN in the last 12 months is well down on previous years. But this is no substitute for independent investigations into all cases. We continue to urge the Algerian Government to allow independent UN Special Rapporteurs free access to the country to investigate all alleged human rights violations, as they are obliged to do under the UN Charter.

  Ambassadors for British Business
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to appoint additional business ambassadors. [79153]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A small number of Ambassadors for British Business will be retiring from their main business employment in 1999. We may consider replacements for them during the year.

  Diplomatic Posts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many posts in his Department at(a) ambassadorial and (b) Consul-General level have been advertised in the last year. [79073]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No Ambassadorships were advertised in the last year. The post of Director General Trade and Investment US and Consul General New York, was advertised in September 1998.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Britain and Yemen. [79072]
  566
  Mr. Fatchett
  Our long-standing relations with Yemen have been strained by recent incidents of kidnap involving British tourists, one of which resulted in the death of three British nationals, and by the arrest in Yemen of eight British nationals on terrorist-related charges. We are determined not to allow these set backs to cloud otherwise friendly relations. The Prime Minister wrote to Prime Minister Iriyani again on 24 March to help maintain dialogue at the most senior level, and to press our concerns about serious shortcomings in the legal process in the trial of the British nationals in Aden.

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees; [79265]

  (2) if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 (a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79285]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Ascension Island
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the US Government's contribution to the central fund on Ascension. [79401]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The US Government do not contribute to any central fund on Ascension. The Base on Ascension was built by the US Air Force during the Second World War and is provided free from rent and charges under the terms of the Agreement between the UK and US Governments Concerning the Extension of the Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground by the Establishment of Additional Sites in Ascension Island signed in 1956, as amended.

  Sierra Leone
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom will apply the £10 million worth of new assistance for Sierra Leone which he announced on 2 March; what assurances he has received about its use; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to arms sales to Sierra Leone. [79670]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced on 2 March 1999,Official Report, columns 854–901, a new UK commitment of £10 million to promote stability in Sierra Leone. The objectives are to help the West African Peacekeeping Forces, ECOMOG,

  567
  push back the rebels; to encourage the rebels to lay down their arms and return to civilian life; and to create a professional and democratically accountable Sierra Leone Army.

  Access to this new £10 million package of assistance is conditional upon matching pledges of support from other international donors. I am pleased to report that we have now received the full amount of £10 million in matching donations as a response to our lead in the promotion of lasting peace in Sierra Leone.

  Our new package of £10 million will be used as follows:
  We have already given substantial logistic support to ECOMOG to enable it to consolidate the security situation. We have decided that £5 million will now be made available to provide further equipment for ECOMOG. Deliveries of equipment for ECOMOG forces will be arriving shortly;
  £4.5 million will be used to fund a UK programme to train and equip a new Sierra Leone Army. A small UK military advisory team has been deployed to oversee basic training of the new Sierra Leone Army and to assess their longer-term training requirements. As part of this train and equip programme, we will be providing boots and uniforms. We will also be providing rifles and ammunition. We will be delivering this equipment shortly.

  As a condition for proceeding with this programme, we have sought and secured assurances from President Kabbah that he will pursue a twin track—diplomatic and military—approach to obtaining a lasting political peace; that recruitment for the new Sierra Leone Army will take place without ethnic discrimination; that children will not be used by the Sierra Leone Armed Forces or the Civil Defence Force; and that equipment supplied by the UK to the Government of Sierra Leone will be used only in accordance with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law.

  President Kabbah is also in the process of consulting ECOWAS to ensure that the supply of arms by the UK does not breach the ECOWAS small arms moratorium of October 1998.

  UN Security Council Resolution 1171 prohibits the sale or supply of arms and related material to Sierra Leone, other than to the Government of Sierra Leone through named points of entry. There is also an exemption to allow the sale of arms for the sole use in Sierra Leone of ECOMOG or the United Nations. The United Nations Arms Embargo (Amendment) (Sierra Leone) Order 1998 implements the United Nations Arms Embargo on Sierra Leone in the UK. Applications for licences under the Order in Council relating to the sale or supply of arms and related material to the Government of Sierra Leone or ECOMOG or the UN are considered on a case-by-case basis.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications of the closure of the Kosovo-Macedonian border to Kosovan refugees; and if he will make a statement. [79507]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We welcome the reopening of the border between Macedonia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 24 March, following representations by the EU Presidency and others. This will facilitate the work of 568
  the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in helping those who are fleeing Kosovo. The UNHCR can count on the support of the international community.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of the Russian Federation on the situation in Kosovo. [79515]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As fellow members of the Contact Group, we have remained in close touch with the Russians throughout the Kosovo crisis. The Prime Minister last discussed Kosovo with Russian Prime Minister Primakov on 25 March. The Foreign Minister discussed Kosovo with Russian Foreign Minister Ivanov on 29 March.

  We will gladly take any opportunity to discuss this subject with the Russians. This is a subject on which we want to stay closely in touch.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date requests were made by the UK representative at the UN for a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the situation in Kosovo. [79516]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We took the lead in bringing the situation in Kosovo before the Security Council in the late summer and autumn of 1998. The Security Council has been kept fully informed of developments since then. As Co-Chairs, we briefed the Council on the outcome of the negotiations which took place at Rambouillet and in Paris in February and March.

  The Security Council debates on 24 and 26 March demonstrated the strength of support for NATO action.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertakings were given to the Government of Montenegro(a) at the Rambouillet Conference and (b) afterwards, concerning military action by NATO forces. [79514]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No undertakings have been given to the Government of Montenegro concerning NATO military action. However, we have expressed strong support for the political and economic stability of Montenegro, particularly at this critical time for Yugoslavia and Montenegro.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79286]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  569

  Review/Task Force

  Date established

  Actual or expected date of final report

  Actual or expected termination date

  Review of Company Law

  4 March 1998

  Spring 2001

  Spring 2001

  DT/HMT review of company rescue mechanisms

  29 January 1999

  July 1999

  July 1999

  President's Advisory Group

  23 July 1997

  No written report—advice given orally at meetings.

  30 June 1998

  Competitiveness Working Parties

  1 December 1997

  6 April 1998

  6 April 1998

  Tech Stars Steering Group

  December 1997

  Not expected to produce written report

  Anticipated to be Summer 1999

  Oil and Gas Industry Task Force

  17 November 1998

  Summer 1999

  September 1999

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) subgroups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79264]

  Mr. Byers
  Two task forces and policy reviews with external members established by my Department since May 1997 have set up working groups

  The Review of Company Law's independent Steering Group has set up six working groups, looking at the purpose of company law and the needs of small and closely-held firms; company formation, capital maintenance and regulation and boundaries of the law; international issues and information and communications technology; vehicles and structure; corporate governance (directors); and corporate governance (shareholders).

  The Oil and Gas Industry Task Force has set up seven working groups, looking at long-term vision; competitiveness; fiscal issues; regulation and licensing; skills and training; innovation and technology; and sustainable development.

  Caribbean Countries (Trade)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps were taken by his Department to revise European Union policy to protect the United Kingdom's trading relationship with Caribbean countries within World Trade Organisation rules during the period of the United Kingdom presidency. [79096]

  Mr. Wilson
  The UK's trading relationship with the Caribbean forms part of the wider EU relationship with the ACP countries (sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific) enshrined in the Lomé Convention. This provides a framework for trade, aid and political relations with the ACP. Under Lomé, ACPs have open access to the EU market for industrial goods and for a wide range of agricultural products.

  The current (fourth) Lomé Convention expires in 2000. A negotiating mandate for a new Convention was adopted under the UK Presidency at the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 29 June 1998. The Commission's draft mandate suggested that these new arrangements, after a 5-year roll-over of current arrangements to 2005, should be in the form of Free Trade Areas between the EU and groups (yet to be defined) of ACP countries. In response to the concerns of the UK and some other member states, the mandate as agreed by the Council commits us to examine the position of those ACPs not able to join in FTAs, in order to provide a new framework for trade which will offer them equivalent access to the EU market
  570
  as at present under Lomé. Whatever the final balance of arrangements, the EU will of course have to ensure that they are compatible with WTO rules.

  Those ACP countries who are unable or unwilling to enter into FTA negotiations will still be eligible for the EU Generalised System of Preferences scheme which offers entry into the EU market with reduced import tariffs. However, these provisions are not as generous as Lomé and the ACP have expressed concern that they will lose their market access. The UK as Presidency worked hard to ensure a mandate which clearly indicated that the ACP would retain equivalent market access under the GSP and that GSP terms would need to be improved during the review of the scheme in 2004.

  We believe that these revisions reflect the interests of the Caribbean and our other Lomé partners.

  Departmental Staff (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will provide a breakdown, in numerical and percentage terms, of the ethnic origin, at 1 March, of(a) his private office, (b) Government special advisers, (c) his Policy Unit and (d) staff in total. [78506]

  Mr. Byers
  (a) On 1 March 1999, the DTI employed 71 staff in Private Offices and Parliamentary and Correspondence Sections, of whom 15 were known to be of ethnic minority origin (i.e. 21 per cent.).

  (b) I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 22 February 1999, Official Report, column 39.

  (c) The Department does not have a separate Policy Unit.

  (d) My right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will provide information in a written answer shortly.

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate he has made of the number of employees of(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies who will opt to take paternity leave each year; [76670]

  (2) what estimate he has made for (a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies of the number of man hours that will be spent each year administering the new paternity leave directive; [76671]
  571
  (3) if he will estimate the average annual cost to (a) a small or medium enterprise and (b) a larger company of employing and training additional staff to cover for employees on paternity leave. [76791]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: We shall be consulting on the detailed implementation. Only when this has been completed can a realistic estimate be made of the Parental Leave Directive.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect on British companies and information technology users of the legislation introduced in the United States of America limiting the liability and damages that can be awarded in millennium bug-related cases. [78871]

  Mr. Wills
  The so-called 'Good Samaritan' legislation in the United States of America, which provides companies with limited liability protection for certain statements regarding Year 2000 compliance, is designed to stimulate public disclosure of those companies' millennium bug preparations. It has been suggested that this limited protection may lead companies and individuals to seek redress in overseas countries such as the UK. My Department has considered this issue and concluded that there is no substantive evidence to suggest that UK companies will as a result be exposed to a greater risk of litigation. I believe that, in practice, the 'Good Samaritan' legislation has to date provided no protection for US companies in lawsuits about the Bug.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of introducing legislation to limit the liability and damages that can be awarded in millennium bug-related cases. [78870]

  Mr. Wills
  This issue has been addressed within my Department in consideration of preparations for the millennium. It is possible that the introduction of limitations of this type would encourage companies to divulge additional information on their state of readiness, but this could unreasonably limit the availability of existing remedies available to consumers under, for example, the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The issue of disclosure in the UK is being addressed by Action 2000's Pledge 2000, whereby companies can make declarations of intent confirming their commitment to exchange information to allow others in their supply chains to prepare for the Year 2000, and to using dispute resolution outside the courts wherever possible. I believe that, on balance, the case for further legislation of this type has not been made.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 475, on export controls, what amount of the debt arising from Export Credits Guarantee Department claims were repaid between November 1997 and February 1999 by the Governments of (a) Algeria and (b) Jordan. [78951]

  Mr. Wilson
  In the period from 1 November 1997 to 28 February 1999 Algeria paid £1 million of principal and £19 million of interest under the UK/Algeria 572
  Debt Agreements. Under the current UK/Jordan Debt Agreements principal repayments do not commence until June 1999. Interest paid during the period amounted to some £23 million.

  Competitiveness
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the business leaders who have contributed to the six competitiveness working parties. [77790]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: The following people were members of the six competitiveness Working Parties:

  Encouraging Innovation Competitiveness Working Party

  Bevan Braithwaite, Chairman, TWI

  Dr. Peter Doyle, Director, Zeneca Group plc

  John Golding, Chairman, Hewlett-Packard Ltd.

  Anthony Greener, Joint Chairman, Diageo plc

  Jan Hall, Partner, Spencer Stuart and Associates Ltd.

  Dr. Sue Ion, Director, Technology and Operations, BNFL

  Stephen Lusty, Managing Director, Airmaster Engineering Ltd.

  Roy McNulty, Chairman, Short Brothers plc

  Dr. George Poste, Chief Scientific and Technology Officer, SmithKline Beecham plc

  Professor Sir Gareth Roberts, Vice Chancellor, Sheffield University

  Jonathan Sands, Managing Director, Elmwood Design Ltd.

  Dan Sequerra, Chief Executive, Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council

  John Sorrell, Chairman, Interbrand Newell and Sorrell, and Chairman, Design Council

  Promoting Best Practice Competitiveness Working Party

  Alec Daley, Chairman, Anite Group plc and Chairman, CBI National Manufacturing Council

  James Dyson, Managing Director, Dyson Appliances Ltd.

  Sir Tom Farmer, Chairman and Chief Executive, Kwik-Fit Holdings plc

  Jackie Kernaghan, World-Wide Sales Director, Forte UK Ltd.

  Tina Mason, Business Manager, Dutton Engineering (Woodside) Ltd.

  Professor Colin New, Deputy Director, Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University

  Mrs. Amber Paul, Director, Caparo Industries

  Rosemary Radcliffe, Head of Economics, Coopers & Lybrand

  John Saunders, Chief Executive, Hereford and Worcester, Business Link

  Fiona Skinner, Business Development Manager, R. F. Brookes Ltd.

  Cob Stenham, former Chairman, Arjo Wiggins Appleton plc

  Lynn Williams, National Officer, Amalgamated Engineering & Electrical Union

  573
  Information Age Competitiveness Working Party

  Sir Jeremy Beecham, Chairman, Local Government Association

  Alan Calder, Chief Executive, Business Link London City Partners

  Julia Collins, Partner, Coopers & Lybrand

  Sue Davidson, Director BT Business Connections, BT plc

  Brian Davis, Chief Executive, Nationwide Building Society

  Ron Dunn, Chairman and Chief Executive, Ascada Ltd.

  Mike Fischer, President, Research Machines plc

  Balram Gidoomal, Chairman, Winning Communications Ltd.

  Nigel Hartnell, Managing Director, ICL Services

  James Hehir, Chief Executive, Ipswich Borough Council

  Terry Leahy, Chief Executive, Tesco plc

  William Sargent, Joint Managing Director, FrameStore

  Peter Swann, Professor of Economics and Management of Innovation, Manchester Business School

  Suzanna Taverne, Group Strategy Director, Pearson plc

  Tony Young, Secretary General, Communication Workers Union

  Workforce Development Competitiveness Working Party

  Brendan Barber, Deputy General Secretary, Trades Union Congress

  Bruce Collings, General Manager, Ethicon Endo-Surgery Ltd.

  David Compston, Managing Director, Allott & Lomax

  Jeremy Crook, Chief Executive, Black Training and Enterprise Group

  Jeannie Drake, Deputy General Secretary, Communication Workers Union

  Anthony Dubbins, General Secretary, GMPU

  John Edmonds, General Secretary, GMB

  Professor Alan Gibb, Chairman, Small Business Centre, Durham University Business School

  Allan Johnston, Personnel Director, British Steel plc

  Mike Kinski, Director, Scottish Power plc

  Anne Minto, Deputy Director General, Engineering Employers Federation

  Tony Morgan, Managing Director, Industrial Society

  Stephen Moss, Chairman, Springboard

  John Oliver, Chief Executive, Leyland Trucks Ltd.

  Bryan Sanderson, Managing Director, The British Petroleum Company plc

  Peter Smith, Chief Executive, Wigan Borough Council

  Ann Toler, Head of Personnel, Boots The Chemists Ltd.

  Perween Warsi, Managing Director, S&A Foods Ltd.

  Cecilia Wells, HR Consultant

  Gwenda Williams, Human Resource Manager, Hyder plc

  Business Investment Competitiveness Working Party

  Sir David Barnes, Chief Executive, Zeneca Group plc

  Professor S. K. Battacharya, Director, Warwick Business School

  Ronald Cohen, Chairman, APAX Partners & Co. Ventures Ltd.

  Dr. Chris Evans, Director, Merlin Scientific Services Ltd.

  Amelia Fawcett, Managing Director and Chief Administrative Officer, Morgan Stanley Group (Europe)

  Robert Fleming, Operations Director, Pace Micro Technology plc

  574

  Alan Hughes, Director, ESRC Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge

  Judy Lever, Director, Blooming Marvellous Ltd.

  Roger Lyons, General Secretary, MSF

  John Melbourn, Deputy Chairman, 3i Group plc

  Magnus Mowat, Non Executive Director, Allen Plc

  Helen Murlis, Director, Hay Management Consultants Ltd.

  Tom O'Neill, Managing Director, Pilkington Optronics

  John Rose, Chief Executive, Rolls Royce plc

  Dominic Shorthouse, Managing Director, E. M. Warburg, Pincus & Co. International Ltd.

  Malcolm Taylor, Managing Director European Operations and Senior Vice President, Bridgeport Machines Ltd.

  David Watson, Group Treasurer, The British Petroleum Company plc

  Competitiveness in Europe Working Party

  Peter Agar, Deputy Director-General, Confederation of British Industry

  Keith Bogg, Divisional Director, Marks & Spencer plc

  Sir John Carter, Chief Executive, Commercial Union plc

  C. K. Chow, Chief Executive, GKN plc

  Iain Evans, Chairman, Hyder plc

  Donald Hepburn, Senior Business Economist, Unilever plc

  John Langston, Chief Executive Officer—Automotive, TI Group plc

  Peter Lehmann, Commercial Director, Centrica plc

  Christopher King, Chairman, Avon Rubber plc

  Henry Manisty, Head of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Reuters Ltd.

  Keith McCullagh, Chief Executive Officer, British Biotech plc

  John Mellon, Director, Reed Elsevier plc.

  Market Reports
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to change the current scale of charges for market reports; and if he will make a statement. [78433]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Export Forum report, placed in the Library of both Houses, concluded that the current level of prices was close to what the market will bear. A review of the chargeable services themselves is planned to start in April and the new Chief Executive of British Trade International, Sir David Wright (current Ambassador to Tokyo), will wish to consider the outcome of the review before decisions are taken.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to increase(a) awareness and (b) take-up of the Export Marketing Research Scheme; and what funding has been made available for the (i) current and (ii) next financial year. [78431]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scheme's budget for the current financial year is £1,195,000. £1,550,000 has been allocated for 1999–2000. My officials and the Scheme's contractor (British Chambers of Commerce) have drawn
  575
  up and are implementing a comprehensive action plan to increase awareness and take-up of the Scheme. This includes:

  Direct mail to eligible companies of more than 20 employees

  8,000 letters sent out; 400 have contacted BCC asking for additional information and 18 applications have been received to date

  The placing of editorial material in relevant publications

  Ensuring presence at organised events and speaking at export clubs

  EMRS was represented at 28 events (exhibitions, seminars etc) in 1998

  An Internet presence:

  www.britishchambers.org.uk

  Staging regional "Showcase" events for companies

  10 showcases presented to 285 companies; 19 applications have arisen

  The publication of a regular EMRS Newsletter which is distributed to over 3000 past and prospective customers as well as intermediaries.

  Steps are also being taken to refresh intermediaries' knowledge of the scheme through:

  3 half day showcases held in 1998 completing national coverage for intermediaries and export advisers (52 attended)

  4 two-day training courses in export marketing research specifically tailored to the business advisers (50 attended)

  Direct mail to 300 trade associations. BCC are currently discussing projects with 20 different trade associations.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he proposes to continue support from his Department for the Languages for Export Advisory Scheme. [78432]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Languages for Export Advisory Scheme is currently being reviewed as part of the normal evaluation programme for DTI schemes. The Chief Executive and board of British Trade International will consider the future of the Scheme after the review is completed.

  Overseas Postings
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a list of staff of his Department currently posted overseas identifying(a) the capacity in which they are posted, (b) their grade and (c) their terms of service. [78439]

  Mr. Wilson
  At senior levels (Range 10 and above) 26 managers are in post overseas. Below that level, 12 officers are in posts under the Overseas Attachment Training Scheme. A small number of additional staff are likely, at any time, to be in posts overseas. Details of these are not kept centrally in a form which enables the data readily to be aggregated.

  It would not be appropriate to list individuals' appointments and terms of conditions as requested. Most of these staff are on loan to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, usually on FCO terms of service. Others are on secondment or detached duty, for example to the European Commission, on the terms of the receiving organisation.
  576

  Sterling Rates
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of each one per cent. increase in sterling against the euro on(a) industrial profits and (b) jobs in manufacturing. [77591]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 403.

  Fixed Rate Export Finance Scheme
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of ECGD's Fixed Rate Export Finance Scheme. [79666]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over the past year, the Government have been undertaking a fundamental review of ECGD's financing support for UK exports, including the FREF arrangements which have been scheduled to expire on 31 March 1999. The review has included a formal consultation process and follow-up work involving ECGD, Treasury and Bank of England officials as well as representatives from the UK exporting community. A number of options are being evaluated. More time is needed to complete the review and for ECGD to negotiate with the banks an appropriate successor to the current scheme. The current arrangements are, therefore, being rolled forward for a further 6 months.

  Objective 2 Areas
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the eligibility of areas under Objective 2. [79667]

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to make an announcement on the distribution of EU structural funds for the regeneration of deprived areas. [78990]

  Mr. Wills
  The discussions between Member States and the Commission on the reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds were concluded at the Berlin Council on 25 March.

  I am pleased to say that the UK has negotiated an outcome that is fair and affordable to all future and existing Member States, including the UK. One notable success for the UK was the securing of the safety net which maintains two thirds of the existing Objective 2 and 5b population coverage.

  The Government will consult widely with all those with an interest, principally local and regional bodies, on the determination of proposed areas and the criteria to be used to ensure that we target the areas of greatest need. Careful consideration will be given to the relative needs of different areas across the UK. I am issuing today a public consultation document which will set out the basis on which interested parties will be invited to make their submissions. I am also placing copies of the document in the Library of the House and the Vote Office.

  Those wishing to make representations should do so to the appropriate Government Office in England, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Finance and Personnel in Northern Ireland. Other Departments with an interest include the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries

  577
  and Foods for fisheries and rural areas and the Department of Culture, Media and Sport for tourist-dependent areas, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Education and Employment.

  In order to meet the likely deadline of mid-June for submission of the proposed Objective 2 areas to the European Commission by each Member State, the public consultation will end on 25 May 1999.

  renewable Energy Generation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) when he expects to publish his consultation paper on renewable energy generation; and if he will make a statement; [79085]

  (2) what targets he has established for the generation of electricity from renewable sources. [79086]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today published a consultation paper "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century" which reports on the outcome of the Government's review of new and renewable energy policy.

  The Renewables Review paper demonstrates that there is tremendous potential for renewables to become a fully competitive part of UK energy supply. Renewables make an important contribution to secure, sustainable and diverse energy supplies in the UK. They are an essential element of a cost-effective climate change programme and will help the Government meet their environmental objectives at the least cost to the customer. Renewables play a vital role in enabling the UK to meet its environmental targets of reducing greenhouse gases by 12.5% by 2012, and the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010.

  The document shows that producing 10% of UK electricity from renewables appears to be feasible. The Government intend working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10% of UK electricity supplies, cost effectively, as soon as possible. I want to achieve this by 2010. However, this should not be seen as an end in itself, but a step forward on the road to making renewables a strong, world-beating industry.

  There are already considerable benefits of the renewables industry. The UK industry employs 3,500 people. Through creating. an export drive, and by further developing the industry and the UK market, up to 45,000 jobs could be created.

  The Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) has already provided over £600 million of support for renewables. Support for renewables under NFFO will accelerate in the first decade of the next century and could rise to around £150 million a year. NFFO has played a major part in stimulating the industry and bringing down the costs of renewables. As a result of NFFO, an industry of some 700 organisations has been developed. This is why the Government want to see how NFFO can evolve, and to see how it can help the industry to thrive even more.

  The review document therefore presents options for possible ways to support renewables while they are reaching market prices. It looks at both the costs and benefits of moving towards a greater use of renewables. In particular, it looks at options for a revised NFFO in the competitive energy markets of the future.
  578
  In addition, the Government have provided an increased budget for DTI's New and Renewable Energy Support Programme. They have allocated £43.5 million over the next three years for R&D to help achieve its aim.

  The Government are pressing ahead with reform—electricity liberalisation, for instance, is giving consumers the ability to choose their electricity supplier—including green electricity. Suppliers are now offering green tariffs and the Government hope consumers will take up this opportunity to stimulate growth in renewables.

  Solar energy also has real potential in the longer term. This is why the Government have recently asked for industry's involvement in taking forward three major new photovoltaic initiatives. In addition, last year I switched on the first solar panel system for a British school, as part of the Government's Foresight Scolar programme. I believe that such schemes can play a valuable part in the development of the UK renewables industry.

  This report identifies key issues and challenges which the Government and industry would need to pursue. Issues examined in the paper include: planning arrangements; opportunities for developing energy crops; and arrangements to ensure that embedded generators—those directly connected to local distribution systems, often the case with renewables producers—receive a fair price for their electricity. It seeks views on the issues raised to enable the Government to frame their future policy.

  I look forward to receiving those views, and plan to make a further announcement about the way forward in due course. The Government are committed to encouraging sustainable development, to ensure a better quality of life for all.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Household
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the grant-in-aid to the Royal Household for communications and information work. [79671]

  The Prime Minister
  Subject to the approval of Parliament, from 1 April 1999 the Government intend to merge the small grant-in-aid that was established last year on the COI vote with the property services grant-in-aid on the vote of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. This will avoid the circularity of the COI providing the Royal Household with the funds to purchase specialist services partly from itself. Communications and information expenditure will be separately identifiable in the Report of the merged grant-in-aid prepared by the Royal Household, copies of which the Secretary of State will place annually in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament. As now, the Memorandum of Understanding will make clear that the Department does not have any responsibility for the functions and engagements undertaken by The Queen and Members of the Royal Family or for the Royal Household's decisions on the content of the communications and information provided from the grant-in-aid.
  579

  OSCE
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Prime Minister if there are any changes in the composition of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation on Security and Co-operation in Europe. [79672]

  The Prime Minister
  The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) becomes a full representative of the delegation in place of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), who now becomes a substitute member.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Diarmuid O'Neil
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Crown Prosecution Service will take a decision about whether criminal charges should be brought as a consequence of the police investigation into the death of Diarmuid O'Neil. [78964]

  The Attorney-General
  The investigation report of the Metropolitan Police is being carefully considered by the Crown Prosecution Service in accordance with the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. A decision on whether any criminal charges should be brought will be made as soon as possible after the case has been reviewed.

  Hamilton v. Al Fayed Judgment
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place a copy of the authorised transcript of the judgment in the Hamilton v. Al Fayed appeal in the Library. [79838]

  The Solicitor-General
  A copy of the Times Law Report is held in the Library. A copy of the authorised transcript will be placed in the Library as soon as it is available.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Planning Costs
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the proposed Town & Country Planning (Control of Major Accident Hazards) Regulations will be devolved matters for(a) the National Assembly of Wales and (b) the Scottish Parliament. [77213]

  Mr. Meale
  Not for the part of the Control of Major Accidents Hazards Regulations (COMAH) which relates to health and safety. COMAH also contains environmental requirements. Environment matters are to be devolved in Scotland. Ministerial functions in connection with the provision of information by the competent authority, insofar as the exercise of these functions concerns the environment in Scotland, are transferred to Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998.

  Commission for Integrated Transport
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when 580
  he will announce the appointments to the Commission for Integrated Transport; and if he will make a statement. [79571]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have today appointed David Begg as Chair and Sir Trevor Chinn as Vice-Chair of the new Commission for Integrated Transport. The selection process for the other members of the Commission is still under way, but I hope to be able to announce the complete composition of the Commission by May. It will then begin its work of building on the consensus established around last year's Transport White Paper.

  David Begg, who was prominent in advising the Government during the preparation of the White Paper, has established a reputation for action in tackling Edinburgh's transport problems, and has the dynamism and commitment to make the Commission an influential voice in realising the objectives of the White Paper. Sir Trevor, who is Chairman of the motor services group Lex, will support Professor Begg by bringing an understanding of people's attitudes to transport, including the views of motorists.

  I am delighted that Professor Begg and Sir Trevor have agreed to work together to lead the Commission. The Commission's success in helping put integrated transport into practice will depend on it having the authority and energy to press transport policy forward. It will need to bring with it all those involved in providing transport services and all of us affected by its impacts. Professor Begg and Sir Trevor, coming from different backgrounds but sharing the same goal of a better, more sustainable transport system, are the right combination to ensure the Commission makes a real difference. Together they constitute a balanced team who look forward to establishing an effective Commission and adding real value to the transport debate.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1998–99. [79771]

  Mr. Prescott
  The cash limit for Class VI, Vote 4 (local government and regional policy, England) will be reduced by £2,300,000 from £32,294,969,000 to £32,292,669,000. This decrease reflects savings on special grant in support of Private Finance Initiative projects, resulting from delays in starting some projects. It will allow increases of £1,000,000 in the DETR/LGR (local government reorganisation) non-voted cash limit and £1,300,000 in the DETR/LACAP(E) (local authority capital—environment) non-voted cash limit.

  The DETR/LGR (local government reorganisation) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £1,000,000 from £127,300,000 to £128,300,000, to meet increased demand for supplementary credit approvals in connection with the commutation of annual loan charges and grants to local authorities on 1 October 1992.

  The DETR/LACAP(E) (local authority capital—environment) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £1,300,000 from £928,232,000 to £929,532,000, to provide other capital support for the London Borough of Haringey.
  581
  The Housing Action Trusts' external finance limit will be increased by £2,000,000 from £89,000,000 to £91,000,000. Changed spending priorities within the Single Regeneration Budget mean that a proposed transfer from the Housing Action Trusts to the Challenge Fund is no longer necessary.

  The DETR/ERDF (European regional development fund) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £26,450,000 from £208,550,000 to £235,000,000, to allow for increased spending resulting from changes in policy to allow payments in advance of receipts.

  The DETR/OES (other environmental services) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £12,624,000 from £19,841,000 to £32,465,000 to provide for supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to cover their capital contributions to the Commission for the New Towns under road cost sharing arrangements. The DETR/NT (New Towns) non-voted cash limit will consequently be reduced by £12,624,000 from minus £115,600,000 to minus £128,224,000.

  Balloon Safety
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the safety of passengers in balloons. [78319]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The operation of commercial passenger balloons is regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority Safety Regulation Group (CAA SRG). While the safety standards and requirements for these flights are well-established they remain under constant scrutiny by the CAA. Consequently, ballooning operates to a very high safety standard and there has been only one fatal accident in the last 10 years.

  One additional safety measure to be implemented soon will require Balloon Air Operator Certificate Holders to produce and operate to a Company Safety Management System. The CAA will provide advice and assistance in establishing this system which is part of an introductory programme for all aircraft undertaking public transport operations.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many accidents there have been involving power lines and passenger balloons in each of the last 10 years. [78320]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority have provided accident figures for commercial balloons involving power lines as follows:

  Injuries

  Year

  Collision with cables

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1992

  4

  0

  3

  3

  1993

  5

  0

  1

  3

  1994

  2

  0

  1

  0

  1995

  2

  0

  2

  0

  1996

  3

  0

  2

  1

  1997

  2

  1

  8

  4

  1998

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Total

  21

  1

  17

  13

  582
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) fatalities and (b) injuries have resulted from accidents involving passenger balloons in each of the last 10 years. [78318]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority have provided accident figures for commercial balloons as follows:

  Injuries

  Year

  Total accidents

  Fatal

  Serious

  Minor

  1989

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1990

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1991

  8

  0

  4

  5

  1992

  11

  0

  9

  13

  1993

  11

  0

  7

  5

  1994

  11

  0

  7

  18

  1995

  7

  0

  5

  0

  1996

  6

  0

  4

  2

  1997

  6

  1

  12

  20

  1998

  6

  0

  3

  3

  Total

  66

  1

  51

  66

  Cyclists
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make it an offence for motorists to advance to a cyclists' advance stop line at traffic lights. [78732]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is an offence, under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and by virtue of the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994, to proceed beyond any stop line as shown in diagram 1001 in those Regulations and placed in conjunction with light signals when the red signal is showing. At junctions where an advance stop line for cyclists is provided Rule 154 of the current Highway Code instructs motorists that they must wait behind the first white line reached.

  Insurance Cover (Local Authorities)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) representations and (b) requests for assistance he has received from local authorities on the withdrawal of insurance cover due to the threat of the millennium bug; and if he will make a statement. [79211]

  Mr. Meale
  We have received one representation—from Bournemouth Borough Council—seeking assistance on the withdrawal of insurance cover due to the threat of the Millennium Bug. It is a matter for each individual council to put in place such arrangements as it considers appropriate and practicable to meet the risks posed by the Millennium Bug.

  Fluoridated Drinking Water
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the UK population receives fluoridated drinking water; what measures are being taken to ensure
  583
  that the systems for the control of dosage will not be affected by the millennium bug; and if he will make a statement. [79016]

  Mr. Meale
  About 10 per cent. of the population receives fluoridated drinking water supplies. The Drinking Water Inspectorate, during its inspections of water companies in England and Wales in 1998, examined the companies' general arrangements for maintaining the wholesomeness and quality of their supplies both during and after the millennium. The Inspectorate was satisfied with the progress being made by companies and will continue to keep the matter under surveillance during 1999.

  Yaverland Sewerage Works
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timing of the introduction of secondary sewage treatment at the sewerage works under construction at Yaverland, Sandown, Isle of Wight. [78571]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: The Government have said that we wish to see secondary treatment installed on the Isle of Wight as soon as practicable. Southern Water need various consents from Government to proceed with the works. They are currently in the process of providing the necessary supporting information and we are putting pressure on them to do so as soon as possible.

  Council Houses
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority owned dwellings are empty in each English shire county; and if he will make a statement. [78905]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]: I have placed in the Library a table presenting the latest information on the number of vacant dwellings owned by local authorities in each English shire county (as in existence before the creation of unitary authorities), and reported by them at 1 April 1998.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications since May 1997 he has called in following a resolution by the relevant local planning authority to refuse planning permission. [79160]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of(a) the quantity and (b) the trend rate of growth of annual United Kingdom CO2 emissions generated by (i) the household sector, (ii) industry excluding power generators, (iii) power generators, (iv) the service sector and (v) other sectors. [79190]

  Mr. Meale
  The following table gives estimates of CO2 emissions in 1997 and 1998 from the UK's greenhouse gas emissions inventory. The 1998 data are provisional. The table also gives estimated growth rates based on the trends observed since 1990.
  584

  Emissions in 1997 (million tonnes carbon)

  Emissions in 1998 (million tonnes carbon, provisional)

  Trend (% per year)

  Household Sector

  23

  23

  0.3

  Industry excluding power generators

  41

  41

  0.3

  Power generators

  40

  41

  -3

  Service sector

  9

  8

  0.2

  Other sectors

  43

  43

  0.1

  Other sectors include transport, land use change and waste. The land use change emissions estimates are currently under review.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current estimate of(a) the quantity and (b) the trend rate of growth of annual CO2 emissions in respect of (i) power generation as a whole, (ii) gas-powered generators, (iii) coal-powered generators and (iv) other power producers. [79191]

  Mr. Meale
  The following table gives estimates of CO2 emissions in 1997 and 1998 from the UK's greenhouse gas emissions inventory. The 1998 data are provisional. The Table also gives estimated growth rates based on the trends observed since 1990, rounded to the nearest per cent.

  Emissions in 1997 (million tonnes carbon)

  Emissions in 1998 (million tonnes carbon, provisional)

  Trend (% per year)

  Power generation as a whole

  40

  41

  -3

  Gas powered generators

  12

  12

  +50

  Coal powered generators

  27

  27

  -6

  Other power producers

  1

  1

  -10

  Other power producers include oil powered generators and the incineration of municipal solid waste.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the effect on the level of carbon dioxide emissions of(a) the moratorium on gas-powered electricity generation, and (b) the use of a fuel mix chosen solely on cost grounds. [79234]

  Mr. Male
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: The environmental impact of the Government's programme of reform of the electricity market is discussed in Annex H of the White Paper 'Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports from the Trade and Industry Committee' (Cm 4071). This makes clear that the new policy does not aim to achieve any particular outcome on fuel mix. The Government have therefore not sought to provide a quantification of the effect of the policy on CO2 emissions or fuel mix relative to what would have occurred in its absence. The Department of Trade and Industry is currently developing a set of scenarios on future CO2 emissions from energy use in the United Kingdom. These scenarios will take the new policy on fuels for electricity generation into account and will be

  585
  used to inform decisions on the scope and nature of additional policies to meet our commitments on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

  School Buses (Fuel Duty)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend fuel duty rebate to coach operators who operate contracted school bus services. [79402]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have at present no plans to change the eligibility arrangements for fuel duty rebate. Bus services which only take pupils to or from school are not eligible for rebate. However, bus services provided or secured by a local education authority are eligible for rebate if they are registered with the Traffic Commissioner as a local bus service, and if they are normally available to, and are used by, members of the general public.

  Departmental Web Site
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on which dates in 1999 the Department's web site relating to releases into the environment was updated; how frequently he plans to update the site; and if he will make a statement. [79093]

  Mr. Meale
  The DETR's Web site updated information from the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment on the following dates: 26 January, 3 February, 9 February, 10 February, 18 February, 22 February, 24 February and 16 March. These pages are amongst the top ten most popular of this site's environmental information pages. The Web site will continue to be updated as and when required.

  British Rail
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff are currently employed by British Rail; and what are their functions. [78981]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from the British Railways Board that the latest (March 1999) staff in post figure is 2,363. Of these, 2,194 work for the British Transport Police. The remaining 169 staff are largely employed on the administration, and sale where appropriate, of the BR property estate, on other residual BR functions and central services such as finance and legal.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total wages bill for British Rail for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [78982]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total staff costs of the BR Board for the year to 31 March 1998 are shown on page 21 of the BR Annual Accounts 1997–98. Total salaries and wages in that year were £83.7 million. This related to an end year employment figure of 2,386, down from 4,328 at end 1996–97.
  586

  Water Prices
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in respect of the future regulation of water prices; and if he will make a statement. [79102]

  Mr. Meale
  On 1 March 1999 Ministers announced their guidance to the Director General of Water Services on the programmes of investment in environmental and water quality improvements by water and sewerage companies that he should assume in setting their price limits for the period 2000–01 to 2004–05. While the setting of price limits is the responsibility of the Director, the required investment programme of some £8 billion of quality improvements over five years should allow room for significant price reductions in 2000–01. The Director will announce his provisional determinations of price limits in July.

  Under proposals in the Water Industry Bill, currently before Parliament, household water customers would gain increased choice in the method of calculation of their individual bills. The Bill also proposes new powers for the Director and Ministers to regulate the provisions of companies' charges schemes.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce regulations to limit Heavy Goods Vehicles to the inside lane on busy commuter motorways. [78960]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Goods vehicles with a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes are already banned from the outside lane of motorways with three or more lanes. We do not believe that a further restriction to the inner lane is justified for road safety reasons. It would cause a queue to form in the inner lane, moving at the speed of the slowest. Journey times are often a significant factor for hauliers, and drivers might be tempted to divert from motorways to less suitable roads through towns where accident rates are higher and there are more vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists.

  Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to mark the 25 anniversary of the laying of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. [79664]

  Mr. Prescott
  I intend to take forward a strategic appraisal of health and safety to mark the 25th anniversary of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. This legislation has delivered significant improvement in standards of health and safety at work. But we cannot be complacent: people continue to lose their lives and suffer serious injury at work. Not only does this have a terrible human cost, but it also jeopardises the competitiveness of our economy.

  It is not my intention to revisit the basic structures of the Act, but I want to inject new impetus and relaunch the health and safety agenda. We also need to make sure that our approach to regulation continues to be appropriate

  587
  for the changing world of work as we enter the next millennium, but without simply adding new and unnecessary regulatory burdens to business, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. Our aim must be to reduce the rate of workplace accidents and ill-health still further, crucially by working with all stakeholders to demonstrate that a healthy, well protected workforce is not only right, but is good for business and good for society.

  I will launch a public consultation document, jointly with the Health and Safety Commission, in the summer to open up a debate on this important issue.

  Opencast Coal Mining
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to publish revised planning guidance for opencast coal mining. [79770]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have published revised Mineral Planning Guidance on Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal today. This meets the major concerns expressed in the 10 Point Plan for Opencast Coal issued before the General Election and firmly puts the interests of protecting the environment and local communities first.

  The revised guidance takes account of our pre-election commitments, the final conclusions of the Energy review published in October 1998 and the responses to the draft guidance issued for public consultation in October 1998.

  The guidance will ensure that planning permission for opencast coal mining is only given where the development is environmentally acceptable or provides over-riding local or community benefits. If neither of these requirements is met, there should be a presumption against opencast coal.

  Landfill Tax Credit Scheme
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme which organisations have been registered under the Group Environmental Body Scheme; and how much has been awarded to environmental bodies under this scheme. [78556]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Regulator for the environmental bodies credit scheme. I have passed on my hon. Friend's question to them and asked them to reply direct. The Regulator is:

  Entrust Ltd.,

  Suite 2, 5th Floor,

  Acre House,

  2 Town Square,

  Sale,

  M33 7WZ.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme how much has been awarded under the Group Environmental Body Scheme to(a) Albany Architecture Heritage Trust, (b) Enventure, (c) Global Balance Trust, (d) Global Wildlife Trust, (e) Triedar Ltd., Salisbury, (f) Cory Environmental Trust, Thurrock, and
  588
  (g) Cory Environmental Ltd.; and if he will list the environmental projects which have been supported by these organisations. [78582]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is best provided by the Regulator for the environmental bodies credit scheme. I have passed my hon. Friend's question to them and asked them to reply direct. The Regulator is:

  Entrust Ltd.,

  Suite 2, 5th Floor,

  Acre House,

  2 Town Square,

  Sale,

  M33 7WZ.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Landfill Tax Credit scheme how much has been awarded to environmental bodies since January; and what percentage of this total is a voluntary donation from landfill operators. [78555]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Entrust, who is the Regulator for the environmental bodies scheme, has been notified by the environmental bodies of awards of £6.56 million since 1 January 1999. All donations by landfill site operators through the scheme are voluntary, although they can receive landfill tax credits of 90 per cent. against their donations.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Guest Houses and Hotels
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the six bed-space rule relating to the business rate for small guest houses and hotels; and if he will make a statement. [78429]

  Janet Anderson
  I received representations on this subject during a recent meeting with the Chairman of the National Council of Hotels Associations. The matter has also been raised with me by tourism business people during visits to various parts of England. The Government have no current plans to amend the "six-person test" for non-domestic rates, although matters such as these are kept under review.

  Millennium Festival Bids
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the successful bids for millennium festival awards in the north-west. [78785]

  Janet Anderson
  A list of successful bids is shown in the following table. This information is also available on the Millennium Commission's website (www.millennium.gov.uk). In addition, the North West has benefited from Watson Steel of Bolton winning the contract to provide the steel for the structure of the Dome.
  589

  North west Millennium Festival grants by county

  Organisation

  Project

  Award £

  Cheshire

  The Millennium Commission

  Cheshire County Council

  The Cheshire Pilgrimage: Journeys of Commitment for the 3rd Millennium

  70,000

  Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council

  Crewe and Nantwich Celebrates

  60,000

  Macclesfield Museums Trust

  Macclesfield Silk Museum

  25,000

  Macclesfield Borough Council

  Making the Most of the Millennium in Macclesfield

  25,000

  Winsford 2000/Winsford Now

  'Representing Winsford'—A Year in Photographs

  8,500

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Cheshire Wildlife Trusts

  Celebrating Nature

  37,000

  Chester Civic Trust

  2000 Years of Building

  30,000

  Halton Borough Council

  Park Life—2000

  19,800

  National Library for the Blind

  Unseen History

  12,300

  Arts Council of England

  Chester Gateway Theatre

  The Polychronicon

  23,200

  Congleton Borough Council

  Light Year 2000

  20,000

  Chester and District Festival of Trees

  Chester and District Tree Festival 2000

  19,900

  Rodewald Concert Society/Ensemble 10:10

  AMAHL 2000

  15,900

  Chester Literature Society

  Literative For All Seasons

  12,800

  English Sports Council

  Cheshire Sports Trust

  Cheshire Millennium Youth Games

  TBA

  Cumbria

  The Millennium Commission

  The Spirit of Cumbria Consortium

  The Spirit of Cumbria Millennium Festival

  300,000

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Environ (Trust) Ltd.

  Sacred Cumbria

  28,900

  Barrow and District Council for Voluntary Service

  Voyager—Taking History into the Future

  21,900

  Arts Council of England

  Cumbria Theatre Trust Ltd.

  Equinox

  28,500

  Dancetales

  The Linking of the Chain

  22,000

  Welfare State International

  The Sky's the Limit

  20,000

  North Pennine Highlights

  North Pennine Dance Highlights—Marking Time

  17,000

  Prism Arts

  'Breaking the Mould'

  11,700

  Changeling Productions

  Tempus Fugit

  10,000

  Eden Arts

  Eden Arts Trust

  9,500

  English Sports Council

  Cumbria County Council

  Cumbria CC

  TBA

  The Millennium Commission

  Millennium Waterfronts Steering Group

  Millennium Waterfronts (Salford, Manchester, Tameside and Oldham)

  300,000

  Manchester City Council

  Manchester Coming Home

  200,000

  Moss Side and Hulme Business Federation

  The Millennium Carnival Programme

  45,000

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  'Mapping the Millennium' Festival

  40,000

  Oldham Education and Leisure Services

  'One World One Oldham' Festival

  30,000

  All Saints Church, Micklehurst

  Threads

  30,000

  Disabled Living

  Looking Good, Feeling Good, 2000 (Manchester)

  27,500

  Salford Open Theatre

  Walkden Millennium Community Play

  20,000

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  National Museum of Labour History

  People's History for the Third Millennium

  82,200

  National Lottery Charities Board

  BETA—Basic Education and Training for Adults

  —

  30,000

  Groundwork Rochdale Oldham and Tameside

  —

  30,000

  The Pankhurst Trust

  —

  29,970

  Dr. Kershaw's Hospice

  —

  12,000

  Arts Council of England

  Halle Concerts Society

  Inner Spark

  27,000

  Full Circle Arts

  @ 2000

  23,600

  The Whitworfh Art Gallery

  The Times Of Our Lives

  23,200

  Class Street Outreach

  New Generation, New Millennium, A Visual Arts Experience

  20,700

  Independence Festival (to become IF Ltd.)

  Independence Festival 2000

  20,700

  Community Arts North West

  'Inquotation'

  16,000

  The Bridgewater Hall Community Education Trust

  Saxophony 2000

  12,000

  English Sports Council

  Greater Manchester Youth Games

  Greater Manchester Millennium Youth Games

  TBA

  590 591

  North west Millennium Festival grants by county

  Organisation

  Project

  Award £

  Lancashire

  The Millennium Commission

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Celebrating the Millennium in East Lancashire

  80,000

  Lancashire County Council

  Millennium Celebrations for Lancashire

  50,000

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Hyndburn Millennium Timeline

  30,000

  Disability Services (Blackpool, Wyre and Flyde)

  I'm Not Asking To Be Einstein

  30,000

  The Chorley Partnership

  Chorley Millennium Celebrations

  29,300

  Mela Festival Committee

  Mela Millennium Festival (Preston)

  25,000

  Pendle Borough Council/Pendle Partnership

  Remembering Pendle—A History of the Last 2000 Years Through the Eyes

  25,000

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Lancashire County Millennium Exhibition Committee

  Story of Christianity in Lancashire

  90,000

  North West Museums Service

  Discover for Yourself!

  40,000

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Telling Tales, Rochdale

  29,700

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Council for Voluntary Service

  —

  50,000

  Lancashire Development Education Group

  —

  50,000

  Lancashire Development Education Group

  —

  37,560

  Arts Council of England

  Ludus Dance Agency

  Our Future, On Reflection

  25,000

  M6 Theatre Company

  'Visioning the Future'

  24,000

  Folly Gallery

  Lancaster Digital Arts Festival

  23,100

  Turnpike Community Theatre

  Epic Millennium Community Play

  21,400

  Indian Association Oldham

  Indian Association Oldham Millennium Festival Celebrations

  21,400

  Lancaster and Morecambe Arts Promotion Network

  Time and Tide

  21,000

  Mid Pennine Arts

  L2L2K

  20,000

  Mossley Community Arts Ltd.

  Festival of Fire

  16,000

  Little World Ltd. (Horse and Bamboo)

  Feeding The Dragon

  15,000

  Burnley Youth Theatre

  Spirit

  13,200

  Rais Academy

  3 Generations

  5,600

  Longridge Millennium Committee

  Longridge Millennium Stone Cross

  5,000

  English Sports Council

  Lancashire County Council

  Lancashire Millennium Youth Games

  TBA

  Merseyside

  The Millennium Commission

  Liverpool Architecture and Design Trust (LADT)

  The River of Light Millennium Celebrations

  200,000

  The Greenhouse Multi-Cultural Play and Arts Project

  Lighting Up Bidston Hill

  30,000

  The Blackie/Great Georges Community Cultural Project

  Ganes for the New Years

  25,000

  HOPES: The Hope Street Association (Liverpool)

  The Hope Street Millennium Public Arts Route

  25,000

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  Groundwork St. Helens, Knowsley and Sefton

  Sankey Canal Festival

  30,000

  Mersey Film and Video

  Mersey Films: Present from the Past to the Future

  30,000

  Mersey Heritage Trust

  Millennium Liverpool May Horse Parade

  30,000

  Friends of Leasowe Lighthouse

  Leasowe Lighthouse—Local Educational Network Link

  6,200

  National Lottery Charities Board

  Blackburne House

  —

  30,000

  The Groundwork Trust

  —

  30,000

  The Groundwork Trust

  —

  22,000

  Arts Council of England

  Merseyside Dance Initiative

  Quantum Leap

  25,000

  Foundation for Arts and Creative Technology

  Access All Areas

  24,000

  Liverpool John Moores University

  Wow 2000! Writing On The Wall—2000: A National and International Writing Festival

  21,200

  Mockbegger Theatre Company

  Time For Together

  20,400

  The Windows Project

  Stonepoems

  20,000

  Circle of Literary Friends

  Asian Diaspora 2000

  14,800

  English Sports Council

  Merseyside Sport

  Merseyside Sport Millennium Youth Games

  TBA

  West Lancashire

  Arts Council of England

  West Lancashire District Council

  District Visions

  23,900

  592 593

  National Lottery
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been allocated to good causes each year since the inception of the National Lottery. [79239]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: The table shows total income for the good causes (including interest) by calender year since the inception of the National Lottery:

  Year

  £

  19941

  82,605,591

  1995

  1,342,426,919

  1996

  1,591,480,120

  1997

  1,865,661,561

  1998

  1,955,875,555

  1 The first National Lottery draw took place on November 1994.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Aghalane Bridge
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the previous Aghalane Bridge was destroyed; and what was the purpose of destroying it. [78271]

  Mr. Ingram
  Aghalane Bridge was destroyed in an explosion on 21 November 1972 by a person or persons unknown, but believed to have been a Loyalist paramilitary group.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the projected cost for the reconstruction of the Aghalane Bridge; what proportion of the bridge is in Northern Ireland; and what are the respective shares of the total cost of reinstatement to be borne by British and Irish Republic public funds. [78274]

  Mr. Ingram
  The projected cost of the contract for the reconstruction of Aghalane Bridge is expected to be £862,000. The British Government are bearing the full cost of the reconstructed bridge and have received £500,000 grant aid from the European Regional Development Fund, Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation.

  In addition to the projected cost of £862,000, the scheme to reconstruct the bridge has attracted additional costs arising out from the geotechnical investigation, consultant's fees and laboratory charges, which are estimated to amount to £45,000. These costs have been included as part of the road-works for the northern approach to the bridge.

  The reconstructed bridge is 30 metres long, 15 metres of which is on the Northern Ireland side of the border.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of approach roadworks relating to the Aghalane Bridge reconstruction for each year since preparations commenced; and to what 594
  extent approach works in the Irish Republic have been (a) managed, (b) paid for and (c) subsidised by the Department of the Environment (NI). [78273]

  Mr. Ingram
  DEO(NI) Roads Service has been involved only in the construction of the Northern approach to the bridge, including such work on the Southern side of the Woodford River as was necessary to construct the bridge. To date, the cost of these roadworks is estimated to be £1,930,720, including a projected expenditure of £292,152 in the coming financial year. In addition to the construction costs, this estimate includes the cost of geotechnical investigations, consultant's fees and laboratory charges, as well as an allowance for land acquisition and landscaping.

  Roads Service expect to receive a grant from the European Regional Development Fund, Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation, to the value of £1,061,250.

  The costs each year are as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure (£)

  1995–96

  2,777

  1996–97

  20,025

  1997–98

  543,955

  1998–99

  1,071,811

  1999–2000

  1292,152

  Total

  11,930,720

  1 Projected

  Apart from the works necessary to construct the bridge, indicated above, Roads Service have not managed, paid for or subsidised any of the approach works in the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many terrorist attacks took place on civilians on the road between Aghalane Bridge and Teemore Cross(a) prior to and (b) after the destruction of the previous bridge; if she will give details of the deaths and injuries inflicted; and what was the total compensation paid by the Northern Ireland Office as a result. [78272]

  Mr. Ingram
  RUC records indicate that one terrorist incident took place in that immediate area, the murder of Thomas (part-time UDR) and Emily Bullock at their home at Killynick on 21 September 1972. The Northern Ireland Office did receive claims, which I understand were later withdrawn.

  National Sports Stadium
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will provide details of the membership of the Working Group established to investigate the possibility of a national sports stadium for Northern Ireland; what are its terms of reference; and when the Working Group intends to hold its first meeting. [79343]
  595
  Mr. McFall
  The membership of the Working Group to be established to investigate the possibility of a national sports stadium for Northern Ireland will represent the following interests:

  Chairman:

  To be appointed by the Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  Members:

  Representative from the Department of the Environment

  Representative from the Belfast City Council

  Two representatives from the Private Sector

  One representative from each of Rugby, Soccer, Gaelic Sports and Athletics.

  The Working Group's terms of reference are:

  To explore the need for, and feasibility of providing a national stadium, in particular:

  to consult with relevant sporting interests to determine their willingness to participate in the promotion and operation of a national stadium

  to identify a potential promoter/owner/operator

  to assess the potential regenerative impact of a national stadium

  596

  to examine the capital and recurrent funding implications and associated locational issues

  to examine the potential relationships and linkages with relevant public and private sector organisations

  to construct an outline business case

  to determine what further steps should be taken.

  The Working Group intends to hold its first meeting in early April.

WALES

  Company Licences
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [76853]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]: The information is given in the table.

  Licences and permits for business for small and medium sized enterprises

  Title

  Current number of companies in receipt of licence/permit

  Agriculture

  Post Chernobyl Sheep Movement Consents

  360

  Heather and Grass Burning Licence

  None

  Licences to kill or take piscivorous birds

  None

  Licences to kill or take non-piscivorous birds

  3

  Licences under the protection of Badgers Act 1992

  3

  Licence to introduce and or keep in inland waters in England and Wales non-native species of fish

  6

  Permit to purchase strychnine

  60

  Authorisation of premises to remove spinal cord of older sheep and goats

  27

  Fresh meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Red meat slaughterhouses

  34

  Cutting plants

  13

  Cold stores

  24

  The Poultry meat, farmed game bird meat, and rabbit meat (hygiene and inspection) regulations 1995

  Slaughterhouses

  13

  Cutting plants

  13

  Cold stores

  8

  The wild game meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995

  Slaughterhouses

  1

  Premises licences, carrying agents licence and imports licences issued under the rabies (Importation of dogs, cats and other mammals) Order 1974

  3

  Import licences under the importation and exportation of birds, poultry and hatching eggs Order 1979

  2

  Licences issued under the importation of animal products and poultry products Order 1980 (as amended)

  4

  Artificial insemination of cattle (animal health) (England and Wales) Regulations 1985 (as amended)1.

  902

  Independent Schools

  Registered independent schools

  51

  Provisionally Registered Independent Schools

  6

  CADW

  Minstrels permit2

  2

  Grazing licences3

  4

  Tea room Castell Coch4

  1

  For the above, no charges are levied except

  1 Information available for 1997–98 costs are only available at disproportionate costs

  2 Cost of £100 (inc. VAT) for both years

  3 Cost of £500 (inc. VAT) for both years

  4 Cost of £3,000 (inc. VAT) for both years

  Note:

  Only one larger company is in receipt of a permit issued by the Department: the North Wales tourism (TIC at Conwy Visitor Centre) has a licence to operate from CADW premises. The cost is variable—between £3,000 and £5,000 for both years.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  597

  Euro Task Force
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the names of the members of the Euro Task Force for Wales. [78348]

  Members of Euro Task Force for Wales

  Member

  Mr. K. Truman (Chairman)

  Area Director, Lloyds Bank Commercial Banking

  Ms S. Camper

  Agent for Wales, Bank of England

  Mr. J. Casterton

  Euro Taskforce Manager on secondment from Barclays Bank

  Mr. K. Cox

  Welsh Office Euro Co-ordinator

  Mr. B. Dennis

  Export Sales Director, Conren International

  Ms C. Eva

  European Commission for Wales

  Mr. R. Forster

  Managing Director, Biomet Merck Ltd.

  Dr. M. Goble

  Managing Director, Gyrus Medical Plc

  Mr. P. Graham-Woolard

  Director, Manufacturing Operations UK, Rizla UK Ltd.

  Ms K. Hartigan

  Finance Director, INA Bearings Ltd.

  Dr. E. Haywood

  Director, Wales, Confederation of British Industry

  Mr. G. Jackson

  Strategic Policy Director, Welsh Development Agency

  Mr. B. Meredith

  Wales Euro Information Centre

  Mr. R. Palmer

  Chairman, Swansea North and Port Talbot, Business Connect

  Mr. F. Royle

  Director, Finance, British Steel Plc

  Mr. P. Saunders

  Managing Director. Halo Foods Ltd.

  Mr. S. Sivapalan

  President, South Wales Association of Certified Accountants

  Mr. S. Welch

  Chief Executive, North Wales Chamber of Commerce

  Mr. A. Winstanley

  Pilkington Special Glass Ltd.

  Ms V. Winkler

  Economic Adviser, Welsh Local Government

  Mr. G. Wright

  Regional Secretary, Wales TUC

  Retail Parks
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the expenditure by(a) local authorities and (b) the WDA on the development of out of town retail parks in the last year for which figures are available. [78229]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on local authority expenditure on the development of out of town retail parks is not held by my Department.

  No WDA expenditure has been put into such developments in the last year.

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

  Inward Investment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the current levels of inward investment in(a) Wales and (b) Flintshire. [78956]

  Mr. Hain
  I am delighted with the 17,402 new jobs and associated capital investment of £1.3 billion promised by the inward investment projects recorded for Wales by the Welsh Development Agency since May 1997. Flintshire's contribution of almost 2,400 new jobs and capital investment of £582 million is a tribute to the people of the area.

  But, I want to see even greater success in the future in terms of a higher level of inward investment and in terms of the growth of indigenous companies. And I want to see this success distributed throughout Wales.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  598
  Mr. Hain
  The information is given in the table.

  Badgers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning badgers and bovine tuberculosis in Wales. [78961]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  We are greatly concerned about the increased incidence of bovine TB in Wales. The Government's five point strategy based on the recommendations in the Krebs report is the right strategy for dealing with the problem. No one should underestimate the seriousness of bovine TB and we will take the necessary steps to contain it.

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

  A550
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to reduce traffic congestion on the A550 Woodbank English Border Junction. [78962]

  Mr. Hain
  The Woodbank Junction scheme is almost entirely situated in Cheshire, and is the responsibility of the Highways Agency. It will be for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in conjunction with the Highways Agency to carry out the route study proposed in the English Roads Review. Progress on this will continue to be closely monitored by the Welsh Office.

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

  Beef
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he has taken to promote Welsh beef. [78959]
  599
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Beef is a vital part of the livestock industry in Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has taken a number of measures to promote quality beef produced by our farmers. A Welsh Agri-Food Action Plan for the Lamb and Beef sector, drawn up by the industry, was launched on 8 March with the support of the Welsh Office and the WDA.

  The Plan sets out to
  strengthen the image of Welsh beef as an extensively-reared grass-fed product;
  develop export markets and niche markets;
  develop stronger marketing arrangements through the marketing support that is available through the Welsh Development Agency and Welsh Lamb and Beef Promotions;
  build a bigger stake for farmers in the supply chain; develop added value processing;
  encourage livestock markets to re-appraise their position and plan for the future;
  develop farm and supply chain certification as the market demands that assurance schemes are necessary throughout the supply chain.

  In addition, the Welsh Office is supporting projects to promote quality beef from Wales:
  ADAS—Welsh Beef Industry Viability Project—this project aims to assist beef production systems and promote quality through concentrating on farm assurance, efficient production, traceability, marketing and the establishment of producer groups. The total project cost is some £1.2 million over a period of four years;
  Welsh Development Agency—Promotion and Marketing of Welsh Beef—the objective of this project is to stimulate consumer demand for Welsh beef through a strategic marketing and promotional campaign. The total project cost is some £0.821 million; and
  Welsh Black Cattle Society—Improving quality and marketing of Welsh Black Cattle. The total project cost is £0.490 million.

  In future, following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the Assembly.

  Hospitals (Flintshire)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of(a) the longstay hospital at Meadowsleigh, Penyffordd, Flintshire and (b) the Dobshill Hospital, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [78953]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The future of these hospitals is a matter for North Wales Health Authority. I understand that this Authority is in the process of completing a review, the purpose of which is to establish what community hospital services are currently provided and what are required to support local communities over the next 5 years. The Authority intends to publish and consult upon a 5 year strategic plan shortly.

  School Libraries
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the amount of money to be made available for school libraries in(a) high schools, (b) primary schools, (c) infant and (d) nursery schools in Flintshire in 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [78954]

  Mr. Hain
  This is a matter for the local education authority and for schools to decide in the light of local needs and priorities.
  600
  However, school libraries have an important role to play in the drive to raise standards of literacy. As part of the additional £4 million for books announced following the Budget, schools in Flintshire will receive £204,000. In addition Flintshire's share of the money which we are making available through the Grants for Education Support and Training programme in 1999–2000 specifically to support literacy is nearly £110,000.

  We have also recognised the contribution which school librarians can make to teaching and learning and they are eligible to receive the training in the use of information and communications technologies funded from the Lottery through the New Opportunities Fund.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if it is Government policy to reduce the number of mixed-sex wards in NHS hospitals in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [79392]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Rather than concentrate on the narrow issue of single sex accommodation, NHS Wales should address the wider and arguably more important area of privacy and dignity.

  Some trust hospitals' existing washing and toilet facilities still fall short of the acceptable standards for meeting privacy and dignity, and all trusts are working towards this goal. In addition, trusts bring to the attention of all staff the importance of meeting patients' needs and wishes for privacy and dignity through their induction programmes.

  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 if he will estimate the number of mixed-sex wards in NHS hospitals in each local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [79388]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  An estimate of the number of mixed-sex wards in NHS hospitals in each local authority area could be made only at a disproportionate cost.

  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 (1) how many patients are in mixed-sex wards in the Royal Gwent Hospital; [79393]

  (2) how many mixed-sex wards there are currently in the Royal Gwent Hospital. [79394]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Of the 33 wards at Royal Gwent hospital 29 wards, with 675 beds, are mixed sex. However each ward is made up of bays and each bay is single sex.

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

  Blood Donors
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money was spent by his Department in 1998 to encourage people to give blood. [79391]
  601
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In addition to the Department of Health's expenditure which benefits both England and Wales, in the 1998–99 financial year the Welsh Office spent just under £6,000 to encourage more blood donors.

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

  Nurse Recruitment
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money his Department will spend in the current financial year on advertisements intended to encourage people to return to the nursing profession. [79389]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Office has spent £12,000 in the current financial year on its nurse recruitment campaign. As a result of a survey of individual Trusts' needs, advertisements will be placed in local newspapers in the new financial year to attract registered nurses back to the NHS in Wales. These additional costs are as yet unknown.

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

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Spree Offenders
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of youth crime is committed by spree offenders; and if he will estimate the proportion of such offenders who do not fall under the Government's definition of persistent young offenders. [78776]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to provide the information requested, as there is no generally recognised definition of a spree offender. While information is not collected separately on spree offenders, many of the fast-track schemes across the country include spree offenders as well as the Government's definition of persistent young offenders. Some of those regarded as spree offenders will fall within the category of persistent young offenders in any event.

  Rape Crisis Networks
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources the Government intends to devote to refuge and rape crisis networks for(a) 1999 to 2000 and (b) future years. [78872]

  Mr. Boateng
  The main national umbrella organisations for local refuge projects are the Women's Aid Federation of England and its sister organisations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  In 1999 to 2000, Women's Aid (England) is to receive a total of £229,795. The Department of Health will contribute £107,500 core funding, £29,205 for an awareness-raising project and £49,000 for a national telephone helpline service. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will contribute £44,000 under the Special Grants Programme to develop training opportunities, resources and facilities.

  Core funding to Welsh Women's Aid is provided by the Welsh Office. Figures for 1999 to 2000 have not yet been finalised.
  602
  The Scottish Office has committed £226,000 to Scottish Women's Aid for 1999 to 2000. From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  In Northern Ireland in 1999 to 2000, the Department of Health and Social Services will fund Northern Ireland Women's Aid for core administration work and project funding, to a value of £170,000. The Northern Ireland Office has set aside £30,000 to fund the Women's Aid helpline.

  The majority of Government funding for refuges themselves is indirect and, therefore, cannot be quantified. It includes the funding of registered social landlords through the Housing Corporation, some funding through local authorities and the Single Regeneration Budget, and some funding of revenue costs through the payment of housing benefit to residents.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health and the Women's Unit have commissioned a package of research into the accommodation and support services available in England to those experiencing domestic violence. This information will be used to assist local authorities in making decisions about what further provision they need to make in their localities.

  In Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment intends to commit £1.8 million capital funding and £1.4 million revenue funding in 1999 to 2000 to women's refuges. In 2000 to 2001, these figures will be £0.6 million capital and £1.4 million revenue, and in 2001 to 2002 they will be £1.7 million capital and £1.4 million revenue.

  Rape crisis centres currently receive public funds through, for example, local authorities, rather than central Government funding. The Government's consultation paper "Supporting people", published in December 1998, contains proposals for an improved funding framework for support services of this kind. The consultation period ended on 5 February and the responses are now being analysed. We cannot yet give precise commitments, but we have guaranteed that the total budget in 1999 to 2000 for the new "Supporting people" scheme will be at least the same as what was spent in 1998 to 1999 in the various budgets that the scheme will replace.

  In Northern Ireland in 1999 to 2000, the Department of Health and Social Services will provide £31,000 core funding for the Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre and £54,000 core funding to Nexus, a voluntary organisation providing a counselling service for adult victims of rape and sexual abuse.

  Policing (Party Conferences)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much his Department contributed to the cost of policing the Conservative Party Conference in Bournemouth in 1998; how much it plans to contribute for the Labour Party Conference in Bournemouth in 1999; and if he will make a statement. [79015]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Dorset Police Authority received a special grant of £750,000 as a contribution to the additional costs the force incurred in policing the Conservative Party Conference at Bournemouth in October 1998. The total additional costs incurred were £829,000.
  603
  The Dorset Police Authority will receive special grant of up to £1.6 million for the additional costs of policing this year's Labour Party Conference at Bournemouth. This is against total costs estimated by the force to be £1.7 million.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offenders have been(a) assessed for a drug treatment and testing order and (b) made subject to such an order in the pilot areas for drug treatment and testing order; and how many of those made subject to an order have subsequently breached the order. [79204]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As at 26 March 1999:

  (a) 130 offenders had been referred for assessment for a drug treatment and testing order in the three pilot areas; and

  (b) 38 offenders had been sentenced to a drug treatment and testing order by courts in the pilot areas. Of those orders, seven had been the subject of breach proceedings which, in six cases had resulted in the order being revoked.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 10 to 17-year-olds were convicted of offences involving(a) supply and (b) possession of illegal drugs; and how many of such offences involved Class A drugs in the last five years for which figures are available. [79209]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Appearance Databases is given in the table.

  Persons aged 10–17 years convicted at all courts of certain drug offences 1, England and Wales, 1993–97

  Offence

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug

  Total2

  73

  108

  119

  125

  148

  of which, class A:

  Number

  44

  47

  38

  37

  49

  Per cent.

  60

  44

  32

  30

  33

  Having possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply

  Total2

  89

  109

  150

  194

  197

  of which, class A:

  Number

  30

  30

  43

  62

  58

  Per cent.

  34

  28

  29

  32

  29

  Having possession of a controlled drug

  Total2

  553

  828

  992

  1,191

  1,454

  of which, class A:

  Number

  64

  105

  126

  134

  164

  Per cent.

  12

  13

  13

  11

  11

  1Based on principal offence

  2 Total [= 100 per. cent]

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of offences were committed by persistent young offenders in the last five years for which figures are available; [79206]

  (2) how many offences were committed by persistent young offenders in the last five years for which figures are available. [79207]
  604
  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to determine the proportion and number of offences committed by persistent young offenders. It is, however, possible to estimate the proportion of convictions for standard list offences that are accounted for by those aged 10 to 17 with three or more previous court appearances for such offences.

  The table contains the relevant available information based on samples of offenders sentenced in the years 1993 to 1997.

  Percentage of convictions 1 for standard list offences 2 accounted for by offenders aged 10–17 with three or more previous court appearances for such offences

  Percentage of those convicted aged 10–17

  Percentage of all convictions

  1997

  22

  3

  1997 old basis3

  22

  3

  1996

  20

  2

  1996 old basis3

  20

  3

  1995

  21

  3

  1994

  21

  3

  1993

  25

  3

  1 Counting one conviction per court appearance

  2 Standard list offences consist of all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences

  3 Excluding standard list offences added to the list on 1 January 1996

  The Government's definition of a persistent young offender is: a young person aged 10–17 who has been sentenced by any criminal court in the United Kingdom on three or more separate occasions for one or more recordable offence, and within three years of the last sentencing occasion is subsequently arrested or has information against him for a further recordable offence. In this context, "recordable" means the class of offences that must be recorded on the Police National Computer. This class of offences is generally broader than the "standard list". This means that the percentages quoted above relate to a category of persistent young offenders that is more restrictive than the Government definition. It should also be noted that it is not possible to determine the percentage of convictions and cautions accounted for by this group.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were committed by 10 to 17-years-old offenders(a) in total and (b) as a proportion of all offences in the last five years for which figures are available. [79208]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to present a full picture of the offences committed by young people aged 10 to 17 because much crime is not reported and not all reported crime is cleared up. The best indicator we have of youth crime is the number of young people known to have been involved in offending, that is, who have been cautioned by the police for, or convicted by the courts of, a crime.

  The available information, as given in the table, is taken from the Home Office Cautions and Court Proceedings Databases.

  605

  Number of offenders aged 10–17 years cautioned or convicted of all offences as a proportion of all offenders, England and Wales, 1993–1997

  Thousand

  Offenders aged 10–17

  All offenders1 (=100%)

  Number

  Percentage

  1993

  1,736.6

  176.9

  10

  1994

  21,733.1

  186.7

  11

  1995

  21,721.0

  188.4

  11

  1996

  21,727.0

  187.8

  11

  1997

  1,667.9

  183.6

  11

  1 Includes 'others' ie public bodies, companies etc.

  2 Figures adjusted to take account of shortfalls in the provision of data on magistrates' courts proceedings.

  Life Sentence (Murder)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 24 March 1999,Official Report, column 237, what is the minimum possible tariff to be served by a person serving a life sentence following a conviction for murder. [79084]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The tariff is set by the Secretary of State following consideration of advice from the judiciary on the punitive period necessary to satisfy the requirements of retribution and general deferrence. Tariff length varies according to the circumstances of the particular offence and there is no minimum period. However, tariffs of less than eight years for murder would be set only in exceptional circumstances.

  Lancet Inquiry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers have been charged with offences discovered during the Lancet inquiry; [79094]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Police Complaints Authority regarding the progress of the Lancet inquiry into alleged police corruption in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement; [79098]

  (3) what steps he is taking to monitor the progress of the Lancet inquiry into the alleged police corruption in Cleveland; and if he will make a statement; [79212]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Operation Lancet inquiry into allegations of police corruption in Cleveland is being supervised by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), and it is for the PCA to monitor the progress of the inquiry. The length of the investigation is a matter for the investigating officer and the PCA. I have not discussed the inquiry with the PCA. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on criminal or disciplinary investigations, including Operation Lancet, not least because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a role in the disciplinary process as the appellate authority, and my right hon. Friend may in the future be called upon in that capacity to consider any disciplinary appeals from offenders arising from this inquiry.

  No police officers have been charged with offences as a result of Operation Lancet inquiry to date, but the inquiry is continuing and I understand that a number of possible criminal and disciplinary matters are still under investigation. There has been close consultation with the
  606
  Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) throughout the inquiry. A file on drugs-related issues was delivered to the CPS on 4 December 1998 and is now with Treasury Counsel.

  Crime (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies have been(a) made and (b) commissioned by his Department on the breakdown of crimes committed by the different ethnic minorities; and if he will make a statement. [79291]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) on 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 554.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average time he took to respond substantively to letters from hon. Members in each of the last 12 months. [79299]

  Mr. Straw
  On the basis of available information, the average time taken to respond substantively to letters from hon. Members to which I personally replied is listed in working days.

  1998–99

  Working days

  March

  30

  April

  26

  May

  23

  June

  23

  July

  24

  August

  22

  September

  21

  October

  17

  November

  23

  December

  15

  January

  26

  February

  23

  Police and Prison Services (Ethnic Origin)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of (i) the Police Service and (ii) the Prison Service in England and Wales by ethnic origin and grade. [79048]

  Mr. Boateng
  Detailed information about the number of police officers by rank and ethnic origin is collected annually by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. The information in the table is for 31 March 1998.

  Police Service—Police Officers by rank and ethnic group as at 31 March 1998

  Asian

  Black

  Other

  Total

  Asst. Chief Constable

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Superintendent

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Chief Inspector

  3

  9

  7

  19

  Inspector

  19

  9

  10

  38

  Sergeant

  87

  83

  59

  229

  Constable

  687

  936

  437

  2,060

  Total

  798

  1,039

  514

  2,351

  607
  In addition, there were 132 ethnic minority police officers seconded to central services.

  There were 719 Asian, 1,405 black and 609 other civilian support staff from the ethnic minorities employed in the Police Service at the end of March 1998, a total of 2,733. It is not possible to provide information by grade.

  Numbers of Prison Service staff by grade and ethnic origin as at March 1999 are set out in tables that have been placed in the Library.

  Audit Commission Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission report, "Action Stations: Improving the Management of the Police Estate". [79379]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government welcome the report. Its recommendations will play a significant part in ensuring that the management of the police estate is given proper emphasis in releasing savings for redeployment into front-line policing and delivering best value.

  London Crime Study
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place the study into crime in London carried out by Dr. Marion Fitzgerald, in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [79194]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: Dr. Fitzgerald has not undertaken a study into crime in London.

  Dr. Fitzgerald did prepare a briefing paper for Ministers on ethnicity and criminality, which consolidated some data from small-scale local studies, previously published material and some material that has yet to be published.

  It has been the practice of successive Governments that such internal briefing papers are not themselves published.

  Dr. Fitzgerald's published research while with the Home Office has included:

  Ethnic Minorities and the criminal justice system: Research Study No. 20.
  The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993).

  Ethnic Minorities Victimisation and Racial Harassment: Findings from the 1988 and 1992 British Crime Surveys with Hale C.
  Home Office, Research Development and Statistics Directorate (HORS 154) (1996).

  Ethnic monitoring in police forces: A beginning with Sibbett R.
  Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (HORS 173) (1997).

  Evaluation of the Racially Aggravated Offences in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
  Home Office, Research, Development and Statistics Directorate (Spring 2001).

  I am happy to make available to the right hon. Member a full list of relevant published research in this field.

  Asylum Interviews
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he intends to introduce tape recording of asylum interviews. [79769]
  608
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have decided to pilot tape recording of asylum interviews. Some interviews, at ports and in Croydon should be tape recorded from May. A report on the pilot, including its impact on the Immigration Appellate Authority, is planned for the New Year.

  Football-related Legislation
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to announce the outcome of the public consultation exercise on the Review of Football-related Legislation which was published on 27 November 1998. [79772]

  Kate Hoey
  The document entitled "Review of Football-related Legislation" set out 29 proposals for discussion on measures to help to prevent and minimise football hooliganism at designated football matches in England and Wales and overseas.

  The consultation period ended on 27 January and some 50 responses were received from organisations and individuals. The overwhelming response to the measures was supportive. Respondents to the document as a whole recognised the need for measures to be introduced to deal with the loopholes in the present legislation. They also indicated strong support for those proposals aimed at dealing with measures to help to prevent those convicted of football-related offences from attending designated football matches. I am placing a summary of the responses in the Library.

  The response to the public consultation exercise has been made known to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) whose Bill, the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill, is due for its Second Reading on 16 April.

  Criminal Justice System
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the criminal justice system plans. [79821]

  Mr. Straw
  The Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and I will be publishing jointly a strategic and business plan for the criminal justice system in England and Wales at 12 noon on 31 March 1999. The plans describe the aims, objectives and performance targets which the Government expect the criminal justice system as a whole to deliver. Copies of the plans will be placed in the Library.

  Scout Association
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Scout Association regarding the cost to them of checking adults with the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [79320]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have received representations from a number of voluntary organisations, including the Scout Association, about charging for checks from the Criminal Records Bureau. We considered very carefully whether there was any way in which free checks could be provided for volunteers. While we acknowledge the valuable contribution volunteers make, we have concluded that it
  609
  would not be practicable to provide any free checks from the Criminal Records Bureau for volunteers or for any other groups.

  We realise that this is unwelcome news, but providing free checks would prove an unsustainable burden on the public purse and may increase demand for certificates from the bureau to an uncontrollable extent. In addition, we do not consider it would be fair to allow volunteers to have free certificates when there are other equally deserving groups, such as the unemployed or the disabled. The cost of the fees for certificates from the bureau will be kept to the minimum necessary to recoup costs.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost so far to the Exchequer of the arrest, confinement and protection of and legal proceedings relating to Senator Pinochet. [79345]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 9 February 1999,Official Report, column 143.

  For security reasons, it has been the policy of successive Governments not to provide information about police operations relating to protection. The Home Office allocated £200,000 to the Surrey police force to assist with the unexpected costs to the force of Senator Pinochet's residence in Wentworth.

  On the cost so far of legal proceedings I understand that my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General will be answering a written question laid by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar).

  Police (London)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the role of police/community consultative groups once the Greater London Authority and the Police Authority for London are established; if existing police/community consultative groups will be retained with the same composition and functions; and if he will make a statement. [79508]

  Kate Hoey
  The Government place considerable importance on there being effective community consultation on policing matters. Police and Community Consultative Groups (PCGGs) play a major role in this process, as I emphasised in the debate on section 17 of the Greater London Authority Bill in Standing Committee A on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 1276–82. PCCGs are not statutory bodies—but they are the primary means by which many police authorities choose to discharge their duty to obtain the views of local people.

  When the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) is created, it will take on the duty, currently held by the Metropolitan police Commissioner, of obtaining the views of people in the Metropolitan police district. It will be for the MPA to decide how best to discharge this duty, just as police authorities elsewhere in England and Wales must decide how best to obtain the views of people in their area. If the MPA considers that PCCGs are working well, we have every reason to believe that it will want to retain them.
  610

  Police Forces
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what means other than HM Inspectorate of Constabularies he is able to assess the(a) independence, (b) training, (c) skills and (d) resources of non-Home Office police forces; and if he will make a statement. [79319]

  Mr. Boateng
  The responsibility for managing and supervising the operation of non-Home Office police forces rests with the employing bodies of those organisations.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the last occasion HM Inspector of Constabularies made an inspection of the Port of Liverpool Police; and if he will make a statement. [79318]

  Mr. Boateng
  The last inspection of the Port of Liverpool police by HM Inspector of Constabularies was in 1978.

  Bereavement Damages
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 regarding bereavement damages to take into account the death of an only son; and if he will make a statement. [78764]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1996 provides for bereavement damages to be claimed by the parents of unmarried children who are under the age of 18. This applies to both parents where the child was legitimate, and to the mother only in the case of an illegitimate child. This is an area which we keep regularly under review. The Law Commission considered bereavement damages in its consultation paper "Claims for Wrongful Death" (Consultation Paper No. 148) and hopes to produce its report later this year. The Government will consider the Law Commission's recommendations carefully when they are received.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Conditional Fee Arrangements
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish details of legal fees and insurance products available to litigants with conditional fee agreements. [79340]

  Mr. Hoon
  As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the details of legal fees are a matter of privilege between the lawyer and his client and cannot, therefore, be collected centrally. Insurance products to support the use of conditional fees are coming into the market regularly. I doubt that a comprehensive list of products exists or can be put together, given the vibrant and expanding nature of this market.

  Judges (Guidance)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will issue guidance to the judges setting out the way in which the principle of the separation of powers should operate. [79432]
  611
  Mr. Hoon
  Judicial education is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), which is an independent non-departmental public body and is chaired by Lord Justice Henry.

  The JSB does not issue policy guidance, but its training seminars enable judges to learn from experienced judges, academics and other experts, and to discuss constitutional issues. The planned JSB training on the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights will provide a further opportunity for judges to address the separation of powers. In any event the doctrine of the separation of powers is well understood by the judiciary as a whole.

  Judges (Appointments)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the arrangements for appointing judges, with particular reference to the introduction of an independent element. [79431]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor keeps the arrangements for appointing judges under review. Lay people are already involved in the shortlisting and interviewing of applicants for judicial office below High Court level, and they will continue to play a valuable part in the judicial appointments process. The Lord Chancellor is still considering the possibility of proceeding with consultation on the issues relating to the possible creation of a Judicial Appointments Commission.

SCOTLAND

  Conferences (Costs)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the expenditure of his Department, its agencies and related public bodies on all conferences in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99 and (d) 1999–2000; what was the date, cost and purpose of each conference held externally since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [69199]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]: As the information is lengthy, I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy in the Library of the House.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed; and whether they receive remuneration. [76463]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: As the list is lengthy, I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library of the House.

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

  Homelessness
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many homeless people there were in Scotland in each year since 1992. [77766]
  612
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 25 March 1999]: The table gives, for each year since 1992–93, the number of households that applied to local authorities under the homeless persons legislation, the number of households that local authorities assessed as homeless or potentially homeless, and the number which the local authorities determined to have a priority need. Information on the number of applications for 1997–98 and the first two quarters of 1998–99 will be published in the Housing Quarterly Trends Statistical Bulletin on 31 March 1999.

  Number of applications and assessments made under the homeless persons legislation

  Year

  Number of applications

  Number assessed homeless or potentially homeless

  Number homeless or potentially homeless and in priority need

  1992–93

  42,822

  30,100

  19,800

  1993–94

  43,038

  30,900

  18,300

  1994–95

  41,495

  31,600

  17,500

  1995–96

  40,936

  30,300

  16,900

  1996–97

  41,010

  30,600

  16,800

  European Scrutiny Committee
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if(a) Ministers, (b) special advisers and (c) civil servants saw the European Scrutiny Committee questions brief in advance of the appearance of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State before the Committee on 16 February. [77848]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: It has been a common, but not universal, practice over a long period for Committees to agree to give officials an indication of the broad areas they intend to cover at the hearing to ensure that the evidence session is as effective and productive as possible. I was informed of the broad areas of questioning in advance of the Committee hearing on 16 February.

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the total annual storage and maintenance costs for all 1841 to 1991 decennial census returns in Scotland. [78435]

  Mr. McLeish
  Annual costs of storage and maintenance of all the 1841 to 1991 decennial census returns for Scotland are estimated at £75,000.

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he 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 Scotland; and if he will list the class numbers, census years and periods mentioned in the schedules. [78443]
  613
  Mr. McLeish
  The legislation referred to does not apply to Scotland. Scottish census records remain in the custody of the originating department, the General Register Office for Scotland, and under the control of the Registrar General for Scotland.

  The present position in Scotland is that the census returns up to and including those of 1891 are open to public inspection. The Registrar General's policy on census returns for 1901 or later years was agreed in 1974 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland and announced in Parliament on 23 May 1974, Official Report, columns 272–73. This confirmed that Scottish census returns would not be made available until 100 years after the census to which they relate, and that only in exceptional circumstances could closed census returns be accessed. These public access provisions were affirmed by the present Government in the 2001 Census White Paper published on 4 March. The circumstances are:
  where application is made to the Registrar General for specific information to be supplied from records of a closed census, taken on or before 1931; and
  where this application is made for the specific purpose of assisting an individual to resolve a question of his or her legal inheritance.

  The closure period is intended to safeguard the confidentiality of the personal information collected in the census, and successive Governments have honoured an undertaking that the information would remain confidential. Protection of the credibility of the undertaking is crucial to maintaining the quality of the information collected.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  614

  Trunk Roads Review
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce the results of the strategic review of the Scottish trunk road programme; and if he will list in his announcement the starting date of the agreed projects. [79240]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) on 23 March 1999,Official Report, column 149.

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

  Outpatient Appointments
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of each hospital in Scotland, how many outpatient appointments were made during 1998; and, in each case, what was the number of patients who waited(a) three to six months and (b) more than six months from referral to appointment. [78735]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on waiting times for outpatient appointments is available for the length of time patients waited for their first outpatient appointment following referral by a general medical practitioner (GMP)/general dental practitioner(GDP).

  Data on the total number of outpatient attendances, the number of patients who received a first outpatient appointment following GMP/GDP referral, and the number of patients who waited three to six months and more than six months for a first outpatient appointment following GMP/GDP referral, by NHS Trust, during 1998, is provided in the table.

