Sitting of 13 May 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
  TREASURY

    Taxation (Housing)
    Mr. Norman Baker: What is his policy in respect of taxation on (a) house building and (b) house renovation. [83188]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): The construction of new housing is not taxed. The renovation of existing housing is subject to VAT at the standard rate.
    Mr. Baker: Is it not time that the Government took notice of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs and reviewed an obviously illogical policy which is bad for the environment? Surely it would be better if green-field housing were taxed and there were less tax on the renovation and improvement of existing property. That makes sense for the environment. It has no fiscal implications in terms of the amount of money that the Government receive, but it would be a good signal to send. Will the Government pursue that policy?
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's policy is to discourage green-field development and to encourage sustainable housing growth through the use of brown-field sites. He is right to say that tax may play a part in that policy. As he is aware, the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation makes it clear that we should consider tax and regulation and other items with regard to pursuing that policy. It is important that any change in tax policy does not cause further distortions, which would make the position worse. Therefore, of course the Government keep the tax position under review, because it is important that such distortion is not allowed to undermine Government policy.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: The imposition of VAT on house improvement by the previous Conservative Government was undoubtedly a considerable act of folly, with damaging effects in some northern cities and the Welsh valleys, where there are very many elderly, low-income owner-occupiers who need house improvement support. When the Government's
    398
    urban task force reports next month, will the Minister carefully consider proposals that will equalise the tax treatment of new house building and house improvement, so that those elderly, low-income owner-occupiers can maintain their homes, the quality that all of us would wish?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend will have noted that the previous Government put VAT on fuel, which was also damaging to those poor pensioner households. I know that, as a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, he is aware that conversion services for housing associations, and the conversion of non-residential properties into housing, are zero rated. He is right to say that we should ensure that the tax system does not discourage the conversion or renovation of any property. Of course we are considering the matter.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I am sure that all hon. Members are worried about the decay of buildings in town centres. Would it not be a positive step if the VAT treatment were changed to give a positive response and an impetus to the development and refurbishment of town and village-centre properties?
    Dawn Primarolo: Each of those who have spoken on this question have identified a different aspect of housing policy that they wish VAT to tackle—whether it be green-field sites, brown-field sites, the renovation of the inner cities or the importance of all housing in our communities. That shows the diversity and complexity of the problem that the Government are seeking to address. I should say that just one change will not give us the solution that we are looking for, which is why the Government are reviewing the position.

    North Sea Oil and Gas
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will propose changes to the taxation system which would encourage further investment in the exploration and production of North sea oil and gas. [83189]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government are committed to the success of the North sea oil industry and promoting investment in this sector and in the economy more generally. The fiscal regime must be consistent with this objective while ensuring that all North sea oil companies pay their fair share of tax.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Given the importance of the offshore oil and gas industry to our national economy—it accounts for 350,000 jobs, 5,000 contractors and 16 per cent. of total industrial investment—and given the fact that the industry is now involved in the exploitation of marginal fields, does my hon. Friend recognise that fiscal measures can play an important part in ensuring that it remains economically viable to exploit our remaining reserves over the next 30 years? Specifically, will she consider the case for capital gains tax rollover relief, as that would be a well-targeted measure that would bring forward investment; and will she look to encourage innovation such as the recommissioning of platforms, which would have great environmental benefits?
    Mrs. Roche: Of course I know that my hon. Friend takes a very close interest in these matters, as he is chairman of the all-party British offshore oil and gas industry parliamentary group. I strongly agree with his assessment of the great importance of the industry. That is why I have twice met representatives of the industry; and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has also met them. As the House will know, there were three helpful measures in the Budget, including one to reduce compliance costs. We continue to have discussions with the industry. We should take into consideration the current rosier price of oil and not come to any hasty conclusions.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Although the industry was no doubt grateful that the Treasury backed off from its threat of additional tax last year because of the situation in the industry, and although the Minister will no doubt want to review carefully the current state of effort in the North sea compared with that prevailing until a year or two ago, will she have a word with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the implications of the gas moratorium which, as well as the present rate of taxation, is sending a negative signal about the future development of the North sea?
    Mrs. Roche: I am rather surprised at the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will know as well as anyone who knows the industry that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's statement in September 1998—that, at that time, in view of the low oil prices, he would not proceed with reform of the North sea tax regime—gave the industry what it had long sought: a firm basis on which to plan for the future. As the House is well aware, the changes that we have made to business taxation—the lowering of corporation tax—will help all industry, particularly that in the North sea.

    Business Taxation
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What estimate he has made of the level of tax to be paid by business in 2000–01 as a result of the Budget. [83190]
    Mr. Eric Forth: What estimate he has made of the change in overall tax yield from business in 2001–02 as a result of the Budget. [83194]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): All companies that pay tax will benefit from the cuts in corporation tax that were announced in this year's Budget and in previous Budgets.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: As a result of the Government's first Budget and the changes in pensions tax, business will have to pay an extra £5.5 billion in taxation next year. As a result of the Government's changes in corporation tax in their second Budget, business will have to pay an extra £2 billion in taxation next year. As a result of the environmental levy in this year's Budget, business will have to pay an extra £1.75 billion next year. Does the Chief Secretary realise that business can pay those extra
    400
    taxes only by charging its customers more, and that more than £9 billion will therefore be taken by stealth from the pockets of British people?
    Mr. Milburn: I am happy to compare our record on business taxes with that of the Conservative Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in their first four years in power, the Conservative Government maintained a corporation tax rate of 52p in the pound. In our first two years in power, we have cut the main corporation tax rate to 30p in the pound and the small companies rate to 20p in the pound and have introduced a new 10p starting rate of corporation tax. Those are the lowest company taxes in the history of this country, the lowest company taxes of any country in Europe, and the lowest company taxes of any major industrialised country in the world. The hon. Gentleman should be congratulating the Government.
    Mr. Forth: May we now please have an answer to the question? For the Chief Secretary's benefit, my question is:
    "What estimate he has made of the change in overall tax yield from business in 2001–02".
    That is a straightforward, factual question. Why does the right hon. Gentleman insult not only the House of Commons but the entire business community by failing to answer the question, through impudence and impertinence—or is he being deliberately evasive because he knows that the answer is that business is paying more tax?
    Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman refers to the views of the business community. In the past, we have listened—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' Opposition Members are getting very excited; they should calm down for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the views of the business community about the Budget and previous Budgets. I remind him what some leading members of the business community have been saying about the Budget. I remind him, for example, that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) said:
    "Overall. not a bad business Budget."
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction in the rates of corporation tax has been widely welcomed, as has the extension of first-year capital allowances to small and medium-sized companies? Is he also aware that any incentives to manufacturing industry are difficult to obtain? One of the few ways of achieving those incentives is through capital allowances, so will he perhaps consider some increase in the capital allowances, particularly for manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's welcome for the Budget measures. As he rightly says, the cuts in corporation tax benefit 270,000 companies, and companies paying tax up to the level of £50,000 a year stand to benefit from those cuts. Many more companies on top of that—in the manufacturing and service sectors—will benefit from the extension of first-year capital allowances. I know that that is widely welcomed, in manufacturing in particular. We recognise the difficulties that some manufacturing companies face at the

    401
    moment, and we hope very much that the Budget measures will help them to grow and prosper for the future.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Government accepted them, the total cost of the Opposition proposals made in the Committee considering the Finance Bill in the past two weeks—the abolition of the fuel escalator; the abolition of any increase in duty on tobacco; the lowering of vehicle excise duty for 1400 cc cars; and the retention of the married couples allowance for all new pensioners, so that we will all have to get married when we are 65—would have been billions? Ultimately, that money would have to be paid by the wealth creators and businesses of this country. Their commitment to £40 billion for health and education combined with low tax for business is a complete sham—crocodile tears from a discredited Opposition.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is an example of Tory taxation by stealth. The Tories' figures do not add up, and no amount of double-talk from the shadow Chancellor about his commitment to schools and to hospitals can disguise that fact. If they had their way, they would load more taxes on business and, indeed, on individuals. They cannot be trusted, either with the state of the public finances or with our country's vital public services.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Is the Chief Secretary aware that there is a great deal of concern in British business that, as a result of the Government's perfectly valid concern about tax avoidance, there could be a considerably increased tax burden on legitimate businesses, notably through Inland Revenue 35 as it is applied to the computing industry and through the application of value added tax on the internal transactions of banks? How much revenue does he propose to raise in that way, and what assurances is he giving to business that he will not penalise legitimate companies?
    Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman cares to look in the Red Book, he will see what the tax yield would be from that measure. As we have made clear in the Finance Bill Committee, no legitimate service businesses will be affected by this proposed measure.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that the climate change levy is deemed to be tax neutral, because of the associated national insurance rebate, but does he recognise that there is a severe threat that jobs in the high-energy industries will be transferred abroad? That would be a severe penalty, and there would be no environmental advantage from it. I hope that that will be taken note of in the discussions that are taking place; I know that the Government are anxious to preserve jobs in this country.
    Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, an extensive consultation about how best to introduce the new climate change levy is under way. I can tell him and the House that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor met the Confederation of British Industry yesterday to discuss that, among other matters. We are well aware of the
    402
    concerns of the energy-intensive industries, which is precisely why we are going through the sort of consultation exercise that we are.

    Cider Duty
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the impact of changes in cider duty announced in the Budget on producers of bottle-fermented cider. [83191]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Discussions with the National Association of Cider Makers suggest that there are fewer than 30 producers of bottle-fermented sparkling cider, some of which are exempted from paying any duty because their production is below the registration threshold. Of those who pay duty, most also produce mainstream traditional ciders and are not, therefore, reliant solely on bottle-fermented sparkling cider production for their livelihood.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary, but is it not the case that in order to deal, rather ineffectually, with an infraction proceeding from Italy for a rather unpleasant-sounding beverage, she is driving out a traditional British product of high quality, which is made in my constituency? Is it beyond the wit of the Treasury to devise an exemption that would maintain the production of bottle-fermented cider? If it cannot do that, is not the inference that, for the Treasury, far from small being beautiful, small and rural industries simply do not count?
    Mrs. Roche: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, who I would have expected to know rather more about the subject. [Interruption.] I say that only because his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), his party's spokesman on this matter, said during a debate on the Finance Bill:
    "The vast majority of cider makers will not be affected … the industry as a whole is not worried. It has been consulted, and has agreed with the Government's approach."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 May 1999; c.41–3.]
    [Interruption.] I remind Conservative Members that the process started in 1996; they started it. We consulted widely in the industry. This proved to be the only way forward, and it was certainly supported by the vast majority of cider makers.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What can the Chancellor possibly have meant when he told the House during his Budget speech that there would be no increase in alcohol duty this side of the millennium?
    Mrs. Roche: I know that it is a bit early in the morning, but the hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear my earlier reply. There was no new increase; the increase was started by the Conservatives when they were in government. The then Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), initiated it in 1996, nearly four years ago, and the industry knew all about it. Let me tell the Conservative party that it is no good doing another U-turn; Labour Members are far too used to that.

    Unemployment
    Sir David Madel: What projection he has made for unemployment levels at the end of the 1999–2000 financial year. [83192]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): In line with the practice of previous Administrations, the Government do not publish forecasts of unemployment, but, for the purposes of projecting social security spending, the Government have introduced a new and deliberately more cautious unemployment assumption, based on an average of outside forecasts.
    The official figure for unemployment now stands—according to the definition of the International Labour Organisation—at 266,000 less than when the Government took office, and on a claimant count at 355,000 less.
    Sir David Madel: Employment in manufacturing has fallen over the past four months, and is set to go on falling. Over-regulation and stealth tax policies are making matters worse. Why do the Government keep slithering out of their responsibilities for manufacturing industry—or is it someone else's fault that things are going wrong?
    Mr. Brown: Under the last Administration, manufacturing unemployment fell from 7 million to 4.1 million. It is still above 4 million under the present Government. However, the latest figures show that manufacturing output rose last month, despite everything that the Opposition have been saying about manufacturing.
    I am surprised that, when tabling a question about unemployment, the hon. Gentleman chose not to refer to the new deal on unemployment, which is doing much for his constituency and many others. The shadow Chancellor has called the new deal a fraud and a waste of money—[Interruption.] He did say that. But the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) was pictured with a new deal entrant a few months ago, and was quoted as saying that he was delighted by the scheme. He also said:
    "When we are returned to power we will build on this scheme, which is doing a lot to help people".
    The Conservative party should take the advice of the shadow junior health Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and go back to the drawing board.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Did my right hon. Friend see yesterday's statement by the Bank of England that the economy was now on course for growth with price stability? Will he suggest to Conservative Members, and to the shadow Chancellor in particular, that the shadow Chancellor should consult more widely with business representatives, rather than just talking to representatives of Asda? We have a 4.6 per cent. unemployment rate; and businesses up and down the country welcome the new deal, and welcome the creation of a business environment in which they can get on with the job.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his reference to Asda. If the shadow Chancellor were to talk to the person from Asda, who is also a Conservative Member, he would hear him say about the Budget:
    404
    "We'd welcome the help for small business. I think that's good. We'd welcome the reduction in corporation tax and lower corporation tax for small business. That's good … everyone in the country is dead keen on it"—
    employee share ownership—
    "and that's good. Overall, not a bad business Budget."
    Those are the words of the vice-chairman of the Conservative party.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Chancellor accept that the biggest continuing threat to jobs in farming, food production, tourism and manufacturing is the continuing high exchange rate and high interest rates, compared with those of our main partners? Is it not time that he had a strategy for bringing our exchange rate to a more competitive level, and our interest rates into line with those in our major markets? When will he do that?
    Mr. Brown: The biggest threat to jobs in any sector would be the pursuit of the wrong macro-economic policies—the policies that were pursued under the previous Government. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees. There will be no return to stop-go, boom-and-bust policies. We have kept inflation low, we have made the Bank of England independent, and we have set tough fiscal disciplines. All those disciplines are now yielding results in terms of both the inflation rate and the growth path of the economy, but we have still to have some answers from the Opposition. They oppose Bank of England independence. They oppose all the measures that we are taking that are to do with employment—the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal. They do not have an economic policy and, sometimes, I wonder whether the Liberal Democrats do.
    Mr. Derek Twigg: One of the problems in terms of unemployment is that the Opposition have been talking down the economy for the past two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointed out, the Bank of England said that the economy is set to grow, and Barclays says that there will be no recession. Is it not true that, in that context, the new deal is even more important in getting people trained and skilled for jobs?
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I wish that the Opposition party would now welcome the new deal and that, instead of the shadow Chancellor saying that it is a failure, a waste of money and even a fraud, he would respond to the fact that 250,000 young people are now benefiting from the new deal, that the number of young people unemployed for more than six months has been cut by 56 per cent. since the election, and that long-term unemployment has fallen by 42 per cent. I hope that he will take the advice of the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, welcome the new deal and wish that it could be extended.
    Mr. Francis Maude: The Chancellor will recall that, in 1989, when the European Commission last proposed a job-destroying withholding tax on savings—[Interruption.] The question is about employment, and the tax is a job-destroying measure. At that time, the measure was quietly and politely strangled at birth by the then Conservative Government. Although the tax would have

    405
    destroyed fewer jobs because it excluded eurobonds, in opposition, Labour supported us in ensuring that it never even went into negotiation.
    Is not the right hon. Gentleman's negotiation now not about whether jobs will be destroyed in Britain by the withholding tax, but about how many and whose? Why cannot he just say no to that wretched tax, so that people who fear for their jobs can have those fears put to rest?
    Mr. Brown: I have made it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom will not accept any directive that requires member states to introduce a withholding tax. It has been absolutely clear for months. It is only the Conservative party's obsession with finding conspiracies in every part of Europe that allows it to use a question on employment simply to talk about the withholding tax.
    Mr. Maude: I do not think it eccentric to use a question on unemployment to talk about a European measure that would destroy jobs; it is directly relevant to unemployment. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand the connection, that is perhaps part of the problem that the City of London faces. How many jobs is it acceptable to destroy as the price of his going with the flow in Europe?
    Mr. Monti is still drawing his salary two months after being fired from his job. The 10,000 people who will lose their jobs thanks to the tax will not be so lucky. The next time Mr. Monti swaggers into London to lecture Britons and to threaten them with higher Euro stealth taxes, why cannot the Chancellor just tell him to get lost?
    Mr. Brown: First, it is very difficult to take lectures about European legislation from the man who signed the Maastricht treaty. Secondly, it is not true to say that the measure was off the table when we came into office; it was on the table and being discussed. Thirdly, because the right hon. Gentleman sees a conspiracy in every part of Europe, he will not accept what I have said all along: the UK will not accept any directive that requires members to introduce and impose a withholding tax. I have made that absolutely clear. It is about time that Conservative Members took what they said they were going to do to heart and listened.
    Jacqui Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, given last year's very worrying measures of business confidence, yesterday's estimate by the Bank of England of a gentle take-off in growth was not only very encouraging but unprecedented? Will he spell out which of the Government's policies he believes have contributed to creating that growth, and which future policies will ensure that it continues? Will he also assure the House that he will not be thrown off by an Opposition who seem to be unsure whether they believe that public spending is reckless or desirable, whether the Bank of England should be independent, and whether they would raise or lower business taxes?
    Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I also think that the Opposition should take to heart the comments of the junior shadow Health Minister—who shall remain a junior shadow Minister—who said of the speech of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) a few weeks ago:
    406
    "You can't build a strategy on unclear thinking: that's the cart before the horse. We need clear thinking".
    He also said:
    "We've got to go back to the drawing-board and no longer just scrabble around in the hope of winning short-term engagements".
    As my hon. Friend says, the Conservative party has a lot of thinking to do.
    As for the Government's economic policy, we shall continue to steer a course of stability, to achieve the low inflation that we need to make possible the growth and employment creation currently happening in the United Kingdom. As I said, since the general election, more than 500,000 extra jobs have been created. There are now more people in employment in our country than at any time in our history.

    VAT (Works of Art)
    Mr. John Wilkinson: What is his estimate of the additional revenue to be derived from the proposed increase in VAT on works of art imported into the UK from outside the EU in each of the first three years of operation. [83193]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): In the first two full years, the amount of money collected from imposition of VAT at 5 per cent. on works of art will be £10 million. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government are not convinced of the case for raising VAT on art to 5 per cent.
    Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that answer. However, is it not the case that, in the first year after imposition of VAT at 2.5 per cent.—under the seventh directive of the European Union on imported antiques, works of art and collectables from outside the European Union—imports decreased by 40 per cent., from £1 billion to £600 million? Is she aware that the United Kingdom has 12,000 art dealers and 50,000 jobs in the trade, most of which are in London? She says that she is not convinced of the case for increasing the tax. How was it that she was unable—being such a good European—to persuade the European Commission not to waive the previously agreed derogation to 1 July? The tax, like so many European taxes, will destroy jobs. Is it not time that the Government cut the Gordian knot and did not harmonise tax with Europe?
    Dawn Primarolo: I should first correct the hon. Gentleman. The unanimously agreed deal to which the previous Government signed up—the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), when a Minister, signed the explanatory memorandum—stated that we should apply VAT at 2.5 per cent., rising to 5 per cent. There was no vote on whether to increase the 2.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. The previous Government made the commitment to increase VAT to 5 per cent., and the increase was agreed unanimously.

    Since the election of the current Government, we have been trying, working very closely with the art market, to persuade our European partners that VAT should remain at 2.5 per cent. We shall continue to negotiate on the matter, which is a darn sight more than the previous Government did for the art market—they sold the market down the river by agreeing to 5 per cent.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why are our European partners being so sticky about the issue, which affects a lot of jobs?
    Dawn Primarolo: The issue is whether there is an unfair distribution between European art markets. The Government have put the case that the direct competition to the London market comes from New York, so anything that undermined the London market would be bad for all European markets. We are still trying to convince our partners to reopen the issue. Unfortunately, we cannot use the veto because the deal is signed and delivered. It cannot be reopened without unanimity.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Is the Paymaster General aware that the British art market, which employs more than 50,000 people, faces a threat not only from the doubling of VAT, but from the European directive which will impose a compulsory resale levy, which will drive the market out of London—indeed, out of the European Union—to centres such as New York? If she really wants to stand up for British industry, why is she not standing up to the European Union, whether on the road haulage industry, which faces uncompetitive fuel duties, on the City of London, which faces a withholding tax that should have been vetoed months ago, or on the British art market, which is facing new threats to its existence? Why do the Government not stand up for British industry instead of pursuing their mission to be popular in Europe?
    Dawn Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek: he defended the fuel duty escalator in the Chamber when he was a Minister in the previous Government. His Government failed to stand up to Europe when agreeing to allow 5 per cent. VAT on the art market immediately. I read his pamphlet on the art market with some interest. I acknowledge that he knows a considerable amount about the subject, but, if he knows so much, why did his Government do such a bad deal?

    Child Benefit
    Ms Joan Ryan: What representations he has received regarding the increase in child benefit announced in the Budget. [83195]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I have received a number of representations, including those made at a meeting with the Child Poverty Action Group before the Budget. Most have welcomed the fact that child benefit has risen by 30 per cent. since we came into government and from next April will be £15 for the first child and £10 for subsequent children.
    Ms Ryan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and for the increase in child benefit, which will help 13,800 families in my constituency. My real reason for tabling the question is to tell him that I have met a number of pensioner groups recently. As ever with pensioners, they were interested in more than just the policies that benefit them directly. They also expressed interest in and support for measures that are beneficial to children, particularly the increase in child benefit. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to me, so that I can confirm to parents
    408
    and grandparents in my constituency, that the Government will continue to pursue policies that support families when they need it most, which is when they are bringing up children?
    Mr. Brown: All our changes, including the working families tax credit and the child tax allowance which will be introduced from 2001, are designed to give families help when they need it most—when children are growing up. Some 7 million mothers and 12 million children will gain from the increase in child benefit. It is the biggest rise that this country has ever seen and is backed up by our working families tax credit, which will start in October. There will be a minimum income of £200 for families in work with children, which will benefit 1.5 million families. I hope that the Opposition will support the measure instead of opposing it.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Chancellor not recognise that, although the increase in child benefit will at least go to the child, the changes that he is proposing through the working families tax credit will result in the benefit being lost to the child, because in most cases it will go to the married father? Will he admit that the Labour party has failed to deliver on its election pledge of reducing welfare spending?
    Mr. Brown: I hope that the hon. Lady will understand these facts. First, child benefit goes to the mother. She seems to have misunderstood that. Secondly, the working families tax credit means an overall increase in family income amounting in some cases to £40 or £50 a week. Thirdly, our proposals for the working families tax credit, backed up by child benefit, are far superior to those now floated by the shadow Chancellor and the leader of the Conservative party for a transferable tax allowance that would give a millionaire £1,734 as a result of tax relief and, in some cases, would give nothing to the lowest-paid in the country.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is the child benefit increase a way of showing how the Government are standing up for the many, and not the few? Is that not in stark contrast to the priorities of the Conservative party, which would spend hundreds of millions of pounds on cutting stamp duty on properties valued at over £500,000?
    Mr. Brown: I have looked at the voting of the Conservative party on the Finance Bill and the Budget, and it has committed more than £7 billion to measures that include cutting the tax rate for smokers. That money would not be available for the health service or for education, and that makes absolutely hollow the attempt by the Conservative party to put itself on the side of the health service and parents educating their children. As the Minister for Public Health has reminded them, the Tories have to go back and think these things out because none of their figures add up.

    Road Fuel Duty
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What assessment he has made of the effect of the road fuel duty escalator on (a) economic growth and (b) Government revenue in each of the next five years. [83196]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are committed to ensuring that economic growth takes place in a sustainable way that respects the environment and is fair to future generations. The fuel duty escalator—which we inherited from the previous Government—is an important element of a package of tax measures that will contribute towards the aim of achieving economic growth while protecting and, where possible, enhancing the environment.
    The revenue gained from the escalator in the next three financial years is shown in the March 1999 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".
    Mr. Blunt: I am afraid that that answer treated my question with the same contempt received by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who made specific requests for information and found that none was forthcoming. Has the Treasury team not worked out that the purpose of an escalator is to accelerate one's movement from one floor to another? Why are they behaving like a group of demented four-year-olds, out of control in a department store—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must use better language in this House.
    Mr. Blunt: Why are the Treasury team taking the rest of the economy—the grown-up economy—way past any sensible destination and inflicting enormous damage on our rail freight industry? The only things that will be getting a lift from the ridiculous decision to stay on the escalator way past any sensible point will be our goods on foreign-owned trucks.
    Ms Hewitt: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's question. The previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator, the effect of which, by 2010, will be to save between 2 million and 5 million tonnes of carbon annually—a measure that was in the green manifesto on which the hon. Gentleman stood for election. As the Budget report clearly set out, the revenue raised in the current year from the fuel duty escalator—which we inherited from the Conservative Government—is £1.7 billion. The Conservative party, which voted against the measure, needs to tell us how it would replace that hole in the public finances and how it would meet the Kyoto targets to which it was committed in government.
    Mr. Peter Snape: Does my hon. Friend not think it remarkable that, in 1993—when the fuel tax escalator was introduced—the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) was not only a failed Tory candidate in West Bromwich, but a political adviser to a former Tory Transport Minister?
    Is it not the case that three inquiries conducted under the previous Conservative Administration all concluded that heavy goods vehicles did not meet their true track costs? Is it not also a fact that rail freight, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned for some bizarre reason, has increased by 15 per cent. in the past year? He has rather made a fool of himself there.
    Is it not a pity that Conservative Members not only have failed to condemn the illegal activities of certain truckers, but apparently support those truckers in their demands,
    410
    which would appear to be for British social costs and French diesel prices? Will my hon. Friend make it plain that those demands are impossible and that, as long as those activities continue, there can be no question of the escalator being reconsidered?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made his point extremely well. He reminds me of the remarks of the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who rightly said that hon. Members who support the Kyoto targets, as the previous Government did, but refuse to support the road fuel duty escalator, are sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy.
    I must not apply that comment specifically to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), and of course I will not do so, but I emphasise the fact that the road fuel duty escalator plays a vital part, under this Government as under the previous Government, in ensuring that we meet our environmental targets and have a balanced and integrated transport policy.
    Mr. John Whittingdale: Is the Minister aware that many small haulage firms are becoming desperate, as they are now only weeks away from bankruptcy? Her answer, that the Government intend to continue with the escalator until 2010, will simply increase that despair. Does she understand that more and more people feel that the Government's road haulage forum is a waste of time, given their refusal to abandon the fuel escalator or the increase in excise duty? Will the Government commission a full independent report specifically on the competitiveness of the industry, and give an undertaking to act on it?
    Ms Hewitt: I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will support our policy of discussion with the industry, rather than the policy of disruption pursued by some of the hauliers. The road haulage forum is proving an extremely useful venue for serious and constructive discussions with the industry—something that the previous Government did not undertake—and of course we are considering the industry's competitiveness.
    In the Budget, we widened the differential between the duty on diesel and on ultra-low-sulphur diesel, which is set to take almost 100 per cent. of the diesel market; we cut corporation tax for small companies; we reduced employers' national -insurance; and we introduced a new starting rate of 10p for small companies. All those measures will help the industry.
    There is a problem regarding fuel efficiency and overcapacity in the industry, and the best British road haulage fleets are almost twice as fuel-efficient as the worst. We need to address that issue, and the road fuel duty escalator gives exactly the right incentives to the industry to improve its fuel efficiency.

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed climate change levy on (a) the aluminium industry and (b) other high-energy using manufacturing industries. [83198]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): Following Lord Marshall's recommendation, the Government are not taking an across-the-board approach to the climate change levy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Budget day, we intend to set significantly lower rates of levy for those energy-intensive sectors that agree targets for improving their energy efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has had a useful initial meeting with the associations representing the energy-intensive sectors and detailed negotiations with those sectors, including the aluminium industry, are now under way.
    Mr. Prentice: That is a very reassuring answer, but even with the 50 per cent. reduction for energy-intensive industries such as aluminium there are fears that production costs will rise dramatically. I have been told that the aluminium industry anticipates a rise of perhaps 12 per cent. per tonne, which would drive it offshore. I was reassured by what I heard about discussions and negotiations taking place, with a concluding date of 28 May, and I very much hope that my hon. Friend will take into account and give full weight to the concerns expressed by the industries.
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The points that he makes are precisely those that we are taking into account in our discussions with the energy-intensive sectors. I stress that the 50 per cent. lower rate in the Customs and Excise consultation document is purely an illustrative assumption. It is not a statement about what the lower rate might be for any energy-intensive sector. That lower rate will depend on the stringency of the targets to which the sectors agree. In line with our published statement of intent on the principles of environmental taxation, international competitiveness is one of the key issues that we consider for any environmental tax, including the climate change levy.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that British Steel estimates that the climate change levy will add £200 million to its annual tax bill, whereas the offsetting reduction in national insurance is worth only £5 million a year to it, does the Economic Secretary acknowledge that the levy is yet another clear example of the Government's policy of taxation by stealth, which has served to throttle manufacturing industry in this country and plunge it into recession while she has been a Minister?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to appreciate that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear, the new levy will entail no increase in the overall burden of tax on business: it will be revenue neutral. As I have already said on a similar point, we are now looking in detail at the different energy-intensive sectors, what each of them is willing to do to improve energy efficiency and how we should respond by introducing a significantly lower rate of climate change levy.
    I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman, judging from his remarks, seems to have abandoned the commitment that the Conservative Government made to meeting the Kyoto target. The climate change levy is an
    412
    essential part of meeting those targets. We estimate that it will save about 1.5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010.
    Mr. Barry Jones: May I tell my hon. Friend of the apprehension of the national leadership of British Steel plc and Shotton steelworkers in my constituency about the levy, not least in view of the ruthless foreign dumping of steel products and the high value of the pound? Will she receive a deputation to hear our fears? May I suggest that she can best assist manufacturing in my constituency by insisting that assisted area status be retained and that objective 2 status be given to us?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am always delighted to meet my hon. Friend and discuss this and other matters of particular concern to his constituents. Treasury Ministers and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister are examining carefully the impact on competitiveness of the energy-intensive sectors. That will be the guiding principle when we come to set the significantly reduced rates of climate change levy in return for sector agreements to promote and deliver greater energy efficiency. I remind my hon. Friend of the significant reductions in corporation tax that we have delivered, which will be of great help to businesses in his constituency as well as across the country.

    Dividend Tax Credits
    Mr. Edward Davey: If he will review his policy to abolish dividend tax credits for people with incomes below the level of the personal income tax allowance. [83199]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): No. We will not be reviewing the decision.
    Mr. Davey: That answer was, unfortunately, not surprising. May I tell the hon. Lady that she should be reviewing the decision? Will she consider talking to her predecessor, who at least appeared to show some sympathy for the hundreds of thousands of pensioners who will be hit by the policy? Will she consider meeting an all-party delegation of hon. Members who have expressed concern about the matter and want to see the poorest pensioners protected from this tax increase?
    Dawn Primarolo: The Government's record on helping poor pensioners is clear. The proposals in the Budget contained the winter fuel allowance and the minimum income guarantee. The minimum tax guarantee was also introduced. The question of helping poor pensioners has been discussed extensively in the House over nearly two years, and the hon. Gentleman will know the reasons for the reform. He should stop trying to make spending commitments, but should support the Government in ensuring that policies concentrate on the poorest pensioners.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why do the Government insist on hitting those of our poorest pensioners who have a small amount of savings? The Government are not content with abolishing dividend tax credit for those pensioners who are below the personal

    413
    allowance threshold and therefore did not pay any tax at all. That was a mean-minded measure, but now they have introduced another—the highly spun 10p tax rate, which will not apply to pensioners with savings. Why is that?
    Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Gentleman knows, savings are dealt with very fairly in the tax system. The introduction of the lop tax rate will benefit those pensioners who pay tax on their income. As a result of the Government's proposals, only about one third of pensioners will now pay tax. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the Budget proposals, and especially the winter fuel allowance, did a great deal to help pensioners.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Richard Page: What estimate he has made of the change in the amount in national insurance payable by the self-employed in 2000–01 as a result of the March 1999 Budget. [83200]
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): We estimate that the extra amount payable by the self-employed for 2000–01 is £240 million.
    Mr. Page: This is the second time that I have asked this question at Treasury questions. Last time, I got an appalling reply from the Financial Secretary, who completely avoided the question, and I thank the Paymaster General for coming up with the right answer this time—second time lucky.
    What evaluation did the Treasury carry out of the effect that the change will have on the self-employed? Will they not be brutally hit by this large increase?
    Dawn Primarolo: I inform the hon. Gentleman—very gently—that his question today is different from his question at the previous Treasury questions. Last time, he asked about the amount paid, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary gave him the correct answer. Today, he asked about liability, and I have answered his question. Both the answers that he has received are correct. The changes to class 2 and class 4 national insurance for the self-employed will help them enormously by ensuring that their entitlement to benefits moves closer to that of those in employment. They also distribute national insurance liability much more fairly among the self-employed.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend will be aware that trade unions such as the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians have
    414
    warmly welcomed the measures to tighten the system of national insurance contributions and tax in the construction industry. However, there is concern that Government agencies are not enforcing sufficiently rigorously the classification of construction workers for national insurance contributions. Will my hon. Friend assure me that every effort will be made to ensure that the new regulations are enforced properly?
    Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend raises a question about the construction industry scheme, and the 714 certificates. I am aware of the concerns among trade unions and the construction industry about the effectiveness of the scheme. We are constantly reviewing the successful registration of those in the construction industry who are required to register. Like me, my hon. Friend may have had the advantage this morning of hearing the radio information bulletins advertising to those in the construction industry that they are required to get the certificate. The clear message was, "No certificate, no pay."
    Mr. Nick Gibb: The difference in the wording of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was between "paid" and "payable". Ministers are playing a dangerous game of semantics to avoid revealing to the House the extra taxes that they are imposing on people. Will the Minister confirm that, when all the Government's changes to employees' national insurance are taken into account, millions of people in middle Britain who earn £27,000 a year or more will pay significantly higher national insurance contributions? Is that not yet another stealth tax increase from a party that promised not to raise taxes at all?
    Dawn Primarolo: I cannot be held accountable if the hon. Gentleman does not understand how national accounting works or the difference between liability and the amount actually paid. He is an accountant, and I thought that he understood these matters, but perhaps he needs to grapple further with that point.
    Millions of low-paid employees will pay around £165 a year less as a result of our national insurance changes and 960,000 low-paid workers have been taken out of national insurance contributions while still having their benefit position protected. For the self-employed, we have dealt with the class 2 problem by reducing contributions from £6.55 to £2, and we have made sure that liability to pay national insurance is more fairly distributed across the self-employed instead of being loaded towards the low-paid self-employed.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to tell us the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 MAY—Remaining stages of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
TUESDAY 18—There will be a debate on Kosovo on a motion for the Adjournment of the House
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY—Until 12.30 pm, there will be a debate on the third report from the Health Committee on the welfare of former British child migrants, followed by a debate on the fifth report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on regional Eurostar services. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day].
Until about 7 o'clock, there will be a debate on fraud in the European Union budget, followed by a debate entitled "Conditions of Service of NHS Personnel". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
THURSDAY 20 MAY—There will be a debate on the White Paper on reforming the House of Lords on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 24 MAY—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [Lords].
Motion to approve the second report from the Modernisation Committee on sittings of the House in Westminster Hall.
TUESDAY 25 MAY—There will be a debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. I remind the House that that is the pre-Cologne debate
WEDNESDAY 26 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three hour pre-recess debate.
Motion to approve the first report from the Administration Committee on the proposal to reopen the line of route during the summer Adjournment.
Motion relating to Members' travel to EU institutions.
Motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties.
Motion on the parliamentary contributory pension fund.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 May there will be a debate on assistance to new independent states and Mongolia in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 19 May:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Union document: 5263/99, Assistance to NIS and Mongolia; Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34-xi, HC 34-xiii (1998-99).]
416
When I said two weeks ago that the House would rise for the Whitsun recess at the end of business on Thursday 27 May, I said that that would be subject to the progress of business. Again, subject to the progress of provisional business, I hope that the House may now rise at the end of business on Wednesday 26 May and return, as previously announced, on Tuesday 8 June.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing next week's business and for indicating the provisional business for the following week, and her qualified reassurance about the Whitsun recess.
I welcome the right hon. Lady's response to my request for regular statements and debates on Kosovo and the finding of time for a debate on Tuesday. However, what has happened to the planned debates on defence in the world and on personnel matters in the armed forces?
When the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport answers questions on Monday will he clarify the confusion as to what he said to Mr. Greg Dyke about the job of Director-General of the BBC? Has the right hon. Lady seen Mr. Dyke's letter in The Independent today, which states that the Minister's written parliamentary answer on Monday was "slightly misleading"? Mr. Dyke goes on to assert:
"Mr. Smith asked me whether I was likely to be a candidate."
Is the House not entitled to a fuller explanation of what has been going on?
Further to my question last week, will the right hon. Lady tell the House what arrangements she proposes for debates on public expenditure and the economy? The House is entitled to an answer and we have been pressing for a reply for some time.
Last Thursday, when I asked about the inquiry into the leak of Macpherson report, which occurred more than two and a half months ago, with a limited number of suspects, the right hon. Lady said:
"I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is not an inquiry into anything that the Government have done".
Will she therefore confirm that Home Office Ministers have been exonerated from leaking the document and will she ask the Home Secretary to report the full outcome of the inquiry before the Whitsun recess?
Last week, I also asked about the freedom of information Bill and the right hon. Lady replied:
"I … hope to be able to report soon on the freedom of information Bill."—[Official Report, 6 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 1090.]
Will the House get a statement from the Home Secretary on Thursday?
Finally, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that if there are any important changes in Government policy next week, the appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House? Before the last election, the present Foreign Secretary said of Labour's policy on the Tote,
"I can authoritatively bring down the curtain on this story. There will be no proposal to sell the Tote."
Was it not a discourtesy to the House to slip out a total reversal of policy on an important national institution by way of a written question?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming the debate on Kosovo. I can assure him that we have not lost sight of the undertaking to find time for debates on defence in the world, or indeed on personnel, but he will appreciate that we are trying to balance the need for those debates, which we fully recognise, with keeping the House up to date on events in Kosovo.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about what he described as "confusion" over Mr. Greg Dyke's application to be Director-General of the BBC. I have seen his letter and 1 see no confusion in it. To ask what has been going on suggests that the right hon. Gentleman supports conspiracy theories, of which I had not suspected him. As he said, he will have the opportunity to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about those matters should he wish to do so.
I am continuing to pursue the issue of debates on public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly been pressing for that matter to be resolved for some little time. I sympathise. I recall having precisely the same experience when the previous Government changed their policy and withdrew the arrangements for debating public expenditure. To the best of my recollection, during all the time that I remained shadow Chief Secretary and until the subsequent election, we were never able to persuade the then Government to resolve the matter, so I have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and can assure him that I will report to the House as soon as I can.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm whether there would be a statement next week on the freedom of information Bill. Obviously, such matters are subject to progress, but I certainly hope that that will be possible in the very near future and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a full statement.
I reject the charge of discourtesy. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some observations that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made before the election. The Home Secretary, or whoever is responsible, has made the position on the Tote clear. While I sympathise with the request for a statement on absolutely every matter that comes along, the Government must balance when we make statements and when we find time for debates. We will continue to do so to the best of our ability.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend like to assure me, particularly in the light of the motion on the Order Paper on the size of the quorum for Select Committees, that Her Majesty's Government not only support the work of those Committees but consider them to be of considerable importance? Since more and more members of Select Committees are being taken away from their sittings to sit on Committees considering Bills, when other hon. Members could readily take their place, will both usual offices please seriously consider whether they want that Committee system to work? If they do, some very hard thinking must take place about the organisation of the House of Commons.
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that the Government place great importance on the work of Select Committees. From her question, I am not sure whether she is aware that the motion has been tabled in response to a request that went to the Chair of the Liaison
418
Committee for endorsement from the Chair of a Select Committee that is pursuing a joint investigation because it believes that to be the most sensible course.
Mr. Eric Forth: Outrageous.
Mrs. Beckett: It is matter for the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks that that is outrageous. The Chairs of a number of Select Committees have officially made that request because they believe that it is the right way to tackle the business before them. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to second-guess their decision. I do not feel inclined to do so because that would not show respect for their judgment.
Mr. Paul Tyler: We entirely endorse the comment of the Conservative spokesman on the scandalous way in which the announcement on privatisation of the Tote was made yesterday. We sought a statement then and would have been happy to afford some of our time today for one.
On the business, or non-business, on Thursday 27 May, I am surprised that the Leader of the House thinks that there is no necessity for the House to meet then. There are several pressing issues that Members on both sides of the House want to debate. For example, when does she plan to take the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill? Does she intend a two-day debate and will she seek, by consensus, a programme motion?
What is the Government's intention on the handling of referendums? I understand that the private Member Referendums Bill has passed all its stages. There is widespread concern throughout the House that we should regularise such matters. Will the Government afford all that Bill the support that it requires to reach the statute book this Session or introduce their own Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I am sorry to learn that the hon. Gentleman shares the view of the Conservative party on the way in which the Tote announcement was made. I believe that Madam Speaker made the point yesterday that there is nothing remotely unusual about Ministers announcing proposals sometimes by written answer and sometimes by statements to the House. There is no discourtesy to the House in the method chosen.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman pressed for the House to meet on Thursday 27 May and said that he was surprised that it would not. I shall bear in mind his passionate wish for the House to sit slightly longer. I would not normally say this, but I feel entitled to note that, as the attendance of his party is a little variable, I am surprised to learn that it is keen to sit on extra days.
I am not in a position to announce when we will take the Report stage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill but I realise that the Bill has substantial implications that the House will want properly to debate. A programme motion is a matter to be considered elsewhere. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought on the private Member's Bill. Any Government are rightly cautious in their approach to such matters, but we will bring forward our own proposals in due course and, I hope, in good order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On next week's business on welfare and cuts in benefits, does my right hon. Friend know of any further discussions with a view to ensuring that what we have already heard from the Government is not the last word? Will further discussions continue? Does she accept that it is unfortunate that next week it is proposed on one day to cut benefits from new claimants while on another day the Government will spend money on the Balkans? Does she agree that it is not smart politics to be spending money on smart bombs while cutting benefit for people who are disabled?
Mrs. Beckett: May I welcome my hon. Friend back to business questions? The whole House expressed regret at his absence—although that may not entirely please him—when he was unable to be with us. I welcome him back to his place.
My hon. Friend has rightly said that we shall have a debate on welfare reform early next week. My understanding is that Ministers continue to discuss the range of issues and proposals contained in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill with interested parties, including representatives of those people who suffer from disability. My hon. Friend refers to cuts in benefits for new claimants. I am sure that he is well aware that, as a result of the overall package that the Government are introducing, the amount paid in benefits will increase. However, I realise that there are concerns about the balance of that package. I can only say to my hon. Friend that discussion on those matters continues and that there will be a debate next week on which people can focus.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a debate on early-day motion 638?
[That this House notes with concern the incident on 6th May in which a large block of ice fell through the roof of Mr. and Mrs. Smith's home at Hare Street, Hertfordshire; further notes the concern of local residents about large blocks of ice and debris falling from aircraft onto their homes; and calls the Government to review safety procedures and provide immediate reassurance to the residents of Hertfordshire.]
That motion is in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and other Members representing Hertfordshire.
I want to highlight an event that took place recently in my constituency when my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, were asleep in the middle of the night and a large block of ice—apparently from an aircraft—crashed through their roof, destroying their bedside table and almost killing them. In that debate, would it be possible to seek a proper review of the procedures for aircraft safety in such circumstances? I want to press for some reassurance for other residents of Cottered, Ardeley and that part of my constituency, who are naturally worried that the same thing might happen to them.
Mrs. Beckett: I can only sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Of course, it has never happened before—May 1997?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend points out from a sedentary position, such events have, sadly, happened in the past. I fear that I cannot offer the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) a debate during Government time next week. I am sure that he is taking other opportunities to raise the matter and to press for the review and reassessment to which he referred. Indeed, if that leads him to press for further time in the House, it is of course open to him to request a formal Adjournment debate.
Ms Ruth Kelly: Will my right hon. Friend find time in the near future for a debate on widows entitlement to the state earnings-related pension scheme and on the appalling legacy left to the Labour Government by the Conservative Administration? Many former members of that Administration still sit on the Opposition Benches.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. She will be aware—as is the whole House—that the change now under way dates from 1986, although it was not publicised in Department of Social Security leaflets until 1996. I am not sure how fruitful a debate would be, because we do not have access to the papers of the previous Administration. We do not how it was possible for such a change, in effect, to be withheld from the public for so long. However, those who do know include the current Leader of the Opposition, who was an Under-Secretary and a Minister in the Department of Social Security, the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Home Secretary, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Members for Fylde (Mr. Jack), for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), the Opposition Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and, indeed, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald)—all of whom were Ministers in the Department during the relevant period.
Mr. John Hayes: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the controversy that is raging among disabled groups and charities? I am thinking especially about the recent resignations from the disability benefits forum in protest at Government policy. I know that we are having a debate next week about specific cuts, but people are asking for a bigger debate about the way in which disabled people increasingly feel badly treated by the Government. Those resignations were not undertaken lightly; the people who resigned are well-respected. As joint-chairman of the all-party group on disablement, I know that I speak exactly as Lord Ashley would do in criticism of the Government and their treatment of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Mrs. Beckett: I have great respect for the members of the disability benefits forum. I regret their decision to resign, as do the entire Government, although I understand that those individuals will continue to give advice and to discuss matters of policy detail. In the short term, the Labour Government will increase the resources for people with disabilities. During the benefit changes of the 1980s, the previous Conservative Government tried to