  NHS in Scotland: total number of outpatients attendances, number of general medical practitioner (GMP)/general dental practitioner (GDP) referrals, and waiting time for first outpatient appointment from GMP/GDP referral in 1998 1

  First outpatient referrals from GMP/GDP

  NHS trust/directly managed unit

  Total number of outpatient attendances2

  Total number of appointments

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  South Ayrshire Hospital

  124,787

  21,516

  3,110

  218

  North Ayrshire Hospital

  185,994

  36,186

  1,282

  170

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care

  11,826

  2,011

  23

  5

  Borders General Hospital

  58,952

  18,492

  1,331

  184

  Borders Community Health Services

  6,020

  1,342

  67

  39

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  131,324

  29,323

  3,817

  1,973

  Inverclyde Royal

  91,092

  19,110

  2,155

  302

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  26,388

  2,595

  115

  49

  Lomond Healthcare

  50,136

  13,518

  1,815

  107

  Argyll and Bute

  38,766

  9,329

  1,253

  254

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  94,116

  21,142

  5,023

  1,397

  Fife Healthcare

  14,769

  1,224

  148

  14

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  139,462

  34,053

  7,774

  1,388

  Southern General Hospitals

  139,507

  35,005

  7,706

  3,039

  Yorkhill

  104,122

  13,234

  3,517

  549

  Victoria Infirmary

  144,366

  42,275

  7,523

  720

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  269,509

  58,776

  9,661

  3,179

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  287,944

  51,099

  12,051

  3,285

  Stobhill

  128,289

  28,646

  2,360

  157

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Service

  54,022

  8,966

  462

  60

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  111,321

  17,637

  5,423

  912

  Raigmore Hospital

  121,369

  34,242

  3,636

  2,074

  Caithness and Sutherland

  20,726

  6,175

  701

  166

  Highland Communities

  19,307

  3,339

  50

  7

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  137,680

  25,732

  4,951

  2,074

  Law Hospitals

  144,839

  37,371

  6,456

  1,184

  615

  NHS in Scotland: total number of outpatients attendances, number of general medical practitioner (GMP)/general dental practitioner (GDP) referrals, and waiting time for first outpatient appointment from GMP/GDP referral in 1998 1

  First outpatient referrals from GMP/GDP

  NHS trust/directly managed unit

  Total number of outpatient attendances2

  Total number of appointments

  Number of patients who waited 3–6 months

  Number of patients who waited over 6 months

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  126,602

  28,684

  5,164

  1,315

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  28,106

  2,373

  262

  65

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  310,295

  66,341

  9,163

  2,136

  Grampian Healthcare

  47,215

  11,782

  2,005

  231

  Moray Health Services

  41,439

  10,417

  1,337

  117

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  8,169

  2,475

  54

  9

  West Lothian

  103,830

  34,108

  5,188

  1,795

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  352,370

  77,945

  12,029

  6,012

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  43,835

  8,129

  184

  2

  Western General Hospitals

  123,180

  28,868

  2,571

  1,275

  East and Midlothian

  44,396

  13,856

  756

  156

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  51,962

  1,574

  96

  38

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  307,589

  53,379

  8,355

  1,097

  Perth and Kinross Hospitals

  114,624

  29,873

  4,310

  626

  Dundee Healthcare

  20,664

  4,987

  420

  134

  Angus

  43,012

  13,014

  1,415

  461

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  109,748

  24,400

  2,661

  530

  Falkirk and District Infirmary

  113,761

  12,855

  2,935

  769

  Central Hospital Healthcare

  15,828

  2,086

  41

  48

  Western Isles Health Unit

  18,795

  3,090

  123

  37

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  78,889

  14,770

  1,815

  291

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health

  8,375

  411

  1

  0

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  12,720

  3,656

  78

  10

  1 Provisional

  2 Excludes patients who did not attend their appointment

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

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

  Library Books
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been allocated to each local education authority in Scotland since 9 March 1999 for the purchase of library books in pursuance of the Budget announcement of additional funding for library books by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. [78733]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  £

  Council

  Allocation

  Aberdeen City

  188,409

  Aberdeenshire

  278,455

  Angus

  121,279

  Argyll and Bute

  116,686

  Clackmannan

  52,155

  Dumfries and Galloway

  176,975

  Dundee

  142,037

  East Ayrshire

  132,121

  East Dumbarton

  131,927

  East Lothian

  91,081

  East Renfrewshire

  105,039

  Edinburgh

  346,458

  Eilean Siar

  46,055

  Falkirk

  148,303

  Fife

  377,766

  Glasgow

  545,640

  Highland

  275,354

  Inverclyde

  91,016

  Midlothian

  91,218

  616

  £

  Council

  Allocation

  Moray

  99,151

  North Ayrshire

  149,364

  North Lanark

  361,131

  Orkney

  30,358

  Perth and Kinross

  138,500

  Renfrewshire

  184,664

  Scottish Borders

  116,653

  Shetland

  37,976

  South Ayrshire

  120,513

  South Lanark

  328,004

  Stirling

  93,404

  West Dumbarton

  107,915

  West Lothian

  174,348

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Performance Targets
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what performance targets he has set his Department's agencies for 1999–2000; and if he will make a statement. [79807]

  Mr. Darling
  The targets I have set the Executive Agencies for 1999–2000 are as given.

  They reflect our determination to reform the Welfare State and to modernise the Social Security system to encourage work for those who can and provide security for those who cannot.
  617
  They underpin the Departmental Aim and Objectives set out in our Public Service Agreement.

  Further information on the Agencies' plans for 1999–2000 is contained in their individual business plans which have been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The targets for 1999–2000 are:
  Benefits Agency Targets—1999–2000.
  Active Customer Focused Services
  1. To support the programme of welfare reform and modernisation in particular by:

  implementing DMA

  closer working with Child Support Agency, Employment Service, Local Authorities and others and jointly working on welfare to work including:

  the New Deals

  the Single Work Focused Gateway Pilots, and Employment Zones

  commencing implementation of an active modern service for pensioners

  ensuring that all staff are informed of, and kept up to date with, welfare reform and modern service delivery changes.

  2. To publish by June 1999 a revised BA Charter in accordance with central guidance and to then baseline performance and achieve agreed targets.

  Secure and Accurate Services

  3. To implement programme protection plans in order to reduce, by at least 10 per cent., benefit losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, by 31 March 2002.

  Investing in our People

  4. To work with the Department in developing a staffing index and contribute to the reduction in public sector sick absences by reducing absences by 6 per cent. by March 2000.

  Effective Management of Money

  5. To agree with the Department the principles and baseline, for the operation of efficiency indices and to commence pilot operation of these during 1999–2000.

  6. To cover the costs of pay and price inflation and other pressures through efficiency savings, equivalent to an average of 4 per cent. per year of running cost provision.

  7. To recover £150 million in cases where benefit has been overpaid and to pilot an incentive scheme agreed with the Department and HM Treasury to enable targets to be set for 2000–01 based on increasing the amount of debt recovered.

  Quality, Efficient Organisational Processes

  8. To support the programme of welfare reform and modernisation in particular by:
  supporting Modern Service one activity.
  CSA Targets 1999–2000
  Case compliance1
  To collect child maintenance and arrears from 70 per cent. of non resident parents with maintenance liability due to be paid through the Agency's collection service.
  Cash Compliance 1
  To collect 67 per cent. of child maintenance and arrears due for payment through the Agency's collection service.
  Minimum Service Standards 2
  To reach a specified level of performance in a series of customer service standards. The minimum service standards are:

  65 per cent. of new maintenance applications to be cleared within 20 weeks;

  97 per cent. of payments made to the parent with care (or their bank or building society) to be made within 10 working days of receipt from the non resident parent;

  618

  Where a client is dissatisfied with a Child Support Officer's decision and requests a review; or where a change of circumstances requires a review; 88 per cent. to be cleared within 12 weeks;

  The National Enquiry Line (NEL) to respond to 80 per cent. of telephone calls within 20 seconds;

  60 per cent. of letters to be answered within 10 working days of receipt;

  97 per cent. of clients to be seen within 10 minutes of the time of a pre-booked appointment;

  90 per cent. of complaints to be acknowledged within 2 working days of receipt;

  To respond with a full reply to 75 per cent. of complaints, within 10 working days of receipt;

  80 per cent. of telephone calls to client helplines to be answered first time;

  90 per cent. of customers surveyed on quality call backs (following contact with NEL/Client Helplines and face to face) to be at least satisfied with the service they have received;

  to reduce the number of complaints received compared to current caseload to less than 0.28 per cent.

  Accuracy
  The cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 78 per cent. of cases.
  Efficiency
  To deliver existing services within the running costs total, implying an annual efficiency gain of at least 4 per cent.
  Milestone targets
  (a) Debt Reduction
  To develop and agree with the Department and Treasury a robust debt reduction measure by 30 June 1999 to be run as an internal measure for the remainder of the year.
  (b) DMA
  To deliver DMA in accordance with the agreed timetable. To work with DSS HQ and the Appeals Service to enable accurate reporting of performance and agree baseline data to enable targets to be set for 2000–2001.
  (c) Efficiency/cost
  To agree with the Department the principles and baseline for the operation of an Efficiency/cost measure and to begin pilot operation of the index during 1999–2000.
  (d) Staffing Index
  To work with the Department in developing a staffing index and contribute to the reduction in public sector sick absences by reducing absences by 6 per cent. in 1999–2000.
  (e) Service First Charter

  (i) To review the existing CSA Customer Charter and produce proposals for the customer service measures to be included in a revised charter by 30 June 1999.

  (ii) To put in place the arrangements to collect information on performance against the revised measures and where appropriate to propose additional or alternative standards in the minimum service target by 30 September 1999.

  (iii) To reach agreement on a revised CSA Customer Charter, drawn up in accordance with central guidance, by 31 December 1999.

  Notes:
  1 Compliance targets will cover maintenance arising from full maintenance assessments paid though the Agency's collection service. Taken together, and including maintenance arranged for direct payment this should produce a total of £850 million in maintenance collected and arranged.
  2 Including timeliness of assessments and money transmission.
  ITSA Targets: 1999–2000
  Non-financial business results

  1. Work for the Department, and with its IS/IT suppliers, to support Welfare Reform and the Modern Service Programme by active involvement in Modern Service 1, including taking forward the

  619
  IS/IT supply lead within the Department and enabling the Modern Service Programme and others to make use of appropriate IS/IT supply routes.

  2. Develop Modern Service Programme IS/IT deliverables to specified time and quality standards including the identification and provision of IS/IT to support the Single Work Focused Gateway pilots.

  3. Deliver an agreed IS/IT work programme for the support and enhancement of existing systems to budget, time and quality to the satisfaction of customers.

  4. Manage the Year 2000 Programme within the Department ensuring date change risks are identified and managed, and that compliance and assurance work is completed according to agreed timescales and standards.

  People satisfaction

  5. Promote the most effective use of people by:
  Achieving re-recognition of Investor in People accreditation by 1 January 2000.
  Working with the Department to define and develop a Staffing Index in line with the Department's Output and Performance Analysis.
  Develop and implement a health care strategy in order to contribute towards the reduction in public sector sickness levels by reducing absences by 2 per cent. in 1999–2000.

  Customer Satisfaction

  6. Achieve agreed targeted improvement of our customer satisfaction rating using the Business Excellence Model (BEM), an industry wide business improvement framework.

  Financial business results

  7. Manage the Agency's income and expenditure (derived from normal trading activities), as presented on audited accruals accounts, so that the Agency recovers its full economic costs from customers within a tolerance of +/-2 per cent.

  8. Reduce unit costs and prices to deliver an overall efficiency improvement of 2 per cent. to the Department and work with the Department to define and develop the principles and baseline for the operation of efficiency indices and commence pilot operations of these during 1999–2000.

  WPA Targets: 1999–2000

  Putting Service First

  1. To deliver a first-class service to war pensioners and war widows by achieving the standards set in the Agency's Service First Charter.
  2. For 90 per cent. of all claims to meet the quality criteria.

  Working in partnerships
  3. To agree improvements in the end to end Decision Making and Appeals process with the Agency and the Pensions Appeals Tribunal to reduce the overall time taken for clearance of decisions and appeals, to improve notifications and the subsequent implementation of decisions together with improved monitoring and meaningful targets.

  Managing Change
  4. To implement the proposals approved by the Secretary of State from the Prior Options Review to the agreed standards and timetable.

  Valuing our People
  5. To work with the Department in developing a Staffing Index and to reduce our sickness absence levels by 7 per cent. during 1999–2000.

  Efficiency
  6. To agree with the Department the principles and baseline for the operation of Efficiency Indices and to commence pilot operations of these in 1999–2000.
  7. To generate efficiencies during 1999–00 that will enable the War Pensions Agency to absorb the impact of financial pressures equivalent to 4 per cent. of running costs.
  620

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the 30 per cent. penalty for minor fraud is collected; what is the cash value of penalties imposed to date; and how much has been collected. [79225]

  Mr. Timms
  Questions relating to Benefits Agency operational matters are the responsibility of its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will reply to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 29 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how the 30 per cent. penalty for minor fraud is collected, what the cash value of the penalties imposed to date is, and how much has been collected.
  An administrative penalty is recovered by exactly the same methods as those used to recover the related overpaid benefits. Recovery of an administrative penalty does not commence until the related overpayment has been recovered. The total value of administrative penalties that have been imposed to date is £246,187.
  Information about the amount collected is not currently available. Enhancements to the system for recording this information have been requested and it is hoped they will be in place by July 1999.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of war pensions live in(a) the Harborough district, (b) Oadby and Wigston Borough and (c) the Harborough constituency; and how many will be resident within the Harborough primary care group area. [78415]

  Mr. Bayley
  One of the key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient. Questions on operational matters concerning the War Pensions Agency are for its Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to the hon. and learned Member.

  Letter from Gordon Hextall to Mr. Edward Garnier, dated 29 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of War Pensioners living in the Harborough district, Oadby and Wigston Borough and Harborough constituency and how many will be resident within the Harborough primary care group area.
  Unfortunately this information is not available in the form for which you ask and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, our records do show that, in March 1998 (the latest date for which figures are available) there were 6,876 War Disablement Pensions and 1,641 War Widows Pensions in payment within the Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire War Pensions Committee area, which covers the counties shown in its title. I hope this is helpful and I am sorry that I cannot be more precise.

  Performance Management Regime
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what flexibility the new performance management regime allows managers in spending their budgets with particular reference to the(a) administration and (b) benefit budget. [79226]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Benefits Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Peter Mathison. He will write to my right hon. Friend.
  621
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 29 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what flexibility the new performance management regime allows managers in spending their budgets with particular reference to the (a) administration and (b) benefit budget.
  The flexibility offered to the Area Director is limited to his administration budget. There is no mechanism under Government Accounting rules which allows for flexibility between administration and benefit budgets.
  The new performance management regime refers to the new Public Service Agreement (PSA) target to reduce, by at least 30 per cent., benefit losses from fraud and errors in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by 31 March 2007. This replaces the present annual Secretary of State target for weekly benefit savings from counter-fraud activities.
  The new regime is to be funded by the Departmental Programme Protection Fund, a single source of funding designed to deliver the PSA target. This replaces Security and Control Programme funding for the Benefits Agency from 1 April 1999.
  The current regime ties Area Directors to activity volume targets for new claims activity and targeted reviews. Emphasis has been placed on detection by setting targets for fraud savings from cases examined by fraud officers.
  The new regime offers Area Directors much more flexibility in how funding can be used. They are no longer restricted by activity targets but can be more responsive to local conditions and knowledge. The emphasis is on each Area Director producing, and being accountable for, a Programme Protection Plan which shows how they can optimise their available resources to contribute towards achieving the PSA target. They will all provide evidence, supported by further tiers of programme indicators and management information, of how they are contributing towards the overall PSA target. Whilst they will have more flexibility on how their money is spent, the Area Director will account for how the funds are being targeted to best effects.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Income Support
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reduction in the pieces of advice on Income Support claims has been made in the new code of practice. [79220]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Income Support is the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 29 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what reduction in the pieces of advice on Income Support claims has been made in the new code of practice.
  Since the mid-nineties procedural guidance for staff dealing with Income Support claims and changes has been contained in the Income Support Guide (ISG). This occupied 12 binders. The Evidence Project was set up to take forward improvements in accuracy, security, and efficiency in Income Support processing. As part of this process the Guide Improvement Project was set up to re-write the existing Income Support guidance.
  There were also around 25 handbooks and additionally, 450 separate amendments, bulletins, and circulars issued to staff in a variety of formats and from a number of different sources. Many of these updates were themselves superseded by new developments. This was inevitably the cause of some inconsistency and confusion.
  In October 1998 all of the information contained in the documents described in the previous two paragraphs was replaced by IS Guidance and Procedures (GAP). The GAP was produced as a single
  622
  source of guidance incorporating all previously held instructions contained in the handbooks, guides, and bulletins. The GAP currently consists of eleven volumes with examples, flowcharts, and desk aids; in effect drawing together all of the current guidance in a new and consistent format. The Adjudication Officer's Guide will remain in its present format and the guidance that relates to Back to Work Bonus and Child Maintenance Bonus will be incorporated into the GAP at a future date.
  This overhaul was necessary to avoid compromising the efficiency of staff in collecting, assessing, and checking the evidence required to properly process Income Support claims. Early indications are that the GAP has been well received by staff in the field.
  Thank you for the opportunity to explain.

  National Insurance Scheme
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the(a) number and (b) percentage of former contributors to the National Insurance Scheme who are not entitled to a state retirement pension. [78285]

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

  It is estimated that there are about 400,000 people over State pension age and resident in Great Britain who do not receive a State Retirement Pension. This represents about 4 per cent. of pensioners resident in Great Britain. It includes those who have contributed to the National Insurance scheme but who have paid insufficient contributions to satisfy the conditions for receiving a State pension.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain, and are rounded to the nearest hundred thousand.

  2. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Sources:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System (PSCS) which contains a 5 per cent. sample of all persons in receipt of a State Retirement Pension at September 1998.

  Government Actuary's Department mid 1998 population forecast.

  Tribunal Pilot Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of appeals in social security appeal tribunals have been upheld under the new flexible tribunal pilot scheme; and what is the average percentage under the traditional tribunal of three persons. [79341]

  Angela Eagle
  The most recent figures available, for the period 1 December 1998 to 31 January 1999, indicate that in Social Security appeal tribunal hearings, constituted under the new flexible tribunal arrangements, the proportion of appeals upheld (that is, decided in favour of the appellant) was 30.07 per cent. During the same period the proportion of appeals upheld by three-person Social Security appeal tribunals was 27.36 per cent., a figure close to the half-yearly average of 28.36 per cent.

  Select Committee Report
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1999,Official Report, columns 839–40, on Select Committee reports, if he or his ministerial colleagues have discussed

  623
  with other hon. Members the contents of Social Security Committee (a) draft reports, (b) reports prior to their issue and (c) embargoed copies of reports. [79017]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]Ministers have discussions with hon. Members on a variety of topics, some of which may become subjects of Social Security Committee reports.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how he intends to inform all DSS and Benefits Agency staff of the developing policies towards carers outlined in the national strategy for carers. [78551]

  Mr. Bayley
  The report of the National Carers' Strategy is an important document for all Government Departments. As an employer we recognise the importance of personnel policies which meet the needs of our staff, a number of whom have caring responsibilities for elderly, sick or disabled relatives. Without such policies, it would be difficult to recruit and retain the best people and significant numbers of our staff would be unable to achieve their full potential. It is clearly in our business interests to ensure that our workforce is committed and contented and this means that we must take account of caring commitments. Our policies have developed and are still developing in line with the changing requirements of staff whilst taking account of the National Carers Strategy.

  All of the Department's business units have recently been involved in reviews of their childcare and family friendly policies. One of the outcomes of this assessment is that there is a need to communicate our strategy for staff with caring responsibilities more effectively. Consequently the Benefits Agency issued a booklet, "Work and Family" to all its staff in November and DSS HQ are intending to do the same.

  Where staff are involved in designing and implementing policy initiatives and commitments, such as the Single Work Focused Gateway and the State Second Pension, we are already taking steps to ensure that they will receive the appropriate information and training to support the Strategy's main objectives.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to deal with delays in pension payments due to computer breakdown at the Contributions Agency in Newcastle. [78050]

  Mr. Timms
  A statement on the steps taken to minimise disruption in pension payments and other benefits due to delays in implementing facilities on the Contributions Agency computer, the National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2) was set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security in his written answer on 15 March 1999,Official Report, columns 486–88.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated costs to the Exchequer in 624
  the current financial year of (a) housing benefit and (b) council tax relief to those pensioners who qualify as a result of being on income support. [78937]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  £ million

  1998–99 estimated outturn, cash

  Housing benefit

  2,256

  Council tax benefit

  659

  Source:

  The figures underlie the 1999 Departmental Report

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated total cost of Income Support paid to those pensioners who qualify in the current financial year. [78936]

  Mr. Timms
  The total programme cost of Income Support paid to pensioners in 1998–99 is estimated to be £3,641 million.

  Note:

  "Pensioners" for Income Support purposes, means a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple (counted as one benefit unit) where one or both members is aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  Social Security Departmental Report 1999–2000.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners(a) receive and (b) do not receive Income Support. [78938]

  Mr. Timms
  As at August 1998, there were estimated to be 1,637,000 pensioners who were either in receipt of Income Support, or the partner of a person in receipt of Income Support. The estimated number of pensioners not dependent on Income Support in 1998 is 8,816,000.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Pensioners are defined as men aged 65 or over, and women aged 60 or over.

  3. In the case of a couple, for Income Support purposes the claim by one partner includes both members.

  4. The estimates of Income Support recipients are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of error.

  5. The total pension age population of Great Britain for 1998 is estimated to be 10,453,000 based on a population projection for 1998 provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  Sources:

  1. Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry August 1998.

  2. Official Population Projections of Government Actuaries Department. 1998.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners aged 65 to 69 years who are receiving income support in 1998–99; and if he will estimate the corresponding percentage for this cohort in(a) 2000, (b) 2010 and (c) 2020, assuming that the minimum income guarantee is linked to earnings. [78864]

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

  The proportion of pensioners aged 65 to 69 who are in private households and receiving Income Support is estimated to be 8 per cent. for 1998–99 and 9 per cent. for 2000–01.
  625
  The information is not available for the years 2010 and 2020. Previous estimates of the number of pensioners receiving Income Support in these years have been made using the Department's PENSIM model. These estimates can only give a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of figures so far into the future, and are heavily rounded. Reliable estimates of sub-groups of this caseload and therefore of the proportion of pensioners aged 65 to 69 who are receiving Income Support are not available.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are consistent with the forecasts for Income Support included in the Departmental Report.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  3. Estimates exclude pensioners in residential care and nursing homes.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, column 252–53, on pensioner incomes, if he will provide the same information excluding couples where neither partner is over state pension age. [78884]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the tables.

  Pensioners receiving a means-tested benefit and not paying income tax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioners couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  90

  100

  70

  270

  65–69

  70

  220

  200

  490

  70–74

  70

  300

  150

  520

  75–79

  80

  330

  140

  550

  80+

  100

  550

  130

  770

  Total

  400

  1,500

  690

  2,600

  Pensioners not receiving a means—tested benefit and not paying income tax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioners couples

  All Pensioners benefit units

  60–64

  20

  20

  50

  90

  65–69

  40

  70

  190

  290

  70–74

  30

  130

  250

  400

  75–79

  40

  130

  190

  360

  80+

  50

  190

  150

  390

  Total

  170

  540

  820

  1,540

  Pensioners not a means-tested benefit and paying incometax

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioner couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  110

  160

  450

  720

  65–69

  120

  220

  590

  930

  70–74

  100

  240

  420

  760

  75–79

  80

  190

  190

  450

  80+

  90

  190

  130

  400

  Total

  490

  990

  1,780

  3,260

  626

  Pensioners receiving a means-tested benefit and paying incometax

  Thousand

  Single male pensioners

  Single female pensioners

  Pensioners couples

  All pensioner benefit units

  60–64

  20

  40

  30

  80

  65–69

  20

  30

  20

  80

  70–74

  20

  50

  10

  80

  75–79

  20

  30

  *

  50

  80+

  20

  50

  10

  70

  Total

  90

  200

  70

  360

  Notes:

  1. Figures are given to the nearest 10,000 pensioner benefit units, although they are not necessarily accurate to that degree. Figures of less than 5,000 pensioners are denoted by '*'.

  2. Figures may not sum to row or column totals due to rounding.

  3. Figures should be treated with caution since taxpaying status is not directly measured by the Family Resources Survey, but has been imputed using a model based on policies announced up to and including the 1998 Budget statement.

  4. Pensioner benefit units are defined as single people aged 60 and over and couples (married or cohabiting) where at least one partner is aged over State pension age (65 and over, for men, 60 and over for women). Couples are allocated to age bands according to the age of the older partner.

  5. Tax paying pensioner benefit units are defined as those where at least one individual in the benefit unit is modelled as liable to income tax.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1996–97

  Second Tier Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will calculate the second tier pension entitlement under(a) SERPS, (b) the first phase of the State Second Pension and (c) the second phase of the State Second Pension for those earning (i) £15,000, (ii) £17,000 and (iii) £19,000. [78867]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  £

  Second tier pension entitlement in 2051

  State Second Pension

  Phase 1

  Phase 2

  Annual Earnings

  SERPS

  Carries on to

  Contracted in

  Contracted out1

  15,000

  46

  61

  50

  61

  17,000

  51

  63

  50

  63

  19,000

  54

  65

  50

  65

  1 Assumes that an individual contracts out of the State Second Pension and contributes only their rebate to an appropriate personal pension.

  Notes:

  1. The information is based on the thresholds set out in the Green Paper.

  2. It is likely that the upper threshold of £18,500 contained in the Green Paper will be revised upwards following consultation to reflect the policy intention that higher earners should get broadly the same entitlement from phase 1 of State Second Pension as from SERPS.

  3. The hypothetical individual in this example is assumed to; begin work at 16 years old in 2002, work for 49 years until retirement, earn the specified amounts in 1998 earnings terms throughout their working life.

  4. Only National Insurance rebates are paid into the appropriate personal pension.

  5. Real earnings growth is assumed to be 1.5 per cent.

  6. Amounts are rounded to the nearest pound.
  627

  Non-pension Savings
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the level of non-pension saving among those in the £9,000-£18,500 earnings range who are not currently members of an occupational or personal pension scheme. [78866]

  Mr. Timms
  Data drawn from the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey (GB) suggest that, of those earning between £9,000 and £18,500 in 1997–98 and who, at that time, were not a member of an occupational or personal pension scheme, 40 per cent. had no non-pension saving.

  Notes:

  1. The results are based on survey data, and are therefore subject to sampling error. In particular, information collected on pensions and other savings are subject to higher non-response and mis-reporting than other parts of the Family Resources Survey, and so these results should be treated as indicative of the likely order of magnitude only.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Social Fund claimants have reached the limit of £1,000 for a loan. [78807]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, in the financial year 1997–98, a total of 9,053 Social Fund loan applications were refused purely because the applicant had reached the loan limit of £1,000. This represents around 1 per cent. of all loan refusals.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the definition of earnings used to calculate the level of rebates for stakeholder pensions will include payments of working families tax credit. [78865]

  Mr. Timms
  No. It is expected that the earnings used for calculating rebates for stakeholder pension schemes will be the same as for other contracted-out pension schemes. Such earnings do not currently include any payment of Family Credit and will not include payments of Working Families Tax Credit when it is introduced.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many meetings he has had with hon. Members to discuss the Child Support Agency; how many complaints he has received about the Agency since 1 February; and when he plans next to visit the Agency. [79047]

  Angela Eagle
  My noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham, the Minister with day to day responsibility for child support, has had a number of meetings with hon. Members to discuss the child support Green Paper proposals. In February 1999 the Child Support Agency received 3,682 complaints from individuals and hon. Members. My Ministerial colleagues and I have received 130 letters from hon. Members over the same period, though not all of these relate to operational issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is planning to visit the Child Support Agency again in the near future.
  628

  Family Incomes
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the dates of (i) supplementary benefit and (ii) income support for(a) a couple with two children under 11 and (b) a lone parent with one child under 11 (1) in real terms and (2) as a proportion of average earnings at each uprating since 1979. [79054]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Rates of supplementary benefit for a couple both over 18 with 2 children under 11 in real terms and as a proportion of average earnings at each uprating since 1979

  Uprating date

  Supplementary benefit for a couple both over 18 with 2 children under 11(£)

  Real value(£)

  Supplementary benefit as a percentage of earnings

  November 1979

  42.20

  113.89

  42.0

  November 1980

  49.20

  115.14

  40.9

  November 1981

  53.55

  111.93

  40.4

  November 1982

  59.20

  116.45

  41.6

  November 1983

  61.80

  115.94

  39.4

  November 1984

  64.75

  115.76

  38.8

  November 1985

  68.05

  115.36

  38.1

  July 1986

  68.80

  114.71

  36.4

  April 1987

  70.15

  112.05

  35.3

  Note:

  Ordinary scale rates used for married couple with two children aged 5–10. No account has been taken of any additional requirements

  Rates of income support for a couple both over 18 with 2 children under 11 in real terms and as a proportion of average earnings at each uprating since 1979

  Uprating date

  Income support for a couple both over 18 with 2 children under II (£)

  Real value (£)

  Income support as a percentage of earnings

  April 1988

  79.10

  121.57

  36.2

  April 1989

  84.80

  120.63

  35.4

  April 1990

  89.65

  116.52

  34.1

  April 1991

  96.90

  118.38

  34.0

  October 1991

  97.40

  117.23

  32.9

  April 1992

  105.00

  123.00

  34.5

  April 1993

  108.75

  125.77

  34.3

  April 1994

  113.05

  127.48

  34.7

  April 1995

  115.15

  125.66

  34.2

  April 1996

  118.65

  126.43

  33.8

  April 1997

  121.75

  126.66

  33.1

  April 1998

  124.65

  124.65

  32.4

  Rates of supplementary benefit for a lone parent with 1 child under 11 in real terms and as a proportion of average earnings at each uprating since 1979

  Uprating date

  Supplementary benefit for a lone parent with 1 child under 11(£)

  Real value(£)

  Supplementary benefit as a percentage of earnings

  November 1979

  24.55

  66.25

  24.4

  November 1980

  28.60

  66.93

  23.8

  November 1981

  31.15

  65.11

  23.5

  November 1982

  34.45

  67.77

  24.2

  November 1983

  35.95

  67.45

  22.9

  November 1984

  37.65

  67.31

  22.5

  November 1985

  39.60

  67.13

  22.1

  July 1986

  40.00

  66.69

  21.2

  April 1987

  40.80

  65.17

  20.5

  Note:

  Ordinary scale rates for single person with 1 child aged 5–10. No account has been taken of any additional requirements
  629

  Rates of income support for a lone parent with 1 child under 11 in real terms and as a proportion of average earnings at each uprating since 1979

  Uprating date

  Income support for a lone parent with 1 child under 11 (£)

  Real value (£)

  Income support as a percentage of earnings

  April 1988

  54.00

  82.99

  24.7

  April 1989

  57.05

  81.16

  23.8

  April 1990

  60.50

  78.64

  23.0

  April 1991

  65.40

  79.90

  23.0

  October 1991

  66.40

  79.92

  22.5

  April 1992

  71.05

  83.23

  23.3

  April 1993

  73.60

  85.12

  23.2

  April 1994

  76.50

  86.26

  23.5

  April 1995

  77.90

  85.01

  23.2

  April 1996

  80.10

  85.35

  22.8

  April 1997

  81.80

  85.10

  22.3

  April 1998

  83.40

  83.40

  21.7

  Notes:

  1. Benefit rates shown are applicable at uprating dates.

  2. Real values calculated via use of Retail Price Index (all items) produced by the Office for National Statistics.

  3. Average Earnings for all employees calculated via the New Earnings Survey and Average Earnings Index as produced by the Office for National Statistics.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) at which UK universities overseas students are currently studying; and where these students are from; [78122]

  (2) how many overseas students are currently studying in Great Britain. [78129]

  Mr. Mudie
  Tables showing the numbers and domiciles of overseas students in individual UK higher education institutions in 1997–98 have been prepared from statistical records collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  In 1997–98 there were 266,000 overseas students studying in higher education and further education institutions in Great Britain.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each(a) metropolitan district Council, (b) shire district council, (c) unitary council, (d) shire county council and (e) London borough council the current number of (i) primary school and (ii) secondary school pupils. [74806]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is given in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Key Stage 2 Statistics
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools entered pupils for the level 6 (i) Science, (ii) English and (iii) Mathematics paper in Key Stage 2 SATS tests in 1998, 1997 and 1996 broken down by(a) local education authority and (b) type of school. [79329]
  630
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The number of schools who entered at least one child for the level 6 test in the Key Stage 2 National Curriculum Assessment tests broken down by subject and school type is shown in the table.

  Number of schools with at least one child participating in the Key Stage 2 level 6 tests by subject and school type

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Maintained mainstream

  1996

  6,134

  4,119

  1,253

  1997

  5,544

  4,066

  1,423

  1998

  5,071

  3,845

  1,331

  Independent

  1996

  383

  318

  153

  1997

  430

  364

  190

  1998

  456

  378

  208

  Special

  1996

  4

  2

  3

  1997

  11

  7

  4

  1998

  10

  6

  4

  All schools

  1996

  6,521

  4,439

  1,409

  1997

  5,985

  4,437

  1,617

  1998

  5,537

  4.229

  1,543

  Tables showing the maintained number of schools broken down by subject and by Local Education Authority have been placed in the Library.

  Education Funding
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amount of Derbyshire County Council's total education budget was not passed on to schools in(a) 1996, (b) 1997 and (c) 1998. [79342]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The amount of the General Schools Budget which was not included in the Aggregated Schools Budget in Derbyshire in the years in question was as follows:

  £

  1996–97

  82,089,000

  1997–98

  68,006,000

  1998–99

  71,567,000

  We expect that there will be a substantial reduction in amounts held centrally by Local Education Authorities in 1999–2000 as a result of increased delegation to schools under the new Fair Funding framework.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the amount in cash terms of(a) funding from his Department per pupil in Derbyshire between 1996–97 and 1997–98 and (b) the funding allocated by Derbyshire County Council to each school, per pupil, over the same period. [79362]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This question cannot be answered in the form in which it has been tabled. Education SSAs have a wider coverage than funding which can be allocated to schools. They have to cover costs such as home-to-school transport, school meals, and some central costs which cannot be delegated to schools, such as the LEA contribution to the Standards Fund. In addition,
  631
  pupils are counted at different dates for the purposes of calculating education SSAs and allocating school funding respectively.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in total on education in Derbyshire at constant prices in each of the last five years from all public sources of funds. [79364]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No "like-for like" data exist on total expenditure in Derbyshire on education over the last five years from all public sources of funds. The following table sets out Derbyshire's overall education spending, net of specific grants, in each of the last five years but it is not possible to adjust the figures for each year to take account of local government reorganisation and changes in local authority functions, such as the reform of inter-authority recoupment or the nursery voucher scheme, to give a true picture. Since we took office, some £18 million has been supported through the Standards Fund programme in Derbyshire and the authority has 632
  received capital allocations of some £18 million. There has been an underlying increase in Derbyshire's education SSA for 1999–2000 of £15.6 million or 6.1 per cent.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Education spend

  1994–95

  333

  1995–96

  323

  1996–97

  336

  1997–98

  243

  1998–99

  266

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the average standard spending assessment provision for(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils in each English local education authority area in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99, in current prices. [79366]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table sets out the information requested.

  1998–99 SSAs

  1997–98 SSAs in 1998–99 prices

  Real terms increases

  LEA

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil %

  Secondary per pupil %

  City of London

  3,094

  9,236

  3,094

  7,430

  0

  1,805

  0.0

  24.3

  Camden

  3,131

  3,947

  3,050

  3,836

  81

  112

  2.6

  2.9

  Greenwich

  2,967

  3,854

  2,881

  3,773

  86

  81

  3.0

  2.1

  Hackney

  3,327

  4,558

  3,259

  4,441

  68

  117

  2.1

  2.6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,128

  4,081

  3,030

  3,924

  97

  157

  3.2

  4.0

  Islington

  3,168

  4,218

  3,075

  4,129

  93

  90

  3.0

  2.2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,047

  3,946

  2,780

  3,723

  267

  223

  9.6

  6.0

  Lambeth

  3,307

  4,661

  3,185

  4,515

  122

  146

  3.8

  3.2

  Lewisham

  3,111

  4,088

  3,010

  3,988

  101

  100

  3.4

  2.5

  Southwark

  3,197

  4,191

  3,106

  4,132

  90

  59

  2.9

  1.4

  Tower Hamlets

  3,377

  4,434

  3,298

  4,370

  78

  64

  2.4

  1.5

  Wandsworth

  2,900

  3,797

  2,849

  3,763

  51

  34

  1.8

  0.9

  Westminster

  2,987

  3,741

  2,860

  3,670

  127

  71

  4.4

  1.9

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,561

  3,377

  2,490

  3,296

  71

  81

  2.9

  2.5

  Barnet

  2,429

  3,112

  2,359

  3,051

  70

  60

  3.0

  2.0

  Bexley

  2,331

  3,031

  2,262

  2,961

  69

  70

  3.0

  2.4

  Brent

  2,804

  3,710

  2,715

  3.67

  89

  40

  3.3

  1.1

  Bromley

  2,298

  2,965

  2,235

  2,912

  63

  53

  2.8

  1.8

  Croydon

  2,496

  3,288

  2,421

  3,205

  75

  84

  3.1

  2.6

  Ealing

  2,622

  3,503

  2,542

  3,415

  80

  88

  3.1

  2.6

  Enfield

  2,528

  3,260

  2,459

  3,211

  69

  49

  2.8

  1.5

  Haringey

  2,892

  3,849

  2,832

  3,816

  60

  32

  2.1

  0.8

  Harrow

  2,388

  3,148

  2,325

  3,076

  63

  72

  2.7

  2.3

  Havering

  2,293

  2,993

  2,231

  2,925

  62

  68

  2.8

  2.3

  Hillingdon

  2.399

  3,115

  2,319

  3,044

  80

  71

  3.4

  2.3

  Hounslow

  2,570

  3,301

  2,502

  3,235

  68

  66

  2.7

  2.0

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,293

  2,954

  2,223

  2,897

  70

  57

  3.1

  2.0

  Merton

  2,451

  3,186

  2,373

  3,107

  78

  79

  3.3

  2.5

  Newham

  2,917

  3,809

  2,822

  3,710

  95

  98

  3.4

  2.6

  Redbridge

  2,456

  3,181

  2,381

  3,114

  74

  68

  3.1

  2.2

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,253

  2,878

  2,180

  2,797

  73

  81

  3.3

  2.9

  Sutton

  2,345

  2,995

  2,275

  2,939

  70

  56

  3.1

  1.9

  Waltham Forest

  2,703

  3,530

  2,628

  3,486

  75

  44

  2.9

  1.3

  Birmingham

  2,370

  3,113

  2,297

  3,036

  73

  77

  3.2

  2.5

  Coventry

  2,243

  2,922

  2,177

  2,857

  67

  65

  3.1

  2.3

  Dudley

  2,059

  2,673

  2,004

  2,624

  55

  48

  2.8

  1.8

  Sandwell

  2,261

  2,954

  2,193

  2,879

  67

  75

  3.1

  2.6

  Solihull

  2,053

  2,648

  2,010

  2,605

  43

  43

  2.1

  1.7

  Walsall

  2,176

  2,819

  2,124

  2,770

  52

  49

  2.5

  1.8

  Wolverhampton

  2,270

  2,987

  2,205

  2,921

  65

  66

  2.9

  2.3

  Knowsley

  2,489

  3,336

  2,441

  3,258

  48

  78

  2.0

  2.4

  Liverpool

  2,436

  3.165

  2,353

  3,099

  83

  66

  3.5

  2.1

  St. Helens

  2,158

  2,824

  2,097

  2,764

  61

  60

  2.9

  2.2

  Sefton

  2,153

  2,789

  2,089

  2,730

  64

  60

  3.1

  2.2

  633

  1998–99 SSAs

  1997–98 SSAs in 1998–99 prices

  Real terms increases

  LEA

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil per pupil £

  Primary per pupil per pupil %

  Secondary per pupil per pupil %

  Wirral

  2,218

  2,905

  2,153

  2,834

  65

  71

  3.0

  2.5

  Bolton

  2,159

  2,802

  2,094

  2,742

  65

  60

  3.1

  2.2

  Bury

  2,081

  2,686

  2,022

  2,624

  59

  63

  2.9

  2.4

  Manchester

  2,510

  3,321

  2,419

  3,218

  90

  103

  3.7

  3.2

  Oldham

  2,218

  2,868

  2,155

  2,802

  63

  66

  2.9

  2.4

  Rochdale

  2,235

  2,934

  2,168

  2,877

  67

  57

  3.1

  2.0

  Salford

  2,259

  2,970

  2,193

  2,886

  66

  84

  3.0

  2.9

  Stockport

  2,042

  2,665

  1,988

  2,613

  53

  53

  2.7

  2.0

  Tameside

  2,135

  2,768

  2,076

  2,716

  59

  52

  2.9

  1.9

  Trafford

  2,103

  2,726

  2,044

  2,669

  59

  57

  2.9

  2.1

  Wigan

  2,076

  2,689

  2,019

  2,638

  57

  51

  2.8

  1.9

  Barnsley

  2,154

  2,823

  2,090

  2,755

  64

  68

  3.1

  2.5

  Doncaster

  2,232

  2,918

  2,169

  2,853

  63

  65

  2.9

  2.3

  Rotherham

  2,152

  2,779

  2,089

  2,723

  63

  56

  3.0

  2.1

  Sheffield

  2,184

  2,854

  2,121

  2,794

  63

  60

  3.0

  2.1

  Bradford

  2,272

  2,985

  2,206

  2,917

  66

  68

  3.0

  2.3

  Calderdale

  2,161

  2,820

  2,102

  2,758

  59

  62

  2.8

  2.2

  Kirklees

  2,185

  2,848

  2,118

  2,788

  66

  61

  3.1

  2.2

  Leeds

  2,156

  2,806

  2,092

  2,749

  64

  57

  3.0

  2.1

  Wakefield

  2,097

  2,728

  2,038

  2,670

  59

  58

  2.9

  2.2

  Gateshead

  2,188

  2,854

  2,127

  2,806

  61

  48

  2.9

  1.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,296

  2,998

  2,226

  2,919

  70

  79

  3.2

  2.7

  North Tyneside

  2,125

  2,793

  2,066

  2,732

  58

  60

  2.8

  2.2

  South Tyneside

  2,232

  2,900

  2,175

  2,851

  58

  50

  2.7

  1.7

  Sunderland

  2,203

  2,871

  2,142

  2,814

  61

  57

  2.8

  2.0

  Isles of Scilly

  3,884

  5,051

  3,667

  4,821

  217

  230

  5.9

  4.8

  Cambridgeshire

  2,104

  2,734

  2,040

  2,679

  64

  56

  3.2

  2.1

  Cheshire

  2,058

  2,663

  2,002

  2,606

  56

  56

  2.8

  2.2

  Cornwall

  2,162

  2,820

  2,109

  2,767

  53

  54

  2.5

  1.9

  Cumbria

  2,133

  2,774

  2,073

  2,711

  60

  63

  2.9

  2.3

  Devon

  2,137

  2,794

  2,076

  2,736

  61

  58

  2.9

  2.1

  Essex

  2,228

  2,907

  2,157

  2,831

  70

  75

  3.3

  2.7

  Gloucestershire

  2,081

  2,703

  2,027

  2,650

  54

  53

  2.7

  2.0

  Herefordshire

  2,149

  2,818

  2,098

  2,776

  50

  42

  2.4

  1.5

  Worcestershire

  2,051

  2,664

  2,006

  2,623

  45

  41

  2.2

  1.6

  Hertfordshire

  2,257

  2,927

  2,189

  2,859

  68

  68

  3.1

  2.4

  Kent

  2,227

  2,902

  2,158

  2,829

  70

  73

  3.2

  2.6

  Lancashire

  2,138

  2,783

  2,077

  2,724

  60

  59

  2.9

  2.1

  Lincolnshire

  2,149

  2,802

  2,093

  2,744

  56

  59

  2.7

  2.1

  Norfolk

  2,153

  2,802

  2,094

  2,743

  59

  59

  2.8

  2.1

  Northamptonshire

  2,104

  2,739

  2,050

  2,687

  54

  52

  2.6

  1.9

  Northumberland

  2,120

  2,765

  2,067

  2,706

  54

  59

  2.6

  2.2

  Nottinghamshire

  2,077

  2,709

  2,019

  2,646

  58

  62

  2.9

  2.4

  Oxfordshire

  2,178

  2,815

  2,099

  2,737

  79

  78

  3.8

  2.8

  Shropshire

  2,100

  2,727

  2,051

  2,678

  49

  49

  2.4

  1.8

  Somerset

  2,105

  2,747

  2,046

  2,687

  59

  59

  2.9

  2.2

  Suffolk

  2,100

  2,724

  2,033

  2,665

  67

  59

  3.3

  2.2

  Surrey

  2,228

  2,897

  2,162

  2,834

  65

  63

  3.0

  2.2

  Warwickshire

  2,063

  2,685

  2,010

  2,638

  52

  47

  2.6

  1.8

  West Sussex

  2,159

  2,810

  2,094

  2,743

  65

  67

  3.1

  2.4

  North Yorkshire

  2,117

  2,732

  2,057

  2,669

  60

  63

  2.9

  2.4

  Bedfordshire

  2,179

  2,835

  2,107

  2,765

  72

  70

  3.4

  2.5

  Buckinghamshire

  2,180

  2,851

  2,116

  2,781

  64

  70

  3.0

  2.5

  Derbyshire

  2,057

  2,682

  2,001

  2,630

  56

  52

  2.8

  2.0

  Dorset

  2,073

  2,691

  2,013

  2,630

  60

  61

  3.0

  2.3

  Durham

  2,159

  2,824

  2,095

  2,754

  64

  70

  3.1

  2.5

  East Sussex

  2,226

  2.91

  2,147

  2,823

  79

  87

  3.7

  3.1

  Hampshire

  2,124

  2,776

  2,058

  2,697

  66

  79

  3.2

  2.9

  Leicestershire

  2,006

  2,620

  1,953

  2,568

  53

  53

  2.7

  2.1

  Staffordshire

  2,037

  2,653

  1,984

  2,598

  53

  55

  2.7

  2.1

  Wiltshire

  2,092

  2,731

  2.038

  2,669

  54

  62

  2.7

  2.3

  Isle of Wight Council

  2,288

  2,981

  2,221

  2,913

  67

  68

  3.0

  2.3

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,041

  2,606

  1,982

  2,547

  59

  59

  3.0

  2.3

  City of Bristol

  2,207

  2,911

  2,146

  2,855

  61

  57

  2.8

  2.0

  North Somerset

  2,054

  2.681

  1,991

  2,618

  63

  63

  3.2

  2.4

  South Gloucestershire

  2,004

  2,619

  1,951

  2,560

  54

  59

  2.8

  2.3

  Hartlepool

  2,208

  2,875

  2,151

  2,824

  57

  51

  2.6

  1.8

  Middlesbrough

  2,318

  3,066

  2,255

  3,010

  62

  56

  2.8

  1.9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,218

  2,866

  2,158

  2,809

  59

  58

  2.7

  2.0

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,174

  2,837

  2,119

  2,776

  55

  61

  2.6

  2.2

  634 635

  1998–99 SSAs

  1997–98 SSAs in 1998–99 prices

  Real terms increases

  LEA

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil £

  Primary per pupil £

  Secondary per pupil per pupil £

  Primary per pupil per pupil %

  Secondary per pupil per pupil %

  City of Kingston-upon-Hull

  2,279

  2,968

  2,214

  2,906

  65

  62

  3.0

  2.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,071

  2,688

  2,011

  2,626

  60

  62

  3.0

  2.3

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,187

  2,849

  2,129

  2,798

  58

  52

  2.7

  1.9

  North Lincolnshire

  2,155

  2,806

  2,091

  2,741

  65

  65

  3.1

  2.4

  York

  2,056

  2.7

  1,995

  2,630

  61

  69

  3.1

  2.6

  Luton

  2,380

  3,111

  2,301

  3,033

  79

  77

  3.5

  2.6

  Milton Keynes

  2,252

  2.956

  2,187

  2,885

  66

  71

  3.0

  2.5

  Derby

  2,197

  2,865

  2,138

  2,817

  59

  4S

  2.8

  1.7

  Poole

  2,044

  2,655

  1,992

  2,604

  52

  50

  2.6

  1.9

  Bournemouth

  2,148

  2,774

  2,084

  2,718

  63

  57

  3.0

  2.1

  Darlington

  2,145

  2,810

  2,089

  2,752

  56

  59

  2.7

  2.1

  Brighton and Hove

  2,303

  3,001

  2,228

  2,919

  75

  82

  3.3

  2.8

  Portsmouth

  2,295

  2,988

  2,218

  2,904

  78

  84

  3.5

  2.9

  Southampton

  2,310

  3,036

  2,234

  2,962

  76

  74

  3.4

  2.5

  Leicester

  2,332

  3,035

  2,264

  2,972

  68

  63

  3.0

  2.1

  Rutland

  2,065

  2,594

  1,991

  2,529

  74

  65

  3.7

  2.6

  Stoke on Trent

  2,155

  2,818

  2,095

  2,761

  61

  57

  2.9

  2.1

  Bracknell Forest

  2,231

  2,909

  2,157

  2,823

  74

  87

  3.4

  3.1

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2,228

  2,859

  2,151

  2,774

  77

  86

  3.6

  3.1

  Newbury

  2,118

  2,733

  2,045

  2,657

  73

  77

  3.6

  2.9

  Reading

  2,279

  3,037

  2,207

  2,970

  71

  66

  3.2

  2.2

  Slough

  2,613

  3,485

  2,510

  3,361

  103

  124

  4.1

  3.7

  Wokingham

  2,028

  2,657

  1,962

  2,581

  67

  76

  3.4

  2.9

  Peterborough

  2,222

  2,886

  2,153

  2,826

  70

  61

  3.2

  2.1

  Halton

  2,235

  2,946

  2,182

  2,882

  53

  64

  2.4

  2.2

  Warrington

  2,036

  2,659

  1,988

  2,608

  48

  51

  2.4

  1.9

  Plymouth

  2,149

  2,773

  2,085

  2,712

  64

  61

  3.0

  2.2

  Torbay

  2,163

  2,811

  2,107

  2,756

  56

  55

  2.7

  2.0

  Southend

  2,264

  2,955

  2,189

  2,880

  75

  74

  3.4

  2.6

  Thurrock

  2,373

  3,096

  2,296

  3,013

  76

  83

  3.3

  2.7

  Medway Towns

  2,205

  2,876

  2,145

  2,819

  60

  57

  2.8

  2.0

  Blackburn

  2,304

  2,995

  2,234

  2,921

  70

  75

  3.1

  2.6

  Blackpool

  2,168

  2,872

  2,100

  2,808

  68

  64

  3.2

  2.3

  Nottingham City

  2,382

  3,135

  2,321

  3,072

  61

  62

  2.6

  2.0

  The Wrekin

  2,166

  2,820

  2,112

  2,769

  54

  51

  2.6

  1.8

  Swindon

  2,082

  2,720

  2,029

  2,666

  53

  53

  2.6

  2.0

  Total

  2,248

  2,918

  2,183

  2,853

  65

  65

  3.0

  2.3

  School Meal Services
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in ascending order the difference between income and expenditure for school meal services for each county over the last 10 years. [79365]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This question cannot be answered in the form in which it has been tabled. Expenditure and income for the school meal service will inevitably vary according to the proportion of children entitled to free school meals and of children attending grant-maintained schools in the area of each Local Education Authority.

  Youth Unemployment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the New Deal on the number of unemployed young people. [77829]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Since New Deal Pathfinders were introduced in January 1998, unemployment amongst the 636
  eligible group has fallen by 35 per cent. compared with a fall of 4 per cent. for those not eligible.

  The youth labour market is very dynamic and so some people would have left the claimant count without the help provided by New Deal. Nevertheless, initial evidence comparing Pathfinder with non-Pathfinder areas suggests that the New Deal has increased the flows of young people out of unemployment and the flow into jobs. The impact of New Deal is being addressed through a comprehensive evaluation programme. All final reports from the evaluation will be published and copies placed in the Library.

  Unemployed claimants (UK), nsa, 000s)

  Aged 18–24

  over 6 months

  up to 6 months

  All aged 25 and over

  January 1998

  118.5

  256.8

  1,088.5

  January 1999

  77

  250.9

  1,043.0

  Change

  –41.5

  –5.9

  –45.5

  % change

  –35%

  –2%

  –4%

  637

  Schools, Watford
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect of his policy on inner-city education on schools in Watford; and if he will make a statement. [78543]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 22 March 1999,Official Report, columns 21–22 to raise standards in inner cities applies in the first instance in six target areas only. The lessons learnt during the "Excellence in Cities" programme will in time benefit all schools. Watford schools already benefit from our national policies to raise standards and from the significant additional investment which the Government are making in the education system.

  Woodcote Infant School, Croydon
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from Croydon LEA concerning the funding of the expansion of Woodcote Infant School, to receive a three form entry per annum. [78713]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Croydon Education Authority has submitted applications to the Department under both Annual Capital Guidelines and infant class size policy for the expansion of Woodcote Infant School. The school did not qualify for Annual Capital Guideline funding for 1999–2000 but discussions are continuing between the Department and Croydon Education Authority about what funding will be available from the Department to enable the infant class size limit to be met.

  School Regulation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in respect of (i) treaty articles, (ii) directives and (iii) regulations concerning tenders and contracts,(a) made and (b) supervised by his Department, the commercial requirements which apply in relation to (1) inspection of schools and (2) fulfilling the functions of named local education authorities and (3) assumption of management responsibilities of individual schools from local education authorities. [78806]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department for Education and Employment neither makes nor supervises contracts for the inspection of schools, which are the responsibility of Ofsted. The management of maintained schools is the responsibility of each school's governing body, with support as necessary from the local education authority.

  The Department is making preparations to let and supervise contracts for the discharge of functions of local education authorities which are failing adequately to discharge their statutory functions. These contracts, including those for consultancy services, are subject to Council Directive 92–50, relating to the co-ordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts. The Directive is made under Articles 57(2) and 66 of the Treaty of Rome. The implementing regulations are the Public Service Contract Regulations 1993 number 3228.
  638

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money has been spent to date on the new deal for 18–24 year olds in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire unit of delivery. [78494]

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

  Letter form Peter Collis to Mr. Paul Keetch, dated 30 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about how much money has been spent to date on the New Deal for 18–24 year olds in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Unit of Delivery. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  To the end of February £631,854 has been brought to account in the Herefordshire and Worcestershire Unit of Delivery on the New Deal for 18–24 year olds.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the largest number of recruits that have been taken on by any one company under the New Deal for Young People. [79433]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Maclean, dated 30 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about the largest number of recruits taken on by any one company under the New Deal for young people. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Three quarters of young people joining companies under the New Deal go into unsubsidised jobs. We have no central statistics which break down these job starts by employer not least because the same employer may trade, and recruit, under many different names. As regards subsided job starts, the largest number of starters with a single company is 80.

  I hope this is helpful.

  New Deal (Over-50s)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the criteria for inclusion in the extension of the new deal to those aged over 50 years. [78925]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The new initiative will be open to people aged over 50, out of work for six months or more and on income replacement benefits including Jobseekers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit, and their dependant partners. We intend to consult on the precise eligibility criteria and I will be writing to a number of individuals and organisations shortly.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the extension of the new deal to those aged over 50 years, announced in the Budget, will be implemented. [78926]
  639
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We will begin to introduce this new initiative from October 1999 in pathfinder areas with full national implementation in early 2000. Details of the pathfinder areas will be announced by early summer.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of people over the age of 50 years in the Greater London area who have benefited from the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [78536]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of this question has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Peter Collis to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 30 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the number of people over the age of 50 years who have benefited from New Deal in the Greater London area. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  The Government Statistical Service figures to the end of January show that 5,032 people over the age of 50 have started the New Deal in Greater London.
  You may be aware that in November last year the Employment Service launched 28 New Deal pilots for people over the age of 25. Four of these pilots are based in Greater London and aim to look at innovative ways to help long term unemployed people over the age of 25 back into the labour market.
  You will, of course, also be aware that the Chancellor recently announced a further package of help for people over the age of 50 who have been unemployed for more than six months. This includes a cash employment credit for people entering employment, as well as personal adviser and job search support and a training subsidy.
  I hope this is helpful
  640

  Head Teachers (Pay)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of head teachers has been awarded a nine per cent. pay rise. [77322]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, has confirmed that all teachers, including head teachers, will receive a general increase of 3.5 per cent. from 1 April 1999. In addition, under proposals announced by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, on 1 February 1999 which are still subject to detailed consultation, head teachers' pay will be restructured from 1 September 1999. That announcement referred to an average increase of 9.5 per cent. (including the 3.5 per cent. general increase) for head teachers of small primary schools. The group of head teachers in question are the heads of primary schools with fewer than 100 pupils, who comprise 11.5 per cent. of all head teachers. Other primary head teachers will receive an average increase of 6.5 per cent. and secondary head teachers will receive an average increase of five per cent. (including the 3.5 per cent. general increase).

  Higher Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for each of the years from 1997–98 to 2000–01, what is the total resource allocation awarded to universities and other higher education institutions from public funds; what is the total number of actual and projected full-time equivalent higher education students; and what is the average level of resource allocation from public funds to each student. [77882]

  Mr. Mudie
  The following table sets out the Government's plans for higher education over the period 1997–98 to 2000–01. The plans are expressed in terms of publicly planned funding for higher education, including private contributions towards tuition fees which institutions will retain.

  The table shows total publicly planned resources for higher education, the total number of actual and projected full-time equivalent student numbers, and the average unit of funding per student.

  Publicly planned higher education funding (cash)1 and student numbers in England

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  Grants to HEFCE & TTA

  3,667

  3,674

  4,138

  4,268

  Additional HEFCE grants earmarked for capital investment in:

  infrastructure and IT

  —

  —

  35

  50

  research

  —

  —

  50

  100

  Estimated tuition fee income:

  public contributions from LEAs

  997

  1,006

  599

  520

  private contributions from students

  —

  130

  235

  333

  Funds for measures to widen access

  22

  41

  74

  76

  Total publicly planned funds

  4,686

  4,851

  5,131

  5,347

  Total FTE students2 (thousands)

  1,014

  1,019

  1,035

  1,052

  Unit of funding3 (£ per FTE)

  4,600

  4,720

  4,800

  4,870

  1Publicly planned funds for higher education include grants to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and, from 1995, to the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) for both recurrent and capital purposes. In addition the plans take account of publicly planned tuition fee income and funds for specific measures to widen access which go mainly to the students.

  2FTE student numbers cover all home and other EU undergraduate and postgraduate students studying both full and part-time in English universities and colleges.
  641
  3The unit of funding per FTE is based on publicly planned HE funds excluding earmarked grants for capital investment and the research infrastructure, and funds for specific measures to widen access. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10. The figures are consistent with grant letters to the HEFCE and are different to those in my answer on 7 December 1998, Official Report col. 90, which required adjustment for consistency with the figures provided there for earlier years.

  Individual Learning Account
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to allow students in further and higher education to pay(a) tuition fees and (b) maintenance from individual learning accounts that have been enhanced by the student's family or employer. [77881]

  Mr. Mudie
  Individual learning accounts will be available to all from April 2000. The Government incentives for individual learning accounts (including the £150 for the first million starter accounts) will be targeted on those in work, for whom no help is currently available. They will be able to use incentives to support a wide range of learning opportunities to improve skills and qualifications.

  Education Grants
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if applications for grants under the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training) (England) Regulations 1998, as amended by the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training) (England) Regulations 1998 (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1999, submitted before the Regulations are revoked on 1 April, will be considered under those Regulations. [79029]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 29 March 19991: Applications for payment of grant allocated under the programme for the 1998–99 financial year ending 31 March 1999 are considered under S.I. 1998 No. 656, the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training) (England) Regulations 1998 and the amendments to this S.I. that come into force before 31 March.

  Examination Verification Staff
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the adequacy of checks made on the suitability of staff working for examination verification bodies in further education. [79210]

  Mr. Mudie
  Awarding bodies are independent organisations responsible for their own recruitment procedures. However, the Qualifications Curriculum Authority (QCA), has responsibility for monitoring activities of the awarding bodies in order to promote public confidence in the quality, rigour, fairness and consistency of standards of qualifications.

  As part of its statutory regulatory procedures, QCA will require awarding bodies offering accredited national qualifications to meet specified criteria, including procedures for the appointment, training and monitoring of suitable specialists and assessors.

  The Qualifications and Curriculum Assessment Authority for Wales (ACCAC) has a parallel responsibility.

  Tertiary College Heads
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will investigate the 642
  circumstances under which heads of tertiary colleges criticised in National Audit Office reports are re-employed at senior levels in organisations which provide a service to their former employers. [79205]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would certainly wish to investigate any such case involving appointment to a publicly-funded body.

  Teacher Promotions
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds he has estimated will be required to implement his policy on the promotion of teachers in the next five years. [78813]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Technical Document on Pay and Performance Management, published on 1 February 1999, indicated that for the two financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02, up to £1 billion is available to support the implementation of the Green Paper, "Teachers: meeting the challenge of change." Much the largest single element of this will be the new pay arrangements. Expenditure plans have not yet been fixed beyond the financial year 2001–02. The implementation of the Green Paper proposals will be one of the issues considered when they are.

  London Schools (Closures)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in each of the London education authorities have been closed during the last three years. [78535]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows, for each of the last three years, the number of schools in the London Local Education Authorities where there has been a decision (whether by the Authority or the Secretary of State) to close the school. A number of these have not yet been implemented.

  Number of schools closed

  1996

  Greenwich

  1

  Sutton

  1

  1997

  Camden

  1

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  Lambeth

  3

  1998

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Islington

  1

  The table excludes closures due to amalgamation of infant and junior schools.

  Grammar Schools (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grammar school places are at present available in the Greater London area. [78893]
  643
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The total capacity (more open enrolment basis) for the 19 grammar schools in the Greater London area was 17,017 at April 1998. The total number of pupils was 17,057 at January 1998. Ten of these schools have a total of 678 more pupils than their capacity.

  New Deal (Single Gateway)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what changes the Government plans to make to the Single Gateway to Benefit before its implementation. [78919]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government have announced plans to forge a new culture in the benefits system which puts work first and provides a modern, integrated, flexible service for all. Pilots will begin in June to test the effectiveness of providing a Single Work-Focused Gateway into the benefits system. Intensive work is taking place to put these pilots into operation in four areas from June and a further eight areas from November. We shall evaluate the pilots thoroughly to inform decisions about wider implementation of the Single Gateway approach.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the use of specialised agencies in the New Deal Gateway process. [78918]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  In last year's Budget statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an additional £50 million investment in the New Deal Gateway, of which £10 million was allocated to enhance specialist provision to help with such problems as homelessness and drug or alcohol dependency. More recently New Deal personal advisers have been reminded of the need to make full use of the help available from partner organisations, including specialist agencies. We are also currently developing more effective ways of assessing at an early stage in the Gateway whether young people are in particular need of specialist help.

  I will shortly be inviting New Deal partnerships to submit proposals for innovative approaches to delivering New Deal locally which we might support from our new Innovation Fund. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional resources for the Fund in this year's Budget. One of the priority areas for support will be proposals to implement recommendations from the New Deal Task Force report, "Meeting the needs of disadvantaged young people". I hope that some partnerships will come forward with proposals to implement and test out the report's recommendation that specialist agencies could provide effective case-management for young people with particularly severe problems during their time on New Deal.

HEALTH

  Mortality Rates (Young Men)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to reduce mortality rates of young men, with particular reference to men in their early-30s. [77714]
  644
  Ms Jowell
  Mortality rates in some groups of young men are cause for concern. In those aged 30–34, specifically, there has been a progressive increase in rates since 1986 associated, for instance, with increased deaths from suicides, drug and alcohol abuse and infectious diseases (e.g. AIDS). These offset reductions in deaths from other causes (e.g. accidents, cancer and heart disease). The "Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health" highlighted, for example, suicide rates in young men and some action has already been taken. Reducing health inequalities is a key aim of our health strategy and the forthcoming "Our Healthier Nation" White Paper will focus on relevant conditions.

  Health Authority Funding (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the financial settlement for Gloucestershire health authority for the next financial year. [77715]

  Mr. Denham
  Gloucestershire health authority has been allocated £334.6 million for 1999–2000, which represents a cash increase of £17.4 million (5.5 per cent.).

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of primary care groups of general practitioners. [77716]

  Mr. Denham
  Primary care groups have been implemented to enable family doctors and nurses to shape and develop services locally in a way which better meets the needs of their population and which improves the health of their community.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress made in establishing primary care groups. [77735]

  Mr. Denham
  481 primary care groups, covering the whole of England, will become operational from April, charged with tackling health inequalities and delivering improvements in the quality and efficiency of patient services.

  Skin Cancer
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to raise public awareness of the dangers of skin cancer. [77717]

  Ms Jowell
  Skin cancers are largely preventable and we continue to work closely with a wide range of public bodies to raise public awareness of the sun's harmful effects. The Health Education Authority's annual sun awareness week and the new ultra-violet solar index being developed with the Meteorological Office are examples of the work the Department of Health is supporting to provide people with information on the day-to-day strength of the sun's rays and its capacity to burn, advice on the measures a person can take to lessen risks of sunburn, and information on the early detection and treatment of skin cancers.
  645

  Dental Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that everybody has access to a local NHS dentist. [77718]

  Mr. Denham
  The investing in dentistry (IID) initiative, which we launched in September 1997, and the personal dental services (PDS) scheme, which we announced on 1 January 1998, can both help to improve access to national health service dentistry. IID provides grants to enable dentists to expand existing practices and set up new ones in those areas of the country where the provision of NHS dental services is inadequate and oral health inequalities are most acute. PDS encourages health authorities to work with dentists to develop a variety of new arrangements to improve access to NHS dentistry.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the underspend on his Department's "investing in dentistry" initiative. [77720]

  Mr. Denham
  We expect all the funding available for 1998–99 for investing in dentistry (HD) to be assigned by the end of the financial year. Funding available in the first year of IID was not fully utilised, as most approvals became due for payment in the second year of the scheme.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the "investing in dentistry" initiative. [77728]

  Mr. Denham
  Investing in dentistry has been extremely effective. We have approved over £8 million of grants which will enable around 650,000 people to receive access to national health service dentistry. All dentists receiving grants will be monitored by their health authority to ensure that the conditions of the grant are met; if the dentist does not meet the commitment to provide NHS dentistry to the number of people specified, the grant can be reclaimed in whole or in part.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will extend the principles of clinical governance outlined in "A First Class Service" to dentists working in the general dental services. [79414]

  Mr. Denham
  Health Service Circular 1999/065 "Clinical Governance: Quality in the new NHS" makes it clear that clinical governance arrangements will include general dental practitioners, optometrists and pharmacists. Clinical Governance in the General Dental Services will be implemented to a similar time scale as the rest of the national health service.

  To develop clinical governance in the GDS we will build on the elements already in place, underpinned by continuing professional development and strengthened by self-regulation.

  Care Leavers
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on improving services for young people leaving local authority care since the publication of "Quality Protects". [77719]

  Mr. Hutton
  All local authorities were required to submit quality protects management action plans to the Department of Health by 31 January. The management 646
  action plans had to set out, among other information, the local authorities' plans for improving the services for young people leaving care. This is one of the six priority areas for the payment of the £375 million children's social services special grant.

  We shall be publishing the findings of our evaluation of the management action plans in a national overview report due out in the summer.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of people on NHS hospital waiting lists(a) on 1 May 1997 and (b) today. [77721]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government inherited the largest and fastest-rising waiting lists ever. We promised that by April 1999 waiting lists would be lower than the position we inherited of 1.158 million. We have delivered this promise a month early by reducing waiting lists by 193,000 since last April to 1.12 million.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure equality of access to IVF treatment. [77722]

  Ms Jowell
  We have pledged to tackle unacceptable levels of geographical variations in access to in-vitro fertilisation treatment and have set in motion a programme of work to achieve that aim. A Department of Health survey of current health authority infertility service provision will take place shortly to enable the cost implications of any policy changes to be estimated. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists aim to complete their third, and final, set of evidence-based clinical guidelines on infertility this autumn and these will indicate the circumstances in which infertility treatment can be most clinically effective. We can then move towards fairer access to national health service infertility services, where those most able to benefit from such treatment receive it.

  Residential and Nursing Homes
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish his report on national required standards for residential and nursing homes for older people. [77723]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report will be published when further work has been done on the likely impact on providers, in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on regulatory impact assessments.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce waiting times for breast cancer treatment. [77724]

  Mr. Hutton
  Considerable progress has already been made through the on-going implementation of Calman/Hine. In addition, the Government have invested £20 million over the past 18 months in breast cancer
  647
  services to speed access to diagnosis and treatment. Quarterly monitoring of "The New NHS" White Paper breast cancer two-week target begins on 1 April.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed on the success rates of early screening programmes in treating breast cancer. [77703]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 1996–97 the national health service breast screening programme, for the first time, matched the cancer detection rate of the original Swedish clinical trial in 1986 on which it was based. The majority of these cancers were small, early cancers which are easier to treat. Based on these results, it is estimated that the programme could be saving 1,250 lives each year.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received on errors made by the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Hospital Trust in diagnosing breast cancer; and if he will make a statement. [78939]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 March 1999]We are aware of the two terrible cases which have been the subject of media attention and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to both women to express his feelings of deep regret that they have had such an awful experience.

  We have asked the regional director of public health in Trent to commission a comprehensive review of the circumstances to ensure that everything possible is done to avoid this happening again. The review team will include an expert nominated by the Royal College of Pathologists. My right hon. Friend will be kept informed of progress and will be fully appraised of the conclusions and recommendations of the review team, which will be published.

  Adoption
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the waiting times for children for adoptive families. [77725]

  Mr. Hutton
  Some children needing new families wait too long to be placed with adoptive parents. Decisions about their future should be made more quickly and decisively. We are determined to transform the adoption service through our "Quality Protects" programme.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full service agencies for inter-country adoption are registered in the United Kingdom. [78326]

  Mr. Hutton
  Each local authority may act as an adoption agency for inter-country adoptions. In addition, there are 2 voluntary adoption agencies which are approved under section 3 of the Adoption Act 1976 to act as an adoption society in England and Wales which are also approved to act in overseas adoptions. Applications from two other adoption agencies to act in overseas adoptions have been received recently.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the job description of the Section Head (Adoption) in his Department. [78306]
  648
  Mr. Hutton
  The section head advises Ministers on domestic and inter-country adoption matters and, on behalf of my right hon Friend the Secretary of State, manages the Department's function as the central authority for England for inter-country adoption.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adoption applications for adoption within the UK were received in each year since 1990; and of these how many resulted in adoptions. [78328]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available centrally. The Department processes applications only for inter-country adoptions. Domestic adoption applications are processed by the local authority concerned.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adoption applications for inter-country adoptions were received in each year since 1990; and how many of these resulted in adoptions being completed. [78327]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold information about the number of children adopted from abroad, only about the number of inter-country adoption applications it has processed since 1993. These will account for the majority of such adoptions since then and are set out as in the table.

  Year

  Number of inter-country adoption applications processed by the Department

  1993

  101

  1994

  115

  1995

  154

  1996

  308

  1997

  223

  1998

  258

  Total

  1,159

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact the Chancellor's increase in the senior citizens winter fuel allowance will have on the health of senior citizens. [77726]

  Ms Jowell
  By announcing in his recent Budget statement an increase from £20 to £100 in the winter fuel allowance payable to pensioner households, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor clearly signalled the Government's intention to tackle fuel poverty. By benefiting those older people most at risk, this substantial fivefold increase will contribute to combating the many health problems related to cold conditions in homes.

  Radiotherapy Services (North-West)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made to reduce the above average waiting times for radiotherapy treatment in the north-west region caused by a lack of linear accelerators. [77727]

  Mr. Denham
  Since the Royal College of Radiologists collected the data which it published in July 1998, a new radiotherapy unit with two linear accelerators has opened
  649
  in Preston. In that time, the number of machines serving people in the north west and north Wales has increased from 12 to 16. Work is currently under way to house a third machine at Preston, which will come into service next year.

  A report commissioned by the National Health Service Executive North-West, which will make recommendations about the level of provision of radiotherapy treatment machines in the region, is due shortly.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the change in the total funding for complementary medicine services from health authority budgets in the past year. [77729]

  Ms Jowell
  Information about health authority spending on complementary medicine services is not available centrally.

  It is for local purchasers and clinicians to decide how their resources would best be used to meet the health needs of their populations, having taken into account all of the available evidence as to the most appropriate and effective forms of treatment, whether conventional or complementary. We shall, however, be studying the use that the new primary care groups make of complementary medicine.

  Accident and Emergency Services (North-east London)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on plans to improve accident and emergency services in north-east London. [77730]

  Mr. Denham
  On 16 February my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that £30 million from the modernisation fund will be spent on improving England's accident and emergency services. In north-east London, Whipps Cross Hospital and Oldchurch Hospital have received £695,000 and £748,000 respectively to redevelop and modernise their accident and emergency units. These figures include awards from the National Health Service Executive's London Regional Office.

  On 15 March 1999, Official Report, columns 707–20, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that an extra £70 million-£80 million would be made available from her Majesty's Treasury aimed at new and better ways of staffing and organising accident and emergency services in England, including the introduction of emergency nurse practitioners, greater use of tele-medicine and tackling long trolley waits.

  Mental Health Institutions (Medical Emergencies)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will include in the code of practice under the Mental Health Acts a requirement for mental health institutions to have procedures for dealing with medical emergencies. [77731]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Mental Health Act 1983 code of practice provides guidance on the treatment, care and management of patients, with respect to their mental disorder, who are detained under the Mental Health Act 650
  1983. The code does not provide detailed guidance on procedures for dealing with medical emergencies in mental health institutions. It is for each mental health trust to ensure that policies and procedures are in place for dealing with medical emergencies involving all psychiatric patients, not just those detained under the Act.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his proposed timetable for the implementation of the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care. [77732]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is already action in hand relating to several of the Royal Commission's recommendations. Others will require more detailed consideration over the coming months.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the prescription of beta-interferon for multiple sclerosis sufferers. [77733]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) today,Official Report, column 845.

  Renal Services
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources his Department has made available for renal unit facilities. [777341

  Mr. Denham
  Funds for specific services or aspects of treatment provided by the national health service are not separately identified either nationally or within individual health authority or NHS trust allocations. The pressures on renal services were identified during the comprehensive spending review process and were taken into account when calculating the final settlement for the NHS. However, it is for individual HAs to decide the resources which should be devoted to the provision of renal services in the context of local priorities and needs. The "National Priorities Guidance 1999/2000–2001/02" makes it clear that this is an area where HAs are expected to secure improvements.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government policy on the provision of health services to patients with multiple sclerosis. [77736]

  Mr. Denham
  The national health service provides health care on the basis of clinical need. This includes the health services which may be required by people with multiple sclerosis ranging from primary care to specialist services.

  Guidance on betainterferon was issued to the national health service in November 1995.

  Mental Health (Children)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what investment the Government plan to make over the next three years to help children with(a) attention deficit disorder, (b) phobias, (c) depression and (d) other mental health problems. [77708]
  651
  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are making an additional £84 million available over three years from April 1999 to improve provision of appropriate, high-quality care and treatment for children and young people by building up locally based child and adolescent mental health services. These services address a range of child and adolescent mental health problems, including emotional and behavioural disorders such as attention deficit disorder, phobias and depression.

  Cancer
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths occurred last year from (i) prostate, (ii) breast, (iii) lung and (iv) colon cancer; and what was the amount of Government funding for(a) treatment and (b) research allocated to each of those cancers. [77572]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of deaths in England and Wales in 1997 (the latest data available) for the following cancers are given in the table.

  ICD code

  Men

  Women

  ICD9 185

  Prostate

  8,523

  —

  ICD9 174/5

  Breast

  67

  11,980

  ICD9 162

  Trachea, bronchus and lung

  19,087

  10,889

  ICD9 153

  Colon

  5,125

  5,323

  Information about the cost of treatment classified by disease is not routinely collected locally, hence there is no collation of such data centrally. However, approximately 6.3 per cent. of national health service hospital expenditure is on cancer.

  The Government fund health and medical research in a number of ways. The Department funds research and development to support its work on policy development and evaluation in health and social care. The Department also manages the national health service research and development levy, which is used to support research and development of relevance to the national health service in hospitals, general practice and other health care settings, and to fund the NHS research and development programme. In addition, the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology in the Department of Trade and Industry, funds medical research as part of the Government's funding of the science and engineering base.

  Management of much of the research supported by the NHS research and development levy is devolved, and details of expenditure at project level are not collected routinely by the Department. During 1997–98, the Department invested the following amount on directly commissioned research: £187,000 on lung cancer; £29,000 on prostate cancer; £832,000 on breast cancer and £197,000 on bowel cancer.

  During 1997–98, the MRC spent £691,000 on lung cancer; £18,000 on prostate cancer; £3,328,000 on breast cancer and £1,469,000 on bowel cancer. The MRC's figures relate to research specifically into these named cancers, and research which has been classified as being undertaken in one of these sites may well have implications in another and vice versa. As a guide, the MRC spent £13.2 million on cancer in 1994–95.
  652
  Studies in cancer should be viewed in the context of a large body of basic MRC research which underpins, and is of some relevance, to them. This includes the study of molecules and cells (£64.5 million in 1997–98), genetics and health (£52.4 million) and infections and immunity (£60.3 million).

  In addition to the MRC's funding of the specified cancers, it is also supporting 10 trials, details of which are listed. These trials are co-ordinated by the MRC cancer trials office (CTO), which supports about 30 trials at any one time. Costs cannot be ascribed to individual studies, but, as a guide, the CTO's budget in 1997–98 was approximately £1 million.

  MRC Trials

  Breast cancer:
  A randomised trial of epirubicin and cyclophosphamide vs. epirubicin and paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer

  Bowel cancer:
  A randomised trial of intravenous versus intrahepatic arteria 5-FU and leucovorin for colorectal liver metastases
  A randomised trial comparing 2 durations and 3 systemic chemotherapy regimens in the palliative treatment of advanced colorectal cancer

  Lung cancer:
  The Big Lung Trial: a randomised trial of cisplatin-based chemotherapy for all patients with non-small cell lung cancer;
  A randomised trial of supportive treatment with or without immediate thoracic radiotherapy in the prevention and palliation of symptoms in inoperable NSCLC;
  A randomised trial of pre-operative chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with stage IIIA NSCLC;
  A randomised trial of ifosfamide, carboplatin and etoposide with mid-cycle vincristine (VICE) vs. standard practice chemotherapy in patients with SCLC and good performance status;
  A randomised trial of surgical resection with or without pre-operative chemotherapy in patients with operable NSCLC;

  Prostate cancer:
  A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of adjuvant oral sodium clodronate in patients commencing or responding to initial hormone therapy for metastatic adenocarcinoma comparing time to symptomatic bone progression;
  A randomised trial of high dose therapy in localised cancer of the prostate using conformal radiotherapy techniques.

  Project details of work directly funded by the Department or supported through the NHS research and development levy can be found on the National Research Register (NRR). This is available in the Library and most medical libraries on CD Rom, and on the Internet: http://www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. The NRR also contains many details of projects/trials funded by the MRC and other funders.

  Cancer Care Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department makes available to the public on the quality and performance of cancer care services; and if he will make a statement. [78222]

  Mr. Hutton
  A range of information is available which has a bearing on the quality and performance of cancer care services. Annual statistical bulletins on the breast and cervical screening programmes in England give information on uptake, coverage and detection rates. The
  653
  Office for National Statistics publishes the following information on cancer incidence, cancer survival and mortality:

  Source

  Incidence

  Cancer Statistics Registrations England and Wales 1992 ONS Series MB1

  Cancer survival

  ONS Monitor MB1 98/1 Cancer survival in England and Wales: 1981 and 1989 registrations

  Mortality

  Mortality Statistics Cause England and Wales 1997 ONS Series DH2 No.24

  Waiting list data by specialty are collected and published quarterly in both the "Department of Health NHS Executive Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England" for inpatients and the "Department of Health NHS Executive Waiting Times for First Outpatient Appointments in England: Detailed Statistics" for outpatients. Data are available at specialty level for both health authorities and national health service trusts. Cancer treatment data may be contained within some of the various specialty classifications. Hospital episode statistics, which show the number of finished consultant episodes, are also collected. Copies of all publications are available in the Library.

  High level performance indicators (HLPIs) will be published shortly, which will include a number of indicators for cancer services. The HLPIs aim to provide an overview of how the NHS is performing, encourage national and local improvements in performance and support public accountability.

  A cancer information strategy, within the wider health information strategy, is currently being developed, which will streamline information sources. Areas for action which have been identified include developing a core cancer information pack for patients, carers and other users; information requirements of primary care; and patient-centred information systems.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he is assessing on specialist support for CFS/ME(a) nationally and (b) in the Northern Region. [78484]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are not currently assessing any proposals nationally or in the northern region on specialist support for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME). The national health service provides a considerable number of services to which people suffering from CFS/ME have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. The recently established CFS/ME working group will produce guidance aimed at improving the quality of this care and treatment. The CFS/ME working group will complete its work by the summer of 2000 and the guidance will be published later that year.

  Carers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will inform health care service providers of the developing policies towards carers outlined in the national strategy for carers. [78553]
  654
  Mr. Hutton
  A copy of the national strategy, "Caring about Carers", was sent to chief executives of health authorities and national health service trusts on 8 February. The Chief Executive of the National Health Service Executive wrote to all chief executives personally on 11 March emphasising his commitment to implementation of the national strategy. Further information will be sent directly to all doctors in England by the Chief Medical Officer. The Department is also working closely with organisations representing general practitioners, nurses and managers in general practice on publicising the national strategy to primary care teams. Further opportunities for informing the national health service about supporting carers will be taken as they arise, and in the context of a wide range of initiatives under way in my Department.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will discuss with ministerial colleagues methods of establishing a one-stop shop advice service for carers. [78554]

  Mr. Hutton
  The issue of how best to provide information and advice for carers was fully discussed in the course of developing our national carers' strategy. We will be working to provide carers with improved information in a range of different ways-through helplines, including NHS Direct, through an improved network of local support services and carers' centres, and through information technology. Carers' centres and carer support services already provide information and advice on a wide range of issues. We will help them to do this better, such as by providing information on our policies and services on the internet. We also intend to help the staff of all services that support carers to become knowledgeable about the issues which concern them and about other local services which can help them.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he intends to take to ensure that primary health care providers are able to(a) identify and (b) provide services to carers. [78552]

  Mr. Hutton
  The national priorities guidance for the health and social services for 1999–2000 requires primary care teams to identify patients who are carers or who have carers. We are working with a number of organisations, including the medical and nursing royal colleges, on ways of ensuring that primary care teams support carers, in particular by helping them to maintain their own health and by providing them with information about other services in their area.

  Violence against Women
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals the Government have to develop the strategy agreed in the Beijing Platform for Action for tackling all forms of violence against women. [78873]

  Ms Jowell
  We will shortly be releasing a report outlining an integrated approach to preventing violence against women. This report will promote inter-agency working and will include measures based on prevention, and the provision of protection and justice. The report's development has been informed by research into the causes and consequences of violence against women and the effectiveness of preventive measures.
  655
  The United Kingdom is fully committed to opposing trafficking in women and its associated activities. The UK has comprehensive laws in place to deal with those who engage in activities associated with trafficking and prostitution and measures are in place to ensure that victims are dealt with fairly.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the savings to the NHS if pharmacists were permitted to prescribe the limited selection of drugs that district nurses may prescribe. [78885]

  Mr. Denham
  No estimate has been made of whether allowing pharmacists to prescribe a limited selection of drugs would lead to savings or to additional costs.

  NHSNet
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the acceptability to GP practices of NHSNet in respect of(a) security, (b) cost and (c) speed relative to other internet providers. [78924]

  Mr. Denham
  The NHSNet is a private communications network dedicated to national health service purposes and as such it is fundamentally more secure than equivalent public networks such as the internet.

  The initial cost of connecting general practitioners to NHSNet will be met from modernisation funds. GPs will have to meet any increased costs related to telephone call charges and this is estimated to be £400 per practice per annum in the first instance. However, this cost will be treated as a practice expense and will be met indirectly through the expenses element in the gross fees and allowances paid to GPs.

  NHSNet is capable of delivering information as quickly as the best internet providers.

  Prescriptions (Pensioners)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what cost was incurred by his Department in the most recent available year in respect of NHS prescriptions to pensioners. [78934]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1997, the estimated cost of prescription items dispensed by community pharmacies and appliance contractors to persons aged 60 and over was £1,906 million.

  This is the net ingredient cost, which is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charge income. Information about the cost of prescriptions dispensed in the community by dispensing doctors or dispensed in hospitals to persons aged 60 and over is not available.

  Herbal Medicines
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his Department's policies in respect of herbal remedies. [79505]
  656
  Ms Jowell
  Our overall objective is that the public should have access to a wide range of safe, high-quality herbal medicines with appropriate information about the use of the product. There are currently two contrasting routes to the market for herbal medicines. Licensed herbal medicines have to meet rigorous standards of safety, quality and efficacy. Unlicensed herbal remedies in the UK do not have to meet any specific standards for safety, quality or efficacy.

  We fully share the view, which was expressed at a recent meeting held by my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, by a range of organisations working in the natural health sector, that the current regulatory arrangements for herbal medicines have significant weaknesses and require review. The regime for unlicensed medicines does not give systematic protection to the public against low-quality and unsafe unlicensed herbal remedies which are known to reach the UK market. Nor does it permit manufacturers legally to give written information to consumers about the intended use of the product. In contrast, elements of the regime for licensed medicines—particularly some of the efficacy requirements—are difficult for responsible companies to satisfy in relation to herbal medicines. We believe that there is a need to work towards arrangements which provide better protection and information to the public, while continuing to allow responsible business and practitioners to operate effectively.

  We have asked the Medicines Control Agency to examine options for achieving our objectives for herbal medicines, consulting widely with interested organisations. Medicines law operates within a European framework. Accordingly, we will need to develop a position which is realistically achievable within the European Union. We intend to participate actively and constructively in any on-going EU discussions about future regulatory arrangements for herbal medicines.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 1999–2000 for the Medical Devices Agency. [79614]

  Ms Jowell
  We have agreed the agency's key targets for 1999–2000 and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Day-care Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the levels of charges by local authorities for non-residential day-care services; and what plans he has to introduce guidance on the appropriate levels of such charges. [78920]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on charges made to individuals for non-residential services is not available centrally. However, the total amounts reported by local authorities as having been received from clients in the form of fees and charges, in 1996–97, for different services are collected centrally, and are available in the form of computer tables on the Department's World Wide Web pages [Internet reference http:\\www.open.gov.uk/doh/public/pssstat.htm] for all local authorities in England.
  657
  We will consider what action to take to make the present charging system for non-residential services more equitable, including the case for guidance on appropriate levels of charges, when we have assessed the recommendations of the royal commission's report on long-term care, and the results of a survey by the Audit Commission on local authority charging practices.

  Lamotrigine
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has commissioned into the safety of the drug, Lamotrigine. [67006]

  Mr. Denham
  As for all marketed medicines, the available research into the safety of lamotrigine was assessed at the time of granting the marketing authorisation and continues to be evaluated by the Medicines Control Agency. Recognised side effects of lamotrigine are included in the authorised product information and the British National Formulary.