421
introduce the biggest benefits cuts for the most severely disabled people that the country has ever known, so I will not accept any strictures from the Opposition.
Mr. David Winnick: I have no difficulty with Tuesday's business, as I fully support the action that is being taken against the terrible crime of ethnic cleansing. I am sure that, if there were to be a vote, the action would receive overwhelming support in the House, as it does in the country.
On Monday's business, however, although as a Member in the previous Parliament I recognise that we require no lectures on the disabled from the Conservatives, whose shameful conduct many of us remember, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are certain aspects of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that I for one would find it extremely difficult to support in the Lobby? I do not suggest that she should depart from collective Cabinet responsibility, but would it be possible, between today and Monday, for the Secretary of State for Social Security to be made to understand Labour Members' deep feelings on the issue? I hope that he already recognises those feelings and that, on Monday, concessions will be offered that enable us to support the Government in the Lobby.
Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly conscious of the fact that my hon. Friend has a record on those issues that no Conservative Member can match; he has been as consistent in his concern about benefits for people with disabilities under the current Government as he was under the previous Government. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security is highly conscious of people's anxiety that we get the balance right, and that our proposals effectively support people with disabilities where that support is required and assist them to a greater degree of independence where that is possible and practicable. I shall certainly draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the concern that my hon. Friend expresses.
Mr. Eric Forth: May we please have an urgent debate to get to the bottom of the issue of war widows pensions? Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) questioned the Prime Minister on that matter and the Prime Minister's answer was, to say the least, obfuscatory. He failed to confirm that the review of the matter had been carried out, as promised in response to a question asked last year by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). The Prime Minister then had the gall to tell the House that, whether or not a review had taken place, the matter could not dealt with because there was not enough money.
It strikes many as odd that a Government who can afford to spend several hundred million pounds on something as frivolous as the dome cannot find the money for something as serious as war widows pensions. We must have a debate to get to the bottom of the issue. It is obvious that questioning the Prime Minister on a Wednesday is not enough, because we do not get any
422
answers from him, so we need a debate to ensure that the matter can be properly dealt with by the House, and not by the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in the near future. Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman is in danger of shooting himself in the foot, for if we did have a debate, one of the first questions everyone would want answered is why the Conservative party did nothing for 18 years, but now want us to do something in 18 months.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect all those fine words from several of our colleagues about sweeping away the cobwebs of precedent? is it true that researchers working on her behalf have been looking at the Crimean war, the Zulu wars, the Boer war and the first world war in an effort to scratch up precedents as to why there should not be a debate on a substantive motion in time of war, and why we should instead have a debate on the Adjournment of the House? Is there not a case for a substantive motion, which could be amended—for example, one that focused on the issue of depleted uranium?
Does my right hon. Friend recollect that, in Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday, the answer to Question 1—a substantive question on the Order Paper—was unintelligible? That was why I asked to raise the matter on a motion for the Adjournment. A subsequent study of Hansard reveals that the answer was indeed unintelligible. Therefore, should there not be some opportunity for a proper explanation of why a civilised society drops anti-personnel cluster bombs in the middle of the city of Nis and on other cities?
Finally, may we have some answer to the specific question that I put properly to the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday? The right hon. Lady did not say what would be done about the Danube or who would pay for cleaning it up; nor did she say who would pay the bill, which might be as much as $40 billion, for the eventual restoration of Kosovo and Serbia—now a wasteland.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend, with his usual parliamentary skill, has succeeded in asking me about five different questions, which stretch across the responsibilities of a number of Government Departments. There will be a debate—although focusing on Kosovo—next week when I am sure that he and others will seek to raise some of those issues, but I am sure that he will also appreciate that the range of matters, such as the pollution of the Danube, is very wide.
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday did make it plain that the United Kingdom does not use, did not use and is not using depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans. My hon. Friend then referred to other munitions, some of which we know have been used by various NATO forces.
My hon. Friend's first question related to precedent. I cannot tell him whether those who looked into the matter for me studied what happened during the Crimean war, because I did not ask them, but I can tell him that the research information that was made available to me specifically went back as far as the second world war. It indicated that "successive generations" have taken the

423
view that, once British troops are engaged in conflict, the House discusses such matters on the Adjournment, not on a substantive motion.
Mr. Dalyell: Not at Suez.
Mrs. Beckett: With respect to my hon. Friend, the motion that was tabled in the context of Suez was debated, as I understand it, before our troops were committed and engaged. I am not aware of any precedent of a substantive motion being tabled when British troops were at risk.
I understand of course the argument that these matters should be reconsidered from time to time, and they have been. I understand of course hon. Members' wish to make their views known, although I have not observed that they have any difficulty in doing so. However, it remains the case that the precedent—it seems to me, for very sound reasons—is that as long as Members are not barred, as they are not, from expressing whatever view they wish to hold, in a free society, the House, as a House, has chosen not to debate a substantive motion when British troops are actually engaged in conflict. I believe that to be right.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? I believe that there is a need for a debate on the war widows pension for various reasons. The reasoning that the Prime Minister used in his response to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was wholly different from that which he used in his response to me. It is inadequate to talk about what the Conservatives did. The Prime Minister made a promise to the House that he would do something about the matter, and a year later he has done nothing about it.
At a time when our troops are engaged in dangerous action, our support for war widows should be unequivocal. I therefore ask the Leader of the House to take a serious look at the issue, to stop trying to score political points, and to honour the Prime Minister's pledge.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not trying to score political points; the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly is. We had a conflict in the Gulf when the Conservatives were in office. Indeed, we had a conflict in the Falklands when the Conservatives were in office. It smacks of hypocrisy for the hon. Gentleman to purport to make a great fuss in the House about the fact that, after two years, the Government have not done something which Conservative Governments did not do in 18 years.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I associate myself with the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but my question is on a different point.
My right hon. Friend will recollect that I drew to her attention, quoting another precedent, the fact that the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs had not met since 1978, and she was kind enough to say that she would review that matter. I understand that a proposal to recall that Standing Committee in some new form is before the Select Committee on Modernisation, and was referred to in a debate on Tuesday by the Under-Secretary
424
of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), as being part of the Government's constitutional reform programme. May I ask my right hon. Friend when she expects that it will be possible for that Committee to be recalled in some new form? She is well aware that there is considerable anticipation of that event among Members of Parliament from the English regions.
Hon. Members: Where?
Mrs. Beckett: As my hon. Friend will have observed from the noises off, our proposal to look again at the issue of the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has met with some question, and the matter continues to be under discussion. I personally have great sympathy with my hon. Friend's point, and I can assure him that the matter is not dead. We are considering the implications, and whether we can put forward proposals that attract a good deal of support and common ground. We will continue that consideration. I hope that it will not take too long, and that we will be able to put proposals to the House in the not too distant future.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is the Leader of the House aware that the high commission for South Africa has found it necessary to set up a special unit to deal with problems occasioned by the incompetence of the passport and immigration units? I do not believe that I am the only Member with constituents who are being oppressed by the inefficiency that results in passports being lost and applications mislaid. Nothing is being done to alleviate the distress caused to many people by sheer incompetence. After two years of the present Government, may we have an assurance that we will have a debate on the matter or, better still, a marked improvement in the service?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right—all hon. Members have had to deal with problems with the award and issuing of passports, as well as the handling of other immigration matters. Having had long experience of such matters, I can tell him that there is nothing new about the problems. He has clearly forgotten the time not long ago when a Home Office Minister had to admit that there were six months' worth of unopened applications for passports, never mind applications that were being dealt with. No one regrets that more than this Government, and no one is more determined than the Home Secretary to turn the matter round.
Mr. Rowe: When?
Mrs. Beckett: We inherited the problems from the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported. We are trying to resolve them as fast as we can.
Mr. Forth: Two years.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is a mere two years, and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, as he was a Minister in the previous Government, that the problems have existed a lot longer than that.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Leader of the House recognise that there would be no need for a debate on war widows pensions and war disablement

425
pensions, if only someone in high office would examine the matter and acknowledge the perversity, which should be remedied swiftly, in the application of disregard by a few local authorities?
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have something in common, with all due respect to both of them: they are both mistaken. It is not a matter of public money and central Exchequer money. The vast majority of good local authorities offer a total disregard, but that is grossly unfair to the war widows and war disablement pensioners who live in a few local authorities that do not give a disregard.
The remedy is in our hands. At an early legislative opportunity we could put it right and ensure that there is parity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom for the beneficiaries of those pensions. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider the matter again? If they do, they will see that we should not get dug into a trench about it, but that we should remedy it at the earliest opportunity.
Mrs. Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend has a long and honourable record of campaigning on the matter, and is familiar with all the details. I understand his point: it is often a matter for local discretion. I sympathise with the passion with which he expressed his views. However, we are presented with a dilemma. In general terms, with whatever degree of sincerity and effectiveness, hon. Members in all parts of the House recognise the right of local authorities to exercise a substantial degree of discretion in the decisions that they make about the use of their resources.
As my hon. Friend rightly said, some local authorities have chosen not to make such a decision, and as a result the balance is wrong. I can assure him that the matter is kept under review. I will draw his further observations to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Secretary of State in the relevant Department. I cannot give him an undertaking, though, that a policy change is likely to follow speedily, or that I can find time for an early debate.
Mr. Robert Syms: Will the Leader of the House put some pressure on Education Ministers to make a statement to the House on student tuition fees? One can understand the possible outrage in England if there was a change in Scotland and tuition fees were abolished. That would create an unfairness, because English students would have to pay and students at Scottish universities would not.
Last week I talked to the vice-chancellor of Bournemouth university, where enrolment is an associated issue. If people think that they will not have to pay fees in Scotland, but will have to pay in England, many English universities will be disadvantaged in terms of recruitment and running courses.
Mrs. Beckett: I am confident that my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education and
426
Employment will certainly keep the House informed on those matters. The hon. Gentleman is leaping a little ahead of himself in his assumptions, but no doubt time will tell.
Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend may recall the meningitis tragedy in Rotherham over Christmas and the new year: there were seven cases in nine days, and two students from a school in my constituency and one of their friends died from c-type meningitis. Can she find time for an early debate so that we can discuss recent reports that three new vaccines have completed their clinical trials, and the need for the Government to pull out all the stops in their own approval process so that we can at last begin, to protect our children and young people from this deadly disease?
Mrs. Beckett: I recall the tragic events to which my hon. Friend refers and know how hard he and his colleagues worked to bring them to the attention of the House and to support those who were affected. I have seen reports of the potential of the new vaccines, but I must admit that I had not fully taken on board my hon. Friend's point that they are at such an advanced stage that they are now eligible for Government approval.
My hon. Friend will be as conscious as I am of how often such press reports are over-optimistic in their assumptions about the time that such approvals take. However, I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who will wish to act with dispatch if that is possible.
Mr. Tim Collins: May we find time next week for an urgent debate or statement on Government policy towards the British insurance industry following the devastating job losses announced on Monday by Axa Insurance? Is the Leader of the House aware that, for the small rural town of Kendal in my constituency, that announcement represents not only the complete loss of our largest single employer, but a doubling of local unemployment and the removal of £19 million from the local economy? Will she consult her Cabinet colleagues to see whether any urgent Government assistance can be provided to my constituents at this very sad time for our area?
Mrs. Beckett: Everyone in the House understands and sympathises with hon. Members and their constituents who find themselves in such circumstances because of the loss of a large number of jobs. I am aware of the scale and the impact of the changes to which the hon. Gentleman refers and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and his colleagues do everything that they can to introduce the right kind of support and assistance to those on job search. I will certainly draw his remarks to their attention.
Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on safety and health so that the House might have an opportunity to debate an investigative report into the operation of the Capper pass smelting plant run by Rio Tinto? The report has been prepared by Towells solicitors and its senior solicitor, Mr. David Russell. It shows clearly that the community around Capper pass has been contaminated by arsenic, heavy metals and

427
radioactive materials and that its residents are suffering from cancer and leukaemia as a result. The report concludes that the operation of the plant has been a disaster for the community.
Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly very sorry to learn of the portent of the report to which my hon. Friend refers and the concerns that that must raise for his constituents and those of other hon. Members. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the matter in the near future, but he will be conscious that I have announced the date of the pre-recess debate and will be aware of other opportunities for Members to raise matters on the Adjournment. He may be able to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I intend to call all hon. Members who are rising, but I am disappointed to note that, rather than putting direct questions, hon. Members are making long statements. As a result, business questions are going on for far too long.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I will call all hon. Members, but I ask them to be brisk. They should not make long statements; they should ask the questions that they want to ask, and let us get on with things.
Mr. Huw Edwards: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on early-day motion 636?
[That this House expresses its alarm at the reported threat to organic farming in Britain posed by potential contamination from growing genetically-modified crops; notes the reports of the study commissioned by Government on organic farming and gene transfer from genetically-modified crops; further notes the Government's increased support for organic farming and the expanding consumer market in organic food; and calls on the Government to do everything in its power to protect this vital farming sector and the public's ability to choose organic food.]
The motion deals with organic farming and contamination from genetically modified organisms, and also notes the Government's increased support for organic farming. As my right hon. Friend will recall, the Prime Minister said yesterday that under the present Government there had been an eightfold increase in support for organic farming, and a fivefold increase in the amount of land being devoted to organic production. That is extremely welcome in my constituency, but there is concern about contamination from genetically modified organisms.
Mrs. Beckett: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government are studying the matter very carefully. We will do as much as we can, with the assistance and support to which he has referred. I have no doubt that he will continue to keep us up to the mark.
Mr. Graham Brady: Can the right hon. Lady find time for an urgently needed debate on ward closures in the national health service,
428
with particular reference to this week's announcement of the decision to close two of the three wards at Altrincham general hospital? The announcement was made following no public consultation whatever; it was made three days after local elections that were very closely fought; and the community health council is now seeking, possibly, to mount a challenge to it.
I understand from the chairman of the community health council that the chief executive of the trust made it clear that the closures were due to the need to find extra funds because of the Government's failure to finance the nurses' pay award. Given the circumstances, I suspect that we shall see more hospital closures around the country. It is vital for us to have a debate; may we have one soon?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time for that special debate, but the hon. Gentleman can seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment. I advise him to remember when he does so that the Government did fully fund the pay award, which contrasts with the Conservative party's record on both the granting of awards and the funding of them. As for the notion that local authority elections in some way governed a decision made by a health authority, there is no relationship between the two. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that. Local authorities do not run hospitals.
Mr. Phil Hope: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on NHS waiting lists? That might be a more fruitful subject.
Despite the financial pressures, Kettering general hospital, which serves my constituents, has met its targets in regard to waiting lists. It was announced this week that waiting lists had fallen by nearly a quarter of a million since May 1998. During the debate for which I have asked, Labour Members might like to reflect on the fact that we are only 15,000 short of the pledge made in May 1997 to cut waiting lists overall by 100,000. I should particularly like to hear the Opposition's views on waiting lists and the national health service: I should like to know exactly what their policies are on public spending and private health care.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a strong case for a debate, which tempts me. He is entirely right: not only have waiting lists fallen substantially, but, as a result of tremendous achievements by health service staff, waiting times have as well. The Government clearly have a great deal to boast about.
I fear that I cannot promise my hon. Friend an extra debate, but he may have noticed that the Opposition have decided to debate these matters next week, and he may bear that in mind.
Mr. Howard Flight: In view of yesterday's particularly strident address to London by Commissioner Monti, will the Leader of the House please ask the Chancellor to make a full, clear and unequivocal statement about the Government's policy on the proposed European Union withholding tax?
Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear the Commissioner's statement, but "strident" does not sound like Commissioner Monti to me; he has always struck me as a remarkably quiet man.

429
There is no doubt—as the Chancellor has repeatedly made clear, and will go on making clear—that we are fighting hard to defend Britain's national interest, and will continue to do so.
Mr. John Bercow: The response of the Leader of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was almost as risible as the Chancellor's response at Question Time.
Will the right hon. Lady reconsider, and arrange an early debate in Government time on the proposed withholding tax on savings income? Does she understand that such a debate would give the Chancellor an opportunity to declare unequivocally that he will veto—a word that he declines to use—any such proposed withholding tax, on which Mario Monti is insisting? Does the right hon. Lady recognise that no pathetic compromise whereby exchange of information between European Union member states is countenanced, or even whereby large-scale institutional investors are exempted, would be satisfactory to Conservative Members? We do not want this tax, which threatens 10,000 jobs including a number of my Buckingham constituents who work in the City. Say no, and veto.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in for Treasury Questions, although I know he normally is, but my understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a question on the matter and made the Government's position plain, as he has repeatedly. The Government are, of course, sympathetic to the aim of dealing with tax evasion and are prepared to enter into discussions on those matters, but we have made it absolutely plain that we do not support the imposition of such a tax; that we are very concerned about damage to the national interest; and that we will defend that interest. As for the notion of accepting a pathetic compromise, the Conservatives were the experts at that.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Would it be possible to arrange for an early debate on local government and the denial of democracy, so that I could raise the issue of what is going on in Preston council? At the beginning of the year, two Labour councillors defected from the controlling group and the Labour party lost overall control. A few days later, a Liberal Democrat defected to the Labour party, by which the Labour party regained control.
At the elections on Thursday, the result was no overall control. On the night of the count—indeed, at the count—a Liberal Democrat defected to the Labour party and the Labour party regained control. The next day, the same defector became an independent and a Liberal Democrat joined the Labour party.
All I can say is that, at 11 o'clock today, the state of play was that Preston council was under no overall control, but I am conscious that more than two hours have elapsed, so anything could have happened. Is it not a denial of democracy to the people of Preston that their wishes are being totally ignored while their elected representatives are playing political musical chairs?
Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman over the fact that, after all his campaigning, the
430
Conservatives did not succeed in taking control of Preston council. I am sure that he is terribly upset about that, but I fear that I cannot find time to debate it.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Leader of the House please make time for either the Foreign Secretary or the Secretary of State for Defence to come to the House and to brief us on this morning's reports in the paper that the joint Liberal-Labour Cabinet sub-committee appears to be taking forward policy on European defence? That is not only a discourtesy to the House, but very strange when NATO is attempting to carry out military action against Serbia. Can we please have a statement as soon as possible on that matter?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that there is any need for a statement. There is no dispute that NATO must remain the bedrock of our security. Nothing in the announcement about how we should pursue European defence co-operation is in any way distinct from what was said, for example, in the recent Washington summit declaration. In consequence, the House will be conscious that that is a reaffirmation of the importance of joint work on the matter.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Since the reality of the arrival of the new Assembly in Wales and the Scottish Parliament has sunk in, many people in the border areas who live near me have asked what the role of Members of Parliament for constituencies in Wales and Scotland will be? May we have a debate on the three Rs: the role, responsibility and remuneration of Welsh and Scottish Members of Parliament now that so many of their tasks have been handed over to the Members of those new institutions?
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman was, but I think that his party had a debate on the matter—or some party had a debate on it—this week. I cannot offer to have another in the near future.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister said yesterday that he is pondering the consequences of the electoral system that the Government have introduced in Scotland and in Wales. Does the Leader of the House think that she could find time next week for the Prime Minister—if he has completed his ruminations—to share his conclusions by explaining in a statement to the House what is fair, representative and democratic about a system that evidently is enabling the party that came first to abandon manifestos, shed commitments, carve up power and distribute ministerial posts not to the party that came second, or even to the party that came third, but to the party—the Liberal Democrats—that came a very poor fourth?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on the matter—he has frequently aired them in the House—but perhaps he did not notice that, if it had not been for the system introduced, the Conservative party would not have had any representation in those bodies. Various conclusions could have been drawn from such an outcome.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The right hon. Lady has announced another Opposition day for next

431
week. When considering future Opposition days, will she be able to take any action to ensure that those occasions are used for their proper purpose—to oppose the Government—and not to attack the official Opposition? Indeed, should not future Liberal Democrat Opposition days be in Government time, not Opposition time?
Mrs. Beckett: I am certainly not prepared to give an undertaking that I shall find extra Government time for such debates. Although I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's feeling, it is a matter of private grief on which I feel disinclined to intrude.

Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  American Food Exports and European Trade Policy
  Madam Speaker: We come now to the main business, and I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1.21 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the EU ban on hormonally-modified meat must end on Thursday 13th May 1999 under World Trade Organisation rules and that the USA is threatening massive retaliatory trade sanctions against member states unless this is adhered to; is concerned that the latest scientific evidence raises serious doubts over the safety of these and genetically-modified products, further undermining consumer confidence; deplores the failure of the EU and the USA to pursue agreed research criteria into the efficacy of introducing such products into the food chain, threatening established World Trade Organisation agreements and ignoring the impact on global biodiversity in the long term; and urges the Government to recognise its responsibilities at the forthcoming Millennium Round and ensure that food safety, the protection of biodiversity and assistance to the economies of developing countries are integral to negotiations on the liberalisation of trade.
  Today is the day on which, under a World Trade Organisation judgment, Europe must either lift its ban on imports from America of hormonally modified beef or face massive retaliation in the form of trade sanctions. This morning's news has been that the Americans intend to press for sanctions against the European Union. Let us make no mistake about it: if the billion-dollar package of trade sanctions threatened by America starts to hit British exporters, the so-called banana war will seem to have been little more than a skirmish.
  The trade war over hormonally modified beef is just a sideshow, however, compared with trade disputes looming over milk products from dairy cattle subjected to the hormone additive bovine somatotropin—or BST—and the proliferation of genetically modified crops and food products.
  Unless the world's two major trading blocs—the United States of America and the European Union—start to take seriously their international responsibilities for sustainable trade liberalistion and the protection of global diversity, the trade war could go nuclear. We must not underestimate the seriousness of the issues—which affect consumer confidence in the food on supermarket shelves and the risk of cancer from the milk that we drink, and threaten the diversity of plants and wildlife in our countryside and the economic survival of tens of millions of subsistence farmers in the Indian sub-continent.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider what he has just said? He said that the trade war would go nuclear. Does he really mean that?
  Mr. Chidgey: I am using a figure of speech to demonstrate the seriousness of the issue. A few weeks

  433
  ago, there was great debate and concern about the banana trade war, but this issue is massively more serious. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.
  Britain is in a unique position to take a world lead in formulating new guidelines, forging new international agreements, and linking trade liberalisation with the protection of biodiversity and the support required in developing economies.
  The Government claim the credit for the United States and European Union transatlantic economic partnership agreement, which was set up while the United Kingdom held the presidency of the EU. The Government claim to be leading EU policy from the heart of Europe. Considering the apathy that is oozing from the European Commission on issues relating to trade in modified food, Britain seems to be not so much at the heart of Europe as in Europe's back pocket. From their belligerent response, the American agrochemical giants seem to think that they have the Government in their corporate wallets. Until the Government set out clear policies and take a lead in resolving the conflicts and the concerns about international trade in genetically modified crops and hormonally modified meats and milk, as well as biodiversity and developing economies, the EU will continue to muddle along and the multinationals will use their muscle to dominate world markets.
  The current hiatus over American beef imports is a case in point. It should be no surprise to anyone that the United States is threatening massive trade sanctions if the ban on beef with hormone additives is not lifted. The EU ban was introduced more than 10 years ago in the face of opposition from north America. Instead of putting its house in order and undertaking scientific research to justify the ban, the EU has marked time, dragging its heels while spinning out the Byzantine disputes procedure of the WTO. The EU was given 15 months by the WTO to conduct the additional scientific risk assessments. With only weeks to go before the deadline—today, 13 May—the best that the EU could do was produce an interim report on the 17 new studies that it found that it needed to prove its case. The upshot is that the EU is calling for a further extension of the WTO ruling until the end of this year, to complete its studies. Not surprisingly, the United States, Canada and Australia oppose any extension. The United States is threatening Europe with $1 billion of trade sanctions.
  I do not know whether the situation is best described as a tragedy or a farce. The inept, laissez-faire actions of the EU are farcical. Should the massive trade sanctions threatened by America be imposed, it will be a tragedy for the hundreds of British firms whose livelihoods depend on exports to America.
  Mr. David Drew: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that under the precautionary principle, delay is the best way forward. We do not know the harm that the products might cause. It is right to delay and look at how we could introduce them properly in the future.
  Mr. Chidgey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, which I strongly support. My criticism is that the EU allowed the situation to drag on without investing resources in the necessary scientific research. With food,
  434
  public safety must come first. Europe has left itself with three options: to maintain the ban on imports and hope to be able to pay compensation to America and Canada through trade concessions rather than suffering sanctions; to transform the ban into a provisional one, which could be argued under WTO rules on the basis of the scientific evidence so far, although that would meet with a host of objections from the United States; or to lift the ban on imports and introduce a labelling scheme to allow consumer choice.
  Lifting the ban is clearly not an option. That would ignore the risks to the consumer that the latest round of scientific studies is attempting to quantify and would set a precedent for the wholesale importing of milk products laced with hormone additives, and of GM crops and their products. We need strong action from the EU and strong leadership from the Government to reach agreement on the trade dispute under existing WTO rules. The rules of engagement should be over measures of compensation, not retaliation.
  The dispute over the import of beef with hormone additives is merely a forerunner of more far-reaching trade issues coming down the track to meet us. So far, the Government have been singularly silent on their policy regarding consumer choice, food safety, biodiversity and economic developments in developing countries. When the Minister responds, I hope that he will take the opportunity to set out clearly where the Government stand on the issues, what their policies are and what action they propose to take—for example, on the monitoring and management of GM crop cultivation. What action are the Government proposing to allay public fears over the safety of such food products?
  With no clear lead from the Government, the public have voted with their feet—or, more accurately, with their wallets. Ten days ago, Unilever—the most powerful player in the global food industry—capitulated to consumer pressure. The company announced that it would stop using GM ingredients in what have become known as Frankenstein food products. Over the following week, just about every other major food company withdrew support for GM food ingredients, removing them from their shelves. Just about the only support left for the products is from the bioscience companies—Monsanto et al—and the Government. The Government have failed to read the public mood, to show leadership and to gain the people's trust as an independent guardian of food safety.
  Ms Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have failed to do anything on these issues. Could he explain what the proposals for the Food Standards Agency and the proposals on the labelling of GM foods are, if not the Government taking a lead and stating their view?
  Mr. Chidgey: I am sure that the hon. Lady can look forward to an opportunity to develop her points later in the debate. However, it is my understanding that those measures have been recognised as totally inadequate, and certainly have not restored consumer confidence. If they had, why would the food producers have withdrawn the products from their shelves?
  Ms Keeble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Chidgey: No, I have given way once and I have made my point. No doubt the hon. Lady will have an

  435
  opportunity in due course to expand her thoughts and expose herself to interventions to test the validity of her arguments.
  Not a day goes by without more horror headlines in the popular press, including warnings that GM foods could cause untreatable strains of killer diseases, such as meningitis. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) may laugh, but I wonder if she laughs to her constituents when they come to her surgeries with their concerns. This is a serious issue, and these are the stories being carried by the popular press. It is the role of the Government to address them.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The hon. Gentleman has just linked GM foods with meningitis because the popular press issued such a statement. That was a totally and utterly fabricated story.
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw?
  Mr. Chidgey: It is not for me to withdraw a comment on a report from another source.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw.
  Mr. Chidgey: If I may, I wish to continue without the sedentary interventions from the Minister for Energy and Industry, who will have an opportunity to respond in due course.
  I wish to address the valid point that was made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which I accept. The point that I am trying to make is that, without a clear lead from the Government, such stories gather momentum—they become the issues that the public read and believe. I am looking to the Government to act to squash such stories in advance, rather than letting matters drift.
  We not only have scare stories in the press, but warnings in a leaked report from the Government's own advisers that the contamination of organic crops will be inevitable if GM crops are grown on a commercial scale, leaving organic farmers facing ruin. I suspect that that is not a scare story—it is more likely to be the truth.
  All the while, the bioscience companies are angrily protesting the safety of their products. However, the Minister for the Environment has admitted his concern that 12 of the 16 members of the committee advising the Government on GM products have links with the food industry. It is clear that if public concerns over the safety of GM and hormonally modified products are to be allayed, scientific research and advice must be independent and transparent. I am asking the Government to set an example by putting their own house in order first. Will they take the lead by pressing for the WTO international advisory panels to be staffed by independent scientists, and for their deliberations and research to be made public?
  That must surely be the first step towards a proper understanding of the benefits and the dangers from GM and hormonally altered food and towards allaying public concerns that are being stoked up by the tabloids into something verging on panic. We need a public policy
  436
  framework to ensure that public concerns are met before commercialisation takes place and that, once it has gone ahead, the technology is used responsibly.
  We believe that a public policy framework should adopt a precautionary approach—I make that point to the hon. Member for Northampton, North—and that lack of scientific evidence to quantify risks should not be a reason for permitting the release of a GM product. The reverse should apply.
  Central to the framework should be a five-year moratorium on the commercial growing of GM crops. We must allow time for current Government-funded research projects on the long-term environmental and health effects of commercial growing to be completed. How else can there be a full and informed debate on the issues, addressing public concerns?
  Consumers must be given a clear choice about the purchase of GM products. Labelling regulations must be straightforward, to ensure that any GM ingredient is clearly identified. To prevent abuse, it should be mandatory to segregate GM crops at source. To give the regulations teeth, there should be a statutory legal liability, without time limit, on producers of GM products, for any adverse health or environmental effects.
  The motion is concerned not only with the WTO ruling that the EU ban on hormonally modified beef must end today and with the need to manage and monitor GM products to restore consumer confidence. It goes to the heart of the matter—the competing interests of the WTO and the agencies concerned with international biodiversity agreements. That is a competition that the WTO invariably wins.
  The WTO is one of the most effective and best-developed of all agencies involved in international relations. It has had major success in breaking down international trade barriers, but in pursuit of its purist trade liberalisation objectives, it is able, by the legal power of its rules, to subordinate the biodiversity protocols developed by the other agencies. In short, the power of the WTO rules gives open season to multinational companies whose commercial interests far outweigh any concerns for the environment or for the communities in which they operate.
  It would be naive to presume that the bioscience giants are acting as global philanthropists. Their prime concern is, understandably, to maximise the dividends returned to their shareholders. Having invested billions of dollars in biotechnological research and development, their priority is to develop markets for their products in the developing as well as the industrial world.
  It is in the poorer countries, where statutory controls are less well-defined and often—let us face it—less robustly enforced, that the risks are greatest. According to some projections, within three years, more GM crops will be planted in the southern than the northern hemisphere—crops that will still be banned in the United Kingdom.
  Only this week, Christian Aid published its study on genetic engineering and farming. The report, "Selling Suicide", makes chilling reading. It argues that introducing GM crops to the world's poorest countries could lead to famine rather than feeding the 800 million people who go hungry every day.
  Currently, 80 per cent. of crops in developing countries are from saved seed, but the 10 firms that control 85 per cent. of the agrochemical industry worldwide have

  437
  already taken out patents for seeds with terminator genes in 77 countries and are busily applying for patents for naturally occurring indigenous species. As a result, it will be illegal for subsistence farmers to save seeds from traditional varieties, in the time-honoured practice. They will be forced instead to buy suicide seeds with terminator genes and then buy and buy again year after year.
  Christian Aid has raised the spectre that
  "GM crops are creating classic preconditions for hunger and famine. A food supply based on too few varieties of patented crops is the worst option for food security".
  By contrast, research in India shows that land reform and simple irrigation can boost crops by up to 50 per cent. That compares with increases of only 10 per cent. from GM crops.
  It is clear that while the WTO rules concentrate only on the liberalisation of trade, to the exclusion of concerns for biodiversity and the environment, the commercial interests of the bioscience multinationals will hold sway. The WTO must be reformed to accommodate and recognise biodiversity protocols, multinational environmental agreements and an understanding of genetically modified organisms. The Government have the opportunity through the European Union to argue for reform when the WTO millennium round of negotiations starts in the autumn. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance that the Government intend to grasp that opportunity.
  The motion before the House covers a wide range of issues related to trading policy between the United States of America and Europe over GM and hormonally modified foods. I have tried to set out the key concerns not only of the House but of the public at large. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether the Government will take a lead in resolving the beef ban crisis and press for reforms in the EU to shake officials out of their apathy; what the Government's policy is on GM foods and crop production; and whether they accept the need for a five-year moratorium on commercial growing. What are the Government's objectives for the millennium round? Do they include reform of the WTO as I have set out?
  For too long, the Government have listened to the slick voices of commercial interests. It is time that they listened to the voice of the public and the growing concerns of the international community. It is time that they showed some leadership.
  1.42 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'recognises the importance of open markets between the EU and the US, notes that in general the trade relationship is a good one; acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Government in seeking a solution to the banana disputes in a way that is World Trade Organisation compatible and is helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas; welcomes the Government's commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism; welcomes the Government's commitment to consider sustainable development issues in its approach to trade issues as well as the interest of developing countries; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting in Seattle in late 1999.'.
  438
  I know that it is not fashionable to read out the detail of a Government amendment to make sure that people are clear about what it says, but in the light of the speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), I am tempted to do so and to urge him to vote for it. It gives him some of the assurances that he seeks.
  We recognise
  "the importance of open markets between the EU and the US".
  I would have thought that Liberals were in favour of open markets. We also note that in general—I will spell out how—our trade relationship with the US is successful and good. We have worked to find a way through the banana dispute, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in a way that was
  "helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas".
  The amendment also expresses our
  "commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism".
  We also take into account sustainable development, including biodiversity, in our approach to trade issues, as well as the interest of developing countries, as my colleagues throughout Government Departments have demonstrated. What is more, we certainly intend to grasp the opportunity late in the year to support comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation ministerial meeting in Seattle.
  Mr. Chidgey: I make this point in all seriousness. The Minister will have heard my comment about concerns over the recognition of biodiversity protocols within the WTO rulings. Will he give a specific assurance that the Government intend to embrace that and press for recognition?
  Mr. Battle: We are pressing for the inclusion of environmental concerns on the agenda. As I make progress I shall state in detail how.
  I found some parts of the hon. Gentleman's speech uncharacteristic of him. He used extravagant, headline-chasing language which was not all that helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who is not in the Chamber now, referred to it. It is not helpful to talk of trade wars going nuclear. The hon. Gentleman said that that was a metaphor, but I class it as extreme hyperbole with a myopic focus.
  The hon. Gentleman spoke of GMOs, but they are not a trade issue with America.
  Mr. Chidgey: They will be.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman says that they will be, but I hope that he is not trying to talk up a problem. We believe that we should try to resolve disputes patiently and build an international trading arrangement that enables growth while respecting people and the environment. It is not necessarily what has been called by Lester Thuron a zero-sum game, and it ought not to be.
  I accept that a few trade disputes exist; they centre on agriculture and food matters. By and large over the past 200 years, disagreements between Europe and the United States of America have been the exceptions to the rule.

  439
  Since the 18th century, there have been only a handful of intense disputes, and that includes the Boston tea party. Creating the impression that there is a trade war does not conform to the facts.
  I shall give the House some figures, beginning with the EU's main exports to the US. Road vehicle exports in that direction total about 16.4 billion euros, with no disputes. Power-generating equipment exports are worth 9.5 billion euros, with no disputes. Specialist machinery exports are worth 8.9 billion euros, with no disputes. Other categories include electrical machinery, general machinery and organic chemicals, none of which has aroused a dispute.
  European Union imports from the US include vehicles, office machines, and electrical and power-generating machinery, and are worth many billions of euros. However, EU agriculture exports to the US amount to only 2.8 billion euros, while EU imports from the US total 4.3 billion euros. Those figures show that trade in agriculture amounts to only a tiny fragment of the overall trade. By and large, there are no disputes in EU-US trade in the vast majority of goods. It is worth getting the matter in perspective.
  Mr. James Gray: I want to pick up the Minister on a detail, about which I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House. He said that trade in electronic instruments was not the subject of dispute, but he will know that there is a trade ban on the import from America of electrothermic tea and coffee makers. Perhaps he would like to correct what he said.
  Mr. Battle: I accept that there is a knock-on effect from the dispute about agriculture but, by and large, trade between the EU and America has gone along peacefully, calmly and without problems for generations. Although real and serious disputes exist, we should keep them in proportion.
  The vast majority of trade and investment between the EU and the US takes place without difficulty. The relatively few disagreements that exist, although important, should not be allowed to discolour the nature of the relationship.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: That may be so, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that the US seems to have an uncanny knack of lighting on products that are the staple industries of small communities. The cashmere industry in the borders is an obvious example, but there are others. It is almost as if the US has rather better intelligence about which communities are most vulnerable to import tariffs than about the location of Chinese embassies.
  Mr. Battle: Some of the headlines that have appeared—for example, suggesting that the US plans to "punish" British companies—are not accurate, as the secondary list of trade goods will not be available for a few days. I shall return to that matter in greater detail later, and suggest how it can be tackled, but there are bound to be occasional frictions in what is a substantial and complex trade relationship. I do not underestimate the problem, but the figures speak for themselves.
  The EU and the US are the two biggest economies in the world, accounting for 54 per cent. of world income. Even excluding trade within the European Union, together
  440
  they account for 38 per cent. of world exports, and 39 per cent. of world imports. In 1997, EU goods exports to the US were worth $160 billion, while US goods exports to the EU came to $156 billion. The US is easily the EU's most important external export market, accounting for about 20 per cent. of exports.
  The trade figures are impressive, and the investment figures are too. In 1997, direct investment flows from the US to the EU amounted to about $24 billion. The US is the most important source of external investment into the EU, accounting for more than 50 per cent. of the total. Again in 1997, EU investment flows to the US came to $42 billion, with the US accounting for more than 40 per cent. of total EU direct investment overseas. I give those figures to demonstrate the perspective of our trade relationship, to keep that substantial relationship in focus and to show that the present disputes are far from totally undermining the relationship.
  Bilateral relationships are not the only reason why the European Union and the United States of America matter in the world economy. They are the twin pillars of the world trade system, and they are co-operating to advance shared interests across the whole system. We must bear in mind the joint impact of the two trading partners on every part of the world. For example, we should consider the effect of the banana dispute on smaller nations—the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries that rely so much on the export of bananas to the EU.
  I appreciate that other hon. Members have worked in other capacities during their lives. I have spent some of mine working on EU policies for third-world countries under the agreements of the Lomé convention, and I know how difficult it is to carry through detailed negotiations to make sure that people receive justice in a complex world. The EU and the USA have had several formal opportunities to do so, not least through the twice-yearly summits, including the last on 18 December 1998. The next will be on 21 June, giving the opportunity for dialogue that can minimise trade frictions and build co-operation and confidence. There is scope to enhance that dialogue further for better management of disputes.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: The motion refers to the United States of America, but there is a problem with another north American country. Canada intends to put excessive duties on various products in the near future, and one of them will be the sweet biscuits manufactured in my constituency. There is no justification for the imposition of such duties. Will my hon. Friend take the matter up urgently with the Canadian Government in the hope of achieving a settlement soon? It would be wrong if my constituents and Cans of Carlisle, a factory with a good reputation, were to suffer because of a trade war in which they have no involvement.
  Mr. Battle: I agree with my hon. Friend. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, the impact on our constituencies is vital and it is important to resolve these disputes. We hold summits and conversations with Canada around the same sort of issues as those we discuss with the USA relating to the WTO. We shall do our best to ensure that we develop conversations in order to avoid disputes that might discolour our wider relationship at a crucial time for world trade.
  Ms Joan Walley: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the ceramics industry?

  441
  Particularly high tariffs are applied to catering china exported to north America. During his conversations, will he consider those extra tariffs and whether protectionism is being applied?
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I did not appreciate that ceramics were on the list of items hit by the current disputes. I am more than happy to ask questions about the tariffs. Not all tariff barriers have fallen, and our purpose is to have the WTO develop a system to reduce tariff barriers to ensure fair trade everywhere. I shall be happy to take on board my hon. Friend's remarks and to raise the issue on her behalf.
  The transatlantic economic partnership signed last May at the EU-USA summit in London enshrined an agreement for the two sides to develop an early warning system for potential disputes over agriculture, the environment, food safety and biotechnology, which have been sensitive issues recently. That agreement is vital if the EU and the USA are to avoid friction in the world trade arena, given the impact of their relationship on everyone else in the world economy.
  Building open markets remains as vital and important today as it was when GATT was first founded. Of course, it is more than evident that protectionist pressures are growing. As the downturn in the global economy continues, it leads to such pressures, as we all know. That increases the urgency of the need to look for sensible ways in which to boost genuine, sustainable economic growth: that, not retreating behind protectionist barriers, is the key to the future.
  We should at least thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for raising this subject for debate. It is a timely opportunity to say something about the need to support the comprehensive round of trade negotiations that we hope will be launched at the WTO ministerial conference in Seattle at the end of the year—I think that it will take place between 30 November and the early days of December.
  Yes, we will positively support a comprehensive round at those talks. Seattle will be the third ministerial conference, so let us consider how we have got where we are. The first meeting in Singapore, in December 1996, put in place a work programme on new issues, such as investment, competition, procurement and trade facilitation. The second meeting in Geneva, in May last year, agreed the process for the preparation for Seattle.
  We believe that a comprehensive round will allow all countries, including developing countries, to get an overall package to reflect their broader interests too. It will allow us to get arrangements on to a sound, commonly agreed and stable footing. That must be the objective and our Government will work towards that.
  Some people have questioned the wisdom of pushing ahead with opening trade at a time of difficulty in the global economy. Trade was not the cause of the south-east Asian crisis and trade would not provide a complete solution, but it can help the world on the road to recovery, and it can help economic and social development.
  Most recently, the Uruguay round brought a significant boost to world trade, to jobs and, therefore, to incomes. One of the key lessons of history is that the protectionist response to the global crisis in the 1930s made matters
  442
  much worse—it led to a protectionist backlash. There are some signs of growing pressures now, but it is essential that we keep pushing forward the momentum for opening markets and developing open trade policies throughout the globe. That is why the United Kingdom and the European Union have pledged to resist protectionism and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Eastleigh might suggest, to secure that new round of multilateral trade negotiations.
  A huge number of subjects are of particular importance to the UK in those negotiations: the need for further tariff reductions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) referred; reducing barriers to trade—for example, unnecessary blockages, such as technical regulations; opening up Government procurement markets in third countries; simplifying import and export procedures; seeking substantial reductions in support and protection for agriculture; deepening and broadening the opening of trading services; establishing an open rules-based framework for international investment; clarifying the interaction between environmental and trade policies; and tackling trade and competition issues. That is a huge agenda and we are keen to press ahead with it.
  At the same time, we are also conscious that we are trying to build. I point out to the Liberal Democrats at this time of new politics, when we are working towards a consensus, that trying to achieve that consensus around the table of the WTO is not so easy. Not all the members support a comprehensive round, as I am sure the hon. Member for Eastleigh acknowledges. Many more want to focus on particular market access, rather than the new overall rules. Others stress the need to stick only to those negotiations to which we are already committed—that is, in agriculture and services—and will not shift from there.
  Since we have referred to the American position, President Clinton recently signalled support in his state of the union address for a new round. That was a very welcome statement. He said:
  "I issue a call to the nations of the world to join the US in a new round of global negotiations to expand exports of services, of manufactures, and, most of all, farm products."
  We should assent to that aim to try to build together a round that will open up markets internationally and fairly. It is too early to say what sort of package will emerge from the ministerial conference this year. Discussions in Geneva so far have been developing the agenda to get the context right for detailed negotiations.
  It is probably fair to say that the new issues, including the new work on the environment, are likely to be the most difficult in the new round. We accept that. Some developing countries believe that those issues are not yet ready for substantive negotiation. While we need to be realistic about what is achievable in the circumstances, we see value in the inclusion of environmental issues on the agenda. Clearly, there will be much focus on agriculture which, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, is important for developing countries, too.
  Concerns have been expressed in Geneva about the implementation of existing agreements. Greater and more coherent focus will be needed on technical assistance and capacity building. That is not something only for the WTO; the United Nations conference on trade and development, the International Monetary Fund and the World bank all have parts to play. Decisions in the WTO must be taken by consensus. There is every sign that

  443
  developing countries will articulate a clear agenda of their interests, including issues relating to implementation, anti-dumping and open markets in, for example, textiles as well as in agriculture. They will not be reduced to being silent observers. The United Kingdom is doing all that it can to encourage their active participation in detailed negotiations.
  We are clear that free trade has never meant, and should not mean, a free-for-all. There is a crucial difference. There is plenty of scope for reflecting concerns about health, social questions and the environment, but a system of international rules must have objective reference points. That is precisely why we need to rely on independent scientific justification, which is crucial. My experience has been that people are resistant to independent scientific advice as well. When they get it, if they do not like it, they refuse to believe it. That is part of the problem of perception.
  Sustainable development is crucial. Protecting the environment and maintaining an open, non-discriminatory, equitable multilateral trading system are essential to achieving the objective of sustainable development. There are many effective, internationally recognised measures that aim to protect the global environment. Of course, much more remains to be done, but progress has been made in the past 20 years, with several multilateral environmental agreements with which we can work. Opening trade will help to ensure that resources are used more efficiently, and generate the wealth necessary for sustainable development and environmental improvement. It will also enable the spread of new environmental technologies that will help to tackle the pollution problems that we have inherited. Cleaner technologies will provide the jobs and industries of the future globally.
  All Governments must consider their trade and environmental policies together. I cover the industry brief in government and I am determined not to see industry set against the environment as if they are irremediably at odds and mutually exclusive for ever. They can be fitted together, and the best companies recognise that, build environmental practice into their business, and see it as beneficial and profitable to have a sustainable agenda. The two policies can fuse together. If we are to deliver sustainable development internationally, we need to build it into trade relations as well.
  Governments have a duty to balance the objectives of protecting the environment and upholding an agreed, multilateral trading system, whether we are negotiating in trade or environmental forums. It is for parties to both new and existing agreements to ensure, individually and collectively, that they do not sign up to conflicting, mutually exclusive requirements. That is the challenge.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will deal in more detail with some of the points on agriculture and food raised by the Member for Eastleigh. The European Union ban on hormone-treated beef has been in place for more than 10 years. In 1998, the WTO found that the ban was inconsistent with its rules because it did not follow from a properly conducted risk assessment. The EU was given a period, which, coincidentally, expires today, to comply with the ruling.
  A helpful article in this morning's Financial Times stated:
  444
  "US trade officials said yesterday they were determined to exercise their rights in the WTO to retaliate, but were prepared to continue discussing with the EU proposals for a negotiated settlement."
  I take heart from that. The article also stated that
  "the scale of the possible sanctions was likely to be scaled down and that the measures were unlikely to take effect before early July, leaving another two months in which to seek a settlement of the dispute."
  It continued:
  "the EU ban to US beef exporters, originally set at $900m, to be cut to between $100m and $300m. That figure could be lowered still further."
  In a way, it is fair for the hon. Member for Eastleigh to paint the worst picture and to suggest that there are £1 billion of trade sanctions around the corner. However, we are not yet in that position; negotiations can continue. Furthermore, the US Government have reacted by pointing out that the characterisation of the situation outlined to the European Parliament by the Commission's Vice President, Leon Brittan, was useful and appropriate. I think that that puts matters into context, because some alarmist press comments were made by the Commission, which may explain some of the tone of the current commentary. I should be more interested in trying to work towards a sensible settlement of the dispute.
  Mr. Drew: Given my hon. Friend's previous portfolio, can he clarify the Government's position on the ban? Have they carried out an independent scientific investigation into the safety of hormones in beef?
  Mr. Battle: The UK was one of the few countries that pressed for labelling to give consumers an option—that would make matters much clearer. I shall respond in detail to my hon. Friend's point later in my speech.
  We understand from Washington that there will be an announcement—perhaps tomorrow—formally expressing disappointment that the EU has not complied with the WTO requirement to lift the ban, and stating an intention to exercise the right to retaliate under the WTO. The US will need to apply to the WTO in Geneva for authorisation to retaliate, but it is not clear exactly when it will do so. Canada is likely to take similar action—that relates to a point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). The EU will then seek arbitration on the amount of retaliation due, which will delay authorisation until mid-July and may well reduce the overall amount. We shall not see the detailed list of retaliation for about 10 days, but the British position is widely recognised in the United States, as is the fact that we have played a helpful role in the matter. We hope that further negotiations can be undertaken to de-escalate the current problem.
  Mr. Chidgey: The Minister has mentioned twice that negotiations are being pursued on retaliation. I press him to tell the House whether the Government's view is that we should seek a solution based on compensation rather than one based on retaliation.
  Mr. Battle: That is precisely the position that Sir Leon Brittan took at the Commission; he is negotiating on that basis and I hope that that will prove to be a helpful step in the interim.