  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been made to his Department since the drug Lamotrigine was licensed for use in Britain, arising out of or related to the use of this drug or arising out of or connected to side effects suspected to be related to the use of this drug. [67005]

  Mr. Denham
  The Medicines Control Agency, which is responsible for drug regulation in the United Kingdom, has received 35 inquiries relating to lamotrigine from health professionals and members of the public since the marketing authorisation was granted in 1991.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers (North-west)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to visit farmers in Chorley and Bolton. [77526]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 18 March 1999]: I have no plans at present to visit farmers in Chorley and Bolton. I undertake regular visits to different regions in England and other parts of the UK to consult with farmer representatives and farmers themselves on matters of interest to them. I hope, as part of that programme, to be able to visit Lancashire.

  OTMS
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to review the over-30-months scheme; and if he will make a statement. [78211]

  £

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Regional Selective Assistance

  385,000

  75,000

  30,000

  1,400,000

  Processing and Marketing Grants

  585,638

  706,867

  813,046

  1,065,192

  Objective 5b1

  0

  0

  0

  429,501

  LEADER II Projects

  0

  0

  0

  2,758

  Mid Wales Development Grant

  47,000

  0

  208,000

  0

  Total

  1,017,638

  799,329

  1,051,046

  3,638,933

  1 The Objective 5b scheme began in 1995, however no payments were made until 1998.

  658
  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 7 December 1998,Official Report, column 104, to which I have nothing further to add at the present time.

  Cutting Plants (Veterinary Inspections)
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what will be the average annual cost of moving from monthly to weekly and then daily veterinary supervision in a licensed cutting plant handling under five tonnes of meat per week. [78409]

  Mr. Rooker
  Based on a licensed cutting plant handling under five tonnes of meat per week, with veterinary attendance of one hour per day and weekly working assumed to be five days, the average annual cost of moving from monthly to weekly to daily veterinary supervision will be:

  Monthly inspection—annual cost (12 hours): £342

  Weekly inspection—annual cost (52 hours): £1,482

  Daily inspection—annual cost (260 hours): £7,410.

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average cost of daily veterinary inspections as a percentage of turn-over for the category of plant which handles(a) under five tonnes and (b) between 250 and 5,000 tonnes of meat per week. [78416]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average annual costs of daily veterinary inspections at these premises will be:

  Plant handling under five tonnes of meat

  Annual cost: £7,410

  (based on supervision of one hour/day)

  Plant handling between 250 and 5,000 tonnes of meat per week

  Annual cost: £17,280

  (based on average supervision of two hours/day).

  Information on the turnover of licensed premises is not available I regret that I am therefore unable to provide a percentage of turnover value.

  Milk
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums have been invested in the modernisation of the United Kingdom milk processing industry in each year from 1995 to date; and what Government financial support for investment has been provided in each year. [78195]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 March 1999]: Information on total investment in the modernisation of the United Kingdom milk processing industry is not held centrally.

  Government financial support for investment from 1995 to date is as follows:
  659

  Potatoes
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department with regard to the ecological links between the cultivation of potatoes and the existence of the aquatic flies and similar fauna vital for the survival of young salmon and trout; and if he will make a statement. [78879]

  Mr. Rooker
  No research of this type has been commissioned or evaluated.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken by his Department(a) directly and (b) by contract to outside bodies on the genetic modification of potatoes; and if he will make a statement. [78878]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Department currently funds two research projects involving the genetic modification of potatoes. Both projects involve strategic R&D to investigate genetic manipulation as a possible means to reduce the use of chemicals during the growth and storage of potato tubers.

  A three-year project within the Cell Engineering LINK programme started in 1996 and is due to end on 30 April. The LINK consortium comprises the University of Leeds and Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd. Government contributors come from MAFF and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The aim of this project is to investigate the feasibility of genetic modification as a means of reducing damage by nematodes and thus reduce the use of chemical nematicides.

  A second three-year project funded by MAFF at the University of Nottingham started in February 1999. HRI-Wellesbourne is a sub-contractor on this project, which also receives an "in-kind" contribution from Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd. The aim of this project is to investigate specific biochemical changes occurring in potato tubers which affect their storage behaviour.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the incidence of tuberculosis in(a) badgers and (b) cattle in each of the last three years in Cheshire; and if he will make a statement. [78787]

  Mr. Rooker
  With respect to part(a) of the question, the incidence of TB in badgers has not been systematically studied in Great Britain outside the Woodchester Park area. With regard to part (b) of the question, there were no confirmed TB incidents in cattle herds in Cheshire in 1996 or 1997. There were two confirmed TB incidents in herds in Cheshire in 1998.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards small abattoirs. [79536]

  Mr. Rooker
  Small abattoirs make a valuable contribution to the economy, but they cannot be exempt from the requirements of EU law.
  660

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the health implications of the consumption of dairy products where bovine somatotropin has been used in the production process. [78984]

  Mr. Rooker
  Bovine somatotropin (BST) occurs naturally in all cows milk. The manufactured form of BST is not currently permitted for use in the EU. If its use were to be authorised, it would be classified as a veterinary medicinal product. Products have previously been assessed by independent scientific committees against the statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy. I asked the independent Veterinary Products Committee to set up a Working Group, which is currently consulting the latest scientific information on animal and human safety, and the Committee is expected to offer advice to Ministers on the safety of BST in the summer.

CABINET OFFICE

  Drugs Misuse
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what assessment he has made of the degree of correlation between the level of law enforcement on the possession and use of illegal drugs and the overall level of availability of illegal drugs in the United Kingdom since the appointment of the Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator. [79333]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Such a simple correlation is not possible as there are many factors, other than the level of law enforcement, which could impact on the availability of illegal drugs on our streets. Furthermore, although statistics are collected on the number and weight of seizures of illicit drugs, we have no measure at present of the overall size of the drugs market, or the percentage of illegal drugs seized, which would allow comparisons to be made.

  A methodology is being developed to measure the key corporate objective under the availability aim of the Drugs Strategy to reduce access to drugs among young people. It is intended to provide a better understanding of the impact of law enforcement measures on the availability of drugs in the United Kingdom.

  Senior Salaries
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the average percentage increase in salaries of members of the Senior Civil Service for 1998–99; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [78769]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The average individual increase in 1998–99 (before staging) was 5.44 per cent. 2 per cent. of the pay award was paid on 1 April 1998 and the remainder on 1 December 1998. The individual average percentage in-year increase taking account of staging was 3.15 per cent.
  661

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list for all task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997(a) their dates of establishment, (b) those which

  Task force/policy review

  Date established

  Date of publication of final report

  Date of termination

  Expected reporting and termination dates

  Better regulation Task Force

  15 September 1997

  —

  No termination date set

  Review of Export Promotions

  18 June 1998

  12 March 1999

  12 March 1999

  —

  Modernising Government Quality Schemes Task Force

  26 January 1999

  —

  —

  December 1999

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list all those task forces and policy reviews with external members established by his Department since May 1997 which have set up(a) sub-groups, (b) working parties and (c) other subsidiary committees. [79250]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  (a) Sub-groups—The Better Regulation Task Force; (b) working parties—none; (c) other subsidiary committees—none.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office which public bodies remain outside the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [79248]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The vast majority of executive non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) and those advisory NDPBs which have significant dealings with members of the public are now within the parliamentary ombudsman's jurisdiction. Those which remain outside his jurisdiction generally have few or no dealings with members of the public or are within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, for example, the Local Government Ombudsman, or else have external adjudicators.

  There are some exceptions to this, where the Government have decided that it would be inappropriate to bring a particular executive NDPB within the parliamentary ombudsman's jurisdiction, because of the nature of the body's work. These are listed:

  Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales

  Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Audit Commission

  Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board

  Funding Agency for Schools

  Gaming Board

  Horserace Totalisator Board

  Horticulture Research International

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland

  Police Complaints Authority

  Policyholders Protection Board

  Student Loans Company.

  Ofwat customer service committees are excluded from the parliamentary ombudsman's jurisdiction as complaints from members of the public may be taken to the Director General of Water Services.
  662
  have issued final reports and their dates of publication, (c) those which have been terminated and their dates of termination and (d) for those bodies still in existence, expected reporting and termination dates. [79272]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The information is given in the table.

  The British-Russia Centre and the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe, which are currently outside the parliamentary ombudsman's jurisdiction are shortly to be brought within his remit.

  Public Services
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what he will do to ease public access and improve efficiency in dealing with complaints across different public services in England. [79668]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  I am pleased to announce that the Government are about to undertake a review of the organisation of public sector ombudsmen in England. The review will be conducted by a team in the Cabinet Office and its terms of reference are as follows:The review will consider whether the present arrangements for the organisation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Health Service Commissioner for England and the Local Government Ombudsman in England are in the best interest of complainants and others against a background of moves towards the more integrated provision of public services; and whether those arrangements hinder achieving better value for money.
  The review will also consider the potential interaction between those ombudsmen and other independent complaints authorities, such as the Independent Housing Ombudsman and the Data Protection Registrar.
  The review will make recommendations about the public sector Ombudsmen, including recommendations on their statutory powers and duties, having regard for constitutional issues.

  This review will support the Modernising Government agenda by examining the scope for a more joined-up ombudsman system for England.

TREASURY

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter inviting civil servants in his Department to waive Working Time Directive requirements. [79424]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have done so.

  Births
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the percentage of births, live and stillborn, with birth weight(a) under 2,500g and (b) under

  663
  3,000g (i) stillborn in the United Kingdom and (ii) live and stillborn in the 10 wards with the highest percentage of births under 2,500g; and if he will give these figures for each of the past five years; [78754]

  (2) if he will list the percentage of births where birth weight was under 2,500g which were (a) stillborn and (b) live births for each of the past 10 years. [78789]

  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. Frank Field, dated 30 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions on births.
  The information requested for the percentage of all births with selected birthweights in the United Kingdom, 1993–1997, is shown in the attached table 1. Similar information for the ten wards with the highest percentages can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  The percentages of births where birth weight was under 2,500g which were stillborn and live are shown in the attached table 2.

  Table 1 Stillbirths with a selected birthweight as a percentage of all births with a stated birthweight Residents of United Kingdom, 1993–1997

  Stillbirths

  Total birth

  Under 2,500 grams

  Under 3,000 grams

  Numbers

  1993

  742,579

  2,799

  3,316

  1994

  736,015

  2,814

  3,335

  1995

  732,819

  2,788

  3,279

  1996

  733,287

  2,759

  3,259

  1997

  727,095

  2,620

  3,085

  Percentages

  1993

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  1994

  —

  0.4

  0.5

  1995

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  1996

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  1997

  —

  0.4

  0.4

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics

  Information and Statistics Division, Scotland

  DHSS, Northern Ireland

  Table 2 Number of live and stillbirths with birthweight under 2,500 grams.Percentage of births where birthweight was under 2,500 grams which were live and stillborn Residents of United Kingdom 1988–97

  All births Under 2,500 grams

  Live births Under 2,500 grams

  Stillbirths Under 2,500 grams

  Numbers

  19881

  52,226

  49,983

  2,243

  1989

  52,432

  50,284

  2,148

  1990

  53,861

  51,667

  2,194

  1991

  54,256

  52,110

  2,146

  1992

  52,470

  50,376

  2,094

  1993

  52,837

  50,038

  2,799

  1994

  53,362

  50,548

  2,814

  1995

  55,549

  52,761

  2,788

  1996

  55,167

  52,408

  2,759

  1997

  55,785

  53,165

  2,620

  Percentages

  19881

  —

  96

  4

  1989

  —

  96

  4

  664

  Table 2 Number of live and stillbirths with birthweight under 2,500 grams. Percentage of births where birthweight was under 2,500 grams which were live and stillborn Residents of United Kingdom 1988–97

  All births Under 2,500 grams

  Live births Under 2,500 grams

  Stillbirths Under 2,500 grams

  1990

  —

  96

  4

  1991

  —

  96

  4

  1992

  —

  96

  4

  1993

  —

  95

  5

  1994

  —

  95

  5

  1995

  —

  95

  5

  1996

  —

  95

  5

  1997

  —

  95

  5

  1 Great Britain only—Information for Northern Ireland is not available for 1988.

  Sources:

  Office for National Statistics

  Information and Statistics Division, Scotland

  DHSS, Northern Ireland

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli, Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) of 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 285, on the Office for National Statistics, what progress has been made with the restructuring of the management board; where the post of director of finance and corporate services has been advertised; and by when the new board is planned to be in place. [79396]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Kidney, dated 30 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the restructuring of the ONS management board.

  The ONS Board has been restructured so that it consists of

  The Director of ONS

  A Director of Economic Statistics

  A Director of Social Statistics

  A Director of Methodology and Quality

  A Director of Corporate Services

  Interim appointments from current ONS staff have been made to these posts from 1 April, and job descriptions for the posts are in preparation. I am discussing with the Civil Service Commissioners how best to attract external applications for the Corporate Services post, which I expect to be advertised in late April. Arrangements for filling the other posts are still being considered.

  Employment (Merseyside)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the number of people in work in(a) Birkenhead and (b) the Wirral in 1979 and at the latest date for which figures are available broken down between (i) full-time and (ii) part-time work. [79214]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  665
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on employment.
  Information is available for the number of Employee Jobs, derived from the Annual Employment Survey (AES) for September 1997 (latest available date) and the Census of Employment for September 1981 (the closest available date to 1979). The persons who hold these jobs may live outside the area shown.

  Employee jobs 1 at September

  Thousand

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Wirral1

  1981

  69.0

  25.0

  1997

  59.1

  34.8

  Birkenhead2

  1981

  32.7

  11.6

  1997

  21.3

  11.2

  1 Local Authority District

  2 Parliamentary Constituency

  Investment Companies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will announce the timetable for the introduction of legislation to enable cash and fund-of-fund open-ended investment companies to be launched in the UK domestic market; and when authorisation of cash and fund-of-fund open-ended investment companies will enable ISA providers to promote such companies as an alternative to authorised unit trust schemes. [79344]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Financial Services and Markets Bill will include a provision to make orders allowing the formation of a wide range of open-ended investment companies (oeics). The aim will be to create a single corporate code for all authorised oeics. The Financial Services Authority will then be able to authorise oeics with a broad range of investment objectives. These could include cash and fund-of-fund open-ended investment companies.

  Existing cash and fund-of-fund authorised unit trusts are eligible for inclusion in ISAs. Changes to the tax regulations permitting cash and fund-of-fund open-ended investment companies to be offered as ISA products will be introduced once these are established in law and are authorised by the Financial Services Authority.

  Energy Levy
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what advice he has received on the likely impact on the United Kingdom steel industry's international competitiveness of the climate change levy at the indicative levels currently proposed; [79349]

  (2) how he plans to ensure, in introducing the proposed energy levy, that United Kingdom manufacturing exports are not unfairly disadvantaged in world markets. [79348]

  Ms Hewitt
  In line with the Statement of Intent on Environmental Taxation, the Government considered carefully the potential impact of the climate change levy on the international competitiveness of United Kingdom industry. The design of the levy closely follows Lord Marshall's recommendations. Its introduction will 666
  involve no increase in the overall burden of taxation on business. The Government intend to recycle the revenues to business through a cut of 0.5 percentage points in the main rate of employer National Insurance Contributions. Businesses will also benefit from an additional £50 million for schemes aimed at providing energy efficiency directly and stimulating the take-up of renewable sources of energy.

  The Government also recognise the need for special consideration to be given to the position of energy intensive industries given their energy usage, the separate Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regulation and their exposure to international competition. In line with the recommendations made by the CBI, the Government will not be taking a blanket "across the board" approach to setting the appropriate level of the new levy. Subject to any legal and practical constraints, the Government intend to set significantly lower rates for those energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving energy efficiency which meet the Government's criteria.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish criteria for defining an energy-intensive industry, to be exempted from the new energy tax; and if he will publish a ranked list of manufacturing sectors in terms of their energy intensity. [79197]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 March 1999]: The Chancellor announced in the recent Budget that, subject to any legal and practical constraints, the Government intend to set significantly lower rates for energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving energy efficiency. Sites in sectors covered by the EU Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive will be eligible. The Deputy Prime Minister, along with Ministers from the DTI and HM Treasury, met with the energy intensive sectors on 29 March to begin these negotiations.

  Lord Marshall's report, "Economic Instruments and the Business Use of Energy", which was published on 3 November 1998, contains an analysis of energy intensity by business sector.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of companies which will be liable for his proposed energy tax. [79384]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment published by Customs and Excise on 9 March they commented that we expect that fewer than 1,000 businesses will be liable to account for the levy. Following Custom's consultation a more accurate figure will be calculated.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what method tax revenue from the new energy tax will be collected by energy utilities. [79192]

  Ms Hewitt
  It will be for energy suppliers to decide how they pass on the climate change levy to their business customers. We expect most suppliers to include it in the unit price, but it will be up to them to choose whether to identify it as a separate amount.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Government have taken to ensure that their proposed energy tax is compliant with(a) the rules of EU Single Market and (b) the rules of the World Trade Organisation. [79189]
  667
  Ms Hewitt
  The EU rules governing the harmonisation of taxes within the Single Market permit member states to introduce national taxes provided they do not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between member states, nor infringe State Aid rules. Customs and Excise's consultation paper on the design and administration of the levy, published on 9 March, proposes a treatment of the imports and exports of energy products which meets our obligations concerning trade between member states. And following the announcement of the climate change levy in the Budget, I informed the European Commission of the Government's announcement. The Government are working closely with the European Commission to help ensure that the proposed scheme to set significantly lower rates for energy intensive sectors that agree targets for improving energy efficiency is compatible with State Aid rules. In doing so, we shall also take into account our obligations under the World Trade Organisation.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 641–42 and 19 March 1999,Official Report, column 857, for what reasons he did not provide the information requested about his (a) political advisers, (b) officials and (c) Ministers. [78528]

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 March 1999,Official Report, column 101, for what reason he did not provide the information requested relating to the receipt by his parliamentary private secretary of the draft report of the Social Security Committee. [79193]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  [holding answers 25 and 29 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave on 16 March 1999, Official Report, columns 641–42, which gives a detailed account of the position.

  Public Opinion Polls
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library a full report of the questions asked and answers given in all the public opinion polls commissioned by the Treasury since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement on the policy objective of commissioning public opinion polls. [72026]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The Government are committed to providing modern public services which are responsive to the needs of the public. Although the Treasury undertakes various public opinion research, this is usually in the form of business and economic surveys. The Treasury has not commissioned specific public opinion polls since 1 May 1997.

  Limbless Association
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if tax relief under the Millennium Gift Aid scheme is available in respect of the services provided by the Limbless Association in the UK. [79549]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Millennium Gift Aid scheme is for donations to UK charities to support education and anti-poverty projects in the world's poorest countries. Donations to support services provided in the UK would generally not qualify.
  668
  I am unable to comment on a particular organisation's tax affairs.

  Millennium Compliance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the recent report of the Financial Services Agency on millennium compliance; and if he will make a statement. [79385]

  Ms Hewitt
  As the FSA has made clear, the primary responsibility for ensuring high levels of Year 2000 preparedness lies with the industry itself. But the FSA regards the issue as a major supervisory priority. It recently made public, on an aggregated basis, its assessment of the state of readiness in financial institutions. The UK financial services sector is generally regarded as a leader in working towards Year 2000 preparedness. Within that overall picture, though, a small number of firms appears to be less ready than others. The FSA has challenged these firms either to show that this assessment is out of date or rapidly produce a plan for remedial action. It has also made clear that—where there is no better way to protect depositors, investors or policyholders or the integrity of markets—it will take supervisory action.

  The decisions on whether to take such action are the statutory responsibility of the FSA, though the Treasury will continue to liaise closely with them.

  Endowment Mortgages Mis-selling
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will establish a review of the estimated £1.5 billion of mis-sold endowment mortgages on the same basis as the recent pensions mis-selling review. [79187]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Financial Services Authority has confirmed that it is currently gathering information with a view to considering if such a review is necessary.

  Mr. Charlie Whelan
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what duties Mr. Charlie Whelan has undertaken for Treasury Ministers since 4 January; [79000]

  (2) how many times Mr. Charlie Whelan has visited HM Treasury since 4 January. [79003]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Mr. Whelan resigned from the Treasury with effect from 13 January. Since then he has not undertaken any duties for Treasury Ministers.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the impact on employment of a 5 per cent. increase in the value of the pound against the euro, assuming no other changes of policy or external circumstance over a two-year period. [79213]

  Ms Hewitt
  Assuming that the exchange rate were to increase with all other things remaining equal, there would tend to be a depressing effect on output, employment, and inflation in the short term. However, this is a wholly artificial assumption, not least because the Bank of England is required to set interest rates to hit a symmetrical inflation target.
  669

  Property Transactions (Stamp Duty)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many property transactions worth(a) over £250,000 and (b) over £500,000 took place in 1998; and how many of these related to (i) commercial property, (ii) domestic property and (iii) intellectual property; [79045]

  1998–1999 (provisional)

  Price Band

  Number1 of transactions (thousands)

  Net2 receipts (£ million)

  Proportion3 of net receipts %

  Transactions over £250,000 but not over £500,000

  Residential transactions

  40

  245

  80

  Commercial property and land transactions

  10

  65

  20

  Total

  45

  310

  100

  Transactions over £500,000

  Residential transactions

  5

  215

  20

  Commercial property and land transactions

  10

  825

  80

  Total

  15

  1,040

  100

  All transactions over £250,000

  Residential transactions

  45

  460

  35

  Commercial property and land transactions

  20

  890

  65

  Total

  65

  1,350

  100

  1 Transactions rounded to the nearest 5,000. Figures are rounded individually and may not sum to the totals shown.

  2 Net receipts rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  3 Proportions rounded to the nearest 5 per cent.

  It is estimated that stamp duty on transactions of intellectual property amount to about £5 million in 1998–99 from about 2,000 transactions. No further details are available on such transactions.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [76821]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor to the hon. Member for Chesham
  670
  (2) what proportion of stamp duty revenue from property transactions worth (a) over £250,000 and (b) over £500,000 in 1998 related to (i) domestic property, (ii) commercial property and (iii) intellectual property. [79044]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on stamp duty revenue is normally presented on a financial year basis. Provisional estimates for 1998–99 are given in the table.

  and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 22 October 1998, Official Report, column 1200. All arrangements for overseas travel by Treasury Special Advisers are consistent with the requirements set out in the Ministerial Code.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if people eligible for the working families tax credit will receive free prescriptions. [78311]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 517.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.
Lord Melchett—Made the solemn Affirmation.

European Emergency Telephone Numbers: Harmonisation
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have considered harmonisation of emergency telephone numbers throughout the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, there are no plans to harmonise emergency telephone numbers. However, the single European emergency call number, 112, which has existed in parallel with national emergency numbers since 1992 is very useful for British holidaymakers, who need to remember only one emergency number wherever they travel in the European Union.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that interesting Answer. Is he aware that I am prepared to bet that he is the only noble Lord in this Chamber who knows that 112 number? In the light of that, will the Government promote a leaflet giving that number, plus any other European emergency numbers, and the American emergency number, to all British travellers? Does the 112 number apply to a Walloon making an emergency telephone call in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in the majority of member states, including the UK, awareness of the number 122—
Noble Lords: 112!
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, 112! That number has been publicised by operators, regulators or other organisations. In the UK, British Telecom publicises the 112 number in its telephone directories. However, as neither I, before this debate, nor my wife, nor Lady Trumpington, nor anyone else I have talked to, knows of the existence of that number, I expect that we have a problem with communication. I shall talk to the Director-General of the Office of Telecommunications to consider, with the telecom industry, what more may be done.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, would it not be sensible for travel companies to issue the number on documentation that is given to those travelling abroad?
196
Emergency numbers could be shown on confirmation sheets so that travellers have the necessary numbers that follow their progress.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that seems to be a remarkably sensible suggestion. I shall make certain that, as far as we are able, we shall encourage that to happen.

Road Maintenance
11.9 a.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have held recent discussions with local authorities concerning the maintenance of local roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, discussions between my department and local government associations took place last summer on the standard spending assessment formulae, including the one for highways maintenance. Those formulae are used to allocate revenue support grant. Capital structural maintenance of local authority A roads is funded through the transport supplementary grant. Local authority bids are submitted to my department after discussions between local authorities and Government Office officials in the regions.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, as 94 per cent. of passenger traffic and 91 per cent. of freight within the United Kingdom is moved by road, does the Minister agree that if we are to build an efficient and competitive economy, the highest priority must be given to the maintenance of our road network? Does the Minister recognise that there is a major shortfall in the maintenance of local roads? Can the Government make adequate funds available, besides enforcing a form of ring-fencing, to ensure that that vital work is carried out?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is clearly right. The majority of both private and commercial traffic is carried on roads in this country. We intend to achieve a modal shift so that more freight is carried on the railways. However, even if we achieve the target set by the Government and the freight operators of a threefold increase in freight on the railways, 70 per cent. will still be carried by road. Therefore, it is important that we maintain adequate highways, particularly trunk roads.
The roads review has allocated substantially greater resources to maintenance and there are great improvements in techniques. As far as local roads are concerned, an extra £276 million has been allocated, over the three-year period to revenue maintenance, and capital maintenance for roads and bridges has increased this year by over one-third. So we are providing additional resources.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, given that the Government intend to transfer 40 per cent. of the trunk

197
road network to the control of local authorities, can the Minister give the House an assurance that sufficient funds will flow from the Government to local authorities to maintain those roads and, more importantly, that local authorities actually spend that money on road maintenance and not on other things?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we intend to de-trunk roughly 40 per cent. of the non-motorway network, as the noble Lord said. The de-trunking will take place in negotiation with local authorities and will include a financial allocation. We have indicated that in the comprehensive spending review period that should consist both of an adjustment to the SSA and, where appropriate, capital grants.
Road maintenance has never been hypothecated. However, it is a myth that there is serious underspending. The variation has been less than 2 per cent. between the assumption and the actual expenditure of local authorities. Therefore, we are not inclined to move down the hypothecation avenue. We believe that we should leave such decisions to local authorities.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the Government's policy of devolution and, therefore, subsidiarity, their objective in the long-term should be for local authorities to make their own decisions on how to allocate finance, be it for local road maintenance or anything else? While I accept that they should be given adequate money to spend on all their resources, does he agree that ring-fencing for particular matters, such as the maintenance of local roads, is not the way forward?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, our whole approach is to give greater choice to local authorities to make their own decisions in the light of their own priorities. However, major capital maintenance, like other capital projects, is subject to local transport plans and therefore to earmarking by the Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is absolutely right? The more that the Government ring-fence other amounts of local authority expenditure—for example, education expenditure, which is a large part of local government spending—the less flexibility local authorities have to make up their own minds? Roads matter very much to local people, as does education. If the Government continue in this manner, soon there will not be any point in being a member of a local authority.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in terms of restriction of local authority decisions. I am tempted to make a party political point about the past 18 years, but I shall refrain. This Government's policy is to ensure that local authorities make their own decisions. The financial regime is moving in that direction. We are examining the SSA process beyond the period of the current comprehensive spending review in order to achieve that.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who shed the chain off a brand-new bicycle going into a pothole in Regent
198
Street on the first day of riding it, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the question may not be hypothecated, but it is certainly not hypothetical? As a Minister in a government who believe in reducing the use of fuel, is the noble Lord aware that a pothole, which is negligible to a lorry driver, inconvenient to a motorist, and a danger to a cyclist, can kill a motorcyclist?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, that may well be the case in certain circumstances. In our guidance to local authorities—I believe that the noble Lord was referring to a local authority road—we make it clear that one of their priorities must be the safety of all road users.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I wonder whether for my benefit, and perhaps that of other Members of your Lordships' House, the Minister can define "local roads" in the context of this Question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I understand it, my noble friend's Question relates to roads which are run by local highways authorities rather than by the Highways Agency in England.

Unemployment: Regional Differences
11.15 a.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, as shown by the most recent unemployment figures, unemployment has increased in the Northern Region, while it has decreased in all other regions: and why the figure for the Northern Region remains the highest for all regions except Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, regional differences in unemployment have narrowed in recent years, with the North-East among the regions that have experienced the largest labour market improvements. However, over the past year, sectors on which the North-East is particularly reliant for employment have been particularly affected by worldwide problems. Government help has accordingly been focused on the region, with around 60 per cent. of the total approved expenditure for the Rapid Response Fund having already been allocated to the region.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer, but will she accept that my Question is neither a moan nor a grumble and that I appreciate very much indeed what the Government are doing for the region? However, the figures to which the Question refers are peculiar and disappointing. Does not the fact that ever since these figures were first kept the North-East has been the area with the highest unemployment rate suggest that unemployment is endemic in the North-East? Does my noble friend agree that that should be the subject of a short but major investigation by the Government?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his initial comments about what the

199
Government are doing to tackle unemployment in that area and, indeed, elsewhere. We can be perhaps a little more positive about what is happening in the North-East than my noble friend suggests. As I said in my Answer, regional differences in unemployment have narrowed in recent years, with the North-East being among the regions that have experienced the largest labour market improvements. The gap between its current claimant count rate and the national average is down to about three percentage points, which is about half the figure of the mid-1980s. Nevertheless, it is of course important that the Government should continue to monitor what is happening in the region and take further action beyond the special support already given from the Rapid Response Fund, if that is deemed necessary as a result of the monitoring.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her noble friend's Question is not entirely accurate because the most recent figures for Scotland show that, like the North of England, unemployment has grown there in the past year? Is the Minister also aware that the narrowing of which she speaks has been very welcome but that it occurred largely under the last government and as a result of their policies? Now that the policies of this Government are beginning to be triggered, unemployment in Scotland, for example, has risen by 12,000 in the past year and, as the Minister's noble friend said, it has risen also in the North of England. Is not that something to do with the Government's economic policy?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is not entirely accurate in the statistics that he has given either, though I accept that there has been some growth in unemployment in Scotland in recent months. Perhaps I can remind the House of the statistics. Since May 1997 UK employment is up by over 500,000 to the highest level since labour force records began and it is continuing to grow. The claimant unemployment rate is down by 324,000 and the ILO unemployment rate is down by 200,000. Moreover, the number of vacancies that have been notified to the Employment Service jobcentres continues to run at an historically high level at 200,000 a month.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in view of the disagreement as to what is accurate, perhaps I may add a bit of accuracy. Does the noble Baroness recall that her noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington tabled a Question every month asking what the unemployment figures were? When they went up her noble friend gave the then government stick. As the unemployment figures are going up now, why does her noble friend not give the present Government stick?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is not true that across the country unemployment figures are going up. If we look across the country as a whole, there has been an increase in the levels of employment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I can continue to give the last government some stick. Is my
200
noble friend aware that the weakness in Scotland was the result of the last government's weak inward investment policies? It attracted continually low-tech jobs which have not stood the test of time and have failed to meet the worldwide recession, particularly in the electronics industry.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for those interesting statistics. I am aware that the lack of encouragement to inward investment seriously contributed to the previous government's record in this respect.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I am delighted that my exercises in those days are remembered. It is quite right that I tabled a Question every month concerning unemployment. The reason I have not questioned this Government is that it was reasonable to see what this Government would do, and the figures have continually gone down. Perhaps even more important, can my noble friend say what the figures are in relation to the closure of small businesses in the North-East? We all know about the big closures that have taken place, but it would be helpful to hear what is the situation with respect to smaller firms.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give the precise statistics on closures of small businesses in the North-East. However, we are of course aware that the closure of the Siemens and Fujitsu plants in the North-East caused specific problems. That again is the result of worldwide developments. However, many new jobs have been created in the North-East. Indeed, since this Government came into power, more jobs have been created there than have been lost.

Right to Roam: Insurance Claims
11.22 a.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will indemnify landowners against insurance claims arising from accidental injury on their land to those exercising a legal right to roam.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I suggest that the Government do so. Not knowing how those exercising the right to roam will be compensated for accidents is another deterrent to landowners who might otherwise enter into voluntary agreements in relation to increased access to land. Does the Minister know that even in my gentle part of the Sussex downland, a large area, under the Minister's proposals, may well become available for free access? It is possible when climbing a fence to put one's hand on rusty barbed wire and contract tetanus, or walk through grass, put one's foot into a badger hole and break one's leg. Potholes do not exist only in Regent Street, as mentioned by my noble

201
friend Lord Elton. Who will pay the vast claims that might arise? The Government should give thought to that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government do not expect the new statutory right of access on foot to open countryside to have a significant impact on public insurance costs for landowners. Their liability to people who are exercising that right will be the same as the liability which they already owe to those who are not on the land by their invitation or licence. Therefore landowners and their advisers will wish to decide whether and to what extent insurance, including public liability insurance, is appropriate for their needs. An economic appraisal study by independent consultants for the Government suggests that any increase in the public liability insurance premium will be very small.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does the Minister realise that this will add another expense to farmers' accounts at a difficult time? Further, does he realise that the right to roam and the use of the countryside by people who do not understand it is growing apace? People do not know the difference between a bull and a cow; do not know that a cow with her calf is very dangerous; and do not know that allowing dogs to go everywhere can excite all the animals. It is not just wire fences; I suspect that soon someone will be killed.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the assessment by independent experts does not suggest that the insurance costs to landowners will be significantly greater than now. Your Lordships are aware that the right of access does not apply to cultivated land; it applies to moor, heath and downland. There is not therefore the direct effect on farmed land that the noble Lord assumes.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, if, contrary to the Minister's expectation, the cost of insurance increases substantially, will the Government be prepared to indemnify the landowner against that added cost? If the answer is no, will the Minister explain why the landowner should bear that added cost as a result of rights imposed upon him for others to roam on his land?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, all occupiers of premises or land owe to some degree a duty of care to those who are there whether or not by invitation. It varies, but there is a duty of care. There is no reason why countryside landowners should be treated and indemnified any differently from owners of other premises and property.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the position that the liability of the landowner will be no different to the liability as it now exists as regards trespassers to deter the laying of mantraps, or is a greater duty of care to be imposed? I did not understand what the noble Lord was saying.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord's presumption is correct. There will be no difference in
202
liability in kind as compared with the current liability in relation to trespassers or to anyone else who is there not by explicit invitation.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there are bound to be some difficulties concerning land over which people have the right to roam? I know the Countryside Agency is mapping the areas, but there will be some on the margin. Does he further accept the undesirability of what insurers may demand of landowners? I refer to signs mushrooming up everywhere saying, "Beware cliff', "Beware deep ditch". Does the Minister not feel that that will be an undesirable outcome? Is it not a pity that the Government will not give more time to working with landowners on such issues?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. A detailed mapping exercise is envisaged as part of the process of introducing the right to roam. In some areas it will be a complex task. In relation to warning notices, it is already the case that, where landowners are or ought to be aware of hazards, they have a duty to point them out. That will remain the case. I do not anticipate a large number of notices appearing all over our open countryside, which I believe is the nightmare envisaged by the noble Baroness. There is already a requirement on landlords in that respect.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is there anything in the proposed legislation to stop the landowner exhibiting a notice disclaiming all liability to those who wish to roam his land?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is nothing to stop him displaying it, but there is in existing law a liability which he cannot escape.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister not consider that those who ramble actually have responsibilities themselves in this regard? Surely the responsibility should not be placed on landowners. Will the noble Lord also agree that his honourable friend, Mr. Bennett in the other place, who I understand is a keen rambler himself, acknowledged only last Friday that ramblers have a responsibility and should not expect to be able to sue the landowner for accidents that they might have caused? I believe he also acknowledged that the matter needs sorting out.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my right honourable friend Michael Meacher and all spokespeople on this proposed legislation have always emphasised the responsibility of the ramblers as well as that of the landowners. However, this potential situation can be exaggerated. If we take the kind of land which, in a sense, is more or less the equivalent of National Trust open countryside property, which has had 50 million visitors over a five-year period, we can see that there were precisely 47 incidents only one of which ended up with a settled claim amounting to less than £2,000. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not exaggerate the problem.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: My Lords, in passing this very welcome legislation to allow people to fall into

203
badger holes should they so wish, can my noble friend assure the House that the Government will also pass accompanying legislation to ensure that the protection of sites of special scientific interest is enhanced and properly assured while access is increased?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that I accept my noble friend's description of the legislation. However, it is certainly the case that landowners and the statutory agencies will be able to indicate where there is danger to wildlife or natural features. Closures and restrictions with the authority of the statutory agencies would be appropriate in those circumstances.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, where damage is caused by a rambler to an SSSI, can the Minister say whether that damage would have to be put right by the landowner at his expense?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in normal circumstances and in terms of existing legislation, I believe that the answer to the question has to be yes, whether the damage was caused by a trespasser or anyone else.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does that mean that a landowner of an SSSI can actually keep people off that land? Further, is the Minister aware of the number of hectares that are covered by SSSIs and, consequently, the number of often very beautiful parts of this country that will not be available to the public?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; it does not mean that. Indeed, no reading of what I said could mean that. I have indicated that in certain specific circumstances where there is obvious danger to sites or to wildlife, the statutory agencies will have the power to introduce some restrictions. That is all I have said. In general, SSSIs will be available for access to the vast majority of people in this country, After all, that is what the legislation is about.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, how can a person be liable for damages in respect of something that someone else has created?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I fear that that situation arises in many walks of life. Unless you can actually catch the perpetrator, it is unlikely in this or in any other circumstance that the responsibility for repairing that site can be removed from the its owner. That is the situation. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the responsibility of ramblers themselves will be part of this approach, as will the responsibility of the statutory authorities to protect such areas in particular.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the name of the independent assessors to whom he twice referred in answering my Question? Further, can be say what agricultural experience they have?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at this moment I cannot give the House the information required. However, I shall write to the noble Lord. I can say that they were,
204
in general terms, experts in the insurance business rather than in the agricultural business. Indeed, I assume that agricultural insurance is a major area of concern to landowners and a major area of expertise within the insurance industry.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, leaving aside the question of SSSIs, can the Minister tell the House whether a landowner might have any legal redress against a rambler who caused damage—perhaps even wilful damage—by starting a fire and otherwise causing damage to his property?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. If he could identify the perpetrators, he would certainly have redress.

Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill [H.L.]
11.33 a.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend Section 63 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Rotherwick.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Academic and Academic-Related Staff Pay and Conditions Bill [H.L.]
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision with respect to the remuneration, recruitment, retention and other conditions of employment of academic and academic-related staff; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord McCarthy.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

House of Lords Bill
11.35 a.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, it is only the rare Bill which deserves the name "historic". This is one. It will bring centuries of history to an end. No longer will membership of this House be a birthright. In the eye of history what will amaze is that this birthright for 750 families, a right to sit and vote in a legislative chamber of Parliament, endured until the twilight of the 20th century.
It would be churlish to bring so long and colourful a chapter to a close without an appreciative backward glance. In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Crown's chief Ministers routinely sat in this House. Despite the other place's assertion of financial privilege, even the

205
Lord Treasurer sat here. Often only one or two members of the Cabinet sat in the Commons. After the establishment of a recognised office of Prime Minister in the 1730s, Members of this House filled that office often, until the end of the 19th century. We recall, from the last century alone, the Earl of Liverpool, who served George IV as Regent and King for 15 years; the Duke of Wellington; and, into this century, the third Marquess of Salisbury, who presided for a total of thirteen and a half years over three administrations.
The influence of Members of this House was vast. Until the 1832 Reform Act, some had a major influence on elections to the other place. There were powerful electioneering Peers: the first Earl of Lonsdale; the Dukes of Rutland and Newcastle, of Devonshire and Norfolk. In 1827 Earl Grey, later to be another of this House's Prime Ministers, made such a long, masterful and, it must be said, venomous speech about Canning, that Canning seriously considered taking a peerage just for the privilege of getting up in this House to respond to it. The "situation" of Lord Melbourne, another Prime Minister, was described in 1837 in John Croker's letter to Sir Robert Peel as,
"the most dictatorial, the most despotic, the world has ever seen".
He went on to claim that his power exceeded even that of Cardinal Wolsey—but perhaps I should not have recalled that.
Major ministerial posts were held by Members of this House throughout the 19th century; and by no means simply those which are in effect reserved to Members of it. The post of Foreign Secretary was rarely held by a Member of the other place between 1827 and 1905. That may have seemed appropriate then, when the wealthy and aristocratic were among the few in the country who had travelled. Indeed, what great Foreign Secretaries some of them were. When Lord Rosebery held that position, he would sing "Rule Britannia" while working on his ministerial boxes. He said it put him in the right frame of mind. I have considered the possibility for myself, but have decided that there are places where it might be misunderstood.
Earl Grey's Cabinet in 1830 included no fewer than 13 Peers and sons of Peers. Disraeli's administration of 1874 and Gladstone's of 1880 were divided equally between Members of each House. Even in this century, Members of this House have continued to serve in the highest offices of state. Lord Curzon, Lord Halifax, Lord Home, in his first incarnation, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—to whom we had the privilege of listening yesterday—between them filled the office of Foreign Secretary for well over a dozen years.
During the 19th century, the powers of the two Houses really were equal. Even taking account of financial privilege, this House could and did intervene on, and even reject, every kind of measure, including financial measures. The only weapon of a Prime Minister faced with an intransigent House of Lords was to threaten to ask the monarch to create more Peers of his party.
The powers of this House were whittled away over the years. The great Reform Bill of 1832 was designed to end this House's control over the membership of the
206
other place. In the 19th century the political divisions between the Tory and increasingly radical Liberal parties grew. Thanks to William Pitt's policy on creations, the Tory Party already enjoyed by that time the entrenched dominance it sustains today. Matters came to a head when this House, in defiance of every convention, threw out the 1909 Budget as part of its attack on the radical agenda of Lloyd George. The result was the 1911 Parliament Act. That removed your Lordships' powers to block the passage of Bills passed by the House of Commons for more than two years, except for Bills to extend the life of a Parliament.
But the question of political balance is not what this Bill is about. The Conservative dominance in this House will not be removed even after this Bill has passed. What this Bill is about is the hereditary principle itself. It is about the central contemporary case for removing the right of hereditaries to sit and vote; that membership of this House must be a privilege to be won, not a right to inherit and enjoy.
In 1884, Lord Salisbury said about this House's rejection of the Franchise Bill,
"the question is not what the House of Lords are, or how they got there, but whether they did right or wrong".
That may have been true then, but it is not true today. The question today is the hereditary principle itself.
Through all our debates, on and on, about this subject, the arguments against the Government turn on process, not substance. Yet this Bill is about principle. It recognises that this House cannot maintain its legitimacy in the eyes of the people of this country without a membership based on merit, not right. Let me quote from a book written in 1909,
"Why should five hundred or six hundred titled persons govern us, and why should their children govern our children for ever? I invite a reply from the apologists and the admirers of the House of Lords. I invite them to show any ground of reason, or of logic, or of expediency or practical common sense in defence of the institution which has taken the predominant part during the last few days in the politics of our country.
"There is no defence, and there is no answer, except that the House of Lords—the unreformed House of Lords—has survived out of the past. It is a lingering relic of a feudal order. It is the remains, the solitary reminder of a state of things and of a balance of forces which has wholly passed away".
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, yesterday quoted Winston Churchill, as I have just done today, when he was President of the Board of Trade. The principle of heredity in this House is an anachronism. I have heard nothing in all of our debates on this subject that has succeeded in refuting that.
In 1888, before he became another of the Prime Ministers from this House, Lord Rosebery tabled a Motion that would have deprived hereditary Peers of an automatic right to vote in this House. He did this because he found the principle of heredity anachronistic in the modern, 19th century, world. He was supported by several noble Lords. But he did not prevail. That was 111 years ago. That was six years after married women first won the right to own their own property. That was 30 years before women got the vote. The last thing this Bill is is premature.

207
Let me come to what, provided it becomes part of this Bill, will become known to history as the Weatherill amendment, although it has a prior provenance. The noble Lord's amendment would provide for the interim retention of one in 10 of the hereditary Peers, 75 out of the existing 750. plus 15 hereditary office-holders, until the second stage of House of Lords reform has taken place. The amendment reflects a compromise negotiated between Privy Councillors on Privy Council terms and binding in honour on all those who have come to give it their assent. Like all compromises it does not give complete satisfaction to anyone. That is the nature of compromise.
It gives less than perfect satisfaction to my party, which two years ago won the largest popular majority this century, on a manifesto containing this pledge:
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future, the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords will be ended by statute."
That meant and means all hereditaries. If the Weatherill amendment passes, that pledge will be delivered in two stages, not one—90 per cent. to go now, 10 per cent. on the completion of stage two, rather than all now. The compromise itself trespasses on the patience of the Labour Party, not least in the other place.
Let me attempt to explain its rationale. We have always intended a stage two reform to a reformed upper House. Others questioned our genuineness. Although I know as well as anyone the honesty and firmness of our intention, I was not offended by those who claimed to perceive a risk that removal of the hereditaries might prove to be the only reform to take place. All who have assented to this compromise would justify it in their own ways, but I believe what it comes to is the following.
First, a compromise in these terms would guarantee that stage two would take place, because the Government with their great popular majority and their manifesto pledge would not tolerate 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerage remaining for long. But the 10 per cent. will go only when stage two has taken place. So it is a guarantee that it will take place. Secondly, the hereditary Peers who remain will have greater authority because they will have been elected by the whole of the hereditary peerage within the party, Conservative, Labour, or Liberal Democrat, from which they come, or, if they are Cross-Benchers, by all the hereditary Cross-Bench Peers. A nice element of the compromise is that to stand in an election will be a novel experience for the 75. But I have to say clearly that the compromise was that the elections in the several constituencies would be of hereditaries, by hereditaries, for hereditaries, who would remain until the completion of stage two. The rather invidious proposition that life Peers should have a vote in these elections and pass judgment on the comparative merits of their hereditary colleagues is contrary to a compromise which is binding in honour.
Thirdly. to insist on fulfilling the manifesto pledge by one step, not two, would bring down the curtain unceremoniously on the whole of the hereditary peerage, many of whom, and whose forebears, have given so much to this House and to public life. The compromise will enable the elected 75 to participate in
208
our counsels and to vote as the stage two plans are developed and debated. It will allow those who do not stand, or who are not elected, to depart with dignity, not querulously, and without rancour.
The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, has authorised me to say that he intends to table the amendment to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain in the House as soon as the Second Reading of this Bill has been completed. This will be on Wednesday.
The Clerk of the Parliaments has been preparing, in conjunction with representatives of the political parties in this House and the Cross-Benchers, a paper which will in due course be laid before the Procedure Committee. This paper deals with how the Weatherill amendment can be made to work in practice. In order to assist your Lordships, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I have invited the Clerk of the Parliaments, and he has agreed, to place a copy of this paper in the Library of the House on Wednesday. It should be stressed that the paper will go to the Procedure Committee and cannot obviously be said at this stage to represent recommendations which the Procedure Committee will, in due course, make to the House.
But I have to say this as frankly and as clearly as I can: the number 75 is not a floor on which to try to build greater numbers by amendment, but a ceiling which has been agreed. Neither in this House nor in the other place will the Government accept any greater number. We would regard support for any such amendment, or abstention on any such amendment where abstention assisted its passage, as a breach of the compromise. Nor would the Government contemplate anything other than outright rejection of any amendment whatsoever designed to delay the implementation of our manifesto pledge, whether by delaying its introduction, making it dependent on some other event, such as approval in a referendum; making its operation temporary; or by any other means. None will be accepted, either here or in the other place. Nor will the Government tolerate any material disruption of their legislative programme, through exchanges of messages between both Houses signifying continuing disagreement, or by any other means, when they have a manifesto commitment so clear and firm and so strong a popular endorsement for their manifesto.
I wish no one to be left in any doubt: if events take place in this House which are incompatible with the letter or the manifest spirit of this compromise, and the progress of our legislative programme is materially prejudiced, then the Government will not hesitate to treat the compromise as having failed and, if need be, in a spirit of sorrow, not anger, will invoke the Parliament Act to implement their manifesto pledge in full and with the least delay. A statesmanlike endeavour would have failed. The verdict of history would go against those who made it fail. The patience of the country would be exhausted, and the country would be on the Government's side.
I am grateful for your Lordships' attention to a speech which I hope your Lordships will accept has been marked by absolute frankness about the Government's

209
intentions; sincere appreciation for the historic service that the hereditary Peerage has given, and is continuing to give, to the House and the country; and a plea for statesmanship in the closing of a long chapter.
11.54 a.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, people who succeed to rights tend to respect the rights of others. That is why the peerage has played such a crucial part in the development of our constitution. Without the peerage we would have no constitutional government in this country; without the peerage the executive in our early, medieval and modern history would have been an absolute executive and individual rights would never have developed in the way they did.
If the hereditary peerage has served its constitutional purpose in those respects, the principles that it has promoted still play a crucial part in our democracy. If the Government are going to remove the hereditary peerage from your Lordships' House, then the least they can do is to put in place a contemporary system to ensure that the objectives that were achieved all those centuries ago will endure.
I see absolutely no sign whatever in this Bill that the Government intend to do that. Even in the 1911 Parliament Act there was at least a purpose clause setting out the objectives for a more democratic House of Lords. The Conservative Party has been accused of spending 18 years in government and doing nothing about reform to your Lordships' House. But what about the 18 years the Labour Party spent in opposition? It had plenty of time to think about what it would do. But we see today that the Labour Party has not the faintest idea what it intends to do for stage two reform.
Or is that actually right? Your Lordships' House had the chance to debate the content of the White Paper some weeks ago; and it will not have failed to come to your Lordships' attention that the Government suggest in that document that they seek both a more legitimate and a less powerful Chamber.
What an irrational objective; a Chamber whose delaying powers will be reduced and whose power to reject secondary legislation will be removed altogether. That is really a recipe for unicameralism, for the dominance of the electoral mandate; and for the absolutism of government.
Democracy is a crucial ingredient in our society, but it is not the only ingredient that makes up a free society. We were a free country for 250 years before we were a democracy. Freedom involves minority rights as well as majority interests, and the protection of the individual. Will we achieve those things from the interim House that is presented by this Bill?
That House will be based on patronage, with not even an upper limit for the number of Members who will serve in it. Moreover, I am afraid that it is likely to prove a supine House. When it comes to consider the stage two that we are promised, will it really look at that objectively? Will it not think more of its own self-preservation?
210
This is not the way to run parliamentary government. To have an executive which has real status in a democracy, the parliament that selects that executive must also have status. That is why it is crucial that any change to your Lordships' House enhances the status of this Chamber and does not reduce it. I look in vain for any such guarantees in the Bill.
In the Opposition's view, it is absolutely crucial that one amendment to this Bill should be a timetable setting out exactly when stage two is to come into place. We know that the Royal Commission will report soon—if not within a year, then within 18 months. Will the Government guarantee that within a fixed short period thereafter they will move to introduce a stage two Bill in another place? Will the Government undertake that the stage two Bill shall contain proposals which are within the recommendations of the Royal Commission?
Or will they not? If they give no such commitment in this debate we shall know what the Government are really at. And what they are really at is well represented by the closing remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today. He suggests that your Lordships' House should be bound by some deal done outside your Lordships' Chamber; and that if your Lordships' do not respect it then the deal will be abandoned by the Government thereafter. Your Lordships' House may not be an elected one but its unelected status is the result of democratic choice. It is another place which has continued to ensure that your Lordships' House is composed as it is at the moment and has the powers that it has at the moment. Your Lordships' House is just as legitimate as another place and it is your Lordships' duty to deal with amendments in exactly the same way as your Lordships would deal with any other amendments coming before your Lordships' House. To do anything else would be to resile from the great tradition of your Lordships' House.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to think again about what he said in the closing passage of his speech. I can assure him in any case of one thing. We will courageously vote for what we believe are the correct amendments to the Bill and, if need be, oppose the Bill altogether.
11.59 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I very much agree with the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor at the beginning of his speech when he recognised the major contribution made by hereditary Peers both in the present House and in previous centuries. There will be no sneers from these Benches about the contribution made by hereditary Peers. Indeed, it would be remarkable were there to be any given the fact that 24 of our colleagues are hereditary Peers. But the blunt reality is that their day has passed. It is impossible to justify a system which gives male children born in the right bed the right eventually to become members of the legislature. The Bill before us today deals with that situation and we give it our unqualified support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred yesterday and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred today to the substantial victory achieved by the Labour

211
Party in the 1997 general election. They are entirely right. Of course the Labour Party received the support of only 43 per cent. of the electorate, a point not made by the Conservative Party because of its enthusiasm for the first-past-the-post electoral system. But the reality is that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats made it clear that they would support a Bill of this character involving a two-stage process. If in fact the votes of the two parties are put together, as indeed it is right to do, they secured the support of 60 per cent. of the people of this country.
Having said that, I must express our continued concern about the details of what is described as the Weatherill amendment. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank made clear yesterday—and we both emphasised in the previous debate we had on this subject—we were not consulted in any way by those responsible for setting down these proposals. We are therefore not committed to them. However, we do not reject them out of hand for the moment at least. We merely want to ask a series of questions about the details.
Perhaps I may give an indication of some of our concerns. First, there is the formula under which a number of hereditary Peers will remain in the House. There is nothing new about that general idea. It had always been expected that a number of the more active hereditary Peers would remain in a reformed House. We see no difficultly about that. But what will be suggested in the Weatherill amendment is rather different. It is that electoral colleges will be established in which hereditary Peers, and hereditary Peers alone, will be given a vote to determine which hereditary Peers will remain in the reformed House. Why should only hereditary Peers be given such a vote? As I have already indicated, many hereditary Peers play an active role in this House. But many do not. Yet the latter group will have a vote while active life Peers will not be given a vote. I find it difficult to understand how such a policy can be justified.
Secondly, we have the curious position of the Deputy Chairmen. Many hereditary Peers have made a significant contribution to this House in that capacity. But what precisely is the justification for another 15 hereditary Peers being elected to hold those positions? As I understand it, they will be elected by the whole House. But, given the political make-up of the House, it is not difficult to anticipate what the result of such an election will be—close to 15 more Conservative hereditary Peers in a House which already has an overlarge number of Conservative Peers.
That brings me to the ration of hereditary Peers for each of the parties. There will be two for the Labour Party, three for the Liberal Democrats and 42 for the Conservatives. In other words, for each Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer who will be allowed to stay in the reformed House, there will be 14 Conservatives; and that in a House with a continuing heavy Conservative representation. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explaining that arithmetic to us at the end of today's debate.
212
No fewer than nine of my hereditary colleagues sit on our Front Bench, as high a proportion as any party in the House. Hereditary Front Benchers in the Conservative Party will not have the slightest difficulty about being elected by this process, but that will not be true as far as concerns the Liberal Democrats. The Government will recall the words of the Cook-Maclennan agreement, published before the last general election. It said:
"Following their removal"—
that is, the hereditary Peers—
"we should move, over the course of the next Parliament,"—
that is, this Parliament—
"to a House of Lords where those Peers who take a party whip more accurately reflect the proportion of votes received by each party in the previous general election".
On that basis, the Conservative Party will remain heavily over-represented even after the hereditary Peers have left us, and then they will receive this special top-up of 42 more hereditary Peers. Again, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will deal with that point when he comes to reply.
Finally, I come to the question of patronage. It really was a little rich to hear the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he addressed the House yesterday on this issue. Perhaps I may remind the House of what he said. I quote:
"The Prime Minister has already created more Peers more quickly than any prime minister in modem history. He is the first modern prime minister to create more than half new Peers from his own party…I am certain that this House will not want this Bill to proceed without having examined the power of patronage".—[Official Report, 29/3/99; col. 17–18.]
I welcome that. I look forward to a discussion of the issue in which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will participate.
Let us examine the question of patronage. Let us examine the records of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and Mr. John Major. The noble Baroness appointed well over 50 per cent. more Conservative life Peers than Labour and Liberal Democrat life Peers put together. Mr. Major's record was only marginally better. But again he appointed more Conservative Peers than Labour and Liberal Democrat life Peers added together. By those means an already overwhelmingly Conservative majority in this House became even more dominant. I find it a little odd that in those circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, should complain about the misuse of patronage. In the House of Commons his complaints would have been characterised as sheer humbug. In this House I shall not dream of using such extreme language. I merely say that the Leader of the Opposition has uncharacteristically marginally over-stated his case.
The reiterated statements from the Conservative Benches that somehow Mr. Blair has behaved improperly in this matter are absurd. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have been grossly under-represented in this House, and by deliberate decision of two successive Conservative Prime Ministers. Mr. Blair has simply begun to rectify, at long last, that imbalance to take account, rightly, of the result of the last general election.

213
Later tonight—or more probably in the early hours of tomorrow morning—the House will divide on the amendment moved yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. It speaks of the need for consultation and consensus before the composition of this House is changed. As we all know perfectly well, there is not the remotest prospect, nor was there ever a prospect, of consensus about the future of the hereditary peerage. Tonight, the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, will of course carry his amendment without the slightest difficulty, because the Conservative Party in this House will be in the Lobby with him. But the exercise is entirely pointless. It will in no way affect progress on the Bill. It will be, as Aneurin Bevan said in a very different context, merely an emotional spasm.
12.11 p.m.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, first, with great sincerity, perhaps I may place on record my high regard and respect for the many hereditary Peers, especially those on the Cross-Benches, who regularly attend and participate in the work of your Lordships' House from motives of service.
Nevertheless, it is an established principle that a government with a majority have a right to obtain their business. But that has to be balanced against the equal right of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to criticise and improve legislation—but not to obstruct it. So I hope there is no truth in the article that I read in today's Daily Telegraph that is headed:
"Rebel peers aim to delay Lords Bill 'for years'".
Over many years in the other place I was involved as a Whip, both in government and in Opposition, and latterly as Speaker, in seeking to resolve problems when they arose, but also with that principle in mind. As the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks, the agreement that we have come to with the Government is a compromise. It was in that spirit that, with two of my Cross-Bench colleagues, the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, we sought a formula which would enable Her Majesty's Government to carry out their manifesto commitment, but to do so in a consensual way which would enable the work of this House to proceed in good order in the interim period before the second stage. We therefore started discussions, first with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he was Leader of the House, and with the Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and latterly with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, and with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, who was then Leader of the Opposition.
Although the amendment which the Lord Chancellor mentioned is to bear my name, it is only right that I should place it on record that I pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for the major part that he played in the discussions and eventual negotiations which have brought the amendment into being.
Furthermore, I must stress that throughout our discussions we have never claimed to be acting on behalf of the Cross-Benches. All Cross-Bench Peers are free and independent. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor will
214
recall that during the course of our discussions he once said to us: "How many Cross-Benchers can you deliver?", to which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, who was present, said, "Three". That is the truth, but I hope that there will be a few more.
I hope it may be helpful if I remind the House of what exactly the proposal is. First, one-tenth of the hereditary peerage—that is 75—would be elected from its own number to remain in the House until the transition to stage two is complete. We envisage that those 75 would be divided among the parties and the Cross-Benches according to their respective strengths on the day of our announcement, 2nd December 1998. That is: two hereditary peers from the Labour Benches; 42 from the Conservative Benches; three from the Liberal Democrat Benches; and 28 from the Cross-Benches.
Secondly, 15 hereditary Peers, the number who serve as Deputy Chairmen, would be elected by the whole House to be available to serve in that and other capacities in the scrutiny of legislation and in the working of the House. I know that my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees would find it very hard to fulfil his duties without the assistance of the hereditary Peers who serve on the Woolsack and as Chairmen of Committees. Finally, the two hereditary officers of state, the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, would also retain their seats until stage two is implemented.
Those are the broad principles of our proposal. Since then, considerable effort has been put into working them up into a proper legislative proposal. I am very grateful for the assistance of the House authorities, and officials and colleagues in other parties, in this. We envisage that the proposal will have effect in the following way.
We propose to table an amendment for early consideration in Committee which would provide for a maximum of 90 hereditary Peers, plus the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain, to be excepted, by or in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, from the operation of Clause 1 of the Bill, which removes the right to be a Member of this House by virtue of the hereditary peerage. That exception would be for life, unless a further Act of Parliament provided otherwise. The amendment would provide for a Standing Order which would operate in anticipation of the Act coming into force.
The purpose of that Standing Order would be to provide a means of identifying the 90 hereditary Peers who would benefit from the amendment. We envisage there being provisions within it for two separate elections, that of the hereditary Peers ready to serve as Deputy Speakers or Committee Chairmen, and that of the party representatives, which would take place in four separate sections. The number of places available for each group would be specified in the Standing Order. I repeat them: two from the Labour Party; 42 from the Conservatives; three from the Liberal Democrats; and 28 from the Cross-Benches.
For these elections, hereditary Peers would be required to register with their group separately as a candidate, and also as an elector. Hereditary Peers would have to register separately as candidates in the

215
election for Deputy Speakers and Chairmen, for which, in contrast to the party elections, the electorate would be the whole House. I hope your Lordships will agree that, since they are to be Officers of the House, it is right that they should be elected by the whole House.
Peers who have not taken the Oath or who are on leave of absence should not be allowed to vote or to stand, but sufficient notice would be given of the elections to enable a Peer to qualify himself by taking the Oath or rescinding his leave of absence.
The conduct of the elections would be the responsibility of the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate that someone was duly elected and thus excepted from Clause 1 would be conclusive. This latter provision would be on the face of the Act.
Our original motivation for making these proposals was twofold. First, we wanted to find a way of allowing stage one of the reform to go forward with as much consent as possible, recognising that the Government had a clear manifesto commitment behind them. Secondly, we hoped to provide some kind of reassurance of the Government's seriousness of intent to proceed to stage two. We therefore envisage this arrangement being temporary until what the Government call stage two of the reform of your Lordships' House is laid down in legislation.
We did not think it worthwhile to establish an elaborate by-election procedure for a scheme that may last only two or three years. The Standing Order would therefore provide for vacancies to be filled from the runners-up in the relevant elections. The Standing Order would provide that, failing all else, a vacancy should be filled in such a manner as the House resolves.
That is a brief explanation of how we envisage the amendment which we intend to propose will operate. We hope that it will be useful to the House in considering the Bill. It is a genuine attempt to balance the principles with which I opened my remarks: the right of the Government to carry out their manifesto commitment and the equal rights of the opposition parties. In the meantime, it would ensure that the work of your Lordships' House would be carried on in the interim period in good order. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated, the amendment has the support of the Government. I hope that it will commend itself to the House as a whole.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he assist the House? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the amendment would be tabled immediately after the conclusion of the debate. The noble Lord said that he would table the amendment at an early stage. When does the noble Lord envisage moving the amendment? The House resumes on 12th April and many Members will not have a chance to see the amendment until then. In view of the fact that the noble Lord and the Government have taken 16 weeks to prepare the amendment, would it not be odd and unreasonable if the noble Lord were
216
to move the amendment on the first day of Committee, since that would allow only about eight days for proper consideration of it by the House?
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I intend to hand in the amendment tomorrow morning—or, it is to be hoped, this evening. It will then be printed on the Marshalled List. I have no knowledge of when it is likely to he considered in Committee, but your Lordships know from various sources the details of the amendment and I believe that there will be adequate time for consideration before it is debated.
12.24 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I think that ought to wait until I have finished! This morning I heard a BBC reporter say in "Yesterday in Parliament" that hardly any new arguments were adduced in the debate. I agree with him and I fear that that will remain the case with my speech. If noble Lords feel that luncheon calls, I shall fully understand and, indeed, respect their priorities in this matter.
First, let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that we all owe him a debt of gratitude for the sincere and earnest way in which he and his colleagues have attempted to prepare a scheme which they hope will enable the House to proceed in its normal calm and accustomed way and perhaps ease the process of transition. I shall certainly support his amendment, although I cannot comment on it since I have not yet fully mastered it. When it comes to Committee, I shall look at it with great sympathy.
I am bound to add—and I hope the noble Lord will not think that this in any way lessens my respect and gratitude to him—that I am happy with the Bill as it stands. If difficulties, which I will not specify, arise with regard to the amendment, I trust that the Government will proceed with their own Bill. That is the commitment we made and the way in which we should proceed.
The debate has been fascinating. I listened to the first 21 speeches yesterday and read the rest this morning, and I think I have the flavour of the debate. Two thoughts in particular struck me. The first was the real emotion with which hereditary Peers regard the privilege they have of serving in this House and their sense of responsibility to it. I refer to those who attend regularly; I do not include those who attend only when a three-line whip is called. I acknowledge that that deep sense of responsibility has been borne in on me more strongly than I thought it would be. It is something we must keep in mind in the way in which we conduct our discussion. I was glad to hear what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said this morning.
The second thought that occurred to me was what an inward-looking place we are. We are conducting this discussion as though there is no one outside, as though we here shall decide what happens, as though we here

217
have the future of the constitution in our own hands. There is another place down the corridor. I am an old Commons man. Although I have been here 12 years, I shall always be a Commons man.
The first person to persuade me in that direction was, oddly enough, the Conservative Leo Amery, who wrote a book called Thoughts on the Constitution. It was only a slim volume, but Leo Amery convinced me, as a self-educated young man with few other sources, that, if the House of Commons decreed that all blue-eyed men should be brown-eyed, they would be brown-eyed. I believe I quote his words almost exactly, although it was 70 years ago or more that I read that book. I believe that that is slightly excessive, but I was brought up by Leo Amery and others to believe—and I still believe—that at the end of the day it is the Commons which will, and must, have its say and its way. Those on the other side of the House must take that into account, as I take their views into account. When we are considering our own affairs here, we must take into account the fact that at the other end of the building there is a House which will make the final decisions. Let us, for heaven's sake, put to it plans and schemes that will not so utterly outrage it that we find ourselves without any influence at all. Those are the two thoughts that came to me when listening to the debate.
I hope that I do not cause undue offence in what I am about to say. Indeed. I cannot cause offence because it is true. This House is unelected, unrepresentative and unaccountable. That applies to all of us, whoever we may be. I believe it was that which drove the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a long time ago—he repeated it yesterday—to say that he could not support the hereditary principle; and it is that which suggests that he supports an elected House in some form or another. He did not specify what form it should take. If we are to take into account the other place and public opinion that is the starting point.
Apart from the full-throated admiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who interrupted yesterday to assure my noble friends that she had defended the hereditary principle, there has been very little defence of that principle. Noble Lords have said that perhaps it is not wholly defensible but this is the wrong Bill, the wrong time and the Government are doing it in the wrong way. I suppose that in some ways that is a very good way of defending the principle by allusion. I do not accept that approach. I support not only this Bill but the way in which the Government are proceeding because of my experience as Home Secretary in 1968, when I was the unfortunate man on whom the earlier Bill descended. A number of people who were associated with that Bill are still here: the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Earl, Lord Jellico, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. On our side of the House most of those involved have gone.
The Bill had 20 clauses, to which were added 31 new clauses and several schedules. In total 259 amendments were tabled. After 11 days, including morning sittings, we staggered through to Clause 5 when that most masterful parliamentarian, John Boyd-Carpenter, thought of another wheeze; namely, that Clause 6 should
218
not be considered until Clause 15 had been debated. His speech lasted for about two hours, after which we threw in the towel. It was quite clear that Enoch Powell, Michael Foot, John Boyd-Carpenter, John Peyton and a few other rascals were determined that we should get no further. Let us draw from that the lesson that the Commons destroyed a perfectly reputable scheme originated in this House by the noble Lords I have mentioned, plus Lord Shackleton, my noble friend Lord Shepherd and one or two others on our side of the House.
I learnt two lessons from that. First, one should not overload any Bill; and, secondly, there are as many ways of reforming the constitution as there are Members of Parliament and Peers. As to the first, I support this Bill because it does not tackle too much at one time. The hereditary principle is indefensible. Let us deal first with that. Having done so, let us have a sensible discussion as to how to proceed with reform. Based on my experience, I believe that the Government have proceeded in the correct way. In 1968 the scheme put forward with great enthusiasm by Peers on both sides of the House was dictated from on high. It was accepted by the Cabinet but never agreed by the political parties, and that was why it failed. Now we must start the other way.
The Government have, rightly, set up a Royal Commission. Some say that it has been established reluctantly. I do not know the history of it but, whether or not there is reluctance on their part, I believe that the Government have reached the right conclusion. That Royal Commission will take evidence, hear people's views, no doubt discuss with everybody concerned what should be done and then, I fervently hope and trust, produce an agreed report. Mr. Kaufman and the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the two principal movers on the parliamentary side, have an obligation to produce, if they can, an agreed report. I hope that if and when that happens—all reformers should want that—another stage will be inserted. When the Royal Commission has reported it should go back to the parties, because in the end only the parties will decide what is to happen. The parties will then discuss how far they can accept the report of the Royal Commission. If they cannot do so those on the Front Benches here have an obligation to reach an agreed conclusion as far as possible. Both they and the Liberal Democrats must then put their shoulders to the wheel and see it through.
There are a million ways to reform the constitution. What is worse, most are plausible and will work. We have to isolate what we are prepared to do. Many fruitful ideas have been put forward on the form of representation in this House. I was impressed by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—a matter with which I have always agreed—about the necessity for the House to exercise some constitutional restraint in relation to the Commons—for example, the ability to prolong its own life. That is absolutely right. I am sure that a large measure of agreement on a number of these matters can be achieved.
I say to hereditary Members, for whom I have the utmost respect—they have enjoyed the rewards, satisfaction and spills of public life—that they must

219
recognise that democracy undermines the foundations of the hereditary principle in this House. Therefore, we should move on. If we do so I firmly believe that we can have a second Chamber that is representative in some form or another. I do not put forward a final view on that matter at this stage. I hope that the Government will not try to do all of that in this Parliament. If so it will be a bit of a bodged job. I cannot see a reform measure being introduced until perhaps the first Session after the general election, by which time our discussion may be complete. I hope that the Opposition regard that as a sensible way to proceed.
I have hopes for the future despite the feelings of hereditary Members that I fully understand and with which in some ways I can sympathise and empathise. I hope we can proceed in a manner that will turn this House into a body representative of democracy and the people of this country, and one that is worthy of the 21st century.
12.38 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I can agree with the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in a number of respects: first, his sympathy for the hereditary peerage. I fully appreciate his understanding as the founder of a distinguished Labour dynasty himself. I also associate myself with the charming remarks in the opening parts of the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for which the House should be grateful. A little later I shall return to the final remarks with which he favoured the House during the course of his speech.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I am in favour of reform of the composition of your Lordships' House. In a marathon debate, almost as long as the one in which we are now engaged, I hope that I made clear to your Lordships why I was in favour of that reform. I shall not attempt to weary your Lordships with a repetition of that argument. Suffice it to say that it was not because I am the fifth generation of my family to advocate in succession reform of your Lordships' House, although paradoxically—for reasons of heredity—it would be rather odd if I did not follow the guidance of my ancestors. It is because I believe beyond anything else in the absolute importance of Parliament as the centre of our political life.
If this does not sound too grandiloquent, it is the function of Parliament to be the guardian of our liberties by holding the government continuously to account. I have believed throughout my adult life that, sadly, we—and I in particular—have had to watch Parliament weaken progressively, so that it no longer has the strength to command the awe and respect the role demands of it. The trip of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, down memory lane as far back as 1968 reinforces my point. I wonder whether he and the government of which he was so distinguished an ornament would have had anything like the trouble from another place that he described in its present weakened state.
We complain that the Prime Minister ignores Parliament—and indeed he does. We complain that the press ignore Parliament—and indeed they do. Although
220
we are right to complain, they are right as well. Because of Parliament's weakened position, they can safely ignore us. We no longer have the capacity to inspire enough fear to command their attention.
In February, I explained that the most immediate contribution we could make to the essential task of reviving the central role of Parliament in general and of another place in particular was to reform the composition of your Lordships' House so that the new Chamber had both the independence and the authority to make another place do its job properly, as I rather inadequately and inelegantly put it.
For a moment, I had hoped against hope that it might be possible to proceed by agreement. As my noble friend Lord Carrington so properly pointed out during the course of his admirable speech yesterday, that is the traditional way in which we try to bring about constitutional change in our country. Had the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and I been allowed to bring our conversations to a quiet conclusion, we might easily have succeeded in that respect.
The central tenet of the Bill of fulfilling the two-stage reform promise set out in the Government's manifesto is one that I deeply deplore. For all the affection I feel for members of the Government individually—as I am sure we all do—we have to entertain the scintilla of a suspicion that they could be seduced by the very real political attractions of a two-stage approach. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said—and I hope that he takes this description in the generous and admiring spirit in which it is offered—he is perhaps one of the wiliest and most experienced politicians even in your Lordships' House. I was very struck by the remarkable way in which he expressed confidence that we would in fact be able to proceed to stage two.
I confess that I do not in principle share that confidence. However much the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may protest—and I am proud to confess that I have found him the most admirable of interlocutors, completely straight and honourable in everything that he has said in private—we must entertain a scintilla of a suspicion that a nominated House is a temptation to any Prime Minister of whatever party. However honourable might be his intentions, the temptations are as great as those experienced by a predecessor of his on being shown the kingdoms of the earth after 40 days in the desert; that is, to stick to a nice, nominated Chamber with all the powers of patronage and docility that that brings in its wake.
The BBC think that the present Prime Minister can walk on water. I fear that his qualities, all too obvious to Members of your Lordships' House, are far too firmly based on Earth to enable him to resist that temptation. Even if the right honourable gentleman were possessed of more supernatural qualities than I give him credit for and he were able to resist the temptation I have described there are things that even he cannot control.
Those things are events. Events could all too easily ensure that a stage two Bill was forced down the Government's list of priorities so that, eventually, full reform would be delayed for another 89 years. Your Lordships know the dangers of a two-stage approach.

221
They have been set out far too often for me even to attempt to repeat them. We know also the dangers of an entirely nominated Chamber. They were set out perhaps most notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, in a remarkable speech in your Lordships' House last October.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said, those dangers would exist for any government who adopted that approach, not just this Labour Government. However, when it is this government who adopt it, we are extremely wise to be even more doubtful than in any other case. After all, the Government do have a habit of starting things that they have not properly thought through—the break-up of the United Kingdom, European employment laws, Kosovo.
All of us who have mouthed the mantra, "No stage one without stage two" were right—as Members of your Lordships' House have so often been when disagreeing with governments of both political complexions. The risk is that stage two will never happen. As the summer and autumn of 1998 unfolded, that risk was clearly beginning to grow. The Prime Minister, for all his ability to walk on water, was clearly increasingly and publicly willing to rest for the foreseeable future on stage one.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House, soon after her appointment, began to emphasise that stage one was a stand-alone reform. She was quoted in a number of newspapers as saying that stage two should wait until devolution had bedded down and its effects were clear. That and a number of private conversations convinced me that stage two would go the way of the preamble to the 1911 Act.
Your Lordships know that we are governed by a powerful government. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, reminded those who might, not be aware of that fact that it would not be the place of your Lordships' House ultimately to resist the right of another place to insist that we do what they ask. A majority of 179 in another place and the Parliament Acts will ensure in the end that the Government get their business, whatever your Lordships may wish—and I could wish very much what a number of your Lordships' have expressed in the last 24 hours.
However much we resist this stage one Bill and however good our arguments for resisting a two-stage reform—and our arguments are, in my view, unanswerable—our resistance may be heroic but we would lose. Not because of our lack of determination but because that is what the constitution, as at present framed, says would happen to us.
For that reason, I was attracted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill. A self-elected body of hereditary Peers in the stage one House would mock the Government's tone of moral outrage that such a thing as a hereditary Peer should exist in Parliament in 1999. Such a body would be a standing reminder to any government to get on with stage two. And if events prevented stage two from coining about, at least the noble Lord's amendment would have made stage one a marginally better change than the Government's original
222
proposal. In that context, I have to say that the outside chance—I hope that it is only a very outside chance—that stage one may last rather longer than the noble and learned Lord and I would like means that by-elections after the next general election would be an extremely helpful reassurance for those of us who would like the Government to get on with stage two.
I hope that I have made it clear that I dislike the Bill as much as I dislike the Government's overall approach to reform of your Lordships' House and other constitutional reform. I hope and believe that your Lordships will give the Bill the rigorous examination that any constitutional measure deserves at the hands of your Lordships' House and which your Lordships have a constitutional right and obligation to give. If the House will allow me, with the greatest respect and affection this is where I part company with the closing remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It would have been on my part an act, even by my high standards, of astonishing arrogance to commit your Lordships' House to a certain course of action as part of a deal or an agreement. It never entered my mind that I should commit your Lordships. I do not have the power to do so; and I dare say if I had done so I should have been reproved by the then Opposition Chief Whip for even contemplating it.
I believe that what has come to be known as the Weatherill amendment is a least bad option for a nasty and ineffectual little Bill for the reasons I have explained. But—I say this with the greatest respect and affection for the noble and learned Lord—to threaten a House of Parliament with reprisals if it fails to be persuaded of the merits of an amendment and agreement is not the way to make your Lordships' House do what it is told. Your Lordships' House, quite rightly, is perhaps the only independent part of Parliament that is left. Of course I shall do my part to persuade noble Lords that this is the least bad amendment, the least bad way to proceed. But I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that by his attempt to bushwhack the House today he has not made our task any easier.
12.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, first I must apologise to the House for being unable to be present yesterday. I had to be present for the installation as Bailiff of Guernsey of a fine lawyer and a committed Anglican. I apologise also for being unable to stay to the conclusion of the proceedings today. It being Tuesday in Holy Week I have to leave to take part in a Holy Week series in the Roman Catholic church in Winchester.
Having sat with an open mind through most of the debates in the past year on reform of your Lordships' House, I find myself totally unconvinced that this is a proper way to bring about reform, the necessity of which I fully appreciate. My concern has four points. I recognise that some of the anxieties may have been expressed by others with different standpoints. First—I suspect that this may be true whichever party were in power—at a time when the Executive is becoming ever more powerful, ever less easily checked, it is essential that this House should remain as effective as possible through the next years. I do not intend to question—

223
I have no ground for doing so—the Government's good faith in the matter. Not only those with my small experience of Parliament (I noted this in the debate in February) but also others judge that the transitional period needs to be longer than the Government are allowing. There is more work than the commission can do adequately this year. I noted the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as to the likely and necessary length of the process.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, hinted, at a time when there is a series of increasingly serious, contentious and difficult issues not only on the horizon but on the table, it may be difficult to bring adequate attention to these matters. However that may be, this House needs to be in the best position to work effectively. Only time will tell, but there may be some rather subtle reasons why a transitional House without hereditary Peers, however justified in principle their removal is. may be more disabled than the Government have allowed.
I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for over three and a half years. I have observed the House in action. I use this word neutrally and descriptively, and not in any way in a pejorative sense. The activity of those of us who are not hereditary Peers may in some ways be parasitic upon the dutifulness of those who sit as hereditary Peers. However committed the remainder of us may be, we may find ourselves disabled in subtle ways by their absence. My first concern as regards the proper working of the House questions the way we are going about a necessary reform.
Secondly, the Government have embarked on a range of constitutional projects, in almost all cases for good reason, in an alarmingly unconnected and ill thought through fashion. The Bill represents one such project, but there are seven Dr eight others. It is essential that the Westminster Parliament, of which this House is a significant part, should be able to do its business effectively, with effective scrutiny and active questioning of the Executive. Now is not a wise moment for the disruption which may ensue.
Thirdly, I find it highly regrettable that the Government are looking so hard at the parliamentary activity of this House and so much less at that of another place. In some of its procedures and in many other respects, the legitimacy of another place is at least as questionable, other than as regards the democratic principle.
As I go about my business, people talk to me. Many, even among the Government's friends, read the initial work on this House as a sign of the Government's unpreparedness to think through issues from scratch. Parliamentary government of the United Kingdom, when so many projects of constitutional reform are afoot, really needs thinking through.
Fourthly, it is often said—and there are particular reasons for a Member of these Benches to say it—that it would have been better had the Government sought to achieve this significant and widely understood to be necessary reform by consensus. The Government, with their huge majority, could have sought and achieved that. There is plenty of evidence that that is the case.
224
This self-contained, stand-alone reform, which I believe was always a poor idea, is increasingly seen to be such. I believe, too, that the Government could have persuaded their supporters and others—not least those in the traditionally Labour areas where I and others on these Benches have experienced the energy with which, deeply understandably, the Labour Party deals with the issue of hereditary peerages—to set aside the one element of the stand-alone Bill and seek to work differently to achieve their ends. That would have been a great deal more fruitful.
The Government could have sought their, in my view, legitimate and justified objective in another way. They could have won the consent of their supporters, and many others, by adding to the considerable—in my view, over large—instructions in the White Paper to the Royal Commission the clear statement that in the light of 150 years of assumption there would come a time when the hereditary peerage would no longer be present in this House, they were committed by their manifesto and tradition. They could have made clear in the White Paper, by reference to their overwhelming majority in another place, that that would need to be an element in the recommendations of the Royal Commission, whatever else transpired.
Had they taken that line, they could then have sought to work in a more consensual way by including the hereditary Peers until that point. With that clear statement in place, they could have avoided the tortuous arrangements which will stand under the name of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and others who have worked hard, and in so consensual a way, to reach this point. But they are arrangements which the more they are explored the more Byzantine they become. The Government could have saved us all an unconscionable amount of time and, as they pointed out in another tone of voice, freed this House to do other things had they worked in such a way.
Finally, they would have encouraged many of their more thoughtful supporters, as well as many others, had they sought to behave in ways it is still worth while noting might have been possible. Many people would have been encouraged by the fact that the Government may after all be prepared to seek to fulfil their responsibilities in a more modest and consensual fashion than they appear to do in this matter as well as in others.
1.4 p.m.
The Earl of Devon: My Lords, it is a number of years since the Earl of Devon made his maiden speech in this House. My late father was a man of many excellent qualities, but neither politics nor speech making was ever very high on his agenda. My father succeeded in 1935, which is 64 years ago. My grandfather, sadly, would barely have had time even to take his seat; and which of my forebears was the last to speak in this House is no doubt a matter of record, but is not known to me.
If that sounds like an argument in favour of the Bill before your Lordships today, let me assure you it is not. Nevertheless, I am uncomfortably aware that I may have little time to put right the omissions of earlier

225
generations, and it will be clear why, when fate presented me with the opportunity, I wanted to take part in this debate. For the past 50 years of my life, it has been touch and go as to whether I would ever be here. I never seriously believed that I would. Against all the odds, for better or worse, I am. Your Lordships may know that I took my seat only last Thursday and am as yet unfamiliar with some of the conventions of this House. However, I am sure you will bear with me.
I am of course aware that a maiden speech should not be provocative. I may have some difficulty with this, given the particular circumstances of today's debate. I, after all, did not draft the Bill. In order to make my position clear at the outset, perhaps your Lordships will allow me a brief family history. I am the direct descendent in the male line of Sir Hugh de Courtenay, 6th Feudal Baron of Okehampton, who was summoned as a Baron to all the parliaments of Edward II and Edward III and in 1335 was summoned as Earl of Devonshire. Some 30 generations later, after a number of attainders, imprisonments, beheadings and re-creations, not to speak of an abeyance of 275 years, the title devolved on me on the death of my father last November. I think that puts me among the more hereditary of hereditary Peers.
I sincerely hope that it is not the usual practice for hereditary Peers to begin their maiden speech with a pedigree—I think it might be regarded as an abolishing offence—and I would not have done so were it not relevant to the matter before us.
I have followed with interest the ongoing debate on the future of this House, but I have necessarily followed it from afar. I am therefore able to bring to the debate the view of an outsider and therefore of the great majority who have no connection with this House. I have spoken to a number of intelligent people from all walks of life and the view expressed to me without exception is one of great apprehension. There is a perception out there that Parliament is at present not properly performing its function of keeping a check on the executive; that only your Lordships' House is performing that function within the constraints imposed upon it and that to tamper with this House at this time is extremely unwise.
I have heard some noble Lords, hereditary Peers, for whom I have the greatest respect, being interviewed on the media, and there seems to be a lament, which goes something like this: "Well, of course I shall miss it very much; the sense of duty, the camaraderie of the House, the debates, the committees and so on. But I think it is the right thing". Well, I disagree. What you have never known you are not going to miss, and I am of course in that happy position.
Furthermore, I want to continue running my business in the west of England and doing those things that I enjoy. I do not want to spend many hours coming to London to take part in debates and to sit on committees. I have done all that. I spent many years in local government and while I suspect that debates in this House may be somewhat more interesting—although this morning's discussion on potholes sounded vaguely
226
familiar—I do not want to do it again. I also think I might have some difficulty with your Lordships' nocturnal habits.
My self-interest lies entirely with supporting this Bill. My ideal is to come here today so that I can tell my grandchildren that I made my maiden speech in this House, and then, with the demise of the hereditary peerage, to go home with a clear conscience. But I believe that the Bill is wrong, and all those people out there to whom I have referred and who also believe it is wrong have asked me to come here and say so.
I do not say that the hereditary peerage is sacrosanct and that this House should not be reformed—far from it. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House, yesterday appeared to equate opposition to this Bill with opposition to reform of this House. I hope that enough noble Lords have made the same point for her to accept that this is not the case. No institution is perfect and every institution should be capable of being reformed provided that the reform results in something better. But in this Bill there is no sign of anything better; in fact, there is no sign of anything at all. We are told that that is to come later. I appreciate that I am not the first to have made that point.
There is to be a Royal Commission to decide the future constitution of the House of Lords, but if we are to have a Royal Commission, why do we have this Bill before us today? In the absence of proper, impartial consideration or any wider debate, why is one part of the House to be removed while the others are to remain? If the test is democratic accountability then we all fail the test by the same fairly wide margin.
I believe that we need to consider fairly carefully the role of democracy in government. Clearly, that is a much bigger subject than I have time for today, but democracy, in a nutshell, is, I believe, only the fairest way of choosing a government in that everyone above a certain age, with a few exceptions, can have their say. It is also a fairly new concept. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House reminded us in her opening speech yesterday that in its present form it dates only from the first quarter of this century. I believe that universal suffrage came in—we had the date yesterday, but I do not have it. That does not necessarily mean that democracy is the only means of forming a government or that it necessarily results in the best government. If one looks around the countries of the world today, many of which in the post-colonial era had a western-style democracy imposed on them, it is quite hard to put one's hand on one's heart and say "Look at that country, isn't it wonderfully governed? all because the government was democratically elected".
I make this point because I detect a tendency in some quarters to elevate democracy above its true status. Sometimes I believe that there is almost a belief in the divine right of a democratically elected government, which mirrors the 17th century belief in the divine right of kings. We all know where that got us. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for the question of how this House should be formed in future to be considered with a completely open mind. It is often described, quite rightly, as the "House of Experts" and, hopefully, when reformed, will continue to be so.