  445
  The WTO rules require that trade measures put in place to protect human, animal and plant health must have a scientific basis. That brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). Governments can and do apply restrictions to protect their consumers, but they must be in line with international standards or justified by a risk assessment when they are more stringent than international standards. Obviously, if those rules were not in place, countries could simply impose restrictions—ostensibly on the grounds of consumer protection—but without any scientific back-up whatever. In reality, they would simply be protecting their own interests.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister tell the House on what basis British beef was rejected from the US in the early 1980s, before the BSE crisis?
  Mr. Battle: I am tempted to say that if I were allowed another half hour to speak, I would go through the history of the previous Conservative Administration on BSE, but I think that I should be ruled out of order. I gently point out to the hon. Lady that, when we came into Government, I was not allowed to go through all the details—other than what was in the press and in Hansard—of what was done by the previous Administration. However, I should love to spend my life in the Library digging through those murky papers to find out what happened. To the hon. Lady, I say simply that in the case of beef hormones, as in other cases, we must recognise the importance of sticking to scientific principles, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out.
  Protection of the consumer, and the health and safety of people and the environment are of paramount concern to the Government—they are our starting point. We have always opposed the EU ban on beef hormones on the grounds that it is not justified by scientific analysis, but if genuinely fresh scientific evidence—not simply recycling of previous claims—were to emerge, we would reconsider the case for the ban. As the EU continues to carry out a new series of risk assessments, we should continue to engage in serious dialogue with the United States and Canada. We are encouraging the US to discuss compensation, as an alternative to retaliation, and labelling options, in which we led the way.
  Mr. Gray: On the question of scientific evidence on the safety of hormones, how can Minister argue that no precautionary principle is in play and that we must allow the stuff because it appears to be all right, when the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has banned beef on the bone, which has been shown to pose a one in 2 billion risk of any form of infection? Beef hormones are a heck of a lot more dangerous than beef on the bone.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman says that, but he should check the evidence. Let me read to him the US Government's reaction to recent developments, in which they challenge the evidence that has emerged in the past few days on the ground that it is merely a recycling of previous claims. It states:
  446
  "From what our scientists have seen of DGXXIV's summary report so far, the summary does not have any new scientific data on which to base its claims that the hormones in question may be harmful. In fact, the data cited in the summary seems to be the same as that already reviewed by numerous scientists, including the Joint Experts Committee on Food Additives (JECS), two previous groups of scientists commissioned by the EU and five scientific experts who provided their advice to the WTO beef hormones panels."
  We should occasionally remember that there are damn good scientists in the United States of America and that we cannot accuse the US of scientific indifference. There are going to be arguments about the science, so we have to do our best to obtain independent evidence. Notwithstanding all that, we are one of the few countries calling for labelling. Supermarkets are pulling GMOs and other products off their shelves in response to consumer pressure, rather than to detailed scientific evidence; therefore, our argument is that, if products containing beef hormones were labelled, consumers would be able make their own judgment.
  Mr. Gray: American scientists would say that, wouldn't they? How can the Minister so lightly dismiss the many scientists who say that there is no possible link between beef on the bone and new-variant CJD? How can the Government ban beef on the bone and simultaneously permit the import of hormone-treated beef? That is the contrast I want the Minister to address.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman implies that, because they are American, the scientists must be biased and willing to jeopardise their professional and scientific integrity, but I shall not respond in kind. I know that, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will respond in detail on the question of beef on the bone.
  Our primary duty in respect of GMOs is to protect people and the environment, which is why, at EU and national level, we have a comprehensive framework in place to regulate and advise on biotechnology and to assess new products rigorously before they are approved for use. No product is allowed on to the market unless and until it goes through safety assessments. Those stringent assessments afford an extremely high level of consumer protection, so it would not be right for the UK or the EU to impose a unilateral ban on products that pass through those processes. However, if fresh scientific evidence on the safety of any GM product were to come to light, of course we would consider whether a ban was justified.
  Dr. Peter Brand: I am interested in the Minister's reiteration of the need for fresh scientific evidence. We have many committees of scientists reviewing the scientific evidence available, but will he or his colleague, the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, tell the House what work we are initiating to produce fresh evidence? So far, most of the evidence comes from manufacturers of somatotropins, who clearly have an interest in maintaining the existing verdict in favour of their product.
  Mr. Battle: It is not fair to say that all or even most of the scientific evidence comes from the companies. For some time, I have had the privilege of being responsible for science, which covers work on the environment and work within the EU such as the framework programme, whereby scientists in universities and institutions

  447
  throughout Europe, including the UK, develop expertise in biotechnology. I know that the work is not necessarily funded by biotechnology companies or any of the other companies mentioned by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. All the scientists carry out their work with integrity and I respect that.
  My reason for using the word "fresh" is that, often, reports of a few comments or summaries by a researcher appear somewhat prematurely, before peer review and before proper publication in the usual form of authorised scientific papers. That prematurely delivered information is often recycled information which has been gleaned from other people's papers and re-presented—a practice which, in the days when I did research, would not have been accepted as research, because it involved no originality. We are looking for originality—that is what I mean by "fresh". We encourage scientists to explore developments in biotechnology and ensure that they are safe. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can spell out, in detail, the work that we have initiated. In addition, the House should recognise that, through the science budget, we fund some of that work.
  I emphasise that, although the United States has expressed some concern about the European regulatory system because of the time it can take to grant approval for a new product, there is no trade dispute in respect of GMOs between the United States and us. The US also recognises that consumers need to be able to make an informed choice, which is why we label products containing GM ingredients.
  Let me end on the general significance of trade disputes in the EU-US trade relationship. I know that the hon. Member for Eastleigh wanted to get the expression "American food imperialism" on the Order Paper, but encountered problems in the Table Office.
  Mr. Chidgey: Nonsence.
  Mr. Battle: I would suggest that, economically speaking, the term "mercantilism" might apply better to the problems that he has raised, but I, too, defer to the Table Office's judgment on the use of language. However, we must remember that, if we constantly heighten the language, we make diplomacy harder. We should look for common points of contact on which we can build a world trade system that enables the vast majority of the substantial trade and investment flows to proceed fairly between us.
  Disputes are rare and, without wanting to minimise their individual importance, I have to say that there is a danger that if we over-emphasise them, we risk discolouring the overall relationship and jeopardising the future. It is possible for trading partners to resolve differences if there is a willingness to work patiently towards practical solutions. It is all the more important to do that when the two trading partners are the European Union and the United States, not only because of the massive and dynamic bilateral trading relationship that exists between us, but because of the impact of that relationship on the development of the world trading system as a whole.
  We have a good trading relationship with the United States of America—one that has existed since the 18th century. We should carefully, sensibly and patiently
  448
  work on developing that relationship as a dynamic and fair economic model for the whole world in the 21st century. I believe that that can be achieved, if we have the will to do so.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: We welcome the opportunity to debate United Kingdom trade policy and the World Trade Organisation, and we agree with many of the constructive sentiments expressed by the Minister. We deplore the woolly wording of the Liberal Democrat motion, and some of the scaremongering and irresponsible statements by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), which disclosed some of the muddled thinking that we have come to expect of the Liberal Democrats. I have read the motion on the Order Paper for the second half of this afternoon, and if this is supposed to be an example of how the Liberal Democrats hold the Executive to account, it carries about as much punch as a bowl of overcooked noodles.
  When the Minister said that the original wording of the motion made reference to American food imperialism, the hon. Member for Eastleigh said that he thought that nonsense. I was in the House this time last week, when the Leader of the House announced that this afternoon there was to be
  "a debate entitled 'American Food Imperialism and European Trade Policy'."—[Official Report, 6 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 1089.]
  I presume that that title was not invented by the Leader of the House, but emanated from the Liberal Democrats.
  If the references to American food imperialism were meant to be the soundbite that would motivate plenty of people to vote for the Liberal Democrats in my constituency last Thursday, which was polling day, it manifestly failed, because the Conservatives were returned in 36 of the 44 district council seats, gaining no fewer than 13 seats from the Liberal Democrats and reducing their number in my constituency to a mere five.
  Conservative Members recognise and support the importance of the World Trade Organisation as a body committed to promoting global free trade and the reduction of trade barriers. We, as a global trading nation, have more to lose from protectionism and trade barriers than does any other member of the European Union. I think it fair to say that some of our European partners are instinctively more protectionist than we are, and given attitudes to British beef exports, too many European Union countries have shown a willingness to appease protectionist lobby groups rather than defend the virtues of open markets, sound science and the leadership of the World Trade Organisation.
  We last debated this subject on 22 March 1999, before the World Trade Organisation's April ruling on the banana regime. During that debate, I and several other hon. Members asked the Minister a series of questions about what would happen if the World Trade Organisation endorsed the United States' trade sanctions against the EU for failure to comply with the WTO rulings on bananas. We did not receive any answers, and we now realise why. It is obvious from what has happened since that the Government had failed to ensure that the European Union drew up prudent contingency plans. The consequence is that the legally authorised WTO sanctions, amounting to $131 million a year, are now in place, and several United Kingdom niche businesses are suffering very seriously as a result.

  449
  What action are the Government taking? What is the European Union doing? If ever there was an issue that demanded immediate answers from the Government, it would be this one. It is a pity that the Liberal Democrats did not even mention that in their long-winded motion.
  On 29 April 1999, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, asking on what date he expected the European Union to introduce a banana regime that was in compliance with the ruling of the World Trade Organisation. By 11 May, following a holding reply, I received the answer. It is a matter of great regret to Opposition Members that, on an issue of such sensitivity, it took the Secretary of State the best part of a fortnight to reply to such a question. The reply, from the Minister for Trade, said:
  "It is unclear how quickly the European Union can amend the banana regime to bring it into compliance with the ruling of the World Trade Organisation. The Council has asked the Commission to provide proposals by the end of May. However, the forthcoming elections to the European Parliament are likely to delay their approval of a new regime until at least September. In the meantime, we are pressing the Commission to find an interim arrangement which could be agreed quickly and which would displace US retaliation against EU industries."—[Official Report, 11 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 84-5.]
  What a farce; what a state of affairs. Anyone would think from that reply that the World Trade Organisation ruling or the date of the European elections came as bolts from the blue. All along, the European Union approach has been one of indecision, prevarication and delay—of hoping that the problem would go away. It did not go away, and when the European Union was confronted with the decision and the authorisation of the World Trade Organisation, it gave all the appearance of having made no arrangements to deal with it. It is now claiming the European elections, the chaos in the European Commission and various other factors as explanations for not addressing the issue with greater urgency.
  When the Conservatives were in government and the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), was an Opposition Member, Secretaries of State were several times found by the courts to be acting unlawfully. The hon. Gentleman was very quick to say how appalling that was, and to say that the Government should immediately comply with those rulings. That is a perfectly legitimate line to take; compliance with the rule of law is fundamental to any regime that commands respect.
  The WTO has made its ruling and the European Union is saying, "We shall comply, but we are not quite sure when." In the meantime, sanctions against innocent firms in the European Union are biting. This is not an academic debating point. As we speak, the sanctions are costing British jobs and successful British businesses. So far, the Government have given all the appearance of being pretty indifferent to the plight of those businesses.
  On 11 May 1999 the Minister for Trade gave a written answer to my question, tabled on 29 April 1999, containing his estimate of the number of jobs put at risk by the trade sanctions of the United States authorised by the World Trade Organisation:
  "In terms of the historical levels of exports to the US in each sector, it is not possible to say what the overall impact on British jobs might be. Much depends on how long the retaliatory measures
  450
  remain in place, the ability of affected businesses to find alternative customers for their products, the extent to which orders have been brought forward before these measures took effect and local market conditions."—[Official Report, 11 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 85.]
  That may well be correct, but it ignores the fact that, as the Minister knows, many niche firms very much depend on their export trade to the United States, and they have lost business which they cannot replace in other markets.
  One such firm, to which I drew attention in oral questions last week, is called Beamglow. It had invested heavily in the US market—about £2.5 million. It is quite a small business, employing only 100 people. About 25 per cent. of its turnover is with the United States, and it has lost all that business as a result of the sanctions. The firm has communicated with Ministers, but has had no satisfactory response.
  When I raised the matter with the Secretary of State in oral questions last week, he made it seem as though it was everyone else's problem but his. He said that
  "the real solution is to resolve the trade disputes."
  Fine.
  "The Government are committed to achieving that long-term solution to the problems."
  Fine.
  "The solution to the problems that companies such as Beamglow face lies in the Government using our best efforts to ensure that the trade disputes with the United States are resolved"
  fine—
  "and that free trade and commerce are able to flourish."—[Official Report, 6 May 1999; Vol. 330, c. 1072-3.]
  But what will happen in the meantime? By the time the dispute is resolved—the Minister for Trade estimates that that will be no earlier than September, and some people say that it might drag on beyond the turn of the year—Beamglow will have been obliged to lay off a very significant number of its employees.
  Beamglow is not the only firm affected. Carrs of Carlisle, a much larger firm, and Woods of Windsor, a niche business with which the Minister for Energy and Industry will be familiar, are suffering very seriously as a result of the sanctions. Those firms are asking, "What will the Government do to help us? We are the innocent victims of the European Union's failure to respond positively and quickly to a ruling of the World Trade Organisation."
  Mr. Gray: Has my hon. Friend noticed that despite the Government's general lack of concern about the industries that he describes, they have been extremely concerned about one particular area? In the politically sensitive and delicate area of the Scottish borders in the run-up to the parliamentary elections last week, the Government have gone out of their way to help the cashmere industry. Would not Beamglow and other firms wish that they were in that area?
  Talking of lack of concern, has my hon. Friend noticed that there are now only two hon. Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches? Although this is the most crucial debate in their parliamentary month, only two of them have stayed to listen to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

  451
  We as much as anyone supported the Government initiative to help the cashmere industry. The threat of the sanctions being applied prior to authorisation by the World Trade Organisation put the cashmere industry in particular difficulty. The Government offered up to £40 million in guarantee payments.
  Since the ruling went against the European Union, however, the Government have done nothing. No doubt through the diplomacy of the Prime Minister in conversation with the President of the United States, the Government managed to exempt cashmere from the list of products that would be the subject of 100 per cent. tariff—[interruption.] I give way to the Minister.
  Mr. Rooker: I asked the hon. Gentleman why he kept talking about cashmere, when he knew that it was not on the list.
  Mr. Chope: I am sorry that the Minister does not understand the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Cashmere was originally on the list, but it has now been taken off. Before the issue was resolved in favour of the cashmere industry, the Government had agreed to give up to £40 million in assistance. They are not prepared to put a similar sum or any compensation regime in place for equally innocent and deserving victims of the dispute.
  Mr. Battle: Two things—first, the cashmere industry is not located only in Scotland. I come from Yorkshire, and the industry exists also in Bradford, a city next to mine. Secondly, there was a particular difficulty with cashmere. If you knew anything about the textile industry, you would know when the buying season was in America—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
  Mr. Battle: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) knew anything about the textile industry, he would know when the buying season was. That was the reason for the extreme difficulty at the time. We worked to resolve the dispute, to get cashmere textiles and other items off the list, and to reach a sensible solution within the EU. The hon. Gentleman's comments come rich from him. Thousands of jobs in manufacturing went in my constituency. The answer that I got when I was in opposition was that that was due to world recession and I should not worry about it.
  Mr. Chope: I am gobsmacked by the Minister's attitude. I would have hoped for considerably more sympathy for the innocent victims of a trade dispute in which the European Union was found guilty by the World Trade Organisation. In his speech the Minister spoke about the desirability of introducing a compensation regime in favour of the United States. Why are not the Government prepared to introduce a compensation regime for British firms that are the innocent victims of the European Union's failure to deal with the issue?
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The mock anger displayed by the Minister will cause deep frustration
  452
  among those in west midlands manufacturing who have difficulty understanding why other regions of the United Kingdom should receive easement and compensation, and why firms manufacturing such important products as bath preparations, with a total export value of £7.2 million, should still be on the list of products that are not relieved. Midland Cosmetics in the west midlands has £2 million of orders on hold because of the Government's failure to provide the same sort of compensation as they have provided in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. If the Minister wishes to intervene to answer the point, I shall give way to him.
  Mr. Battle: We have been trying to get the list down and to ensure that companies are not jeopardised by sanctions. That is the whole point. To avoid further sanctions, we are encouraging negotiations. Of course there will be financial penalties, but we do not want more companies to pay them. Is the hon. Lady suggesting that the Government should buy and store all the products of the companies affected? What sensible proposals does she have, other than direct grant and Government intervention? In the case of cashmere, it was not grant; it was a loan system to back firms up during the short-term buying season.
  Mr. Chope: I shall allow my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) to make her own speech. In response to the challenge from the Minister, I would say that if the Government of which he is a senior member had anticipated the ruling of the World Trade Organisation, they would have had a proper contingency plan in place, which would have been a compliant regime to take effect immediately.
  If the Government and the EU had done that, no penalties would have been imposed on firms such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend. Those firms are now suffering as a result of the 100 per cent. tariff barrier. They are losing business and some of them will be threatened with bankruptcy. In any event, many will have to shed a large number of jobs.
  The Government should have anticipated the situation, and even now they should be getting on and ensuring that a compliant regime is introduced. [Interruption.] Instead, we get much delayed ministerial replies to our questions. The Government shrug their shoulders and say, "There is nothing we can do. We are waiting for the European parliamentary elections."
  Mr. Battle: We are doing things—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must not keep intervening from a sedentary position.
  Mr. John Hayes rose—
  Mr. Chope: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that it does the Government no good to display such a lack of contrition and humility? The Minister sits there barking and shouting in response to a legitimate claim on the part of

  453
  Conservative Members in the interests of hard-pressed companies. That tells the whole story about the Government' s attitude to those industries, those businesses and the people who work in them. I invite my hon. Friend to suggest to the Minister that he calm himself a little, and display a little more humility and compassion about the damage that is being done to those hard-pressed companies.
  Mr. Chope: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He gives wise advice to the Government. They get hysterical and say that they are doing all they can, when it is apparent that they are not. If they were doing everything that they could, they would have sorted out the problem already. They are relaxed about the problem and say that it may go on beyond September till the end of the year.
  The Government were quick to help the cashmere industry and rather slow to help firms such as those that we have mentioned. We suspect that the Government are rather indifferent because a number of those firms are situated in the constituencies of Conservative Members of Parliament—for example, Woods of Windsor, and Beamglow, which is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). That suspicion, which several of my right hon. and hon. Friends share, as do some of the people who work for such firms, is given credence by the extraordinary attitude of the Minister, who seems totally unconcerned about the plight of those businesses.
  Mr. Battle: Name a Conservative Member of Parliament in Bradford.
  Mr. Chope: I cannot name a Conservative Member of Parliament in Bradford, but I can name an increasing number of prominent Conservative councillors there.
  The Minister needs to take the issue much more seriously than he has hitherto. I hope that he will introduce a compensation package for firms that are the innocent victims of the banana dispute. As members of the EU, we obviously take our share of the responsibility, but the EU' s failure to comply with WTO rules has meant that people are losing their jobs and are suffering financially in those businesses. All that is happening is that the Government are shrugging their shoulders, which is not good enough.
  Mr. Rooker: We have been discussing bananas for 20 minutes.
  Mr. Chope: I do not know how long we have been discussing that issue, but I know that we are discussing real jobs and real businesses—often family businesses that have been built up over generations and have entered and successfully competed in a very difficult United States market. They are finding that all that investment and effort are being completely destroyed as a result of the Government's behaviour and the failure of the Government and the EU to address this issue sensibly. As far as I am concerned, this subject is worthy of an Adjournment debate in its own right.
  The good news is that we are making progress in some other areas. During our debate on 22 March, I raised the issue of hushkits and the growing dispute over them. The
  454
  steam seems to have been taken out of it as a result of sensible co-operation and discussion between the EU and the United States. However, Emma Bonino recently said that, whatever the scientific position, there is no question of the beef ban ever being lifted—which is provocative.
  Mr. Battle: Who is she?
  Mr. Chope: Emma Bonino is one of the Commissioners—a temporary Commissioner who is about to lose her job, I think, although we are not sure about that. She said on behalf of the EU that there is no question of the beef ban ever being lifted. That sort of comment causes a number of people to think that provoking the United States into a trade war is on the agenda of some members of the EU, to assist them in their own protectionist objectives. I hope that that is not correct.
  There is talk of temporary solutions. The report in the Financial Times, to which the Minister referred, gives us hope that the hormone-treated beef issue will not now result in any direct trade sanctions, at least until July, and we hope that it will be resolved before then.
  Mr. Rooker: Now that the hon. Gentleman has got on to the issue of hormone-treated beef, I invite him to confirm that the current position of the Conservative party is exactly the same as that which it took in government. It has changed its policy on genetic modification since then. We have continued the policy on hormone-treated beef because it is based on the science. I should like confirmation that the position remains the same as far as he is concerned.
  Mr. Chope: As the Minister knows, I was not a member of the previous Government; I was not even a Member of the House, so I will not get drawn into a discussion about that. I would support what Ministers have been saying about the importance of sound science, which is absolutely fundamental. If we are not committed to supporting sound science, any country in the world will be able to say, "We don't want your products because we've got some people who say that they do not really like them." That would be quite at odds with any principle of free trade, which Conservative Members promote very strongly.
  Mr. Rooker: I do not want to labour the point, but I recall that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Government until 1992. The ban on hormone-treated beef has been in place for 10 years and he was a member of the Government when that ban was introduced on behalf of the EU. I am asking my question simply to avoid any doubt and because of the Conservative party's change of policy on genetic modification.
  We take a different view from the rest of the EU on hormone-treated beef, but we have operated the policy as good members of the EU. We want to operate on the basis of sound science, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to say whether the Conservative party's position remains the same as when it was in government—that is all.
  Mr. Chope: If there was a change in Conservative party policy, the Minister would soon hear about it. I have set out the position as I understand it to be and I have nothing to add on that particular subject.

  455
  We are pleased that it looks as though some of the heat has been taken out of the hormone-treated beef issue. However, if we find in July that nothing much has been done to resolve the scientific issues and the United States has in the meantime drawn up a list of targeted firms—as the Minister has said, that might be announced in the next 10 days—I hope that the Government will not have allowed the EU to be as slack in preparing a contingency plan as it has been found to have been in respect of bananas. I condemn the EU and I condemn the Government for the part that they must have played or not have played in this; but let us learn something from the experience—if we are given a couple of months, we should draw up some sensible contingency plans.
  Does the Minister think that the approach taken by the Government to hormone-treated beef—standing out from other members of the EU—will result in a differential regime for the imposition of sanctions? The Netherlands and Denmark publicly opposed the EU banana regime and the United States said that it would not introduce sanctions against them for what was effectively an EU decision. Have the Government had any intimation from the United States on whether that might be used as a precedent and on whether this country would be less vulnerable to sanctions than other member states because of the line that we are taking in the EU on hormone-treated beef?
  The Minister said that we had spent 20 minutes talking about bananas; I do not know whether it was as long as that, but this is an important debate and we welcome the opportunity to hold the Government to account. A more constructive way of doing that, which we on the Opposition Front Bench pursue, is tabling pertinent questions and asking the Government for answers, rather than tabling muddled motions, as the Liberal Democrats do, and trying to justify them in speeches that leave much to be desired. People want clear thinking brought to bear on these important issues, which affect our country, our trade and our prosperity.
  2.48 pm
  Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I am delighted to take part in this debate on an interesting and important topic; the politics of food creates considerable interest, if not alarm, among the wider population on occasions. Conservative Members seem to be suffering from collective amnesia about their role in the evolution of various food policies, but I do not want to waste time on that. No doubt the result of the change in policy will be put around in a brown envelope, like most Conservative policies at present.
  We approach the debate with some trepidation. It is easy to raise alarms and, to be a little critical, although I agree generally with what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, some of it was on the alarmist side. This is an emotive subject. People are understandably worried by any accusations about links between this and that, and what may seem to be a perfectly good way to improve choice and the quality of our food can lead to alarming statements being made in the press, if nothing else. Nevertheless, we must recognise that consumer choice, if not paramount, is very important in this context. What we are discussing is the essence of why we engage in trade. It is through specialisation that we are able to obtain the best products from various parts of the world, and we must try to avoid any action that would prevent that from happening.
  456
  A chord has been struck. I feel strongly about this, as, I think, do others on both sides of the House. People feel that they have been disempowered by the way in which globalisation has made the providers of food unaccountable, in the sense that decisions are made not through the natural—dare I say, national—process that most people want, but by unaccountable individuals in multinational companies, American agrochemical companies or other multinational companies in other parts of the world.
  We are, in fact, particularly able to point the finger at American agrochemical multinationals. I make no apology for taking all possible opportunities to talk about genetically modified organisms. I hope that Ministers do not think that I will launch into a full-scale attack on them, but I do not think that we would be where we are today were it not for Monsanto's—in my view—dreadful and disastrous decision not to segregate soya, which has led to a lack of consumer confidence. Consumers feel that foodstuffs have been imposed on them.
  I was glad to hear confirmation from Ministers that we are demanding consumer choice, as we always do. There should be segregation, and there should be effective labelling; but it is not an easy matter, because decisions are being made elsewhere. We are discussing an aspect of that today: we are discussing a further racheting up of the apparent ability to impose decisions from outside. I think that we are well within our rights to say what we feel about that. In this respect, I am thankful that we are part of the European Union, because we can make a much bigger impact as part of a group of nations than we could as an individual nation. Let us not fool ourselves: as an individual nation, we would find it much more difficult to restrain the multinationals from securing a global marketplace in which they can determine what is provided and at what price it is provided, and regulation can be undermined, if not circumvented.
  Mr. Gray: Does the hon. Gentleman favour the commercial planting of genetically modified crops, or not?
  Mr. Drew: My views may differ somewhat from those of the Government, but in terms of degree rather than perspective. I believe, at the moment, that the precautionary principle is such that the benefits of genetically modified organisms are not proven, although I see every reason to conduct more tests—for instance, by means of farm trials. The Government have upheld the view that we should not currently be allowing commercial exploitation—unlike the last Administration, who allowed more products through without the necessary monitoring and regulation, and without truly believing that people should have a choice. Labour Members will not take any lessons about licensing and regulations: we are doing things properly, and it is a pity that that did not happen before our election.
  We understand that the international trading position presents another side of what most people are concerned about—their right to choose, to know what they are eating, to know that it is safe and wholesome and to know that they can obtain it in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. There is a very sad aspect of what has been happening. The debate provides me with an opportunity to say that, although we understand that the interests of different nations are likely to be paramount in

  457
  their decision making, we should all like to avoid disputes such as this if that is at all possible. We would not like it to be exaggerated, although that is always a danger in the lead-up to negotiations; but, more particularly, we do not want the matter to be subject to innuendo that could be taken out of context. That might lead to a much more serious situation.
  Other hon. Members may, like me, have received a letter from the Food and Drink Federation stating that food and drink exports accounted for £732 million last year—slightly less than imports. I always think that those who cause problems by threatening retaliation may have more to lose than they stand to gain. Anyway, the letter listed the products that might be affected: beef, pork, poultry, tomatoes, onions, peaches, pears and, dare I say, chocolate. Such a degree of retaliation takes us on to the slippery slope leading to something that none of us wants—a full-scale trade war.
  Everyone would lose out from such a trade war, but, as has been made clear by Conservative Members, those who would lose most are the smaller producers—the producers of specialist lines, who cannot diversify because their methods of production relate directly to their markets. We can only argue on behalf of producers, but, as we know from the banana controversy, the biggest loser is the third world. To an extent, we have been willing to fight alongside the third world to ensure that its countries have access to world markets. It is not right for large global companies, perhaps working through one Government or another, to be able to impose a different way in which products can reach the market if it is unfair, biased and clearly opposed to the greater access to the world market of third-world countries that most of us want.
  That is linked to other issues, such as the multilateral agreement on investment. I was pleased to note that that had been kicked out initially; it may return in a different form, but I hope that its new form will enable us genuinely to believe that it is for the right purpose, and that investment streams will be made more accountable, rather than being driven by companies that are motivated by selfishness and are able to impose their will and influence the third world much more than is healthy.
  We should improve the processes whereby we agree on the stabilisation of world trade. People may make suggestions about how we can learn from our mistakes. It has been alleged—I cannot confirm or deny the allegation—that, to an extent, the current problem has been caused by, in particular, the Americans, who have been testing World Trade Organisation processes to see how far the disputes mechanism can be pushed. If we take that allegation to its origins, we must ask who has been testing the process—and, again, we would tend to point the finger at some of the larger companies, which may feel that, if they get their way now, they may be given further opportunities in the future.
  There is a lot to be played for. As the Government have said, we must cool this down. We must find a way of putting world trade back on track. If the dispute escalates, we shall all lose out, including those who are taking retaliatory action.
  If I point the finger again at the European Union, I do so because some of the processes whereby agreements are reached are pretty Byzantine, and lacking in transparency.
  458
  Whether we agree with the science is one thing, but I think that we should be happier if the mechanism for agreements were clarified to some extent. We could then hold our heads high when talking to the Americans, Canadians or whoever and say, "We have done it by the book. We know what we are about. We have been clear with our own multinational companies about the way in which they can influence the processes that we are engaged in." As a result, world trade would, I hope, be in a stronger, more stable position and we would all be gainers.
  Although Labour Members have some sympathy with some of the words and phrases in the Liberal Democrat motion, the only way forward is the Government's approach, which is to negotiate, to consult and genuinely to try to bring the parties together, whether nationally, or, more particularly, supranationally, to ensure that the people who would lose out more than anyone—small specialist producers, the third world and, eventually, the consumer—are protected. There is no future in a retaliatory regime, which could be the way that some countries, or some companies, would want us to go. We have to square that with consumers' demand for safety, which is paramount; their demand to know what they are eating, and whether it is GM food; and their demand that, if they do not wish to eat GM food, they do not have to. As a result, the world would be a better and, indeed, safer place.
  3.2 pm
  Mr. James Gray: It is an honour to take part in what is an important debate and to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), although, having heard his thoughtful speech, I am not entirely clear about whether he agrees with Ministers' decision to allow the commercial growth of GM crops. Nor am I clear about whether he is in favour of the continuing import of hormone-improved beef. If he is, I wonder whether he has consulted the Gloucestershire National Farmers Union on the subject, and considered the damaging effect that it would have on beef farmers in his rural constituency.
  Incidentally, the Labour party makes great play of the fact that it represents more rural constituencies than the Conservative party. That is statistical nonsense, but I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud, who does indeed have a rural constituency and should always be listened to on rural matters. I am certain that the Gloucestershire National Farmers Union will get in touch with him about his opinion on hormone-modified beef.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who accurately summed up Conservative Members' significant concerns about the imminent trade war, and made some good points about Liberal Democrat Members' general woolliness and lack of clarity. This is the most important day in the Liberal Democrats' parliamentary month, but, for most of the debate, far more Conservative than Liberal Democrat Members have been present. At one stage, only two Liberal Democrats were present, although, admittedly, there are a limited number of Liberal Democrat Members. The Liberal Democrats have raised a subject that has attracted few of their Members and I suggest that, the next time they secure an Opposition day debate, they think up a subject that actually attracts the attention of their Members and voters, rather than something that is of peripheral interest to them.

  459
  I am glad that one or two more Liberal Democrats have drifted into the Chamber. No doubt, seeing the name of a Conservative Member on the screens, they have come to find out a thing or two about the subject that they themselves proposed to discuss. We will no doubt hear more about that in the next debate, which, in the view of all Conservative Members, is a particular waste of time.
  The lack of interest among the Liberal Democrats in the subject of the debate has been mirrored throughout England by their appalling results in last week's local elections.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I will in a moment, if I may just finish my train of thought.
  I think, in particular, of constituents of mine in the town of Wootton Bassett. Until last week, they had a Liberal Democrat town councillor, district councillor and county councillor. They now have a Conservative-controlled town council, Conservative district councillors, Conservative county councillors, a Conservative Member of Parliament and a Conservative Member of the European Parliament. That shows what the country thinks of the Liberal Democrats and today's debate shows why they think it.
  Mr. Tyler: In the almost complete absence of all his Conservative colleagues, I wonder how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to get up at all, but why does he think that his views on the local government elections have anything to do with genetic modification, unless he himself has been genetically modified, which may be possible?
  I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that, in 1995, his party lost more than 2,000 seats. Therefore, to regain their 1995 position and to have had any hope of forming the Government again, his party should have won 2,000 seats last week, which it patently did not.
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman addresses the House again, perhaps we can return to the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Gray: You are, of course, right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) has highlighted two things. First, he has not been here throughout the debate; he walked into the Chamber and thought to make a cheeky intervention. Secondly, he has not even read his motion, which has nothing to do with GM crops. The fact that he thinks that I should be talking about GM crops shows how little he knows about the debate.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber. He has already made one particularly inane intervention; I am not prepared to take any further interventions from him.
  Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I attended the opening speech in the debate and I listened
  460
  to much of the Minister's speech. I was called away on my parliamentary duties elsewhere. I should remind the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that I and my colleagues and I actually went to the WTO to discuss the matter long before his party woke up to the concerns that were being expressed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Gray: We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place.
  We are not talking about GM crops. That is a peripheral issue. We are talking about the real possibility that the world and our nation face a very damaging trade war. It is a trade war that damages not the European Union, our Government or us in this place, but businesses throughout Britain. That is what we are talking about. Today, there has been much peripheral talk about all kinds of things, but we must concentrate on the possibility of a full-scale trade war, which represents a threat to global prosperity—and, my goodness, global prosperity already has enough to worry about with the cold wind coming from the far east and Russia. One thing that we do not need is a trade war across the Atlantic between, as the Minister correctly pointed out, two of the oldest trading friends in the book: the United States and United Kingdom. We have been trading partners for centuries. That has nearly always been the case: there have been a few little local difficulties such as the Boston tea party, which the Minister mentioned. Apart from that, we have always been the best of trading partners.
  If there is an outcome to today's debate, it must be the reiteration of our determination to maintain those trade links across the Atlantic, and not to allow some of the current disputes to interfere with that. We must reiterate our determination that, where we see trade disputes on the horizon—for example, a dispute over air freight is definitely coming our way—rather than allowing them to develop into a gigantic trade war, we will find ways in which to smooth them over, to come to some agreement with our American partners as well as involving our European partners.
  In that context, I find the history of the recent banana dispute worrying. The Labour Government go to great lengths to tell us of their strong links in Europe and with President Clinton. The Government had the presidency of the European Union when the banana dispute was breaking. As far as I am aware, the Government never even mentioned the dispute in any of their public announcements during their presidency. They certainly took no steps to do anything about it.
  The Government wasted an opportunity during their presidency by not addressing the dispute. The net result is the $191 million worth of sanctions that the WTO has now allowed the United States to apply against the European Union. Of course, those sanctions have not been imposed on EU banana businesses but EU businesses in entirely unrelated trades and industries.
  The suggestion that that came as a surprise to the Labour Government during their presidency is nonsense. We know that, for six years, the battle has rumbled backwards and forwards and that the EU has consistently failed to comply with GATT and WTO regulations. The EU has said, "No, no, no—the United States action was

  461
  unauthorised". Although the EU is probably technically right that the US took action before the WTO had authorised it, the facts remain that the dispute has continued for six years, that we saw it coming, and that the United Kingdom, in leading the EU, took absolutely no action to see it off. The Labour Government have to answer for that omission.

  If the Government are so close to the European Union; have such good links with the WTO; and are leading in European matters, in WTO matters relating to the United States and in international affairs—although their recent lead in international affairs does not fill me with great confidence—they will have to tell us why they allowed bananas, of all things, to wreak the consequences described by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Although the banana dispute has been partly resolved, as current contracts have not yet expired, the dispute's effects will continue to be felt for at least another nine months.
  Conservative Members have already alluded to the dispute's consequences. We know, for example, that the cashmere industry has been helped out. Far be it from me to use the dreadful expression "pork-barrelling" in the Chamber, but it seemed quite extraordinary that a Labour Government who were terribly concerned about the outcome of the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections should go to such huge lengths to help out the border industries.
  A moment or two ago, in justifying the action, the Minister said that cashmere products are manufactured also in Bradford. Perhaps he thinks that that justifies the Government's action. Fine; if they think that that makes it all right, I apologise for having cast any aspersions on the Minister. Nevertheless, it is particularly peculiar that the Government should have gone to such great lengths to help the cashmere industry—even if there is one in Bradford—but ignored other industries, about which I shall speak.
  Mr. Battle: The hon. Gentleman's allegation was that the cashmere industry was helped in certain areas to damage the Conservatives' electoral prospects in the Scottish parliamentary elections. However, such a charge is manifestly untrue, as the industry is located beyond Scotland. I tried earlier to explain that there had to be intervention in the cashmere industry because—unlike in the other affected sectors—the sanctions were imposed right in the middle of that industry's buying week, which is a specific annual event.
  Mr. Gray: The allegation was not that the Labour Government were helping Conservative areas—we all know that there are no Conservatives in the Scottish borders—but that the Government were very concerned about the outcome of the imminent Scottish general election. In retrospect, they were right to be so concerned. They went out of their way to help Scottish industries, but not English ones.
  I should mention a few of the industries that will continue to be damaged by the US sanctions. They include the handbag industry; the uncoated felt paper industry—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh and think that those are only small industries, but other damaged
  462
  industries include those that manufacture folding cartons, boxes and cases of non-corrugated paper, and lithography. All those who make cardboard boxes, or any paper product, are being hurt, as are those who manufacture bed linen and other linen—of whom the Minister has made so light—lead-acid storage batteries, and electronic tea and coffee makers.
  All those British industries are highly profitable and are composed largely of small businesses. Entrepreneurs have established those businesses, often exporting their products to the United States. Now—because the Government were unable to resolve the banana problem during their EU presidency—those businesses face bankruptcy, redundancies and other problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned Beamglow, which is a very good example of the type of company being affected by the sanctions. It is a family company, employing 100 staff, with a £6.5 million turnover. It has just opened a new New York office, at a cost of £250,000. It has also invested £2.5 million in new plant, specifically so that it might be able to export to the US. However—because of the muck-up over bananas—Beamglow is being denied the right to export to the US. People precisely like those at Beamglow are the ones who are being damaged by the trade war. They are exactly the type of people to whom the Labour Government have failed to pay any attention. Ministers went out of their way to look after cashmere, but what about Beamglow, in Cambridgeshire?
  Mr. Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: Of course; I am happy to give way to my next-door neighbour.
  Mr. Drew: Is my near neighbour suggesting that some of the American tariff policies are of recent origin? As he may know, traditionally, American policy has blocked foreign aerospace industries from entering the United States. The latest policy is therefore not new, but only more specific. We should lay the blame where it belongs: the Americans should not be imposing the sanctions.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful for that intervention— although it was wide of the mark. Beamglow, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the aerospace sector. The dispute to which the hon. Member for Stroud may have meant to refer is the one on air freight, which I foresaw. As the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly know, the Americans are currently claiming that it is reasonable that American air freight companies should be allowed to fly to the United Kingdom, offload freight and then go on to Europe— which the Americans believe is one entity— whereas British air freight companies may not go to America, offload and go on to another American airport. Therefore, America is not only proposing a form of protectionism for its own air freight industry, but arguing that we cannot contest it.
  As I told the Minister a moment ago, the Government should not simply wait for the air freight dispute to come along and hit them in the face, but take action now to try to put it right. Ministers will say that they are taking action on it, but, as they know—although they have been ready to meet Federal Express, the largest American importer, and hold interesting talks on how it might be

  463
  accommodated—they have refused to meet the British Air Freight Transport Association. No meetings with Ministers have been possible, because they have been so busy talking to Federal Express.
  The Government must not take that type of attitude to dealing with international trade. They must realise that various issues are just about to come along and whack them in the face. They should meet representatives of the British industry and the American industry and find a solution to the problem that favours neither one side nor the other. I suspect that Ministers are at least partly culpable in not foreseeing some of those trade disputes, which have the most damaging consequences.
  Mr. Battle: Early-warning arrangements are now in place, and the Government played a part in their establishment.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and am glad that arrangements are in place. I very much hope that they work. This time next year, when we have another debate on trade disputes, I very much hope that it will be held in a spirit of cross-party congratulation on the arrangements.
  Mr. Battle: I doubt it.
  Mr. Gray: I hope also that no such trade disputes will have arisen. The Minister doubts it, but I doubt it, too. I fear that, in the next 12 months, it is unlikely that the Government will perform any better than they have in the past 12 months. But—who knows—this time next year, when we again debate the subject, we might be pleasantly surprised.
  I should like briefly to deal with the central issue of the debate—hormone-treated beef—and whether we should allow it to become a huge problem. I should say first that I am speaking as a Back Bencher, and as an hon. Member representing a beef-producing area in Wiltshire. I have not discussed my remarks with my own Front-Bench spokesmen on agriculture and trade. I should not in any shape, size or form claim to be speaking for the Conservative party.
  My own view on the issue of hormone-treated beef is a very plain. I find it curious that, of all the European Ministers discussing the matter, only one—the British Minister—took a different view on the issue. Only the British Minister chose to ignore the available scientific evidence on allowing imports from the United States of hormone-treated beef.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grins knowingly, as if he is about to tell me that he has no evidence that there is something wrong with hormone-treated beef. I shall quote to him from no less an institution than the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which has produced a very learned paper on the subject of hormones and their dangers. In words very much of one syllable, the report says that POST is extremely concerned about the health effects of such hormones.
  The report states that oestrogens generally are
  "linked with increased risk of endometrial and breast cancers in women and to reproductive disorders in men; they have also been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests.
  464
  Progesterone increases the incidence of ovarian, uterine and mammary tumours in experiments in laboratory animals.
  Testosterone may be carcinogenic in humans, having been linked with prostatic tumours in men; it has also been shown to be carcinogenic in animal tests."
  That is pretty clear evidence that there may be a danger in humans eating hormone-treated beef. Regardless of that, there seems to be a reasonable presumption that there may be some dangers in eating hormone-treated beef. Compare that evidence with evidence from the Government's own scientific advisers on beef on the bone—which they have chosen to ban.
  Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Gray: I shall, in a moment, give way on that specific point. Many scientists, quoted extensively in the paper, say that there may be health dangers associated with eating beef fed on hormones. The Government's scientific adviser went to some lengths to say that he thought that there was not much evidence of health risks from eating beef on the bone, but, like any scientist, he could not swear blind that there would never be any risk. Most scientists now reckon that there is a one in 2 billion chance of contracting a disease through eating beef on the bone. Whatever the Minister may be about to say about the POST note from which I quoted, the scientific evidence is clear that people are by no means convinced that eating hormonally modified beef is safe.
  Mr. Battle: People may not be convinced, but we should read the full report, not quote selectively from it. The hon. Gentleman is quoting scientific evidence of health effects from the POST note. He stopped reading before the following paragraph:
  "While few question the academic credentials of the evidence cited by the EU, much of it refers to levels of exposure many times higher than those likely to be encountered via hormone residues in meat. The key question is whether similar effects occur at these lower levels of exposure. Here the EU's position on the risks posed by hormone residues in meat seems somewhat out of line with the views of other national and international bodies."
  I do not have time in an intervention to read the following three columns that spell out the counter-evidence. The hon. Gentleman should give both sides.
  Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the Minister for his further quotation from the POST note. Those who are interested will doubtless be able to look at it in the Library. My main point was not that it gave convincing evidence of a health risk. My goodness, if we knew for sure, as the Minister seems to suggest, that hormone-improved beef was definitely bad for human beings, no Government of any complexion in any country would ever allow it to be sold. At no stage have I suggested that it is definitely bad. All I am saying is that the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology says that it might be dangerous and other scientists say that it might not be. There is a scientific debate about it. Almost nobody in their right mind—with the honourable exception of the Government—would suggest that beef on the bone was harmful, whereas many eminent scientists suggest that hormonally modified beef might be.
  More importantly, British beef farmers are facing the worst time that they have ever had. They are unable to sell their beef overseas because of the ineptitude and