227
It was put to me recently that the early parliaments to which my distant ancestor was summoned, were a House of vested interests, and so indeed they were. The vested interests who advised the king in those days were of course the powerful landed Barons and as a result this House today still retains a strong rural bias which has proved a valuable counterweight to the predominantly urban bias in the other place. It cannot be expected, however, in a reformed House, that the agricultural industry would retain such a predominance. The vested interests would have to include representatives of industry, commerce, the professions, the Armed Forces, the trade unions, the educational and medical establishments, other religious denominations and many, many more, together with perhaps a representative element of the hereditary and life peerages.
As will be apparent, I do not favour a wholly elected House, still less one appointed by patronage. But I believe that there is a case for extending the principle whereby we already have the Lords Spiritual and legal, leading to a largely ex officio House. I believe that I am another "mish-mash" man, or in the delightful phrase of my noble friend Lord Tenby, "A pot-pourri Peer".
If the mention of vested interests sends shivers down many spines, as it will, then I can only put it to your Lordships as it was put to me—and I do not claim it as original thought on my part—that the existence of a forum through which the vested interests can legitimately be represented in parliament would obviate the need for any cash-for-questions or anything of that nature in another place. There is a certain symmetry about having every man and woman in the country represented through the democratic process in one House, while the bulk of the nation's wealth and many other interests, are represented in the other. It also has the advantage that the political allegiance of Members would he largely incidental. I do not believe that we should set too much store by party arithmetic.
I may have strayed from the strict subject of the Bill before us into the realms of what may happen thereafter, but the two are inextricably linked. I may have covered ground that was already covered in your Lordships' debate last October and in the early part of this debate, but I hope that I may have also contributed something fresh. I thank noble Lords for listening to me.
1.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, we have moved from a Peer who takes his ancient title from the deep and balmy south-west to one who takes his ancient title from the north—the far, wintry north at the moment. I hope that, whatever the composition of this House, it has the same diversity of composition. On behalf of all the House it is my pleasure to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his very measured maiden speech. It is also a great pleasure to welcome another surveyor to the House. The countryside needs every friend that it can have at the moment. I hope that the noble Earl does not go back down to the south-west never to return. He has shown great experience in his knowledge of local government. He has great experience of the agricultural
228
and environmental interests. I hope that when your Lordships debate these and other matters, the noble Lord will be with us, too.
There is no doubt that this is the most important Second Reading debate I can remember in this House. I have not spoken in any of the recent debates about reform of this House or what might be established in its place, but in preparing for today my mind went back to the essay that I wrote for my British Constitution A-level on the future of this House. Little did I think then that I would be in the Chamber for this debate because I felt sure there would have been a proper revision before now. The logical arguments then, as today, centred on what was to be the purpose of a second Chamber and what powers should it be given in relation to the House of Commons. Only then could one address the issue of composition. It is good to see that the Royal Commission sets it out in exactly the same way, but the Government, sadly, do not. They are not tackling this constitutional reform for the benefit of Parliament and the country.
In some respects I will be sad to leave this House after nearly 30 years, 10 of which—one-third of my working life—has been spent on the Front Bench. What saddens me most—and indeed makes me angry—is not the fact that the hereditary Peers are going, but that the successor Chamber will not be better than the one we are leaving because it has not been properly reformed. Furthermore, the hereditaries, many of whom have great experience and knowledge to contribute, will have no say in the matter whatever. In this respect I must congratulate the Government. They have excelled themselves. Never have I seen a Bill designed to exercise such profound change; put something less good in its place and which has been so carefully drafted for the premeditated smothering of debate. However, it is not that surprising. It is clear that this executive find this House an irritant, as it is the only place where it can be held to account. What better than to have a simple reform by removing the hereditary Peers, whom they like to blame not only for doing our duty in asking the elected Chamber to think again, but also because we are seen to be a block to the future. From everything that has been said in the recent debates it is clear the hereditaries are far from being the block to a better second Chamber. I for one would like to see a comprehensive reform.
The consequence of this Bill is the creation of the country's largest quango, consisting, except for Bishops and Law Lords, solely of people appointed by this Prime Minister and his immediate predecessors. It cannot be called the House of Lords for that would be a misnomer. However, whatever it is termed, it will be just as undemocratic, less youthful, in many ways less representative and certainly less independent than the current House.
The Government tell us that there is to be a stage two, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that. We can speculate but, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said, we must treat this Bill as the definitive article on reform. The Government have now been pushed reluctantly into having a Royal Commission and, as a result, they are beginning to lose that tight control they thought they

229
had on reform. However, no one is bound by its recommendations and a government can always find an excuse not to legislate. But having opened Pandora's box by starting on the reform the way they have, the Government will doubtless find unexpected pressures building up for further changes whether they like it or not and from directions they least expect.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers who said they have a tiger by the tail. The Early Day Motion in another place for an elected second Chamber and signed by more than 140 MPs is but one example. It forces the Government to face up to the key questions that they have ducked so far: not only what this House is for but how the powers, procedures and composition of the second Chamber will, for the first time, have to be controlled by the party machine.
Through inability or unwillingness to think out a proper policy, a thoroughly messy situation is developing. The longer it continues, the more the strains on our unwritten constitution will manifest themselves and the fractures will become greater. Already it is being proven that we were correct to say that one cannot take away one significant part of this carefully constructed arrangement, built up over 700 years and which still bears nearly half the workload here, without creating a change to the overall balance. However, due to the lack of consensus, particularly in another place, and notwithstanding the pressures for reform, I agree with those noble Lords who fear that the proposed transitional House will last longer than many think because the Government will find it more convenient than any alternative arising from stage two. I hope that my fear is misplaced and the sooner the full reform comes about, the better.
I turn now to the question of powers for the future Chamber. The Government's position on that is unclear. Their manifesto states:
"The legislative powers of the House of Lords will remain unaltered".
Yet, in the recent debates, there has been talk of the powers being reduced. I can readily appreciate that apparent change as the desire for unchecked presidentialism comes up against the realities of a second Chamber. It is time for the noble Baroness to he open and honest with us. In order to fulfil the ambitions of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to fulfil their manifesto commitment, then it must be stated clearly on the face of the Bill that the powers for the successor Chamber must remain unaltered.
Although it is not in the Bill, it is appropriate that we should spend some time looking at the composition of the future House, as we know who will be there. The Government make great play of the overall figures in relation to life Peers, but that is a con. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House stated that, even without a single hereditary Peer, there would still be a Conservative majority over the Labour Party. Although that is true, as far as it goes, she knows that it is a crude and simplistic interpretation of the position. A truer representation would be that no one party has anything
230
like a majority in the House. Conservative life Peers will be the largest group and will comprise only about 34 per cent. of the revised Chamber.
The Labour Party's position to redress the alleged imbalance in its position is, like the rest of its policy, unclear. In its manifesto, it states that party appointees should reflect the proportion of votes cast at the previous general election. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said on 20th January that there should be 40 per cent. more Labour Peers than Conservatives. That would mean an additional 70 Labour appointees. However, if we are to accept that the manifesto is not so sacrosanct after all and that the Government will only move towards parity with the Conservatives, that will mean a further 20 creations. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to make it absolutely clear tomorrow morning or later this evening as to what their policy is; on what basis decisions are going to be made; and what in their view constitutes parity.
Overall numbers are not a true guide as Prime Ministers have made their political appointments for different reasons. When I was a Whip I soon learnt that in order to obtain an accurate picture it was essential to look at the attendance records. What really matters is who turns up to take part. Taking the figures for the last Session as supplied by the Journal Office and using the composition of the House on 19th November last year, I have analysed the number of Life Peers who attended more than half the sitting days. I chose that period as it gives a fair representation and also because, for better or for worse, this Bill sounds the death knell of the part-time politician. For ease, I shall call those attendees "regulars". I have assumed also that all Labour and Liberal creations during the last Session were working Peers who would have attended at least half of the time if they had been able to attend the full Session. The results are illuminating and present a very different picture from that given to us by the noble Baroness.
Of the 120 Cross-Bench Peers, only 26 are regulars; the Liberals had the best attendance record with 40 out of 45; of the Conservatives, 91 out of 173 are regulars; and the Labour Party is in the majority with 132 out of 158. Therefore, Labour has over 47 per cent. of the regular attendees. Now, if we add to that the so-called legitimate claim by the noble Baroness for parity with the overall Conservative numbers by the appointment of 20 new working Peers, it is clear that the Labour Party has a majority over the rest of the House combined—I repeat, over the rest of the House combined. That is something which the Conservatives do not have. One can fine tune the figures and the percentages but the basic premise is sound.
It is best expressed by the remark from a Labour Peer that I overheard after the debate and vote on the procedure of the House last week. He said, "There is no need to get too upset as we will soon be able to do what we want". Yes, my Lords, they will. This Government will have an elected majority in the other place and an appointed majority in this House. To use the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that is what I call "entrenched dominance". It is also something that I deplore. I have always held that every government

231
should be able to be defeated in the second Chamber. I have had more than my fair share of defeats and although uncomfortable at the time, they probably led to better legislation. The Prime Minister must be rubbing his hands with glee at the prospect of his limited opposition disappearing.
What is more worrying to contemplate is the Queen's Speech at the opening of the next Session. With a free hand in both Houses, all those highly controversial proposals will come forth like a torrent but with no House to call the executive to account. With the hereditaries gone, resulting in an almost 100 per cent. increase in workload for the life Peers and the majorities they need in both Houses, the Labour Party managers will have an easy time bulldozing their policies through. This Bill either needs to be amended to prevent that situation occurring or, if that cannot be done, then it is best rejected as the only way to get across to the country what is really happening to our constitution. I should say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I do not believe that the country would be on the Government's s side.
This apparently harmless, politically correct little measure has devastating and unexpected consequences. I cannot believe that the Government do not know that. It is a bad Bill conceived out of dogma, born in prejudice and nurtured by an executive that brooks no opposition.
1.27 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I always rise with temerity to address your Lordships' House, and it is with even greater trepidation that I do so today. I declare an interest as the 3rd Baron Grantchester.
No one today can seriously argue for the hereditary principle to be retained in the composition of this House. It is not retained in any other public institution. We live today in a meritocracy where everyone must earn his place.
The continuance of hereditary Peers detracts from the standing of your Lordships' House outside Parliament, leads to a weakening of its powers and to abuse from political bias because of its inbuilt Conservative predominance. As an hereditary Peer, I am no exception. I support the Government in bringing forward this Bill to modernise Parliament. I also have no difficulty with the staged reform of your Lordships' House since it was confusion about how to replace the hereditary Peers following their abolition that scuppered previous attempts.
I do not look back as far as the early years of the century, as perhaps others do, to argue for this long overdue measure. I prefer to highlight the Life Peerages Act 1958 as I regret that both parties failed to introduce that legislation much sooner. That measure started the process of change and led to a lessening of hereditary influence, such that there is almost parity in terms of the numbers of hereditary Peers and life Peers.
Clearly, it is time to examine and review the composition of your Lordships' House, as the system of patronage inherent in the Life Peerages Act has the potential to be equally venomous, marginally more
232
legitimate, but wholly less independent than the hereditary principle. Patronage, as an assessment of merit, must also be modernised. The Prime Minister should exercise his power no more than the monarch of yesteryear. We must ensure that people of merit from all walks of life, people with technical expertise as well as experience outside politics, are able to serve in a new second Chamber.
The newly formed Royal Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to consider the future shape of the second Chamber, must consider its proposals against a background of constitutional change outlined by the Labour Party manifesto—
"we will clean up politics"—
namely, reform of party funding to end sleaze; devolved power in Scotland and Wales; elected mayors in London and other cities; and more independent and accountable local government.
I wish to take this opportunity to put forward a few principles, in a positive way, for a new second Chamber. The function and role of the House of Lords as an authoritative, revising Chamber is vital in improving often hasty legislation from the House of Commons, enabling the other place to be more productive than it otherwise would be.
We must guarantee a large element of independence in the second Chamber and ensure that leaders in every avenue of life are Members. I believe that means a multiplicity of systems to assess merit, and a multiplicity of ways of entering your Lordships' House, leading to a system of representation that can be both elected and appointed from a cross-section of communities in the widest sense. There are many people who could bring great benefit to your Lordships' House who would never submit themselves to an election. We must ensure that they can contribute and still be allowed to pursue interests and commitments outside the House without being registered as inactive Peers.
It follows that no Member in a new second Chamber should be there for life, or the elected Members will not have equal standing. Parliament should reflect the world at large, where no position is for life, as that hinders transition and development in tune with the mosaic of life. I do not necessarily call for an upper age limit, but all appointments and elections should be for a fixed duration or for a fixed number of terms of membership.
A new second Chamber should also redress the democratic deficit in Britain and bring into the mainstream those who currently feel excluded from it, especially women and ethnic minorities. I also argue two special cases. First, we must ensure that the interests of our rural communities are protected and furthered, for while some may argue that the countryside is well represented in the current House, it is unclear what mechanisms can be put in place to hear the voice of rural Britain.
The recent formation and activities of the Countryside Alliance bear testimony to that need. Rural areas in England and Wales contain 23 per cent. of the overall population and contribute 30 per cent. of GDP. In the North West, where there is a newly formed Regional Development Agency, two-thirds of the area is rural.

233
The culture and integrity of communities in rural areas can offer much to national life, yet the rural angle is not always recognised. Solutions applied to urban areas are often inappropriate as rural needs and problems are different from those of the town. Furthermore, a strong rural expertise is vital in longer-term issues in relation to developing reform in the common agricultural policy and wider membership of essentially rural economies in the European Union.
Secondly, there is a clear need for a powerful regional voice in a new second Chamber. That could be represented partly by appointment, partly by election, and could take in the regions of England while ensuring a voice for the newly devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
A strong regional voice should also be set in the context of the Regional Development Agencies. The constituency basis of 60,000 per Member in the House of Commons is a narrow and urban perspective that could be rectified through a more strategic and integrated view of communities that would be provided through the agencies. In addition, deprived areas, such as Merseyside—where my family has strong connections—will have a stronger voice as they seek greater recognition and assistance in tackling their problems.
Returning to the Bill, it is clear that in Committee there may be important amendments to include a commitment to stage two and a timetable for reform. Both those issues are echoed in what is now known as the Weatherill amendment, which would retain 92 hereditary Peers as an interim measure to stage two. While it may be argued that the Bill's principles should not be sullied by party deals, tactically that would adeptly leave unfinished business on this side of the House that could hasten stage two proposals. That amendment would mean a smoother transition to stage two, but it must be thoroughly scrutinised in Committee as it contains many peculiarities.
I share many concerns voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank and Lord Harris of Greenwich. I doubt whether it is reasonable that the reduction in the number of hereditary Peers to 92 should be decided on party percentages. Is a less "active" Conservative Peer to be chosen over and above a more "active" Liberal Democrat or Cross-Bencher? That would perpetuate the political bias. Furthermore, that bias will be extended into the future by the proposal that the 92 Peers could be replenished should their numbers fall after selection.
On the Lords spiritual, I argue that in a modern, multi-cultural Britain there must be wider representation of faiths. That was argued vigorously by my grandfather on many occasions as he sought to disestablish the Church of England.
I believe that the standing and authority of your Lordships' House has everything to gain from this measure. I commend it to the House.
1.36 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I begin by joining my noble friend Lord Caithness in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his maiden speech. Having joined the House last Thursday and lost his virginity today, I fear that if the Bill is passed, the opportunity for promiscuity is fairly small. However, if it is defeated we shall have the opportunity of hearing him on several occasions.
For many years I have felt that reform of your Lordships' House was inevitable. I regret that the Conservative Party did not carry out the task during 18 years of government. Much of what we now experience need not have taken place if we had accepted that the Labour Party would at some time become the Government, and as they have threatened Lords reform in three party manifestos in a row, we can hardly blame them for wishing to carry out such reform.
I accept that it would be unrealistic to go into the 21st century with a House dominated by hereditary Peers. Like so many Members of your Lordships' House, I feel that it would have been wiser for the Government to have set up a Royal Commission within weeks of taking office, listened to its deliberations and then presented a Bill to both Houses. However, in very few of its constitutional proposals does a great deal of thought appear to have been given to the eventual outcome before legislation is placed before the House.
That case has already been well argued and therefore I shall not ask the House to consider it again, but to place on one side for a moment the fortunes of hereditary Peers and turn to consideration of working Peers.
I wonder how many citizens in our country realise that there are different types of life Peers. There are life Peers who are honoured in the Queen's birthday or New Year's list for services to their country and who richly deserve to enjoy the title of Baron and who turn up to your Lordships' House when and as they please. There are former Cabinet Ministers who are elevated in the Prime Minister's resignation list. Surely, they are the great and the good, who bring to the House their expertise and their wisdom on many specialist subjects.
In the proposals that I am about to suggest, I do not refer to that group of life Peers. However, I refer to those people invited by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party to become working Peers—the party hacks, the rude mechanicals, the oil that makes the engine turn.
When I was invited to join your Lordships' House as a working Peer, I received a letter from John Major, the then Prime Minister, outlining my responsibilities. With the former Prime Minister's permission, I read one paragraph of that letter:
"I shall shortly be recommending to the Queen the creation of a number of life peers. The persons whom I shall recommend must for this purpose be able and willing to commit themselves to an active role in the Lords. They will be expected to attend the House regularly and to speak for, and vote in support of, the government's policies and legislation. If you feel able to take on such a commitment, I would like to put your name forward to the Queen".

235
There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone receiving such a letter that they are not part of the great and the good but, like myself, are party hacks, rude mechanicals.
I personally took a further step to ensure that I fully understood what the responsibility meant and made an appointment to see the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, now the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. Again, I sought and received permission to repeat the conversation that we had some seven years ago. He considered that the commitment of being a working Peer would be honoured by having a 75 per cent. attendance record and a 75 per cent. voting record during the administration of the Prime Minister who had invited one to serve. Having considered the words of the former Prime Minister and the advice given by the former Cabinet Secretary, I wrote to John Major confirming that I felt able to take on such a responsibility. It might interest your Lordships to know that Sir Robin also informed me that some people had felt unable to honour the commitment and therefore had turned down the offer of a peerage.
When we consider the Bill in Committee, it is my intention to place before your Lordships an amendment on the status of working Peers which will mirror the amendment on hereditary Peers that is to be tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, thus giving your Lordships the opportunity to remove from the House working Peers who do not work and never had the intention of doing so in the first place.
If I were given the chance, I would also strip them of their titles as it is clear that that was the only reason that they ever accepted the honour in the first place. However, I have been disappointed to discover that even the skills and ingenuities of the Public Bill Office cannot find a way for me to carry out that particular desire.
I ask your Lordships to consider that if you were invited to be a director of ICI, Shell or British Airways and you never turned up for a board meeting, how long would it be before you were dismissed? How do we explain to the electorate that if you are invited to be a working Peer, frankly the word "working" does not mean anything because there is no redress if you do not bother to turn up? What example is that to the young who wish to go out and seek work? In short, why should we remove hereditary Peers who do work, but keep working Peers who do not work?
Finally, perhaps I may suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, when he considers reformation of this House, that he comes up with a formula for what "working Peer" actually means so that it is not translated as, "Now I've got the title, I needn't bother to honour the agreement". I hope that when my amendment is placed before your Lordships Members from all sides will feel able to support it.
1.43 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I begin what I hope will be some brief remarks by saying that I thought that I was going to be the only Peer at one end of the spectrum in this debate, but I find that I am not. I find myself in almost complete agreement with the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in the course of
236
his admirable maiden speech. I am opposed totally to this Bill, and not just to the way in which it has been drafted or to the approach taken by it. I am against it because I believe that reform should make things better. This Bill does not make things better. This House works—and it works effectively and properly.
If there were some argument that the presence of hereditary Peers here made it more difficult or impossible for us to carry out our work or made the whole place totally uninhabitable for one reason or another, I might support that approach; but that is not the case. As we have heard, some hereditary Peers never come anywhere near the place. They do not do any of us any harm. Those who do come make an enormous contribution to the effective working of the House. That is why I am totally opposed to this Bill, whether it represents stage one or stage two of any alleged reform process.
As one of our leading modern political philosophers has said, the task of doing nothing in politics is the hardest task there is, apart from martyrdom. This government, like most governments of all complexions, have been beguiled by the need to do something about this, rather than to do nothing. There are many ways in which it would be possible to remove hereditary Peers from the House if that was what the Government honestly wanted, and nothing else. They could, for example, have said, "Let us leave present incumbents of hereditary peerages in this House to sit and to vote until they die". That would then be the end of that line of succession as regards sitting and voting in the House. But they did not do that. They want suddenly and with one fell swoop, in one enormously draconian Bill, to remove all hereditary Peers from this House and everything to do with it for ever.
As some noble Lords have said, it is possible that although the Bill is alleged to be stage one of a process, there will in fact be no stage two. I do not say that to imply any bad faith or absence of faith on the part of the Government, but simply to point out that they cannot control what will happen in the future. In the end, it may be that stage one will be—they have already said that it is—a stand-alone measure and that there will be no stage two.
It is with that possibility in mind that I regard this Bill as not only unnecessary, as I have already said, but dangerous. It is dangerous because if, for any reason, there is no stage two, if the House as adumbrated in the currently drafted legislation is the kind of House that we are to have, it will be a totally nominated House. That is dangerous. I make no profound prognostications about the future except to say that there are some dangerous prospects at the end of that road. There is the prospect of a unicameral legislature. If we had a unicameral legislature, we would next have to contemplate the possibility of Parliament extending its life indefinitely. I do not say that any of that will happen; I simply say that unless we regard the Bill with very great care, that is the sort of danger with which we might be faced.
This seems at one with the tendency of the present Government to begin the process—I think that they have used this phrase themselves—of dismantling some of

237
our institutions. It is in that context that I should like to add my disquiet to some of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He seemed to indicate a kind of "take it or leave it" attitude which I found deeply disturbing and offensive to this House. We know that this is an extremely radical Government, intent on certain radical aims. I do not know for how many others in this House I speak—I certainly speak for some—when I say that I take very badly to being told, "Take it or leave it". I shall not be bullied, not only by those in this House, but also by threats of what might be popular in some other place. When the amendments come before our Committee, I intend to speak and vote throughout the proceedings according to what I believe to be right and proper; not according to some kind of threat delivered at me and the rest of us as to what will happen should we fail to obey the instructions of people who apparently arrived at a deal outside this Chamber altogether.
This is the Second Reading of the Bill. Of course, it is possible to vote against it. My first inclination would be to do so, but I realise that that would be ineffectual. We have a convention in your Lordships' House that we do not vote against measures at Second Reading which have been included in government manifestos. Well, the Government were clever and foresighted enough to include this in their manifesto and I make no complaint about that; nor about the fact that the Government feel it right to be able to force their manifesto commitment through the House. That is their privilege having achieved a large and convincing majority at the last general election.
But there is still a grave feeling of disquiet about the Bill. The only thing one can do at the moment is to accept the thoughts, the sentiments and the feelings behind the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cobbold. We shall not be able to stop the Bill passing through this House and coming on to the statute book. We all know that. We all know that a combination of Parliament Acts, House of Lords' conventions and vast majorities in the other place will prevent us doing what we may want to do. But at least we can make our views known to the Government—our views in relation to the necessity, the rectitude, the morality and the dangers of this piece of legislation. We can also support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cobbold, as I shall do.
There will be other amendments. In fact, we know that there will be the one now known as the "Weatherill amendment", which is a serious attempt to ensure that there is a stage two to this reform process. I shall certainly vote for that if it comes to a Division. There is also the possibility of an amendment calling for a referendum at some time, which would prevent this legislation taking effect until certain circumstances had been achieved; for example, the report of the Royal Commission. However, it is too late to ask the Government to think again. It is certainly too late for any of us to do much about the Bill, except to make our feelings known and I hope that we shall do that.
238
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in the course of his opening speech today that this is an historic day for this country. Indeed it is. For those of us who have a love, as I do, and a respect for the traditions and institutions of this country, it is a sad day too.
1.53 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I intend to be brief if for no other reason than that in a previous incarnation I may have been guilty of intolerance with regard to the amount of time many of your Lordships took to speak in this House.
First, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on an excellent maiden speech and also reflect that by the time we reach the 183rd speaker tomorrow, it is more than likely that the most forensic examination of a particularly short Bill will have taken place.
The first question I ask myself is: is this a Bill? I fear that it is an apology for a Bill purporting to be a Bill. I fear that its contribution to the future great governments of our country has as much hope of success as another small piece of paper waved at Heston airfield in 1938.
We were admonished by the Lord Chancellor this morning, and I felt in many ways as though I were back in front of my headmaster at my prep school the last time I was beaten. He too admonished me; he said not to cry as my mother was arriving shortly after the ritual had been concluded. I fear that there may be tears and my greatest concern with this Bill is that there are elements of intolerance of what is being done and how it is to be achieved.
Why is that? To find the answer we have to look at the provenance of the Bill. Where did it come from? It concerned nothing other than presentation. It was considered by the Labour Party a long time ago—in those days I was still sitting in the current office of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, so that dates me and my hairdresser would confirm it by inspecting the lack of what is left upon my head. There was at the time a big idea. Constitutional reform did not put the taxpayer at risk; it appeared to be intellectually satisfying, and was placed on the agenda for the next Labour manifesto. Unfortunately, that was the last time it was attended to. The result is a foreshortened humble little document with much to be modest about. It is a modest Bill with little ambition that has an ability to cause fantastic trouble.
The second smokescreen that lies across the battlefield is that the hereditary Peers are in some way unacceptable; that they should be disbanded and sent away. What that conveniently avoids exposing is the fact that a stick of dynamite is being thrown into the Palace of Westminster to structurally remove more than 25 per cent. of the contents of the entire palace. That, structurally, will have a great effect. My concern is that, far from this Bill being acceptable, it will be a source of great contention that will come to cause us troubled grief. It will cause this Government grief from the trouble that comes from it.
Various efforts have been made in the intervening months to try to put some Elastoplast on the Bill—two notable pieces; one of which is the Royal Commission

239
and the other the proposed Weatherill amendment. I am suspicious instinctively of both those proposals and feel that they should be observed more closely in the surroundings of a greenhouse. A botanical observation will reveal that both of them come from the fig tree.
It is the parliamentary franchise that is at issue here. That is of far greater importance than whether or not there are hereditary Peers. The question that every Peer must attend to in this Bill is: what is my relationship with the people of this country? That is the issue that faces us all. It is not an issue about whether or not the result of the general election allows a large part of the Palace of Westminster to be destroyed; it is the relationship and a matter of honour that stands before us.
I have thought about the Bill and I have to say that one reaches a conclusion which is and will become inevitable; that is, that there will eventually be a wholly elected Chamber in this place. The contortions that we are now being asked to go through, the endeavours and smokescreens being played with, and the mirrors that will be reflected at the end of the day are meaningless. Once this train sets out on the track it is going to a destination which is called "democracy". It may be that some of us old hereditaries can be called young radicals, but I am wholly convinced that that is the destination to which we are set, and that anybody who believes otherwise is engaged in false modesty or wild over-expectation. Thus it is the duty of every Member of this House to ensure that, as this Bill is approached in a proper manner to be amended for the benefit of the people of this country, it addresses the issue of democracy and not an interim, perverse form of privilege which the Government are trying to destroy.
1.58 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I was extremely interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare—I am sorry to detain him from his lunch for a few minutes more. He made much of the low work-rate, as he sees it, of working life Peers. Perhaps I might draw his attention to his own record over the past couple of years.
In the 1997–98 Session, his main interests were the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill, in which I understand he has a bit more than a passing interest, and also his own Succession to the Crown Bill. Apart from that, the noble Lord spoke just five times. It is perhaps worth noting that, during this Session of Parliament, he has managed to vote in under 15 per cent. of the Divisions. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I should point out that during the period of government in question I had an 82 per cent. record of attendance and an 84 per cent. voting record on many of the Bills. It was felt on this side of the House—and this does not apply only to me—that when it was a matter of government legislation, as put in the manifesto, the honourable thing to do was not to vote. However, that does not mean that I did not attend; it means that I did not vote.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Lord protests too much. Within the
240
space of half an hour he has already shifted his ground considerably. I listened very carefully to his speech. He said nothing about averaging the votes over a number of years; he said nothing about selecting particular Divisions which would count against one's record; and he said—I understand from a conversation with the now noble Lord, Lord Butler—that working Peers were expected to have a 75 per cent. voting record. Again, that was not qualified. He simply said a 75 per cent. voting record. I have taken this from what the noble Lord said.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, the noble Lord misheard me.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, with respect, I have my own speech to make. I do not want to become too much embroiled in this matter. All I can say to the noble Lord is that he should perhaps think very carefully about this. When he reads the Official Report, he will find that I have said nothing out of place.
As it happens—and I mention this with some diffidence—the Evening Standard publishes a table of working Peers. Of course, all this information is open to misinterpretation; indeed, all such figures can be looked at one way or another. However, the simple fact is that nine out of the top 12 working Peers in this House are Labour working Peers. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who is not now in his place, used a different method to try to show that Labour working Peers were much more influential than the raw figures suggest.
During the debate much has been said about the independence of hereditary peerages. The implied suggestion, sometimes put very starkly, is that life Peers, especially Labour life Peers, rely on patronage for being here and, therefore, are much less responsible for carrying out the business of the House. Perhaps I may gently remind the House that every one of us is here as a result of patronage. The forebears of the hereditary Peers came to Parliament either because they performed some service for the king or the king was short of money and was trying to raise funds by selling peerages in order to fight the French. Alternatively, their forebears served previous governments with distinction or indeed gave service to political parties. We all recall the little notices in the Honours List twice a year of those elevated with a peerage "for political services", mostly in cash.
I accept that I am here because of patronage. The only difference is that the hereditary patronage goes on so long as there is issue, whereas mine goes when I am finished. As always, I concede—and have said so in previous speeches—that a nominated House would be no more democratic than the present one. It could and can be more representative. I also concede that in a fully reformed House the continuation of the life Peers is an anomaly which is probably untenable. Indeed, sooner or later, the life Peers will follow the hereditaries out of this place.
Many noble Lords who have spoken have professed an undying desire for reform over many years. Some have done so with greater enthusiasm than others. I have to say that they all qualified their desire for reform with

241
"buts" and with expressions like: "It is not the right time"; "It is the wrong Bill, or, "This is the wrong way to go about it". That reminds me of the saying of St. Augustine, who said, "Let me be chaste O Lord, but not yet". A less charitable view is that the Conservative Peers in the main wish either to veto change or to determine the composition and style of a reformed House.
If there is not to be a nominated House, there are certainly attractions for a wholly-elected second Chamber. I note a very unlikely alliance—indeed, an unlikely attraction of opposites, one might say—who support that solution. I have in mind the right honourable Tony Benn and the right honourable William Hague, as well as 150 Members of the other place who have signed the Early Day Motion.
I understand that potted history is very dangerous, but the history of the constitution of this country was, first, the struggle between a monarchy and Parliament as to who was supreme; and, secondly, the struggle between the two Houses of Parliament as to which was supreme. That has largely been resolved. I cannot see the House of Commons giving greater powers to this Chamber in a wholly-elected Chamber. I believe that we will have great debates about that later.
If we do not have a nominated House or a wholly-elected House, what about the mishmash; that is to say, the proportion elected/the proportion nominated? I have great respect for my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I noted that in yesterday's debate he said:
"To be frank, I believe that friction that once did not exist is beginning to build up between the hereditary Peers and the life Peers".—[Official Report, 29/3/99; col. 61.]
He made it clear that he was sorry about that; indeed, so am I. However, if we have a partly-elected House and a partly-nominated House, I believe that the friction will be intense. I do not think that you can mix the two. I say that because the votes lost by, say, a government or by an opposition because of nominated Peers perhaps overriding elected Peers would cause great concern.
I understand perfectly well that there are differences and failings in the other place. Indeed, I should be aware of them because I was there for 27 years and I may certainly have contributed to those failings. However, it seems extremely odd that in order to reform the other place, in order to make it more effective and more efficient and in order to make it do its job, we have to have a second Chamber which is contrived only for that purpose. I fully appreciate that the tenor of my remarks suggests that the preferred solution, and certainly my preferred solution, would be a unicameral Parliament. My only regret is that that is not to be discussed by the Royal Commission.
Perhaps I may make one further point before I sit down. Some of the statements made about the House of Commons and the fact that the Government do not have a majority here seem to present a kind constitutional absurdity—that elected governments have no right to a majority in a second Chamber. Of course they have. I believe that the Government have been excessively modest in simply seeking broad parity between the
242
Government side of the House and the main Opposition parties. The constitutional position is quite clear: the elected Government have the right to carry forward their legislation, together with the necessary checks and balances. However, the real check and balance is whether or not the people of the country will put up with what the Government have been doing. If they do not, and if they eventually get tired of what I believe was described as an "elective dictatorship"—the last government—the Government will eventually pay for it. Indeed, the last government paid for it very severely and will do so for a very long time.
In conclusion, every constitutional reform has been opposed on the grounds that it would lead to bad government. The Reform Act 1832 was opposed on precisely those muddled-headed and self-interested grounds. This reform is no different; indeed, it is being opposed for precisely the same reasons. It is argued that it will lead to bad government. I believe that it will lead to much better government, much more responsible government and much more accountable government. I fully support the Bill and commend it to the House.
2.9 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, as a relatively new life Peer I feel it important and appropriate that I contribute to this debate and so give my perspective regarding the hereditary Peers and the hereditary principle. During my early months here I have been overwhelmed by the extraordinary contribution that hereditary Peers make and the stability which they provide towards our parliamentary process. I am also conscious of the fact that few outside the Palace of Westminster understand and appreciate the part that the Members of this Chamber play.
We have heard much about the abolition of the hereditary Peers being right, not least because it is a manifesto commitment. This is simply an excuse. After all, it was, for example, a New Labour manifesto commitment not to raise taxes and this Government have already done that 17 times in less than two years. The Government are, in reality, interested only in reforming this place in order to throw out a particular group of people. It is a kind of inverted snobbery prevalent among New Labour. It is about perceived popularity, although the populace has not shown an interest in this. Old Labour, or at least real Labour, would have been more open about its reasons. It is not about modernising; it is about diminishing this House with no clear intent of where we are going. We are told that it is all about more effective government and is but part of improving our constitution. In fact, it is about controlling our constitution and diminishing, by stealth, in a most uncourageous way our United Kingdom and our democracy.
It is lamentable that we have had to accept disorganised devolution which, as it stands so far, will not in my view, be sustainable. How long will Wales be content with a mere Assembly? Surely that is discrimination when Scotland has its own Parliament. How long will it be before those of us living in England declare that we are no longer content to be governed by Scottish and Welsh MPs here at Westminster? What role

243
will this mayor for London have, and how long will it be before other of our cities demand a similar power base? There is all this setting up of different tiers of government and yet our Labour representatives here at Westminster treat with contempt their own tier of government.
That is all the more reason for safeguarding the independence and standing of this House. The role of this House has probably never before been potentially so crucial and perhaps this is why New Labour is so anxious to destabilise and diminish this place. It knows that, as presently constituted, we have among us largely independent, civilised and a wise group of people who are not afraid to alert this nation to the dangers that we now face. While I believe that reform is overdue, I ask in response to this Bill, who will replace the hereditary Peers? If it is to be a fully nominated House, it will be a House of wealthy "yes" men. It is suggested in the White Paper on reform that we should have a broader representation of people, including more younger people and I must now add the commonplace, patronising reference to women and ethnic minorities.
These people are supposed to come here without payment and fulfil the important role of scrutinising Bills, probably for a limited period of, say, 10 years, and then return to their chosen career. What a marvellous idea. New Labour is very hot on marvellous ideas that sound good on the news wire, but are totally unworkable.
That is proof, yet again, that this Government are out of touch with reality. That is understandable, I suppose, when so few of their representatives have had real jobs beyond the protective confines of the public sector. How naive to expect to invite people of calibre from all walks of life, who are succeeding in their chosen goals to step back and come here without an income during their formative years. As a mother with three young children to be cared for properly, I know that being a Member of this House is a very expensive privilege, and one which I would guess less than 0.1 per cent. of the population of Britain today could enjoy. In essence, few people could afford to be here, let alone would want to he here if the standing of this House is diminished. What would be the point?
So what about an elected House instead? Is this what the Government intend? I think not. Once again and, as with other devolutions, they have unleashed a potentially fundamental and far-reaching constitutional change for a much more powerful Upper House; a development which they will not be able to contain. As the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has already warned in this debate, pressure will grow for a fully elected House. If we are genuinely concerned to protect our democracy and to strengthen our constitution, then surely an elected House is the only credible alternative.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has said that we should have a partly elected and partly nominated House. I really cannot see how you could have a little bit of each. We should think of the wonderful rivalries. How on earth could it work? But then we all know that this Government do not want a fully elected Chamber because they would not wish to risk being unable to control it, and "control" is their mantra.
244
As a newcomer to this House and as a life Peer I should feel the least affected by this Bill and its consequences. However, I am affected. That fundamental change to our British constitution taking place by piecemeal devolution, and now piecemeal reform of our legislature, is lamentable. It is hard to articulate why the hereditary principle as part of our constitution is of such value and I was not properly aware of its value before I came to this House. However, I am now. There is no question but that this House is about to be diminished because of this Bill, which offers no credible, workable alternative and is expressed by this Government in a manner which has stunned me by its arrogance and lack of good manners and humility.
The distinguished noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right; no one has found a solution. The only sane reason for changing this House must be to make it stronger, more effective and more democratic. This mean little Bill fails on all counts. It removes a valuable, independent element and diminishes the standing of this House. The noble Baroness the Leader of this House says this Bill represents a pragmatic approach to the development of our constitution. On the contrary, this Bill represents a chaotic, unintelligent approach and should be strongly resisted.
We accept this so-called development imposed upon us that potentially destabilises and diminishes for ever our Parliament, and thereby our United Kingdom, at our peril.
2.17 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, what a powerful speech to have to try to follow.
Without a doubt change is a good thing if it really is for the better and many of your Lordships who have taken part so far seem to think that this dramatic constitutional change is not going to be for the better. Like many of your Lordships, I deplore the fact that stage two is unknown whilst Her Majesty's Government wish to debar all hereditary Peers from their right to sit and their right to speak. One thing is for sure, any change at all will be very much more expensive than the present system, as many other noble Lords have mentioned.
The Government's plan for reform of this House is somewhat similar to the idea of building a factory and having no idea what you are going to manufacture. If, for example, you wanted to process fish, you would have completely different machinery from that required if you wished to make biscuits.
A tremendous amount of "hot air" has been bandied about the Labour Party's manifesto commitment to the abolition of hereditary Peers, as particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cobbold. I find it difficult to believe that there are more than a few people who actually read the Labour Party Manifesto, and it has now been proved that only 2 per cent. of them could recall any mention of abolishing the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in Parliament. I also believe that the vast majority of people outside Parliament could not care one iota about this place and certainly they have no idea as

245
to its existing function; but what many people deplore wholeheartedly is the idea of tinkering with the constitution.
I am firmly in the camp of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in that I could live with the idea of not voting, but I deplore the idea of not being able to speak. There are those in your Lordships' House who would say that would mean that hereditary Peers would become second-class Peers. I have to admit that, personally, I would rather be a second-class Peer than not a Peer at all.
I am fiercely proud of our family title, which is one of the very few hereditary peerages which was not given for political services, albeit that both sides of my family have been Members of another place representing the Liberal cause. The first Lord Palmer was created a Peer for his services to the arts and music in particular. He helped to establish the Royal College of Music, with which to this day my family has still strong links.
I have also been proud to serve on two committees in your Lordships' House, one being the Advisory Panel on Works of Art and the other—which many Peers, both life and hereditary, might consider the most important committee—and of course I refer to the Refreshment Sub-Committee. Having been into every nook and cranny behind the scenes, it is indeed a miracle that any of your Lordships ever get anything to eat, let alone drink!
I feel also honoured and privileged, in conjunction with the present Government Chief Whip, to have defeated the previous Government on two amendments on the Agriculture Bill. I also treasure the moment when, with the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who is to follow me, the Government accepted our joint amendment during the Third Reading of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill. I suppose one of the most exciting moments of my parliamentary life was when with the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, we put our amendment on that same Bill to a vote and we won by a two to one majority. I shall never forget afterwards being interviewed on the green for News at Ten and one of your Lordships said that I looked exactly like Trevor McDonald without the spectacles.
Almost every time that I have spoken in the past 15 months I have started my speech by saying that had hereditary Peers been banned from speaking the number of speakers on the list would have been dramatically reduced. Let me give one small example. In one of our debates on agriculture at the end of last year, there were a total of 21 speakers, 17 of whom were hereditary Peers.
I will miss three things most particularly. First, the wonderfully kind and friendly staff throughout the House; secondly, the camaraderie and the many lasting friendships that I have made in the eight years that I have been here; and, finally, the learning curve and learning more about a subject in order to take part in a debate and the privilege of talking to the real experts in those particular fields. All these I have found most rewarding. I think that the House will miss the
246
wonderfully broad expertise of so many hereditary Peers, particularly on subjects such as agriculture, the countryside, conservation, heritage and the arts.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene. I am sure that he recollects as well as I do that in the debate on defence and the debate on the arts last Session, hereditary Peers exceeded all others.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. He has emphasised the point I was trying to make. I believe that a reformed House will be a very much poorer place than it is at present.
When we debated the White Paper the Leader of the Opposition said—this was reiterated by my noble friend Lord Chalfont in his excellent contribution—"this is a very sad day". I believe that it is indeed a very sad day. I also believe that it is tragic, not only for Parliament but for the whole of this still United Kingdom.
2.24 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, many speakers today and yesterday have already spoken about my main objections to the Bill far more eloquently than I can, so I shall confine myself mainly to two points.
My first point is that, as a life Peer—not, perhaps I should say for the benefit of the statistics of the noble Lord, Lord Archer. as a working Peer—I would like to pay tribute to the tremendous work which has been done over centuries and recently by the hereditary Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, referred to some of the things that he does and to his contribution from the Back Benches in a variety of speeches, his contribution to the arts and so on. Having also had the privilege of serving in the other place, I recall, too, the contribution made by hereditary Peers in this House when they served on the Government Front Bench. Many of those Ministers, as they were then, were at least the equal of the Ministers serving in the other place. It will be a great loss if they are no longer able to take up those appointments.
There is some impression—no doubt stirred up by the spin doctors and their like—that this House consists of elderly gentlemen sleeping on the Benches. The noble Baronesses in this House are seldom referred to in that way. But the image of "fuddy duddies sleeping on the Benches", as we are referred to by some, is, as we all know, quite untrue. That could be far more fairly said of some the life Peers. By virtue of their appointments they inevitably tend to be older than hereditary Peers. I suspect that the average age of all the life Peers is considerably greater than the average age of all the active hereditary Peers. I cannot help feeling that, at this stage, the Bill has only one design, and that is to stir up, as it does, something of a class hatred, which is most regrettable, unfortunate and wrong.
My second point is to condemn, as many have done, the pulling down of this House without any plans or proposals for putting something in its place. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, covers this point very well and I shall certainly support him when he moves his amendment.

247
The Royal Commission will produce something, but the Government have no idea what. Indeed, we have no assurance that what it produces will commend itself to the Government. In Committee afterwards there will no doubt be an opportunity to discuss a number of amendments. If a better amendment is not already tabled, I will table one to defer this Bill taking effect until the stage two Bill, or whatever it is called, has been enacted. I believe that the Government should agree to that. It would be very useful to them. It would achieve their manifesto commitment—although it may mean deferring the ending of hereditary Peers' existence here for a few more months, after they have been here for 700 years or thereabouts. It would also please the public and media, who find the present strategy of the Government very much one of half measures. In everything the Government do it is half measures, whether it is bombing without knowing what the consequences will be, or whether it is the removal of the hereditary Peers from this House without knowing what will replace them.
If it were not for his legal background, I would have said that the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were very near to blackmail, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, described them earlier. He said to us all, "You do this or else". That is not the kind of language that commends itself to me. I resent being threatened in that way. I believe it is something that the House does not savour or like.
The Government are removing the hereditary Peers with no plans to replace them. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, referred to the problems in 1968 when a Bill was debated and approved in this House and was then debated in the other place. I was present throughout that time. The interesting thing, which must never be forgotten, is that that Bill—or any other Bill which sensible people might wish to promote or alter in this House giving it more power—would mean more power taken away from the other place. That will never be accepted by the other place and it is one of the problems which the Government will have to face when the Royal Commission recommendations come forward.
I urge the Government not to bring the Bill into effect until the Bill setting out stage two is enacted. By doing that Peers who make such a large contribution to the House will remain for a few months and the Government will be able to deny the charge that they are a government of half measures who do something and do not know what to do for the next stage. I oppose the Bill and support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
2.30 p.m.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, when I put down my name to speak on the Bill I mentally jotted down a dozen or so points. Unfortunately, they had all gone out of the window by three o'clock this morning. Therefore, I shall speak more generally and be fairly brief.
If Lewis Carroll were alive today he would undoubtedly have likened this Bill to Alice in Wonderland dealing with the Cheshire Cat. The Bill
248
before us is so much more about what is not there, as what is. Starting with what is there in Clause 1, this is the very essence of a radical constitutional change which will bring to an end 800 years of history by terminating the hereditary principle in politics. I do not wish to be an advocate in defence of the hereditary principle as I do not see how on general democratic grounds the imbalance of the composition of the House can he justified. But, on the other hand, there is a certain irony in the Government White Paper Modernising Parliament which, while asserting that the imbalance has led to what is variously described in the White Paper as a "deficiency of contribution" and a "deficit of effectiveness", is remarkably short of examples; perhaps not too surprisingly when it has not yet been agreed what the new modernised House is to do and how it will function. Indeed, the White Paper often seems to do the reverse, positively valuing the questioning independent spirit of the House of Lords as presently composed and its functions and acknowledging that,
"the most distinctive and important role of the present House of Lords is the specialist expertise and independent perspective it can bring to the scrutiny of legislation".
It hardly goes without saying that you do not have to be an hereditary Peer to have these skills. But what replacement composition will ensure that the skills are not lost? I go further to ask the Government what will be the cost of bringing in the skills and setting up a new Chamber. Surely, this DIY cost-effective Chamber costs the country very little.
It goes without saying that the effect of Clause 1 when enacted will be to leave the House with life Peers, Bishops and the Law Lords. But the transitional House is to be more than this if the Weatherill amendment is agreed whereby a number of hereditary Peers are retained to ensure continuity. At the same time it is the Government's intention to yet again increase the number of life Peers in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958 on the recommendation of party leaders and an appointments commission, which will nominate Cross-Bench Peers. So the transitional House will be based on the appointment principle rather than the hereditary principle, the appointment principle being, so we are told, more modern and fair. However, the Royal Commission has yet to consider this point. We do not know what it will come up with.
However, what is clear is that we are to be faced with piecemeal reform of a constitution which must inevitably lead to pragmatic decisions. My concern is that this decision did not have to be implemented before the Royal Commission had reported and its recommendations had been enacted, which I foresee would take at least a couple of years. The White Paper goes on to argue that resolving the issue of the hereditary Peers will free those considering the reform to concentrate not on the past but on the future. But that rather ignores the fact that there will still he an existing composition.
As presently framed, the Bill says nothing about the future of the House of Lords which the Royal Commission has to consider. That is weighty responsibility on two counts. Good government needs a series of checks and balances between the executive and

249
the legislature. How the role, functions and composition of the new Chamber are defined could see these checks and balances undermined, all to the detriment of the legislature.
The White Paper tells us that the constitutional developments across the country are reconnecting the people with power in Britain and bringing power closer to the people. The constitutional changes which may flow from the Royal Commission's recommendations are capable of doing precisely the opposite, not least because that questioning independent spirit which the White Paper noted in the House of Lords as presently composed is not being allowed to continue in place to scrutinise new legislation. The White Paper assumes the pros and cons of nominated and elected Chambers, indirectly elected and mixed Chambers. But let us be plain about it. What we need are unfettered individuals with skills, experience, vigour, commitment and accountability. Does Britain really want to enter the 21st century with a second Chamber dominated by party machinery and party individuals? The Royal Commission has to find a way forward towards an independent composition and a role of political weight and value.
Perhaps I may conclude by taking the House back 150 years. In a speech to the electors of the City of London on 6th April 1859 Lord John Russell—I see that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not in his place—commenting on the Representation of the People Bill, said:
"Among the defects of the Bill, which were numerous, one provision was conspicuous by its presence and another by its absence".
My Lords, it is somewhat alarming that almost 150 years later, on an issue of great constitutional reform, I can say precisely the same thing.
2.36 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and a number of other Members of your Lordships' House, I should like to begin my remarks by briefly reflecting on the historic nature of the Bill that we are currently discussing.
First, the Bill is not promoting mere administrative fine tuning; it is not proposing a change of direction in policy; it strikes at the very heart of our nation's historic constitutional arrangements which have been in place since the Middle Ages. It really is a milestone in our nation's constitutional development and, using the word in its non-emotive sense, it is truly revolutionary. Secondly, I should like to put on record that, whatever the merits of the reasons for my being here, it has been an enormous privilege and a pleasure. Thirdly, it is always melancholy to take a bow when the curtain drops, as anyone who has ever lost a seat in an election knows. But the show goes on; the show has to go on; and it is important that the new production is better than this one.
I see the Bill as providing the third point of the triangle which defines the Government's plans for the second Chamber, the other two being their manifesto for
250
the last general election and the establishment of the Royal Commission. Those plans determine both the form of change and a process by which that change is to be achieved. It is with the latter that I wish to start.
As a matter of principle, I think it is wrong to embark on a process of constitutional change without a clear description of the intended destination. We are being offered, we are told, a two-stage reform where the first stage may be relatively clear while the second is more or less unknown and its timing entirely uncertain. Indeed, there is no guarantee that there will be a second stage at all. It is my view that stage one, with or without the Weatherill amendment, is not an adequate long-term reform in itself, and remembering, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has pointed out on a number of occasions, that the proposed changes of 1911 have not yet come to their intended conclusion, I think there is a real possibility of stage one standing alone. I hope that we shall be given a binding commitment this evening as to the duration of stage one, and that an appropriate government amendment will be brought forward at Committee stage to that end.
As a Conservative, and as such an advocate of evolutionary rather than revolutionary change, I see the virtue of the Weatherill amendment as an interim and transitional arrangement until a satisfactory longer-term solution can be found. But I was interested in the remarks earlier today of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about his construction of the meaning of the Labour Party manifesto at the last general election. With respect, I believe that it is open to at least one other interpretation. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord's remark that the express manifesto commitment to remove hereditary Peers can only be honoured by the completion of stage two.
It seems to me, looking at the manifesto, that stage one completely satisfies the commitment made. Those hereditary Peers who might sit in the stage one House will do so not by virtue of their inherited peerage but by virtue of the Bill, which by then will have received the consent of both Houses of Parliament. So they will become Peers by Act of Parliament, not hereditary Peers. It seems to me that that meets the Government's commitment. As a result, I see a great risk that the constitution may share the same fate as the musical hall heroine who plaintively complained, after travelling on the north-west mainline:
"Oh, Mr Porter,
Whatever shall I do?
I wanted to go to Birmingham
But here I am at Crewe".
I have already described the Royal Commission as the second point of a triangle. It has been widely criticised as being designed to create a genetically modified poodle with no teeth for not one, but two, masters—that is to say, the executive and the House of Commons. It might be able to yap at each of them, but it will not have the bite, the willpower or the political legitimacy to go for the jugular of either if circumstances require it. Its lap-dog status is to be guaranteed by the stipulated pre-eminence of the other

251
place, which is both the electoral college which creates the Government and is also too often subordinated by the Government it creates.
"Pre-eminent" is not the kind of word that is in regular use in the public bars of Britain, or, for that matter, outside them either. But it is a word which can quite properly mean a number of different things in the specific context of its key position in the Royal Commission's terms of reference. Indeed, that may be why it was put there.
What matters is that, even if the second Chamber is not a coequal to the first in all of Parliament's doings, it should nevertheless be an equal partner, with equal legitimacy and fully complementary to the first Chamber within the, parliamentary process taken as a whole. Given the vagueness associated with the crucial word "pre-eminent" at the heart of the Royal Commission's remit, I hope that the Minister will be able to help the House and, as importantly, the Royal Commission, and say exactly what the word means in this context. After all, it is the Government's word, not mine.
In short, do the Government believe that Parliament should be genuinely bicameral, as I believe it should be; or will it, beneath the form and veneer of bicameralism, acquire the substance and character of a unicameral institution? If that were to occur, it would be a very damaging development and bad for Britain.
I remember when I was at school learning about the South Sea Bubble and the various ingenious enterprises intended to take advantage of the contemporary mania for speculation in South Sea stock. A firm was created, so I was taught, for purposes so secret that they could not be divulged to the public, and subscribers were sought. The Government's plans surrounding this Bill are somewhat similar. Other than displacing hereditary Peers, no one other than, or possibly even including, its promoters, the Government, knows exactly what the project of which this Bill is part is all about. We are being asked to take too much on trust.
2.44 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, one of a number of somewhat contradictory stereotypical views—and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, has just mentioned one—which people outside who know little of this House have of it is that it is mainly characterised by a body of enthusiastic, keen-minded independent people, although there is a sense of vagueness about what the term "independent" means. When I first arrived in this House, as someone who had no previous experience in any way of Parliament, what surprised me most was to discover the extent to which this second House is controlled through party politics—clearly and significantly less so than the Commons, but that is nevertheless its major aspect; and finding, too, that the hereditary Peers as well as everyone else are also in a sense woven into this system, even if they are Cross-Benchers.
I want to say at the outset that I support this action by the Government in so far as I believe that the presence of hereditary Peers en masse in Parliament is regarded by the people as simply no longer an
252
acceptable part of it, although at the individual level some contributions are made which would be inconceivable from either life Peers or elected Peers. My noble friend, Lady Mar, for example, who has been mentioned a number of times already, is a lobbyist who probably has one of the more direct connections with the world outside Parliament. The Government should bear that in mind in their reforms. There should be far more lobbyists like my noble friend in Parliament.
As politically naÏve as I am, I think I can see why the Government have done what they have done in this way. This is a political Bill, and it is a case of biting off only as much as you can chew. The problem is that tackling as a first step the internal problem solely of composition, there is the implication that the solution to the problem of government in the more general sense is to be discovered in this way. Much debate has turned just on that aspect—what is the best system or model for a second Chamber designed for the business of "running the country"?
The central problem that the Government should he addressing is not the running of the country but the question of what is the real relationship between Parliament and the people, how best one can improve the accessibility to people of Parliament and vice versa. Those are the central, crucial questions which should determine reform. Parliament cannot be discussed in isolation. I believe that the Government need to address the clear feeling of alienation, the sense of distance that exists between the ordinary person and central government. One thing that has happened over a period is that, with greater knowledge and awareness of the world through the media, education and so on, there has become a greater desire for involvement. People's relationship to politics and politicians has in part become a voyeuristic one (it is a one-way relationship) and the vast majority of people still have what is increasingly perceived as a tenuous relationship to politics through the vote at elections. But as the expectations and desires of people change, then democracy itself must shift.
Yesterday's Daily Telegraph leader said this on the Bill:
"Democracy is an absolute term and something is either democratic or it is not".
I disagree. We have not yet formulated democracy. Democracy is still a goal, a place where we have yet to arrive. Most crucially, we cannot assume what new forms such democracy may (or will) take. That is why, although tempted to do so, I cannot support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, as from his speech I felt a presupposition that we already know what democracy is.
One broad mistake that the Government make is not to consider more their own role or position within this important constitutional change and to believe that the Labour Party, too, even though it has been in existence for far less time than has the hereditary system, does not also manifest similar or analogous "establishment" characteristics. So much has occurred, so much history has been compressed into the 20th century, that one could say that the Labour Party was conceived and born, in a sense like the hereditary peers, many ages ago. Like

253
most other political parties, it has developed over a long period its own strong family atmosphere, with all the attendant problems that that brings; its own professionalism and its sense of professionalism; its party politicians as a body of professionals, like doctors or lawyers; its own protective shell, which also constitutes a barrier; and its own self-interests. All of these are aspects of party politics, to which I believe, over a period perhaps dating from around 1945, the public have become more sensitive or even sensitised. This is in no way an indictment of individual politicians; it is a problem of the system that has evolved.
In looking at the relationship between the people and Parliament, the Government should consider the idea of random selection: that one could become a member of the Upper House as part of a true lottery. That idea is listed as a possibility in the consultation paper. I believe that it should be tried out as it would provide an opportunity for ordinary people to become directly involved in the activity of central government and would be a direct line from the people to central government. The idea is not taken seriously by the media or by the Government, although it was the subject of a serious and comprehensive study by Demos. I think the people are ahead of the game on this matter. Almost everyone to whom I talk outside Parliament has said that it is a wonderful idea but that the party politicians would never accept it. Why not? Because it is not in their interests. So we come full circle to the system which instigated the Bill in the first place. The message one gets from the public is that the party politicians must give up some of their power. This Bill ought to be part of that process, as well.
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of Malmesbury: My Lords, due to my age, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for many years and thus I am not unaware of its activities. This House is rich in knowledge and experience. There was a major reform of the second Chamber in 1958, which I have always thought was an extremely good reform. The Lord Chancellor of the day, when speaking on the 1958 reform, said, "We now have the King, the Queen and the knaves", and, with a smile on his face, he said, looking at a certain Peer, "And we have the joker, too".
One of the advantages of the hereditary system is that politically the hereditary Peers have no ladder to climb. Among the hereditary Peers is a wide fund of experience and knowledge. This is a professional age. Many of the hereditary Peers are professionals—and I can claim membership of that group.
A noble Baroness on the Benches opposite made the point last week that we are only part-time politicians. I agree entirely with her. In my opinion it would be a mistake for the second Chamber to be anything else. When we go outside the House to our place of work, or for other reasons, we gain a tremendous amount of experience, and from that experience we can enrich the debates of this House.
254
Another valuable point is that the old hereditary system produced Members of great differences and of all ages, with, naturally, a variety of experience. It would be difficult for a nominated House to produce the wide views that we have here, and old age would creep up on many Members of such a House.
I wonder why the Government are being so cagey about what is to take the place of the hereditary Peers. Perhaps the answer is a "don't know", but the question is being asked from all quarters.
I acknowledge that the success of the hereditary system is difficult to explain and to interpret. The important thing is that it has worked over the centuries, it keeps up to date and it is continually being modernised. Why attempt to destroy or interfere with a system that has worked so well, so loyally, so efficiently and so patriotically?
2.56 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the noble Earl and I agree that there is a great wealth of knowledge and ability in this House. That is something that has been very obvious to me in the relatively short time that I have been here. However, I disagree with his assessment that the House has worked very well. When I served in another place I did not discern that the House of Lords worked particularly well, especially since we occupied the opposition Benches for about 87 per cent. of my previous parliamentary experience.
It was recently said that the House relied upon the Bishops' Benches for views concerning the conditions and aspirations of the regions. I think that that may have been an overstatement. I have heard important views and comments concerning the regions from both sides of the House. However, I should welcome continued contribution from the Bishops' Benches in a reformed House of Lords, especially if the voices on those Benches included those of representatives of other faiths. I say that because, after 18 years' contribution to paganism, it would not be wise for the House to dispense with advice from those quarters.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I wish to reflect my interest in history, particularly local history. I come from a part of South Yorkshire which a hundred years ago would have been described as a Fitzwilliam fiefdom. The Fitzwilliams were the dominant family and for most of their time in public service were not given to support of the Conservative cause. The first important person to serve Parliament from what was my constituency was Thomas Wentworth. The next, and perhaps far more interesting, was that great Whig leader, Thomas, Marquess of Rockingham, who on two occasions was briefly Prime Minister. He led an important group of politicians in the 18th century, the Rockingham Whigs, a group of ducal Peers with enormous wealth, experience and power. They appear to me to have demonstrated, more than any other political group in the distant past, the spirit of noblesse oblige, to which I shall refer later.
When Prime Minister, Rockingham, while leading that group, employing Edmund Burke, engaging in good works and developing the landscape which we still

255
enjoy in my area today—especially where it is no longer ravaged by opencast mining—also sought to establish a balanced and just peace in Europe. He constructed a very tall commemorative building—I shall not describe it as a folly—that is currently being refurbished. Over the doorway is a carving that bears the inscription that Rockingham sought to achieve a just and balanced peace in Europe. It is interesting that under the shadow of that building, Hooper Stand, William Hague, the present Leader of the Conservatives, spent his formative years. One wonders whether Rockingham would have agreed with William Hague's acceptance that the principle of inheritance can no longer apply.
Rockingham died without male issue and through his daughter the estate and the Whig tradition passed to the Fitzwilliams. The eldest son of the Fitzwilliams, Lord Milton, was invariably in the House of Commons. In 1832 he was one of the champions of the Reform Bill. The arguments that Lord Milton heard in Parliament in 1832 are being echoed in today's debate: yes, it would be right to reform but not now. That kind of argument has been echoing for a very long time, not merely in the 100 years or so since Parliament decided that the House of Lords should cease to rely on the hereditary peerage.
Unlike my noble friend, for whom I have great affection, I am not a believer in the unicameral system. If I had been a believer in that principle my experience in the 1970s would have changed that view. I was taking a Private Member's Bill with all-party support through Parliament in 1975. When it had completed its passage through the Commons it was realised that six amendments were needed to achieve legislative rectitude. The only way to get through those amendments was by service of a number of individuals, including the late Viscount Cranborne, in order to get that Bill through. The unicameral system can present hurdles to progress.
However, I became convinced of the need for reform of this House during the long years of the administration of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. Two issues in particular stand out. In 1980 my constituency, which had not previously experienced post-war unemployment, saw jobs go by the thousand and hope diminished. In one school just four children managed to find work at the end of the school year. I met 40 or 50 young children who had been brought to Westminster by the Church of England Children's Society. That was the saddest day of my political life. Those 14 and 15 year-old children had seen nothing but poverty, had experienced hopelessness and no challenge or opportunity confronted them. When poverty was developing in my constituency the government of the noble Baroness decided to inflict greater hardship on the poor. They were told that if they needed new blankets they could borrow money. I am aware that Liberal, Labour and Cross-Bench Peers, Bishops, and even some Conservative Peers, were troubled by that approach. That approach succeeded because the skills of the then government's Whips' Office brought in the backwoodsmen. I recall that two Peers came into this House who had not been here for years. They did not live in Britain, presumably for fiscal reasons, but they
256
came back to oppress the poor in areas like mine. In my view that was a matter that could not be allowed to pass without criticism or condemnation.
I accept that for generations the hereditary peerage has provided people who have given great service to our country. Indeed, the service may have been such as to forgive the original patronage that created the peerage. My noble friend referred to the fact that all of us are here because of patronage, whether or not through generations.
The second crunch issue was the poll tax. I remind the House that occasionally newspaper cartoons can provide very telling political messages. The great house of the Fitzwilliams, Wentworth Woodhouse, is about to be sold, perhaps for a price less than that of a semi-detached house in the more affluent areas of London, even though it has 88 acres, many facilities and is in a suitable position. However, I am not an estate agent. I live two miles from Wentworth Woodhouse and so I view it with great affection.
When the poll tax debate was taking place the Daily Telegraph published a cartoon which showed that great house in front of which stood two men. One held a Gladstone bag marked "poll tax" and the other, the single occupant of Wentworth Woodhouse at the time, is saying "Just one". His poll tax bill for that great house was the same as for those who occupied the little cottages on Wentworth main street. When built by the Fitzwilliams, they represented superb accommodation for the working class but today appear to be rather small and crowded. Nevertheless, the occupants of Wentworth main street cottages were to pay the same as the occupant of the big house. The cry that went up, which was welcomed by too many people on the other side, was that the dustman and the duke would pay the same. The dukes may be there, but not the dustmen.
When that measure went through without sufficient challenge and question the hereditary Peers, too often slavishly supporting the Conservative Party, had blown it. Democracy cannot now be restored. Britain must become a meritocracy if it is to survive. It cannot be a meritocracy if it depends on inherited privilege.
3.6 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that last November I withdrew a Bill in my name entitled the Hereditary Peerage (Election) Bill before its second Reading for which the Government had been generous enough to provide a whole day's debate. As a number of your Lordships have since expressed disappointment that the debate did not take place, I hope your Lordships will find it helpful if I now put on record some of the thinking behind that Bill, and the reason for its withdrawal, in the hope that this may be helpful to the way ahead.
The Bill was drafted in July 1997 after discussion among a number of us appointed Peers who feared that the Government would wish to press ahead with their manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. We saw the 1998–99 Session, which then lay ahead, as the last chance for the House to come up with its own reform.

257
We felt that it was worth a pre-emptive attempt to persuade the Government not to bring forward the unfortunate Bill which we now have before us.
The Bill was drafted to achieve four aims. These were: first, to respect the Government's manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. That is not the same thing as to remove all of them from the Chamber permanently. Second, having abolished their right to sit, the Bill envisaged forming all Peers with a reasonable attendance record into an electoral college to elect 250 hereditary Peers to serve on a rolling basis for five years at a time. Third, the Bill thus maintained the whole pool of hereditary Peers available to give service to the country for the foreseeable future, until Parliament agreed full reform. Fourth, we wanted to reduce the number of Conservative Peers whose dominance we regarded as just about the only thing wrong with your Lordships' House. Indeed, I cannot help feeling that over the years the Labour and Liberal Parties, and also many on the Cross-Benches, must have found the preponderance of Conservative votes in your Lordships' House rather more irritating than the hereditary principle.
I do not pretend that our Bill was perfectly drafted but it could have been substantially amended in Committee. For instance, I see now that it was a mistake to set up the whole House as a single college to elect a number of hereditary Peers across the board, or across the parties and Cross-Benches of the House. I feel sure that each party and the Cross-Benches should select their own representatives, as we learn today is proposed by the Weatherill amendment, up to quotas which the House should decide. There is also the difficult question as to whether only hereditary Peers should elect other hereditary Peers or whether they should be elected by us jumped-up parvenus as well. Our Bill was drafted to reflect the latter option, even if we knew it would cause understandable irritation with some of your hereditary Lordships, because we felt that such a system would earn more sympathy with the public since it relied on a more broadly based and knowledgeable electorate. But of course it would have been for the House to decide.
Another of our Bill's major shortcomings in retrospect was that it proposed to select only hereditary Peers by internal election, because they appeared to be the most immediately threatened at the time. But of course there is not anyone who knows how this House works who could honestly pretend that the best of the hereditary Peers do not give far greater service to the nation than do many of us appointed Peers. So if the hereditary Peers are to be weeded out, why not us appointed Peers as well? And not only us appointed working Peers, as my noble friend Lord Archer suggested this afternoon. Why should someone who may have given less than helpful service to the country in some previous Cabinet be granted an infrequent and disinterested place here?
Such was the Hereditary Peerage (Election) Bill. I withdrew it because I was persuaded by Peers whom I respect that a detailed debate in your Lordships' House on its merits would have so horrified the left-wing
258
ideologues in another place that they would have made it impossible for the Government to accept anything along the lines proposed. I also heard on the grapevine that my noble friend Lord Cranborne was up to something, and I did not want to upset his plans.
Therefore, perhaps wrongly, I felt that the right time to bring forward solutions of the kind that the Bill envisaged would be during the Committee stage of this Bill. Of course I have known from the start that to gain maximum public sympathy, the leadership in this matter should come from an eminent Cross-Bench, appointed Peer, and not from a maverick Back-Bench Conservative such as myself. I have to confess that my name was only attached to the Bill because of a procedural misunderstanding.
That brings me to the Weatherill amendment—which, with all due respect, does not seem quite good enough, because 92 hereditary Peers are not enough to ensure the proper functioning of this House until stage 2 is completed. We have been given no justification for that number. It would appear that somebody thought that 10 per cent. was a reasonable compromise, plus a few extras. Now we are threatened by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in somewhat unpleasant terms, that we must take it or leave it.
I, for one, hope that we shall examine the Weatherill amendment in our usual way in Committee, and amend it if it seems necessary to do so and if the justification for such an amendment can be proved. Anything else would surely be a dereliction to our duty to the country.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan and others seem to take it for granted that the hereditary principle is indefensible. As an appointed Peer, I am perfectly happy to defend it. Hereditary Peers are the only part of our legislature who do not owe their position to patronage or the vagaries of the ballot box and who, after all, only sit in a revising and delaying Chamber. As such, they are theoretically of great value to the country, but they are of great value not only in theory. All noble Lords have acknowledged that the best of our hereditary Peers are of great value in fact as well.
Before introducing my Bill, I spent much of a weekend on what your Lordships may regard as a rather impertinent exercise—reading through "Dod's", comparing the CVs of hereditary Peers with those of appointed Peers and, a somewhat less absorbing exercise, with the CVs of those who have been elected to the other place. I recommend that exercise to the Government, if they really have the nation's interests at heart. From even my knowledge of the quality and performance of most of the hereditary Peers who come here regularly, I concluded that the country would be mad to dispense with the services of at least 150 Cross-Bench and Conservative hereditary Peers. I did not look at Peers from other sectors of the House because I assumed that they would all be retained in the interests of a political balance.
Simply to throw away those hereditary Peers, those good servants of the country, and to abolish the pool of wisdom and duty from which they come without replacing them with something obviously as good,

259
seems to me to be an act of such political vandalism that it must be resisted with every means at our disposal. If that means learning to enjoy regular breakfasts in your Lordships' House over a long period, so be it. However, I hope that it will not be necessary to grow too closely acquainted with such culinary treats. That will be up to the Government of course and I cannot see why they should be unreasonable. After all, they have conceded the principle that 92 hereditary Peers should stay on while the Royal Commission sits and until Parliament agrees stage 2. I hope that the Government will not be so small minded as to stick to their unjustified number of 92. If they are, I hope that noble Lords will not feel bound by the Salisbury convention, which I cannot believe was designed to facilitate the destruction of your Lordships' House without an adequate alternative insight.
I also trust that the Government will not make too much of their manifesto commitment to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in your Lordships' House. After all, that commitment, according to a Written Answer that I received recently, was only one of 177 manifesto commitments, so it is not surprising that in a recent poll only 2 per cent, of the population were even aware of it.
If amendments along the lines that I have outlined come forward and are supported, they would in any case meet the Government's manifesto. The right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote would have been removed. All we would be arguing about is the number of hereditary Peers who should continue to sit for the short space of time until stage two is complete. I look forward to that argument.
3.16 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is my pleasure to follow such an attractive noble Lord, who claims that he is a maverick Conservative. I do not know how many maverick Conservatives are about these days. I was one 70 years ago and your Lordships can see where I have got to now. The noble Lord might think that I am an example of what he might turn into. He will forgive me if I do not follow his arguments in detail.
We have listened to more than 100 notable speeches, many of them inspired by the words of the famous poet, Julian Grenfell:
"The black bird says to him, 'Brother, brother—if this be the last song you shall sing Sing well, for you may not sing another Brother sing'."
Many noble Lords have sung to some purpose. For my part, I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill with a sad heart. I repeat, with a sad heart. I get the same pleasure as I would if somebody told me that I must have my left hand amputated. On such good advice, one would have to accept that opinion but I would not get any pleasure out of it. I do not see how anyone could get pleasure from eliminating so many noble Lords who have done such good service. I do not say that they have all done such good service because more than half of them seldom come here. The fact is a lot of them have done wonderful work over the years and we are now eliminating or sacking them. I have
260
been lucky to survive by some sort of strange procedure, and there are a few others who were created Peers—including the noble Lord, Lord Aldington, who spoke so well—and were allowed to come here as life Peers for the time being, until they introduce an age limit, which I hope will not be too soon.
We are engaged on the very sad job of eliminating some of our best friends—people we have come to know well and respect so highly. Who can get any pleasure out of that? When we think of hereditary Peers, some of us recall that half the Leaders of the House over the past 50 years that I have been here were hereditary Peers. No one would say that they were inferior to those appointed on merit. The noble Baroness who leads the House so well is a wonderful example of both traditions. She has a life peerage but, I am glad to think, she represents the hereditary principle at its most distinctive. When we hear her speaking so well, it must be hereditary genes operating in her case—which is encouraging.
My mind goes back 50 years, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have been here longer. Fifty years ago, I heard the grandfather of the last Leader of the Opposition, Lord Cranborne. A Labour Peer who had criticised him sharply went up to him and apologised. Lord Salisbury said, "If you felt it was your duty to say that, you were right to say it. This is not a club. It is a House of Parliament". That noble Marquess did more than any other person to make sure that this is not only the best club in the world but a fine House of Parliament. We recall such people with great admiration.
In referring to Lord Cranborne, I should mention his counterpart, Lord Addison, the leader of the government for six years after the war when I first joined the House as a relative youngster. He was a worthy opposite number to Lord Salisbury. I used to sit beside him; I was a kind of pupil. On one occasion I thought that I was making a good speech. He kicked me on the back of the legs and said, "Sit down now. You've got the House with you. You'll lose it if you go on longer". So I sat down. Those were great men in those days.
We now come to the hereditary principle. I have talked about individuals and I now refer to the atmosphere. It is impossible to define or measure it. No one can deny that the hereditary Peers have done much over the years to create the atmosphere of this House. No one can deny that. It is hard to prove it. People flock to come here. They come to lunch; they come to watch, they sit on our Benches or any Benches. They visit this House because it arouses so much admiration so widely. No one can measure it but no one can deny the influence of hereditary Peers in creating that atmosphere.
We have to ask ourselves whether we are going to throw all that away. Will hereditary Peers disappear without trace? They cannot stay. Hereditary Peers have had it in the broad sense of 750 Peers; more than half of them are not playing any part here. No doubt they are otherwise occupied. We cannot justify that. The time had come when tremendous reforms had to come about. I simply say this. Let us make sure that the traditions of the old House are maintained as far as possible; that continuity is maintained as far as possible.

261
We have the possibility of the deal. I do not know whether or not it is going through. I hope that it does. I support it. But my mind goes back to 30 years ago when I was leader of this place. I brought forward the two writ plan under which first generation hereditary Peers would attend and speak but not vote. It was not my brainchild, but that of the late Henry Burrows who sat at the Table where the Clerk Assistant sits now. He used to take me to play golf at Rye every Sunday. When I missed a putt, he used to say, "You do believe in the two writ plan, don't you?" I could have brained him. But the two writ plan was his. I still say that that was, and remains, the best plan. The two writ plan was agreed to by the leaders of all the parties here and elsewhere: that first generation hereditary Peers should speak but not vote. It was sabotaged in the House of Commons. I hope that someone with a more contemporary influence, a leading figure such as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or some other notable person, will bring forward that plan. If no one else does so, I shall bring it forward myself, but I hope that someone better will do so.
This is an historic occasion. The House has been a wonderful place. Many of us have come to love it. It should not be disposed of by a series of soundbites. It is too serious a matter. It is an historic moment. I agree that there is no easy way out. The 750 hereditary Peers had to be coped with. The problem had to be solved drastically. However, I hope that it will be solved in a humane way.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, in the words of my noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare I am a party hack, and a rude mechanical. Perhaps I may say how much I appreciate that fact not having been brought to my attention by other noble Lords who sit here by virtue of succession or other appointments.
I shall not revisit all the arguments against a Bill which sets out to remove a large proportion of the membership of your Lordships' House without any firm proposals to replace what is currently in place, save to say that I agree with what has been said in that regard. It is clear that the Government's motivation for the Bill is quite simply the removal from this House of those Peers who sit by succession and while that has been expressed in more measured terms in this House some of the comments in another place had the resonance of mere prejudice and spite rather than any great constitutional ambition.
So obsessed are the Government with this so-called principle that they cannot even allow those who have hereditary peerages of first creation to remain, but would rather abolish their right to sit and then offer them a life peerage in their own right.
Simple fairness has no part in this Bill. The Government are prepared to ask us to remove the right of Members to sit in this Parliament who had no vote at the last election on the basis that they had a seat in Parliament in their own right. Even if the measure is to proceed, it should not come into force until the next Parliament. In my submission it is a manifest injustice.
262
To use a phrase that I recall hearing when I sat on what were then the Government Benches—used by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and which has remained with me—an injustice to a few is no less an injustice.
The Government have said that it is essential to secure the removal of the hereditary Peers before an alternative can be proceeded with. But is that really the case? In the debate on the White Paper and in this debate, noble Lords who sit in this House by succession have made clear their willingness to step aside and embrace suitable reforms. Do the Government really believe that a solution which has eluded everyone for so many years will emerge and that the absence of hereditary Peers is the factor that will make it possible?
I do not accept that that is a well-founded belief. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House indicated in the debate on the White Paper that the Royal Commission should be able to report within the timetable that has been set for it because there are not many new arguments and not much new evidence. If that is the case, why will this attempt at reform be any different from previous occasions; or have the Government a solution which they intend to implement irrespective of what the Royal Commission may recommend?
I remain highly sceptical of finding an alternative significantly different from the present arrangements that is acceptable, especially to another place. The Government have already stated that the House of Commons is to remain the pre-eminent Chamber. I believe that the notion of an elected Chamber is something for which this country's political system and culture is not yet prepared.
The political culture of this country has evolved in which another place is now considered to be the very centre of political importance to the virtual exclusion of anywhere else. It does nothing particularly for relations with local government, the European Parliament or your Lordships' House. But it is a fact and it remains to be seen how relations with the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies turn out. The other place has become, as many noble Lords have said, an instrument of government rather than a means of calling the Executive to account; and, indeed, new ways of calling that Executive to account are needed.
However, I do not believe that that will be through a second Chamber, elected or otherwise. Control of the Executive should properly rest with another place, unless revolutionary change were accepted to give an elected second Chamber parity with the first. In that event, it would become the creature of the parties and not be the revising, advising, independent body that everyone says it should be.
Those in the other place and Government who advocate an elected second Chamber would, I believe, balk at the notion if it were to become a reality and threaten the supremacy of the other place. It would not suit the other place or governments who draw their authority from their majorities in the other place.
I would be the last, and it would be wholly inappropriate for me having been recommended to membership of your Lordships' House by the then Leader of my party, to suggest that there is something

263
disreputable about party politics. But how would another Chamber, tightly bound into the party political machine, help us to achieve what is required of the second Chamber? An attempt to introduce a partially elected legitimacy into the second Chamber would lead to more problems.
Those elected might consider they had the right to challenge the other place, and if such rights were written out by law what would be the point of being elected to this place? It would undoubtedly lead to problems within the House. The cry that a vote was lost on the votes of the hereditary Peers would likely be replaced by the cry that it was lost on the votes of the appointed Peers. Some members would then be more legitimate than others. I believe that this Bill before the House, if it is to be proceeded with, needs revision to ensure that robust arrangements are in place for the interim House, since the interim may be rather longer than is currently envisaged by some.
The arrangements for the future appointment of life Peers do not feature in the Bill. One asks, why not? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester indicated how much those of us who are privileged to be Members draw from traditions and approaches that have been brought here over the centuries by the hereditary peerage. I make no apologies for expressing my preference for the present arrangements, with one particular and important exception to which I shall refer later, and thus I want all the elements of the present House to carry through into the interim House in a robust manner. I well understand that if we were in the business of writing a constitution we would not introduce the hereditary principle in the legislature; but we are not starting from scratch. This nation has not had the misfortune, as a result of war, invasion or dictatorship, to have had the need to produce a new written constitution. We have been able to allow our own unwritten constitution to evolve over a period of time. The present House is a result of that evolution and the presence of life Peers is an example of that evolution. As are the present powers of the House which have evolved, some by statute others by convention. The hereditary Peers sit in this House not by virtue of holding on to power or usurping power, but because they have the legal and constitutional right so to do given and confirmed by Parliament. I regret that comments in another place indicate that some people believe differently.
The system has given, and continues to give, to Parliament many devoted Members who have sat for party or no party and who have brought to the House a wealth of different expertise. The powers of this House are such that, however composed, the Government can, rightly, always get their business. The will of the other place will always prevail, even if it does have to resort to the Parliament Acts. However, given the number of occasions they have been used, there is hardly a record of outright defiance on the part of the second Chamber.
Apart from the instances of the use of the Parliament Acts, I reject the statistics of defeats. I do not consider votes lost by the Government in this House to be defeats as such. If in reviewing and revising legislation this Government, or any government, see such votes in the
264
second Chamber as defeats, that is tantamount to saying that they do not really want a second Chamber with any meaningful functions, however composed, to question or have the temerity to delay their onward march of progress.
There is a very delicate balance between this House and the other place. The interim House needs to be composed in a robust fashion and we need to keep within it a hereditary presence. For that reason, I support the arrangement proposed in December by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. This leaves the House with a hereditary representation that will remain in place if, indeed, an agreed formula can be found in the next few months, unlike the past 80 years.
It is a great regret that this Government, which have changed in their outlook so much from the traditional outlook of the Labour Party, cannot find the vision and generosity of spirit needed to address the question of the future of your Lordships' House in an evolutionary manner, recognising that not all is bad about the present arrangements and that, defying all logic, the hereditary peerage has given us many independent Members, and even those with party allegiance of independent views, and that, put quite simply, the House has worked and the supremacy of the other place maintained.
Instead, they remain committed to the onslaught against the hereditary Peers in the same way that they were once committed to other policies now consigned to history.
The arrangement referred to ought, in the hands of men and women of good will, to have showed the way forward for a permanent solution, not just for an interim one. As a life Peer, I believe that it is entirely appropriate that hereditary Peers should have the right to choose their representatives. I hope that in Committee we will be able to explore properly how vacancies which arise should be filled. We must ensure that future Peers who inherit by succession have a right to participate in the electoral college.
All that is in the context of and using some acceptable formula to ensure that the overall numbers in the House do not give one party an advantage. I well understand that noble Lords opposite do not accept a position in which one party has dominance. I believe that the arrangement described as the Weatherill amendment enables that problem to be addressed. The reasoned amendment reflects many of our concerns. I hope that the Committee stage will enable the interim arrangements to be given enough substance and form to ensure that the House may continue its useful existence for many years if reform does not appear as quickly as expected.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and his amendment. Whatever hour the Division is called, I shall certainly support it. More than 40 years ago, he and I were trainee RAF pilots together. We devised a badge for our corps, for the Phoenix, and a motto Cogito Ergo Sum, at least we borrowed it from Descartes. Your Lordships will

265
know that it is, "I think, therefore I am" and one reflects that it might have helped the Government had they done a little more thinking about this issue.
The very holding of this debate and the number of Peers who wish to take part demonstrates more than anything else that today and yesterday are moments in history. I shall draw on history and make analogies with the Cromwellian period and with the ditchers and the backwoodsmen of 1911.
The Bill before us is not long, but I remind your Lordships that neither was the Maastricht Bill. Short Bills have a habit of creating gigantic change. In my judgment, this is a vindictive and dangerous Bill as it panders to the Labour Left and the rather simplistic argument that the hereditary principle is outdated. For the Government to claim, as they do, that it was in the manifesto and therefore under the Salisbury convention is must be accepted, is in my judgment a Salisbury too far. I do not accept that the Salisbury convention was created to betray the integrity of this House and of Parliament. Indeed, the experience of 1911 and the gallant role played in that debate by the then Lord Salisbury clearly underlines the fact that so far as he was concerned the convention never included constitutional reform.
I return to the manifesto and the last election. I fought that election. Was this issue ever discussed, debated, talked about, spun over or anything else? No, it was totally ignored during that election. Labour could have highlighted it, but it chose not so to do. When the Government took over they could have moved with speed and commitment by establishing a Royal Commission within a week or so of the gracious Speech. If they had done that then we could have had the benefit of those results by now and certainly within the timetable that they are setting for the present Royal Commission. But only now do they set up a Royal Commission and at the same time decide that the hereditary Peers must go. Yet in a little more time than a series of focus groups take, even under the shortened version they will have the findings of the Royal Commission.
So far as I am concerned, sadly there seems to be no sense of history on the Government Benches; no understanding of the true heritage of this country and certainly no vision. The hereditary Peers are a part of our history and of the uniqueness of this Chamber. They are part of the character of the United Kingdom. In the past, and to some extent even today, they represent land ownership. The majority have taken their role as revisers in this Chamber extremely seriously. In my judgment we should not be so cavalier as to throw out centuries of history and certainly not until we have the recommendations of the Royal Commission.
I mention history. Indeed, in all my speeches on Lords' reform I have referred to history. History demonstrates evolution. Parliament has never been static. It has changed and evolved. Certainly I for one am not against change, but almost all change is evolutionary. Yes, there have been exceptions when change was abrupt and not evolutionary, but revolutionary. Cromwell is one such example. He
266
removed in order the King, the House of Lords and then the House of Commons. Towards the end of his life he recognised the need for democratic legitimacy and restored the House of Commons and also the House of Lords.
Cromwell himself recognised the need for another House—our House. He said,
"I should name another House. I named it of men who shall meet you wheresoever you go, and shake hands with you, and tell you it is not titles, nor lords, nor parties that they value, but a Christian and an English interest. Men of your own rank and quality, who will not only be a balance unto you, but a new force added to you, while you love England".
For me that encapsulates what drives much of the House of Lords since I joined your Lordships' House.
As one thinks about that I for one reflect on the way the present Prime Minister treats the other place, only voting, when I checked, in 14 Divisions out of 325, which is probably the worst record for any Prime Minister this century; how he switched Prime Minister's Questions from twice a week to once a week to make it easier for the Prime Minister; how he must be the one who sanctions leaks by Ministers instead of making Statements to the other place; how he encourages his followers to leak confidential Select Committee reports and how his Government's reforms ensure that that House is sitting less. In essence, the other place is becoming virtually ignored.
Now it is us who are to be emasculated. It may be that there will be an interim of 91 hereditary Peers, but to match them there will be at least, we are promised, 50 more life Peers from one party. So by the time of the next gracious Speech this autumn, a few months away, we too will be emasculated and the Bills that flow from that speech will have relatively little difficulty in being rubber stamped by an ineffectual second Chamber.
So to this Bill, driven through on the abstract concept of modernisation, but with no thought of ever strengthening our democracy. We all know the Executive is too powerful and the other place too subservient, but the unique opportunity that is there to create a Chamber of significance; to create one with real checks and balances against ill thought-out legislation, is postponed and may never be achieved. It is a lost opportunity to really update our democratic institutions in a thoughtful and well-considered way.
Of more importance to the Government is to drive through the almost total removal of those who have proven their worth over centuries and even today provide more than half the number of activists in your Lordships' House. There is no great populist desire to get rid of the hereditary Peers. We should remember the ditchers of 1911. They saw the reality of appeasement.
I want a British second Chamber, not a copy of somewhere else and not some transitory, allegedly modernised Chamber totally subservient to the Prime Minister of the day. The lessons of history cry out to your Lordships for us to have a strong Parliament if we are to have a strong democracy. To me I smell a wider plot by the Labour modernisers and the writers of manifestos. It is no less than to undermine the

267
supremacy of Parliament. Tonight we can and should make our presence felt. In my judgment we owe it to the British people and to our democracy.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I have been in this House long enough to learn a number of new and important things; the quality of the House and its debates and the very valuable contribution that so many individual hereditary Peers make to our deliberations. Therefore, I well understand the sense of sadness, to some extent, and nostalgia which has been occasionally expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the House. I also read history when I was at university so I have some idea of the contribution and place of the Lords in the remarkable and marvellous history of this country.
But perhaps for very opposite reasons to those given by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, in expressing his concerns, I express, as it were, my support for the measure which we are now introducing. I support it because I am concerned—and more so than before I came here—about the weakening of the House of Commons and the dangers of an over-powerful executive. It is precisely because I want to see that danger scotched that: I wish to see the House of Lords, in certain aspects of its work, strengthened and not weakened. I genuinely believe that the measure that we have before us will produce that effect.
I had better spend the time I have explaining why I come sincerely to that conclusion. It is partly based on my experience in this House. I have not always agreed with my noble friends on some of the measures that have come from the other place. Indeed, with the best will in the world, the House of Commons, with its huge majority, can get things wrong. We have a vivid example—and I am sure that history will vindicate my judgment—in the methods by which we are in future to elect members of the European Parliament, which in my view, are a disgrace. The use of the powers that legitimately belong to this House were absolutely justified. One could argue that they should be strengthened in such issues where constitutional matters are to the fore. One or two noble Lords have already drawn attention to the constitutional role of the upper Chamber.
I have learnt another lesson from this House. Governments with large majorities can do foolish things, but this place lacks the authority and legitimacy to act as a genuine bar to them when they get things wrong. Why is that? Again and again, when we rejected that wretched Bill, the Government's public relations team, not my noble friends on the Front Bench, came forward with the explanation, "Oh, we dismissed it almost without looking at it because X number of hereditary Peers voted for it". The truth is that the authority of this House is not enhanced by hereditary Peers. It is very largely reduced by them. That is because public opinion, not only here but almost anywhere, does not now accept the legitimacy of the expression of opinion of a House dominated largely, as it is, by Members who are present simply on the basis of hereditary rights.
268
In my view, that is an almost fatal weakness which we must remedy, and this Bill does that. I believe genuinely that we shall have a stronger Chamber when that kind of remark can no longer be made about the measures which we turn down and return to another place. It will not be possible to say that a provision was turned down because the reserve army of Conservative backwoodsmen came suddenly to the fore and voted it down, but rather as a result of the considered judgment of Members of this House who are here on their own merit and in recognition of their achievements and the contribution they can make to the affairs of this House.
I find other advantages in the House as it will become which have not been touched on but which should not be ignored. The imbalance is important. I leave on one side entirely the 90 or so Peers who may remain. But when the bulk of the hereditary Peers cease to have the right to vote, the two main parties are virtually in balance. There are slightly more Conservative than Labour Peers, but that does not matter. It is almost level pegging.
Thirdly, the Cross-Bench Peers, whom I certainly value, will be able to play, as they already have, an extremely important role. But the Government must stick to the two commitments that they have made. The first is that they will not seek nor accept a position in which they have an overall majority of Peers in this House but will seek only parity with the Conservative opposition. The second is that there shall not be less than, for example, 25 per cent, of non-party Peers. If that were so, we should have erected a barrier against the kind of electoral tyranny which so many noble Lords genuinely fear. It really will be a barrier and it must be taken into account by all those who legislate in another place.
I want to return to the matter of the constitution. We have an almost non-controversial role as a revising Chamber. I believe in bicameral government and, therefore, that is very valuable. But in addition, we should be responsible for constitutional matters. As we abandon, one by one, our powers of government and the powers of our people to the European institutions, I can see a situation arising in which a majority in the House of Commons would virtually give away the rights of the British people unless it were checked. A non-elected Chamber alone has the power to stop that. The great constitutional questions which we face in the future can best be dealt with—and this is the irony and paradox of the matter—not by turning this into an elected Chamber, where there would simply be gridlock or madness in the sense of being merely a rubber stamp for the other Chamber, but rather by having a Chamber which, provided that we can reach agreement on how its Members should be appointed, will have a built-in independence which will provide a safeguard for the rights of our people such as they have never had before. I find that an attractive prospect and not one which is too difficult to achieve.
I look around this Chamber at the number of life Peers who have been appointed since Harold Macmillan had the wisdom to introduce that innovation 40 years ago. Who has been chosen? It is irrelevant to speak of "Tony's placemen" and we know it is. Seven or eight

269
very different Prime Ministers of considerable distinction have selected a number of people to serve in this House. Who are the people they have selected? They are mainly fellow parliamentarians from the other place and people of obvious distinction in terms of the public services which contribute so much to our lives—heads of the medical profession and the universities, and lawyers. We all know of the great range of people of real distinction. They have never been party people. Anyone who has had responsibility for a ministry knows about the recommendations which come up through the Civil Service—people of obvious merit and selection. A judgment must be made, but one would be very silly to refuse to pass on such recommendations to the Prime Minister as being something of which one approved. They are not placemen. There may be a handful of those, and we must find ways to prevent that.
One of the strongest components of this House, which will still exist as soon as the Bill becomes law, is the presence here of nearly 200 former Members of Parliament. They are men with considerable and relevant experience in the business of accountability and legislation. Their skills are not to be discarded or disparaged in any way.
The great secret is that once they are here and once they are appointed for life, whipping is a voluntary activity. It is; of course it is. I do not fear anything from my noble friends. Why should I? I have no ambitions. I have a good relationship with them. Those of us who take a Whip do it because we broadly agree with our party's policies. But when we do not agree, what can be done? We are as free as the Cross-Benchers in terms of how we vote and speak. That is a very strong feature of life-appointed Peers. Do not let anyone say in future that there should be a limit of five or 10 years because that would remove precisely that independence which all life Peers enjoy. I believe that I have said virtually everything I wanted to say—so I shall now sit down.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shore. I frequently find that I am in agreement with him these days. However, on this occasion, although I agreed with his premise, I believe that that premise could equally have led to another conclusion; namely, to support the hereditary element and not to support proposals which may result in the House being weaker than it is now.
When we had the two-day debate before, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said that he thought it was inconceivable that anyone could say anything new on this issue. We heard one remarkable, new thing today, and that was the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who gave us an encomium for the hereditary principle. We were told about the Cecils, we were told about Melbourne and even Lord Liverpool who is normally dismissed as a complete reactionary received a highly favourable mention. He told us how Lord Rosebery used to sing Rule Britannia. If he had reminded us about Lord Rosebery listening to the Eton
270
Boating Song on his death bed, we would have been calling out on this side, "Over here, over here, he's one of us".
The speech of the Lord Chancellor was an unusual combination of self-deprecation and heavy menace. He went on to say that the hereditary principle could not be justified. He said that it had survived, "because of the balance of forces". Then, without a hint of irony, he told us about proposals for 91 new ways of choosing hereditary Peers, a product, I may say, of the balance of forces—not much principle there.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was also rather realpolitik in her approach, but rather more overtly. In opening the debate, she told us why it was right to tackle this subject in two stages. In doing so, she also demonstrated why it is wrong to do it in two stages. She argued that it is necessary to do it in two stages, otherwise the measure would never get off the ground, and we would start disagreeing among ourselves and in the other place. After all, that is what happened last time. So we must simply get rid of the hereditary principle.
That is a very odd approach. It does not seem very sensible. If you have a problem to which you do not know the answer, first, you deal with the little bit to which you do know the answer and you are left with the bit to which you do not know the answer and you still have the problem.
In truth, the approach of the Government may tactically be right, from their point of view, but it is wrong in principle. The Lord Chancellor was not right when he said that the objections on this side were objections only of process. The objections are also objections of principle. It is wrong that something as important as a second Chamber of Parliament should be constituted on an interim basis. A country that has an interim constitution is a country that is at risk; a country that is exposed; a country that runs the danger of the use of arbitrary power.
It is odd that noble Lords on the other side have continually underlined that point. Endlessly, they have reminded us that the present composition of the House of Lords is the result of an interim solution. Having identified a wrong way of going about it, they now propose to take the course to which they objected in 1911. An interim House has to be justified, not by what it may do, but on its own merits. It has to be able to stand alone and to answer the test: can it be an effective second Chamber?
An interim House may last much longer than the Government intend. Dare I say, they may lose an election before the second stage takes place. The Joint Committee may take a long time after the Wakeham Commission. The Cabinet may find it difficult to come to an agreement. Back-Benchers may reject it, as they have rejected proposals before, and the Labour Party in the House of Commons is split between bicameralists and unicameralists. Of course, an interim solution may be followed by another interim solution.
Even if an interim House lasts a short period, it is important that it does its job properly because in the next few years it will have to deal with profoundly important

271
constitutional matters. It may have Bills to deal with proportional representation and the single currency. The single currency may be settled by referendum, but the arrangements for that referendum will be important constitutional matters that this House ought to consider very seriously.
An interim House has to be examined and judged against the test: will it be suitable as a permanent solution as well? Will removing the hereditary Peers and having a House that is appointed to reflect more closely the results of the general election, guarantee that the House will be more effective and more independent? I suggest that the proposals for an interim House will make this House more subordinate to the House of Commons. I am not sure that that is a good idea at a time of massive constitutional change which may confront this country.
In 1978 the late Lord Home, the former Prime Minister, in his report on the constitution said:
"The natural consequence for our institutions of the crude equation of Parliamentary Government with the right of a majority in the House of Commons to authorise a Government to do anything for which it claims a mandate, must be unicameral Government".
The real danger is that the Government are, in effect, giving us unicameral government by stealth and that will leave a House that will be less effective than at present.
Many noble Lords have emphasised the important role of the House as a revising Chamber. I believe that that misses the important point about the House. A revising Chamber is convenient. It is convenient for Government and convenient for civil servants. However, the House of Lords has an important role to play as a constitutional longstop. The need for a second Chamber is on constitutional issues. Like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, I am a House of Commons man. Even when measures go through the House of Commons, I believe that constitutional change should be slow and careful and should have the explicit consent of the people.
When this House uses its power to protect the constitution, it does no more than safeguard the birthright of the people. It is no more relevant that this House is unelected than that a High Court judge who has the power to set free, by habeas corpus, those unlawfully detained, is unelected.
So many aspects appear not to have been thought through in the Government's approach. On the Salisbury convention, the Labour Party says that it should continue after the House is reformed, but the Salisbury convention was introduced as an answer to the in-built Tory majority in the House. They never stop reminding us about the in-built Tory majority in the House. If the in-built majority in the House goes, so, in logic, must the Salisbury convention.
Other aspects of (he Bill appear incoherent when put in the context of overall constitutional change. The Government say that they are in favour of bicameralism. I very much doubt that. There are plenty of people in favour of one Chamber only in the Labour Party in the House of Commons. However, we will now have a constitution in which we have unicameralism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and bicameralism in England. What kind of commitment to bicameralism is that? What kind of coherence is that?
272
As we have bicameralism in some parts of the country and unicameralism in others it makes the idea of having an element elected in this House much more difficult because that would import into the House a new West Lothian question. Why should elected Scottish Peers sit in a second Chamber when there is no second Chamber for Scotland?
Finally, in a previous debate I asked the Government about the proposals in the White Paper on page 40, concerning the possible reduction in the powers of this House, for which I see no case. The answer was that this House is theoretically the coequal of the other House. It has powers that it cannot use. Would it not be better to have fewer powers that it could use more frequently? However, that gives the game away. The Government want this House to be less powerful. That is why I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, on this half-baked, ill-thought out measure.
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. As a result of the final revision of the speakers' list, I have been advanced up the list by 65 places, but the House will be genuinely pleased to hear that the very short speech that I had expected to make at two o'clock on Wednesday morning, I shall make now.
This is an unfortunate Bill which seeks to extinguish centuries of history, tradition and service without any clear idea of what to put in its place. There will be debate—and probably quite vigorous debate—on the Bill, but it will not be to preserve the hereditary peerage, but to try to ensure that the House goes forward stronger and more effective after this major constitutional change. If in the parliamentary context an elected Chamber is the only legitimate one, let us have a fully elected upper House.
I see that The Times has done a little research on the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, to the Lesotho Senate. I am an hereditary Scottish clan chief and am reliably informed by my noble friend Lady Mar that I am a tribal chief as well. So, in that I would probably be acceptable in the Lesotho Senate, may I please remain here as well?
4.11 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in his place because if he were not, I would not say what I am about to say. He was more than brutally frank this morning; he was positively menacing.
I agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said about the right of the Government to have their business at the end of the day, and so on. That is not in question. However, is it not the mark of an authoritarian administration to seek to foreclose on due scrutiny in Parliament? That is precisely what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is seeking to do. I speak only for myself; I never speak for my party; but I suppose that that is why it is proposed to weaken the second Chamber and to confer the process of Parliament to the sidelines. Here we speak, as I

273
thought that the noble and learned Lord would have known, upon our honour and according to our conscience, not at the behest of government, to give this Bill to the Government, a compromise stitched up by a handful of mandarins, members of the Privy Council, acting with total honour and integrity in the interests, as they saw it, of the body politic. We are not committed to that. It has no electoral legitimacy and assuredly we are not to be put under pressure of any kind to seek to make that contact.
I want to mention another matter about the dignity of Parliament. In the early hours of this morning—at about two o'clock—the Government's distaste for Parliament was expressed in a very unfortunate way. There was a continuous stream of mirth and so forth, carried on on the Benches opposite; mirthful chatter initiated by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the Front Bench to the overt manifestation of distaste and disrespect for the contributions being made from this side of the House. I was there; I resented it; I said nothing at the time, but I mention it now. I hope that when the Official Report is available, your Lordships will see that I have not misstated the situation. My earnest hope is that it will not happen ever again, and surely not this evening.
In addition to that, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indulged in a form of cross-examination at the end of the speeches of noble Lords on these Benches, putting two or three questions, and saying, "I want the answer. Yes or no? Where do you stand?" Well, to save the noble and learned Lord the trouble this evening, may I tell him and your Lordships where I stand?
First of all, I accept that Clause 1 of this Bill reflects the manifesto commitment. Secondly, for reasons given by many noble Lords on all sides of the House—I shall not weary your Lordships with the repetition—I put it that the current known state of public opinion has rejected that manifesto commitment. It is a monstrous disregard of the will of the people to invoke this stale manifesto commitment and a wanton, flagrant abuse of power to have resort to the Parliament Acts. If that is not clear enough, that is where I stand on that.
I accept that the extent of the entitlement to membership by succession of your Lordships' House must go. "By virtue of in Clause 1 of this Bill, as interpreted on page 8 of the White Paper (paragraphs 15 and 16) relates to Peers by succession. I do not accept that Peers of first creation, hereditary Peers, should go.
But it is not accepted that the "status quo" as to the composition of the membership of your Lordships' House should be excluded until the opinion of the people has been reaffirmed on a referendum, conducted after the report of the Royal Commission, as suggested by my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Carrington, the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and many others. "No stage one before stage two is right", said my noble friend Lord Cranborne. No guarantee that stage two can ever take place, as was suggested by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, can ever be given. One can say it, but it means nothing. There is just the hope, as expressed by the noble Lord,
274
Lord Callaghan, that in some form or another some agreement between the parties, acceptable to another place, may be made. That was guidance from, if I may say so with the greatest respect, a most experienced parliamentarian.
A hope expressed in the early hours of this morning by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in justification of stage one before stage two which, in fact, as I think my noble friend Lord Lamont just explained, justified the precise reverse.
The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said in his remarkable speech that you simply cannot control what is going to happen in the future. No assurance can be given of an effective safeguard, as my noble friend Lord Waddington put it. No satisfactory assurance may be given. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, put it, it is dangerous to accept any such assurance.
I take the view that enactment should not be opposed at Second Reading, but that implementation should be delayed pending the result of the referendum, for such is the wish of the people. The Weatherill amendment, made by the mandarins, albeit honourably, in the interests of the body politic, but under the cover of Privy Council secrecy, is not acceptable to me. The noble Lord was asking where I stand; I am saying that it is not acceptable to me. Whether it is acceptable to other noble Lords is a matter for them. Neither the people nor the rank and file in this House were consulted. The amendment lacks legitimacy, and the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and others in this debate, are well founded. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde conceded, if supported it would fall short of making a bad Bill better.
The purpose of this speech is two-fold. First, it is to support the principle of consultation and consensus as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in his reasoned amendment. Secondly, it is to put down a marker for a Back-Bench Conservative and Cross-Bench referendum amendment at Committee stage to delay implementation of the Bill until the opinion of the people has been expressed in a referendum conducted after the report of the Royal Commission.
It is not my intention to indulge in confrontation; it was the noble and learned Lord this morning who threw down the gauntlet to confront your Lordships' House. I am not prepared, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne put it, to be bushwhacked into any form of submission. That does not, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, justify the designation, if he ever sought to apply it to me, of a "rebel" Peer, at all events on this occasion.
There is no conflict between the Peers and the people; that battle was won years ago by the people, in 1911. No cause has since arisen to implement the preamble to that Act: said by some on the Benches opposite, to finish unfinished business. That business was finished years ago. The conflict today is between a self-styled people's government and the people, two-thirds of whom want to retain the status quo as the composition until they know what sort of reform is to be enacted; and only

275
2 per cent. of whom read the manifesto. It is a conflict as to implementation of a tenet of political dogma and such is the order of the business.
I conclude by saying that, in a situation such as this where the nation is substantially divided against the Government—and it is—it is the function of your Lordships' House to seek to provide some measure of constitutional protection and safeguard and so to delay this Bill by amendment. That is a function of your Lordships' House which, reading the report of the proceedings in another place, another place does not appear to recognise, and I am not at all sure whether it is recognised by this Government.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, let me be the first to pledge support for his proposed amendment calling for a referendum before the implementation takes place.
I was listening yesterday to the many splendid speeches from hereditary Peers, some with more than 30 years' service, and could not help thinking that despite some tardy pleasantries from the Front Bench, the Government have treated them at times with less respect and consideration than Ministers accord to members of Sinn Fein. How can the Government justify the calculated exclusion of a single hereditary Peer from the Royal Commission? It is not only a harsh affront to some of our most distinguished and dedicated Members, but it also deprives the commission of anyone with wide and deep experience of this place with its many-sided activities. It appears to pre-judge, even pre-empt the continuity of any significant independent hereditary element in a future House.
Many speeches have dwelt upon the central objection that this Bill will dismember this historic House without offering any alternative. What is implied is that its real or imagined shortcomings are so bad that absolutely anything would be better. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, talked about putting the cart before the horse; it is far worse than that. It is a fraudulent South Sea Bubble prospectus inviting support for purposes hereafter to be revealed. If the Government expect us to fall for such a pig in a poke, these new Labour innocents must think the rest of us, like themselves, were born or reborn yesterday.
We are supposed to be reassured, even anaesthetized by the appointment of a Royal Commission. My principal objection to that is based on previous attempts by governments to pass the buck for difficult decisions in this way. A lifetime's study of the role of committees of inquiry into the process of economic and social reform raises profound doubts about the suitability of the beast for such purposes. In our previous two-day debate a month ago, I ventured to quote a warning of A. P. Herbert 40 years back in an IEA paper, significantly entitled, Anything but Action. APH criticised the habit of Royal Commissions pursuing what he called the "nonsense of unanimity". He dramatised the danger by pointing out that the Gadarene swine were unanimous.
276
As a caution against expecting very much from the commissioners I want to recall briefly three past examples of their unanimous folly. First, there was the Radcliffe Commission on the monetary system appointed by Peter Thorneycroft before he resigned as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Its report in 1959 fatally reinforced the muddled, post-Keynesian consensus and unleashed the record Wilson-Heath inflation. My second example is the Robbins Report on higher education. Even my esteemed mentor, Lionel Robbins, privately confessed to downplaying contentious issues of cost to achieve unanimity. He later published his own second thoughts coming out in favour of student loans.
My third example of evading difficult issues by official committees is the momentous issue of trade union reform. I regard this as so important that I must risk offending at least two members of the Royal Commission. It is almost impossible now to recall the forgotten and unanimous inquiries into post-war industrial relations in the 1950s and 1960s. They were all barren; indeed, in hereditary Peers' terms, they were committees without surviving issue. If we had left it to committees of inquiry, there would have been no end to closed shops, no respite from oppressive picketing, no recourse against secondary action and no trade union ballots. When we come to think of it, there would then have been no New Labour Party and perhaps no noble Baronesses, Lady Jay or Lady Dean. To break the settled consensus on trade union immunities, it took the personal leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and the political courage of the Tory Party at its historic best, strongly supported by the Cross-Benches in this House, to carry the day. Leadership and courage are the missing elements in this paltry, petty Bill.
In last week's debate on the report of the Select Committee on financing the European Union, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, as chairman, informed the House that,
"at the beginning of the inquiry I told the committee that I did not regard unanimity as an end in itself and that if necessary I should be quite happy to see differences of opinion and minority views expressed in print".—[Official Report, 22/3/99; col. 1049.]
It is no personal disrespect to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, to surmise that he would be unlikely to address his colleagues in like spirit on this commission. It was a former junior Whip who once confided, "Once a Whip, always a Whip". Even without the promptings of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, for speed and consensus, all the instincts of such commissions are to strain for unanimity, avoid awkward issues and suppress conflicting judgments.
In conclusion, I should like to put forward the findings of my own private "focus group", which is comprised of all the London cabbies whom I have consulted over the past three months. They confirm that there is no revolutionary consensus in this country to break our envied, constitutional continuity to the point of ending a significant participation by independent hereditary Peers in the future House. By excluding a single hereditary Peer from the commission, making a former Chief Whip the chairman and urging consensus, the Government appear to have sought to foreclose

277
hereditary participation in the future. If I must choose, I prefer the present composition of this House. Accordingly, I shall support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cobbold and I will stand ready to vote against this Bill on any occasion that holds out the least prospect of success.
4.32 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross. He probably will not remember an occasion some 40 years ago when I had just become a Member of Parliament. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head in assent, so perhaps he does remember. He once took me aside and asked, "Patrick, tell me, are you going to go straight?" By that, as I understood it then, he meant was I going to do what I was told or would I use my head. My answer was that I would do the second. I mention this because, among the hundred or so speakers who we have heard so far this afternoon, and indeed last night, only four, as far as I know, have made the point that I wish to labour.
I am referring to the whole business of resisting and curbing the power of the Executive. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil put the point with the vigour and the colourful language that you would expect from him. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, touched on the same subject as did the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, with his usual elegance. Also, my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick took up the same point.
This is not an abstract question. Within the past week your Lordships' House was told by the Government that British servicemen had been committed to combat against a sovereign state. The relative Motion simply appeared without warning on the Order Paper. I only saw it in the morning and, to my surprise, it was a limp and lame Motion simply to "take note" of the fact and not to say yes or no. Apparently the Government also tabled a comparable Motion in the other place which, again, called for its assent rather than its judgment as to whether the action was right or wrong.
The whole issue that we have to address in this Second Reading debate is the problem of how best to control the Executive. We had an interesting debate a week ago initiated by my noble friend Lord Waddington. It was made pretty clear then that one aim which seems to motivate government actions these days is to sideline the influence of Parliament. There is all this business of preliminary leaks to the press about which Madame Speaker has protested more than once.
The key issue behind the Bill before us is: how is the Executive to be controlled and restrained by Parliament? I was always told years ago when I first entered the other place that when you speak in a Second Reading debate you can talk about what is in the Bill and what is not in the Bill. What is in the Bill is plain enough. It is: "off with their heads and may there be a big crowd to enjoy the spectacle". However, what is not in the Bill is any reference to the power of the Executive; nor, indeed, to the duty of Parliament to examine the Executive and, when necessary, to restrain it.
278
The White Paper, which we have already debated, made one sidelong reference to the single power which belongs to your Lordships' House; namely, the power to veto any amendment to what is now called the Quinquennial Act, which requires general elections every five years. There was just one reference to that in the early part of the White Paper, which was virtually negatived by a passage later on in the document.
The whole business of resisting the Executive is the business of Parliament. There is nothing in this Bill to suggest a reconstituted House of Lords should be anything else than an auditorium. Parliament is not meant to be an auditorium; it is meant to be a focus and has grown up over the years to be a focus of restraint of the Executive and, on occasions, is able to bring the Executive down.
The Government are loudly silent about your Lordships' absolute power to veto tampering with the Quinquennial Act. There is one reference to it in the interesting consultation paper which was circulated by my noble friend Lord Wakeham with regard to the work of his commission. The only part of the paper which is not interrogative is the statement that your Lordships do have this particular power which ultimately is the real guarantee of our civil rights.
If it were to happen that the Government of the day chose to try to push through an amendment to the Quinquennial Act in order to delay the next election, it might be that by then your Lordships' House had been reduced to such a state of impotence that it would be unable to resist. There is nothing in the White Paper to suggest that our power in that regard will be jealously safeguarded. Indeed, the very silence on that subject is one that fills me with anxiety. Having seen what took place last week when the Government committed British servicemen to fight in and over a sovereign country, whatever the sentimental or the do-gooder reasons may have been, the very fact that the Government launched that operation without first coming to Parliament was a frightening marker for what might happen in the future. A government who can do that can do almost anything.
That is the principal point that I wish to make in this debate, having waited some hours and having listened to a hundred speeches, only five of which touched on the point I make; namely, the curbing of the Executive. My conclusion should be quite obvious from what I have said: I shall support the amendment on the Order Paper.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, I have not participated in any of the previous debates on reform of the House but I have studied Hansard assiduously and in doing so have reached one conclusion; namely, that no clear idea has emerged of the role to be played by a second Chamber, its composition or the right method of selection. The future seems so confused and uncertain that I feel more than justified in amending my kinsman's couplet to read,
"Oh what a tangled web we weave When we tell hereditary peers to leave".

279
I do not hesitate to put much of the blame for the present situation onto the previous administration who appeared to do precisely nothing about reform during its tenure of office. It surely ought to have seen which way the political wind was blowing. I agree with the observation of my noble friend Lord Sandwich—which he made last month—that had it made more effort to prepare for change, it would have ensured greater consensus today. I deplore too—as several Conservatives have done—the spectacle of backwoodsmen being dragooned into steamroller legislation in the House. I think such action did harm both to the reputation and standing of the House and to the hereditary peerage in particular. The inertia and inactivity of the previous government have consequently handed the initiative to the present one.
What has been placed before us? A miserable measure that is nothing less than a piece of constitutional vandalism which seeks at a stroke to put an end to 700 years of history. Now we often hear that the hereditary peerage is somewhat anachronistic, archaic, antediluvian, intellectually indefensible, yet has worked quite well. Quite well? Let us not be unduly modest or mealy-mouthed about this point. The hereditary peerage has been one of the most important factors in our constitution which has ensured that for more than 300 years, excluding the troubles in Ireland, we have been blessed with stable government and have not had any of the upheavals that almost every other European state has experienced and, sadly, is experiencing today. This stability has been the envy of foreign countries. I do not believe that it should be put at risk for purely party political purposes.
Moreover, let us not forget that while democracy may be thought of as the least unsatisfactory form of government—I agree with the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Devon today that it should not be sacrosanct—it consists of counting heads instead of what is in them. Do not let us be too ready to discard the hereditary principle out of hand.
The Government have made much of their manifesto pledge to remove the speaking and voting rights of hereditary Peers, and of course they are absolutely entitled to do so. However, I find it interesting to note that a recent survey mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has revealed that a mere 2 per cent. of the population either comprehended or agreed with that course of action. I do not for one moment believe that such a commitment played any part in the Government being returned with a massive majority, nor do I believe that had there been no mention of this proposal in the manifesto, their majority would have been any smaller. We have read in the White Paper of a "clear appetite for change". If that is so, then I suggest that there is something seriously wrong with the digestive system!
However, I wish to be constructive, even if I consider that improvements, rather than radical reform, are required. I note that the Prime Minister in his introduction to the White Paper wrote,
"For too long, Britain has got by with a second Parliamentary chamber which is less good than it could be".
280
Therefore I will be more than happy to assist him in attaining that state of perfection, even if it means that he continues to walk on water. First, I think it is entirely wrong that one party should possess a built-in majority in the House, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in particular has repeatedly and rightly pointed out. I believe that that lessens the authority and lowers the standing of the House. Therefore I am content to go along with either the 1968 proposal of the noble Earl, Lord Longford—I hope that he continues to play more golf—or that of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, both of which I believe would do something to correct the present political imbalance while at the same time upholding the tradition and continuity of this House. Incidentally, what happened to the proposal put forward by my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster? It seems to have sunk without trace. It would have been interesting to have debated the Motion.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I mention one or two tangential points which I know I should have mentioned last month. I am afraid that I shall enter the submission that I was not present on that occasion because of indisposition. First, I should like to see more women in the House. If some part of the hereditary system is to be retained—as I hope it will be—I would wholeheartedly welcome a reform whereby the first born might inherit an hereditary peerage. Secondly, I am all for having more Members of the ethnic minorities in this House. However, the proposal that there should be a retirement age absolutely appals me. We would lose so much if we were to deprive ourselves of the advice and counsel of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale and the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury. I believe that sagacity often goes hand-in-hand with seniority.
Finally, I deplore the proposal to exclude hereditary Peers from using the facilities of this House. I recall in particular the most charming speech of my noble friend Lady Strange last month in which she remarked how wonderful it is to have inherited a peerage but at the same time it is one's duty to help others. I personally feel that in a politicised House there would be rather less sense of duty, although I realise that "duty" is a dirty word in certain circumstances today. This proposal is even more petty and spiteful when one realises that former Members of another place do not suffer this indignity. To me that is just another part of this wretched legislation which reeks of retribution and revenge. However, I shall certainly support my noble friend tomorrow morning.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I remember when I arrived here eight years ago my old Cambridge tutor, my noble friend Lord Bauer informed me that I now fitted Mark Twain's description of a mule, a creature, "without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity". I recognise that I have been an extremely privileged mule and I regard myself as every bit as fortunate and, on the test of electoral democracy, every bit as undeserving as any hereditary Peer.

281
Of course the House of Lords as it is presently constituted is an anachronism. To attempt to explain or justify its composition is not really possible. One might as well ask why Scotsmen wear kilts. The answer is that it is quite simply part of the fabric of Britain. I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Carrington said yesterday about the genesis of this Bill. It was, I believe, a gesture towards the radical Left by the newly elected Leader of the Labour Party who was determined to hold fast to economic Thatcherism. He felt that the easy cry of "away with the hereditaries" would be popular. I do not believe that when the Labour Party leadership drafted its manifesto commitment, in which the crucial words to me were,
"As an initial, self-contained reform, not dependent on further reform in the future",
it had much intention of embarking on further reform.
There are some worthwhile ingredients in the Government's Bill. In as far as people contemplate your Lordships' House at all—and I do not think they often do so—there is a perception that there are too many hereditary Peers, that too many of them are Tories, that too many are backwoodsmen and that a very few (the media always mention the same names) are self-evidently unfitted to be legislators. However, a clean sweep of all hereditary Peers is certainly not needed to deal with this problem of perception.
Unfortunately, my own party, particularly in the House of Commons, has taken a line which to me is strange. It says, "You cannot change anything until you change everything", or, "No stage one without stage two". I believe that that is a most unconservative way of thinking. Disappointingly the Government have felt unable to resist this Tory attempt to out-radical the radicals and they have appointed a Royal Commission, with, as many have already pointed out, an impossibly tight timetable. I have some confidence in the ability of my noble friend Lord Wakeham to deliver a sensible answer, but I might perhaps remind him of the words of another of my old tutors, Victor, Lord Rothschild, for whom I worked in the 1970s and who was later chairman of the Royal Commission on Gambling. He said:
"Royal Commissions, particularly if they are of the second quality, start their work in the belief that they will not be doing their job unless they recommend radical changes…They should be disabused of this idea".
The far better approach is to take the Government's raw proposal and to try to improve it. That is what I believe my noble friend Lord Cranborne did. I believe that the whole House owes a debt to him and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the very sensible compromise which they hammered out behind closed doors, which was endorsed by the Prime Minister, and is to be put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, as an amendment to the Bill.
I had thought that the amendment was a serious prospect. I continued to think so during the first half of the Lord Chancellor's speech. I noted that he said that the hereditaries who remained would have a greater authority because they had been elected. The Lord Chancellor said that the agreement was "binding in
282
honour". He then went on to lay down conditions as to how we may treat the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord is a distinguished lawyer, obviously his words were chosen very carefully. I suspect that the Government have decided that they cannot deliver their side of the agreement at an acceptable political cost—Lord Chancellor's phrase was, "it trespasses on the patience of the Labour Party". I think that the Government are trying to provoke this House into doing something that gives them the excuse for withdrawing this compromise proposal.
The House has a clear choice. It either passes the Bill in this Session—in which case the Weatherill amendment should and will apply; I hope it will apply—or it rejects it and the Bill then becomes law in its original form, with the help of the Parliament Act, but of course without the Weatherill amendment. In the first case, some hundred hereditaries survive ad interim. In the second case, all hereditaries survive for a further year, that is until the autumn of 2000, after which they all depart.
I have two specific proposals for further modification of the Bill, the first of which—despite the warning of the Lord Chancellor not to meddle—I shall attempt in Committee to incorporate into the Bill. I would propose that the 21 hereditary Peers who are members of the Privy Council and who would not otherwise be entitled to remain after the passage of the Bill should remain as Members of the House. The Privy Council derives from the Great Council of the King, whose origins go back into the mists of history. But at least as far back as 1540 there has been such formal recognition of those who have in this way reached prominence in our national life. It is interesting that there are at present only 21 of them, who your Lordships will be easily able to identify. A number of them do not, and probably would not, attend, so the net increase to the 91 would be small but immensely valuable and recognised generally by the country.
My second proposal is probably one for the Royal Commission to consider. It is that Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries should, while in office, be entitled to attend as Members of the House of Lords on the same basis as the Bishops do at present. I recognise that there is an anachronism in allowing them to vote, but it is no greater than that raised by the West Lothian question. I believe that this could add a most valuable dimension to certain debates in the House.
There are three ways of selecting legislators: by lot, by merit or by party. With party selection, of course, independence goes out of the window. Many Members of your Lordships' House were Members in another place. I was merely a journalist for 16 years observing it in action. When I started many Members of the House of Commons were genuine, free-thinking, sometimes eccentric and fully independent and who brought great experience to the House of Commons. Now there are all too few. Let me illustrate with four names of survivors from each side. From the Government Benches I would suggest Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner, Tony Banks and Ken Livingstone; from the Opposition Benches I would

283
suggest Paddy Ashdown, Michael Heseltine, Bill Cash and Ian Paisley. Of course some of them are the awkward squad, but the House is the richer for them.
Let us take also another crucially important area of expertise, defence. How many Members of the House of Commons now have any first-hand experience of the Armed Forces? And yet the House of Lords has enormous experience of this. That is very important.
Lord Curzon is supposed once to have said:
"No one should be Viceroy of India to whom that job is an honour'".
My noble friend Lord Malmesbury, said that Members of the House of Lords have "no ladder to climb". It is the same idea. The independence of thought and action of this House is one of its most remarkable features. The hereditaries make a special contribution to this, as indeed do life Peers. Nor should the Government forgo the value of the specialised Select Committees of the House of Lords which operate from within Parliament. Outside quangos and commissions are no substitute because they can be conveniently brushed aside. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, referred to A. P. Herbert. I remember that A. P. Herbert once said that the government are like an elderly hypochondriac—always asking for a second opinion but never taking it.
To me, it is axiomatic that the House of Commons must be supreme. That is why I reject an elected Chamber and, still more, a semi-elected Chamber. For all these reasons, I believe that after this Bill—provided it includes the Weatherill amendment—the House of Lords will be sustainable for a considerable length of time. I paid particular attention to the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, when he described the kind of timescale that will be necessary to consider any further reforms. I suspect that, given the problems the Government are having with this simple little Bill, the Government business managers will shudder at the prospect of the much more detailed legislation which could follow in a stage two reform.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about why Scotsmen wear kilts. Only a very small minority of Scotsmen wear kilts, but they present themselves as representing the vast majority of Scotsmen. That is precisely the problem we are discussing here in your Lordships' House. Only a very small minority of the people of this country are hereditary Peers but they present themselves as representing the vast majority. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, in what I thought was a particularly—I hesitate—disgraceful speech, based his research on questions asked of London taxicab drivers. Their answers are dictated by the size of the tip; they are not dictated by any study of the political issues of today. If you give them a pound, they will give you the answer that you want; if you give them only 50p they will give you abuse; and God help you if you walk out of the taxi without giving them anything at all. So we have listened to a speech, the research for which was based entirely on consulting London taxicab drivers.
284
I wish to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Callaghan. He has sat through almost the whole of this two-day debate. However, I am sorry to say that he left the Chamber just as I was about to refer to him. My noble friend mentioned two features that had imposed themselves on him during the course of the debate. I would add one more. I was struck forcefully by the total lack of confidence in the Conservative Party opposite that one day it will form the government. Every speech made from the Conservative Benches in this debate has been defeatist. There was nothing from the Opposition spokesman opening the debate today and nothing from the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde, opening the debate yesterday about what the Conservatives will do when next they come to power. They have given in. That is one of the features that has struck me forcefully during the course of the debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has provoked the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to intervene. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord had been in his place late last night he would have seen me intervene in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I am troubled by the noble Lord's speech. He said that the party in opposition has no ideas about the future of the House of Lords. The noble Lord's party was in opposition for 18 years and it has no ideas about the future of the House of Lords.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, never spoils a good quote by being accurate. I did not say that the noble Lord did not have any ideas about what his party should do. I said that it had lost all confidence. I understand that. I tell your Lordships' House this. If my party was led by William Hague I would give up hope of ever being in government again. So I do not blame the noble Lord's party for giving up hope of ever being in government again. That is one of the features that has struck me during the course of the debate.
Another feature has come through to me during the course of the debate. I thought to myself—and I said it to colleagues sitting next to me—that when my noble friend Lord Callaghan sat down after his speech we could have taken a vote then. Nothing that has been said by any side in the argument since 3.20 yesterday afternoon has altered the opinion of those who were for or against the Bill. Those who were in favour of the Bill at 3.20 yesterday afternoon are, at 5 o'clock today, still in favour of the Bill, and those like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, and I suspect 99 per cent. of the Cross-Benchers, are still against the Bill. I must say that all the sympathy I have had for the Cross-Benchers in the seven years that I have been here has been ever so slightly dissipated during the course of the debate. I am sounding that as a warning just in case they push me beyond the brink and I lose all my sympathy for them. So nothing has changed.

285
There have been some illustrious speakers before me. They have failed to persuade those who are against the Bill to change their views and be in favour of the Bill. There have been some illustrious speakers on the other side of the House who are against the Bill but they have failed to persuade those of us who are in favour of it to change our minds. I am not conceited enough to think that I can change views in the comments that I make today. Therefore, I shall confine myself to one final comment. This Bill is not about people. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his opening speech yesterday, reeled off a number of illustrious Members of your Lordships' House. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, my noble friend Lord Strabolgi and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, who now occupies the Woolsack. I yield second place to no one in my respect and my affection for all three who were mentioned yesterday. But the Bill is not about people. The Bill is about a system—a system that can no longer be sustained.
In my usual fashion I shall reduce the issue to a simplicity and give a fictitious example. In the mansion house in a rural village this morning, the Lord and Lady Brown welcomed the safe arrival of their first-born son. That first-born son is born to rule. In one of the cottages in the same village, Jimmy and Jessie Brown welcomed the safe arrival of their first-born son. The profound difference is that that son is born to be ruled. It is no longer possible to defend that system. I welcome my Government's commitment to honour their manifesto pledge to abolish that system and I give the Bill my full support.
5.6 p.m.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble neighbour the Earl of Devon on his maiden speech and, like other noble Lords, trust that in the few weeks that remain to us we will hear from him again.
This is a sad little Bill, a cheap little Bill, a cowardly little Bill, a runt of a Bill in the litter of government constitutional reform. The Government came to power with the largest majority in another place ever to have been enjoyed by any administration in the history of elections in this country. They were filled with the zeal of reform, pledged to transform the constitution and the institutions of the nation to take us into the new century, the new millennium under New Labour. They had a plan, or so they said, which would sweep away the outmoded fuddy-duddy systems of the past and replace them with the New Way. Like your Lordships, like the whole country, we waited with bated breath for the vision to be made flesh, for the dream to become reality, for the rhetoric to be given substance—and we are still waiting.
And this sorry little Bill is what your Lordships' House is being given. Sad, because the Government have missed the opportunity to look at the whole of our democratic system. The rhetoric and instincts of New Labour are to question the relevance of Parliament as a whole. Did not Mr. Peter Mandelson in a speech in Holland before the last election, pose the question as to
286
whether there were not better ways than our existing parliamentary democracy of conducting the relationship between the Executive and the electorate? There were howls of protest and hoots of derision, but it was, and is, a question worth asking. Is a system that evolved even before the invention of the steam locomotive still valid in the age of mass interactive communication? How sad that such an opportunity for serious analysis of both Houses of Parliament has been lost.
Cheap, because the Government by their own words have shown the Bill in its true light: petty, vindictive and time serving. Locked away as they are in a tight and giddy little circle delineated by Shepherds Bush, Nothing Hill, Islington, Greenwich and Oh so important Millbank, the Government became aware that out there in the Labour heartlands were millions still holding to an older, deeper and perhaps more genuine vision, and they would need to be placated. In their lust for power, New Labour has slaughtered the sacred cow of socialism and trampled on the beliefs and shibboleths of old Labour. So, to placate the dogs of the Left, they have thrown them the bone of the hereditary peerage.
The Bill is cowardly because the Government have turned back from the brink of the complete and revolutionary abolition of all titles, decorations and pomp and circumstance. Perhaps there is still an agenda to do just that, to reform every aspect of our society in the same way as history is being rewritten for our schools. Is there not an irony that, as we approach the two-thousandth birthday of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the history that we learned, divided into BC and AD, is becoming irrelevant. Is it to be replaced, I wonder, by BB and AB—before Blair and after Blair? In my youth, at that most hated and despicable of educational institutions, Eton College, I debated constitutional reform with such redoubtable figures as the late Willie Hamilton and the late Emrys Hughes, both of whom the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, will remember.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, Willie Hamilton is still alive.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, I refer to the former MP, Willie Hamilton.
While I may not have been entirely persuaded by their arguments, I was moved and impressed by the purity of their vision and the fire in their bellies.
I have been made painfully aware, not least by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, of the illegitimacy of my position as the last created hereditary Peer and the inadequacy of my contribution to your Lordships' House. I should therefore favour a totally elected upper House on a regional basis across the entire United Kingdom. Notwithstanding the warnings of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I shall be endeavouring to ensure that the Royal Commission comes to the same conclusion.
I shall not re-tread that well-worn path made by your Lordships for long hours through the legal and constitutional thickets that the Bill seeks to gloss over,

287
save to remind your Lordships that the devil is in the detail, and that the Government are beginning to learn that to sup with him you need a very long spoon.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Carew: My Lords, I, too, wish to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Devon on his excellent maiden speech. I have known my noble friend for many years. He and his family have done as much as anyone in contributing over many years towards the success of our British Three Day Event teams at both Olympic and international level.
While on the subject of a maiden speech, I made my mine some three and half years ago. In my opening remarks I advised the House of a quotation from a famous 17th century French duke, who said: "No man should speak longer than the period for which he can sustain the act of love". The successor speaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, kindly congratulated me on being able to speak for six minutes. With the ageing process, my speech today is destined to be shorter.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. The actual quotation is that, "No man should speak longer in public than he could make love in private". I suspect that the noble Lord is way beyond his time.
Lord Carew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention.
The Bill to end membership of this House by virtue of the hereditary peerage was indeed part of the Labour Party manifesto. But according to the polls, only 2 per cent. of the electorate were aware of the proposed Lords reform. Therefore, such a policy need not be cast in stone. Instead, Her Majesty's Government should be prepared to adopt a flexible attitude by listening to logical, sensible and responsible debate before embarking on such a drastic action.
I agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, when he talked about arithmetic being the problem. The problem that the Government have with this House is that of numbers when voting. The in-built Tory majority over Labour is indeed an unfair balance. This matter should have been addressed years ago and could have been corrected by the previous government simply by culling the Tory voting powers so as to ensure a fairer balance.
I congratulate and support the initiative of my noble friends Lord Weatherill and Lord Marsh and the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, together with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, which is now known as the Weatherill Amendment, whereby some 92 of the 750 hereditary Peers would remain in the transitional House until the second stage of reform. It is an amendment that the Government are minded to accept, but with strings attached.
But will the Weatherill amendment be acceptable to those hereditary Peers who are scheduled to depart under the proposed stage one? I ask that question because those of us who have served in Her Majesty's
288
Armed Forces will know that the first principle of 'war is selection and maintenance of the aim. Does the Weatherill amendment achieve that aim? The original aim of Tory Peers, and indeed many Cross-Bench Peers, was that everything should be dealt with in a single-stage reform at the end—a matter on which the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Grenfell, are both of the same opinion.
Flexibility is another principle of war. Despite the threatening words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I believe that Her Majesty's Government should consider an addition to the Weatherill Amendment whereby all hereditary Peers who are frequent attenders and play a significant role in this House should remain at least until full reform is agreed. That may mean the retention of 150 or 200 hereditary Peers instead of the 92, but at least all would have a proven track record. It must be remembered that hereditary Peers comprise more than 40 per cent. of frequent attenders. It is now proposed that over half of those should be removed under stage one.
I fully support the establishment of the Royal Commission, whose terms of reference include,
"to make recommendations on the method or combination of methods of composition required to constitute a Second Chamber fit for that role and those functions".
The Royal Commission will sure make an in-depth study of both the workings and the composition of this House, including the 700-year old role of hereditary Peers. Therefore it must be wrong for the Government to enact the proposed stage one before the Royal Commission has reported. That is to pre-empt its report.
In conclusion, entering the 21st century it is understandable that reform is on the agenda. I have no objection in principle to reform. But as the Government have no idea as to what that reform might be, especially in regard to the role, functions and powers of a future House of Lords, all those effective hereditary Peers should remain in place at least until full reform is achieved.
Should the Government insist on continuing with stage one, then I suggest that it should only be the infrequently attending and ineffective Peers who should depart. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Cobbold.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, for me this is a day of high drama, altering the longstanding constitution of our country by one of the shortest Bills on record. If there had been a desperate need for this Bill, I might have understood it.
The Government, despite their vast majority in the other place, hate dissent. Dissent is part of the stuff of our democracy and must be heard, as the previous government also learnt to their cost, and rightly so. Over the past months under this Government on methods of European election and student fees, that dissent has also been justifiably heard in this House.
The Salisbury doctrine has been observed during this Parliament. I have read our Library notes on Salisbury, and it seems to me that we have adhered sensibly to the

289
principles, so that the vast majority of the Government's legislation has been passed, whatever we on this side of the House think of it. That is right, as we are not an elected House. Our duty is to revise in reasonable ways, bearing in mind the views of the public and our own individual expertise and experience. I am in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, which is in no way a wrecking amendment.
Under pressure, the Government have at last set up a Royal Commission, which has put out for comment an extensive consultation paper on Lords reform. In my view, the commission has an almost impossible task to find an acceptable solution, especially in conjunction with a very tight timetable. I expect that in the end it will offer several options. I wish it well. But, historically, solutions acceptable to the wishes of both Houses have not been found, as many noble Lords have mentioned during the debate. It would have been better to find that acceptable solution before starting on this road of major constitutional change.
This House is much admired for its courtesy. We listen to each other, as standing orders oblige every noble Lord to adhere to that discipline, in contrast to the other place, where the Speaker often has to shout to maintain order. We are less partisan and, as the majority of people in this country are not very party political, they hear subjects debated more broadly and with good temper, with which they have sympathy. We are not paid, although our expenses should ensure that no one is out of pocket, so people of modest means can accept appointment to this House, and that broadens the experience of Members in debate.
We are not looking over our shoulders for re-election, although I am sure that most Members, on all sides, keep in touch with public opinion through their newspapers and television screens. We are, on appointment or inheritance, mostly over 50, so we are not looking for promotion, and that enables a disinterested view of complex problems.
If this House consists in future, either in part or in whole, of elected Members, those Members will have to be paid and have researchers and secretaries, which we willingly do without. The costs of the House will escalate enormously and, in my view, the present mode of business will deteriorate in inverse proportion to expenditure.
I often do not know whether a Peer is hereditary or a life Peer in this House—unless the person is very young, in which case he or she must be a hereditary Peer whose father, sadly, died young. Such Peers bring in a refreshing view of subjects of debate.
We are all treated equally, which is good. I believe that we all try to do our duty, waiving all excuses, in our different ways—some better than others. But we serve the House in many ways other than by attendance and speaking in debate—a point which was rather lost in a newspaper article today—such as by service on Select Committees and supporting worthy causes, both nationally and locally.
290
In general terms, as noble Lords have said, there are no three-line Whips, so one is free to vote against one's party or abstain when one's conscience speaks strongly. One of the many strengths of the House is the Cross-Benchers, both hereditary and life, whom no one can control, as the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, emphasised this morning. Over many years under the previous government, if the majority of Cross-Benchers joined both opposition parties and there were a few Tory rebels—and there usually were—the Government could not win. I thought that that was right and a most healthy brake on the Executive. Long may it continue, whichever party is in power.
As is well known, I am an engineer, and my reaction to this Bill is, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". This major and ill-thought-out reform is not good. In line with the Salisbury convention, I shall not vote against it, but I hope that during its passage through this House it will be substantially amended for the better. I shall respond to the Royal Commission's consultation paper and, as a Member of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, I shall hope to see more engineers, scientists and technologists among the professional men and women who will make up the future membership of a reformed House. As practical, informed and qualified people of experience, they will be of great value to the work of the House in the 21st century.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not follow her line, although naturally, during the course of my remarks, I shall pick up some of the points that she made.
The only hereditary Peer whom I meet regularly outside this building is the noble Duke, the Duke of Devonshire. I live in North Derbyshire, and I know what wonderful work he does there. I know that he was a distinguished Minister in this House and that he has a lot of parliamentary experience. He and I serve together, as president and vice-president respectively, of the Ashgate Hospice.
The last time that I saw the noble Duke, he said: "I'm being kicked out of the House of Lords, you know". I said: "I've heard about it. Are you bothered?" He said: "Not particularly. I shall continue to do all the charitable work with which I am involved at the moment. In fact, I shall probably have a little more time for it". He is not a passive charity worker; he works extremely hard and is greatly appreciated in North Derbyshire for the work that he does.
But a further comment the noble Duke made alarmed me. He said, "If I am kicked out of the House of Lords, I shall stand for election to the House of Commons", as he did in 1945 and 1950, as the Marquess of Hartington. I hope that he was joking, because that would place me in an extremely difficult position. The present Member of Parliament for Chesterfield was an hereditary Peer, the right honourable Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who escaped from this place as the result of a measure enacted under the government of Mr. Harold Macmillan.

291
I believe that the noble Duke was joking but, if he were to stand, I should find myself on his side rather than that of the present Member of Parliament for Chesterfield.
Most of the speeches from the Opposition Benches to which I have listened during the course of the debate have largely concentrated on what the transitional House should be and what recommendations the Royal Commission should bring forward. Very few speeches so far have focused on the need for the Bill and why it is required at this time. My noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, with his experience, concentrated on that matter.
I do not think it has been seriously disputed that the Government have a clear, precise and explicit mandate for the Bill. For decades people have argued for reform of this place, and virtually nothing has been done about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said, the tiny, unrepresentative minority of the population here in this House has the power to dominate. That has been the trouble. A noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said a few minutes ago that the arithmetic in this House has never been dealt with. That is true. I was a Member of the House of Commons during the 1960s when the last serious attempt to reform the House of Lords was made. That measure was blocked by Michael Foot, Enoch Powell and others. As a foot-soldier in those days, witnessing how that Bill had to be abandoned convinced me that reform of this House could only come about in stages. It is all very well to say that this or that contingency should be wrapped up in a big package to be laid before the House of Commons and House of Lords and that is the way to do it. Anybody who has had any experience of what has gone before knows that it cannot be done that way. If we did that we would be talking for ever and no change would take place. The removal from hereditary Peers of the right to sit and vote will pave the way for a more representative transitional House.
No one can deny that the balance between the political parties in this House is grotesquely distorted. I am aware that the Conservatives exercise restraint but from time to time someone blows the whistle. I do not know how they do it. I once heard the noble Lord, Lord Denham, say that the Conservatives had no such thing as a three-line whip. I am glad that the noble Lord confirms it, but I give way to him.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening. He must have misunderstood what I said. I never said that there was no such thing as a three-line whip.
Lord Varley: My Lords, I apologise, but I believe that it is extremely rare that a three-line whip is issued on the other side of the Chamber. The Conservatives do not have to do so because of their dominant position in this place. It is a bit like the story related yesterday by one of my noble friends. When Lord Wyatt of Weeford was made a life Peer the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, expressed surprise that he did not join the Conservative Benches. He said that did not need to do so. According to Lord Wyatt's diaries, he simply had a word with Bertie Denham. He did not want the whip to be sent to
292
him because that would have compromised his independence; he just had to pick up the telephone when required.
We all know on this side of the House that when necessary the Conservatives can at any time defeat the Government or Opposition in this House. During the past 20 years when there were four successive Conservative governments they did nothing to redress the imbalance or unfairness. It is no use the Opposition Front Bench saying that during our 18 years in opposition we should have brought forward something. We have brought something forward in the form of this Bill. Other things will follow. During the period when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Prime Minister she added to the distortion of the representation in this place. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite agreed with what she did at that time. When life Peers were appointed she always ensured that there were fewer supporters of other political parties than those in her own party. The arithmetical distortion by virtue of the hereditary peerage in this House cannot be defended. I have not heard anyone here who really defends it. So far in this debate I have not heard the answer to that problem.
The Conservatives have been quite content to remain in control. The Official Opposition in this House needs to get only about one-third of its supporters into the voting Lobby to wipe out the entire Labour Party representation. That is why the ratio of government defeats is so high during the first two years of the Labour Government compared with any comparable period when the Conservatives were in office. Irrespective of the will of the people, the Conservatives have been in power in this House of Parliament for most of this century. That is why the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, is so bizarre. For example, to include in his amendment "for party political advantage" is absolutely ridiculous, and I believe that most people regard it as such.
Faced with this Bill the Opposition now claim that they have been reformers all the way. I do not believe a word of it. I have no doubt that during what will be a long Committee stage we will hear a lot more about the reforming fervour. This new enthusiasm for reform will be predicated on the basis that this Bill is not the right one. The message that goes out is that they are all in favour of reform but not by this particular method. The only way to reform this House is to do it on a step-by-step basis. First, following enactment of this Bill there should be a transitional House that will not be dominated by a single political party. Secondly, the new appointments system will ensure that the Prime Minister does not have control over appointments to this House or he will give up more control than any of his predecessors. The Royal Commission consists of experienced people with qualities and qualifications to make realistic recommendations for Parliament to consider in future. The hereditary peerage is unrepresentative, although I pay tribute to everything that it has achieved in the past. This Bill will bring about a welcome and long-overdue reform of Parliament. It is

293
an essential prerequisite to the further changes that are required. When it goes through it will enhance and take forward our democracy.
5.36 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Varley, with great interest and some trepidation, as I have to follow such a powerful contribution. My participation in your Lordships' House over the years that I have been a Member has been confined mainly to the subject of pensions. That is a somewhat dry and technical, but important subject. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, reminded us today, this is a debate full of emotion and strongly held views by both life Peers and hereditary Peers. I believe that it is all the stronger for that. I have enjoyed listening to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I apologise. I see the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, in his place. I take on the noble Lord with great trepidation, but I shall have a word on the kilt. My son who is a Scot wears a kilt. I believe that he is in the majority in that he likes beating the English. That is perhaps not a joke for your Lordships' House given Scottish devolution.
We are living through a period of constitutional change and potential turmoil in future years. We still have not settled the issue of Europe. We still have debates on the supremacy of the Commons in regard to Europe and on the power of the Executive, and we have concerns about that power. We have also considered Scottish and Welsh devolution. It is now our turn to be modernised. What does the future hold? Perhaps we should wait and see. But the words of the Scottish nationalist leader yesterday does not fill me with any optimism for the future constitutional unity of this country.
As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said in his admirable maiden speech, opposition to this Bill does not necessarily mean opposition to the idea of reform. I make no apologies for the fact that it is the process of this reform to which I object. Tension between the House of Commons and the House of Lords is not new. I shall tell noble Lords a little about the life of John Hampden, my illustrious forebear, on the basis that noble Lords will at least go away knowing something about my ancestor even if I do not add very much to the debate. John Hampden was sometimes known as the Patriot and, in the words of the Earl of Clarendon, the Father of People. He said in response to a cry for help from Archbishop John Williams of York that he was unable to assist because of,
"a general tenderness between the House of Commons and the House of Lords".
I mention John Hampden because he was a natural Leader of the House of Commons and (I dare to say) the Houses of Parliament at the time of our last despotic ruler Charles I. He was, in the words of Professor John Adair, "a brainy leader". I pause for words in awe and wonderment as I consider my colleagues in the other place. John Hampden lived and died in the cause of limiting the power of the Executive. The greatest danger to democracy in this country is not the future or
294
otherwise of hereditary Peers, which I think will be but a passing phase in our lives, but the ever-increasing power of the Executive, particularly in alliance with the fourth estate—the press.
In 1656, James Harrington published a book, The Commonwealth of Oceania, in which he observed that government by a single Chamber was dangerous:
"A Council without balance is not a Commonwealth but an oligarchy".
That is an interesting observation, given today's political scene.
Professor John Adair, on his own admission, is sometimes in the business of quoting the "What if?" question. If John Hampden were alive today, what would he think about the Bill? Like me and many of your Lordships, he would regard it as a high-risk strategy. I do not believe that there is any real vision or strategy but he would, like me, be broadly in favour of reform. What reform? Reform has never taken place because there is no consensus on what shape reform should be. That is the question we must all consider.
Reform preceded by what I consider to be a neutered Royal Commission, given its limited powers of remit, will in all likelihood give us the worst of all worlds. We may end up with a partly nominated Chamber, a partly elected Chamber or whatever, coming from the regions. The noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, said that an elected or partly elected Chamber—I cannot remember which he mentioned—would have greater credibility or legitimacy than your Lordships' House currently. That has to be proved. I would be extraordinarily pessimistic, given the way that I have seen the European Commission behave in the past few weeks. In that regard, the late Lord Benson, who pursued the fraud issue on your Lordships' behalf, has been truly vindicated.
Do we move to an elected Chamber, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, or back to a unicameral Chamber, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside? While I might support the former, I recognise the dangers. We only need look back to 1975, when there was a constitutional crisis in Australia, to see the dangers of an elected two-Chamber system. With a unicameral Chamber, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of oligarchies.
I believe that the process we are going through is wrong but tactically it is probably right. By this method, the Government will achieve what they want—the removal of the hereditary system and the ability to "modernise" the House. The process is wrong because we have no idea or guarantee of what will follow. There is no consensus in the Labour Party in the other place of what the future House should be. Or even whether one should exist. Without consensus in the other place, I fear for the future here.
Despite the failures of the past, the right process would have been to appoint a Royal Commission immediately after the Labour Party's huge election win, give it a wide remit—not the narrow one it has at the moment—then debate the issue fully in the House.

295
The Government would then be amply placed to take forward the Royal Commission's views when they were known.
I will leave the last word to Elizabeth Hampden, who was John Hampden 's mother. In 1620 she wrote:
"If ever my son will seek for him honours, tell him now to come, for here are multitudes of Lords a making".
John Hampden did not accept or buy a Viscountcy, which was available to him to do. But we do live in a time of a multitude of Lords a making. I shall refer their mothers to 10 Downing Street, which Elizabeth Hampden would find entirely fitting—as she gave birth to John Hampden at 10 Downing Street.
5.44 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that was an historical tour de force, and I am terribly jealous that I cannot follow it. I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his maiden speech. It is awfully good being one of the oldest peerages in England—I use the word advisedly—to sneak in under the wire just before the guillotine falls. I congratulate him on that. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, is absolutely right about the imbalance. The difficulty is that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, sits on the Opposition Front Bench; and the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, takes the Conservative Whip—as do all the grandchildren and children of those Liberal plutocrats who signed cheques to Lloyd George's Liberal Party fund with new names, because they did not trust him to deliver. So they signed their cheques with their peerage names. That is the thought.
It is unfortunate also that the real divide came with Gladstonian home rule, when the old Whigs more or less became Liberal Unionists and the balance was seriously undermined.
I have always been a reformer. I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in 1979 asking whether we could please reform tine House of Lords—because if we did not do so, the Labour Party would do so in a silly way. The noble Baroness said that she would not. I am having quite immense fun saying, "I told you so". Nothing on earth is more pleasant than saying, "I told you so".
The noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, referred to the danger of the Australian situation, but I suggest that is exactly the situation for which we should be asking. The Macaulay Whig constitution worked beautifully. The House of Representatives in Australia was in deadlock. The Upper House said no. As Dycey said in the 19th century, the Upper House only rejected a government measure when it wanted to force an election. The Governor-General dissolved Parliament and forced an election. That is what balanced Whig constitutions are supposed to do. We should surely be aiming at that.
The Government have had the attitude to constitutional reform that is cross-Islington, cross-Voltaire. It is incredibly intelligent and lacking in any common sense whatsoever. One only has to look at the muddle into which devolution is heading. When a system of constitutional government is enthusiastically backed by those eminent people, my noble friend
296
Lord Archer and the honourable Member for Brent, East, Mr. Livingstone, I am not sure that I go along with them.
Where are we? It seems that there is miles more agreement below the surface than appears at first reading. It was hard to drive a sliver between what is wanted by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington. Lord Callaghan of Cardiff and the noble Viscount. Lord Cranborne. I have a feeling that we are all going in the same direction. I do not know whether or not we will get there because this problem has gone on for years and years.
Political courage is needed. If Government Peers can show political courage and say, "We will listen constructively to reformers", then I see no reason for my being here just because my forbears got plastered with George IV. I love it and I have even tried to contribute. Occasionally, I have even tried to take the mickey out of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. If I am one of those elected, I hope that I shall be able to say to her that I am elected and she is not. I shall rejoice quite enormously in being able to say that. I want reform to work. So I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt even though I wish that they were not coming from here on the Cromwell aspect.
I hope that I shall have the following undertaking from the Government: that the Lords will continue to be a House of the powerful and influential, not a House of the commonality. That is for the Commons. We are not, and never have been, a House of the people; so do not let us pretend to be that. Let us be the House of the influential. As I have said previously in your Lordships' House, I no longer represent power. My forebear spent 20 per cent. of the annual army budget on his house. I am redoing my kitchen and I am pushed to afford half a corporal's wage on it.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, I do not like to disagree with my noble friend, but I consider that some of us do come from common stock. My father came from good English yeoman stock. We are not all high—falutin aristocrats as my noble friend implied.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, that is exactly the point I make. The commonality and yeomanry should be represented in the Commons. This House is a representative of power and always has been. Do not let us kid ourselves that it is any different. That is why I want, and have always wanted, the House reformed. That is why I argue that the hereditary principle has had its day. As my last duty to your Lordships' House, I wish to make sure that what comes after me is better.
I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this question. I shall put down an amendment. If the Prime Minister were to say, "I will make the following people Peers for their lifetime. I will ask the following groups for their recommendation; and these will all be public", we should then have representatives of interest and power in this House. It is a different House from the House of Commons. That is the important point. If we were to go down that route, the patronage would be regulated and open. It is not hidden.

297
I concede that in some ways the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, abused the system. She was helped by the fact that the Labour Party said for quite a long time that it would not recommend people for honours. Noble Lords may shake their heads, but that is true. Perhaps they were under-the-wire sneakers; I do not know. But I know that in the 1970s and 1980s the Labour Party decided not to put forward people for political honours.
My last point relates to the Weatherill amendment. There are many on my own side for whom I may not wish to vote. There are quite a few on the other side for whom I should like to vote. Is it not possible to have a method whereby Peers who are respected by their political opponents can be encouraged to stay so that I do not have to vote only for Conservatives. Because I am here on my honour, the old principle, and because the Whip lies remarkably lightly on my shoulder, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Varley, that I have voted against two of the three-line Whips that we have had since 1971. I say with a certain amount of arrogance that I believe that I was right on all occasions. If it were possible to have the improvements to the Bill that I offer in a constructive spirit, I should not object quite so much to the fact that it has arrived here through half-hearted and slapdash thinking.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, as the grandson of a Lancashire soap manufacturer, I am not sure how I fit into the recent interventions in our debate. Some of the debates on reform of the House of Lords have been great fun. We have enjoyed the past half hour of our debate today. Others have been somewhat tedious. However, they have been going on for a very long time. Since last October, this is the third two day debate that we have had on the Government's proposal to reform the House of Lords. If noble Lords take into account the fact that the second day of Debate on the Queen's Speech was almost entirely devoted to constitutional reforms, this is the fourth full debate that your Lordships have had on our reform.
That is not all. In the Statement on the White Paper on 20th January of this year, in the questions which were raised, we again considered reforms of your Lordships' House. Therefore this Bill is the fifth occasion since last October when we have considered reform of the House of Lords. By my calculations, if this debate ends at 3.15 tomorrow morning, if not later, there will have been no less than 434 speeches on the subject in your Lordships' House since last October, and in excess of 60 hours of debate.
Noble Lords will see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is sitting on the Front Bench, as are the Leader and Deputy Leader. The Deputy Leader, my noble friend Lord Williams, has hardly left the red cushions during the long debates on reforms. My noble and learned friend and my noble friends have other things to do. We shall reach a point where they will be unable to participate in government matters because they are so involved in debates on this subject. My Lords, we must move on.
298
It is of course painful for hereditary Peers to leave. Over the past 27 years I have had the tremendous honour and pleasure of being in this House. Of course, it is wrenching to witness the reconstitution of the House. The familiar faces and figures of us hereditary Peers will disappear from this Chamber, the corridors and rooms at this end of the Palace of Westminster. I believe that we shall be missed. But that is not a reason for not moving on.
I was particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord paid tribute in his opening speech to the role of the House. I was glad that my noble friend the Leader of the House paid a personal tribute to the role of hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House. This Government are not being vindictive. I have to say that because comments have been made in the debate about spite, the resurrection of class hatred, and so forth. That is not the role that my party is playing in the reforms which I support. If one wants evidence of that, it lies in the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who said that although we are only bound in terms of honour the Government are willing to co-operate over the Weatherill amendment. That will have the result of enabling the hereditary Peers to be phased out of the House over a longer period and in a more dignified way.
I do not intend to go again into the arguments about the principle of hereditary Peers, nor about stage one or stage two reforms. They have been fully argued. I believe that there should now be two objectives before us. The first is to make the transitional stage work. I hope, therefore, that my noble friends on the Front Bench will be willing to consider some limited amendments during the passage of the Bill. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made a good point when he suggested that there should be a right for life Peers to be able either to retire or resign their peerages. Those are sensible ideas that we should be examining during the passage of the Bill. Secondly, we should be pressing on with the overall objective of the Royal Commission considerations and going in to the second stage of our reform.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I understand that he intends to press it to a Division at the end of the debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who said today that it was an entirely pointless exercise. Indeed, the amendment contains some strange propositions. First, it mentions changing the historical composition of the House of Lords for party political advantage. The noble Lord, Lord Varley, took up that point. My party is not doing that. My party does not seek to replace the majority in this House by taking over the majority position of the Conservative Party. All it seeks is a parity between the political parties. During our debates, that has been made plain time and again by the Front Bench speakers from my party.
Secondly, the noble Lord's amendment suggests that the process is taking place without consultation or consensus. I recognise the difficulty in achieving consensus, but it is hardly without consultation. We are well into the fiftieth hour of debate on the matter. It is more than that; my party has taken the first step and

299
consulted the people. That is why the proposal was contained in our manifesto. To speak of consultation only within this House is inward looking; we should be talking also about consultations outside the House—
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may point out that the consultation or consensus was on the role and composition of the successor House. That is the position before us.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but his amendment does not define what he has just described. I urge him that to press the amendment at the end of the debate is a pointless exercise. I hope that he will not take up the time of your Lordships' House and all the officers and officials who support us by pressing the amendment and keeping us here another 20 or 30 minutes in the early hours of tomorrow morning. I hope that he will withdraw it.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, if there ever were a Bill covered by the Salisbury Convention as it has developed and been understood since 1945, it is surely this Bill. The Government's intention regarding the hereditary membership of your Lordships' House was set out in the clearest terms in the Labour Party's last election manifesto. Therefore, the Bill should surely be allowed a Second Reading. However, I agree with those who have said that from the start the Government should have tried to seek consensus, as Harold Wilson did in 1968. Therefore, for that reason if for no other, I intend to support the noble Lord's amendment.
It is hardly, under any perspective, a surprise that another attempt is being made to remove the Conservative domination of your Lordships' House by removing the hereditary Peers. Since the Wilson government was confounded in another place by this question in 1969, the issue has awaited the arrival to power of a Labour government with a sufficient majority in another place and the willingness to devote the energy to carrying out the policy. In this case, the zeal has been supplied by the Prime Minister's recognition that this was about the only item of old Labour policy which his Government could carry out without ruining the country. To him, therefore, it acquired a unique value in serving to unite his party harmlessly. It also, as my noble friend Lord Hesketh pointed out, contributed to replacing socialism with constitution-mongering, for want of a better term, as a raison d'être for a Labour government.
I took part in the debate in your Lordships' House in November 1968 on the Wilson proposals and voted as part of the 5–1 overall majority (a 3–1 majority of hereditary Peers) in favour of accepting them. Although at that time I sat on the Benches below me, my views on this subject have not changed. If those proposals had gone through, this House would by now be well on the way to seeing the last of the hereditary Peers. So I accepted long ago the case for drastically reducing and even eliminating over time the hereditary element in this House.
300
My title is a Scottish one. For a time my father was an elected representative Peer for Scotland, as had one of my ancestors been for 12 years in the 19th century. Under that system, which lasted for more than 250 years, Scottish Peers elected 16 of their number to sit in this House for the duration of each Parliament. Re-election was common, and there are Members of this House today whose fathers sat here for more than 40 years.
The purpose of that system had been to limit the influx of Scottish Peers into this House following the Act of Union in 1707. The same reason of limiting numbers went on to produce a different version of election for Irish Peers following the Union with Ireland in 1800. Irish Peers elected 28 of their number for life; so every election save the first was in effect a by-election which was conducted postally.
It would not be so very different in principle now to seek to reduce the number of hereditary Peers in your Lordships' House by introducing a similar system of election. So I will support the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment, or an improved version of it. I believe that the Government have been astute, strategically from the point of view of their long-term reputation in the country as well as tactically from the point of view of disarming opposition in your Lordships' House, in so quickly agreeing to a compromise on this issue.
However, with one grievance being dealt with, and more than 80 years having been taken in doing so, what happens next? Having extremely belatedly set up a Royal Commission, the Government are now expecting it to report in a rush. Last week, the Royal Commission issued a consultation paper containing a huge range of questions. I counted more than 120, many both profound and complex, to which it is inviting answers from all and sundry over the summer before making its own recommendations by the end of the year.
I do not see how it can possibly do justice to that task as it evidently interprets it. In fact, it would not at all surprise me if the Royal Commission itself were to make further transitional proposals, with full reform postponed for another day. Indeed, there would be good reasons for doing that. In the first place, we have our old friend, pragmatism. Having remedied the long-standing grievance, why do anything else? Why anticipate the next problem? Why not wait and see how the House of life Peers works out?
My noble friend Lord Carrington, in the powerful case he put yesterday for an elected Chamber, may well prove to be right that a nominated House will continue to be haunted by the stigma of illegitimacy vis-à-vis the House of Commons. But at least one feature will be different in the new House; there will not be the same built-in majority for the Conservatives. So why not let us see what difference that makes.
Incidentally, even in the very long term, I do not see how you resolve the problem that an elected House will challenge the House of Commons, but that anything else is less legitimate. If you want to maintain the supremacy of another place, and if you expect the two Houses to share the same tasks, or some of the same tasks, as they

301
do at present, you have to have a less legitimate second Chamber. You just want one that is not embarrassingly illegitimate.
Then is it the right point in time to start major reform of this House, with constitutional movement underway in Scotland and Wales and in Europe? And is it the right point in the sequence? Should not reform of Parliament not start with the House of Commons? Neither do I see the Government having the stomach for a second, bruising round of House of Lords reform, this time with many life Peers as well as some in the other place lined up against them. What would be the Government's interest in doing that?
So I have difficulty in agreeing with my noble friend Lord Hesketh this afternoon who said that the destination is democracy, at any rate for the foreseeable future. For the time being at least I believe that the life Peers will be reprieved. But the Royal Commission is bound to propose something to justify its existence. I only hope that what it proposes manages to be neither divisive nor expensive. But even those two purely negative objectives will not be easy to achieve.
I have less difficulty contemplating the prospect of a House composed overwhelmingly of life Peers than do some of my colleagues. The wise, experienced and distinguished of the nation, appointed for life, without a retiring age, provide for me an acceptable foundation for a second Chamber and their presence here, even if only occasional, represents a constructive achievement of the past 40 years. I also believe that a House of nominated life Peers is likely to be more independent and less parochial than one indirectly elected by special interests.
Of course, there is the chore of Bill revision to be done, and party support to be provided. This House must also contain those willing and able to undertake such drudgery on both the Front and Back Benches. Many of these come, and will continue to come, from another place. In that context I welcome the idea of a new appointments commission to nominate Cross-Bench Peers and vet the suitability of all appointments as a protection against the development of excessive Prime Ministerial patronage in this regard. And if the House threatens to become too large, after successive efforts at balancing the parties have ratcheted up the numbers, why not an election from among the life Peers, conducted on a party basis? In any case, I do not believe that this Bill in its final form should have any part of it based on the assumption that there will be further legislation. If the Bill contains the Weatherill amendment, or a version of it, there must surely be a provision for by elections.
With the departure of the hereditary Peers there will be gaps to fill and not just those that Members opposite may long to see on these Benches. I believe that I should take this opportunity to refer to one gap in particular, about which I have some experience. On page 16 of the White Paper there is set out what is thought to be the four broadly defined functions of your Lordships' House. The third of these is described as being the undertaking of specialist investigation through the Select Committees of this House. The same committees carry out scrutiny of European Union legislation, which
302
some have seen as an area that should be expanded as the European Union continues to acquire added importance over our lives. Even the Royal Commission consultation document asks, "Should the role of specialist investigations by Select Committees be maintained? Could it be expanded?"
But this committee system is today dependent on hereditary Peers—in the case of the sub-committee I chair—for over half its membership. I may add that they come from all parts of the House. They, no less than their life Peer colleagues, put in a very great deal of work and time on those committees. In my experience the attendance rate is extremely high. The Government will have to face up to the fact that the whole committee system will take a huge blow with the departure of the hereditary Peers. I should like to hear from the Minister the Government's thoughts on that question.
The departure of the hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House, as others have noted, is a hugely significant event. A page will be turned on 700 years of history. It is the hereditary Peers that have managed to maintain and hand on intact to their life Peer successors the style, manners and self restraint of the old British Parliamentary tradition which was lost in another place during the Home Rule struggle—to the detriment, in my view, of the position of another place in public esteem felt even today, perhaps especially felt today. Hereditary Peers can feel proud of this achievement. It is only fitting and precautionary that a strong contingent should survive into the next phase.
As this debate proceeds there seems to have been a growing recognition on the Front Benches opposite of the passions that this Bill arouses on this side of the House and among hereditary Peers in another parts of the House. I welcome that, but it reveals a contempt for history to have included no hereditary Peer on the Royal Commission.
The British constitution is a living organism which has for centuries won admiration, even from Britain's enemies. I believe it was Napoleon who once said,
"If the English Constitution were destroyed, the civilisation of the world would be shaken to its foundations".
The constitution needs to be treated with respect, and not have ill-considered, so-called reforms thrust upon it by government either seeking party advantage or acting first and thinking later, whether in the name of modernisation or of any other slogan. We are obliged to give this Bill a Second Reading, but we are equally obliged to scrutinise it thoroughly and, where necessary, amend it despite any threats from the Government during its later stages.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will have appreciated the reasoned way in which the noble Lord, Lord Reay, presented his case, but passion as regards this issue is not to be found only on one side of the argument. In a sense, we are all hereditaries in that we have an inheritance. I was one who sat on his father's knee who had lived in the same town and worked alongside Aneurin Bevan. His mother's brother had been chair of the miners' lodge

303
which inducted Aneurin Bevan into politics. Therefore, I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that I have a certain inheritance of which I am proud. It might be called in that hackneyed term a certain aristocracy of labour. I am quite sire that my father would have been surprised to appreciate the amount of support that has come from the other side of the House as regards the argument. Sometimes it has been expressed in less than entirely serious terns. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, presented the case with some force. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, made an important contribution to our debate.
Perhaps I may emphasise one obvious point. Much has been made of the fact that the Front Bench Ministers in this House and the Prime Minister are acting against the dictates of some rather rabid political creatures in other parts of the Palace of Westminster and in the other place. Perhaps I may do my best on this occasion by offering some representation of their position. I am newly minted as a Member of this House who came just after the last election because of boundary changes, I hasten to add, rather than because of political defeat.
I emphasise that I have not met anyone in my party in the other place, and neither have I met anyone in this House who, whatever their shades of perspective on a whole range of issues, does not subscribe to the obvious proposition that in this modern age there is no defence of the hereditary principle. It is not a question of dogma but of political principle against a background of what other modern, democratic nation has any concept of the hereditary principle playing a full part in its legislation. England, which is the mother of parliaments, has never been able to export to others the particular feature of inheritance.
In a sense the political parties have long since given up on the issue. The Liberals fought the issue in 1911 and they have been principled on that position for the whole of this century. My own party took the argument further in 1948 which significantly changed in the Parliament Act of that time the relationship between the two Houses. Not even the Conservative Party in the other place has stayed true to the concept of the hereditary principle. I take the most obvious point that it was a Conservative government which introduced life peerages. Conservative Prime Ministers have promoted to this House life Peers and not many hereditaries. The hereditary Peerage system has been used with very great restraint indeed. When people have been elevated to this House it has been as life Peers because Conservative Prime Ministers have not believed that the hereditary principle would stand the test of public acceptability.
If one looks at the debates on this Bill in the Commons in the past couple of months, it is quite clear that the Conservative Front Bench is not prepared to sustain the argument that the hereditary principle should continue. Nor has there been any assertion from the Front Bench here that, should this legislation become the law of the land, any future Conservative administration will set out to dismantle it and restore the hereditary principle in this House.
We should recognise that this House has many virtues. I have recognised certain aspects of that in terms of the courtesy of the debates and the way in which we
304
express ourselves on issues. But we should not thereby underestimate the significance of those issues to the country outside. We are not a cosy club debating issues to ourselves; we are part of the legislature of our nation. It has been attested that one of the great dangers may be that the Labour Party is now proposing to seek to create a majority in the Upper House to buttress its overwhelmingly majority in the Lower House. But we should recognise that it is quite clear that that is not the intention.
It has been indicated clearly that the Government intend to create a number of life Peers to ensure that there is parity with the Conservative Party. What on earth is wrong with that? It may be suggested that a majority in both Houses may have appalling consequences for the British constitution. I should point out that for most of the twentieth century, that has been the case—a majority Conservative administration in the Commons buttressed by an overwhelming Conservative majority in this House.
That is why we cannot take seriously the viewpoint that this House has been a massive guardian of the peoples' liberties. What about peoples' liberties in terms of the very significant change in the 1980s as regards the relationship between central and local government? That was epitomised by the concept of the poll tax, but local government was brought severely under the constraint of central government. That was effected by a Conservative administration. I cannot recall the extent to which a challenge was laid down by this House on that particular shift.
Another great interest of the British people, much less popular than local government but extremely important in relation to the nation, is the trade union movement. That was brought down by a considerable onslaught on its freedoms and liberties. And let us remember one obvious point about trade unions: even the Arthur Scargills of this world were elected to their posts. The trade unions saw their powers savagely constrained, cabined and confined by legislation which depended on an overwhelmingly majority in the Lower House. That was scarcely contested by the Conservative majority in the Upper House.
I do not believe that the people of this country look to this Chamber for the defence of their freedoms in the way that has been suggested in some of the rosier interpretations of the work of this Chamber. Indeed, the hereditary element has not been a constraint on autocracy but has been a constraint on the evolution of our democracy. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that many of us look upon the Weatherill amendment with considerable anxiety and suspicion. After all, we are arguing a case of principle with regard to the hereditary peerage and the Weatherill amendment contemplates that, in the interim, there will be a continuing role for the hereditary peerage.
There will no doubt be an improvement because of the elective process. That is an excellent development. But there are many of us on this side of the House who will still require a great deal of persuasion with regard to that particular principle. A crucial aspect in that persuasion will be the length of the interim period.

305
The only way in which that case can be sustained effectively is if there is an indication that the Royal Commission, preparatory to the presentation of a case before the electorate in our manifesto at the next general election, proposes significant change.
If my noble friends on the Front Bench should blanch at that a little, they should think of the problems of the Front Bench on the other side too, when they equally must address themselves to a changed situation as a result of the Royal Commission.
I do not wish to detain the House long on what I recognise is an extremely arduous day, so I end with one statement. At the moment I am the sole member of an organisation called ABHOL—Anything But the House of Lords. The aristocracy will continue to enjoy a certain degree of privilege through their wealth in this country and their social prestige. Everyone loves an aristocratic Lord except when that Lord is exercising political power. That is why the Upper House, following the Royal Commission's proposals and the legislation of the next Labour Government, must surely change its name from the House of Lords.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, has made clear that both Front Benches have their problems. I join in this debate not with any valedictory feelings, because I believe that there is work to be done, there are mountains to climb and perhaps a few dragons to prick. I should not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, which incorporates one important reform that I support wholeheartedly. When the White Paper and the Bill were published, Mrs. Beckett told the other place:
"The presence of the hereditary peerage has weakened the legitimacy and effectiveness of our second Chamber for two main reasons—because the principle is wrong and because the results are unbalanced".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/99; col. 909.]
I am well satisfied that the present balance of power within the Chamber, with a Conservative bias resulting from the hereditary peerage and the ability of my party to summon its supporters to Parliament as and when it wishes cannot be sustained if challenged, and it has been challenged.
It is relevant also, but little more than broadly relevant, that warning of the proposed changes was given by the Labour Party in its election manifesto. It would have been quite unbelievable for this Bill to have been introduced without the electorate having been made aware, at least formally, of what was proposed. Nevertheless, the fact that mention of the reform is tucked away in the manifesto may be relevant to consideration of the Salisbury convention, but it is not of itself a sufficient reason for Parliament to accept this Bill or any other Bill having the same effect. As for the Salisbury convention, its sustaining purpose fell with the introduction of this Bill, even though the benign doctrine is treated as not entirely spent.
Having said that, it is clear from the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the message has switched. It is the hereditary principle and
306
not the political balance on which we should now concentrate and on which the Government are now concentrating. That recognises that the Government see that there is strength in a claim that hereditary Peers should remain here and not vote. At the same time, it makes clear that the Government intend to resist any such move.
Nevertheless, I hope that in their proclaimed search for consensus and a quiet life, the Government may come round to the merits of an interim House in which hereditary Peers speak but in which their voting rights are limited or curtailed. That one reform would have my unqualified support because I can think of no other way in which to bring about a proper balance in this House. Sir Patrick Cormack moved an amendment along these lines from the Opposition Front Bench in the House of Commons. I hope to support my noble friends on the Front Bench when the time comes for a similar amendment to be moved in this House.
It is plain, even with the removal of voting rights from hereditary Peers, that that would, of itself, politicise the House. It would create an entirely different House; a House where the balance between the parties becomes significant and controversial in a way in which it was never controversial before; a House with characteristics which cannot now be foreseen. The conventions—not just the Salisbury convention—which have operated to temper the lack of balance between the main political parties until now would no longer have any rhyme or reason. There is simply no way in which an intellectual case can be made that the present proposed reforms should or could possibly be self-contained and not dependent on further future reforms.
This is, in fact, half admitted by the reference in the manifesto to the need for a review of the arrangements for the appointment of life Peers. Unfortunately, that review in the manifesto was only too predictably left to the future. The time is now right to put arrangements in place that will take the political balance of the House out of the hands of the Executive, from whichever political party the Executive is formed. Let patronage be limited. Let Tony Blair and the other party leaders nominate life Peers, but only that number of life Peers that will be settled by an independent process set out in the Bill. That point was strongly made by my noble friend Lord Waddington.
It is clear, is it not, that this section of the manifesto, this reference to the Bill being a sufficient reform of itself, was put together with a large measure of intellectual languor? The hereditary basis on which the House of Lords has drawn its membership over so many years has served the country well. No matter that the heredity principle, as a basis for selection of members of a legislative assembly, is indefensible in principle, no credible case is or can be made for change until it is shown that what is put in its place will work better and more effectively. I know that that is not a thought that will commend itself to the Government. The argument from the other side is that hereditary Peers should shut up and go quietly and that anything is better than a House containing hereditary Peers.