  465
  inadequacy of the Minister of State at MAFF. Our beef farmers cannot export perfectly healthy beef, but the Government are saying that we should allow the Americans to export beef that many scientists believe could be very damaging to human health. There is something wrong with that. On behalf of the beef farmers of north Wiltshire, I find that worrying and disturbing. I am sure that they will have some powerful comments to make in the aftermath of the debate.
  Leaving aside the medical and scientific discussion, the Conservative party is wholeheartedly committed to free trade, in contrast with the Liberal Democrats, and perhaps the Labour party, given some of the comments that we have heard this afternoon. Freer trade in Britain means solving the disputes over beef and bananas. It means foreseeing disputes such as that over air freight. It means using influence in Brussels and Washington, not just talking about it, setting up a committee or putting out a press release. Too often, the Labour Government's approach to international problems is to do whatever will look good in the papers tomorrow. It is not about winning the battle of spin, but about addressing the difficult questions, not just in public, but behind the scenes. That requires careful, quiet diplomacy over long periods to solve disputes, not the headline-grabbing, "I'll have a go at them" approach to which the Government too often resort.
  From what I have seen of the Government's priorities on the issue so far, they are more interested in currying favour with Mr. Clinton and now with Mr. Prodi than in pulling off the gloves and sticking up for British industry, British jobs and the British consumer.
  3.24 pm
  Mr. Colin Breed: The motion and the Government amendment refer to the interests of the developing world. I should like to focus on that. Less-developed countries are just as vulnerable to the new biotechnology and to the way in which WTO rules will be interpreted. Genetically modified food has been heralded by many as an answer to famine and starvation in the developing world. It is said that enormous quantities of food from genetically modified crops could be produced in areas that are currently infertile. Apparently, drought-resistant crops could allow farmers in some of the poorest areas of the world to grow food to sustain themselves.
  That is laudable and I am sure that we all wish that it were true. However, I am sure that many hon. Members agree that some GM crops come at a dangerously high price. First, GM food is produced by a relatively small number of multinational companies. Ten companies control around 85 per cent. of the global agrochemical market. Secondly, the so-called terminator or suicide seed technology involves a gene that makes seeds infertile. In a GM world, farmers could no longer store the seed produced by the previous season's crops, but would have to buy new seed each year. That is clearly to the advantage only of the seed producers and the companies that own the patents and will increase the costs to poor farmers in third-world countries. Thirdly, GM crops are designed mainly for the intensive farming prevalent in western agriculture, which is inappropriate for the delicately balanced ecosystems of less-developed countries.
  466
  One of the other so-called advantages claimed for GM food is that it will reduce the world's damaging over-reliance on pesticides, allowing pest-resistant crops to flourish. However, far from relieving agriculture of the need to pour a dangerous cocktail of chemicals on to the crops, genetic engineering is tailored to reinforce farmers' dependence on certain chemical herbicides and fertilisers. GM crops are designed to work in tandem with specified pesticides, having the pest-resistant gene as part of the process of genetic modification. When the field is sprayed, all the weeds will die, leaving only the crop. The farmers have to buy not only the seed, but also the relevant pesticide. For example, Monsanto crops will be resistant only with Monsanto pesticides. That probably comes as little surprise to any of us.
  The proponents of GM food accuse those of us who may be more cautious of denying food to the hungry. However, there is a growing fear that the sated and wealthy are making money out of the hungry and poor, then threatening action through WTO rules to enforce the largely unproven and potentially dangerous science on unsuspecting third-world farmers. They argue that genetically engineered crops will feed the growing third-world population. However, this week's Christian Aid report on GM food and the developing world showed that to be a false and deeply misleading claim. There is already enough food to feed everybody in the world. According to the UN world food programme, there is one and a half times the amount required, but one seventh of the world's population—around 800 million people—still go hungry.
  Our supermarket shelves are stacked high with exotic products of all shapes and sizes from all parts of the world. Certainly, there is no shortage of food in south-east Cornwall—or, I suspect, in any other constituency in the country. There seems to be no problem in bringing food from far-flung places to our supermarket shelves. Yet there seems to be a distinct problem the other way round.
  In 1984, at the time of the Ethiopian famine, some of the prime agricultural land in the Horn of Africa was used to produce linseed cake, cottonseed cake and rapeseed meal for export to Britain and other European nations as feed for livestock. That was clearly ridiculous and, as a result of the famine, the EU—including this country—pumped millions of pounds of aid back into Ethiopia.
  The west has enough food to feed itself many times over. The problem is not quantity, or even quality, but distribution—getting the food that can be produced in ordinary circumstances to those who need it. Unfortunately, there appears to be very little profit in distribution, so few commercial concerns are interested and little interest is shown by Governments in tackling properly the problem of distribution.
  The very fact that those poor countries cannot afford the food to feed themselves adequately will not be changed by the introduction of genetically modified crops. If anything, it will widen the gap between the well-fed haves and the hungry have-nots. The developed countries can afford expensive biotechnological crops in combination with equally complex pesticides, whereas the developing world simply cannot.
  The Ethiopian representative to the bio-safety protocol negotiations, which were part of the convention on biological diversity, said:
  "There are still hungry people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry because they have no money, no longer because there is no food to buy."

  467
  The biotechnology industry's claim that its research is motivated by a need to feed the hungry is clearly unsubstantiated. Few of the foods so far produced are likely to benefit poorer people in the developing world.
  One of the main genetically engineered crops grown commercially in the United States is soya. Some 90 per cent. to 95 per cent. of the soya bean harvest and 60 per cent. of traded maize are consumed not by people but by livestock. The argument by multinationals in favour of GM foods—that they eliminate hunger—is simply wrong.
  The answer to the problem of feeding the burgeoning world population is not GM foods, or increased fertiliser use. Green techniques can adequately cope with the increased demand. For instance, in southern Brazil, 250,000 farmers using green techniques doubled both maize and wheat yields, while 200,000 farmers in Kenya increased productivity by 50 per cent. However, in India, to increase the grain yield by four times since 1950, fertiliser use has had to increase more than 200 times over.
  GM crops are being designed for western intensive farming techniques, and the impact on the delicately balanced environment of the scale of factory farming needed to justify GM crops is immense. For instance, Jules Pretty of Essex university cites evidence from 20 countries of 2 million households farming 5 million hectares in a more sustainable manner. They all use techniques that have stood the test of time, such as multi-cropping, reduced chemical input, local seed and using the knowledge, skill and experience of local farming. Those techniques are sustainable and suit the local environment.
  The introduction of single GM crops would necessitate immediately the greater use of fertilisers and pesticides, damaging the delicately balanced local ecosystem. Many farmers in poorer countries will be encouraged to grow cash crops. That is happening already, with supermarkets contracting growers in third-world countries to grow vegetables such as carrots—using cheap labour and huge amounts of water—and encouraging them to use GM seed where there are no restrictions.
  Those crops are not available or eaten by the indigenous population and contribute nothing to relieving hunger there. They only enable the foreign currency earned to pay the interest on the country's foreign debt, which is unsustainable, both environmentally and economically.
  A combination of aggressive seed producers and the purchasing power of western supermarkets is forcing GM crops on to less-developed countries, causing potentially catastrophic damage. With ever-growing public apprehension, particularly in Europe, more attention will be given to those less-developed countries. All of this is being reinforced by so-called free trade obligations under WTO rules, which I believe serve more the greed of western commercial interests than balancing and promoting proper trade which is fair and environmentally sustainable.
  It has been argued that genetic modification is merely an extension of selective breeding, something that has been used for thousands of years to influence which genes are passed between generations of plants and animals. However, the advent of GM crops is completely different. There is no longer a DNA river flowing and branching through geological time with steep banks confining each
  468
  species. GM crops are the bursting of those river banks, with such absurdities as tobacco modified with genes from the Chinese hamster. The DNA river is beginning to flood. Only prompt action and rigorous scientific testing can prevent as yet unknown damage occurring to the animals and plants of the world.
  It is essential that future negotiations on the liberalisation of trade fully take into account food safety, the protection of biodiversity and assistance for the economies of less-developed countries, rather than promoting the interests of greedy commercial companies that use their dominance not only in their trading practices but through political lobbying of the worst kind. Developing countries must be taken into account in the WTO millennium round negotiations in discussions on matters of so-called free trade.
  As this is Christian Aid week, it is an ideal opportunity to let people in some of the poorest developing countries take precedence, for once, over the agrochemical super-giants and commercial operations such as Monsanto.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely wrong that the Department for International Development is not represented on the Cabinet committee dealing with biotechnology? Should not the Government correct that omission?
  Mr. Breed: I am sure that the Minister will take that on board.
  It is clear that the WTO negotiations go wider than their original purpose of a few years ago. Unless the negotiations take into account the wider aspects of the way in which trade takes place—particularly between large, multinational companies—they will fail to understand what we will need to examine in future. Biodiversity, its affect on less-developed countries and the way in which some companies will use WTO rules to drive through their commercial interests will be the central features of what we need to tackle in the millennium round of negotiations.
  3.38 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate, as I have taken a great interest for months in the looming trade war. I am bemused by what I gather will be the Labour party's campaign slogan for the forthcoming European elections. Labour is talking about "Leading in Europe." This debate has shown that the Labour Government have woefully missed an opportunity to lead from the front in the EU on this matter—in particular, on food safety and our relations with third-world countries.
  I wish to make a personal comment about the next motion on the Order Paper. The House will know that I am still a part of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, which is referred to in the motion. I have been called many things in my time, but I do not think that I have been called "complacent" before. Nor do I think that the word "antipathetic"—or, as the Spanish would say, "antipatico"—refers to me. I much prefer the word "sympathetic", or "simpatico."
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) took a lead in showing that Conservative Members are much more in sympathy with the businesses

  469
  in this country that are concerned about the Government's lack of leadership, especially in the banana debate, and failure to give any reassurance to the Caribbean countries concerned, which are members of the Commonwealth.
  There is clearly an uneven playing field for our producers. I am deeply concerned because the Government appear to be all over the place on food safety. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the fact that the Government readily banned the sale of beef on the bone, without conclusive scientific evidence, yet still allow in imported pork that we know comes from animals fed on meat and bonemeal. A complete assurance has been given to the British public that none of the meat produced and sold here is from such animals, but the imports continue, and that is deeply worrying. The imports also place our producers in an uncompetitive position.
  The failure to lift by 15 June the ban on US beef produced with hormones means that further sanctions will have to be negotiated. There will be 100 per cent. import duties on a wide range of products, including pigmeat, poultry and tomatoes, corresponding to the estimated $500 million loss of earnings for the US cattle men. Have the Government considered the impact on UK producers of pigmeat, poultry and tomatoes, especially in the Channel Islands? What compensation might be offered?
  I pay tribute to Sir Leon Brittan, who has led the negotiations in Brussels. The Minister was right to say that the European Union will rely on scientific evidence. That is being considered as we speak. If there is conclusive scientific evidence—which I believe there is—that hormone-produced beef is bad, I hope that the Government will show some leadership for once in Europe and move to ban the imports.
  I would find it difficult to explain to both producers and consumers in the Vale of York that beef imports will be allowed in even though we know that there is conclusive evidence that the meat can be damaging to health. The motion refers specifically to food safety, but we must also consider what unfair competition there may be for beef producers. We do not have many in the Vale of York, but they will be very badly affected.
  I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Plumb, who for the past few years has chaired the parliamentary assembly between the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the European Union, especially when it meets under the auspices of the European Parliament. We owe a great deal to that body for its efforts to bring the two sides together, especially in the banana debate.
  The ACP agreements, through the first Lomé convention, considered sugar as a staple produce for many of the developing countries. We respect and admire the role that those countries play in the Commonwealth. Bananas are the only practical crop on which they can rely. We must not lose sight of the fact that the Canary Islands, within the European Union, produce the small, rather tastier and more delicate bananas that are preferred by the British consumer. I regret the fact that the Government have shown a distinct lack of leadership.
  A wider trade war is looming. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire referred to the air freight agreement. It is most unhelpful that Ministers have found no time to meet the British companies involved. No
  470
  British or European Union carrier is given access to United States routes—known as cabotage—for either freight or passengers, or is allowed to buy more than 49 per cent. of shares. The Government should take the opportunity to consider the fly America policy, whereby any US Government official must by law fly only on an American carrier.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch referred to the hushkits agreement. It was reached only on the basis of postponement for a year. There was a strong British interest at stake: we would have lost our Concorde flights to the US because the Americans refused to accept that their reconditioned aircraft are simply too noisy. Anyone living near or representing an airport with those noisy aircraft will understand the problem only too well.
  There are problems with bananas, beef produced with hormones, genetically modified organisms, hushkits and air freight. I yield to no one in my support for free trade between the EU and third countries such as the US, and I regret the increasingly protectionist moves by the US Government in their economic relations with the EU.
  I regret the fact that—contrary to the slogan that we will no doubt hear over the next three weeks, in the context of the European Parliament elections, that Labour is "leading in Europe"—there has been gross lack of leadership and the Government are reluctant to apply the right to ban hormone-produced beef, which is enshrined in law under article 36 of the original treaty of Rome.
  I urge the Government to show the House, the country and our partners in the European Union some leadership.
  3.47 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I make no apology for the fact that we have, for the second time in a short period, introduced a trade debate in the House. That reflects our recognition of how much our manufacturing and agriculture depend on an open trading system and the rule of law in trade; our concern about the threat posed by the current cycle of retaliation—there have been two major disputes—to large parts of our economy, including vulnerable constituencies; and our belief that the Government have a role and responsibility in the matter, because of our country's bipartisan tradition of support for liberal trade and because the Government, who, like previous Governments, are close to the Americans, can bring more influence to bear on the disputes than other European countries.
  The issue is important, as the Minister acknowledged, and we are glad to have the opportunity to debate it. We begin to part company with him on the seriousness of the problems. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) captured very well the exact nature of the threats that we face. The Minister was right to say that there has been some scaremongering. Some have cried wolf, and whenever a trade dispute breaks out, some people prophesy the imminent collapse of our trading systems. The Uruguay round went through two years of trauma, but eventually the disputes were resolved.
  It is possible to put a positive gloss on what is happening, but I urge the Minister to accept that the problems are serious, for several reasons, one of which is the fact the European Union and the United States, for very different reasons, are both behaving irresponsibly. The European Union is, to some extent, dragging its feet.

  471
  The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) accurately chronicled the history of the dispute. The foot dragging was partly for administrative reasons involving the slowness of getting 15 countries into line. There is also a highly reprehensible unwillingness to accept the rules of the dispute settlement procedures. That is unforgivable. On the other side, the United States, instead of waiting to see how the rules of dispute settlement can be implemented, rush in unilaterally, threaten sanctions, raise the temperature and make the problems worse. So there is blame on both sides, but it is a serious problem.
  There is a deeper issue here. The international trading system now has to cope with more difficult and irreconcilable problems than those that faced early generations of trade policy makers. In the past, disputes were about tariffs and quotas. We are now dealing with something much more subtle—with what happens when, in opening up the trading system, we run into national health, hygiene or technical regulations. We are familiar with that in the European Union. Quotas and tariffs disappeared long ago, and there is now a long-established practice of harmonisation and mutual recognition to get over the problems. At global level, we do not have that framework.
  It is easy to understand where the World Trade Organisation is coming from and why it tends to take a sceptical view of health restrictions. The classic case was Japan. The Japanese argued for many years that they could not possibly have imported beef because Japanese stomachs and intestines worked in a different way from ours. It was never clear whether they believed that scientific nonsense, but it was sustained none the less for many years. That provided the background to the somewhat sceptical approach to health standards that is often taken. The real danger is that genuine concerns about health are not taken sufficiently seriously. We are now seeing a generation of genuine health problems that have to be dealt with much more sensitively through international trade negotiations.
  The underlying principle of international trade agreements is that they must be based on sound science. The problem with that is that it is a slogan. The slogan is right, but science constantly evolves, there is no settled scientific consensus and scientists in different countries say different things. Genuine public anxiety may not always be scientifically based. That is our difficulty in responding to the real issues of trade policy and the World Trade Organisation has not come to terms it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) rightly sketched out how we could extract ourselves from the beef hormone dispute, but a succession of other disputes is coming. It suffices for the purposes of this debate to sketch out the principles for handling disputes. The first is one with which the Government should feel comfortable because they are setting up a Food Standards Agency. The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the architect of the agency. All major trading countries will have to have agencies independent of Government and the private sector to make credible scientific assessments.
  A second principle is labelling. The Minister for Energy and Industry has sketched out the Government's commitment on labelling. It is surely a matter of fundamental principle that people should know what they are eating and make an informed decision about it. That may require a strict labelling regime. We have seen that,
  472
  in the case of GM food, that is not easy, but we must insist on it as a matter of principle. It is a principle that the Americans have so far resisted. So a combination of independent standards agencies, labelling—in some case, obligatory labelling, but often it can operate on a voluntary basis—and international agreement backed up by dispute settlement procedures is the basic ingredient for preventing disputes from getting out of control.
  The Liberal Democrats have tried to press the environmental agenda over the years. One issue that is looming is the inability of the international system to enforce multilateral environmental agreements. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh has already referred to that. There is no reason why such enforcement should not be carried out within a set of multilateral trade rules. Many people who believe, as I do, in a liberal, open, free trade system believe that the WTO can adapt to the problem and build a set of safeguards into the rules without enormous difficulty. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are committed to the process and will take the lead in finding answers to the problem.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) referred to the problems posed by developing countries. In the past decade, there has been a big change in the way in which the developing countries see trade. Until the mid-1980s, many of them, especially the biggest such as China and India, maintained largely siege economies. It is now generally accepted that that was contrary to their interests. Many of them have now embarked on liberalisation, which is welcome from both their standpoint and ours. There are barriers to the continuation of that process, one of which is the fact that the western world is often highly hypocritical. We demand market access to developing countries, but we present serious barriers to their products, especially agricultural and manufacturing items. The developing countries then ask why they should comply with demands for, for example, social legislation that could be used as a barrier to their products.
  The concern of developing countries that is more relevant to the debate is that many demands for access are driven by narrow commercial interests. What my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said about GM foods needs repeating. It may well be that in the long term, GM seeds will be beneficial to a country such as India. I have an open mind about it. Certainly 30 years ago, the introduction of new agricultural technology transformed the economies and agriculture of the Indian sub-continent for the better. Perhaps the same thing will happen again. However, there is a crucial difference between then and now.
  Thirty years ago, agricultural research was carried out independently. For example, research was done at the rice institute in the Philippines. That provided confidence for Governments and private farmers to introduce seeds on a voluntary basis. That process will not happen for GM technology if it is forced through by western Governments at the behest of some of their corporate clients. If developing countries are to be helped to maintain a broadly liberal approach to trade, which is in their interests, it will have to be done in a sensitive way. The way in which the United States is approaching the matter is not helpful.
  In conclusion, I reiterate that the British Government have a responsibility and an opportunity to lead the international debate on trade policy. Britain has a

  473
  creditable record. Whatever our differences with the previous Government, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) played a distinct and positive role in helping the Uruguay round to reach its conclusion. One of the unsung achievements of the late John Smith was that at a crucial stage in the Uruguay round, when he was Secretary of State for Trade, he pushed through key negotiating points that made it possible for the international agreement to be signed. We start from a broad consensus in Britain in favour of a liberal trading system. We now have an opportunity to address the issues of food safety and environmental standards in a way that is compatible with an open system.
  3.59 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I shall do my best to respond on behalf of the Government to what has been an important debate. I have the biggest audience of the afternoon, but I am not sure whether that is out of interest in my reply or because people are getting their seats for the next debate, which is obviously much more important, between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party.
  Mr. Gray: Tickets are being sold.
  Mr. Rooker: I understand that that is the case.
  First, on the central issues regarding aspects of trade, I wish to make it abundantly clear that the rules of the World Trade Organisation do not stop the United Kingdom—or any country—from protecting public health through trade measures, where necessary. However, covert protectionism—the theme of some speeches this afternoon—is not allowed. If measures to protect public health or the environment are to succeed, the arguments must be based on some firm science.
  Secondly, the WTO rules allow countries to take a precautionary approach by adopting provisional measures where there is insufficient information, provided that a serious attempt is made to establish a more informed basis for action within a reasonable period. Those two points are crucial. They are the foundation of the policy and underpin our negotiations in the WTO.
  Mr. Chidgey: Does the Minister agree, in the light of his second point, that insufficient information is one of the EU' s key failings over modified beef?
  Mr. Rooker: Of course it is. I shall come to the three elements featured in the debate—beef treated with hormones, bananas and genetic modification.
  I shall deal with the hormone problem first. The present dispute has lasted a decade, as I have made clear. In addition, I made it clear—and I was not playing party political games with the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) when I said it—that the present Government have continued the previous Government's policy in respect of hormone-treated beef. We have not received any information or advice to cause us to change that policy. Nevertheless, we have gone along with the wider European Union decisions on the matter, and we have done our best to facilitate a solution. We take extremely
  474
  seriously, the responsibility to protect consumers and we attach paramount importance to their safety and that of the environment.
  The World Trade Organisation rules do not prevent us from taking action in that area, but that action must be based on science. The United Kingdom voted against the European Union ban on hormone-treated beef, on the ground that it was not justified by the science. Last year's WTO ruling came to the same conclusion. The Government will examine very closely the new studies released last week, and we will take independent advice as to whether they contain any new evidence that might alter the United Kingdom's view. That is consistent with our approach so far.
  It would be useful for me to make it clear that there has been no ban on US beef as such, only on hormone-treated beef. In 1996, imports into the UK of bovine carcase meat amounted to 2,847 tonnes; in 1998, the figure was 1,580 tonnes, worth just under £4 million. The trade exists, but it is very small and concentrated on the high-quality end of the market.
  It has recently been alleged that some of that beef was not hormone free, and the European Union has been in discussion with the Americans about that. Nevertheless, we have made it clear to both the US and Canadian Governments that retaliation against UK products is wholly unjustified. We want to deal with the matter calmly and objectively. Labelling is not the answer to everything, because labels would be attached only to products that were considered safe.
  Labelling would not excuse unsafe products: we would not allow products to be sold that we thought were unsafe and posed a risk. Labelling exists to give consumers an informed choice about whether they wish to purchase hormone-treated American beef, non-hormone-treated American beef, or any other beef. That is one of the reasons why the beef labelling scheme operates on a voluntary basis in this country.
  Mr. Gray: If it is so important that consumers can choose whether to eat carcinogenic American hormone-treated beef, or American beef that has not been treated with hormones, why does the Minister ignore consumer choice over beef on the bone in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has raised the matter of beef on the bone in about three interventions in the debate. I should be happy to defend the Government's position with respect to beef on the bone, but the interest evident in the next debate means that insufficient time is available. We have scientific and medical evidence that justifies the ban on beef on the bone.
  The chief medical officer's lengthy and considered report, published in February, stated that the matter would be revisited in six months. Given that no beef is sold that is more than 30 months old—to which must be added the gestation period of the calf—and that the only known cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy is maternal transmission, it is highly likely that there will be some advances in the policy. There is nothing new in that: we have said as much before. However, it is abject nonsense to argue that the existing ban is not based on scientific and medical evidence.