307
I am sure that hereditary Peers will join with life Peers in scrutinising the Bill. While we are here we all have a duty to try to improve the Bill. It is not the case, self-evidently, that the removal of hereditary Peers will bring, at a stroke, a more legitimate and effective House. That is the myth with which the Government seek to deceive.
Much can be done to the Bill. In the circumstances of uncertainty surrounding the second stage of reform, we must look carefully at how to make the first stage reformed House at least as good as, and if possible better than, the unreformed House. The shame is—my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil hinted at this point—that we have to waste so much public time doing what the Royal Commission should be doing, and that could happen again in the next Session, although by then we may have the report of the Royal Commission to consider in relation to the Bill, as should have been the case now.
The claims made by hereditary Peers that they should remain temporarily are not based on the records of their forebears, even though that may be why they were here in the first place. Their claims are based on the fact that hereditary Peers, and many among us, have sat here for many years, have a wealth of experience on parliamentary matters, have learned from debates and scrutiny of legislation and from participation in the committees of the House. That experience should not be discarded.
Perhaps I am expected to say a few words about the Weatherill proposal. I shall have a chance to look at the detail later. However, the terms offered to the House are, indeed, the constitutional "sleaze" of this Government. They are not so much a stick with a carrot wrapped up in a brown envelope, as political blood money, coupled with moral blackmail. The Executive simply has no business threatening one House of Parliament in terms that amount to:
"Legislate as we wish or the hereditary Peers will go down without even a lifeboat for some of you to cling to until that too sinks".
6.34 p.m.
Lord Charteris of Amisfield: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I begin my speech by misquoting a famous passage from the New Testament. I refer to verse 1 of Chapter 13 of St. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians:
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not [brevity] I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal"
I promise to be brief. This has been a marvellous debate, and everything that can be said about this position has already been said with a great deal more eloquence and expertise than I can muster.
However, one point, as far as I know, has not been mentioned. I have mentioned this before in your Lordships' House, but it bears repetition. First, I should declare a personal interest. For 28 years I worked with the greatest happiness in the Queen's private secretary's office. During those years I came to honour, indeed, to love, the institution of the Monarchy. It is a vital and important part of our system, based wholly on heredity.
308
If all rights of hereditary Peers to sit, speak and vote in the House are abolished, I believe that will expose the Monarchy. It will be the only establishment based on heredity. I do not for a moment say that the Monarchy will be threatened by what will happen. I do not think it will be threatened for some time, and I hope that I shall be as dead as a haddock before it is. However, I believe I am right in what I say. For that reason I hope that the Royal Commission will remember that point and that it will not abandon the possibility of retaining an element of hereditary Peers who can flourish in the House, as they have done for 700 years.
6.37 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, reading through my speech a few minutes ago to ensure word perfect delivery, I was struck by how familiar it all sounded. I had heard a great deal of it from previous speakers last night, this morning and this afternoon. For that reason, I have put a large amount of it into the wastepaper basket and have kept only the salient features.
There can be no more important subject to be discussed in the House of Lords than the constitution of this country. It is at the very heart of our country and provides the framework on which our laws and our great institutions are based. Despite the record of our constitution to deliver an unparalleled period of political stability, we do not believe that it should be set in stone. Indeed, it has been a continually evolving structure. However, change is incredibly significant and it should be embarked upon only with very careful consideration. That includes the issue of the composition of your Lordships' House.
It has long been a tradition of Parliament when considering constitutional issues to attempt to proceed on the basis of consensus. Regrettably, I believe that the Government have taken the opposite approach. Whether one likes it or not, this House is an integral part of our parliamentary system. The Government's proposal to deny a large proportion of the Members of this House any role in determining the structures of the successor body must by its very nature be said to preclude any opportunity of consensus. If there was a legitimate claim that this House was not competent in undertaking its role as a revising Chamber, the former argument might hold some water, but that is not the case. Almost every speaker in this long debate has complimented the House on its work. I believe that it stands any comparison with that of another place. Indeed, we have heard those sentiments expressed from the Government Front Bench.
The key point is that many Members of this House during this debate and in previous debates have expressed the view that they now believe that the tune has come to consider changing the composition of the membership of your Lordships' House. Among all the qualities exhibited by Members of this House, surely those of duty and responsibility stand foremost. I share the view expressed by so many speakers that if there is to be change, surely this House as presently composed should be involved in that consideration. I firmly believe that it is the right and the duty of those who sit in this House as presently composed to advise on and to

309
discuss the revised structures for Parliament and to vote for those which they consider, according to their conscience, will serve the country best.
However, the Government are seeking to deny them that right. I believe that they are picking a fight where none is necessary. They are choosing to portray this process as a battle between privilege and the people. If they really were seeking to strengthen the link between Parliament and the country at large, surely they would have come forward now, after all the time taken to consider the issues, with proposals to establish an elected House. How, in the light of that, could a House consisting purely of appointed Members be considered preferable?
We have heard that there are no guarantees of what stage two would entail. Indeed, the Government have no idea about what they see at the end of this process. They are embarking on an incredibly important strategic review of the constitution with no idea of what it will look like at the end. All that the Government know is that they must immediately address, without further delay, the issue of hereditary Peers and this House.
I am of the opinion that a wholly appointed second Chamber would be easier for the Executive to control. Without any firm commitments on the face of the Bill, it is easy to imagine this issue being kicked firmly into the long grass. That has serious implications for our parliamentary system as a whole and, I believe, for the country at large. I believe that we need a confident and strong second Chamber with a will to oppose the Government where it sees fit and to support them similarly. I am not convinced that the Government share that view.
I turn to the so-called Weatherill amendment. It is possible that that might constitute one means of modestly improving the Bill. But it is not the only one and I do not believe that we should see it as the only possible means of improving the Bill. I join in congratulating those who have been attempting to engage the Government in a dialogue about constitutional change from within this House. However, I for one certainly do not feel bound in any way by a deal made in private between individual Members of this House. In that regard, I was saddened to hear this House effectively being threatened by the Government Front Bench with sanctions if it fails to comply with their wishes. We were lectured on statesmanlike behaviour. I do not believe that threatening this House of Parliament falls within the meaning of "statesmanlike behaviour".
Surely the Government are now faced with an excellent opportunity to bring forward wide—ranging reforms of Parliament to strengthen an institution which has declined in importance and influence in recent times. There is widespread agreement that this reform should extend to the membership of your Lordships' House. That consensus comes, to some considerable degree, from the very Members of this House who are involved. However, the Government have decided to put aside that good will and to proceed on a unilateral, confrontational basis. I believe that that is a very dangerous strategy indeed. Our aim must be to seek a
310
stronger and more accountable House than is currently the case. I do not believe that this Bill will achieve that aim.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his very fine maiden speech. The noble Earl happened to be at school with me and he lives just down the road from me in Devon. We have been friends for many years and I should like to say what a delight it is to see him in this House at last.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, was the previous shipping Minister. It has not passed my notice that in the course of this long debate there have been several nautical references. The noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, who spoke a few moments ago referred to a lifeboat and I believe that yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, referred to the anchor of the Cross-Benches. Many noble Lords who have been Members of this House for some time will know that my particular area of interest is maritime affairs. Over the 23 years that I have been privileged to be a Member of your Lordships' House, I have endeavoured to do what I believe is best for the various maritime industries of this country.
I always remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, saying when I had been a Member of this House for only a short time that those Peers who did not speak very often but nevertheless brought a certain expertise to the House were just as valuable Members of this House as some of our more venerable Members who may have held high office in this country. I am only sorry that the noble and learned Lord is not with us today. I would have been most interested to hear his comments on this Bill.
It has been mentioned in some places that there might be a certain element of illegitimacy in relation to the hereditary Peers. I have never felt that my membership of this House is in any way illegitimate. In fact, I have been a Member of this House as of legal right. I did not choose to be born the son of an hereditary Peer. In a way, therefore. I have no control over the fact that I am here. Nevertheless, if I am to be swept away with every other hereditary Peer, I feel that after serving for nearly a quarter of a century in your Lordships' House, that will be with a clear conscience.
What worries me most about the Bill and the Government's intentions is the effect on the stability of this country. That stability has stood us in good stead over the centuries. We know that devolution is afoot, but we still do not know how it will work out in practice. That is one essential destabilising element. This Bill is another. To return to a nautical theme, any mariner knows that if you rock the boat once, you are in slight danger, and that if you rock the boat twice, you are in even more danger. I hope that the Government are not rocking the constitutional boat to the extent that that will result in something that none of us would want to see.
Against that background is the distressing situation in the Balkans. None of us knows how that will work out. We have a discredited US President, with two years left in office. And who is to say what will happen if we have

311
another financial blip caused by some unforeseen event and the euro stock market tumbles. Where will that leave us?
Life at the moment, and especially at the end of a century, is not as stable as some of us might think. We must bear that in mind as a background to this Bill. Europe has been referred to by one or two noble Lords. That does not inspire any right-thinking person with confidence in view of what happened recently. Efforts to make Europe larger is fraught with even more danger.
We have heard a lot about the present weakness of the House of Commons. There is an inherent element in this Bill of making this House weaker as well and that is also, in my opinion, not desirable set against the background that I outlined. A further weakening of Parliament at this stage is not advisable.
I turn to the future composition of this House. The Royal Commission must look carefully at two specific elements; first, to retain the independent thought which has been an element of this Chamber over many centuries; secondly, to retain the independent expertise which is at present widely disseminated among the hereditary Peers. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Desai, from the Government Benches yesterday, who called for a greater Cross-Bench element in this House. That is something which I support. I have sat on the Cross-Benches all the time that I have been in your Lordships' House and believe that the Cross-Benches are where a lot of independent thought comes from in this House. We have heard talk of a fully elected House. I do not know how we can have an elected House with a Cross-Bench element. That is something at which the Royal Commission will have to look with great care. It has a difficult task on its hands and I wish it all the luck in the world.
We are obviously going to have an interesting Committee and further stages of this Bill, and I look forward to them with great interest.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there is an air of unreality about this debate, and about the other debates which led up to it. When there are so many urgent humanitarian, social and other problems in this country and throughout the world, it seems absurd that we are now employed in the business of dismantling an institution which has served and continues to serve this country well without any particular popular pressure to do so. Are we really going to let that happen?
I noted that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, in his opening speech, referred to a "wonderland". I realised then that that is how I felt; like Alice in Wonderland or Alice through the Looking Glass where everything is topsy-turvy and out of sequence and—dare I say it?—where the red queen lurks around the corner shouting "Off with their heads!".
Some speakers on the Benches opposite have said that they have been embarrassed and even felt ashamed to have to admit and explain that they belong to an unelected House which has a substantial number of Members who owe their place to the hereditary principle. In my travels around the country and
312
throughout the world I have always found that once I have clearly defined what democracy means—freedom of speech, openness and transparency of government, guardianship of human rights and maybe also having elected representatives—and gone on to explain the checks and balances between our two Houses of Parliament, the expertise and continuity the hereditary principle gives to our proceedings, a lot of people from a lot of countries wish that they too had inherited a similar institution. And in spite of all the complimentary things that have been said about hereditary Peers, I still fail to see how a wholly appointed House can be more democratic than our present House. The awful thing that faces us is that once the present composition is changed, we cannot turn back the clock. It therefore behoves us to progress these changes as carefully and sensibly as possible.
In the course of this debate and those that preceded it we heard many fine speeches from all sides of the House; I listened to many though not quite all. I believe that some progress has been made. In that I may differ from some of my noble friends, particularly my noble friend on my right. We know that the Government have already made one concession by agreeing to set up a Royal Commission. There are criticisms of the commission's all too narrow terms of reference and its allotted timetable. Nevertheless it remains a concession. I believe that there are bound to be other concessions at later stages in your Lordships' House. There will have to be, not least to answer and address some of the interesting legal issues and complexities raised yesterday by, among others, my noble friends Lord Glenarthur and Lord Chesham.
But the most important advance that we have seen is the change in the Government's approach. In the debate on the White Paper a few weeks ago. I and others criticised the style and the timetable of the proposals contained in the Bill. It was very pleasing therefore to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledging the work and contribution of hereditary Peers when she opened the debate yesterday, as did others at later stages in the debate. The trend has, on the whole, continued today and was continued by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this morning, at least at the start of his remarks. It is important and necessary to make such acknowledgement. It is doing justice to those who have contributed over the centuries to create this mother of Parliaments.
Having said all that, we are still faced with this Bill which, if it goes through, will mean that as early as the State Opening of Parliament this November, we could be faced with a dramatically reduced House and a great gap which will not be filled by the proposals contained in the Weatherill amendment. Though it is important to give that amendment our full consideration, because it seems to be our only chance to make the transitional period tolerable and indeed leave the door open, nevertheless it is not a solution.
My main plea to the Government today is to ask them not to insist on rushing through the implementation of this Bill. Surely we should at least wait for the Royal Commission to report, in order to consider all the possibilities for a stage two. The manifesto commitment

313
can be kept, indeed has already been kept, by putting this issue on the agenda and exciting an interest even outside your Lordships' House. Surely too it is implicit even in a manifesto commitment that reforms be carried out properly and thoroughly and not at break-neck speed.
We must build in safeguards, and I shall certainly support any amendments that do so at later stages of the Bill, especially those that build in a longer time factor. This is not just the end of an era, but the end of many eras. It is right, therefore, that we should deal seriously and thoroughly with this Bill. And in acknowledging the significance of the House of Lords and its role in the past, we should also hope and work for a better future for the second Chamber.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, in the short time I have been here my respect and affection for this House has grown strongly and quickly; for its atmosphere, its friendliness, its staff and many of its parliamentarians—including hereditary Peers.
As a former trade unionist, therefore, I join in expressing my gratitude to both past and present active hereditary Peers for the significant contribution which they have made and continue to make for the wellbeing of public life in this country When they go, they will be missed in a whole variety of different ways. This will be a different House and, for a period, as with any radical change, there may be some unforseen difficulties and even possibly a temporary decline in our performance. That is often what occurs when we have major changes. Therefore, to ease those changes and to aid the passage of hereditary Peers, I, for one, will want to give support to the Weatherill amendment for the transitional period.
Whether or not we will get the amendment and its sensible, pragmatic way forward is out of our hands on this side. It rests with hereditary Peers principally. It rests with them to decide just how they see their duty. In my opinion, if agreement cannot be reached it will be a great pity, not just for the country but also for hereditary Peers. To conclude on a sour note, contrary to the traditions of the House which they themselves have helped to build, would be a sad day indeed. Therefore. I hope that wisdom will prevail over emotion. But, if it does not, the House will nonetheless survive and it will continue. Any initial difficulties, even if there are gaps as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, will be filled in one way or another or in due course.
After all, only two years ago many people were arguing that this country could not be run by an inexperienced Labour Party and Labour Government. Yet here we are, still riding high in the opinion polls, with a feeling around that it is Labour which is the party of natural government. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, reminded us this morning that, when addressing such issues, we should not be so introspective but should endeavour to look over a wider front and take into account what is happening outside this Chamber.
314
I do not think that we should ignore what has happened in a very short space of time within the Conservative Party itself. Here I address my remarks principally to the Conservative Party rather than the Cross-Benches. The Conservative Party is going through a quite radical change at present as it seeks to democratise itself. I applaud the reforms that the party is putting into place—for example, in trying to be more welcoming to women, to ethnic minorities and, yes, even embracing gays and devolution.
It is no surprise to my mind that the Conservative leadership continues to equivocate to some degree over whether or not it would abolish hereditary Peers' rights in the House of Lords. I would welcome a response to the very pointed question which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby posed yesterday to Conservative Peers about where the party truly stands on the issue. It seems to me that there is a contradiction if, on the one hand, the party is seeking to be more inclusive, democratic, open and representative than it has been in the past, while, on the other hand, it is seeking to retain parliamentary rights for a grouping with few women, few members of the ethnic minorities and comprising people who are mostly engaged in farming, the Armed Forces and the higher echelons of the civil and diplomatic services of whom only 1.4 per cent. can claim to have been workers. It simply will not add up and will not convince the public as regards the change which is currently taking place within the Conservative Party if hereditary Peers dig in and fight to the last ditch. I hope that that will not happen.
What I have said might sound rather harsh, but, as we in the Labour Party have learnt only too well through bitter experience, the facts have to be addressed. I wonder just what the party opposite—or, more accurately, perhaps I should say the party opposite in the other place—really wants for the future of this Chamber. Plenty of allegations have been made that this Government do not know where they want to go. I suspect in due course that people will find that they do.
I may be misreading the signals about the Conservative Party, but I rather sense that it is edging itself inch by inch towards calling for a wholly-elected second Chamber. Personally I hope that members of the Conservative Party will go for it. I do not say that because I see, or want, a wholly-elected second Chamber as being the appropriate outcome for stage two; indeed, at least in the short to medium term, I do not see that. If such a policy were adopted by the Conservative Party, it would put pressure on our Government to resist any temptation to perpetuate the transitional House and delay second stage reform. There are some concerns among Back-Benchers in this Chamber that that could conceivably happen.
I am in favour of a part-appointed/part-elected House, with all the difficulties that that may bring. But I should like to see the part-elected element of the House increasing over the years to a majority of the House. Despite all the virtues of this marvellous place, someone like myself who comes from a background of having a job, while following legislation being passed in another place and in this Chamber steered by hereditary Peers, and then moving from a permanent post to go through

315
the experience of being subject to elections for 14 years, gradually saw the merits of the electoral system. Yes, there are dangers and fears with elections, but, on balance, strength comes with it.
The democratic deficit in this House arises from its lack of representation, the width of it and the absence of elections; but, most importantly, it stems from its absence of accountability—a word which is rarely used around this Chamber. So there will be opposition to a shift in this direction which I personally advocate. It will come from a whole variety of quarters of the Opposition, not least the Weatherill group in the transitional House. If I understand the hereditary Peers well—and I congratulate them on the way they have managed to survive almost through to the next millennium—I imagine that they will not want to change quickly from the interim arrangement. In any case, I suspect that many of my fellow life Peers may prove to be equally as tenacious in hanging on to their rights if and when they have to face up to reform of life peerages.
Of course, the House of Commons will be the strongest opponent of the kind of changes that I have been mentioning. However, as many people are increasingly coming to realise, reform is also needed there. Devolution will change the landscape of the House of Commons. Your guess is as good as mine at this stage as to just how it will do so. But, over time, I believe that it will have a significant effect and will lead to outside pressures on the Commons which will be beyond its control and which may require changes of some substance.
As I say, those pressures will be beyond the control of the House of Commons just as hereditary Peers in this Chamber have to face a changing world. I hope that hereditary Peers will take all factors into account, including the changing nature of their party, in reaching decisions on how to respond to this Bill to which personally I will be giving strong support.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there is probably no right time and probably no wrong time for the reform of any parliament anywhere, unless there has just been a revolution, which I am glad to say has not happened in this country. However, I wonder whether this is a wise time for this reform. Just coming into being is a new Scottish Parliament which we have not had for a couple of hundred years, arid a new Assembly in Wales where there has been no Welsh government as such for much longer. We also have a new Assembly in Northern Ireland. These will put new strains on the constitution of this country as a whole.
Originally the Government were not considering setting up a Royal Commission until after this Bill had been passed and put into effect. However, they have established a Royal Commission, which I understand has to report by the end of this year. I believe that is one of the shortest times ever allowed to a Royal Commission to consider a subject of such great importance. I wonder whether it will have time to carry
316
out all the research, hear all the evidence from witnesses it needs to hear, and then come forward with well thought out and well argued suggestions.
Despite that, we shall go ahead. I feel that it is our duty in this House to endeavour to ensure that what follows this House in its present composition does at least as good a job, and preferably a better one. There must be a large, independent element. I do not mean by that just the Cross-Benchers, for whom I have a great deal of respect; I mean an independent element in all the parties as well. We know that in the other place the Whips rule. I have been told of Members crying because they have felt that their consciences have made them go against the instructions of their Whips.
In this House our Whips cannot instruct us. We are all independent, even if we take a Whip. When I came to this House some 22 years ago I intended to sit on the Cross-Benches, but I was advised that I would get more information if I took a party Whip. Therefore I chose what I considered to be the least bad of all the political parties in the House!
In my time here there have been three, three-line Whips imposed on the party whose Whip I take. I am rather proud to say that on every single occasion I have voted the other way because to impose a three-line Whip means that often the argument has not been won. In this House the argument has to be won. On one occasion, at the invitation of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, I acted as a teller when my own party had imposed a three-line Whip. I happened to be standing in the Division Lobby beside the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who was at that time the Conservative government Chief Whip. He asked me, "Roger, do you really know what you are doing? Have you thought it out?" I replied, "Yes, Bertie, I have". "That is all right", he said. That is the kind of acknowledgement of independence that we have in this House.
I have never been a Member of the other place and I do not particularly wish to be. However, I understand that to go against the Whips there is a serious crime indeed. Members need the support of their party to get themselves re-elected at the next general election; we do not. I hope that at any rate a large part of the House that follows this one will have an independent element that will continue from one election to the next without having to seek the support of any party for re-election. It is important that Members of this House can look beyond the next election and do not just consider electoral advantage but can consider what is best for the nation as a whole, not just for themselves or for their party.
I feel that under the previous administration a mistake was made. The House was out of balance. I believe that more Labour life Peers should have been created. I am told that there was a time when they were not agreeable to this but I may be mistaken. Nevertheless there was a long period when Conservative life Peers were appointed, but no Labour life Peers.
I believe that another mistake as regards all sides of the House is to make ex-Members of the House of Commons life Peers in this House. They are all trained to do as their Whips tell them. One of the important

317
aspects of this House is that all Members should think for themselves. Under the previous administration I moved a number of amendments concerning disability on various Bills. I have done that in this Parliament. I remember that on one occasion a Conservative life Peer said to me, "I like what you are trying to do. I thoroughly approve of the amendments that you propose to move, but if you divide the House I will vote against you". I divided the House, he voted against me, but if I remember correctly, I won.
The new House should not reduce the powers of delay. Under the Parliament Act the maximum period of delay is a year. The European elections Bill does not really count because that concerned a disagreement between the two Houses. However, during my time in the House the Bill that was thrown out was the War Crimes Bill. It was thrown out at the end of October, or early November, on the first occasion; it returned to this House in the next Session—I think in the January—and was thrown out on Second Reading. It became law a few weeks later under the Parliament Act. Therefore even a delay of a year is effectively a delay of only a few months. A year in the life of a parliament is 20 per cent.—that is a long time—but in the life of the nation it is nothing but a mere flick of the fingers.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, as a fellow Devonian I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on his maiden speech. At the same time I commiserate with the family and friends of the late Lord Beloff, who contributed so much to this House.
As we are in the second day of Holy Week I wholeheartedly share the alarm and dismay expressed by the Church Synod and several right reverend Prelates and noble Lords that a debate of such constitutional importance should be held in a week rightly dedicated to honouring our national faith and our families. This is a family week—the Government keep telling us, as did the previous government, that they are a family government—and is recognised as such by another place, which after the 1998 modernisation of the House of Commons' procedure, takes time off to coincide with school half terms. The House of Commons will abandon the Palace of Westminster tomorrow, Wednesday 31st March. In the eyes of the Church and of the majority of people this timing is an example of offensive institutionalised discrimination. Like the elected Members of Parliament, both life Peers and hereditary Peers have children or grandchildren. I note a bias against the belief, the rulings of the faith held by the majority, in favour of the agnostics' idolisation of materialism.
Her Majesty's Government either have not read the Coronation Oath taken by Her Majesty the Queen or have no respect for it. There are three oaths. One of the oaths asks Her Majesty whether she will:
"solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs".
318
Another oath is to:
"maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel".
She also commits herself to give the utmost of her power to maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by the law, and that she will maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England and the doctrine, worship and discipline of that Church.
Just as the Monarch takes the oath while placing her hand on the Holy Bible, so, too, do hereditary and life Peers when they take the Oath of Allegiance. It is worth while noting that we also have to read out our Letters Patent. For hereditary Peers they state:
"Our heirs and successors … and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title, and honour"—
and so on. In another part it says that the,
"male aforesaid, and every of them successively may have, hold, and possess a seat, place, and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils".
If children can no longer be encouraged to inherit the moral—that is the Church—line and the civil obligations, are not Her Majesty's Government in conflict with their own programme of civic responsibilities? The Church, Commonwealth and Government feature strongly in the obligations imposed on the Monarch when taking the Coronation Oath. Were this legislation to be placed in the statute, Her Majesty's Government would surely be obliged to rephrase the Coronation Oath and the Oath of Allegiance taken by your Lordships, not only to avoid the embarrassment caused to Her Majesty but to avoid conflict with the Church.
I should point out, too, that the Privy Counsellors—a circle of which also operates in Brussels—have split allegiance because they have given an oath to the Queen and then they say that they commit themselves through oath of allegiance to Brussels. Did I read that the Leader of the House had stated that the Queen and the Prince of Wales have consented to place their prerogative and interest in the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill? Surely that is approval that the Bill should be debated, not a consent to its merits.
When Her Majesty the Queen took the Coronation Oath, she began, as I have already quoted, by solemnly promising to honour the law and customs of her Commonwealth states. Their allegiance is to the Monarch, not to the House of Commons, and one must ask whether a seal of approval must be obtained from the next Commonwealth conference for such major constitutional changes.
The position and the service of hereditary Peers should not be retained for their own interests but for the inalienable interest that they hold for the nation and, of course, for their responsibility towards the Sovereign. It can be argued that Her Majesty's Government's intention does not fall within the bounds of the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, for if Parliament—the Monarch and the House of Lords, as well as the House of Commons—is so weakened that it will be unable to protect adequately the rights and the freedoms of the British people, we would become vulnerable to the unrestrained will of an overmighty executive.

319
Perhaps we should take note of Article 138 of the Italian constitution. It states:
"Art. 138 is intended to prevent any modification of the constitution that works to the advantage of one political grouping at the expense of another, or that effectively amounts to an infringement of the principle of equality. Thus it would be inadmissible for a political force that had achieved a majority in Parliament to seek to draw advantage from the situation and change the form of government from Parliamentary to Presidential, for instance by granting full powers to the Prime Minister and divesting Parliament of its functions".
That is the Italian constitution, not ours.
Another point to bear in mind is Asquith's Quinquennial Act. This was fascinating because it was designed to prevent the Act, pending other legislation, being used to tend towards a unicameral Parliament—which the current House of Lords Bill undoubtedly does. The 1949 Act was a secondary, delegated piece of legislation, I am advised, and no certificate was issued for that Act.
I have already stated my agreement with Her Majesty's Government that there should be balanced partisan voting powers within the House of Lords: 50 for each party and 75 for the Cross-Benches. But I differ from Her Majesty Government in that I think all Peers should be allowed to speak. This would ensure that the broadest spectrum of national opinion would be heard by the select few voting Peers. If we were to designate a limited number of hereditary Peers—91, for example—those Peers may be subject to accusations of betrayal by other hereditary Peers.
For such a constitutional change as this major House of Lords reform, two paragraphs in a 40-page Labour Party manifesto can scarcely be designated as a mandate from the people. A referendum is required—or would such a move dislocate the real goal of this constitutional rearrangement: the swift, unimpeded move towards absolute cover underneath the umbrella of sovereign Brussels? Let us not forget that infidelity to truth destroys dignity.
7.28 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I wish to touch for a few moments on democracy in relation, first, to your Lordships; secondly, to the Bill that is before us; and, thirdly, to the future. There will be no mention of commonality, meritocracy, and so on, which constituted the very amusing speech of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.
The word "democracy" has been bandied about in the debate and I have put my mind to wondering how it applies, first, to we hereditary Peers who are about to get the sack. I am not a Cross-Bencher. I have been a fairly radical Conservative. I tried to persuade myself that we are reasonably democratic by virtue of the fact that we have no power over the electorate. I thought hard about that. The Parliament Act lies behind what we can do. We cannot make people do things. We can delay and we can alter, but another place always has the final word. However, I did not completely convince myself. I felt there was a nasty suspicion that we are not quite pure democrats. I then looked at other noble Lords and wondered where they all stand. They have been placed
320
here for one reason or another—good work, intelligence, feats either of daring or in business. But what in the world is the difference? I think that neither we, the hereditary Peers, nor other noble Lords are democrats or a part of a democracy. We are some kind of oligarchy, meritocracy or accident of birth. We should bear that point in mind when we consider the future.
As far as concerns the Bill and democracy, few noble Lords on these Benches do not now realise that the Government have a majority of 179 in another place and had two lines in the manifesto about this proposal which quite a lot of people are thought to have read. That is fair enough. The point was rubbed in last night. 'That is fine, as far as it goes. It gives the Government the right to produce this totally inadequate Bill and to get rid of the hereditary Peers who have worked here for quite a long time, and it gives them the opportunity to pass the buck to a very competent, I am sure, Royal Commission, whose members, like many noble Lords, are appointed.
What about the future? I have heard every kind of suggestion one can imagine—mishmashes, pot-pourri, and so on. Some people want members appointed and some people want some of us to elect members. Other people—this is the Weatherill agenda—wish to carry on for a little longer. I think that that is quite a good idea and may be better discussed when we come to the appropriate stage of the Bill. I reluctantly decided that democracy should rule. Democracy comes at a price. The price would be that over a period we, the hereditary Peers, would disappear. But so would all other noble Lords.
I heard the noble Baroness the Leader of the House or someone else of importance say that no one had discussed any plan in detail, so I thought that I might do that for your Lordships. To me the answer is perfectly simple. We would have a democracy in this Chamber, with all its deficiencies. The constituencies throughout the country could be used perfectly well. We would have senators, or whatever one would like to call them, elected, as they are in the United States. So many would be elected every third or fourth year and it would roll on in that way.
Everyone is worried about the other place being distressed by the fact that the second Chamber would have too much power. The senate that I have in mind would have precisely the same powers as the House of Lords has now and would not touch supply or money. That would avoid the embarrassing situations one sees on Capitol Hill when the Senate blocks the President's budget. It would be as simple as that. Other people seem rather distressed that such representatives of the people might even wish to be paid. I see nothing wrong in that. But that is how I think we should go on.
Before I conclude my remarks, I should like to talk a little about the past. I have sat in your Lordships' House for 30 years precisely. It was very difficult getting here because my father had lost the Patent and it cost me a fortune in solicitors' bills before it was found on the top of a cupboard. But here I came and here I have felt very privileged. I have enjoyed every moment of it when I have not felt nervous.

321
I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is in his place. He will remember that I brought a number of issues to a vote and won some of them. In one Division the noble Lord took the Teller's baton from me because I think he thought that I might lose it by falling over in the Division Lobby. I won one of those Divisions against my own side by 53 votes. So much for the in-built majority. It is not always there. I think that the most exciting political moment in my life was when we—I was going to say "rubbished"—voted down the paving Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, for the abolition of the GLC. The Gallery was full of people and they just gave a great shout and went out to their parties. So we have not abused our power. We have used it very well.
However, there is a sea-change. It would take a little time to put my plan into action because of the way one would elect such a senate. But I think that something of that kind should be considered by the Royal Commission. I had wished that such a proposal would make up the second half of the Bill that is before us.
7.38 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, as the 129th speaker in the debate, this is not a time to repeat many of the arguments for and against reform of your Lordships' House. It is a time to face the reality of reform in a constructive and practical manner. As hereditary Peers, we face a stark choice of either opposing the Bill, and thereby having a stay of execution for a short period, followed by complete abolition of all hereditary Peers, or reaching a compromise to retain many of the well respected virtues and talents of a limited number of hereditary Peers in a transitional Chamber pending the introduction of stage two of House of Lords reform. While I support the move to modernise Parliament—I refer both to your Lordships' House and to the other place—the key must be, certainly for this House, to ensure that there is an improvement not just in the functions and composition of your Lordships' House but also in the powers and legitimacy of this Chamber.
As a founder member of Common Sense for Lords Reform, an all-party group which was set up some six months ago, committed to reform, provided that it is a change for the better, I believe it is essential that there is a clear message and that the best available talent is attracted to the reformed second Chamber. We uphold the value of the bicameral legislature, with strong checks and balances on the other place, but believe that such powers should not be changed so that your Lordships direct or effectively block the will of the other place, but that mainly persuasive powers should remain. Many of those who have argued fervently, like the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for reform of the Lords have quoted those times when your Lordships have, so termed, "defeated" the Government and thereby the will of the people. But the reality has rarely been a defeat for the Government but more a delaying mechanism for further consideration.
One of the main objectives of Common Sense for Lords Reform has been to improve the perception and knowledge that the public has of the workings and value
322
of this House. I was interested in the remarks yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. The noble Baroness referred to the public perception of the Lords as a Chamber of old Peers nodding off in their seats. We all know that that could not be further from the truth. Noble Lords are indicating that sometimes it is! Over the past six months this all-party group has commissioned regular opinion polls which have established the views of the electorate regarding reform of this House. The results have clearly indicated that the public is more concerned about reforming the House of Lords to improve the performance and powers of the upper House than simply removing the anachronism of hereditary Peers. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, was right when she said yesterday that better government is our goal. I agree with the noble Baroness.
At a time when the Government have a huge, indeed a whopping, majority in the other place, it is surely not in the public interest in a bicameral legislature for your Lordships' House to be a nodding donkey for all legislation that is referred to it from the other place.
I was pleased to see in the Government's White Paper, Modernising Parliament, that they recognise the value of maintaining an independent Cross-Bench presence. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, made a strong case for retaining a strong number of independent-minded Members of this House. The value of Cross-Benchers should never be underestimated. On many occasions the Cross-Benchers have held the balance of power and have swayed the will of this House, based on their specific expert knowledge and experience.
I took exception to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Varley, earlier in today's debate that the Conservative Party, with its large number of hereditary Peers, can always beat the Government. The noble Lord gives no credit to the Cross-Benchers, who generally have a poor voting record, but, with 28 per cent. of the membership of this House, effectively hold the balance of power.
I support the call from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for a balance to be struck at stage two of Lords reform between an elected and a nominated House, ensuring continuity of the experience of this House as well as securing the broad band of special interests represented in this Chamber.
The contribution of youth in your Lordships' House should not be underestimated. I refer, for example, to the work of my noble Lord Freyberg, who has done sterling work over the years for war widows and the arts, and a recent entrant to the Cross-Benches, my noble friend Lord Listowel, who has been representing the plight of the homeless.
There have been many calls during this lengthy debate for the Government to move swiftly to stage two of Lords reform. While I support those calls, I hope that the Government will ensure that full and adequate time is allowed to the Royal Commission so that a lasting solution can be reached rather than simply a quick fix. Speed should not override the need to get the end product right.

323
In conclusion, reform is not an option. It is a reality. We should swim with the tide, not against it. The Government have made a modest concession in agreeing to change their insistence in their election manifesto on retaining no hereditary Peers to agreeing to 91 during the transitional period. As hereditary Peers we should be idiotic to look that gift horse in the mouth. We should accept this "phase out" rather than "get out" solution. It is literally a question of survival of the fittest now, or mass suicide for hereditary Peers later. We should support the Weatherill amendment in Committee and work hard to make it work.
7.46 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, there will surely be no doubt in the Government's mind now that your Lordships judge this to be the saddest and most worrying Bill that any of us have ever seen. Like many noble Lords who have already spoken, if the Bill made changes for the better I should support it. I am not asking for a delay, and I believe that other noble Lords on this side of the House are not demanding delay. We are demanding that any change should make this House more effective and better than it presently is.
Those who seek to destroy the composition of a House which has served our country faithfully and selflessly for seven centuries have a duty to show us precisely why and how that House is failing, and precisely what is to be put in its place. Surely that is not an unreasonable demand. Yet the Government have failed both litmus tests. In so doing, they have proved that their motivation is purely party-political.
The Government certainly cannot claim that there is public clamour for what this Bill demands. I say that with some confidence. I was a Member of the other place for some 31 years. No one is better informed as to what the public demands than MPs. Some 30 or 40 letters come in every day; one has to address meetings; there are surgeries, social functions, phone calls and day-to-day contact all the time with thousands of our own constituents. Never once, in all the time that I represented a constituency in the other place, has anyone demanded the abolition of the hereditary principle in the House of Lords.
Government Ministers have described this House as an old-fashioned club. Well, that just shows how little they know. I suppose that as even the PM does not bother to attend his own House very much, it is expecting a lot to ask that Ministers should sometimes come and listen to us. But if they did, they would know better than to call us simply an old-fashioned club.
I have been here for only about 18 months but I have constantly marvelled at the high standard of debate here—far higher, more erudite and better mannered than in another place and more independent, too.
I believe that it is a huge advantage that Peers are not beholden to constituents or to parties. They have far greater freedom to speak and vote as they really feel. They would undoubtedly lose that freedom if they were elected, as some are demanding.
Sometimes New Labour is unable to suppress the intentions and beliefs of old Labour. One such time was last November, when a group of Labour MPs standing
324
at the Bar shouted and cheered when the Queen read that part of the Gracious Speech which heralded this Bill. Their bitter political enmity was as evident as their bad manners and their ignorance as evident as their inexperience. The hereditary Peers do excellent service and should be thanked, not derided. I could not help wondering how many of those jeering MPs would attend, let alone speak and vote, if no salary were paid to them.
Does the House of Peers fail to do its duty in scrutinising Bills or advising amendments? No. Do our committees fail to function? No. Is our Question Time badly attended or lacking in input? No. Do we waste public money? No, apart from a few little difficulties over wallpaper, we certainly do not. Is there public demand to change us? No, there is not. Our one fault—our only fault—is that hereditary Peers are often Conservative, though they have often voted against Conservative governments in the past and, however they vote, they rightly cannot prevail against the elected House.
So many times those who try to make the case for this Bill say that they do so on the grounds that it is wrong that people should be able to introduce or to thwart Bills on the basis solely of who their father was. I do not disagree with that. But this House has no such powers. That is the crux of the matter. This House has a job and a duty to study what the Commons decides and, where it is thought right, to suggest changes or amendments. If the other place does not like those changes, it has complete and democratic powers to vote those changes down. The only power that this House has is to prevent any House of Commons perpetuating its life, and even the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, agrees with that. I believe that that is absolutely right. However, a different picture is presented as the reason for this Bill, and I think it is a phoney reason. Nothing that is done in this House can thwart or block the wishes of the House of Commons, so what is all the fuss about?
If the reformed House of Lords is to have greater powers, it will be a greater threat to the Commons. I read a recent article by a Member of the other place, a Mr. Kenneth Clarke, in which he advocated an elected House of Lords. He agreed that that new House would have to have greater powers. One power that he suggested was the right to hold up a Bill for two years. That would really be power, and I cannot see the House of Commons agreeing to it.
On the other hand, to give fewer powers would be a dangerous step indeed, particularly with an all-powerful Government like this one. And who would bother to stand for election, with no pay and no extra powers? I cannot imagine that anyone would bother.
Apart from that, another set of elections would put huge burdens on constituencies. I wonder how many people understand how much constituencies are stretched and how much they already struggle to cope with local elections, European elections and parliamentary elections, let alone with any referendums. They have very little money and very few voluntary workers. I should like to hear a comment from them as to how they would feel about having another set of elections.

325
How would we ever have Cross-Benchers if this House were to be elected? I can think of only one independent MP elected in the past 50 or 60 years. It is not popular with the electorate to stand as an independent. And yet I believe that our independents here, our Cross-Benchers, are absolutely essential. I would go to my death to defend their right to be here.
I will not go into the extra cost that the taxpayer will have to meet as a result of this additional set of elections. That point was referred to by my noble friend Lady Platt.
I come finally to my greatest fears about the implications of this Bill. The Government think that no seat in this House should be held by heredity. What about the Throne? It is held solely on the hereditary principle. This very long debate has shown that the future of the Throne is in doubt. We have had reference to it during the course of the debate. In answering the debate on 23rd February, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who I am sorry to see is not here at present, stated:
"Our manifesto made it abundantly clear that we have no plans to replace the monarchy".—[Official Report, 23/2/99; col. 1093.]
"Yet" hangs in the air. If he meant that the Government had no plans to replace the monarchy at all, I think perhaps it would have been wise to say so. I do not regard that as a pledge that the Monarchy is safe.
A Labour MP from Birmingham recently made a telling speech, stating that it would be "totally illogical" to get rid of the hereditary Peers and not go on to extend that principle to the Throne. No less a person than the Deputy Prime Minister said in the course of the debate on the Greater London Authority Bill last December, as my noble friend Lady Miller reminded us last night:
"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.]
Note the word "start". This Bill is only the start. Where do you go on to? If you get rid of the hereditary Peers, and that is only the start, where do you go next, except to think of the Throne?
The noble Lord, Lord Acton, tried to soothe these fears last night with a rather rambling history lesson on Sweden. He said that there was still a royal family in Sweden, although the hereditary system had been banished from governance. He omitted to tell the House that in Sweden the Royal Family was not involved in governance anyway. Our Royal Family is. If it is not to continue to be involved in governance, there is no parallel with Sweden or anywhere else. I am concerned about that. Just as in opening the door to devolution the Government have made possible the break-up of the United Kingdom, in destroying the hereditary principle here, they may well be unable to withstand the demands of many of their own members for an end to our monarchy. Many of them do make those demands, as I well know; they always have and I believe always will. I am therefore extremely concerned for the future of our Queen, our House and our country.
8 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, as a relative newcomer to this House I am honoured to be able to take part in this debate. I am also delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree. Although I enjoyed her contribution I did not agree with very much in it. But there is one matter for which she and her colleagues have my wholehearted sympathy. She referred to the burdens that would be placed on constituency parties if there were more elections. That may cause noble Lords on the other side of the House all kinds of problems.
For a House that is famed for its courtesy and graciousness I have been astonished to hear noble Lords on the Benches opposite and those to my far right refer to the occupants of these Benches individually and collectively in the following terms: "cuckoos"; "tame poodles"; "party hacks"; "cronies"; "envious"; "mean-minded"; "fraudulent"; "pigs in pokes" (or swine of some kind, but I am afraid that I did not catch the exact term); "illegitimate" (whether wholly or slightly was not clear to me); "paltry and petty"; "sad and cheap"; and "cowardly". Where I come from in Yorkshire the use of such language would be regarded as rudeness. Such ill-tempered debates generate more heat than light.
To reflect further on the debate so far, a somewhat cheeky image keeps popping into my mind which I shall share with noble Lords. In the past few days I have had in mind the famous sketch in "Monty Python" in which two men try to outdo each other in describing their relative poverty and dreadful family backgrounds. In your Lordships' House the competition appears to lie in antiquity: the number of ancestors who have been beheaded and the number of generations who have taken their father's place. Antiquity is not of itself a virtue. Every generation must learn from its history and then make its own past, which is what we are doing today. As distinguished and honourable as many of the noble histories and their connections with this House have been, the wonderful memories and nostalgia that we have heard today and yesterday are not the basis upon which a modern democracy can be founded.
Some noble Lords opposite have suggested that because democracy is still a relative newcomer on the British political scene it is not wholly to be trusted. Therefore, to win an election overwhelmingly proves nothing. Indeed, they may even say that what the Government seek to do here is proof of just how unreliable democracy can be. Further, it has been suggested that manifesto commitments mean nothing in themselves; they are an optional extra that a government may or may not take up as they choose. That will not do. This Government have a democratic legitimacy to bring forward this Bill. The matter of which we speak tonight is democracy and accountability. This Bill is not a full stop in the process of reform and modernisation; it is rather an important comma. It is so important that it may even be promoted to a semicolon, but a full stop it clearly is not.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: My Lords, this has been a very long debate and on the ground of pure self-interest I shall be brief. The reason that this Bill is contentious is that it is being introduced as part of a process of reform that is clearly unsatisfactory. As we debate this Bill we have no idea what the future membership of this House may be; nor, more importantly, do we have any idea of the principles upon which membership will be founded. Such uncertainty does not generate confidence in what the Government seek to do. On the other hand, as has been clear from a number of speeches from this side of the House, many believe in reform. There is a widespread perception that the House as at present constituted lacks legitimacy and hence authority and as it stands it needs reform. As someone who is a committed Conservative I find it very hard intellectually to defend the status quo. I believe that reform at some stage is inevitable.
However, that is also the problem. When one calls into question the legitimacy of the hereditary principle it also calls into question the legitimacy of every other Member of this House and the manner of appointment. Legitimacy is not something that can be easily established by the conclusions of a Royal Commission or even by the passing of an Act of Parliament. Legitimacy requires broad acceptance outside this House: in the other place, among commentators and with the people of this country. I am convinced that inevitably it will take time.
I suggest that the distinction drawn by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his opening speech—namely, that opposition to this Bill has been on grounds of process, not substance—is unfounded. It is very difficult to distinguish process from substance. The concern on this side of the House is not the self-interest of hereditary Peers who want to defend 700 years of history; rather, the concern is the nature of our parliamentary democracy and the uncharted territory into which we are moving. For all the goodwill and trust that we have in the Government, we have no idea what will happen. I believe that that is a legitimate concern. This is not based on self-interest; rather, it is based on public interest.
However, in my judgment the Bill is almost certain to be passed. In that context I should like to make three points about reform. Although this Bill is a major break with tradition reform need not abandon tradition totally. In this context it is clearly feasible, and I hope possible, that something similar to the Weatherill amendment can become a permanent feature of the stage two process of reform. It would be quite wrong to adopt what Edmund Burke termed the "abstract geometry" of the French in deciding the future composition of this House and perhaps advancing to a wholly elected second Chamber. I believe that legitimacy can be established without resort to a wholly directly elected Chamber.
I accept the wisdom of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, that we must recognise the supremacy of the other place. It is precisely because of that that I am so strongly opposed to a wholly elected second Chamber. I merely repeat what others have said.
328
Such a Chamber must inevitably come into contact with the other place if it is elected. I see no way out of that. Imagine that both Chambers have large majorities of the same party. I believe that that would only lend further weight to the notion of an elected dictatorship with Parliament's ability to call the executive to account being correspondingly weakened. Surely, that must be the most important constitutional reform needed in this country at present.
The result of having a partly elected, but also a substantially appointed, second Chamber will he described as a fudge. It will be a fudge. But what matters is not how it is described but whether the reformed Chamber is independent, effective and therefore works.
The reform of this House is but one of many reforms that is being introduced by the Government at present. Some of us wonder how those reforms can fit together. I am strongly supportive of devolution, especially for Wales. Reform of the House offers the Government a great opportunity to ensure that the fragmentation of the United Kingdom is halted and prevented by providing a mechanism through a reformed House, so that those parts of the UK that are devolved will have representation in our Parliament here and the process of devolution has a unity in the country—rather than leading to fragmentation. The House is primarily a scrutinising and deliberative body and both functions would be far stronger if more devolved areas of the UK were represented in the House.
My final point concerns the representation of religious bodies. I am sorry that there are no bishops present here. If the hereditary principle no longer has legitimacy, how long will it be before the bishops of the Church of England are evicted from this Chamber? I could construct a good case, in terms of declining numbers and the influence of the Church, and make an argument in that direction. I am delighted that under the transitional arrangements, they will continue to be represented. I am opposed to disestablishment because society derives great value, despite the secularisation that there is, from the many influences of the Anglican Church—parish life, social work and education—and from the symbols that it brings to the heart of national life. I hope that will continue and that representatives of other Christian Churches in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can be represented in this Chamber.
I value also the contribution from those of other religions. That was clearly demonstrated last Wednesday in our debate on marriage when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln spoke, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. Ours is a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic society. Without being mawkish about the future, this House could be used in a positive way to include representation.
The Bill marks the end of an era. We face a highly uncertain future. We are accepting an enormous amount from the Government on trust. While I enjoyed the opening part of the Lord Chancellor's speech, including his intellectual defence of the Bill, I became dismayed by the closing section, in which he deliberately and intentionally stamped his foot in what I thought was an

329
intimidating manner on the passage of the Bill through the House. As he did that, I could not help feeling that if this were a rugby field, I would have expected to see a yellow card raised. I do not believe that is a helpful platform from which to invite the continued trust of Members of this House as the Bill proceeds. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will match his admiration for the contribution of the hereditary peerage that he stated so eloquently this morning with a degree of patience, to recognise the genuine concerns raised by the Bill in the public interest, not private interest, because it marks such a break with the history and traditions of this country.
8.13 p.m.
Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I will also address your Lordships briefly—although not as briefly as my noble friend Lord Kintore, who took only two minutes; or the noble Lord, Lord Charteris of Amisfield, who took three minutes. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, for introducing the amendment. Whether or not I support it depends on the speeches that are to follow and whether I am still awake at half-past five.
I cannot speak for other hereditary Cross-Bench Peers, but I could have been charmed, cajoled or even induced by monetary considerations. I certainly would not use any word as coarse as "bribe"—say, further expenses to the end of this Parliament or more travel expenses, enabling me more cheaply to move to Scotland—to support the Bill. Like other noble Lords, I will not be threatened into supporting the Bill. It is a great pity that the Government have chosen a confrontational stance. It has stoked up false animosity in another place towards this noble House, with spinners' sneers and the like. I was almost contemplating a crash course in ditching, but I do not know that will be necessary.
There was in the Lord Chancellor's speech an interesting Freudian slip. In respect of the great Liberal reforming government of 1909, the Lord Chancellor referred to Lloyd George's government, but he did not become Prime Minister until 1916—when he manoeuvred Asquith out of the job. Campbell Bannerman was the Prime Minister who initiated the attempt to reform this House and his successor was Asquith.
I will, in passing, refer to the wretched business of the manifesto. I am afraid that manifestos have a poor name. I suspect it is due to that wretched document, the Communist manifesto. Look what trouble that caused. Manifestos, in the journalists' merit table, stand just below Viz and not noticeably above Hello! People do not rate manifestos at all highly, so I am sorry that there are so many references to that aspect. Other noble Lords made the point that the issue was not a prominent feature of the manifesto.
I refer to a speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in the debate on parliamentary democracy. She was complaining—and I so agree with her—about the one move that the Government made as soon as they came to power that has caused more trouble than any
330
other. I refer to the passing of control over interest rates from politicians to the executive—the Bank of England. Interest rates were raised continually and unnecessarily, causing pain and discomfort throughout the country. There was no mention of that in the manifesto.
I was going to take the Leader of the House to task for being so disturbed by the number of noble Lords speaking in this debate. We have the right to speak. I am asked from time to time by people outside the Chamber why, when great issues are debated—defence, foreign affairs, finance and constitutional affairs—so few Government supporters are to be seen on their Benches and so many on the Cross-Benches, Conservative and Liberal Benches. It is not for me to draw any conclusions.
Noble Lords will, like me, have read acres of print from Hansard on this subject and I will refer quickly to three or four references. On 22nd February the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, referred to the possibility of an emasculated, illegitimate second Chamber. That is a real possibility. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made an excellent reference in his first speech last October to the simple point that it is impossible for him to be here and there at the same time. We all know that the noble Lord is an eminent geneticist at Hammersmith Hospital. There is a problem for new Members of the House in working and being here at the same time.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester confirmed that the Church of England would be submitting to the Royal Commission some words on the position of the bishops in the new Chamber. Let us hope that voice is loud and clear—unlike some of the cracked trumpets that come from Church House.
I did not think that I should learn much new from the debate. Noble Lords on the Government side made that point too. However, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a novel point. When speculating on how the new House should be constituted, he used the phrase "random selection", a quite new idea. But as those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have had a classical education well know, Xenophon was chosen not by promotion, nor by democratic choice, but by lottery. So there is a precedent for random selection in this House.
What to do, my Lords? My family is proud of the contribution we have made over the years to the workings of this noble House, and in another place, in Edinburgh prior to 1707 before that assembly was hacked down by the English. I hope that it will be replanted, although I am suspicious of the bizarre, politically correct, franchise system that will be in operation. Thus, since we have been around since 1469, in the year 2468 I hope that we shall be quietly and discreetly—no £1 million "Mandeldome" for us—preparing a family party. In that year I suspect—I hope that I am making an unduly melancholy prediction—that if this Government carry on in this way they will merely merit on some dusty distant record a passing reference under the composite motion, "Socialism and spite".
8.22 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, at last we have reached the last page of speakers! I wish to begin by saying that I find the title of the Bill most striking. Known colloquially as the Reform of the House of Lords Bill, the word "reform" does not appear. It is the absence of that word that strikes me. Perhaps it shows that the Government realise privately how far this wretched Bill is from real reform.
I have always believed that reform meant improving an existing institution with changes for the better. But I cannot accept that anyone believes that this Bill will achieve that; otherwise why have the Government very belatedly set up a Royal Commission to consider the future of this House? I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House are threatened as the Government salami slice each group perhaps to achieve a hidden agenda. Their commitment to having a House that is more democratic is laughable if they really believe that denying access to our hereditary colleagues will fulfil that aim.
Many of those Peers have given decades of loyal service to this House and have unquestionably made a huge contribution. It grieves me considerably when disparaging and unfair criticism is directed at them. I should like to take the opportunity to add my tribute to those who were brought up to assume that it was their duty to attend and to take part in the daily round of this House. Many of them have done so most assiduously and, let us not forget, often at financial cost to themselves.
Whenever hereditary issues are raised, I am reminded of the time when Lord Wilson of Huyton chided Lord Home of the Hirsel for being the 13th Earl. Lord Home replied that we should not forget that he was the 13th Mr. Wilson. Heredity has been the backbone of this country over the centuries. We have all witnessed small family businesses which have grown and developed with each generation into the national and international companies which make such valuable contributions to our economy. Many of your Lordships belong to such families, including at least one Member of the Government Front Bench. I was therefore much amused to read that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, had said on 14th October 1998 at col. 968 of the Official Report that she would not employ a hereditary plumber. I found that astounding as I always take note of how long a firm has been in business, and if the name includes "and Son" I think it is a bonus. The son has probably watched his father from a young age, learned his skills in a practical way, and then joined the family business. So if the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, needs a plumber, perhaps she had better look for a hereditary one because I am sure he would serve her well.
This Bill is the latest, and in my humble opinion, the worst, of the Prime Minister's initiatives on modernisation. I am pleased that the Lord Privy Seal understands that some noble Lords are suspicious of modernisation. The Prime Minister tells us that in this way the Government will create a country of which he can be proud. If he is riot proud at the present time, that
332
is his problem. Our problem is that he is irresponsibly playing about with our constitution for his own ends. If the right honourable Member feels so strongly about the future of your Lordships' House, why did he not show enough concern to set up a Royal Commission until forced into action by pressure from outside his party? We welcome this belated move but cannot help but criticise him for his dithering and inability to react to public opinion.
In the changed circumstances it is therefore difficult to comprehend why we need a stage one. My noble friend Lord Wakeham and his colleagues were set the almost impossible task of reporting by 31st December of this year. The first meeting took place on 1st March, since which time a detailed programme of consultation and public hearings has been announced. To report by the end of the year therefore seems to be an impossible timetable to achieve though no doubt the report will be available soon after. Surely Parliament would be far better served by having the benefit of the views of the Royal Commission. The Government seem determined to plunge us into the unknown, they are in such a hurry to have this measure on the statute book.
The Conservative Party is not against change, as we have demonstrated over the years. It was a Conservative government that created life Peers, including women for the first time, and changed legislation so that hereditary women Peers could take their seats. We believe in genuine reform and not just change for the sake of party dogma.
It seems strange that there has been much discussion about the Weatherill amendment, which as yet has not seen the light of day. When a similar amendment was proposed by my honourable friend Mrs. Eleanor Lang, those on the Government Benches voted against it; and yet we are led to believe that if it is passed in this House the Government will support it. It shows that the Government are playing party politics with the Bill. I am pleased that the Prime Minister did a U-turn when he agreed to the 91 hereditary Peers remaining for the interim period after the Bill had passed, but I feel most strongly that it was gerrymandering to deny the Weatherill amendment in the House of Commons.
This is a short Bill, tightly drawn, which will always be remembered for what it does not say rather than for what it does say. Hereditary Peers in the House should not be denied by the wording of the Bill the opportunity to give the House the benefit of their wisdom on the future shape of the House in the weeks ahead. I believe that it is our duty to amend it as and where we can to ensure that we make a bad Bill a slightly better Bill. If that means days and days of debate, then so be it. I am sure that we on this side of the House are ready to engage in that argument as the Bill makes its way through this House.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, in a debate on 14th October last year, I argued that this House was at its best when it was least political as in the work of its committees. In the debate on 23rd February, I explained why I was not impressed by the Government's current proposals and

333
why I thought that the deal negotiated with the Government by three of my noble friends and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was unsatisfactory.
I shall not repeat what I said then except to add that my dissatisfaction with the deal has been strengthened by the way in which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us threateningly this morning that we must support it unamended or face total extinction. I still believe that the best solution which would meet the Labour Party's legitimate complaint about the imbalance of the present House would be to allow hereditary Peers to speak and work on committees but not to vote. On this, I very much agree with what was said today by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
In the October debate, incidentally, I asked for confirmation that the Government had no intention of tampering with the power of this House to veto a Bill extending the life of a Parliament. The Government Chief Whip has kindly sent me confirmation of this in writing, for which reassurance I am grateful.
I wish to make just two points. First, I am struck by the stupendous irrelevance of this Bill. The present House may well be theoretically indefensible, but it works pretty well. Reforming it can scarcely be described as an urgent necessity. But there are any number of far more urgent problems facing us today. The RAF is in action over Serbia; massive and barbaric ethnic cleansing is taking place in Kosovo; there is a risk of a wider conflagration in the Balkans; the future of the European Union, NATO and the United Nations is all in the melting pot; and with the single European currency, we shall soon face decisive questions about our future in Europe and as a sovereign independent country.
Moreover, we have serious domestic problems which cry out for government action. We have the highest divorce rate in Europe; a widespread use of drugs; a high level of crime, especially juvenile crime; and of illiteracy. Our agriculture is in deep crisis, while much of our wildlife is in steep decline. Once a great seafaring country, we now see our merchant navy and the number of men who man it dwindling to almost nothing. More and more of our industrial firms built up by British enterprise have been sold off to foreigners. In the light of all that, what are we doing? We are debating a half-baked, half-complete reform of this House. Could anyone maintain that our priorities were sensible?
My second point is the need for this House to play a proper part in calling to account the Government of the day and in opposing them when they are wrong-headed. At present, apart from a handful of independent spirits, the House of Commons scarcely offers any real criticism of the Government. That is left largely to the press. But this House has a part to play and should not hesitate to play it. We have a powerful, dominating, and in some ways domineering, Government. They have rammed through constitutional change in Scotland and Wales which begins to look as though it is leading to the dismemberment of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, the unrequited release of murderers, snipers and bombers—250 of them so far—amount to a suspension
334
of the ordinary rule of law that so many lives have been given to defend. Is this the time to plan the replacement of this House by a wholly nominated body?
I believe that the Government's proposals will weaken the second Chamber, make it more political, less independent and less respected. It may well end up by being like the House of Commons; a body which does whatever the Government want. That would increase the already excessive power of the over-mighty executive and, in my view, be exceedingly unfortunate.
8.32 p.m.
Viscount Blakenham: My Lords, in order not to be repetitive, I intend to confine my remarks to three minutes. The case for removing the voting rights of hereditary Peers is overwhelming. A built-in majority for one party is unjustifiable. The fact that this hereditary majority is semi-dormant and predominantly male only makes matters worse. The argument, "If it works don't fix it", does not hold water when there are other workable alternatives, a number of which have been put forward in the debate. The skills and varied expertise of the hereditary Peers should not be underestimated and I do not do so. But neither should those of the life Peers.
During these past 15 years, for five or six I have sat on Select Committees. I know that the contribution of the life Peers has been predominant on those committees. We have the opportunity to create more life Peers from a wide pool of talent—there is a whole nation from which to choose—and we should be prepared to take the first step.
Like most Members of this House, I believe that not knowing what the new make up of the House will be is unsatisfactory. However, it is self-evident that it would not be possible to gain a unanimous view. We have a government commitment that after some political appointments, the future appointment of life Peers will in principle be largely independent of government. We also have a Royal Commission which will recommend the way forward. Moreover we have the opportunity of nominating 90 hereditary Peers who should be able to influence an acceptable outcome during the transitional period.
I turn to the amendments put forward by noble Lords. I support that put forward by my noble friend Lord Weatherill, but not the others. First, I do not believe that reform is being conducted primarily for reasons of political advantage. For years, all parties have agreed that the House of Lords should be reformed, but to date no government have grasped the attendant nettle.
Secondly, I believe that the accepted and vital role of this House is to amend and improve proposed legislation and that any move which would greatly strengthen perceived legitimacy would result in a much more radical, and in my view undesirable, change in constitutional practice.
As regards the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, I worry that it might cause delay and confusion which I am sure the noble Lord did not intend. The voting rights of hereditary Peers are not

335
being removed because the majority of them fail to attend and vote. Part of the problem is that they occasionally do.
Noble Lords will understand from what I have said that I am not at one with the Opposition view on this matter. The reason I am speaking for the first time from the Cross-Benches relates primarily to the medium-term position that the main Opposition party has taken on Europe and European monetary union. Reform must start somewhere. Finally. I say that trust sometimes produces better results than suspicion and I suggest that we would do well to travel the route of reform with a little more hope.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Wrenbury: My Lords, I have felt some disappointment that the combined brain power of this House has been unable either to find a justification for the hereditary principle or to devise any formula for its future composition which is a manifest improvement on the present position.
As to the first point, it occurs to me that all hereditary Peers are the product of a marriage. Marriage, as we all know, is a lottery in which absolutely any girl of childbearing age can take part. Are we really saying that a Member of this House, selected in this haphazard manner, has less good democratic credentials than someone hand picked by the Prime Minister? I suggest not.
As to the second point, since no solution is in sight, it seems to me common sense to vote against the Bill until someone can come up with a proposal that commands a general consensus. To suggest that every item in the manifesto represents the declared will of the majority of the people of this country is as ludicrous as suggesting that a customer has a choice in the selection of dishes on a table d'hôte menu. There is no choice in a party political manifesto. You either accept the whole thing or you lump it. That is why the opinion polls are clearly telling us that this particular measure is something the majority of people were not aware of and do not want.
I have been sitting in this House since 1948, before the Prime Minister was born, and at a time when the Marquess, whose speech gave rise to the Salisbury Convention, was in his heyday. Much as I used to admire him, I should not wish anything he said to be treated as more than a convention which can be put aside in a proper case. For the reasons I have already given, it cannot seriously be claimed that the country has expressed any view on this matter and therefore we should all feel perfectly free to consider it on its merits. The Government should try to get their own way through the normal voting procedures and not rely on a convention which never had a constitutional issue of this magnitude in mind.
I detest the common practice of speaking passionately against a Bill and then failing to vote against it. I do not believe that the first Duke of Wellington would have thought much of it either. Let us stop playing politics for once and consider the merits of the Bill. If, like me,
336
you consider it to be a bad Bill, then vote against it at this stage rather than trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear in Committee.
Much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I do not consider his proposed formula will lead us anywhere useful. It seems to be based on two false premises, the first of which is that the function of this House is to play party politics. That is wrong: the function of this House is to act as guardian of the rights of the people, which has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with commonsense and integrity. If the Parliament Act 1911 were being enacted today, it is not just the life of a Parliament over which this House would be given a veto, but a whole range of other matters in addition. How absurd it is that the sovereignty of a free people should be accorded less protection than the life of its Parliament. This Chamber has increasingly demeaned itself by playing party politics and should look to a worthier role; otherwise the very people who should be here to protect our national interests will not think it worthwhile to attend.
The second fault that I have to find with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is that it seems to assume that those who attend most regularly are the most valuable Members of this House. If the criterion for membership is having first-hand knowledge of specialist subjects, then that assumption must be incorrect because one does not gain, or indeed retain, first-hand knowledge of anything by sitting on these well-upholstered Benches. Industry is always admirable and Committee work has to be done, but wisdom, if that is the quality we are seeking, will surely only make an appearance when it has something really useful to contribute or when it feels a clear duty, for the good of the country, to turn up in order to speak or vote. Being a Member of this House is not about power, but about service and when it ceases to be that, it will forfeit the respect of the British people.
Looking to the future, we must decide whether we want to see an elected or an appointed Chamber. If it is to be elected, then for purely practical reasons the candidates must offer themselves on a party ticket because there is no other method of distinguishing one candidate from another. Independents do not usually succeed in political elections because their personal qualities are not known to the electorate. Therefore, if the Second Chamber is to be elected it will inevitably be run on party political lines.
But since we also seek a Chamber which is not a carbon copy of the first and which has real political clout, it might be worth considering whether it should not be composed of runners-up in every constituency election. The perpetuation of the concept of a seat for life in the Upper House could then cease.
Alternatively, if we seek a Chamber composed of independent experts, then it is absolutely inevitable that they will have to be appointed. That begs the question of whether anyone will wish to be appointed, knowing that they will be taking on an obligation of unremitting toil, coupled with an almost complete lack of political clout. An hereditary Peer is willing to fill this vacuum because he sees it as his inherited duty to do so. But who

337
would take on such an obligation starting from cold? I believe that when the hereditary Peers depart most of the glamour, romance, attraction, tradition—call it what one will—of sitting in the Upper House will disappear with them and it will not be easy to find suitable replacements.
Finally, there seem to be good legal reasons for voting the Bill down at Second Reading and they are these. No one doubts that Parliament consists of three elements; namely, the Monarchy, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Neither, I imagine, would anyone dispute the proposition that none of these elements is capable in law of abolishing the other unilaterally. It may well be possible for the people of this country to effect any change they like, but as regards our unwritten constitution if we are to work within the law then I suggest that Parliament is one and indivisible. It would make as much sense to imagine God seeking to estrange Himself from the Holy Ghost as to imagine the House of Commons seeking to abolish the House of Lords. In both cases there is a Trinity, counting the Monarchy, and in both cases that Trinity is indivisible.
It is also vitally important that this should be so, because what safeguard of the rights of the people would the House of Lords provide if it could be abolished by the House of Commons? Then I ask, what is the difference between abolishing an institution and abolishing the entire membership of that institution? An institution, like a company, cannot function without members. And although the present Bill relates only to the hereditary peerage, the power which it purports to exercise must surely be equally exercisable in regard to all other Peers. On that basis, the House of Commons would clearly have power to abolish the House of Lords by the back door and since any attempt of this sort would clearly be unconstitutional it must follow that a partial exercise of that same power is also unconstitutional.
Parliament must be capable of reforming itself by mutual agreement of all three constituent parts. But for the reasons I have given attempts at unilateral reform of one House by another, purporting to rely on the Parliament Act, must be unconstitutional. If those two proposals are right then we could be doing ourselves enormous harm by voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, since that involves giving the Bill a Second Reading, which in turn might be taken to amount to consent sufficient to bring the Parliament Act into operation.
I agree with the sentiments expressed in the amendment, but because of this potential legal trap I, and I hope other noble Lords, shall not feel able to support it. I believe that the only safe thing to do is to deny the Bill a Second Reading and have plenty of time to think again. It is for that reason that I strongly advocate throwing the Bill out on Second Reading.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is getting late and I am going to try to beat the target of the noble Viscount, Lord Blakenham, when he said that he would be back in
338
his seat in three minutes. I am going for two-and-a-half minutes so this is really a bonus for noble Lords and they can tick off how many minutes it is to dinner time more successfully.
This Bill is really about the reform of Parliament and not merely the narrower focus of reforming the House of Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, so aptly put it yesterday,
"In reforming the Second Chamber our aim should therefore be to strengthen Parliament as a whole".—[Official Report, 29/3/99; col. 31.]
I entirely agree with that. Is it not essential that we have a strong Parliament to stand up to the executive and, from time to time, to say, "Think again, think again; perhaps you have got it wrong"? The removal of the hereditary Peers will inevitably affect the status of the Monarchy. When the House was debating the White Paper on the future of the House of Lords I well remember the noble Lord, Lord Charteris, making one point. It was an occasion such as this when there were many, many speakers spread over two days. He said that he was concerned about the effect of the removal of hereditary Peers on the Monarchy. I share that concern.
Finally, the hereditary principle is entirely scriptural. It is supported by the genealogy of the Lord Jesus and by his first recorded words in Luke, Chapter II, verse 49. He said,
"How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?".
Are there not now men and women in this House who have been faithfully going about their fathers' business of contributing to Parliament for generations?
8.50 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, listening to this long and interesting debate, I am sad that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, summarised the position, it has sometimes fallen below the normal standards of this House. I have been drawn to thinking of the similarities with George Orwell's Animal Farm but with a greater involvement of turkeys debating whether they should vote for Christmas. Here we have two distinct groups of turkeys at present living in relative harmony. Some of the turkeys are voting for Christmas because they know that their sacrifice is for the good of the whole flock or public. Some say that their longevity is so vital to the ongoing viability of the turkey farm that they must remain until they die, which means less revenue for the farmer. Then their eldest chicks will take over the rule of the turkey farm, and they believe that without ongoing advice from them and their eldest chicks, who are nearly always male, of course, the farmer and the other turkeys will start to wreck the farm and will not look after it in the way in which they have become accustomed.
We then have the other turkey friends who are genetically engineered. They are such fine specimens and are therefore likely to be able to operate with more democratic legitimacy. They are engineered so that they cannot have children and the farmer must buy or create new and even more intelligent birds. Some of the GM birds believe that the old-fashioned ones deserve their

339
fate; some argue that they should be preserved. But in all that, it feels that we are having a re-run of the early chapters of that book because the arguments, long into the night, sometimes appear to be at variance with the ideas which their proponents seem to promote or others seek to oppose.
I am an hereditary Peer and my title goes back to the 1400s. I shall not give your Lordships a history lesson. We all have something in common; that is, we have not earned the right to sit in the House of Lords through our own achievements or appointments. Many hereditary Peers have given great public service to the country because they happened to have a seat in this House. It is good that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend the Leader of the House have paid eloquent tribute to their work. But that is not a reason for continuing the system indefinitely and is certainly not an argument for saying, as so many speakers from the Opposition have argued, that only hereditary Peers can preserve the democratic traditions of this country. Many hereditary Peers opposite appear to infer that life Peers are somehow less able to preserve those traditions and provide essential scrutiny of government legislation and the brake on the power of the Executive that I certainly believe is required.
Life Peers in this House have been appointed by nine Prime Ministers of both major parties. Those life Peers believe that they are here for life. Some have loyalty to a party and others less so. I suggest that life Peers are just as able, if not more so, to discharge those functions. To suggest otherwise is an insult to the many life Peers who are active in this House and who are just as independent and willing to cause trouble for their party if they feel the desire so to do.
There are two important matters for the future. The interim House must include those with experience of all walks of life, professions and religions. Some noble Lords opposite have suggested that only hereditary Peers have the specialist knowledge needed to scrutinise legislation in a proper manner. There is a large number of hereditary Peers who have that specialist knowledge and their contribution is greatly welcomed. But if it is considered so valuable, I presume it is possible for them to be appointed life Peers in the normal way. But I could list many life Peers who have as much, if not more, specialist knowledge, and they contribute greatly to the work in your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lady Gould said earlier that the House is a long way from reflecting the current multi-ethnic society in which we live. She is absolutely right. This Government have made strong efforts to redress the balance in your Lordships' House. However, the number of women here is still lamentably low. The number of different races and religions which make up our population today is woefully unrepresented. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, suggested that other religions should be better represented. But we have a long way to go.
The imbalance is exacerbated by the presence of hereditary Peers, who are generally male, generally white and frequently with a main interest in agriculture, shooting, fishing, not roaming or being compensated for
340
allowing others to roam, as we heard this morning. I have even received a letter from the Country Landowners' Association saying that the countryside is at risk if hereditary Peers are abolished since there will be no representation of the countryside in Parliament and most Members of Parliament represent urban areas. That is quite extraordinary. Are there no Members of Parliament representing rural areas? That is an astonishing comment on how the Conservative hereditary Peers see themselves as guardians of the countryside.
I detect a feeling that they see themselves as guardians of our society, our way of life, our Monarchy and, presumably, to keep the place warm until the electorate comes to its senses and re-elects the party whose natural role it is to lead and govern; that is, the party opposite. I really believe that the representation in your Lordships' House must be multi-racial, reflecting the society of today with different religions represented and many more women.
The content and experience of this House can be widened and deepened by the proposed appointment process. Many noble Lords opposite have suggested that the present Prime Minister is a control freak and that he will fill the House with placemen and reduce the ability of the House to scrutinise legislation and act as a brake on the executive.
There have been many comments made by noble Lords opposite to the present allegedly presidential form of government. In fact, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, suggested, if I heard him right, that we are heading for an elected dictatorship.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I recall the long years of the administration of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher; there were then many occasions when I had similar thoughts. Many people made similar comments about politicians in those days; that she was acting as a president; that her Cabinet were a group of "yes men", and they were mostly men. We have already heard that over many years, the previous government appointed life Peers in much greater numbers than the then Prime Minister permitted other parties to do. Therefore, I believe that my right honourable friend the present Prime Minister is to be commended on proposing for the first time a system in which no one party should have an overall majority in your Lordships' House and that there should be an independent commission for appointing Cross-Bench Peers.
Given the imbalance which will still exist even after the hereditary Peers have gone, it is reasonable that that should be put right at the first opportunity in view of the commitment which the Prime Minister has given.
As regards the Weatherill amendment, I can see some advantages in such a compromise if it will enable the legislation to go through more quickly. But it will exacerbate the imbalance between the parties. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, suggest that if one of the 90 Peers dies or is no longer able to attend, the next one on the list would automatically step into his shoes. I do not believe that that is right. The Weatherill amendment has some

341
advantage because it ensures that the transitional House does not lose some of the experience of some hereditary Peers, but to perpetuate that for ever is wrong. As the 90 elected hereditary Peers pass on, they should not be replaced.
I believe that the role and responsibility of the House in the future needs careful consideration. It must not be diluted. I suspect that another place will not wish to see too much competition in the democratic element. I should like to see some regional representation, be it elected or otherwise. I do not see why regional representatives should not sit alongside life Peers, just as life Peers and hereditary Peers do at the moment.
The Opposition appear to be intent on blocking this Bill by any possible means. They do not seem to accept that its inclusion in the Labour Party's manifesto is relevant. For my part, I shall work to help to achieve the change by stages, which is what I believe the country needs. The Bill is the first step. We, or our successors, will have plenty of opportunity to debate future stages.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it was with great pleasure that I heard my noble kinsman, now my noble friend, Lord Blakenham speak for the first time tonight from the Cross-Benches.
My father served in your Lordships' House for 65 years on the Labour Benches and as Chairman of Committees. Prior to that he served as a Labour councillor in the LCC and before that he distributed literature in support of the workers during the General Strike. The view that the strongest have a responsibility to the weakest underpinned his whole life. Some time after he died, my sister found a letter on his desk from a German Jew, writing to thank him for making it possible for him to have grandchildren. My father had acted as an advocate for him in the 1930s when he had to leave Germany.
My fear is that, if the constitution is botched, the weakest in society will pay the highest price. Consider that one in five Britons is unable to find a plumber in the Yellow Pages. Last year in just one hostel for young homeless people in London, 1,000 16 to 18 year-olds needed help. Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe.
I have worked with young people on housing estates in several London boroughs. I sense that there is something rotten in this British state of ours. Families no longer function. One can expect to be fed upon by needy parents, brothers and sisters. The family is no longer a secure place in which to grow up for many young people. Why should that be? It could be the result of the excellence of this nation in years past, leading the industrial revolution and dominating the world for 150 years. Excellence has a price and the poor pay it.
However, there are many who believe that if the economy is effective, competitive and if we engage in the new global economy, such wounds will be healed and the opportunities offered will heal that damage. That is to dream. Certainly the less damaged will benefit from
342
such a future, but there will be a hard core—as there is in the US—of "ghettoised", underprivileged people. Such families need support, not just in terms of finance, but through well thought-out services which can help them and give them employment opportunities. The endeavour has to be holistic and well focused.
Somewhere at the top there has to be an intelligence to focus the funding of such services to those really in need. Accept the Bill as it stands and we risk eternal conservative—with a small "c"—government. The removal of voting Peers, the resulting increased authority of the upper House and the expectation among many Conservatives—with a big "C"—to wish for a fully elected upper House, with a strong check on the lower House, means that controversial legislation will have an uphill struggle to make it on to the statute book.
We may be in peril of facing the middle-of-the-road American style, "majoritarian" democracy, where people get on with their business and care for their famines, but those at the very bottom rot in ghettoes. Bread and circuses are not enough. I believe that we need a strong executive. An executive which has signed away its powers has no capacity to address the profound ills which are so hard to see, but which I believe exist.
Let us not forget the tower blocks that were to be the solution to the slums. That was the big idea. We were to begin from zero with machines for living. They were cheap and they were in a modern style. However, the consequences were not thought through. Flat roofs leak; lifts to the 15th floor fail; concrete weakens; and pensioners die from hypothermia when boilers fail. That new beginning has turned into a lasting blight. It was done with the best of intentions, but has had tragic consequences.
To remove 40 per cent. of the active membership of your Lordships' House is to make a revolutionary change. Has it been thought through? Where are the reports from business consultants regarding the function of this House and the hereditary Peers? Where are the reports from constitutional academics and from sociologists on the consequences? Where are the profound, in-depth studies? I went to the Library when I first became a Member of this House and I looked for them, but they are not there. They are nowhere to be seen.
I deprecate the Bill. It is too much of the heart and not enough of the head. I ask the Government for reassurance that the Bill, if enacted, will not lead to the constitution that I have described, one which harms the most vulnerable, one akin to that of the United States.
9.7 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, when I spoke on House of Lords reform on 23rd February I touched on the question of the rural voice in policy and legislative scrutiny in this House and the other place. In this Second Reading, I wish to press the Government to ensure that our rural areas are represented effectively in any future Chamber. Whether Members are appointed or elected, proper representation must be guaranteed. I underline again the need to maintain sufficient independent expertise on agricultural, environmental

343
and financial matters. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will be interested to know that at present much of that expertise and experience is represented by hereditary Peers who live outside the M.25 and who come from the far comers of England, Wales and Scotland. Will that still be the case if this Bill goes through all its stages without amendment? How will the intermediate House maintain the same credentials?
If the procedures of the current House are changed, the country will be the loser. The revision of the Environment Bill in 1995, with its technical amendments tabled from all sides of the House, raised scientific issues with far-reaching implications of which there was no adequate consideration in the House of Commons.
The expert Select Committees must be retained and expanded upon. They should certainly be expanded to scrutinise policy within the European Union.
There are no guarantees in the Bill that appointments of Peers to the House in the transitional stage will be on the terms set out in the White Paper. Will the Government confirm that they will conform in practice to all the terms set out in the White Paper?
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House in her opening speech yesterday spoke of the principles of Labour government, such as the improvement of society and institutions. The; noble Lord, Lord Richard, spoke of making local democracy legitimate and credible. I am confident that hereditary Peers have not impeded progress on any of those fronts. Sadly, and like many other noble Lords, I still have not had answers to some questions that I put forward in February's debate. That underlines the need for amendments to the Bill to tease out answers to the festering questions that the country will ask sooner or later. This House must ensure that all those inquiries are answered before it is too late so that all the facts and ideas can be adequately reviewed by the Royal Commission.
Of course, the Royal Commission's consultation paper poses more questions than answers, but those questions (and our questions) must be answered. The preface to the consultation paper states:
"The Royal Commission has been asked to report by 31st December 1999. which represents a challenging timescale for a complex, multi-faceted task".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, underlined that point yesterday. Will the Government confirm that they have "asked" the Royal Commission to report rather than "told" the commission to report and, if that is the case, whether or not more time will be given to the Royal Commission if it deems it necessary? The country deserves to have a proper job made of reform. No stone should be left unturned.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, said yesterday that history has proved that putting two stages of a Bill together has never worked, and I bow to his superior knowledge on the subject. However, would I not be right in thinking that an unbreakable link must be cast and forged between the two stages so that the synergy between stages one and two can be seen not only to exist, but to have fruitful meaning?
344
I return to the passing of this Bill and the 60 days before the submission of the Royal Commission. The passing of stage one before knowing the prospects; of stage two is as if the Government do not want the country to know the possibilities of stage two before stage one of the Bill is passed.
When the hereditaries go, so too will the Salisbury-Addison Convention. Not only is there no destination for the stagecoach on which we are to embark, but also there is no concise timetable for that stagecoach. I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
9.14 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to thank my noble friend Lady Jay the Leader of the House for the elegant way in which she introduced this debate yesterday. I also thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his forceful speech this morning. I am sure we all pay tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton for the way in which he wound up the debate last night, and we look forward to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn winding up this marathon debate at some time tomorrow morning.
The theme of my contribution this evening concerns the difference between perception and reality. I want to speak about the background to the Bill; to say a few words about the Bill; and to say something about the Weatherill amendment and the reasoned amendment to this debate moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. But before I do that, I pay tribute to the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, for injecting into this two-day debate what I would describe as the very kernel of the functions of Parliament. He spoke about the economic and social circumstances of the dispossessed in our society, and I pay tribute to him for doing that. That forms the basis of all that we should be about in Parliament.
I pay tribute also to his grandfather, the one we knew as Billy Listowel, a member of the Attlee government. I suspect he would have been a little sad to hear his grandson speak in this House on the basis of, "We should only go forward on the basis of a management plan". I suggest that Billy Listowel would have said, 'To hell with management plans. We are concerned with speaking for our people, the working people of this country". He was part of a government that did not just speak, but also acted. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those ancestors of ours who changed the face of this country, the way it was organised, the priorities of our society.
I listened yesterday to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He said that the object of the House of Lords was to reduce executive power. It is easy for a Liberal Democrat—someone in permanent opposition—to say that. But we are here gathered in Parliament to deliberate upon the great affairs of state and I suggest that we are all summoned here by Her Majesty the Queen to give our counsel; in other words, to give advice. We are here to speak for ourselves and no others. We sit by virtue of duty and it is also a great privilege.

345
I was astounded by the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, who suggested that it was the right thing to do as a placeman of the Prime Minister to do that Prime Minister's bidding. I feel that we are summoned on our own recognizance to speak for ourselves and not for any party outside this House. I was scandalised by that suggestion.
Until January 1985 the House of Lords was known to be a major impediment, and abolition was seen to be the solution. In a funny sort of way I pay tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. One might say he is a cunning old dog—well, he is a Cecil; he would be! But in this century alone there have been a number of stages of reform of this House of Lords. In 1911 we had the Parliament Act, which restricted the ability to deny the House of Commons to two years. In 1948 that was reduced to one year. In 1958 we had the Life Peerages Act, which enabled life peerages to be created. In 1963 there was the Peerage Act, which allowed disclaim of title to sit in this House of Lords. In 1964 there was the introduction of expenses for Members of this House, which did have an effect. On that basis, by my calculation, we are at stage six, and the Bill in front of us is just the next stage in this progressive evolution over the present century alone. Who knows what the next century will provide?
I was talking about 1985. On 23rd January of that year the House of Lords started to be televised and the great British public liked what they saw: sensible old buffers having sensible and civilised debates and, subsequently, defeating the nasty Conservative government on rare occasions. However, there is a problem with that perception. The debate on that day was to,
"call attention to the need for Her Majesty's Government, in this new year of 1985, to develop economic and social policies which unite the nation; which aim at directly creating employment rather than reducing taxation; which give new life to national pride in our welfare state and encourage motives of social responsibility rather than self interest".—[Official Report, 23/1/85; col. 228.]
I contributed to the debate on that day; indeed, it was my maiden speech. We spoke for the country. Speaker after speaker, not only from this side of the House, spoke in support of the Motion and against the thrust of Tory government policy. We won the argument. I can remember going to our Chief Whip afterwards, the late Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and saying: "We are winning the argument. I hope that we put it to the vote". He responded by saying that we would lose the vote. So we did not put the Motion to the vote on that day, but on many subsequent occasions in the succeeding 12 years when we had won the argument we did put questions to the vote. However, more than nine times out of 10 we lost the vote.
So abolition dropped off the political agenda, but we still have the problem of Tory hegemony in this House of Lords. The real problem for Parliament is that there is a clash between the perception of the House of Lords as a good thing and the reality that, on more than nine occasions out of 10, this House has supported nasty anti-social Conservative legislation in the Division Lobbies. The problem continues to this day. Every day
346
the Conservative Opposition play with us. It is like a cat playing with a mouse, ready to pounce any time that it likes. It is wrong.
The idea of getting rid of the right of hereditary Peers to vote was suggested: at a stroke, 750 Peers, with only 2.4 per cent. taking the Labour Whip, would be removed. That would do two things. First, it would reduce the size of the House to more manageable proportions for self-regulation to enable it to survive; and, secondly, it would reduce the distortion of the House and enable it to reflect more closely modern British society. It is to be hoped that that would also reduce the gap between perception and reality. That suggestion was taken up by Tony Blair. It was then agreed by the Labour Party Conference and subsequently by the Labour Party membership. Finally, it was put to the British people in our manifesto and massively endorsed.
I heartily endorse the Bill and wish it good speed in its passage through your Lordships' House. Having said that, I join with others in paying tribute to many hereditary Peers who have contributed to public life as Members of your Lordships' House. In particular, I should like to mention the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Shepherd, both of whom were distinguished former Leaders of the House.
I have two comments to make about the Weatherill amendment. First, I hope that we could consider selection of the 10 per cent. of the hereditary peerages by seniority on the basis of the date of taking one's seat, rather than election. I say that for a number of reasons. Unlike 300 years ago with the Scottish peerage, and 200 years ago with the Irish peerage, there is now no homogeneous body of the hereditary peerage, as there was in those days. We risk losing the contribution of experience, knowledge of the world, and wisdom of our older Members. Most significantly, over recent times we have developed the convention that Peers speak only for themselves and for no outside interest, so how can they speak for others?
Secondly, if the second stage of reform is to be more significant than gradual evolution, I take up the careful words uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and put the suggestion more boldly; namely, that any further significant change in the composition of the House of Lords should be put to the people in a general election. In that case the remaining hereditary Peers should go by the end of this Parliament.
I said earlier that I would say something about the Cobbold amendment. However, I do not need to say anything because the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said it all yesterday. Having made these points, I assure the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that she will have my support for this timely measure.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could I respectfully ask him who is the cat and who is the mouse?
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should have thought it was fairly clear from my speech that we are the poor little mouse and you are the nasty cat.
9.26 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' waning attention, for I am sure it is after about 142 speakers. I hope I may seize your Lordships' attention by recalling the history of the Plantagenets when Richard II courted the Church, Parliament and the people for eight years until eventually in 1397 the Estates were summoned to Westminster and all showed due submission. King Richard II then revealed his true agenda, took vengeance on Gloucester who was murdered at Calais by Richard's agents, on Arundel who was decapitated, and on Warwick who was exiled to the Isle of Man. Richard II was supreme and had all England before him, and Parliament was called on only to legalise these events. Today the Prime Minister and his Government are nearly supreme after only two years and are only held accountable by the Lords, Temporal and Spiritual, who stand in their way of total supremacy.
The point of dire concern that I wish to address today concerns the overall picture of the modernising of this nation's constitution by our Government. I could wax lyrically on in defence of the Peers, in defending accountability, in the justification of appointed and hereditary Peers, the privileges and wealth enjoyed by some Peers, and the myth that the overwhelming majority of Peers support the Conservative Party. But then we would lose sight of the overall picture and fail to analyse this dire concern. What is the reform of the Lords all about? Where is our constitution heading?
Most seek reform. Reform has been attempted on a number of occasions over the past century only to be rebutted. Most hereditary Peers, I believe, are content to step aside provided an equally efficient and equally independent Upper House will be the end product of this reform; an unequivocal legitimacy to sit in this reformed House will produce a stronger House. So why do we see this Government bringing forward a Bill which will occupy so much of the Government's business time and, if it succeeds, will reduce this House into arguably little more than a political poodle? Surely the Government would do better to wait for the Royal Commission and the Mackay Report to be appraised of all the facts and options before embarking on such a Bill.
Many noble Lords believe that the basis of any reform should include the following: there should be no increase in the Prime Minister's power of patronage, direct or indirect; the compostion of the House should be different from that of the Lower House; it should be an independent reformed House, not owing its place to patronage; it should be a reformed House that is representative of the whole of the United Kingdom, especially of the rural areas; it should be a reformed House whose marriage to the Lower House would not produce a divorce; and it should be a reformed House that would operate equally as well or better than the present House.
For myself, the key question is why do the Government intend to bring forward stage one without revealing what the reformed House in stage two will be. As my noble friend Lord Hurd so wisely observed,
"It is customary in advanced society to inform passengers of the destination before they board the train".
348
In the Cabinet Office document Modernising Parliament the Prime Minister said:
"reforming the House of Lords is a key element of the Government's legislative plans, and proposals for further reform beyond that".
So why is the Prime Minister unable to reveal his proposals? Could it be that he has no proposals and may never be able to come forward with workable proposals? Perhaps one should look at the evidence of bringing stage one without stage two. It has been the Government's policy in the past to say one thing and do another. For example, they had no plans to close hospitals, and yet many community hospitals are closing; they stated there would be no tax increases, but even the Prime Minister had to admit that a number of taxes have been raised. Therefore, with this and other evidence, one could speculate that this dictatorial Government's actions speak louder than words.
In the historical past the balance of power has been a delicate equation between Monarchy, Parliament, with its Upper and Lower Houses, the general public and, more recently, the media. Today the balance of power has swung heavily in favour of the executive of the Government. In the past two years since the Government came to power, only the Upper House has successfully held the executive to account. The Government, with their undefeatable majority, have significantly weakened the Lower House to a rubber-stamping Chamber. Their control of the media is manipulative. Those attempting to hold the Government to account by criticism or revelation are quickly felled. The executive is so controlling that it attempts to deny some people the ability to stand for elections. It attempts to ensure that other people are more electable, to the extent that in the European elections, Members of the European Parliament are only accountable to the party and not to the people. Is this a modern reform of the constitution, or rather control of the constitution by a dictatorial executive?
Let us take the case of the appointed, non-democratic European Commissioners who resigned en masse due to corruption. We now see a couple of European Prime Ministers wishing to catapult an Italian, Romano Prodi, into the top job, a man known for his redefining of democratic socialism through the "third way". I am sure that there are many noble Lords who wish they knew what the "third way" is. Perhaps it should be a modem "third way".
If the Government go forward with stage one without stage two, they will not be reforming this House but controlling it. In effect there will be a monopoly of power in the hands of the executive. This is a critical time, when the Government are modernising our constitution; when the Government are seeking ever closer irrevocable ties with Europe; and when some sovereignty and financial autonomy will have to be conceded to Euroland. In the future, questions are bound to be considered as to whether we will change from case law to European Roman law and as to whether some control of our Armed Forces will be passed to Europe. Surely it is not a time for experiment and destabilisation of our constitution.

349
In conclusion, I believe that there is a noble cause "to know the destination before we leave this station" and to be certain that this reform is not a cunning conjuring trick to control our constitution. For those reasons I will contest the Bill in its present form.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Napier and Ettrick: My Lords, this has indeed been a marathon debate, and I shall endeavour, therefore, not to detain your Lordships for too long, but there are a few things that I simply must say.
I am of the old aristocracy. My family, in one way or another, has been in the service of the Crown for generations. One of the things that I am perhaps most proud of is the fact that we were specifically excluded from Cromwell's so-called "Act of Grace and Pardon".
I have always believed that whenever any matter was before this House every Member had a duty, not a right, to consider that matter as it affected the Crown and the people of Great Britain and then to conclude upon it by voice and vote. I do not see how any responsible and self-respecting body could act in any other way. Indeed, we used to be bound in honour so to do; and that is what I believe we have done.
As has already been said by several other noble Lords, we are no different from any life Peer. We are, once here, all equal. I should also like to remind your Lordships that when a difference does arise between the two Houses we, as presently constituted, have been a stabilising influence on the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred to this Bill yesterday as a paving Bill. I would say that it is, or could be, but a stepping stone, the first of many threads to be pulled to unravel and destroy the constitutional fabric and foundation stones of our social and political community. Indeed, what could be at stake here is the survival of the Monarchy into the 21st century. At the moment the Government are trying to skirt around this issue, but it needs to be watched most carefully.
I have to say that the Government appear to be obsessed with a desire to rubbish our history and traditions, all of which have played such a large part in the evolution of our tolerant society over the centuries. I do hope that as they gain experience in office this will change. It is my belief that, if in due course the Bill eventually passes, this upper House should become a senate, or whatever, and not be a House of Peers. Its members should sit as senators or some such other name. I hope that the Royal Commission will take note of what I have just said and consider it.
I believe that the new House should be elected, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I accept that the Cranborne-Weatherill amendment was conceived with the best intentions, but I consider it to be a stitch-up which is beginning to unravel; and if the oration of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, yesterday and the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today are anything to go by, I would think that it is probably a non-starter anyway.
350
Now, we are all to retain our other privileges. In all my 44½ years' membership of your Lordships' House, I have found that the title, if anything, tends to increase the estimates one seeks and the costs and charges. There is, however, one particular matter upon which I seek clarification. I have not myself heard it mentioned, although it may have been. I should be grateful if the Minister when he comes to reply could confirm that our undoubted right to attend the Sovereign at his or her Coronation is inviolate. My first ennobled ancestor accompanied King James VI of Scotland to England when His Majesty ascended the English throne and some 30 years later he was one of the four Peers to hold the King's Canopy in the State Procession when King Charles I took possession of the Scottish Crown. I myself will almost certainly be dead by the time of the next Coronation. But I would like to think that my son will be able to make his homage to his sovereign.
I believe that the people of this country know that their hereditary Peers are the defenders of their rights and freedoms. This is not a case of Lords versus the people. Rather it is Peers for the people and, strangely enough, we are much more in touch with what the people really want than some of the elected Members of another place.
We have already heard that there is absolutely no evidence that there is any popular demand for the Bill. Only 2 per cent. of people polled recalled that it was mentioned in the Labour manifesto. It is, therefore, totally misleading for the Government to claim that they have a mandate for this reform.
The Prime Minister has impertinently dubbed us an "affront to democracy". Rubbish! What is an affront to democracy is the fact that the Government have so far shown no inclination to put this matter to the people in a referendum. Let the people themselves decide. That is democracy. I challenge the Government to do so, and I hope that the national press will give this full coverage.
I am reminded of an article by Mr. Boris Johnson in the Telegraph after the last State Opening of Parliament. It ended like this:
"If you seek the anti-democratic frustrations of the people's will, Tony Old Bean, look in the mirror".
Alfred Einstein once said:
"Politics is a pendulum whose swings between anarchy and tyranny are fuelled by perennially rejuvenated illusions".
I ask the Government to think on these matters because the pendulum will inevitably swing—it always does.
An amendment will be tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about which the noble Lord has already told us and to which I have added my name.
Let the British people decide what they want to happen to their hereditary Peers, and if in their wisdom they do decide that we no longer serve a useful purpose for them here, then of course we will go. I can do no

351
better than quote the words of the 8th Duke of Argyll, when some 105 years ago in not dissimilar circumstances he said:
"If it should be determined to do away with this Fortress, we shall return into the bosom of the people out of which we rose, proud of the great part we have taken in raising up a dominion more glorious than any that has existed since the fall of Rome".
The dominion may have gone but the pride will surely remain for ever.
I understand that my noble friend Lord Cobbold is minded to press his amendment to a Division. I shall certainly support him.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and at great risk of being charged by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, with cross-examining him perhaps I may gently ask him to assist your Lordships with the answer to two simple questions. Is he aware that the Labour Party manifesto at the last election was, I admit for a short time only, number six in the Sunday Times bestseller list? Is it the noble Lord's view that in our democracy no manifesto can ever give any government a mandate?
Lord Napier and Ettrick: My Lords, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that times change.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: My Lords, I am conscious of the fact that I am to be followed by almost 40 speakers, who may wish to get to their beds in time to get up for early church services tomorrow morning. Consequently, I shall regard brevity as more of a virtue than it normally is. I hope therefore that those noble Lords who are hereditary Peers will forgive me if I simply endorse, but with great sincerity, the fulsome tributes already paid to them and to the contribution that their ancestors made to this House by the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, yesterday and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in opening today's debate.
Perhaps we can get a few matters out of the way. I am frankly astonished to hear people say that this measure is being introduced with unseemly haste. In one of our earlier two-day debates on this subject the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to the famous Roman general Fabius Maximus, who was nicknamed the cunctator because of his delaying tactics. He is made to look like Linford Christie by the antics of this House in delaying any reform of itself for close to a century. It has to be Guinness Book of Records material.
I wish to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, who said that there was no difference between hereditary Peers and life Peers. It is true that, apart from accident of birth, it is purely accident of timing that has made some Peers hereditary Peers rather than life Peers. If they had been created after the 1958 Act, they would have been life Peers; if they were created before it, they were hereditaries. I pause to wonder in parenthesis what caused a Conservative Government to pass the Life Peerages Act in 1958. Did they perhaps believe that it was
352
inappropriate for the right to sit in this House to be an inherited right? One must presume so, otherwise there would have been no need for the Life Peerages Act.
I observe to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that not all hereditary peerages go back as far as those of the noble Earl and some others. Not everyone came across with William the Conqueror for the day, liked the place and has been here ever since. As the noble Earl pointed out, quite a few bought their peerages from Lloyd George with cheques that were guaranteed to bounce if the peerage did not come through. The noble Earl also alluded to his own ancestry. I am informed that his ancestor merely got "plastered" with the monarch of the time and that I should not assume that anything improper took place.
If the noble Lord is correct in assuming that there is no difference between hereditary Peers and life Peers, I suggest that the traditions of this House will survive in the safe hands of life Peers and others. I take no offence at the assumption that has been made by some speakers in the debate that all the traditions of the House will change. I think that quite the reverse will happen. The spirit of independence of mind comes because people are not elected. That is why I should be opposed to a major element of a new Chamber being elected. Whips on either side of the House will testify to the fact that the idea that people who came from the Chamber at the other end of the building are placemen who can be relied upon to vote is false. They act with great independence of mind. I also suggest that the life peerage is probably at least as much the repository of expertise in individual fields as the hereditary peerage.
I think that in her spirited speech yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was defending the House of Lords itself rather than the hereditary peerage. It is worth stating the blindingly obvious fact that the House of Lords is not at risk. It is to be preserved as a revising Chamber with very considerable powers. The noble Baroness mentioned that women had reached the top offices in this House. I do not think that that can be put to the credit of the hereditary peerage because of the quaint way that things are handed down under the rules of heredity. It is certainly not hereditary Peers who have ensured that there is no glass ceiling for women in this House.
To those Peers who argue ad hominem, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for example, who made a very enjoyable and moving speech yesterday, and ask if we are really going to kick such a man out, I say that the answer is no. If the Weatherill amendment is passed it will be open to Conservative Peers to elect him as one of their number. If they are so anxious to retain the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—as I should certainly be—then they should elect him.
I also believe that the ground work was being laid yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for a possible action for breach of contract or unfair dismissal. I should warn my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that he may face a charge of unfair discrimination, or aiding and abetting it, by supporting a group of Peers which includes women and those from ethnic minorities, and discriminating against a group of white males almost entirely from the upper-class.

353
If anything is needed to convince noble Lords that the Government's two-stage approach is right, we have seen it in this debate. If the Royal Commission produces a consensus then stage two can, we hope, be implemented quite quickly and we will have what everyone wants. On the other hand, if the Royal Commission does not produce a consensus, or this House or the other place does not agree to its proposals, is it seriously suggested that there will be no reform of the House of Lords for another century? That would be an example of the best being the enemy of the good. I hesitate to suggest that such delaying tactics are in the minds of noble Lords opposite. But everyone is clear that the hereditary peerage is an anachronism. Even the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in moving his amendment recognised that it was difficult to justify his presence in this Chamber by reason of his hereditary peerage. Let us therefore proceed with what everyone appears to be agreed upon and then, with the widest possible consultation, move on.
For that reason the Government are not spelling out their proposals in great detail. They are consulting as widely as possible as to the nature of the reformed House. Can one imagine what would have happened if the Government had come up with an absolutely prescriptive notion of what the composition of this House should be? Hands would be wrung in false anguish by some noble Lords. They would say that, of course, they were against the hereditary peerage and would dearly love to vote for it, but they would question whether it was wise to be quite so prescriptive at a time of such great constitutional change: closer links with Europe, devolution in Scotland and Wales and even different voting systems. Surely, it would not be the time to proceed with such a prescriptive piece of legislation and we should wait perhaps for another 100 years. The Government are right to take it in two stages and I believe that the House will go with them.
Finally, I exhort hereditary Peers to think very carefully—I do not mean that in any minatory sense—whether it would be fair to the traditions of which they are so justly proud if they were perceived as trying relentlessly to cling on to privilege and the last vestiges of power. I should like to see them embracing reform, creating a sense of "feeling wanted" in the country and a desire to ensure that the traditions which they and their ancestors did so much to create are preserved in the reformed House. That would be an act of true statesmanship which the country has come to expect from the hereditary peerage.
I do not want to end on a controversial note but I confess that I do not like the amendment that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I believe that his amendment is mean-spirited and tawdry. I am quite sure that the Government are guilty of many things but it is wrong to accuse them of party political advantage in this matter when they have bent over backwards, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out, to endorse privately the Weatherill amendment against the interest of their own party. The Government have gone out of their way. I am happy with the Bill and I commend it to the House.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Braybrooke: My Lords, I do not want to add to the discussion about turkeys. There is one thing of which we can be sure: turkeys would not vote for Christmas. The House of Lords is admired throughout the world as a second Chamber of great excellence. It works well. Although doubtless many improvements can be made the basic ingredients of competence, fairness and lack of bias, not to mention commonsense, are always to the fore. This is so because we have experts who remain on tap, not on top; we have organised, civilised procedures; and, above all, we practise good manners and courtesy to one another.
The present Government seem hellbent on doing away with many of our institutions. Almost daily something else is added to the list. I understand that this week QCs are in trouble. Mr. Blair tells us of the particular class to which we should belong, whereas when we do not have a Labour Government nobody bothers at all about class. I suggest that Great Britain is becoming increasingly difficult to govern because of the farce of Europe which is steadily eroding what sovereign power we have left to run our own ship. We should remember that we cannot always replace that which is so easy to destroy. The proposed dismantling of our institutions has included the Royal yacht. These days one does not hear much about the Royal train. The Queen's Flight seems to have been disbanded. Now the Government are determined to castrate the present House without having in place the sensible solution for reform.
In the last debate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was asked whether the present Government are proposing to reform the monarchy. I recall that he replied in a somewhat laconic way, that there were no current proposals to follow that road. One begins to wonder where it will all stop and whether the Almighty will soon have to look to his laurels. Do the Government want to turn us all into Euros on the fiddle?
John Betjeman often quoted the phrase, that an ounce of hereditary is worth a pound of merit. Hereditary Peers are of use in your Lordships' House because they are totally independent of mind. They have no axe to grind. They can fear God and no man. They are not placemen who have been voted in by past Prime Ministers. Most of them are not hirelings. On the whole, they are not rigidly beholden to particular political parties. Many have done useful things in their lives. Many of them are not professional politicians.
Most of us have a pet expertise. In my case, I am an expired flying instructor but at heart an engine driver. I started driving steam locomotives in south Wales on the Great Western in August 1939, when I was evacuated, and I am still at it. That brings me to the wanton destruction of our railways in the early 1960s by a government with no foresight. Many of the axed lines, particularly cross country, would be a godsend now.
I repeat that it is not easy to replace that which is so easy to destroy. That is exactly applicable to your Lordships' House. Almost daily we read in newspapers that something has gone or is to be modernised. The Royal yacht earned some money, although admittedly

355
not a great deal. The millennium dome will probably lose money and has cost the taxpayer a fortune. Our pageantry, which is the envy of the world, is a great aid to tourism, yet even that is being trimmed. Nonsense is talked about people's princesses and people's Peers, whatever that may mean.
Only this week we read in the newspapers that your Lordships' working time could be shortened to only three days a week. I suggest that is nonsense. This House does an enormous amount of work and should not copy the other place as a half-time operation, merely to satisfy some recently appointed Peers who are finding the House more of a commitment than they thought it would be.
I suggest that we hereditary Peers must stand firm. We have a duty to the Queen; we have a duty to the constitution; and we have a duty to serve. We are not against reform, but how are we to be replaced? We must know. Many hereditary Peers have given years of experience and expertise to your Lordships' House. If hereditary Peers are to be thrown out like so much dirty water, the noble Baroness must produce some clean water.
The proposed new second Chamber should be so constituted that the Members therein are not poodles of the Prime Minister of the day or his or her spin doctors or sycophants, or any others hanging on to his or her petticoats. Those Members of your Lordships' House who fought for Great Britain did not flinch in battle; and I suggest that we hold fast now.
10 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I had better preface my speech with the announcement that I am the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and I have moved up one place in the speakers' list.
This is a challenging occasion for anyone who over the years has come to know, understand, respect and love this House. I do not want to go. Perhaps I can be provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Gordon of Strathblane, into a spot of ancestor worship, which I had not planned. The first of my name entered the Scots Parliament 602 years ago. Because of the Act of Union provisions, despite my longer time as a hereditary Peer I have had only 35 years with your Lordships rather than the 45 years I might have had had I been an Englishman.
I am not on my feet to defend my privilege of a seat here but to do a duty which that privilege requires of me; namely, to address concerns for the future of this House, this Parliament and this realm. I speak for myself alone, and upon my honour. I have never been, nor aspired to be, a politician. I normally sit on the Benches in the back corner; and if the Conservative Whips were to describe me as unpredictable, I should find that such a compliment that I might wonder what they wanted. On the other hand, I am not a backwoodsman, despite the fact that the Independent newspaper repeatedly straddles its front page with an enormous picture of me suggesting that I am. I shall have to send the editor a new picture; I am getting somewhat tired of the one it has been using.
356
Inevitably a debate of this order produces repetition. However, if something is worth saying it is worth repeating; and, luckily, we can comfort ourselves with the thought that each of us is the judge and jury as to what is worth saying. So, here goes. First, I give some thought on the juxtaposition of cart and horse in the Government's scheme of reform.
I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. It not only makes sense to me, it neatly summarises the views of virtually every seriously informed commentator. Furthermore, it illustrates how seriously New Labour scriptwriters miscalculated. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is having difficulty in following me. All will become clear. In my submission, it has landed its masters in a farcical mess. Perhaps they thought they were throwing a bone to old Labour and simultaneously kicking out the hereditary Peers so quickly as to prevent them debating the future. It must have looked a wonderful package.
My authority for saying that derives from the speech of the Leader of another place at the beginning of the Second Reading of this Bill there. The package has come undone. We have had a White Paper, there is to be a Royal Commission and we have had much discussion. It means that the Government, apparently in arrogance—that is a harsh word, but I think it is realistic—are pressing on with the scheme as it originally stood. Had Her Majesty's Government not decided to blunder on—my words, but descriptive—this debate postponed to its proper place in the process of reform might have been very different and to their advantage.
I find it hard to believe that the Government were so naÏve as to suppose that the Bill's narrow remit would rule out our discussion of what comes after any more than it restrained Members of another place. If debate on this Bill has become in part an extension of the White Paper debate, the Government have only themselves to blame for a tactical blunder. Let us face it, the White Paper gave us very little information of substance.
When I spoke on the White Paper, I favoured a fully elected second Chamber to succeed us. Support for that notion seems to be gathering momentum. I rejected an appointed Chamber because anything can be gerrymandered, no matter what layers of scrutiny are promised. The trails of who appoints whom and who proposes whom will criss-cross and criss-cross over again.
What troubled me, and troubles me still, is the large black hole lying betwixt the Government securing this Bill and the promised joint committee of the two Houses. It was there before we extracted the White Paper and the Royal Commission. It is still there. We know that there will be life Peers in that black hole, but what else? What will patronage introduce? Will the House be reduced to poodle status? It is possible. And the crunch question is, for how long? That has been emphasised as significant by many speakers in our two days of debate. In those circumstances, we must use the debates now and those to come on this Bill to try to shed some light on the subject and to illumine that dark hole. If we do not get down there and do so, I do not believe that anyone will.

357
As regards what may come later, we have no real clues about the Government's agenda. There is no real timetable for change. There are no undertakings as to what Her Majesty's Government will do with the Royal Commission's report. There is no information on the joint committee beyond the fact that it is to be set up. There is nothing about its remit or how it will now fit in to the changed programme.
At the end of the day, will the Government go deaf and send in the Whips in another place to secure what they want regardless of what is said between then and now? What do they want? We have heard about that already this evening. I have never believed their coy assertion that they did not know and do not know now. Unfortunately perhaps their coyness will persist while the Royal Commission sits. However, we have had hints that the Government favour the appointed option, moulded no doubt to please the disciples of political correctness and with regard to political advantage. A change of government—one can only hope soon—and more problems arise.
A lot has been said about the mandate for this Bill. Any suggestion that it was a real force for decision in the polling booth has been blown away like thistledown. But it is there and I am not attempting to deny it. However, I question the propriety of making the main feature of what was really a paving measure, as it has been so described in this debate over the past two days, to usher in nebulous notions of reform. Because the tactic succeeded does not mean that we should quietly acquiesce and ignore the wider consequences.
This Bill has been touted as an attack on hereditary Peers—a good old class war crusade with overtones of up-to-date justification. But in reality the target is the hereditary entity within this House in its entirety, which is an integral component of the structure of the Mother of Parliaments. Remove it and the knock-on effects for our constitutional arrangements are myriad and as yet unassessed.
I turn now to the Weatherill amendment. I have never liked the idea. Like my noble friend Lord Hesketh, I saw a fig leaf clutched by the Government to give some respectability to this Bill. After the staggering vehemence of the threats this afternoon of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor perhaps the amendment is a dead duck. Perhaps the fig leaf has withered to expose the stark reality.
Other amendments will be tabled. Perhaps the referendum amendment stands a chance of success in the light of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, when he replied to the debate introduced by my noble friend Lord Waddington on 17th March.
I am not alone in wanting to examine the relationship between this House and Scotland in the wake of devolution. In view of her reported comments as to a preference for ditching her in-front title, there is an amendment which may appeal to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House which suggests that this House should no longer be called the House of Lords. She could then have a different title.
358
To claim that the Bill democratises Parliament is nonsense. There is nothing democratic about life Peers. To claim that the Bill modernises Parliament is nonsense. Modernity flows from function and procedure, not composition. Those claims are euphemisms of newspeak. I am only surprised that we hereditaries have not been described as hereditarily challenged, rather than some of the rather more unflattering remarks which have been made about us.
Such a fundamental constitutional change should have been built on a foundation of consensus followed by the construction of a House built with extreme care after wise consideration. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, say that the reform attempt which he as Home Secretary had to take charge of was doomed to fail because it did not start with political consensus. I hope that I have interpreted him correctly. It is certainly not for one House of a bicameral legislature to shape another to its design. But if we go on like this, that is what threatens us. If the Government, as temporary tenants of executive power, dismantle our successful bicameral system and fail to reinstate it with one at least as sound, they will stand condemned at the bar of history.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Wise: My Lords, a few days ago I was discussing the proposed reform of the House with a friend of mine, a retired RAF officer. He expressed his thoughts in the following way. He said that during his flying career, whenever he had completed a flight and landed, he was asked by an engineer if there had been any problems. If there had not, he would say that everything was well and everything was working. The engineer would reply, "OK, sir, LWA". That was an expression used frequently by the engineers and LWA stood for leave well alone. If it is working, do not mess with it. My friend went on to say that, in his opinion, that is what the Government should be doing until they have constructed a new engine.
With this Bill, he thought that they were dismantling the present engine, throwing away components and still expecting it to work until such time as they had designed a new engine. That was my friend's opinion, and I am sure that that is an opinion shared by many others.
In his speeches, the Prime Minister refers frequently to the people and he says that his Government are working for the people. Yet I feel that with this Bill, as it stands, he is showing a complete disregard for the people. From the content of a number of letters that I have received, it is apparent that the people are most concerned that the Government are determined to go ahead with this major constitutional reform without telling them what the outcome will be. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in his admirable speech yesterday, no one knows where we are going and no one knows where we shall end up.
I believe the country deserves better than that. We need to know that whatever form the future House takes, it will be put in place quickly and will function better than at present. Whether it will have more powers, whether it will be a purely elected Chamber, a purely

359
nominated one, or a combination of both, is to a degree irrelevant, provided that it is absolutely democratic, in the broadest sense, and that people know what it will be.
The Government should not go ahead with stage one and then say that they will think about it. One appreciates that it is an extremely complex matter. I believe that if stages one and two cannot be completed together, the Bill should be at least delayed until the Royal Commission has reported. I strongly dislike the fact that the present Bill deals only with stage one. If the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, moves his amendment this evening, I shall certainly support it.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Nunburnholme: My Lords, I start with the words of Paul Revere to Lord Cornwallis in one of George Bernard Shaw's plays. When the judge has decided to hang the prisoner before the trial, he puts himself at something of a disadvantage to the prisoner.
I give notice that the Parliament Act 1949 is now under close legal scrutiny in respect of its validity in enforcing constitutional change. Talking of law, I must mention H. L. Mencken, the American writer, whose definition of a barrister was that of a law student who has marked his own examination papers.
I must slightly admonish the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but I mean no disrespect to her. The noble Baroness spoke of the Government's "general contempt" for Parliament. I am afraid that she did not refer to the Oxford Dictionary or Fowler's Modern English Usage. Instead of using the words "general contempt", I suggest that the words should have been "absolute contempt".
The father-in-law of the present incumbent of No. 10 Downing Street said, when talking about the closed lists, that he is throttling democracy; he believes that dissent and debate equal anarchy and must be eliminated. May I remind your Lordships of the words of Mussolini: No discussion, merely obedience.
It has been said that no one knows where we are going and no one knows where we shall end up. However, there is one particular gentleman who knows exactly where he is going. I first arrived in your Lordships' House in October last year and we had a two-day debate on the same subject. There were 112 speakers. I went to the Library to ask for the figures. One in seven of those speakers used the expression "poodle" or "elected dictatorship". That is one in seven of the 112 speakers. The gentleman in No. 10 knows exactly where we are going. We are moving towards an absolute dictatorship. I repeat that Mussolini said, "No discussion, merely obedience".
10.24 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I rise, a fairly new Peer, strongly to support the passage of this Bill. I assure the House that I have not cleared the text of this speech with Alastair Campbell or any member of the Front Bench.
It is now 88 years since Parliament decided in principle to produce an alternative to an hereditary second Chamber. I am all in favour of long-term planning, but we seem to have taken it to excessive lengths in the reform of this House.
360
In my short time here, I have been able to see how that delay has occurred. It is very easy for those who enter the Lords to slip into its comfortable embrace. It is more gentle than the Commons. Party allegiances seem less significant. People are so polite. Everyone compliments everybody else on their knowledge. perceptiveness and contribution to the sum of human understanding. There is a rather self-satisfied warm glow about the place. It is easy here to convince yourself that this is a place of great significance and a bastion against the worst depredations of an over-hasty government. It is a comfortable place in which to grow old.
Reform is something best deferred until tomorrow. Well, tomorrow seems to have arrived and, for me, one of the great attractions of becoming a Member of this House was to participate in the transformation of this place for many of my contemporaries have viewed this place with disbelief for many years. Many people see it as a muddled anachronism with an obsolete composition, antiquated procedures and a distinctly odd dress code in some respects.
Now is not the time to debate the future composition of a reformed second Chamber. Instead, I want to comment on three aspects of the current Chamber which seem to me to be barriers to reform and which the Bill tackles. I refer to size, the unrepresentative nature of the Chamber and turnover. It is a truly remarkably state of affairs that at the end of the 20th century we still have a second Chamber with a potential size of nearly 1,300 Members and with a current maximum attendance of about 1,150. No other country in the world has a second Chamber anything like that size. The poor Americans and Canadians bumble along with a little over 100 in their senates. The Germans do even better with only about 70. The French seriously overdose with over 300 in their Senate. Even when the hereditary Peers have been removed from this House, there will be over 500 life Peers and Bishops with about one-fifth of them being Cross-Benchers representing a strong independent element. Do we really believe that the British are such an unruly and difficult people and that their governments are so wayward that we need a checking second Chamber that will be double the size of the American, Canadian and German second Chambers combined?
There is an old joke, "What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?", to which the answer is, "A good start". Removing 750 hereditary Peers seems to me to be a good start in getting this country's second Chamber to a more appropriate size. Personally, I hope that we shall go further and in the next stage reduce the number of Bishops and life Peers, and transfer the Law Lords into a separate supreme court. It is perfectly possible to have an effective, revising and reflective second Chamber with a strong independent element and an elected component with well under 500 Members.
The second issue to which I want to refer is the unrepresentative nature of the House of Lords. For a second Chamber to be able to challenge the elected primary Chamber, it must be credible. I suggest that to he credible, it must be selected in a way which is fair and transparent. Its composition should have some

361
resemblance to the society in which we live. There is already a strong independent element with the Cross-Benchers, and the Government have committed themselves to continuing that in the transitional House. However, this Chamber is not representative. Politically, it has a large in-built Conservative majority. Whatever the popular mandate in the Commons, hereditary Peers ensure that Conservatives can vote down any non-Conservative government's measures—and they do.
In terms of gender and ethnicity the House of Lords does not get to first base. Around 50 per cent. of the adult population are women and 7 per cent. are from ethnic minorities. We fail by a huge margin to get anywhere near those proportions in the composition of this House. Basically, we are a club for older white males and are seen as such by many people outside this Chamber. Removal of the hereditary Peers is a start on redressing that balance and improving the credibility of this Chamber by creating a more diverse membership.
Finally, I wish to say something about turnover. Once one is here, it is an extremely difficult place from which to be removed. In the other place, the electorate can hand out P45s. In this place, a position has been guaranteed by the hereditary principle. While some degree of stability is required in any second Chamber, we seem to me to have overdosed on that in this House to a great extent. The reforms in the Bill will enable us more easily to introduce concepts like terms of office and retirement ages. These will be essential if the second Chamber is to be kept to a reasonable size. I can see little in the national interest in having terms of office of longer than 10 years. Removal of the hereditary Peers will enable us to begin the reform process for achieving more turnover in the membership of the second Chamber.
In conclusion, I suggest that experience this century shows that we are never likely to be able to move from the present composition of this Chamber to a reformed one in a single move. Those who argue for doing nothing until the whole design is completed are really pressing for the retention of existing privileges for as long as possible. I understand the advantage of the privileges. I know how much easier it has been since I came here to obtain reservations in popular restaurants. Bank managers are much more understanding. US immigration officials are much more polite when one enters the USA with a title. However, we must recognise that if we want to tackle the problems of size, the representation and turnover that I mentioned, the hereditary Peers have to go. The Government have a clear mandate to do that. In my view there can never be a more justified moment to start delivering not only the Government's manifesto commitment, but the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act.
10.32 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to follow the noble Lord, Lord Warner, except to pick up on his last point. He has not been here for very long. As I remember it, the biggest number of people we had in this House was when we divided on the Reform of the House of Lords Bill in 1968 when
362
450 Peers voted in favour of reform and 50, including myself, voted against. That means that this House is not just stuck in the mud. We were stopped from reforming this place by the House of Commons, not the House of Lords.
We are presented today with a Bill which I believe we should consider as standing alone and by itself. Stage two may or may not happen, but all we have now is this Bill. However, I will briefly digress because in my view it is part and parcel of a more sinister movement which will, whether or not by intention, destroy the United Kingdom. I do not wish to impute motive but I and many people I know have the impression of a concerted policy of deliberate destruction and we heard something about that in an earlier speech.
We face the probable break-up of the United Kingdom as a result of the Scotland and Wales Bills; an attack is being mounted on the Metropolitan Police and the RUC, for ostensibly different reasons; there is secularisation and erosion of moral values which were revered by previous generations. Above all, there is an erosion of parliamentary power to Europe which makes almost anything we do to change this House irrelevant. Over several years, this House and another place have steadily given up power to a body of people who only two weeks ago were revealed as being a group of irresponsible incompetents, or maybe worse. I believe that all this is relevant.
I now return to the Bill. I should like, first, to ask one question: does it add anything to representative government? If anything, I believe that it does the reverse by proposing a House of placemen where the balance must always be in the favour of the government of the day. However elegantly that may be phrased, this would make it as close a replica of the House of Commons as possible in terms of the political views of its Members. For that reason, I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, which I am reliably informed will be moved.
I do not propose to suggest what could eventually replace this House. We are not concerned with that in this Bill; we are concerned with whether this Bill is a good or necessary one in its own right. I believe that it is neither. Therefore, perhaps I may ask another question, which I have asked on other occasions. Will anyone in the United Kingdom be one penny better off or, indeed, better off in any way because of this legislation? Will it add to the income of the poorest old-age pensioner? Will it improve the quality of the Armed Forces, the police or schools? Indeed, I could go on. Of course it will not do so. Not one person in the whole kingdom will gain one halfpenny because of this Bill.
If the Government are going to complain that what they see as beneficial legislation will be held up because some of us do not like the Bill and would at least prefer it to be amended in a variety of ways, they have the simple expedient of dropping it altogether. We might then be able to discuss quietly and sensibly the greater question of what is to replace this House if we feel that it needs replacing. Certainly, what will arise out of this Bill will not be an adequate or acceptable replacement and that is enough for the present.

363
I turn now to particular points in the Bill. There is one thing that puzzles me and perhaps this could be explained. It is to be found in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill under the heading, "Financial Effects of the Bill", which states that the latter,
"will be negligible. The Bill will reduce the size of the House of Lords, but since many if those who will be removed attend very rarely, there will not be any significant savings on Peers' expenses and daily allowances".
That is mind boggling. If, as the latter says, we hereditaries attend so rarely, what on earth is all this about? I would really be glad to know what this means as it is not borne out by the other statistics that I have read or heard of. The lack of savings could be because, on our departure, the Government intend to increase the expenses of those who remain or to give them salaries. However, I think that an explanation of that astonishing statement is required.
The most squalid part of the Bill is the exclusion of the Royal Dukes, including the Duke of Edinburgh. I have been a Member of this House for 35 years and have been a regular attender for 18 of those years. The occasions on which a Royal Duke attends are very rare and they are not controversial. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales made an excellent maiden speech quite a long time ago, after which the wish was expressed that we might hear him more often. As he is specifically mentioned in the Bill, it is quite clear that the present Government do not wish to hear him at all. The nation will be the poorer for such an exclusion. We are also informed that Her Majesty the Queen is not a Peer and so her position will not be affected. Do not the writers of such explanatory memoranda realise that we know that? Indeed, we are not a kindergarten. It would be a good idea if such patronising statements of the obvious were to be left out of such documents.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that the Government prefer to act by consensus. That is a noble sentiment which is not borne out by any of the actions that the Government have taken over this Bill. In 1968 the government did act by consensus. I have to say that, even though I disagreed with the consensus. I do not know why they cannot do the same thing today. There is not even a consensus on the timing in which this Second Reading debate is being taken. I believe that this is the first time that I have witnessed disagreement, on the day on which a Bill should be taken, being openly expressed on the Floor of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, indicated in his speech that this debate had been a good one, but somewhat inward looking. As the debate is about us, here today, that is natural. None the less, I agree with him but not for the reasons that he gave. Since last week this country has been at war—a fact which may not yet have sufficiently penetrated. Her Majesty's Government's action in concert with NATO and the United States in attacking Serbia does not, in my view, carry the wholehearted consent of our people and we are in a situation of great peril, not experienced since 1939. We should not underestimate the fighting ability of the Serbs even if we do not like them. Let us pray that the
364
peril will pass, but we should not forget it and become too introverted, as I believe it is that that we should be discussing today.
10.40 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, with the very last sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, I agree. He has a valid point there. However, I shall not follow him otherwise.
A few weeks before Christmas, among other noble Lords, I took part in an entertainment at the Players' Theatre organised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in aid of Mencap. It was called "The End of the Peer Show". It got a good many laughs and a picture on the front page of the following day's Times. Now, however, we have the real thing for we hereditary Peers, and understandably the entertainment has been of a more sombre nature. But there have been notable exceptions, some intentional and some not. An unintentional flash of humour came from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment—when he responded to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby yesterday. As I recollect, the noble Lord was extolling the independent spirit of the hereditaries. My noble friend asked why, if they are so independent, 300 of them are Conservative and only 18 Labour. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in a very good try, replied that their independence led them freely to choose to be Conservatives as this better reflected their values. At that there were visible smiles and audible chuckles around the House, although not, I think, from the Conservative Benches.
Hereditary Peers, however, should not be downhearted and unhappy; they should in fact be pleased that they have had a stay of execution for 88 years since the Liberal Government of 1911 proposed,
"a second chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis".
Although that proposal was never translated into legislation then, or later, for a variety of reasons the argument for the retention of the hereditary Peers as legislators is intellectually indefensible for anyone who claims to believe in the democratic principle. Tom Paine, quoted in the White Paper, pointed out the absurdity of the hereditary legislator as long ago as 1791.
My noble friend the Leader of the House told us that the only other House of Parliament in the world with an hereditary element was the Senate of Lesotho, half of whose Members are traditional chiefs. I suggest that these chiefs have a more legitimate and meaningful role in their country than hereditary Peers do here today. They are still venerated and respected in their own districts, whereas hereditary Peers here, bar a few, lost that connection many years ago, or never had it.
My personal position is that I have been, as an hereditary Peer, incredibly privileged to have been a Member of your Lordships' House for 16 years. I have tried to use that privilege to take part in the activities and work of the House but I have always wanted an opportunity to end the right of hereditary Peers to legislate. I did not think it would be 16 years after taking

365
my seat in 1982 before that opportunity arose. In fact for the first half of my life it seemed inconceivable that this medieval leftover would still be in operation by the time my noble kinsman died. However, the inconceivable became reality, and when the time came to take up my inheritance, my own inclination was to disclaim. But encouragement to take my seat came from unlikely quarters, my most left wing friends. Knowing that I was leftward leaning in my views and had medical knowledge they pointed out that I could play a useful role in your Lordships' House.
However, it was a letter from the late Lord Brockway—who, by chance, met my son on a train—that finally persuaded me to overcome my reluctance. He said in his letter:
"Many of us who are Reluctant Peers"—
and he put that in capitals—
"do try to use the chamber to urge the causes in which we believe, and I think we are having some success in this. I don't know whether this will lead you to reconsider your attitude but I can assure you that we would much like to have you with us".
Who could refuse such an invitation?
Turning to the amendment, it reiterates the familiar stance of the Opposition on this measure. Knowing that popular opinion is in favour of the principle behind the Bill, they cannot—the Salisbury Convention apart—openly advocate retention of hereditary Peers to be legislators. So the next best thing is to play for time and hope that the debate on full-scale reform of this Chamber will go on for years, thus giving the hereditaries and their vast Conservative majority over the other parties an extra lease of life. The truth is that stage two reform will be conducted much more effectively and democratically without the over-representation of privilege which is inherent in the hereditary peerage. In my view the amendment should be rejected.
In any case, like some other noble Lords, I think that the amendment comes perilously close to breaching the Salisbury Convention in spirit, although not of course in fact as it will not stop the Bill. Strictly, in the debate we should be concentrating on stage one of the reform, which is the substance of the Bill. I have several ideas for stage two for the Royal Commission to contemplate, but I think there will be other occasions for putting my ideas forward.
I would like to end, as did my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, with a plea to change the name of this Chamber. Our present name embodies the very power and privilege which the Bill seeks to end. In effect this House is, and should continue to be, a senate. But I would like to think that in Britain we might come up with a more original name: a "House of Revision"; a "House of Reflection"; or a "House of Enlightenment". None of course are adequate or accurate but, whatever we call it, it is—and I hope it will continue to be—a "House of the Uncommons". But its Members should be uncommonly able rather than being uncommonly privileged.
10.48 p.m.
Lord Ashburton: My Lords, I wonder whether the "House of Correction" might not be the most appropriate term.
I spoke on 14th October of last year on this subject and therefore I have certainly wondered very seriously about whether I should take up your Lordships' time again. I was at first tempted to say "Enough is enough. Leave well alone. Let the previous speech stand on its own". I also contemplated, shortly, making exactly the same speech again. I made it at almost the same time, at 10.55 p.m., on that occasion and there was virtually no one in the Chamber. No one except a real Hansard junkie would remember that I had said exactly the same. But I rejected both ideas because I want to register my strong disagreement with the Government's approach to this major constitutional change.
I shall not speak for long. I should perhaps warn noble Lords that, standing as I am next to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who was my very strict chairman on Sub-Committee A of the European Communities Committee, if I sit down very suddenly you will know that he will be tugging my coat when he thinks that I have talked for long enough.
Whatever the merits of the contribution of the hereditary Peers, I must record that the automatic right of succession of all hereditary Peers is, in my view, no longer possible to justify and should lapse. I am wholeheartedly in favour of the way in which this argument is moving. However, I do not believe that this two-stage method of approaching reform is right.
Whatever happens, I shall try to go with as good a grace as I can muster, but I do not pretend for a moment that I have not enjoyed my work on Sub-Committee A, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, and I have very much enjoyed contributing to those debates in your Lordships' House about which I felt I knew enough not to talk nonsense. Nevertheless, I am no political junkie. If I am sent away I shall shake the dust of Westminster off my feet and try to go on to the next thing, because at the age of 70 there is plenty of time. However, I believe strongly that Parliament—I refer to Parliament and not just the House of Lords—is overripe for reform.
I use the word "reform" rather than "modernisation" because I like reform and I think modernisation is now a jargon word. I am told that another place is at least as much in need of reform as your Lordships' House. In particular, I believe that any reform that does not leave this place better able to carry out its functions, whatever they may be in future, would be fundamentally flawed and, indeed, a fraud on the electorate. This reform means that there would be a talent drain because quite a number of talents would leave the House. There would be a need for those talents to be replaced quickly so that there was not an interregnum when the House could not function as competently as it should. Talent drains are extremely debilitating, especially when debate should be taking place about the future functions, composition and so on, of a reformed House.

367
The Government have seen fit to go for a two-stage process—a Royal Commission later but preceded by this Bill which eliminates the hereditaries. I accept that that is justified by the manifesto, but my withers are not particularly wrung by the force of that argument. Many manifesto commitments will be abandoned when inexpedient. Nevertheless, the Government have every right to go ahead with reform of this kind.
Great as my respect is for the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues who make up the Royal Commission, the consequences in the real world of Royal Commissions of recent years do not inspire a tremendous amount of confidence. I am also perfectly happy to accept the Government's assurance that stage two will be achieved. But the seat of my pants tells me—I apologise for referring to such an intimate part of my clothing but I find that it is quite a useful sensory organ—that the chances of abandonment of stage two are much greater than the Government admit or would want to admit. Agreement on the next stage will be extremely difficult to achieve and the process will be appallingly time-consuming.
Earlier today the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, told us what happened with the Bill in 1969—how many amendments there had been and how many weeks were spent on it—before the whole thing was abandoned. If that happens again, the Government's business will begin to suffer. One can almost hear what will be said—"Further delay to other legislation is not justified"—and the Government will be able to abandon the Bill with great justification. I do not say they would change their mind. I refer merely to the practicalities of the way the world works. I do not want that to happen. Lo and behold, your Lordships' House would be stuck in stage one. It would not be a better place. There would then have to be appointed Peers in quite large numbers. There would be no real increase in legitimacy or democracy so far as this House is concerned.
I believe that the Government have got it wrong. To put it colloquially, they have made a cock-up. They have no one to blame but themselves for what is beginning to appear a rather unattractive atmosphere and the difficulties that may now arise when moving to stage two.
The Government are perfectly well aware of the problem of "improving" this House vis-à-vis the other place. Any change will simply not be accepted if it is seen as being very significant. They have missed a great opportunity to initiate constitutional change. They could at the same time have made it perfectly clear that the abolition of the hereditaries was a non-negotiable part of the change that they wished to see. If agreed change had proved impossible, they could well have introduced this Bill when they gave up the idea that moving to stage two was a possibility.
I know that a large number, possibly a majority, of hereditary Peers feel as I do. We should be happy to retire as part of a proper reform. I may have to go, but I cannot in the present circumstances go happily. Pie in the sky is not good enough. This Bill is not nasty or mean—Just bad.
368
This debate has given rise to some excellent speeches. It has greatly interested me that at least three, if not four, Labour Members would clearly have much preferred a single-stage reform. They may be in agreement on the hereditaries, but there is certainly not full agreement on the best way forward.
I think that the Government must have their Bill this evening, but we are being offered a pig in a poke.
10.57 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I know that I speak for many of my hereditary colleagues when I say that in our view many of the speakers in the party opposite are tilting at the wrong target. Many of my hereditary colleagues feel as I do. We are prepared to go. We know that we should go, but with the proviso that a no less effective provision is put in place. In our view that proviso has not been satisfied. Were I in your Lordships' position, I would go for the hereditary principle. It is much easier than justifying this Bill.
We are reminded time and again that the abolition of the hereditary Peers was a manifesto commitment not dependent on any further reforms of the composition of this place. Perhaps I may make just one observation on the manifesto commitment. I suggest that it is incumbent on a party making a manifesto commitment and being decisively elected on it to ensure that the structure resulting from that commitment is satisfactory. It is our case that the structure as it presently stands is not satisfactory.
Among others, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, whom I was happy to see at the Bar of the House a moment or two ago, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who replied in the small hours of this morning—which is euphemistically termed yesterday's business—both made the point, with commendable frankness, that the Bill is a means to an end and that it embraces stage one only because experience had shown that a Bill embracing both stage one and stage two was not achievable. But the Bill is a half-baked measure. It has had unflattering epithets heaped upon it many times during the course of this debate.
If this is indeed just a means to an end, and not to set out in the manifesto a stand-alone measure not dependent on any further reform, the onus is even more on the Government to proceed to stage two with all dispatch. I was pleased to hear that intention endorsed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech this morning.
Your Lordships will recall the debate on House of Lords reform in October 1998 and that that debate was called by the Opposition following explicit indications by the Government of what could be expected in the Queen's Speech. I am sure I was not alone among noble Lords in being surprised by the number of hereditary Peers who expressed the opinion in one form or another during that debate that the hereditary principle should go, but always with the proviso that something no less effective would take its place. I apologise for repeating that point.
Where I believe the Government are really open to criticism is that in proposing fundamental changes to the constitution they should have instituted a Royal

369
Commission within a month or two of taking office. I suggest to your Lordships that they would have found among hereditary Peers the very sentiment which was so apparent in that October debate. I do not think it is taking hindsight too much for granted to say that a consensus could well have emerged, and—who knows—that consensus could have developed to a point where a progression straight to stage two might have been possible.
Consensus is one of the most valued pillars of this House, round which the whole ethos of the House revolves, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. But it is ironic, even scandalous, that this consensus has been virtually ruled out, due in large part to an unforgivable delay of 18 months, during which period the Government, under time pressure, have upped the confrontational stakes. Despite this delay, the Royal Commission has been asked to report in 11 months on a measure of fundamental importance to the constitution in stage two.
I share the concern expressed by many noble Lords at this wholly unsatisfactory interim Chamber, the timing of the start of which has become more and more irrelevant. As the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, put it, why ruin 600 years for 60 days, the time between the passing of this Bill and the report of the Royal Commission?
Much has been made on the Benches opposite of unfinished business. My understanding of good business is that one does not dismantle a system which is not perfect but is at least effective until there is something workable to take its place.
However, the Bill is with us. We on this side shall endeavour to ensure that this bad Bill leaves your Lordships' House in a better state than when it arrived. In the meantime, I shall vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
Perhaps I may make one other point. I do not think that when life peerages were introduced to this House under the Life Peerages Act 1958 even the most enthusiastic supporters of this measure could have envisaged what a success the life/hereditary Peer cocktail would prove to be. I suggest that the complement of the two categories of Peers and the extraordinarily successful working synthesis between them has in no small measure been responsible for the success and achievements of your Lordships' House over the past 40 years.
If I may add a personal note, when dealing with parliamentary business in this House I am unaware whether the person I am dealing with is a life Peer or an hereditary Peer. It is his or her contribution as a Member of this House to which I pay attention. That is a view which I think would be shared by many noble Lords both hereditary and life, on both sides of the House.
Should the Weatherill amendment be accepted, some residuum of this relationship will remain, but, with the departure of the majority of hereditary Peers, this valuable relationship will largely be lost to your Lordships' House. It will indeed be a sad loss.
11.3 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I feel that as I open my remarks I should recall Lord Birkett. I feel rather as he did. He used to say, when he had to make a difficult speech, that he felt rather like a mongrel dog confronted by row after row of lamp-posts, wondering if he had enough material to get to the end.
When I first came to this House, I was given three pieces of advice: first, do not show discourtesy to the House; secondly, do not try the patience of the House; thirdly, speak only on matters you know about, and for goodness sake do not read your speech.
I do not know very much about this subject, but I have 30-odd years' experience. I wonder how we could have gone so wrong. The Government have misinterpreted this House. I hope that the feeling that has emerged today is that all of us have sought reform for a long, long time but we are hamstrung without the other place. The hackles on my back rose, not because of this debate, but because of the extraordinary discourtesy shown to this House in the Queen's Speech. If I could move an amendment it would be that no one from another place should ever be allowed into this House.
Discourtesy has been shown to us before and it puts up the backs of noble Lords. We know our place. We are aware that we are second-hand creatures with no real right to be here, but our present legitimacy is based on our Letters Patent and Writs that require us to be here. We are all addressed as "right trusty and well beloved". I was looking at my legitimacy earlier today and found that the words "right" and "honourable" appear everywhere. But I have a worry of which I was unaware. I am a Baron and I am right, trusty and well beloved, but a Viscount is a right trusty and well beloved cousin. An Earl is a right trusty and right well beloved cousin. As one moves up the only people who are entirely trusty and right well beloved are the Royal Dukes.
I do not entirely trust the Government. What I find so strange about this remarkable exercise is that as a Baron I am a right trusty and well beloved chevalier. But life Peers are also Barons and they are the same as me. Their sons may sit on the steps of the Throne. The only difference is that I have been here a long time and my son has the right to come after. I would willingly surrender that right immediately. I do not see why we should go through the strange charade of turning these matters over and over in our minds. We know that reform is desirable and that we have no legitimate right to be here. But the difference is that we have to earn that right. I have done a number of unpaid jobs, usually for socialist governments, as mentioned in the White Paper. People ask me why I put in all that unpaid time. I reply that I want a peerage. They say, "Yes, of course". My next comment is, "Who wants to be a Lord?" It seems as if we are attacked from all sides, but for what? If we are to reform the House perhaps no one should be a Lord, but everybody wants to be one.
Lords would like to be millionaires, but all millionaires want to be Lords. Lots of millionaires devote an enormous amount of time and resources when they arrive at whatever their destination to try to get into

371
this place. They do not have the same feeling of duty but they are rewarded for what they have done. They feel that they have earned their reward and need do no more. I find that slightly strange. It is a corrupt practice, just as ours may have been a corrupt system. I can try to justify my existence by saying that when I was a shop steward in the Transport & General Workers' Union suffering from asbestosis I remembered the words of my uncle Stafford Cripps. That is true. My family has been in public life. I am a humble Scot who had to flee the English in order to earn a fortune over many years. I am worried that after 36 years here I still have not, at the age of 61, reached the average age, but I have already outlived every male member of my family for the past 700 years.
That leads me to an interesting point about age. We know that in order for a life Peer to get here not only does he have to do something or manipulate the channels of the Honours Committee, but he must be recognised. It takes a long time to be recognised, so he has already reached retirement age by the time that happens. So he comes here and starts to enjoy it. The Conservative Party introduced life Peers. This place was dying when I came here. I wanted to reform it. It was so archaic. The life Peers came in but the thing was, every year the average age in the House became older by one year. As a result, it is impossible for any of us to die.
Another interesting point is that this is the only institution in the world where men outlive their women. Therefore, I subscribe to the view that there should be no age cut-off point. If there were, my trusty and well beloved chevalier colleagues—and there are a lot of them—would have to go.
Having been brought up by trade union leaders in this House, I used to chair bodies that were made up of the Army, Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and Royal Parks—we used to shove them all in so that nobody would be upset. Then one looked for the power base. The power base is the barons. They comprise three-quarters of this House. It is said by some that one should make one's presence felt and should sit among the barons, not the marquesses. It is said that others should come and sit with the prelates, nobles and Peers. Who are the nobles? They are the most trusty and well-beloved cousins. I am not trying to create a division, but they are noble beyond belief. They are related. I cannot speak for them.
I thought, as a former member of a union—and my father, uncles and grandfather were all unionists—that at this time, we might have a little union together. I am not suggesting that I should form a trade union of barons, but that is not far from my thoughts and I could fund it.
I like to think that the Government have done something extraordinarily clever—that they have flown a kite. They have created a debate and a lot of interest. Could we not help them in some way? We could perhaps have block votes. We on this side of the House are perfectly happy to say that we could do something like that. I am perfectly happy to resign my vote as of now and have other people represent me. I do not see why we have to go through this strange argument, which
372
will divide the House against itself—and it will collapse—and ask "Who are the ones to stay? Who will be in the First XI? Who will be in the Second Division?" I do not believe that I, a baron—right, trusty and well beloved chevalier—and a life Peer am any different. The point is that supposedly we have no right to vote, but they have no right to be here either.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Carrington that we should seek to move to the second stage as quickly as possible. We could have a non-controversial stage—keeping the House as it is but removing certain voting rights. The most trusty and well beloved amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, is right in principle. We could reduce the number of votes this side of the House, we could increase the number of votes for the other side of the House, or some of us could vote with the other side occasionally. We would get rid of the Whips once and for all.
I suppose that I ought to think of something to say that relies on the hereditary principle. If I remember Horace, the phrase is "Fortes creantur fortibus et bonus"—gallant sons come from gallant and good men. There are lots of gallant and good men in this House.
Let us not divide ourselves against each other. Remember the words of the Lord. The Lord gave the word and the great preachers were among us. We have had a lot of preaching today. It has been fun.
11.13 p.m.
Lord Blyth: My Lords, I am against the Bill because the country is being asked to accept something in the future about which it has no guarantees. I am by nature a cynic, particularly where politicians are concerned. I have lived under two dictatorships—both black and both in Africa. One was under Nkrumah in Ghana and the other under Kenyatta in Kenya. Both were places where one had to look around before one said things and one did not say anything against those two leaders or their parties.
I regard the Bill and getting rid of hereditary Peers as a step down the slope to a dictatorship. The other place has been so degraded now that there is no opposition there to the Government. The only opposition is in this House.
I shall support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I conclude what must be the briefest speech by saying that I had four children to tea last Wednesday. The eldest was about 12, the youngest was six. When she was walking around the House, the youngest said to me, "Anthony, it's just like Titanic'". My Lords, I do not want to go down.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I begin by stating my position with regard to reform of the House. When I was appointed to this House in October 1997, I felt that I had become a trustee of this House. I also believe that it is my duty to do what I think is in the interests of this House. There are some conflicts on the question of reform. There are the interests of the

373
Government and the Labour Party. We also have the interests of this House. Part of the reform needs to be considered in that context.
I support reform of the House of Lords. I support the Government's manifesto position. But when it comes to carrying out that manifesto commitment I do not believe that we are well prepared with a good solution. I believe that the solution now being considered is overly complex and is not broadly supported in this House. I feel also that we have failed to achieve a consensus. I cannot understand why we do not have one. The Government are mighty powerful, and I believe that we should have made some headway on that. I believe, too, that there has been too much secrecy and not enough openness.
Perhaps I may be a little frank because we need to understand where we are on this issue. When I first came to this House and listened to what people said about the hereditary Peers, I sensed a strong feeling of hatred in some quarters. Although that is a strong statement, it needs to be said. It has led to an absolutist view and an overly rigid approach to reform. An attitude is adopted that all hereditary Peers must go immediately, and that nothing else matters. That has not created the right environment for consensus.
Yet I do not believe that the hereditary principle is sustainable. That is a view widely held in this House. However, we may weaken the House of Lords at a time when the House of Commons is weak in the way that it fails to bring government to account—the whole purpose of Parliament. To so weaken this House is unjustifiable. In fact it seems almost crazy. We are weakening the House of Lords during the reform transition. When we think of the House of Lords we think of this wonderful building that we are in—a wonderful environment. But the House of Lords is the people, the Peers. We seem to be tearing this House apart.
The Government's solution worries me. We do not seem to have weighed up the consequences of this reform package. I should like to know what risk analysis—if I may put it in business terms—has been considered. When the Minister winds up, perhaps he will let us know what has been done on that front.
I believe that the Government have an excellent record in the governance of this country and I proudly support the Prime Minister. However, their approach to constitutional reform could well fail if the interests of this House are not put before the interests of the Government and the Labour Party. I believe that the way they have gone in the reform is wrong. It seems wrong to commit this House to a reform based on discussions and a deal which was made outside. That is not the way to reform this Parliament. All that is a worrying example of Parliament being reformed by the Executive.
There is some good news. It is that I see a change in the attitude of the Government towards hereditary Peers. They are prepared to retain 95 hereditary Peers in the process. There is unquestionably a softer line and a more conciliatory attitude. Listening to the Prime Minister on David Frost's programme a few weeks ago, that attitude
374
came over, and it is very welcome. I see it as a step in the right direction. There seems to be some kind of agreement, but, more importantly, it shows that agreement on this difficult subject can be reached.
Perhaps I may say a few words about my views on reform. First, I believe that there must be a consensus if one is putting forward a proposal. I believe that with the Government's present power, they have plenty of cards in their hands and can make almost anything work. But we must also satisfy the manifesto commitment. I propose that all hereditaries in this House should remain here but on their death should not be succeeded in this House by their heirs.
The great advantage of that is that there would be no "big bang". Anyone who has spent time in business knows that no businessman would advocate a "big bang" because it produces all kinds of risks and uncertainties. However, I believe that such a move would keep this House strong during the transitional period. I believe—and have not heard anyone else say it—that we should treat hereditaries like any other Member of this House. I do not distinguish between them and the others. The Labour Party is a caring party and I do not believe we should treat people like some of the bad Victorian employers treated their people. Some of our colleagues in this House are hurting. They do not like to admit it and there is a lot of stiff upper lip, but many of our colleagues are hurting.
In putting forward that proposal, which is difficult to explain in such a short time, I believe that there will be a massive decline in the number of hereditary Peers in this House. It is a (y=ex) curve, an exponential curve, and within three Parliaments more than half of the hereditary Peers will have disappeared. To my mind that is the way in which we should go about it. With this proposal everybody wins.
In addition to that, one needs to have a balanced House. I believe that it is not reasonable that one party should have a huge overall majority in perpetuity. So I propose that we introduce a weighted voting system, the need for which would wither on the vine as the number of hereditary Peers disappears. The solution is simple, easy to operate and would create the effect of a balanced House, which is really the main objective of the Government in all this.
I end by saying a few words about the passage of the Bill through this House. The will of the Commons must prevail. We have a manifesto which has to be adhered to. I do not support any filibustering and I would not want to be part of that. But I believe that the approach that we have at the moment is risky and it is not in the interests of this House. I shall take advice from colleagues on this, but I am minded to put down amendments to the Bill on the basis of probing to see what support there is for my proposal which is based entirely on the interests of this House.
11.26 p.m.
Viscount Cross: My Lords, yesterday my noble friend Lord Strathclyde paid tribute to the late Lord Beloff. If I may, I also would like to say a few words in a similar vein as regards Lord Beloff, the constitution

375
of this country and the House of Lords. This House will have been very sorry to learn of the death of Lord Beloff. He will be greatly missed. I do not know whether he would have spoken in this debate and it is not for me to surmise what he might have said had he done so; but I do know that he was greatly interested in the constitution of this country and that he held the House of Lords in the highest esteem.
He reminded us only a few weeks' ago that history repeats itself. He uttered a grave word of warning at that time. He compared the early 1930s with the present time. I believe that I can do no better than quote a short extract from his obituary which appeared in last Wednesday's Daily Telegraph, which was as follows:
"Never afraid to speak his mind, Lord Beloff caused a furore earlier this year when he compared Tony Blair's style of government with that adopted by Hitler during his rise to power in the early 1930s. He claimed to detect striking parallels between Mr Blair's use of 'dispensable allies' in other parties to implement constitutional reform, and the Nazi's co-option of dupes to push through the constitutional changes which then entrenched their own dominance".
I believe that it behoves any Peer who sees that danger to alert the public without delay.
11.30 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, on an excellent and informative speech. He summed up the feelings of many Members of this Chamber as to how the House should proceed. He showed great independence and courage in doing that from the Benches from where he speaks.
At the start of today, I was tempted to withdraw from this historic and marathon debate, mainly because I felt that all the points which I wished to make would have been made at least four times and much more eloquently than I could have made them. However, in a sense I was refocused by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he delivered his first speech of the day.
His initial remarks were a graceful tribute to the importance of the historical role which the House had played in the 19th century and to the immense power and influence that it held. I found it extremely entertaining and I was beginning to warm to him. I then noticed that he did not pay too much attention to the work of the current hereditary Peers of this House. I am sure that that was not intentional and if I missed it, I apologise. But then he moved straightaway to the core of the Bill—the fact that hereditary Peers should have no place in today's Parliament. He added that the first stage of the reform was promised in the manifesto to make the House more democratic and representative.
I do not intend to comment on the mystery of how democracy and representation are improved by the Bill. That has been commented on already. From that point on, the noble and learned Lord seemed to move into top gear as the Government's official bully boy. He described the Weatherill amendment in part. Neither Members of the House of Commons nor Members of this House have been privileged to see that amendment
376
in any detail. He then issued the most astonishing blunt threat. He said that if we were to tinker with that compromise amendment or any other, the compromise amendment would be torn up in front of our faces and the Parliament Act invoked. I believe those were his words. We must all have felt then as though we were naughty schoolchildren.
The House will recall that the Lord Chancellor concluded his remarks by making three points. He said that the verdict of history would be to condemn us if we did not pay heed to his threat.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Earl is not obliged to give way but I wonder whether he will be kind enough to do so. Of course, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I would like to say that I do not propose to trespass on the courtesy of our proceedings by cross-examining the noble Earl. However, does he accept that when I said that the arrangement which had been agreed among the Privy Counsellors on Privy Council terms—and I presume that we all approve that such an agreement could be made—is binding in honour upon the parties?
Secondly, does he agree that I am not saying that it binds any other individual Member of this House, who remains absolutely free to vote as he wishes in the Division Lobbies? Nothing that I said ran counter to that.
Thirdly and finally, does the noble Earl accept that it is a responsible act of a government to explain to the House—and it is not a threat—what are the Government's intentions if a particular course of events follows? It is beyond my comprehension to understand what is objectionable about that.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made a very long interruption. I am delighted and privileged that he should do so.
I clearly heard his words about the honourable agreement, but to most of us it was a secret agreement. We had no idea what was going on. We still do not know what the amendment is. It is unsatisfactory for the noble and learned Lord to present it as if it were a cast-iron case.
On the third point that he made, I undoubtedly took what he said in his speech as threatening us—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord was not, perhaps he could say so.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have said already that I was making absolutely clear what the Government's intentions were in the event that certain circumstances followed. I take the view, and I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees, that that is for the assistance of the House. To label it a threat is to be rather offensive. I intended it to be informative.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord and I shall have to disagree. I am certainly

377
not trying to be offensive, but he said that this morning. I have simply grasped what he said. I am sure he probably did not mean it, but we shall read it tomorrow morning.
I was going on to say that the noble and learned Lord made three other points at the end. He said that the verdict of history would condemn us if we did not pay heed—I shall miss out the word "threat"; secondly, that the patience of the country would be exhausted. Thirdly, he said that the country would be on the side of the Government. Those are bold and definite statements, and I would ask him if he has any cause to make such bold statements other than that he had already arranged a poll which we did not know about.
My experience of speaking to groups from time to time outside the House about the work of the House is that on virtually all occasions there is almost total ignorance of the workings of the House, which is understandable because we have such little press coverage. There is occasional praise for standing up to the Government, and almost always there is an affectionate pride in the history, heritage and pageantry of the House and what it stands for.
I cannot believe that there is a tenable case to rush into hereditary expulsion headlong when the Royal Commission is examining stage two and will cover composition as a separate issue. I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord that the country is impatient.
In the short and medium-term there is an important issue about replacing the working hereditary Peers who represent such a sizeable percentage of the exceptional work of this House. The House achieves a remarkable quality and capacity for work each Session, under the skilful guidance of the Chairman of Committees. I hope that he is satisfied that no damage will be done to the continuity of that work if this Bill is rammed through.
Dismantling part of our constitution is a serious business and the Government have a clear duty to think it through carefully. I am deeply concerned by the acrimonious climate, the threats and the lack of consensus, as was said earlier. I am concerned that it would lead to the wrong answer. I support those who question the validity of the Government in asking Parliament to override the Writ of Summons for the Monarch during the lifetime of Parliament, but I shall be interested to see what happens when the Committee considers the issue of hybridity.
As to the future composition of the House, I believe that the appointments system will not prove sustainable and will in time be replaced by the principle of representation. There are plenty of good opportunities for bringing in Scotland, Wales, the regional areas and MEPs and to give them a voice in this House. I suspect that gone then will be the unpaid Members and the part-time Members and in will come the paid professionals who will tend to cause a considerable rumpus with another place as another place struggles to retain its power base.
In summary, I dislike the Bill and the Government's approach. This House has evolved, to my knowledge, over many years to meet the challenges of its work.
378
Many Members, both life and hereditary, make a remarkable contribution with their acquired expertise. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashburton, said, we cannot afford the talent drain. This Bill damages that resource by simply going about the reform of the hereditaries in the wrong way. For that reason, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
11.41 p.m.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I do not want to rehearse the political reasons for this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has done that several times during the past few months. However, I wonder whether I may draw attention to the economic reasons which supplement something with which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, began his speech.
In days gone by the ancient aristocracy of our country governed and sat here because they owned land—and land was the source of wealth. If a commoner was ennobled, he took care as soon as possible to buy a country estate, if he did not already own one. Wealth gave a man a right to exercise power—and the aristocracy exercised power, not so much at Westminster as on their land in the counties through pocket boroughs and a multitude of opportunities to dispense patronage.
That is what has changed. It began to change at the end of the 19th century when the agricultural depression hit the landowners in the 1880s. As Lady Bracknell said:
"What between the duties expected of one during one's lifetime and the duties exacted after one's death, land has ceased to be either a profit or a pleasure. It gives one position but it prevents one from keeping it up".
But far worse was to come. That was the First World War. Between 1914 and 1918, more sons of the upper classes were killed than those of other classes. The death rate of the aristocracy exceeded their death rate during the Wars of the Roses. As a result of the First World War, many Peers were forced to sell their land. That was also due to Lloyd George's Budget. The transfer of land between 1910 and 1922 was equalled only by the Norman Conquest and the dissolution of the monasteries.
Of course, not all noble families lost their land. Those who had the good fortune and the foresight to hold land in greater London, for example, profited enormously, as did those with mineral deposits. It was recognised that those men of great wealth were entitled to a seat in the Lords, like Lord Rothschild in the 19th century and, in our own time, the Sainsbury family. However, I imagine that today no one would seriously advocate turning this House into a plutocracy. My point is simply this: that the hereditary aristocracy no longer wields power by virtue of its wealth and power of local patronage as in days gone by and therefore it no longer has a title as a class within our society to be given, automatically, political power.
There have been two subsidiary arguments against this Bill—both are well known; both are well worn. The first is that nothing should be changed until we are all agreed on what should take the place of the House in its present form. This is a device to postpone action until

379
the Greek calends. The Opposition, perfectly reasonably, would argue over every detail and put forward counter proposals, as indeed they may well do when the Royal Commission reports and when the House of Commons sends us a concrete proposal for change. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may well consider that his programme should be to delay. I can imagine him, postponing and
"postponing and deferring day by day, he'd quite procrastinate our life away".
The second argument is the old saw; if it isn't broke, don't fix it. The assumption here is that this House works so excellently, so efficiently, that no reform of its procedures is needed. This is an example of the fatal complacency that from time to time surfaces in this House. As a revising Chamber we are far from being perfect. We carry amendments and they are normally disregarded by the Commons. Of course, the reason for that is that the Commons are able to argue that we are an anachronistic body and that our deliberations can be quite legitimately disregarded.
But there is much more to it than that. Surely we need to change our procedures for considering a Bill. The custom by which we take the Committee stage on the Floor of the House is incredibly time wasting. There is no limit to the number of times a noble Lord may speak. Not only Back-Benchers but government and opposition spokesmen often make speeches that simply repeat what has been said at Second Reading. Many amendments are probing amendments, but they are debated exactly as if the proposer intended to put them to a vote. I suggest that the Committee stage should be taken upstairs in a committee room, and only Report and Third Reading, when a noble Lord may speak only once, should be taken on the Floor of the House.
Then there is the matter of the hours the House keeps. Is it efficient to continue to sit after midnight or later when moving amendments which, at the end of their consideration, the mover will say, "At this late hour I do not wish to divide the House and will return to this matter at Third Reading"? We do not sit on Fridays often enough so as to consider Unstarred Questions or Bills introduced by Back-Benchers. Noble Lords speak as if this House was perfect, but it suffers, it seems to me, at times too much from self-congratulation.
Great play was made in the two-day debate on the White Paper that on no account should the House surrender any of its powers. I am not at all sure that I agree. I was shocked when the House sent back the Bill on the voting procedure for European elections not once or twice but. I believe, five times. In the end the Bill was lost and the Parliament Act had to be invoked. I did not think that that was a great constitutional issue.
I turn to the Prime Minister's Statement; that the Government believe that no one political party should have a majority in the House of Lords. That means, if it means anything, that the Cross-Benchers will hold the balance. I do not like that. Cross-Benchers are nearly always old. I was very lucky indeed to be appointed when I was 49. Unless a retiring age is brought in, the
380
betting is that the determining voice in the House will be that of noble Lords well past the age of 60. There are very few of us who resemble Mr. Gladstone, who got more radical as he got older and, I think, more prescient. If his home rule Bill for Ireland had gone through, thousands of lives would have been saved.
I know that the opinion of the House will be totally against me on this, with the exception of the noble Marquess, Lord Bath, but I favour a retiring age of 75. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, recently spoke against any such proposal. He said that old age brings wisdom with it and that we cannot afford to lose that wisdom. As a doctor he could hardly disagree that old age also brings prejudice and a hardening of the arteries and of the mind, so that we judge issues from the standards that we remember from when we were very young. That is why I fear a Cross-Bench majority holding a balance in the House.
We shall never be legitimate as a House until we are totally elected by universal suffrage. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was of course quite right about that. Only then could we hold the other place to account. But I wonder whether the noble Lord really wants a clone of the House of Commons here. It might take an election or two to produce that, but, to begin with. I am quite sure that some hereditary Peers would stand for election and would be very likely to get elected. However, sooner or later the Whips would operate, take over, and free votes would be unknown. Of course, there would be no Cross-Benchers; and, as in America, the Government in the House of Commons would find themselves thwarted by a majority led by the Opposition in the Upper House.
The alternative to this is the mish-mash. I do not believe that the Government would support a purely nominated House such as the noble Earl. Lord Onslow, seemed to be advocating. The alternative is to have a House part elected and part nominated so that men and women of distinction could be brought here as Cross-Benchers, not to troop through the Division Lobbies day in and day out but to speak on subjects of which they know a great deal.
However, I shall not continue with that line because those are matters for the House to consider when the Royal Commission has reported; nor will I speak on the Weatherill amendment. I shall wait until the amendment is moved. But I do not like it. The arithmetic of the allocation of seats between the parties is perfectly astonishing. The parties in the minority will get two and three seats, the party in the majority will get a vast number and the Cross-Benchers will get a positive bean feast. Well we know that our Convenor is a renowned negotiator and politician; but, on this occasion, his audacity and skill surpass anything that I could ever imagine.
Despite my beliefs, I shall be genuinely sorry to see the departure of the hereditary Peers. I implore one of my favourites, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, to disclaim his title and make it known to his party that he would

381
not refuse a life peerage if one should be offered to him. However, I fear that the legitimate pride that he feels in his ancestry may dissuade him—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I would only want a life dukedom!
Lord Annan: My Lords, there are so many among the hereditaries for whom I feel admiration. Indeed, I have great admiration for the talents of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. There are a number of others for whom I have very great affection, like my old pupil the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
I shall never forget the time when the Shackleton/Carrington proposals were being debated in this House. It was one o'clock in the morning and I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord Monckton, who quoted the famous lament of Sir Ranulph Crewe over the medieval nobility:
"Where is Bohun, where's Mowbray, where's Mortimer? Nay, which is more and most of all, where is Plantagenet? They are entombed in the urns and sepulchres of mortality".
At this point in the proceedings a voice piped up from the Conservative Benches saying, "Mowbray is here!" There, indeed, was the premier baron of England, fighting fit and at his place in that hour.
I shall not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. It seems to me in its tone to sound too much like repartee on the playground of a prep school, "Yah boo, sucks to you". As I look round, I hear that First World War recruiting song:
"We don't want to lose you, but we think you ought to go".
I only hope that the noble and hereditary Lords will go in the same spirit as their ancestors went in 1914, at Waterloo, and long before that in the distant past, with incomparable gallantry and irrepressible loyalty to their sovereign and their country.
11.55 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I have the honour of speaking after an experienced speaker who has made a wonderful speech. I assure your Lordships that mine will be nothing like that.
I came to this House nine years ago. I was the first woman from an ethnic minority to come to this House. At that time Lord Pitt was the only other Peer from an ethnic minority background; there was no one else in that category. I was extremely worried about coming to your Lordships' House. I saw myself through your Lordships' eyes. I wondered what your Lordships would make of someone like me. I wondered whether I would be accepted or whether there would be a great barrier due to my different culture, background and, indeed, race. After I had got over being frightened and intimidated by the sheer size of the place, I found that it was extremely easy to be accepted. It was the first institution I had ever entered in this country where I was treated as a person, a friend and a colleague. I have valued that enormously. I was not patronised. I have
382
found this House to be more egalitarian than any other institution that I have worked in. I pay tribute to this House for that.
I am sad today; for me this is like a wake. We are saying goodbye to many of our old friends and we are doing it in such a summary fashion. That is not pleasing to me. Today and yesterday I heard many people say that the House is ripe for reform and that of course reform is necessary. But when the Conservatives were in government where were the Conservative voices saying that reform was necessary and the House was ripe for reform? I know they did not exist. I spoke to many people and said that this House needed to be reformed and that we should do it before the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. Well, the baby is being thrown out with the bath water. This House will experience a great loss when all the hereditary Peers go. I believe that the hereditary Peers provide a balance in this House and no amount of political appointments or elections will be a substitute for that balance. We shall have a careerist House, whichever way it is reformed.
I say to those noble Lords who may still have some say in this matter that the institutions of this country are the envy of the world. The Labour Party is talking about Cool Britannia. Many people in other countries consider the institutions of this country, the pageantry and the continuity to be very cool indeed, in whatever way one wishes to use the word "cool". It is very sad to see that we can reduce this institution, which has existed for 700 years, and, at the stroke of a small Bill, change it completely, and then think nothing is happening. I think there will be considerable surprise that the work of the House will change and much less work will be done. There will be a great vacuum in the work of Parliament. I do not believe that it will be as simple as the Government think to cut off this major branch of Parliament.
Today we should be talking about a proper reform, a reform which started in the way Bagehot says reform should be started—that is, you look at your first Chamber, you see what the deficiencies are there and then you constitute the second Chamber accordingly. That would have been called reform. This is an insult to the word "reform". This is not reform; this is dismemberment.
Midnight
Lord Morris: My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. I shall keep your Lordships for as short a time as possible. I wish to say a word or two about the nature of heredity. Many people perceive heredity as being a birthright. I passionately believe that that is a classic example of looking down a telescope from the wrong end. It is not a birthright; it is a birth duty. It is a duty which the vast majority of hereditary Peers take very seriously. It is hardly surprising that they do so because they spend the majority of their adult lives with growing apprehension and fear, as the demise of their forebear rapidly approaches, that they will be burdened, should they so wish—that is important—with a duty and must exercise that duty in the best way they can.

383
The other part of the nature of heredity is that it is a totally random selection. That is one of the reasons why this House is such a delight. We have a total cross-section of people, from the educationally subnormal and every degree above that to the quite brilliant. That reflects the true role of this House.
The role of this House is far closer to the Court of Parliament than it is to a house of first instance. By that I mean that the people we see in this place are far closer to a jury or a fine judge than they are to a collection of highly clever people. Lord deliver me from clever people! One of the astonishing things that I have experienced in this House is that it is quite incredible how some very, very clever people have a total lack of judgment. Maybe this is because we do not want skills and we do not necessarily want great experience; what we seek is wisdom and understanding. Through the extraordinarily random selection process and for a myriad of reasons, there are a variety of people who, in some astonishing way, collectively produce judgments of great quality. This is politically a very unattractive argument to take, but passionately believe it.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House used the term "privilege" no fewer than seven times in the first two minutes of her opening speech in the debate. I can tell the House what is the most common experience of privilege that hereditary Peers enjoy and, like the noble Baroness, I will quote, I hope rather more appropriately, Winston Churchill, when he wrote of his great friend F.E. Smith:
"Some men when they die after busy, toilsome, successful lives leave a great stock of scrip and securities, of acres or factories or the goodwill of large undertakings. F.E. banked his treasure in the hearts of his friends, and they will cherish his memory till their time is come".
I am afraid that that is the financial experience of the vast majority of the so-called privileged people who come here only to do their duty.
I do not like this Bill one little bit. I am certain that your Lordships will all join me in trying our best to improve it.
12.5 a.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, at the end of the two day debate on the Lords' reform White Paper, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip commenced his winding up speech by saying that the debate had been more fun than farming—just. As someone who has benefited from the expertise of his erstwhile consultancy practice, I know just how knowledgeable the noble Lord is on all matters agricultural. It will come as no surprise then that, as one of the many hereditary Peers who farms, I feel akin to an endangered species and, as one who does so in Northern Ireland, a pretty depressed one at that.
The House of Lords Bill is short but it is not simple. Indeed, as each week passes, it seems to become more complicated. The Government have implied that there is no constitutional or legal bar on the removal of the hereditary Peers. However, from the papers that now seem to arrive in almost every post, ever more detailed research, by and on behalf of noble Lords, would indicate that the Government just may have got this one
384
wrong. If I were to want to pull the wool over the eyes of a group in British society, the last place that I would wish to start is in your Lordships' House.
Until now the apparent majority view among the hereditary Peers has been that, if the time has now come for us to go, then we should sadly go. I doubt that I am alone in being castigated by all kinds of people for not standing up more for the position of hereditaries in your Lordships' House. From the most unlikely quarters I am being told that we are viewed as the only effective restraint on the executive. Indeed, I am beginning to feel that, far from wanting us gone, the popular mood may be for us to remain. This purely personal experience would appear to tie in with the results of the opinion polls, which were quoted by noble Lords in the Lords' reform White Paper debate last month and again this week. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that we should necessarily remain.
To return to the reality of the Bill before us today, the Government have gone long on the need for hereditary Peers to be removed before they can embark on the second stage of their reforms. By contrast, they are rather short on the reasons as to why both stages cannot be taken together. The Government say that if they were to do that it would never happen. I am not quite sure about that and over the weekend I tried to come up with perhaps one or two other reasons why that might be so. First, I suppose they could have claimed that it was symbolic for what they believe to be an outdated anachronism to be gone before the dawn of the new millennium. However, in a most thoughtful winding up speech last night, that view of mine was totally refuted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, which I am delighted to accept. Secondly, it may be that they never intend to move on to the second stage. I do not know. Many other people have spoken about that one.
Thirdly, the Government may fear that they will run out of time. Certainly, within my memory no Labour administration has experienced a second successive lengthy term in office, discounting the elections of 1964 and 1966. Unless the Government have horrendous skeletons in their cupboard, which I doubt, they have every chance of being re-elected in 2001 or 2002, giving them all the time in the world to bring a package of considered Lords reforms to fruition. Indeed, the Government might wish to reflect that, if they were to bring legislation generally forward at a more measured pace, that legislation might be better considered on their part and they would not be inconvenienced by so many amendments and defeats in this House.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House and others have stated that they wish to take the Bill forward on a basis of consensus. I respect that and welcome it. I initially thought that "basis of consensus" referred to consensus in this House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his reply last night seemed to imply that the basis of consensus was a more global picture. That does not matter. Consensus is a great point and I approve of it. It is clear that a one-stage Lords reform Bill is more likely to achieve that consensus. Notwithstanding the arguments over any rights of the hereditary Peers to remain, our main fear is that under

385
the present proposals stage two of the reforms is totally unknown and we as a body have no input into them. I find it sad that no hereditary Peers were appointed to the Royal Commission. The compromise by means of the Weatherill proposal, if it ever comes about, of some sort of rump of 91 or 92 hereditary Peers remaining in the interim is hardly a satisfactory alternative.
With respect, the present arrangement of the appointment of life Peers to sit in this House is hardly more democratic in the true sense of the word than the right of the hereditaries, whatever concessions the Prime Minister might make. It will certainly make the House more political, and the independence of these Benches will be diminished. In a recent newspaper article, Mr. Kenneth Clarke argued forcefully for a wholly elected Upper House. It appears that that may also in part be the view that finds favour with the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I have always listened to the noble Lord with interest and with the greatest respect. While that option is certainly democratic, I fail to see how the Upper House can become anything other than a totally political Chamber, a mirror of another place and wholly devoid of any independent presence. Nevertheless, it is a starting-point on which I am sure an acceptable proposal could be built.
Our independence is one of our greatest assets and not one to be thrown away lightly. The Government make much of the fact that the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote is undemocratic, but go on to give the clear impression that that is largely because so many of them sit on the Conservative Benches. They may well sit there, but I do not believe that they are any more biddable to the Whips' behest than some senior and much respected noble Lords on the Government Benches.
It would appear also that the Government see many of us who sit on the Cross-Benches as some kind of closet Tories. I think that is something that the Cross-Benchers would refute totally.
I am pleased to say that there is a little encouragement from the government Back-Benches at least. I have already mentioned the thoughtful and measured contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The noble Lords, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Winston, have also given us an element of hope through their constructive remarks. I was struck in particular by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell. It provided the most dignified of reactions from a hereditary Peer who gives his allegiance to a party which no longer believes that there is a place for the hereditary Peers in this House.
We have heard a very interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux. The noble Lord's proposals go much further than many of us would have expected. I do not anticipate for one moment that they will be adopted by the Government Front Bench.
As the Bill makes its tortuous passage through your Lordships' House, the end result is far from clear. No doubt the Bill will become festooned with numerous amendments in an attempt to improve it. It would be
386
wishful to imagine that the Government will give us a golden egg by announcing that they intend to drop the Bill. They could, however, give us an altogether more modest Easter present by announcing that they intended to move an amendment whereby the reform of the House of Lords could be taken as one whole package rather than in two stages. In fact, bearing in mind the number of hereditary Peers who profess to think that the time has come for reform, why do the Government not call our bluff and go for reform in one stage? I think that by that method they would gain the moral high ground and would achieve the consensus to which they claim to aspire. I hope that the Government will move in that direction. If they do not, I shall, sadly and in some ways reluctantly, feel that I must support my noble friend Lord Cobbold if he decides to press his amendment tonight.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Pender: My Lords, like many noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently in the debate, my sole concern has always been, "How will whatever replaces this House serve the people in a free and unfettered way?" It is highly doubtful that the current proposals before your Lordships' House will stand that test. This age of special-offer politics and modern patronage, this preoccupation with millennium rebirth and this quest for modernisation will be viewed in a generation's time as superficial gimmickry, a mere puff of wind by today's political leaders.
We hereditaries have the right to ensure that what comes after us is of a calibre to maintain the existing safeguards that we now offer as a revising Chamber. This principle should be fought for in the coming months.
My own peerage is young, having been created in 1937. It is just 62 years old, not steeped in tradition like some of the great hereditary families of our land who have given unstinting service to this country over centuries and would continue to do so. That service comes from something called duty. "Duty" is a word currently out of fashion. These days you grasp for what you can get and take the short-term spoil. That is rather pathetic, in retrospect.
In his moving speech yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the deprivation for his son in not becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. I, too, have a splendid son. He is to be denied the privilege of being a Member of this place—an inherent right for over 650 years. That is a pity. The sole redeeming feature is that, not having tasted the delights of the place, he is unaware of what he is being deprived.
One aspect which disquiets me at the present time is the triumphalist attitude displayed by some Members of the House, including those who have scarcely had time to learn the geography of the place, who take the approach: "The hereditary rabbit is snared; go for the jugular". That attitude is regrettable, petty and unworthy, and it should cease. I shall vote for the amendment.
12.18 a.m.
Viscount Mills: My Lords, I shall try not to keep your Lordships long. The Government want to make this House more democratic and representative. No one can argue that it is democratic, but, being subject to the random selection imposed by genetics, it is more representative than many might like to believe.
In a letter to The Times Mr Ian Mann summarised the position most eloquently, if somewhat harshly with respect to politicians:
"The overwhelming advantage of the hereditary peers is their initial self selection by birth, that involuntary act of fate that comes to us all. The overwhelming disadvantage of the House of Commons is their initial self selection by ego, that involuntary act of fate that comes to all politicians.
"As a consequence of this, the House of Commons may represent the people but paradoxically, it is the House of Lords that is representative of the people."
As a hereditary Peer, I have had the privilege of being a Member of this House for some 10 years, but I do not fit the stereotype that is often portrayed. I am youngish, not rich, have no estates and—it gets worse—am a scientist by training. I am not ashamed of my profession. As a scientist and environmentalist I have tried to make a contribution to some of the Bills and debates about which I have knowledge and experience. I work full time and therefore to find time to participate is rarely easy. What many see as purely a privilege also carries its responsibilities.
I am not in favour of a two-stage process of change. As one of those who is threatened with reform I prefer to be directly involved or at least to know of what a fully reformed House of Lords will consist. Like so many other hereditary Peers I have made a contribution thus far, so why are those with direct experience of the workings of this House not to be allowed to contribute to the process of reformation? If the Weatherill amendment is proposed and accepted, the case for not giving all hereditary Peers this opportunity will be further weakened, for it can no longer be argued as a point of principle that hereditary Peers should play no further part in this process.
Last night I discussed with a friend, a Labour life Peer, whether or not hereditary Peers would really vote for their abolition. I suggested to her then, as I do to noble Lords now, that if the hereditaries had some say in what was to replace them many would do so. That view has been echoed by many other noble Lords in previous speeches. As the quality of this debate has so profoundly demonstrated, what an opportunity has been missed and what a privilege it has been to attend the debate to listen to the speeches.
I regret that I have rarely seen a process of change handled so ineptly. If this process fails I hope that those involved in introducing and managing it will accept a large part of the responsibility. Like so many other noble Lords, I, too, have been saddened by the tone of some of the comments during the various debates about reform of this House. But, as ever, such comment has diminished more those who have delivered it than those at whom it has been directed. Happily, there were many others who while either supporting or opposing these measures managed to preserve, if not enhance, their own
388
dignity and that of others. I single out two noble Lords for special mention. I shall long remember the speech of my noble friend Lord Ferrers for its humour and common sense and the contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for his genuine concern for those who might have to leave this House. Despite the rhetoric about the need for this House to be modernised, or that it is less good than it could be, I believe that the House of Lords as currently constituted is widely respected by those who have direct contact with it. I am certainly proud to be a Member of it. Nevertheless, I hope that if it is to be reformed the new House of Lords will be even better than the existing model.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and all members of the Royal Commission well in their exacting task. Whatever the final outcome, the removal of the hereditary Peers will break a long and historic tradition that I believe many will see as a loss. It will also create an inconsistency in that by arguing that the hereditary principle is indefensible the Government are, like it or not, arguing directly against the monarchy, however inconvenient that may be, and indirectly against any form of inheritance such as wealth.
12.24 a.m.
Lord Moore of Wolvercote: My Lords, it was 50 years ago that I was first privileged to follow proceedings in your Lordships' House. That was a result of being Private Secretary to several Ministers in the House of Lords at the end of the 1940s and during the 1950s. One of those Ministers is still a member of your Lordships' House and made a charming speech today. That was Frank Pakenham, now the noble Earl, Lord Longford - then First Lord of the Admiralty. As your Lordships may guess, it was a joy to work for him.
At that time, this House sat in the Queen's Robing Room and officials were huddled in the corner on the left as one entered the room. This Chamber was occupied by members of another place, whose own Chamber had been destroyed by the Luftwaffe.
Ever since, I have followed the workings of the House of Lords with great interest, although only as a member for the past 13 years. When I became a life Peer in 1986, it was at once clear to me that Harold Macmillan's Life Peerages Act 1958 had brought about great changes—notably in the increased numbers and influence of the Cross-Benchers. I cannot help wondering whether Harold Macmillan realised at the time how important that Act would prove to be.
The result at the end of the century is that, with a combination of hereditary Peers and life Peers, we have a House of Lords that works more efficiently than ever before as a second Chamber. That is the irony of the present situation. There is a second Chamber that is working excellently, yet it has to be changed drastically. Why? Because in a parliamentary democracy in this day and age, it has become impossible to justify three-quarters of one of the Houses of Parliament being there by right of heredity. Very reluctantly, I accept that it is difficult to oppose the principle of the Bill.
What I cannot accept is the Bill's timing. I find it almost incredible and irresponsible that the Government should have brought forward this Bill to abolish the