  475
  I shall turn, briefly, to bananas. The allegation has been made more than once in the past few hours that the Government took no action during our presidency of the EU on bananas. That is simply untrue, and I invite hon. Members to check the record.
  European Standing Committee A met on 25 March 1998. I was the Minister dealing with the matter for the Government, and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) led for the Opposition. He said:
  "The Opposition support in principle the path that is being taken. Clearly, it is right for the EU to respond to the WTO ruling. It should be recognised that, as the Minister said, the Americans have very much driven that result."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 25 March 1998; c. 18.]
  He went on to say that the Opposition "support the Government's approach."
  Indeed, in our time in the presidency, the Government succeeded in getting amendments to the banana regime from January 1999. Those amendments were challenged in the World Trade Organisation, and were found not to obey the WTO rules in all respects. That matter is now under active negotiation and discussion with all the interested parties, because we are not prepared to ignore the fragile economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
  We have a moral and economic obligation to ensure that we can find a solution to this difficult matter. I agree with some of the points made by Opposition Front-Bench Members about the level of American retaliation, which the arbitrator reduced from $520 million—with which the Americans had been proceeding unilaterally—to less than $200 million. As has been noted—and it is in line with the arbitrator's ruling—the United States has reduced the list of European Union products on which sanctions are imposed.
  We are proceeding as fast as we can to solve a problem that is very difficult, but surely not intractable in a civilised world. We want to establish a trading relationship that is satisfactory for banana producers.
  Mr. Chope: Will the Minister say what the Government will do to help the innocent victims of the banana dispute?
  Mr. Rooker: All the victims of the banana dispute are innocent, especially the ACP countries. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the House to come to order. There are far too many private conversations going on in the Chamber.
  Mr. Rooker: After the discussions have been concluded, we shall bring to the House our proposals for a solution to the problem. Beyond that I cannot go this afternoon.
  Many hon. Members have made points about genetic modification, trade and the Government's policy. Our policy on genetically modified organisms could have implications for our trading relations with the United States, but that is not so at present. Our primary duty is to protect people and the environment, not to take risks. People are not being used as guinea pigs, and we are satisfied that a comprehensive science-based framework is in place to regulate biotechnology and provide advice.
  476
  On 17 December, we announced a Whitehall-wide review of the regulatory process for biotechnology across the fields of human health, agriculture and food. I have told the Select Committee on Agriculture that we shall act on that before the end of the month.
  GM crops have the potential to contribute to sustainable agriculture, provide environmental benefits and possibly enhance the competitiveness of UK industry. Some people do not like that idea, but it is true, and we are not prepared to walk away from science that could do all that. We are satisfied with the rigorous safety assessments, although we always seek ways to tighten them or to make them as transparent as possible.
  Many hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), referred to the Christian Aid report. I want to record some comments made by Dr. Philip Dale, a senior research scientist at the John Innes centre in Norwich, in his response to that report. Dr. Dale has worked in the area for a considerable number of years, advising Governments in the third world and more modern Governments. He thought that the Christian Aid report
  "read like a tabloid newspaper."
  The same could be said about the opening speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh. Dr. Dale added:
  "I find it a useful rule of thumb that if an article is entirely negative or entirely positive it is more about propaganda than informing people in a balanced way."
  The same has sometimes been true of today's debate.
  Dr. Dale also said that concerns exist about the influence of multinationals, arguing that they must be watched carefully by Governments where necessary. The idea that a Government can never be trusted and that big business is always corrupt, while non-governmental organisations and campaign groups are always honest is highly prejudicial. It is ludicrous to base a policy on that position, but that was the thrust of the speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh.
  Dr. Dale—like, to be fair, Christian Aid—points out that more than 800 million people in the world are hungry although there exists one and a half times the food needed to feed the world. The problem is that the food is in the wrong place. We have to grow food where the starving people are, not distribute it to them as if they were refugees. It is possible that GM technology may provide the answer to that problem, once it has been checked out.
  In workshops in which Dr. Dale has been involved, people have told him that
  "agonising over the application of GM pest and disease resistant crops is a luxury of an overfed society. They argue that they are losing substantial amounts of their food to pests and diseases, and in some instances are trying to control them by using cheap chemicals that have been banned in many developing countries."
  That is how it is in the third world where people are trying to grow crops, often using second-hand chemicals that we would not allow. New technology may make it possible for them to grow enough food without having to pour chemicals on to it. We have to discuss and investigate that possibility, not dismiss it with tabloid headlines.
  Dr. Dale makes a final point about terminator crops, and we have made the same point before. No one ever mentions that the use of a terminator crop
  "in agricultural terms…is little different from high yielding hybrid varieties which also cannot be used to save seeds."

  477
  In those cases, too, seeds have to be purchased every year. Terminator technology may be an advance, particularly in northern Europe where we would not have to spray chemicals on people out in the fields in the following year.
  Mr. Chidgey: Do the Government support the sale of terminator seeds to the third world, and do they support the ability of commercial companies to take out patents on indigenous crop varieties?
  Mr. Rooker: There are no terminator crops at present. One would think that seeds were being planted. They are not.
  Throughout the debate, it has been implied that Governments cannot be trusted and that companies are interested only in the benefits to their shareholders, as if it were likely that companies would gain from planting crops that poisoned people. We are determined to make sure that technology is controlled and that consumers have choice. I wish that segregation existed, and crops grown in the UK will certainly be segregated. We will proceed with farm-scale trials. No free-for-all is planned. In fact a moratorium has been placed on that, as we have made clear in previous debates.
  Labelling and transparency will be ensured right down the chain. We are the only country in Europe in which, from September, labelling will be required even in restaurants and the catering industry. The Labour Government took that decision last August, not because it was requested in any parliamentary question and not because of any campaign in the newspapers. Indeed, our decision was not even commented on by the Consumers Association. We took that decision because we thought it right that consumers should have choice, and full labelling and transparency all along the GM food chain.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 300.

  Division No. 173]

  [4.17 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Baker, Norman

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brake, Tom

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Breed, Colin

  Oaten, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Burstow, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

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

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Chidgey, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Webb, Steve

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Willis, Phil

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harvey, Nick

  Mr. Adrian Sanders and

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mr. Paul Keetch.

  478

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Doran, Frank

  Ainger, Nick

  Drew, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov-try NE)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Alexander, Douglas

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Allen, Graham

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ashton, Joe

  Eagle, Maria (L-pool Garston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Edwards, Huw

  Austin, John

  Efford, Clive

  Barnes, Harry

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Barron, Kevin

  Ennis, Jeff

  Battle, John

  Fisher, Mark

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Flint, Caroline

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Flynn, Paul

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Follett, Barbara

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fyfe, Maria

  Berry, Roger

  Galloway, George

  Betts, Clive

  Gardiner, Barry

  Blackman, Liz

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Gerrard, Neil

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Borrow, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Goggins, Paul

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Browne, Desmond

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Burden, Richard

  Gunnell, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Hain, Peter

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caborn, RI Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cann, Jamie

  Healey, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Heppell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Caton, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hope, Phil

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Clelland, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hutton, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Coleman, Iain

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Colman, Tony

  Jamieson, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Crausby, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov-try S)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  479

  Kidney, David

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rapson,Syd

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rooker, Jeff

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Laxton, Bob

  Roy, Frank

  Lepper, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ruddock, Joan

  Levitt, Tom

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Linton, Martin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sawford, Phil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lock, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Love, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McNulty, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McWilliam, John

  Snape, Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Soley, Clive

  Mallaber, Judy

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Spellar, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stevenson, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Maxton, John

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stott, Roger

  Miller, Andrew

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stringer, Graham

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Timms, Stephen

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Tipping, Paddy

  Norris, Dan

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Neill, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pollard, Kerry

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pond, Chris

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pope, Greg

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pound, Stephen

  Watts, David

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Wills, Michael

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Winnick, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Radice, Giles

  Wise, Audrey

  480

  Wood, Mike

  Wyatt, Derek

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wray, James

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises the importance of open markets between the EU and the US, notes that in genera] the trade relationship is a good one; acknowledges the work being undertaken by the Government in seeking a solution to the banana disputes in a way that is World Trade Organisation compatible and is helpful to British industry and to those countries economically dependent on exports of bananas; welcomes the Government's commitment to find a solution to issues concerning US food exports that is good for the consumer, respects scientific research and avoids protectionism; welcomes the Government's commitment to consider sustainable development issues in its approach to trade issues as well as the interest of developing countries; and endorses the Government's support for comprehensive trade negotiations to be launched at the World Trade Organisation Ministerial meeting in Seattle in late 1999.
  Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received any request from the Home Secretary to make a statement on the extraordinary answer that he has given this afternoon on the Macpherson leak inquiry? As you know, the head of the Government's listening centre at GCHQ has been investigating the leak for two months. He concluded that the leak emanated from the Home Office, either from the Home Secretary, his Minister of State, their political advisers or a small number of civil servants. I think that we would all take the word of the Home Secretary, as an honourable man, that he did not do it. I do not believe for one moment that one of those few senior civil servants in the Home Office leaked it. We need a statement from the Home Secretary so that the House can question him about the involvement of the political advisers and his Minister of State and clear absolutely the few senior civil servants who are inadvertently fingered by this scandalous answer. I believe that the Home Secretary has today been making a statement on access to open government. The answer today is the biggest cover-up that we have seen.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): The right hon. Gentleman cannot use a point of order to make a speech. There has been no request from any Minister to make a statement. [Interruption.] Order. I can only state the facts as I have them. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's words will be noted by the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that ruling. It is a matter of record that the Home Secretary rightly made a statement on the Macpherson inquiry itself and rightly reported to the House when he interfered with the printing of The Sunday Telegraph when the leak was published. When the leak was clearly designed to destabilise the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis,

  481
  for whom the Home Secretary is the police authority, it is not satisfactory for the matter to be left as it is. I hope that our words will reach the Government and that they will make a statement.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no further point of order because I have explained the situation. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) has not raised a point of order that I can deal with but made a comment. Points of order should not be used to make speeches.
  Mr. Forth rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a point of order.
  Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I understand that matters of such importance can be difficult at this time of day. As the House is sitting tomorrow, can you confirm that hon. Members could seek for Ministers to come to the House tomorrow to give account of themselves, thus giving them more notice than we can today?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as any hon. Member the opportunities for Back Benchers to make such requests.

  Parliamentary Democracy
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 10-minute allocation for Back Benchers. The amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
  4.34 pm
  Mr. David Heath: I beg to move,
  That this House affirms that effective parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom and effective scrutiny in Europe depend on competent, coherent and constructive opposition; regrets the failure of the disunited Conservative Parliamentary Party at Westminster and the antipathetic and complacent Conservative group in the European Parliament to provide that necessary check on the executive, especially given their confusion over the future funding of education, policing, the NHS and other public services, Britain's positive role in Europe, and the achievement of necessary reforms of the institutions and policies of the European Union; and considers that the British taxpayer gets inadequate value for money from the Official Opposition.
  Even before I say a word, this motion has served a useful function because it has attracted an unprecedented number of Members to the Chamber on a Thursday afternoon.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: Let me say at least one or two sentences.
  The motion may serve a further useful function, however unlikely it may seem, by uniting Conservative Members behind a common position for a fraction of a moment. The previous motion failed to do so; they were here but did not feel able to express an opinion.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Heath: I shall give way to many hon. Members later, but I would like to make some progress.

  I want to quote a Conservative of some historical significance. I think that he is still kosher in Conservative circles. Benjamin Disraeli said:
  "No Government can be long secure without a formidable Opposition"
  He was right. Some have affected to say that this motion is unimportant and inappropriate. That is wrong. I challenge those who say that opposition in this Chamber is unimportant or trivial because it is only by the quality of the Opposition that we can test the mettle of the Government.
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing rose—
  Mr. John Bercow rose—
  Mr. Heath: I have a choice. I give way to the hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Laing: If the hon. Gentleman considers that opposition is important, about which I agree, why is he not today opposing the Government?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady poses me a conundrum. I have just gone through the Lobby to oppose the Government. She sat on her Bench not opposing the Government. Which of us was acting as an Opposition and which of us was omitting to perform our function?
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is eager, and will have his turn, which I shall enjoy, but he must wait.
  Regret has been expressed by some outside the Chamber that our motion did not specifically refer to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). They were looking forward to a debate on his performance as leader of the Conservative party. There are several reasons why we should not do that. First, in discussing the performance of political parties, we should deal with policies and the way in which they present their case and not with individuals.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. David Heath: I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all opinion polling evidence reveals that most Liberal Democrat voters agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) on the single currency? Is not this motion really about the Liberal Democrats' fear of their voters and their attitude to the single currency?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is always entertaining and has lycanthropic tendencies that amuse us all. If he wants to discuss opinion polls, he will find it instructive to consider the popularity of his leader, that of the leader of my party and that of the Prime Minister, even with their own voters.
  It is not right to criticise the Leader of the Opposition personally, nor do I want to provoke yet another of his relaunches. We had many from the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and now many from the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. They have had more relaunches than the Padstow lifeboat. They are getting to be tedious.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to another west country Member. My memory of the west country goes back a long way. I remember debating with the leader of his party when he spoke on behalf of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Yeovil in 1983. He puts forward the leader of his party as a model parliamentarian but how can he defend this quote from "Breakfast with Frost" on 15 May 1994 when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) told David Frost:
  "I was in favour of a referendum on Maastricht. Why? Because I do not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament."
  Mr. Heath: I have to say—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is very noisy indeed this afternoon. I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech and I want to hear it.
  Mr. David Heath: Conservative Members are doing half my job for me. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats have for a long time been in favour of a referendum on key European issues; we have always made that plain. Our party was the first to say that. I do not understand why the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) has a problem with that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is the third reason why I must not attack the leader of the Conservative party; it is the policy of the Liberal Democrat party not to do so. We do not wish to undermine the Conservative leader; we leave that to those who are much better qualified to do so.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, although, in listening to his speech, I fear that the odds are lengthening on his leadership bid.
  If the Liberal Democrats take their responsibilities in the House as seriously as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe, will he explain why the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats from their Front Bench at Business questions this morning, was accompanied by only one other Liberal Democrat Member on the Back Bench?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is assiduous in his attendance. He is always jumping up and down; he wags his finger and does a marvellous job in personal opposition.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Make him the leader.
  Mr. Heath: I fear that the hon. Member for Buckingham has no chance of getting on to the Front Bench, if he continues to be effective. Let us put his question in another way. On Wednesday morning, we held an important debate on the Prison Service. Why was not one Back-Bench Conservative Member in the House to discuss the Prison Service?
  I must make progress on the main matter: the lamentable job that the Conservatives are doing as the official Opposition. We can excuse them during their first few weeks; they were in shock and they were new to opposition—apart from those Members who had been opposing the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). They had to learn the job. We accept that; opposition does not come naturally to everyone. When you are used to the ministerial Rover, it may take a little time to adjust.
  I excuse their collective amnesia. If one is responsible for 18 years of disastrous government, you can understand why you want to put it out of your mind and why you want to forget all the things that you have done. It is understandable that they wanted to forget and move on. There is also a logical inconsistency at the heart of the Conservative Opposition; it is not easy to defend public services when you have spent nearly two decades running them down. It is not easy to portray yourself as the friend of the education service, the health service or whatever, nor to position yourself as the champion of local

  485
  determination when you have presided over the most centralising Government that the country has ever seen. Like the over-enthusiastic reveller at the office party, you dimly remember what happened; you want to forget, but, unfortunately, the rest of the office—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I certainly do not want to forget anything. The one thing that I have not forgotten is that the hon. Gentleman should not use the word "you", which implies that he is involving the chair.
  Mr. Heath: It was a hypothetical "you", Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, I would not suggest that you had attended an office party or that you were an over-enthusiastic reveller, in any circumstances.
  I accept that some individual Conservative Members, such as the hon. Member for Buckingham, show great assiduity in their personal opposition. They have been consistent in opposing. The only regret is they have been consistently opposing different things at different times and are mutually incompatible in their opposition. That is the real charge and our real problem with the current official Opposition. The Conservative party at Westminster—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Brady: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I am almost flattered. He talks about inconsistency. Will he talk about the inconsistency between the manifesto on which his party stood in Scotland last week and his party's preparedness to renege on a key pledge on tuition fees only a week later?
  Mr. Heath: I have heard nothing about reneging. [Interruption.] I have heard the Parliament of Scotland going about its business on Scottish affairs, quite separately from this place—quite rightly too. If we are going to talk about the Scottish Parliament, the hon. Gentleman may care to reflect that if the voting system that he and his colleagues advocated had been in place, there would not have been one Scottish Member of Parliament from the Conservative party. They have made not one ounce of progress since the general election. Furthermore, if there were a Conservative Member in the House who represented a Welsh constituency, we could talk about Wales and point out that there would be only one Member in Wales and that he would certainly not be the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. Not only did he lose his personal seat, but his vote has gone down since the general election.
  The real charge is that the Conservative party at Westminster is so divided, so incoherent and so unable to maintain a consistent position on almost anything that its Members are giving the Government an easy ride. That is the greatest failure—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the question of consistency in giving the Government an easy ride. Two months ago, the House held a Third Reading debate on a relatively small piece of legislation, dealing with blocking up a loophole relating to business rates. The Liberal Democrats voted against the Bill on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and their spokesman, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam
  486
  (Mr. Burstow) told me that he and his party would be voting against the measure on Third Reading. When the Government thought that they were going to lose the vote—indeed they came within 24 votes of losing—why did the Liberal Democrats abstain, on the instruction of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? Where is the consistency in that?
  Mr. Heath: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall can make his own points. [Interruption.] The uniform business rate system was introduced by the Conservatives, maintained by the Conservatives and it is now maintained by the Labour Government. Only one party has been consistent in its opposition to the uniform business rate—the Liberal Democrat party.
  The performance of the Conservative Opposition so concerned members of the press that, after six months, The Sunday Times concluded that the Tories had simply given up on Westminster—I think that was right. I have seen very little reason for The Sunday Times to revise its opinion. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: I have been giving way almost consistently. This must be the last time.
  Mr. Fraser: In a bid to help the hon. Gentleman out of the hole into which he is digging himself, and because it is the Liberal Democrats who instigated the debate, may I ask him to confirm how many times the Liberal Democrats have voted in the House in the past year, how many times they have voted off their own bat, how many times they have abstained and how many times they have voted with the Government, so that we can judge their record?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has the same access to parliamentary facilities as I do and I really do not see why I should do his research for him. Curiously enough, I do not know the answer to all of his questions and I suspect that not a single hon. Member present does.
  To return to the subject of the Conservatives' consistency, let me point out that, when in government, they were against labelling genetically modified foods and they did everything they could to speed up the introduction of GM crops, but now they are against them. The Conservatives have done the most remarkable U-turn on the fuel duty escalator: they introduced it, they agreed to it, but now that a few lorry drivers have arrived on their doorstep, they purport to oppose it. Their Home Office team calls for more police spending, but their Treasury team asks for less spending on public services, and they then try to reconcile the two demands. Simultaneously, in separate Standing Committees, Conservatives argued for capping in respect of the Greater London Authority, but against capping for authorities in the rest of the country.

  Consistency is not the Conservatives' strong point, even on serious matters, on which the House and the country have the right to expect a degree of consistency from Conservative Front Benchers. I accept that hon. Members have strongly held and differing views on matters as important as the crisis in Kosovo, but I have to

  487
  ask the Conservatives what their official position is. Is it the one stated by the Leader of the Opposition on 23 March, when he said:
  "Although we support the use of ground troops to implement a diplomatic settlement, we shall not support their use to fight for a settlement."—[Official Report, 23 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 163.]?
  Or is it the stance the right hon. Gentleman adopted yesterday, when he pressed the Prime Minister for precisely that use of ground troops and criticised him for delaying the decision to deploy them?
  That brings me to the subject of Europe. There are 162 Conservative Members in the House and there are at least 162 different opinions on Europe among them. No amount of papering over, no heavy-duty camouflage and no ducking and diving can disguise that brutal fact, which is why they get themselves in such an amazing tangle. Let us take the example of fisheries policy—a matter debated on several occasions in the House. Tory policy tosses and turns with every tide: it has drifted from the impossible to achieve to the impossible to define. On 15 December 1998, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said:
  "We need to bring back under national control our own fishing grounds".—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; Vol. 322, c. 844.]
  and he later said:
  "We shall be as resolute in demanding and obtaining those requirements as Baroness Thatcher was many years ago."—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; Vol. 322, c. 847.]
  Setting aside the question of whether Baroness Thatcher was quite as resolute as the hon. Gentleman says, is that a policy that commends itself to the rest of the party? It would appear not, because James Provan, the Tory Member of the European Parliament who is the Tories' fisheries spokesman there—there are two fisheries spokesmen, one in Westminster and one in Brussels—said:
  "Leaving the common fisheries policy is not an option that Britain can consider."
  That appears to be the view of the former fisheries Minister, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who advocates a form of zonal management. The Conservatives have a shoal of fisheries spokesmen, each dangling from a different hook.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is most unfair that conversations are continuing throughout the Benches—that cannot be allowed. It is not good that I keep having to stand up to ask for order.
  Mr. Heath: Something Conservative Members might find interesting is what appears to be a definitive statement of Conservative fisheries policy on 11 March. The hon. Member for Teignbridge said:
  "Let me make it clear, yet again: in our defence of the British fishing industry, we rule nothing in and nothing out."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 492.]
  There we have it—the Conservative position on Europe is that they rule nothing in and nothing out, because some would rule it in and others would rule it out and they cannot agree among themselves.
  Miss Anne McIntosh rose—
  Mr. Heath: The same is true of the Conservative group in the European Parliament, with the possible exception
  488
  of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is trying to catch my eye and who is unique in representing part of Yorkshire in this place and part of Essex in the European Parliament—I am sure that she reconciles those two functions admirably. I shall be happy to give way to her.
  Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I hope that he can help me to understand the motion. The word "antipathetic" is not well known in the English vocabulary; does he mean it in the Spanish sense of "antipatico"? When he criticises the Conservative group in the European Parliament for failing
  "to provide a necessary check on the executive",
  is he expressing a wish that the Conservative group in the European Parliament should provide a brake on the Executive in this country? I doubt that that is the desire of the majority of Members of this House.
  Mr. Heath: Obviously, I shall have to help the hon. Lady with her English. I must disappoint her: antipathetic is not the opposite of pathetic. It is possible to be pathetic and antipathetic at the same time, and the Conservative group in Europe does it so well. If the hon. Lady looks in her dictionary, she will find that antipathy is defined as incompatibility and mutual opposition. I cannot think of many words that better sum up the position of the Conservative group in the European Parliament.
  What are the three issues on which we might expect that group to adopt a coherent approach? The first issue is changes in the policies of the European Union. As we have seen, members of the group cannot agree among themselves, so how can they influence even other conservatives in the European Parliament? The answer is that they cannot, because they are completely ineffectual. Let us take an example.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: I will recognise the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let us take