389
hereditary Peers before anyone knows what is to be the new form of our second Chamber. Is it to be nominated, partly nominated and partly elected, or entirely elected? Second Chambers are not easy to create, as one knows from watching them operate in other parliamentary democracies—where many of them are ineffective.
One only has to read the Government paper on reform of the House and the Royal Commission's consultation paper to see how formidable is the problem. I do not envy the Royal Commission its task—or perhaps I do envy it. Do they not face a tremendous challenge?
Surely the right course at this stage would be for the Government to introduce an amendment to the Bill whereby the abolition of the hereditary Peers would not come into force until the Royal Commission and the Joint Committee of both Houses have reported. The Royal Commission is already at work. It does not make sense to play about with the composition of the House at this stage. The Government would fulfil their manifesto commitment with an Act of Parliament abolishing the hereditary Peers, and the House would avoid disruption in advance of the establishment of the new form of second Chamber. I earnestly ask the Government to consider that course.
12.28 a.m.
Lord Tryon: My Lords, speaker No. 168—and seeing that I was in that position I threw away the splendid formal Second Reading speech that I was going to make to your Lordships as all my best foxes have been shot or were going to be shot. I will confine myself to a few short points, just to place on record my views on the Bill, as we are all supposed to do if we want to take part in subsequent stages.
I have been a hereditary Member of this House for 22 years. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that I was 36 when I joined, so we are not all old on these Benches. At times I have been quite actively involved, although recently less so. I have always sat on the Cross-Benches and have remained fiercely independent of all political parties—and almost as much so of my fellow Cross-Benchers. That I think is in the best tradition of the Cross-Benches. That is how the House works well. I say this because there are many new faces present, which reflects the evolution of the House, and quite a few noble Lords probably have not the faintest idea of who I am.
I probably voted against the Conservative Party more often than against the Labour Party. But that may be because I have experienced 18 years of Conservative Government while I have attended the House and only four years of Labour Government: two in the 1970s and two now.
I have always believed that one of the main roles of this House is to make governments in another place think again. Therefore, I have lived quite happily in a state of perpetual opposition to whichever government were in power. Numerous noble Lords have pointed out that the will of another place will always prevail, so why all this fuss? While I have not listened to all the speeches, I have heard a huge number. None that I heard
390
seriously criticised the work of this House as it is presently set up, except the noble Lord, Lord Annan, who is a great purist, very clever, and will always find that things should be done better than at present.
The criticism of hereditary Peers seems to be that we are hereditary. Frankly, it is not much more than that. A number of life Peers have greatly praised our contribution. I do not think that such praise applies to me. I have not made as great a contribution as many other noble Lords have. However, I have been immensely impressed in my time here by what others do.
I have also been hugely impressed by the work of the House over the years. My approach to the Bill is summed up by the old saying, "If it ain't bust don't try and fix it". That was said by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and, I expect, by others, but I strongly believe it. An analogy for what is going on here may be as follows. I hope that it may be a new point, hard though it is to find new points at this stage. I have been a trustee for a number of years for many organisations. From time to time one has either wanted to resign or get someone else to resign. The lead advice has always been, "You cannot go and you cannot kick out this other fellow until you find someone better or at least as good to replace you or him". I have heard no one say that what will replace this House without hereditary Peers will be better than that with them, at least in the short term. We cannot possibly walk away not knowing what will replace us. That is my major objection, and the major objection of most noble Lords who have spoken.
Furthermore, I feel strongly that those who want to make major constitutional changes, as this is, should be made to fight every inch of the way. We must not roll over and just walk away. Too many noble Lords assume that this match is all but over. It is not over until Royal Assent—and an awful lot can happen before that.
The reasoned amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, sums up most succinctly some of my objections to the Bill. It sends out a message which I, too, would like to send to anyone outside who is paying attention to our deliberations on this matter. I will therefore support him tonight and I will support noble Lords who want to make difficulty for the Bill at later stages.
12.34 a.m.
Lord Dulverton: My Lords, I am one of those rare animals nowadays; I am an industrialist. Hence, I do not speak very often, which I regret. I did not receive a letter similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. But, luckily, I have a few years before I meet the description of the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
We are living in a period of suspended animation. Maybe that is because we have a noble and learned Lord Chancellor of over-exuberant energy. He certainly has a prodigious work output, for which he should be admired. The trouble is, as so many noble Lords have said, where are we going? Some years ago, there was a story about the possible erection of a statue to an outgoing Minister. It became apparent that it was difficult to find a position to situate it. It could not go

391
next to George Washington because he never told a lie. It could not go next to Lloyd George because he never told the truth and he apparently could not tell the difference. At last, after many years and much deliberation, it was decided that the only possible position was next to Christopher Columbus. He set out without knowing where he was going. When he got there he did not know where he was. When he returned he did not know where he had been—and he did it all on borrowed money.
In a few months, we will be got rid of and a cheer will go up in another place. I fear that maybe—just maybe—we are heading for a one-Chamber legislature, just as Scotland will have at the end of the summer. Maybe in a few years we will have no monarchy and the members of the Boston Tea Party will have had the last laugh. But will the public really cheer, too? We deserve no less than to be told where we are going before we are banished.
12.37 a.m.
Lord Annaly: My Lords, I must start by declaring an interest as an hereditary Peer. I took my seat eight years ago and have always realised how fortunate I was to have the opportunity to attend your Lordships' House. During this time, I have enjoyed the company of noble Lords from all sides of the House, regardless of whether they were life or hereditary Peers.
I take the Conservative Whip, but two of the most memorable occasions I recall in my early days here were the well attended debates on Maastricht and the war crimes Bill. From memory, these were strongly whipped by my own party, but that did not stop myself and many other noble friends on this side of the House from voting against the party Whip. I mention that simply to remind noble Lords on the Benches opposite that Conservative Peers do not always support their own party in the Division Lobbies if they do not believe that their party is right.
It is not easy for an hereditary Peer to defend the status quo because it inevitably sounds as though the defence is being made through reasons of self-interest. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will take it at face value and not consider it as self-interest when I say that I believe that the House works well as now constituted.
However, every institution needs to adapt and reform, so I do not set out to oppose reform out of hand. To the contrary, reform of your Lordships' House would be welcome if it were clearly seen to make it more effective in holding the Executive to account while maintaining the important independent characteristics of its membership. But that is obviously not easy to achieve.
What we have in front of us now is a narrow Bill dealing with the reform of one part of one of the two Houses of Parliament, the removal of the hereditary Peers from your Lordships' House. I have listened to the arguments which the Government have put forward for carrying out a two-stage reform. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who is a much respected Member of your Lordships' Hot se, made a notable speech in the morning in support of the Government's two-stage approach to reform. I have yet to be convinced by the
392
two-stage approach and I do not need reminding about the reference to a stand-alone stage one in the Government's manifesto.
The winding-up speech last night by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, did nothing to diminish my reservations. In answer to an intervention by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the noble and learned Lord said that it was neither appropriate nor necessary to give any guarantees on the face of the Bill that stage two will happen. My noble friend was not asking for the details of stage two to be on the face of the Bill; simply that stage two would take place. That would seem quite a reasonable safeguard. The noble and learned Lord's reply last night does not fill me with confidence that stage two will take place in a short time frame, if at all.
A fundamental question which the Government have yet to answer is this. Do they want a more effective Chamber than we now have? Do they want the second Chamber to be able to hold the Executive to account more than it is able to do now or not? The White Paper on House of Lords reform included options for doing the opposite, reducing the delaying powers of the House. Putting country before party interests, would the noble and learned Lord when he winds up confirm what he believes the real objectives of genuine reform should be? Does he agree that it should be for a stronger, independent Parliament and House and that the power of the Executive should be reduced? I believe that we are entitled to know what answers the Government have to these questions. The Bill before us does not address these matters and on a stand-alone basis increases the power of the Executive.
A number of noble Lords have mentioned the future composition of the House and the percentage of elected Members, be it one-third or two-thirds, in the revised Chamber. With or without the so-called Weatherill amendment, I suggest that an elected House is what the country is going to demand in due course. After all, there has been much talk in this debate about democracy from the Government Benches and this could well be the unintended consequence which the Government did not foresee. I do not know what the timescale will be. What I am sure about is that once the hereditary Peers have gone, in the event of having a mixed House with appointed life Peers, Bishops and some elected Members, it will not be long before the elected Members of the House make it clear that they believe that they have more authority than the appointed Peers, just as the Government are now saying that the vote of an hereditary Peer is not as valid as that of a life Peer. My noble friends Lady Buscombe and Lord Hesketh made this point in notable speeches earlier in today's debate.
There has been much play from the Benches opposite on democracy. To follow that argument through, the second Chamber would have to be elected. The irony—and it is something which I do not believe the public at large appreciate—is that the democratically elected House of Commons, with its very strong system of party whipping, is not as good a defender of individual liberty as your Lordships' House, which is undemocratic as it is now constituted. Whatever reforms now take place, it

393
seems to me inevitable that the House will become more political and that the party Whips will have more power. I do not see that that will be to the benefit of the people or the country.
I conclude by saying that I do not like this narrow, nasty little Bill and I deplore the way in which the Government have approached reform of just part of your Lordships' House without having any idea, certainly not one which they are prepared to share with your Lordships, about the future role, functions and power of the House. I shall be supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, if he moves it.
12.45 a.m.
Viscount Devonport: My Lords, many noble Lords, noble Baronesses and the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester have spoken extremely ably over these two days and nights on the reform of this House. At this late hour, I wish simply to highlight those matters of personal conscience which I believe each of us has a constitutional duty to ensure; that is, we must see that the new House retains the best of the old, to which can be added those new powers needed for the next millennium.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, I am optimistic that a more effective House can be built upon the strengths of the present House. First, I believe that the Royal Commission, which I welcome, should examine the workings of Parliament as a whole and not exclude from debate the 700-year role of the hereditary Peers. Nearly six days of debate in your Lordships' House since October have failed to throw up any alternative that guarantees more securely the independence of spirit, the breadth of skills and experience, the spread of age and minimum political bias and patronage than does the present composition of the House of Lords.
The surest way in which to make that invaluable wealth of experience the foundation of an improved and more effective upper Chamber is to ensure that we play a major part in its reconstitution before disenfranchisement. Regularly attending hereditary Peers who will lose their seats will be unusually objective judges of the future composition of the House. Even established life Peers could be so viewed if their tenure of a peerage were curtailed.
For that reason, we shall need to press the Government to do three things: first, to confirm that they will conform in practice with all the terms of the White Paper, including the appointment of Peers in the transitional stage by an independent commission with no right of veto by the Prime Minister. Secondly, before the next election the Government must set a precise timetable not only for proposing but also for implementing and establishing a reformed House, its composition and its powers. The transitional stage, after the abolition of hereditary Peers, should not be open-ended.
Thirdly, a reformed House should be established by the end of the first Session of the new Parliament at the
394
latest. The Weatherill amendment and, indeed, any other amendment which will best help to achieve those objectives deserve to be supported.
I turn now to the proposals which I submitted to the Cross-Bench committee last March; that is, that the new powers of a future House will need to serve the nation valuably in the next millennium. I have no doubt that the future House should represent the whole United Kingdom, especially as future regional bodies in England and island bodies in Ireland will be added to the devolved Scottish and Welsh assemblies.
Secondly, the House should concern itself with European matters, including European human rights. Thirdly, in order to secure the independence of the judiciary, perceived as increasingly threatened of late, I believe that in future, the composition of this House should no longer include serving Law Lords. Instead, an alternative Supreme Court could better fulfil that role.
Fourthly, in future, it may well be to the advantage of the Church of England to be disestablished. In that case, religious representation of major denominations and other religions need to be enshrined in the appointment and/or election requirements of the upper House.
Fifthly, the new House should have a role complementary to that of the Commons, so as to scrutinise legislation better and provide greater Select Committee contribution.
Importantly, the 23 per cent. of the overall population in rural England and Wales who contribute 30 per cent. of the jobs in goods and services and 30 per cent. of gross domestic product, need explicit rural representation. A rural voice in policy and legislative scrutiny, particularly on matters where the rural angle is not always recognised—such as the need for economically viable farm and forestry land use—cannot be guaranteed in the other place, where most Members represent urban constituencies. Without that, I have no doubt that nothing less than the future of the landscape of Britain is at stake.
Seventhly, the House could act as a counterweight to the so-called electoral dictatorship of the House of Commons and continue what I might call the Cross Bench factor. Ideally, a new House should be composed of Members in place for not less than 10 years, and numbering not fewer than 300, of whom at least half would be appointed by the electoral regional assemblies, and the remainder elected nationally or appointed, as already discussed, by an independent commission. Appointees from regional assemblies (which would replace county councils) would, on a rolling basis, take their seats in even years and central appointees in odd years. MEP and House of Commons elections would remain as now.
Finally, I believe that some of the powers stripped from this House in 1911 and 1949 may need to be restored so that the upper House may serve Britain as effectively as their Senates serve the people of the United States and Australia.
12.51 a.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, this has been a long and fascinating debate However, we have wasted an enormous amount of time and misdirected our attention for a good deal of it in attacking or defending the hereditary principle. That debate was decided a very long time ago.
In 1944 my father said to me, "I am delighted that you have started to take an interest in what I am doing in London, but I hope you will not become too enamoured with it because the chances of you ever doing the same are remote indeed. If I were run over by a bus tomorrow you would have lost the power to speak and vote in the House before you achieved your majority and if I live to a reasonable age the House of Lords will have been abolished or totally reformed and you would be out of it long long ago".
I have no intention of defending the rights of hereditary Peers to take part in the proceedings of Parliament. I am concerned with a different matter. My father was called to the barony in 1934 by Ramsay MacDonald—impeccable credentials, you may think, for noble Lords opposite. The fact that his opinions changed with maturity is another matter.
It was that barony that made it possible to have a Parliament at all. For nearly 700 years it succeeded in making Parliament work, but not always—in fact, quite rarely—in a democratic manner. In the latter years, it moved steadily towards the democracy that we now have.
That gives me a sense of being a trustee at the end of a long line of trustees with a duty to hand their trusteeships over to reliable hands. That is what concerns me. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of St. Budeaux, said that he, too, saw himself as a trustee of this House. Of course, we all are. But we are more than that. We are trustees of the constitutional rights of the British people. When noble Lords say that we are having an inward looking debate, they are right to an extent, but I have scarcely heard that interest mentioned.
The function of this House in the protection of the British people is to see that the democratically elected body, which houses and provides the Executive, remains the servant of the electorate. There are times when the pressures of political necessity drive executives into courses that the electorate do not wish. There are times when really fat majorities tempt them into paths which the electorate do not really wish and there are many occasions when the pressures of parliamentary business mean that the legislation that comes here has in large part scarcely been considered at all. The function of this House is to revise that legislation and, where necessary, call the Executive in the other place back to account by giving the other place the opportunity to think again and drawing the attention of the public to the failings of the Executive, whether of our party or another party.
Those are the functions that we need to see continue after we are gone. It distresses me to have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who has the duty of replying to this debate, has had a pen
396
in his hand for the past two hours and I have not yet seen him write a note. If he does not write it down I hope that he will remember—he has put the pen in his pocket, which he does not fill me with confidence that he will remember—indeed I charge him to recall that we have a duty to ensure that what follows us is at least as well able to do what we are doing now as we are ourselves. That is all that I require before I leave, with good grace and satisfaction, to paint pictures, earn money and enjoy myself elsewhere—all things which at the moment I find it difficult to do.
In a disputed passage in his speech, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made it very clear that there were certain areas into which we ventured at our peril if we sought to achieve that end. I shall not go into the manner in which he drew the lines in the sand, but we must recognise that he spoke for the Executive who at present have absolute control of the other place and can therefore get us to do what they want. I respect those lines, but they do not exclude us from doing various things which are necessary.
The great danger which many of us see is that there will be an indefinite delay in proceeding to stage two, during the whole of which this House will consist almost entirely of nominated Members who can be reinforced by an infinite number of other nominated Members of the political colour of the Executive of the day, which may well change because it could he a long process.
One way of guarding against that, and from which we have not been excluded, would be to say that the effects of this Bill could cease at the end of whatever period we think it proper to give the Government in which to bring the new organisation into position—perhaps at the end of first Session of the second Parliament after the passing of this Act. I refer to the second Parliament after this one. I take the timescale suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who knows what he is talking about. I can think of no bigger pistol to hold to the heads of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Minister than the prospect at the end of that period of the whole of the hereditary peerage returning jubilant to this House. I am sure that the Government would bring in a new House of Lords before then. That would be effective.
There is the question of whether the effects of excessive patronage might become felt within that time. That is guarded against in part by what has come to be called the "Weatherill amendment" which we shall see later, but that alone may not suffice. The danger which lurks biggest in most of our minds, although not all of us have mentioned it, is the danger of excessive and irresponsible use of the patronage of appointment to this House.
Another area which the noble and learned Lord has not excluded us from considering is putting the patronage of the Prime Minister into a commission. I therefore suggest a second amendment which we ought to consider before the Bill returns to another place. I hope that in telling us that the other place would not consider many—indeed, any—exchanges of

397
Commons Messages, as we call them, the Government will not deny us the possibility of fine-tuning such amendments if they commended themselves to a sufficient number of Members of your Lordships' House to make them viable.
Those two amendments seem to me to open the door to a way through which we could go with comfort. What I now wonder is whether what we shall hear playing when we leave this place is the faint strains of Nero's fiddle, or the slightly louder sounds of the string section of the "Titanic"; or whether perhaps it could just possibly be, by a great effort to be courteous and understanding on both sides of this House, the sounds of "Auld Lang Syne".
1 a.m.
Lord Sawyer: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As he rehearsed his possible musical scenarios, I thought perhaps that one for the Conservative Party opposite might be "Always look on the bright side of life".
Many years ago I had the pleasure of reading the biography of Ramsay MacDonald, which I believe was written by the noble Lord's father. It was an excellent book, only to be surpassed in recent years by the definitive biography of David Marquand.
I am still very much in the early days of my apprenticeship in your Lordships' House, but it has been impossible not to be impressed by the quality of many of the contributions made in this two-day debate. Inevitably some on the fringes did not meet that standard, and I say that sadly; but on the whole the experience and wisdom spoken during this debate has been impressive.
For hereditary Peers on all sides this must be a difficult time, especially for those who have given good service to the House. I am still finding it a difficult time to adjust to my role as a life Peer. I felt it was rather ironic that one of the last jobs I had as the General Secretary of the Labour Party was to try and persuade the candidates on our Euro list that being sixth or seventh on the list when only five or six candidates might win was in fact an honourable task to carry out on behalf of the party, never thinking that in a few months time I would find myself 174th on a list in a different place, but hopefully still in a winning position.
As I reflected on my time here, I felt that I could have applied for an hereditary peerage myself, as it will probably take me two lives to master your Lordships' House. It is not just the strange hours, the rituals and the conventions, but problems like how one meaningfully joins a debate after 174 speakers. How do I make a contribution? How can I help the Government? That is always my intention, as noble Lords will learn.
I was thinking that last night when the noble Baroness, Lady Perry of Southwark, came to my rescue. She wondered what the woman on the Clapham omnibus would think of this Bill. There, I thought, is my golden opportunity. I sit next to the
398
woman or the man on the Clapham omnibus every morning on my way to your Lordships' House. I could ask them what they thought of the Bill; I could speak on that and that would be an original contribution.
Then I thought, "No", I have something more to offer than that. My grandfather was not just a passenger on the Clapham omnibus; my grandfather was the driver of the Clapham omnibus—northern version, but same principle. Just imagine if he had been an hereditary driver of a Clapham omnibus; where would I be today? Well, I would not be sitting on red leather benches, but on a black plastic bench somewhere on a night bus between Elephant & Castle and Kennington. But perhaps not. Driving a Clapham omnibus is much more dangerous; far more poorly paid and much less privileged than sitting in your Lordships' House. So I may have relinquished my black plastic seat to take up my position here.
I say this mainly to noble Lords opposite. Those of us born to drive Clapham omnibuses and the like, as opposed to those in this House born to rule in countries and the like, feel that it is time for change. This is not the politics of envy. It is not the politics of class hatred; indeed, it is the principle of fairness that drives us to bring these measures before the House. As noble Lords on all sides of the House will know, you cannot drive a Clapham omnibus on your grandfather's driving licence. You can only drive a Clapham omnibus by passing your own driving test, deploying your own brains and developing your own skills. It is time that one can only get a seat in your Lordships' House on that very same basis. Although I know that after 700 years some noble Lords think that we are taking liberties and moving a bit fast, I saw a nice quote from Dryden the other day which said:
"The spirit of our time should teach us speed".
I want to say something about the reformed Chamber. I know that there is a bit of a crisis about legitimacy in the air. I also know that noble Lords are uncertain or have conflicting views about the basis upon which it would be legitimate to sit in a reformed Chamber. Well, I would argue that we can get legitimacy in different ways.
Some 20 years ago I was appointed by a small executive of a major trade union with a membership of three-quarters of a million to be one of the leaders of those members. I felt absolutely legitimate, as, indeed, my members thought I was. A Conservative government came along with a manifesto commitment, which was probably read by something like 2 per cent. of the people, to make me stand for election for my job. I did not like it, but I respected the result of the general election and the right of that government to change the legislation. I obeyed the law; I was challenged and could have lost my job. However, I won and I was still legitimate. I do not believe that my status changed at all in the eyes of my members from the day that I became an appointed official. I went on to become the General Secretary of the Labour Party, appointed by an executive, confirmed by a ballot of conference delegates—indirect election and legitimate in the eyes of Labour Party members.

399
I have cited all these experiences briefly to show that appointed, directly or indirectly elected can all be legitimate; it is how the people you represent feel about you and the representative nature of what you do that really counts. I end on this note. Political classes in another place—and, indeed, some noble Lords as well—are marshalling arguments for direct elections to a revised Chamber. But passengers and drivers of a Clapham omnibus would be more cautious.
I believe that people very strongly support and demand the principle of the Commons as the prime elected Chamber. They do not want to undermine that. They want a second Chamber which is subordinate and, to some extent, independent. They know that more elections mean more selections, more candidates, more manifestos, more parties, more party politics and, indeed, less independence. By the way, if I go to election for this seat behind me, which I would be prepared to do, I shall not be urging voters to support me to check and balance the executive. I shall be saying to them: "Vote for me, support our party and our Government". On what other basis could anyone in our democracy stand for election?
Similarly, I shall not be saying to the voters: "Vote for me, support me and I will carry out my manifesto promises. But I am sorry, I can't promise to deliver". Why? "Well, because there are a hundred appointed Cross-Bench Peers. They are all independent and they didn't stand for election. But they can thwart my mandate and they can dilute the power of your vote". You cannot have a sem-elected Chamber with two different bases for serving and two different conflicting bases for voting. So tread warily over the seductive veneer of direct elections; the process is not as simple as some people make out. Avoid also the pitfalls of a semi-elected system that has inbuilt conflicts and contradictions. Do not dismiss the potential legitimacy of Peers who could reach this House through an open, public nomination procedure. Be endorsed by party leaders or an independent commission and perhaps be confirmed in some way by indirect elections.
Legitimacy is conferred by those we represent. A wide-ranging discussion with the British people through the report of the Royal Commission, and possibly at a later date through the political parties, will, I believe, show that people want a more sophisticated, flexible and subtle arrangement than they demand for the elected Commons. I think we should give consideration to and take part in that debate.
1.10 a.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I begin by stating my support for the sentiments expressed in the reasoned amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold.
What distresses about the Bill, what offends, is its promotion of short-term party political advantage at the expense of constitutional balance. Lest anyone doubted it, our debate on the White Paper—many of
400
your Lordships emphasised the point—confirmed that the Government's policy is political in content. The intent of the Bill is avowedly political. To this extent it is utterly empty of constitutional virtue.
I state the obvious. The Bill is concerned with composition. Inevitably, this has provoked debate about its abject failure to address the inter-related matters of powers and functions. This must be a deeply distorting omission. We can but hope that we may be able to address that in Committee. But, perhaps more importantly, there has been precious little discussion, let alone consideration on the face of the Bill, of what could be termed "method", the Burkean distinction between legislating for "'wants" and legislating for "needs". The Government are adamant that the two Houses in Parliament should retain their own distinctive character and that the other place must retain its supremacy over this House.
That is all good and well. This has been the foundation of our constitutional balance for many years. Another place is a political assembly performing a political function. Indeed, its political credentials make it the fountainhead of democratic and electoral authority and, from that, flows the legitimacy of its supremacy. In contrast, your Lordships' House is a legislative assembly performing a legislative function. Lest it has escaped the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the simple fact is that it is our constitutional duty to scrutinise legislation. If nothing else, this alone would secure the status of this House within our understanding of democracy.
However, in warping and deepening the politicisation of this House, as the Bill will assuredly do, the distinctive character of the two Houses will be irreparably compromised. The transitional arrangement—and whatever may or may not succeed it—will be archly political in character. It will be a clone. It will be wholly ruled by the politics of the moment. Its "method" of legislative scrutiny will be all of a piece with another place. In other words, the consideration of legislation from the perspective of "need" will be wholly subsumed by an obsession with short-term "want". Despite the primacy of this House's legislative and deliberative functions, it will become a political assembly.
It is this which makes the Government's proposition so incomprehensible. It is illogical that this misguided conversion of a legislative assembly into a political one can in any way improve the performance of Parliament as a whole.
It is personal, but I disagree with those who hold that the crucial function of holding the Executive to account is one of the primary functions of this House. To my mind, this is one of the ambiguities of our constitution. We are, above all else, a legislative and deliberative Chamber. Our efforts to hold the government of the day in check are subsidiary elements to that remit. Quite apart from anything else—the Bill will not change this—it is from the other place that the government of the day are predominantly formed and that an administration's

401
mandate to govern is derived. Holding to account is a task that is, quite literally, beyond the reach of this House. Properly it should be done by another place.
But one of the greatest complaints about our parliamentary system—it comes from all sides—is that the political assembly is hugely ill-equipped to check the Executive. Logic demands that the transformation of this House into a political assembly will occasion yet more Executive creep towards absolute control of the legislature. That prospect was quite palpable in the remarks of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he opened our debate. This defines the constitutional impropriety of the Government's approach.
A number of authorities maintain that,
"public policy requires that no legislative body be competent to frustrate its primary purpose by creating a vacuum".
And yet this Bill, when and if enacted, will create that vacuum. It will not only eliminate "need"-based scrutiny of legislation; it will also transfer unprecedented control of the legislature to the Executive. By implication the Bill is beyond the competence of both this House and the other place.
More than this, as a number of noble Lords have already observed, there are strong grounds for arguing that the shift in the balance of our constitutional architecture is of such importance that this is a matter that should be judged directly by the electorate. The poll evidence suggests that public opinion favours such an approach. Current constitutional theory, based upon the precedents of 1832 and 1911, requires that in the event that a government seek to swamp opposition to it in the Lords by the creation of new Peers, the authority of the electorate for the specific proposal should be sought. By extension, the corollary of this, a government seeking to subvert opposition by wholesale removal from office of a class of representation in the Lords, must also have validity. In this context, I fully endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
I do not believe that I am alone in supposing that the Government do not set much store by constitutional propriety or precedent. Their respect for Parliament and the constitution is, shall we say, muted. This is a huge source of regret. It is all the more tragic because the seeds of consensus, and thereby the opportunity for the Government to pursue the matter with some measure of grace and dignity, are but a few months away in the findings of the Royal Commission. In addition—and in a spirit of helpfulness—the Government should be aware that the law relating to the hereditary Peerage is governed not by statute but by common law and precedent.
This leads me to the text of the Bill. The Leader of another place glorified in its simplicity, but, especially when it comes to legislative provision, simplicity is no substitute for clarity or for certainty.
402
The hereditary Peerage is a complex institution. That should not surprise us given its longevity. Of course, at one level, at the political level, it is a simple matter to intend to achieve the Government's policy objective. But at other levels, constitutionally and legislatively, the matter is not quite so clear-cut.
Clause 1 is the heart of the Bill, the mechanism that seeks to deliver the policy intention. Outwardly, it is imbued with the "exquisite simplicity" to which the Leader of another place referred:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
It is hard to fault as a bald statement of political intent. But there is at the very least some doubt as to whether the clause as drafted can in fact deliver that intent. It is unclear and uncertain.
I should stress that, in this, I do not dispute that there is a debate to be had as to whether it is appropriate that the hereditary peerage is part of the legislature. There are credible arguments on both sides of that fence. But, as I have already explained, this is not the point at issue on the face of the Bill. That being so, what will its effects be? It will entrench and deepen the politicisation of your Lordships' House. It will tighten the grip of the Executive over the legislative process. It will empower the party political apparat at the expense of the electorate. It will do all of these things against the grain of public opinion and constitutional common sense.
What it categorically will not do is make your Lordships' House any more democratic. It will not make this place any more representative. It will not engender any improvement in legislative scrutiny. It will not enhance this House's deliberative function. It will not provide better mechanisms for holding the Executive of the day to account.
As David Byrne would have it, courtesy of the Government,
"We're on a road to nowhere".
1.21 a.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, many of your Lordships will recall the 1950s BBC radio programme "Take it from Here", which featured a certain "Mr. Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells". This morning, in the context of this Bill, I am "Disgusted of Westminster". I am disgusted as to the Bill's dogma. It is an odious, debased and vindictive little Bill with huge, but huge, constitutional implications.
I am disgusted with its lack of practicality. It has been estimated that the House needs—that is, presently has—about 200 hereditary Peers to keep its committees—in that context, I include Deputy Speakers—running. In answer to my Question, the Chairman of Committees advised on 8th February of this year that there are 163 active hereditary Peers. Those two numbers—200 and 163—are not that far apart and certainly both are greater than the 90 of the Weatherill amendment.

403
I am disgusted at the Bill's lack of substance. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us yesterday morning that membership of this House should be based on merit. I have no argument with that whatsoever. But does it have to be merit that is earned before anyone becomes a Member of this House? Are my noble friends Lord Carrington, after 54 years of service and merit, and Lord Ferrers, after 45 years of service, to be thrown out of this House? I can only get together 24 years, although for the past 14 of those I have sat continuously on the European Communities Committee or its sub-committees. I agree that membership should be based on merit but I make the point only that we should not suffer reverse discrimination.
I am disgusted at some of the rhetoric that we have heard in this debate.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Geddes: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Perhaps noble Lords opposite would like to wait.
We have heard about the reduced authority of decisions of this House due to the presence of hereditary Peers. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, referred earlier to a particular decision of this House being ignored by "the country"—I emphasise the word, if I heard it correctly—due to the number of hereditary Peers who had voted on that decision. The country? It was the present Government, who cannot abide anyone disagreeing with them, least of all this House.
Again, we are told that this House is undemocratic. It depends how you define democracy, but I suggest that, given the present dominance of the executive, this House is about the only bastion of democracy left.
I am disgusted at the timing of this debate, both immediately—as has been well rehearsed, it is being held during Easter week—but more to the point, in the medium term. As many noble Lords have said, stage one is being divorced from any decision on stage two.
I am disgusted by the lack of direction in this Bill. Surely what is needed is a reform of Parliament in the round, not a half-stage reform of this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, in a very impressive speech on Monday, came to conclusion that the only legitimate form that this House might take other than its present one would be an elected Chamber. I do not disagree with the theory of that. Where I do disagree is that another place would never tolerate a second elected Chamber. Indeed, we were told earlier that that is why previous attempts to reform this House failed.
Finally, I am utterly disgusted by the style with which this debate has been conducted from the Front Bench opposite. We have had scant and belated credit given to hereditary Peers. And then, to compound the previous discourtesies, we had the opening remarks yesterday of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Were his remarks a deliberate ploy, or were they just gratuitously offensive? His threat was
404
little short of disgraceful and constituted a grave abuse of this House. Like many noble Lords, not least my noble friends Lord Cranborne, Lord Ferrers, Lord Boardman and Lord Elton, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, I am utterly unswayed and unimpressed by such threat.
In the context of this Bill, I conclude by reminding the Government Front Bench that they hold their offices by appointment, not by anointment.
1.27 a.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, during my life certain numbers have stuck in my mind. When I served in the Royal Marines my number was PLYX112105. I never forgot that. When I became a student at the Open University, it was 004696.5. And when in future my friends say to me: "What did you do during the war on the House of Lords reform Bill?", I shall say, "I spoke as number 177". That will be as significant to me as participating in this debate must have been to everyone who has spoken. It is a privilege to have this opportunity of expressing a view. At this stage there can be nothing in the detail of the issue that has not already been touched upon.
I wish to say as kindly as I can that I believe the hereditary Peers have grown too sensitive to the fact that their future is at stake. Of course it is at stake. It has been at stake for a very long time. I can understand the emotion, the joy and pride, that have come across the Chamber when hereditary Peers have spoken about their forebears, what they have done, how they survived, and many other matters.
I speak for the unelected, non-hereditary Peers, a group which deserves to be remembered. I do not have a family tree which goes back hundreds of years. The Clan Graham was a Border clan. The Grahams were known as Border reivers. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, nods his head; he recognises a reiver when he sees one. A reiver was a chanter, someone who moved from side to side, who stole cattle and who was in the pay of one side or the other. The Grahams moved into Northumberland. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which is my home town, is full of Grahams. My grandfather Graham on my dad's side, who was poor and did not have much, served in the First World War. My grandfather on my mother's side was a miner, and I am proud of that. My father served in the First and Second World Wars. I am as proud of my heritage and my hereditary traits as anyone here. Let us not get into the difficulty of trying to justify where we came from. We are all individuals. When I look at the hereditary Peers, mainly on the other side of the Chamber, I do not see hereditary Peers but fellow politicians. We are all here at the behest of a party leader and ultimately of the Queen.
Whether one likes it or not, and however one dresses up what it should be, this is a political House. When I listen to the case that has been made against the Bill, I wonder where some of the critics have come from. One or two Members said that the Bill was a sop to the left wing of the Labour Party. I have

405
been a member of the Labour Party for 57 years. There has never been any view other than that the House of Lords was an anachronism based upon the hereditary principle. I have here a postcard which shows a number of workmen battering at the doors of the House of Lords. The caption is "Labour clears the way". On the back of the card it says:
"Labour party poster of 1910 challenging the House of Lords' rejection the year before of Lloyd George's People's Budget".
For many of us this is unfinished business. Whether or not we have fought or argued, we have believed that part of our destiny was to have the opportunity one day to stand here, as I do, to speak not for the aristocracy and the hereditary class but for the working class, from which I sprang.
Earlier in the debate I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, regret the language that has been used. I agree with him. During the two-day debate, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said, Members on this side of the Chamber have been accused by speakers opposite of being cuckoos, poodles, Gadarene swine, pigs in a poke, fraudulent, paltry and poor, envious. We have now been told by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, that we are participating in a process which is odious, vindictive and debased.
I took careful note of the language of many Members opposite: "a constitutional outrage"; "nasty"; "political prejudice"; "contempt for Parliament"; "chaotic and unpalatable"; "extraordinary pettiness"; "a bad day for the House"; "pious declarations"; "a terrible little Bill"; "an absolutely miserable, pedestrian measure"; "an abuse of power"; "a mean and spiteful measure"; "vindictive, time-serving"; "cheap and cowardly"; "absolute contempt". I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, that we should regret the use of that language. However, it did not come from this side of the Chamber but from the other side. Sometimes noble Lords opposite delude themselves by believing that they are more in touch with the opinion of the House and the country than those on this side of the Chamber. I doubt that. I believe that on any fair test the people of this country will support this measure.
Much has been said about the independence of the hereditary Peers. I like the definition provided by my noble friend Lord Richard. He said that hereditary Peers sat independently, spoke independently and then voted Conservative independently. Of course they do. That is the whole argument. Others look at this in a different way but I view it as an argument about politics. More than once when I was Chief Whip when a result was declared and analysed I was not surprised. We had our own intelligence. We looked at the figures and knew what would happen. When we had a Labour government, they were defeated on average 75 times a year, but when a Conservative government were in power the figure was 10 to 15 defeats. One may say that those are only figures but they must be translated into the time consumed in the other place to put matters right.
406
I hope that this Bill will be passed unamended. I believe that when I go through the Lobbies I shall also be entitled to say what the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, said on one famous occasion: "Rejoice, rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great will be my reward, if not in heaven, somewhere else".
1.36 a.m.
Lord Mancroft: My Lords, some years ago your Lordships debated a proposal to set up an independent commercial television station. I was not present for the debate because at the time I had not mastered the art of speech and was still having trouble learning to walk. But I remember my father telling me the story some years later. Apparently your Lordships debated the issue quite extensively and the strong thread running through the debate, led I suspect by the spiritual Benches, was that what was then called the alternative programme would inevitably lead to an overwhelming decline in national morals rendering every home with a television set into some kind of Sodom and Gomorrah. Eventually, one noble Lord, elderly and perhaps a little hard of hearing, rose from his place, pulled his hearing aid from its socket on the Bench in front and threw it onto the Floor of the House, saying, "I wish to God there was an alternative bloody programme on this thing", and then marched out of the Chamber. I suspect that not a few of your Lordships feel a little like that tonight. I am very conscious that as speaker No. 178 there may not be an awful lot left to say. But I am the last of the hereditary Peers to speak in this debate and I should like to make one or two points.
Much has been made of the fact that so few speakers have sought to defend the hereditary principle. I believe that the hereditary principle needs no defence because to attack it is ludicrous. The principle of heredity is neither right nor wrong; it is both natural and normal. We get our looks, height and the colour of our hair and eyes from our parents. Many of us get our ideas, morals and beliefs from our parents. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House knows that better than anyone. Hardly a household in Britain, be it stately or rather more humble, does not contain a piece of furniture, an item of jewellery or some object that has not passed down from a forebear. Much of the land in Britain and across the world passes down through families. Have your Lordships never bought a newspaper from a hereditary newsagent like W. H. Smith? How many noble Baronesses buy their clothes from hereditary suppliers such as Marks & Spencer? Do we not drink beer from hereditary brewers such as Greenalls or Whitbread and eat food supplied by that most successful hereditary grocers Sainsbury's?
The principle of heredity thrives in almost every area of our lives. For many hundreds of years, it has played a central role in many great nations of Europe and beyond. In the debate on the White Paper in February, the Leader of the House made great play of the fact that only Britain retains that hereditary influence in its political system, and that is entirely correct. There is a very sound reason. Britain has a

407
constitution that is both uniquely robust and at the same time uniquely flexible—which means that while virtually every other constitution in Europe has collapsed this century, ours has continued to deliver stable government to our people.
To risk that stability on half-baked change would seem more than a little unwise. That is not to say that reform is inevitably undesirable. There is an increasingly strong feeling in the country that our political system is no longer delivering the goods as it used to do. But the place where reform is most needed is the other place, for it is on the House of Commons that most criticism and discontent is focused, not your Lordships' House.
I believe also that reform of this House is desirable, for the reasons so well articulated by my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Cranborne. I am clear in my own mind that reform will and probably should ultimately end in a wholly elected second Chamber. I accept the difficulties that will present, particularly for the other place—but there are no easy solutions, otherwise it would have been done before.
That is all in the future. We have before us today a Bill, and it is on the Bill before us that we must focus. Whatever may he the Government's intentions, whatever the Royal Commission may or may not suggest, and whichever way the wind of world events may blow us, we have to consider today not the long-term reform of this House and not—as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, suggested—a paving Bill. As the Leader of the House made clear when opening the debate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, repeated, this is a free standing, one-off measure and must be considered on its merits—and there appear to be very few of them.
What makes our task more difficult is that so far members of the Government Front Bench have failed to address the Bill in any detail. The Leader of the House deployed a battery of statistics to make her case. Statistics are rather like bikinis. What they reveal may well be very interesting but what they conceal is truly far more important.
The Lord Chancellor, towards the end of his rather elegant but difficult speech, took the time to explain the Government's view of the Weatherill amendment, but that was all. Considering the extraordinarily unprecedented nature of the Bill, I hoped that at least one member of the Government would have taken your Lordships through the uncharted waters that the Bill seeks to navigate. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will fulfil that role in his usual courteous and careful way when he winds up.
There is one final issue to address, and it was touched on by the Leader of the House in her opening remarks. The noble Baroness was right to point out that for all their record of public service, hereditary peers do not have the monopoly on duty. Life Peers too have an honourable record of public service. I am very happy to have the opportunity to pay tribute to them. This may be one of the last times that we work together on a Bill of such importance.
408
The duty of all noble Lords is the same whether hereditary or life Peer. We have a sworn duty to go through the Bill with the tooth comb that it requires. Of all your Lordships, the Lord Chancellor knows that no Bill is perfect. Issues arise during the passage of a Bill that could not reasonably have been foreseen. Noble Lords have already raised issues relating to the Commonwealth, Letters Patent, Writs of Summons and other matters—all of which will need to be addressed at a later stage. To suggest that the Government will accept no amendment to the Bill is to ask noble Lords to abdicate their responsibilities entirely. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord, that that is not a possibility however much it may suit the Government's purpose.
Apart from revising legislation, the single most important duty that your Lordships have is to prevent a government from prolonging its own life—a power that was deliberately left with the hereditary peerage under the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 but which for some reason was left out of the consultation document that the Royal Commission published last week. Although the Prime Minister stated his intention to give up some of his powers of patronage, as the Bill is currently drafted he gives up none, and he will gain practical control over this House by retaining the sole ability to nominate new Peers and thus assume powers that no British Prime Minister has ever had. Unless he relinquishes that power in some form, or some other type of safeguard is written on to the face of the Bill, I, for one, will have the greatest difficulty in going along with it.
I regard the Weatherill amendment as an interesting initiative worthy of extremely close and careful scrutiny. If, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne suggests, it offers some guarantee that stage two will actually take place and that some measure of independence will be maintained in your Lordships' House in the future, I could even support it. But that is my only interest in the offer of 91. I have no interest in my own survival in this House, only in the continuation of a second Chamber with enough power to check an overmighty Executive. And if by my departure I can ensure that to any degree, I shall leave this House, albeit sadly, in the knowledge that the departure of the hereditary peerage has not been in vain.
Your Lordships will remember Nelson's famous signal on the eve of Trafalgar: "England expects that every man will do his duty". I wonder how many of your Lordships remember the comment of his vice-admiral, Lord Collingwood: "I do wish Nelson would stop sending those bloody silly messages. We all know exactly what we have to do". I think that I know my duty in this nasty little matter. I suspect that your Lordships do too.
1.46 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in a number of interventions in the early hours of the morning (I do not remember which morning it was now), the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made much of the Labour Party's manifesto pledge to end the right

409
of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. Contrary to what the noble and learned Lord said, this Bill is not entirely consistent with the manifesto, which described this reform as self-contained. It is not.
As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said in his excellent contribution to this debate, other measures will have to be taken in order to make stage one work. None of those measures is contained within the Bill. Nor was it ever the intention of the Government that they should be. It was, however, a manifesto pledge that the powers of this place would remain unaltered. We now know that that promise will not be kept.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that this was a paving Bill. There is not a single paving clause in the Bill. It is of course described in the manifesto as the first stage of a two-stage process. There is no guarantee of a second stage. I share strongly the cynicism that we shall not see a second stage. I hope that amendments will be passed which commit the Government to a second stage before stage one is implemented.
There is much good will across the parties for a review of the constitutional arrangements in this country. Such a review should entail looking at Parliament as a whole, including the relationship between both Houses, Parliament's relationship with the judiciary, the Church, possibly the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but, above all, Parliament's relationship with the people of this country. A review would define for recommendation to Parliament the role and functions of both Houses; the powers required to carry them out; the procedures necessary; and then, and only then, the composition of this Chamber would be addressed.
That would have the virtue of securing a wider consensus and, more significantly, intellectual justification for constitutional reform. However, such a logical pathway to reform is not for this Government. They have established a modus operandi when dealing with such issues as devolution in Scotland and Wales and proportional representation, where democracy is sacrificed for control by party apparatchiks and the might of the trade union block vote.
This Bill reminds me of a surgeon performing a transplant operation. The heart is removed; the patient is wired up to a mechanical heart machine; and while the patient lies there a cross-departmental committee is set up to discuss the next steps.
We learn today that the Weatherill amendment will be published at the end of this debate. Does that mean it will miss being printed this evening for distribution tomorrow? Why was it not contained within the Bill? The amendment was agreed last December. It is an irony that the Royal Commission, which was agreed to so reluctantly by the Government, should be given a mammoth task with an impossible timetable; and yet the Government, with all the technological back-up, have taken so long just to make up the words
410
of the Weatherill amendment. The Government cannot get away without admitting their key involvement in drawing up the amendment.
Could it be that the Government did not wish the detail of the amendment to be known ahead of this Second Reading; or is it that Members of this House should have scant time to read and understand the amendment before it is put to the House? As for it not being contained within the Bill, we now know that it is to substitute for a sword of Damocles over our proceedings. My Lords, this is a real form of blackmail.
The Lord Chancellor prefaced a most menacing outburst at the end of his opening speech today with the words, "Let me be brutally frank". The noble and learned Lord proceeded to set out a list of possible amendments to the Bill which, if contemplated by your Lordships, or worse, pressed to a successful vote, we would be punished by the Government, who would withdraw the Weatherill amendment. Were those conditions part of the deal? I think that we have a right to know as other Members of this House.
I shall be equally frank, but not brutal. Even if the deal were conditional, my noble friend Lord Cranborne made it clear in his excellent speech that no Member of this House is bound by that deal. All Members of this House have a legitimate right, and indeed a duty, to consider each matter on its merits without fear of threats made by the noble and learned Lord or his right honourable friend Mr. Blair. Bully-boy tactics, however noble their guise, are hardly a way to attract the good will of Members of this House. And what does all this imply for this House as a check and balance on the Executive?
The noble and learned Lord chided my noble friend Lord Kinnoull earlier today about what he actually meant this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord said that this deal was done with Privy Counsellors. One of the people it was done with was not a Privy Counsellor. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that the deal was binding. If it is binding only on those who were party to it, we understand that. But perhaps I may read out the words that I believe the noble and learned Lord actually said:
"Any support for such amendment, or abstention, would be a breach of the compromise. The Government will not tolerate any material disruption of their legislative programme and if events take place which are incompatible with the letter or the spirit of this compromise, if the legislative programme is prejudiced, they would invoke the Parliament Act".
That is a threat, whatever the noble and learned Lord likes to say.
How very much we miss our noble friend Lord Beloff at this time. His guardianship of the constitution and his respect for a sovereign Parliament were unequalled—I do not see that as a laughing matter, more especially from the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. Lord Beloff's respect for a sovereign Parliament was unequalled. Time and again in his inimitable style he described the arrogance and contempt for Parliament by this Government, who have a propensity for centralisation and control.

411
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also said unequivocally that this Bill is about the hereditary principle. If that is so, then it is my view that on the passing of this Bill the monarchy as part of the governance of this country will indeed be vulnerable. That point was very well made by my noble friend Lady Knight. It is therefore incumbent on the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to respond to the question of my noble friend Lady Miller, which was passed over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in his summing up. I make no criticism of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, given the number of speakers and the excellence of his summing up. It was clear that some issues had to be left for another day.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House said that the Bill is not about political balance. Well, you could have fooled me! So much has been made of the so-called in-built Tory majority. As I said on a previous occasion, by and large Peers, and especially Ministers, have to win arguments in this House in order to win votes. It is also true that when we were in office we could not simply snap our fingers and win a vote at any time we wished. If that had been the case I and a number of my noble friends could have been saved a great deal of trouble when we not infrequently lost votes. On so many occasions successful alliances were formed from some or all Benches across the. House to oppose Government amendments just as happened for almost two years to this Government. People in our rural communities, students, and many others, have much to thank all Benches in this House for their support.
What we have in this Bill is a nasty cocktail of class warfare, the politics of envy and a large dose—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, one only had to listen to the debates here and especially in another place—of new Labour's third way, which is a euphemism for grabbing a headline, making a glitzy presentation and producing legislation without any thought whatsoever for its consequences.
At best this Bill will produce a neutralised and emasculated second Chamber and with a few additional cronies it will carry on its work passively without necessarily calling the executive to account. At worst, the Government will take advantage of a seriously weakened second Chamber to enact in the second half of this Parliament legislation such as the right to roam and the more damaging regulations which flow from European directives and, who knows, even paving measures for entry into a single currency. With such compliant and supine pager-controlled Government Back Benchers in another place—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have obviously touched a chord! With such compliant and supine pager-controlled Government Back Benchers in another place, the Executive will have a field day with hardly any opposition.
412
Personally, I would not concede the hereditary principle nor the role which hereditary Peers play in the life of our sovereign Parliament unless and until something more effective is proposed to replace it. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, reform should make things better. However, this Bill as it stands does not achieve that. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, the only virtue of the Weatherill amendment is that it makes a very bad Bill marginally better. It is right that Members, preferably from all sides of the House, should support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I certainly shall.
This country is at war in Kosovo; there is a crisis in Northern Ireland; the Berlin summit and the mass resignation of the Commission all present this country with great challenges in Europe apart from the many other national and international challenges. What is the Government's priority? It is discussing an ill thought-through Bill to reform this House in advance, by a mere six to eight weeks, of the Royal Commission's report on the long-term future of this House. That reflects extremely badly on this Government.
Meanwhile, I shall conclude once more with a fulsome tribute to the work of hereditary Peers in Parliament over the centuries. They have served the nation with distinction in this second Chamber, which is admired throughout the world. It is also worth repeating that, from time to time, evolutionary change has been enacted only after painstaking discussions and with a broad consensus of agreement. If only, even at this late stage, one could invite the Government to bury prejudice and to abandon this Bill in favour of engaging minds and brains before exercising the legislative pen.
Without doubt Parliament is weakening; the Executive is becoming stronger; and the centre of gravity for decision-making is moving to Brussels. The ultimate test against which the Government will be judged will be whether a stronger, more effective and more independent Chamber results from their proposals and the degree to which it is able to hold the executive to account. I can say for certain that the Government have not even begun to appreciate what will be lost to the nation from their constitutional vandalism, all in the name of modernisation. It is an ugly word with ugly connotations.
The tragedy is that those hereditary Peers who have served this House so well and who have declared themselves not opposed to and even in favour of reform will be denied the opportunity to determine their successor House. I continue to salute the hereditary Peers and I regard it as a privilege to serve with them. I believe that the country will come to regret their wholesale abolition and it is at this Government's feet that the culpability will be laid.
2.1 a.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, the end is nigh. When I went into the Bishops Bar for a cup of coffee just after midnight, I was greeted by a former Conservative Minister who wished me happy birthday.

413
I then realised that it is indeed tomorrow and it is not just that I feel a year older than when this debate started but I actually am a year older.
I received some advice from the same quarter from some of my Scottish friends, and I use that word in its loosest possible sense. They suggested that at this hour, the best thing that I could do is to move a vote of thanks to the chair and then sit down. I reminded them that I came from a tradition in the other place where the winder-up made at least a polite passing reference to every speech that had gone before. I shall try to find a happy medium between those two positions.
This has been a fascinating debate but it is the third two-day debate that we have had in the past year on the same subject. Not very much new has been unearthed in the past two days. In fact, if one looks to the Second Reading debate of the Parliament Bill 1911, which I have done, one finds that there is very little new that was not said then. On 2nd March 1911, my illustrious predecessor as leader of the Liberal Party, who happened then to be the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, was being taunted by Mr. Balfour from the Opposition Bench. Let us remember that that Bill dealt only with the powers of this place. Mr. Asquith said of Mr. Balfour:
"He finds the hereditary principle an excellent thing, a practical working instrument for securing the absolute supremacy of this House when there is a Tory majority here, but a working instrument to frustrate and nullify the functions of this House when there is a Liberal Government in power".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/11; col. 586.]
That is the hereditary principle. Substitute the word "Labour" for the word "Liberal" and the argument is precisely the same.
The debate began today with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor reminding us of the changes that have taken place and the erosion of the hereditary principle which has taken place over the years since Lord Rosebery, another Liberal leader, introduced a Motion to abolish the hereditary peerage.
I go further and say, in all seriousness, that just as we have seen the end of Prime Ministers, or half the Cabinet, coming from this place—I can recall in my political lifetime when we had two distinguished Foreign Secretaries from this House; the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Lord Home—I question whether, 20 or 30 years on, it would be acceptable, in present-day politics to have a Foreign Secretary from this House. We must be aware of the fact that that hereditary principle has not only eroded in the past but is still eroding at present.
When I was a student of constitutional law I remember sitting an examination question which read as follows: The Parliament Act of 1911 was a bucket of whitewash sloshed over a structure riddled with dry rot—discuss. I did discuss it. I never expected, 40 years on, to be discussing it again.
We have heard very varied speeches. We have had one or two really rather odd speeches, if I may put it politely. One noble Peer suggested that in all the present troubles in the Balkans what is needed is the
414
stability of the hereditary Peerage. I failed to make the connection. Another solemnly assured us that in going around the world he found that other countries envied this House. I have travelled a lot around the world and I find that in most cases this House is greeted with incredulity.
I then looked at my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who is to follow me, sitting on the Front Bench listening to these speeches and I was reminded of what was said by Lord Lansdowne in a similar position on the Tory Front Bench during such debates in 1911. It was reported that when he heard Lord Halsbury speak against the Bill he knew, as one sentence followed another, that he could no longer vouch for the sanity of his followers. That is a harsh observation on only one or two of the speeches.
We have had other speeches of great charm. I particularly enjoyed one of the shortest speeches from the noble Earl, Lord Kintore, who, in a minute-and-a-half, managed to make a job application to be among the 91 survivors. Many others performed much more subtle auditions, I thought, for posts in later events.
Many Members of your Lordships' House gave us potted family histories. Others, sadly, told us that they were making their last speeches, including, rather extraordinarily, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, perhaps achieved a unique distinction by making his first and, possibly, his last speech at one and the same time. I congratulate him on that.
There were also some very contradictory speeches. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, suggested that if we remove the hereditary Peers, a House composed entirely of life Peers would be more likely to amend legislation and, therefore, prove itself more difficult to the other place without, as he said, the restraint of the hereditary Peers.
On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said that the House would be less effective. They cannot both be right. I suspect neither of them is right. I suspect that the House will continue much as it is today.
There was also some argument about the fact that we should not be discussing the composition of the House, but should be discussing its role. The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, was one who put forward that argument. Again it reminded me of the debates in 1910 and 1911, when Mr. Austen Chamberlain argued precisely the opposite. He said that we should be discussing the composition of the other place and not the powers. So the arguments ranged backwards and forwards. The truth is that noble Lords would rather discuss anything except the abolition of the hereditary principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham, in a speech to which we have just listened, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, reminded us that we can all be proud of our ancestry and venerate history without necessarily believing that it is essential that some people should have, as part of that tradition, the automatic right to become legislators with no other qualifications.

415
An article in the Guardian at the weekend, by David McKie, pointed out that, as far as the hereditary Peers are concerned, it was a myth to imagine that they were all of ancient history. He put it this way. He said that there are more Strathclydes than Cecils among the hereditary Peers. By that he meant that most creations of hereditary Peers were either in this century or at the tail end of the previous century, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, kindly put it in his speech, perhaps created by another former Liberal leader in response to a particularly anxious financial appeal.
Perhaps noble Lords will permit me an aside and allow me to make a small confession. In 1970, after a poor election result for the Liberal Party, we were reduced to six Members. It was all hands to the pump, so I was appointed Chief Whip. How one can be Chief Whip of six Members I am not sure. I was waited upon by a legal gentleman from party headquarters, who congratulated me on my appointment. I thanked him and he said, "I have to inform you that you are now ex officio chairman of the trustees of the Lloyd George Fund". I said, "Wealth at last". It turned out that there was only a small amount in the fund with which to pay the pension of Lloyd George's former secretary, who was still alive at that time. I am always aware of history where Liberal leaders and peerages are concerned, and so should be many other Members of this place today.
Turning to what the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said about the 1968 debates, I remember them well, but I also remember the key sentence in the Government's White Paper at the time. It stated:
"Succession to a hereditary peerage would no longer confer Membership of the House of Lords".
That was the fundamental principle of that White Paper, which was approved in this House by a majority of 251 to 56, among which the majority among Conservative Peers was 108 to 43. So, the principle of abolishing the hereditary peerage was already accepted by Conservative Peers as far back as 1968. That is why I cannot understand when the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others talk about how the whole process should be slow. What has it been? It has been like this since 1888. It has been very slow indeed. The truth is that the hereditary Peers have been living on borrowed time for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded us that so long as the hereditary principle remained the main source of membership of this place, women and ethnic minorities will never get their proper representation in the second Chamber of Parliament.
Other speakers made interesting suggestions. Those who worry about the alleged effect on the Monarchy should have listened to the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Acton, who reminded us that there are at least five or six hereditary monarchies in Europe surviving well in the aftermath of the abolition of any other hereditary principle, and they are very popular monarchies. I add that in Sweden the abolished peers have retained their own entity. There is a House of
416
Peers which has no constitutional power whatsoever but which continues to debate matters of public interest—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, that is a possible role. There is life after death!
My noble friend Lord Thurso made an interesting and worthwhile suggestion which gets over the problem of a retiral age. He suggested that in the future transitional House it should be possible for Peers to resign from the House if they no longer wished to take up a full-time role. That is worth considering.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, regretted that with the abolition of hereditary Peers there might be fewer younger Members. He paid tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in his 20s, on behalf of war widows. That is a fair point. But if we move to an elected Chamber, there is no reason why people should not be elected to this House in their 20s, as to the other place.
In a particularly pleasant and effective speech, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked whether we could retain some club rights for Members leaving. I speak purely personally now as my party has not discussed this, but I am sympathetic to that. After all, if we can allow Irish Peers who have never served here to sit on the steps of the Throne, I do not see why we should eject those who have served here and leave them without any access to the building whatsoever. Although that is not in the Bill, I believe that it should be given some further thought. However, I must admit that, curiously, my liberal generosity does not extend to the use of the carpark!
Finally, I turn to the main political point that I want to make in summing up on behalf of these Benches. Clause 1 clearly states:
"No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage".
That may or may not be so; we have to discuss an amendment that we have not yet seen. The more I listened to that part of the debate, the more I recalled the lines of Ogden Nash:
"As I was going up the stair I met a man who was not there He wasn't there again today I wish that man would go away".
That is rather my attitude to the Weatherill amendment. I prefer to call it more properly the "Cranborne/Hague amendment". We on these Benches were not party to any of the agreements entered into, but it seemed to us perfectly reasonable that some element of the hereditary peerage—those who had played a particular part in the House—should be retained. In my naïvety, I assumed that that would be done by creating them life Peers.
However, the proposal is more complex than that. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester described it as Byzantine, and certainly the details that have been revealed to us today are extremely odd,

417
particularly in relation to the rolling number of deputy chairmen who may continue and some who may be brought back after they have been ejected apparently. That needs further examination.
The point I want to make to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, before he winds up is that our attitude on these Benches to the so-called Weatherill amendment will depend entirely on one issue, as explained by my noble friends Lord Rodgers and Lord Harris. It is this. Will the amendment further the aim set out in the White Paper to ensure that the transitional House more accurately reflects the proportion of votes cast at the last election? That is the commitment in the White Paper and that is what we want to be looking towards. If the amendment helps us in that direction, it will have our support. But if, as we fear, the effect of the amendment is simply to give further entrenchment to the Conservative peerage, then we see little reason to be sympathetic to it. The Government might be wiser to go back to the thought of creating life peerages under the new appointment commission system for those who have played a major role in this House and who we wish to retain.
My last words are these. I listened to the description by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of what he called the "compromise". As I understood the "compromise", it was basically that in return for reasonable progress on the Bill, the principle set out in it would be eroded by allowing some hereditary Peers to remain. That was the nature of the compromise. I ask the question: when is a deal not a deal? The answer is, when one side resiles from it. I could not understand the reference in speeches from this side of the House to reprisals or heavy menace when in fact what the Lord Chancellor was doing was spelling out the nature of the agreement: that is, if the agreement is accepted, one thing would happen, and if it was not accepted, another thing would happen. That seemed to me, not having been party to the agreement, a perfectly reasonable description.
I was tempted to go on to discuss stage two, but in view of the time I shall not. As a clergyman's son it is reasonable that I end with two lines from a hymn:
"I do not ask to see the distant scene, One step enough for me".
2.16 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I can start by saying something with which we will all agree; that is, that this has been a long debate. It would have been better if we had had it over three days. I cannot help but notice that the Chief Whip is sliding towards the door perhaps for a quick get-away from those who feel that they have been kept up late for two nights when there was a way out.
We have heard some good speeches and some perhaps not so good. Fortunately, I am not in the role of the marker to judge them; that is left to your Lordships. I always enjoy following the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. It is perhaps just as well that
418
I have a few hereditaries to spare because I think I have given him a few of my noble friends in order to make sure that the Benches behind him are not too vacant.
Perhaps I can say to him seriously that I listened to what he said about the way the Liberal Democrats feel that the so-called Weatherill amendment deals with them—a point made by both speakers from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrat Party. I understand the point he makes and have some sympathy with it. I should not have thought it impossible for Mr. Ashdown to do a side deal with Mr. Blair around the Cabinet table on one of these days when they have their meetings. I do not know whether my support for such a side deal does the noble Lord any good, but I understand the point. However, it does nothing to diminish the importance of the amendment to be laid later today by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
In this long debate we even had a maiden speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Devon. He was getting his voice in early because, so to speak, the shutters were about to go down. I have some sympathy with him. In the early 1980s I was sent to a meeting of the full Cabinet in place of the then Secretary of State, George Younger, who was in an aircraft at the time. The officials, in their usual helpful way, had given me a very large brief, but there was only one sentence in it more or less saying, "You have nothing to say on this matter". But I decided that the chances of my getting to a full Cabinet meeting again were clearly remote, so I devised something to say so that I could at least say from then on that I had actually spoken at a full Cabinet meeting. I believe that the noble Earl has a point in coming here as quickly as he did to make his maiden speech; indeed, we enjoyed it.
I have no doubt that noble Lords watch these cooking programmes on television and know what they are like. The TV cook starts with all the ingredients, including the broken eggs, being laid out in special little dishes. I often think that I would hate to be the washer-up on those programmes. The Government remind me of those cooks. They have broken the eggs, poured out the syrup and the flour and weighed it all up. It is all there. The only trouble is that the stand where the recipe book should be is empty: they do not actually have a recipe and do not know what they are baking. That is the problem with the Government. It is not just in your Lordships' House that this problem has occurred. There is Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish devolution, all with different kinds of relationships to Westminster and to the UK Government and all, in my view, without a proper idea of what the final product—the final cake, so to speak—will look like.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House talked about different sources of power and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, spoke of the planned reduction of centralised Executive power. I shall repeat that for your Lordships' benefit: the planned reduction of centralised Executive power. I doubt whether either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord are paying much attention to what is happening in Wales and Scotland.

419
There is no sign of devolution of power in reality. On the contrary, Mr. Blair wants to centralise it even further. Let us just consider the efforts to get his placeman, Alun Michael, as leader of Welsh Labour. Look at the disgraceful way that Millbank treated Dennis Canavan; indeed, look at the way Mr. Blair is campaigning in Scotland. It is just as if he were standing for the Parliament. I know that he is not, but he sure seems to want to run it. So much for the different centres of power.
The Government may have a plan for your Lordships' House, and they may be pursuing it, without telling the British people—a plan hatched and implemented by stealth. There is a part of me which actually hopes that they do have a plan, because eventually it will be unveiled. It will probably be unveiled by a leak, and at that point the British people will be able to have their say. However, I doubt whether the Government do have a plan for our constitution. There is no evidence of, so to speak, joined-up writing in any of the constitutional changes that we have had. I have taken part in all the debates. They do not link up to each other and there is no real, obvious grand design.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has made that point from his expertise, as, indeed, did my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire today. He brings real expertise to the House. I should like to use him as a illustration in making one of my points. During the passage of the Pensions Bill, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, will remember, my noble friend with his expertise on pensions matters was extremely valuable to the House and to the Government.
I do not think that the question of joined-up writing is any more evident than in this Bill. Almost two years after the general election, we know that the Government want to abolish the rights of those of your Lordships who sit here by inheritance. Obviously, we do not like inheritance, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, pointed out to us a short while ago, we are all here as a result of inheritance. I do not even think that Dolly the sheep could exist without inheritance, but perhaps it is a rather one-sided inheritance in her respect. Darwin would certainly have been amazed to hear that there was something wrong with inheritance. Indeed, if it was not for that, the species would not have survived.
However, as well as not liking inheritance, we also know that the Government do not like numbers. I should stress that I do not mean the species of inherited Lords, just in case the Government Front Bench think I do; I mean the human species. I was, of course, referring to Darwin. The Government are worried about numbers. I am puzzled about that because at paragraph 18 on page 18, appropriately enough, of their document I am told something that I have no reason to doubt. After all, it is a government document, so I believe it. I am told that the total number of Peers is 1,165. Half of that is 582½ The Conservatives have 476, and that is actually less than
420
half the number of Peers who can come here. The truth is that the numbers game is not as one sided as the Government try to pretend.
The real problem for many of us is that we do not know what the final shape of your Lordships' House will be. For example, is it to be elected? Is it to be appointed? Alternatively, is it to be a mixture of the two? I suppose that we can derive some comfort from the fact that the Government were forced into setting up a Royal Commission under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Wakeham. But if that commission had been set up in the summer of 1997, it could have reported by now, we could have received the views on that report from the Joint Committee of both Houses, and we could be dealing with a substantive piece of constitutional reform—reform written in joined-up writing instead of the childish printing used in the incomplete ideas we see in this Bill. That, of course, would have been like 1968, when both stage one and stage two were proposed at the same time.
It is worth underlining what my noble friend Lord Reay, my clan chief, said earlier this afternoon from his remembrance of what happened in 1968. This House—as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, underlined—actually voted for the abolition of the hereditary Peers and it voted for a composition and the powers of a succeeding House. So I suggest to the Government that the danger does not lie in this House; the danger lies in the other place. Why is that? That was clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and my noble friend Lord Cranborne and it is simply this: the other place is interested, above all, in its own primacy. That is what the other place is about and those of us who have been there know that is exactly the point. The other place is interested in its own primacy and it will look at the composition of your Lordships' House entirely against the test: does this endanger our primacy? I am clear in my own mind that whatever we do to this House the primacy of the House of Commons has to be preserved. I am quite clear about that and in that I join the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and my noble friend Lord Cranborne and, I suspect, a fair number of your Lordships.
We all know, of course, that the Bill before us is incomplete. We all know that there should be an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill—an amendment which will be accepted by the Government and will keep almost a hundred of your Lordships in this House who sit here by right of succession. And yet here we are discussing the Second Reading without any of us actually seeing the amendment. Therefore, about half of the Bill is not actually there. The Bill will become an Act, but half of it is not there. We all know that. It is welcome that later today we will actually get a sight of that amendment. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, for telling us that earlier today, or rather yesterday, but I suspect in House of Lords' terms it is still today.
The interesting thing is that the Government voted against a similar amendment in the House of Commons, and yet here they will vote for it. At least

421
they are open about this topsy-turvy position. The Government want to hold your Lordships over a barrel, the barrel of the Parliament Act. They are saying: delay this Bill for a Session and there will be no Weatherill amendment. There is one thing about Mr. Blair, he does not believe in the subtle approach of the bully. Perhaps if he had gone to a state school in Scotland instead of a private school he might well have been taught better manners.
I have to tell your Lordships that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is half a clansman of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and myself, and so one has to treat him with particular care. Towards the end of his speech I thought that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came over a little threatening, although I have to say I was not nearly as bothered about it as some of my noble friends because it has to be said that the noble and learned Lord has a reputation for never using a light touch when a heavy hand will do.
I know it will come as a disappointment to some members of the Government and some members of the party opposite, but we on this Bench intend to follow the Salisbury convention on the Bill. We appreciate its intent was clearly spelt out in the manifesto on which the Government received their election victory, and we shall certainly not vote against the Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, in his amendment lays out some of the reasons why the present Bill is inadequate. It is, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a paving Bill when what we need is a properly thought out Bill, as detailed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I am not sure whether the noble Lord thinks that a decision to have a Division at this hour will increase his popularity in your Lordships' House, or will serve his cause. But if he decides to have a Division, I shall delay my departure to my bed and join him in the Lobby.
Although we shall not—as I have already clearly said—try to wreck the Bill by amendments which would deny the Government their clear election manifesto commitment, there are a number of issues which we shall want to discuss and we shall explore possible improvements, not just to the Bill itself but also to the amendment which will be laid by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
Underlying those amendments will be a belief—perhaps totally false, but still a belief—that it is just possible that this stage one House will last just a little bit longer than the Government currently tell us they think it will. I believe it will last at least into the next parliament, simply because it will take longer than the Government have allowed to come to a view about stage two. The Government will wish also to bring forward other pieces of legislation to which they will attach a higher priority. So we believe that it is sensible to build into the Bill—particularly into the Weatherill amendment—the mechanisms which will be needed if the stage one House lasts for a few years, or even for many years. I do not intend to list them all but, I should like to mention a few.
422
It seems ironic that the Bill removes active hereditary Peers while leaving the inactive life Peers in situ. There are a number of life Peers who, for no apparent reason, almost never attend. I think we should look at ways to deal with this, not just now but into the future.
In the case of the 100, arrangements should be put in place for by-elections in the event of the death or resignation of one of them. Although, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, I now know the answer, I think we have to explore whether we want, what I will call, the Irish Peer solution, which was an election for a lifetime, or the Scottish Peer solution, which was an election at the beginning of each Parliament. I think there should be proper provision for the leave of absence of life Peers, so that those who no longer want to play a part in your Lordships' House, either by inclination or through infirmity, can resign from active membership and thus no longer be counted in party and Cross-Bench strength. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made that point.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that his noble friend made another point: that one should not be allowed to be a Member of two Houses. As the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is at the top of one of those dreadful lists, which will probably get him propelled into the Scottish Parliament, then perhaps the view of his noble friend Lord Thurso that he should not be allowed to be in two Houses is not quite so favourable to the noble Lord as he might like.
We should explore how to put on the face of the Bill-—although I accept it will be difficult—the proposition that the governing party should have a small majority over the main opposition party. I do not quarrel with that proposition, but I should like to see it somewhere on the face of the Bill. They should not of course have a majority of the whole House. We should look also for a way to cap the total membership of your Lordships' House.
As we near the end of the Second Reading debate, I endorse the remarks made at the beginning by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the service given by our hereditary colleagues to the House and to the country. Those of us who have come to this House as life Peers—like some other noble Lords, my father would be surprised to find me standing here in your Lordships' House, but there you are—have been welcomed by your Lordships. For myself, I must say that I have been honoured to fit into the procedures, behaviours and conventions of the House, which are markedly more civilised and intelligent than are found along the corridor. It is nice to make a winding up speech where one is listened to, unlike at the other end of the corridor where nobody listens and everybody shouts back. It is quite civilised.
I say to our hereditary colleagues, as have the two noble Lords on the Government Front Bench, that we appreciate the important role that their Lordships have played through the ages. It was, after all, the ancestors of some of your Lordships who stood against the

423
dictatorship of kings and introduced the concept of democratic government, albeit initially it was a pretty small and elite electorate. In recent times the hereditary Peers have played a major part in revising the mass of legislation which flows from all modern governments. On occasions the revisions have been accepted; on occasions they have been rejected; and on one or two occasions, I suspect, your Lordships have seen your judgment vindicated by subsequent events.
I have little doubt that, at the end of this Session, the Government will get what is called in a cheap novel "their wicked way" and we shall say farewell to all but about 100 of our hereditary colleagues. Whatever some of the few petty minds on the Government Benches say, I believe our hereditary colleagues can be proud of the part which they and their ancestors have played in the government of this country. Many of them have made it clear that they would be satisfied to go with dignity and with pride if they could feel that they were passing on to future generations in this country an improved House of Lords.
So over the coming weeks I think we should all try to ensure that the House which will come about after the hereditaries go will be more and not less effective in controlling the Executive and will be more and not less effective in counterbalancing the dominance of the party whip system in the Commons. I hope that the Government will be prepared to play their part in the debates to come. As the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, said, some many hours and speeches ago, it is in the whole country's interest that the second Chamber of this Parliament has the legitimacy and powers to fulfil its proper role.
2.35 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I know that we have been engaged in serious business these past days and hours and that is why I can truthfully say that I have listened to more speeches than any other Member of this Chamber. I did that deliberately because I think that colleagues, from whatever part of the House, are entitled to have their views taken seriously and I shall respond as fully as [ can to them within the limited time available.
We have set our course and we are steadfast to it. We are adamant to our purpose and the purpose is the removal forever of the automatic entitlement to sit and vote in this House on the basis of one qualification and one qualification alone—the capricious donation of birth. In opening the debate for the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, generously observed, as he always does about me, that occasionally I do good service for, what he called, my political masters. On this topic I have no political masters in this world and it is principle alone that drives and instructs me.
Some of your Lordships have spoken of malice, vindictiveness and envy. None of that infects my mind or my thoughts. Something infinitely greater and
424
grander does; and that is the sure, certain, immoveable conviction that the present privilege of hereditary connection is illegitimate in our House and must be ended. It is not present merit which gives membership but only descent; it is not fair; it produces a permanent in-built and continuing majority for one party only; it can, does and has frustrated the programme of the clearly elected Chamber; and, worst of all, one party alone is the continuing beneficiary of past patronage.
A good deal has been said about elective dictatorship. Perhaps I may offer a proposition at random. Let us assume that the names Jay, Irvine, Falconer and Williams came attached to this proposition. We want a House permanently dominated by hereditary Labour Peers, whatever the outcome of any general election for the next 100 years. That has been the situation that has obtained, which I would imagine would have brought a blush to the cheek of even the most Stalinist boss of Tammany Hall at its full height of power.
It is said, and I agree with it, that, historically—certainly since the end of the last war—the executive has become overpowerful. There are four members of this Front Bench who agree and have demonstrated by their actions in introducing legislation why they agree. Three of them are sitting behind me: my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer as Solicitor-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Hardie as Lord Advocate and my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine as Lord Chancellor. All of us brought in a Bill that has not been mentioned at all but which is of critical importance in the devolution of power from the central executive to the individual man and woman in this country. I refer to what is now the Human Rights Act. That is a greater potential stripping of Executive central power—I use the word again—and its devolution to the individual. It is the greatest possible assistance that has been returned to our citizens this century.
We have done that deliberately. It means that the law now binds government departments. It binds Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, asked me courteously to look at the Bill. I did, and I saw on it the certificate of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington. That is not a cosmetic device. It binds her to assure your Lordships by certificate that the Bill is convention compliant. And more subtly and more infinitely powerful than anything, every court in this jurisdiction in this Kingdom will be a public authority and therefore bound to produce results which are convention compliant.
So it is idle—worse, it is not informed—to think that this Government are a centralising government. Whatever the arguments about the mechanisms of devolution—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raises these questions and I always enjoy them—the point is that in three areas of the United Kingdom there are now established assemblies or parliaments which are taking power away from the United Kingdom Parliament here at Westminster. We did not do that because we had not estimated the consequences. What has occurred in the context

425
of the Human Rights Act and devolved power to the parliament and the two assemblies is a civil revolution which was deliberately undertaken as a policy conclusion by the Government.
Your Lordships will hear no harsh words from me. I do not believe that your Lordships would say that I have ever used harsh words about any individual in this House and certainly not the category of hereditary Peers. I shall develop that point in a moment.
I started my working life as a barrister in south and west Wales. Whether that fitted me for any useful occupation outside the Bar is not for me to judge. But it gave me one modest advantage. It gave me the ability to recognise a wholly bogus defence at a distance of at least 500 yards!
It is no good saying that this reform is the product of envy. One noble Lord said yesterday that the Government are eaten up with envy because they cannot stand privilege. We cannot stand privilege—not unjustified privilege. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, complained that one noble Lord of significant distinction in this House would be expelled "because of where he was born". But he was only here in the first place because of where he was born.
I can say that no envy drives me. I have always believed that in this House as elsewhere loyalty is a two-way street. I have had infinite kindness, courtesy and help from hereditary Peers on all sides. It is invidious to specify—and I therefore shall—the names Ferrers, Denham, Courtown, Strathclyde and Cranborne on one Bench; Strabolgi, Grenfell, Ponsonby and Acton on another; and Falkland and Russell on a third. I believe that if people treat you decently you should respond appropriately. Those are all ancient names, redolent of our country's history, which I respect and venerate. I know them, the names as well as the men. Incidentally, Williams is not too bad a name either; nor are Jones, Evans, Irvine, Jay and Falconer.
I shall turn to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for a citation. He said that the question is not whether the hereditary Peers do a good job, but rather by what right they do the job at all. One hundred and eighty speeches refine and define themselves to that simple question.
Not all hereditaries are of uniformly high quality. Many of them are excellent; some are absolutely infuriating, eccentric, dull or just plain stupid. But so are many of the life Peers. The question comes down to one of principle: can we any longer be ruled by a dominant category of hereditary Peers? I believe the answer to be plain. I do not say it in any sense of malice. I shall be sorry to see the hereditary Peers go, partly because I enjoy their company enormously and partly because anyone who does not recognise that the tide of history is changing is a fool.
I am not sure what the distilled, considered position of the Opposition is. I gathered that the view of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is that the hereditary principle is not sustainable, and, unless I am contradicted, I shall proceed upon that basis.
426
I can guess at, and I believe I understand, the feeling of hurt and disappointment that anyone will feel after having been a Member of this House for 50 years, 30 years, 20 years or even, like the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for a short period. I understand why some of your Lordships feel unhappy and why the feeling and tone of much of our deliberations has been elegiac.
I mentioned that I worked in Wales for a time. When I was there I tried to guess at the hurt, disappointment and bewilderment of miners who were dispossessed of their daily work, their loyal communities, friendships, homes and prospects. Disappointment and enforced change come to us all, and those I know and care for in those mining communities are certainly not strangers to them. That is not to oppose ignobly the disappointment of one class of our fellow citizens against the disappointment of another. It is stating, I hope gently and with understanding, the fact that change must come to every one of us.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, spoke of the continuous service over centuries. I accept that. But continuous service over the centuries grants in our world no eternal freehold on a particular position. It grants no wand to wave to give power, position, influence and privilege to the sons and daughters.
I think that, on reading Hansard, some of your Lordships will think that some of the phrases used were a little extreme. I do not think that the Bill is a nasty, ineffectual little Bill. It is perfectly simple and straightforward. I am happy to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. It provides for the exclusion of hereditary Peers; it gives the undoubted civil right that your Lordships should have had to be able to stand for election to the Commons. It is of the simplest possible construction.
Some used the term "institutional vandalism". An enforced constitutional change took place in 1066. I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart, Lord Pearson and Lord Bruce, are present; the noble Lord, Lord Shore, is not here, because he has been taken ill. That enforced constitutional change was entirely overseen from Europe, as far as I remember it. Subsequent to that change, the recent history of our constitutional development has been one of continuing, general, organic change. I suggest that it is those who cannot change and who wilfully obstruct improvement who are the constitutional vandals. Our constitution is a living growth. It is not desiccated; it has to breathe with the air of changing circumstance.
Some noble Lords urged us not to give in to blackmail. I entirely agree. We shall not give in to blackmail, even when sometimes it wears a smiling face, well-cut clothes and always a very courteous manner. We have been the object of power exercised in your Lordships' House in a lawful but not legitimate manner. Some bitter words were said. It was said that we viewed the hereditary principle or hereditary Peers with contempt. That is not so. The real question is whether the hereditary principle in the affairs of this House is tolerable any longer. I suggest that the answer must be no.

427
I was grateful for the scruple with which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, redefined plainly, as he always does, the Opposition's accepted obligation to conform on a continuing basis to the Salisbury convention. I advise your Lordships to study the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold. I do not believe that on any fair, objective or rational approach it is justified. It is not the "yah, boo, sucks" of the primary school yard, as one noble Lord suggested, but I do not believe that it adds much to the stock of human knowledge or political understanding. That is a matter for your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor has spoken to the Weatherill amendment, t am told—I have not seen it—that it will be available tomorrow. I advise noble Lords, with great respect, to look at it with care to see whether or not something graceful has been offered and decided upon between the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. It is worth a careful thought or two bearing in mind where the true interests of the continuing fruitful development of this House lie.
I believe that the criticisms launched against the Lord Chancellor were unfair and unjustified. He simply said—had he not done so, in the nature of things one of your Lordships would have rightly asked him to explain the Government's considered position—that this was an agreement arrived at on Privy Council terms. He suggested not for a second that it bound anyone other than those who had participated in it. He said that it was binding in honour, which I believe to be a correct description and categorisation of dealings between him and the noble Viscount. He simply said at the end that he was grateful for your Lordships' attention to his speech which he hoped your Lordships would accept had been marked by frankness about the intentions of the Government, sincere appreciation of the historic service that the hereditary peerage had given and a plea for statesmanship in the closing of a long chapter. Construing any word he uttered as I may, I can find nothing objectionable. My opinion, which I have not discussed with my noble and learned friend, is that he fairly discharged his duty to the House openly, honourably and entirely properly.
It is time to finish. By the end of this Session I hope that I shall be able to say on behalf of the Government, but also on behalf of those who have struggled for a very long time to get a different basis of representation in this House,
"I have begun many things many times and I have often succeeded at last"—
Benjamin Disraeli, first and last Earl of Beaconsfield.
2.53 a.m.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, we have had a very long and absolutely fascinating debate over the past two days and nights. At this very late hour I shall not keep your Lordships long by going into the background of the amendment that I moved. I will only say that I stand by the wording of the amendment
428
and by my explanation for putting forward the amendment in my speech to your Lordships in the early part of this debate yesterday.
Considerable support for the amendment has been expressed by noble Lords in all parts of the House and I thank them for that support.
I believe that we should not give the Bill an unqualified Second Reading. Therefore, with apologies for keeping you all from your beds a few minutes' longer, I ask for the agreement of the House to the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the original Question was that this Bill be now read a second time since when an amendment has been moved, 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". The Question is that the amendment be agreed to.
2.55 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 192; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Ailsa, M.

Carew, L.

Alanbrooke, V.

Carrington, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chalfont, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chesham, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Annaly, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Arran, E.

Cobbold, L. [Teller.]

Astorof Hever, L.

Coleraine, L.

Attlee, E.

Coleridge, L

Baker of Dorking, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Courtown, E.

Bell, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Belstead, L.

Cowley, E.

Biddulph, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Biffen, L.

Cranborne, V.

Birdwood, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Blaker, L.

Cross, V.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blyth, L.

Denbigh, E.

Boardman, L.

Denman, L.

Boston, L.

Denham, L.

Bowness, L.

Devon, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Devonport, V.

Braybrooke, L.

Digby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Downshire, M.

Bruntisfield, L.

Drogheda, E.

Buchan, E.

Dulverton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Dunleath, L.

Burnham, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Buscombe, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Byford, B.

Effingham, E.

Cadman, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Caithness, E.

Elles, B.

Calverley, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

429

Elton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Erroll, E.

Naseby, L.

Exmouth, V.

Newall, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Norrie, L.

Falmouth, V.

Northesk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norton of Louth, L.

Fookes, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Geddes, L.

Onslow, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Goschen, V.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gray, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Greenway, L.

Palmer, L. [Teller.]

Haddington, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hankey, L.

Patten, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Pender, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hemphill, L.

Pike, B.

Higgins, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hogg, B.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Reay, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rennell, L.

Home, E.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Hooper, B.

Renwick, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rodney, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Romney, E.

Inglewood, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Ironside, L.

Rowallan, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saatchi, L.

Jopling, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Kingsland, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Selsdon, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Stockton, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Liverpool, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Lucas, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Luke, L.

Swansea, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Tebbit, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Marlesford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Torrington, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mills, V.

Tryon, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Vivian, L.

Monson, L.

Waddington, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Waterford, M.

Moore of Wolvercote, L.

Westbury, L.

Moran, L.

Wilcox, B.

Morris, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Mountevans, L.

Wise, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Woolton, E.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Borrie, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bragg, L.

Alli, L.

Brightman, L.

Amos, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Annan, L.

Brookman, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Burlison, L.

Avebury, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Bach, L.

Carlisle, E.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Chandos, V.

Blackstone, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Blakenham, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Blease, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

430

Crawley, B.

Monkswell, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Montrose, D.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dholakia, L.

Nicol, B.

Dixon, L.

O'Neill, B.

Donoughue, L.

Orme, L.

Dubs, L.

Patel, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Parry, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Goodhart, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Goudie, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Rea, L.

Graham of Edmonton L

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Hackins, L

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hardie I

Russell, E.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Haringey L

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hattersley, L.

Sewel, L.

Hayman, B.

Shepherd, L

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, R

Howie of Troon, L.

Stallard, L.

Hoyle, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Chancellor.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy

Thornton, B.

Seal.]

Tordoff, L.

Kennet, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Uddin, B.

Lockwood, B.

Varley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Longford, E.

Warner, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whitry, L.

[Teller.]

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Winston, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Melchett, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, there have voted Contents 192; Not-Contents 126, so the Not-Contents have it.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I did not expect to be making a speech at this late stage in our proceedings.
My Lords, there is a correction. The Contents have it.
On Question, the original Motion, as amended, agreed to: Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

University College London Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nine minutes past three o'clock.

  Crime and Disorder Act: Ethnic Monitoring
  Crime and Disorder Act: Ethnic Monitoring
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Asylum Interviews: Tape Recording
  Asylum Interviews: Tape Recording
  Football Hooliganism
  Football Hooliganism
  Bone-in Beef: Sale Ban
  Bone-in Beef: Sale Ban
  Meat Hygiene Inspection Charges
  Meat Hygiene Inspection Charges
  Rural Businesses: Policy
  Rural Businesses: Policy
  Forestry Strategy: Conifer Production
  Forestry Strategy: Conifer Production
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Oil and Fibre Plant Seed Certification
  Oil and Fibre Plant Seed Certification
  Regional Industrial Assistance: Targeting
  Regional Industrial Assistance: Targeting
  Job Creation and the Single Market
  Job Creation and the Single Market
  Mr. Kevin Maxwell: Proceedings
  Mr. Kevin Maxwell: Proceedings
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Inquiry Report
  Mirror Group Newspapers plc: Inquiry Report
  Medical Devices Agency
  Medical Devices Agency
  Armagh-Portadown Rail Link
  Armagh-Portadown Rail Link
  Strategic Review Joint Initiatives
  Strategic Review Joint Initiatives
  Chemical Defence Programme
  Chemical Defence Programme
  Global Positioning System Disruption
  Global Positioning System Disruption
  Criminal Justice System Plans
  Criminal Justice System Plans
  Mr. Peter Clarence Foster: Extradition Proceedings
  Mr. Peter Clarence Foster: Extradition Proceedings
  The Prince of Wales: Legal Proceedings in Argentina
  The Prince of Wales: Legal Proceedings in Argentina
  Taiwan and Chinese Missiles
  Taiwan and Chinese Missiles
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone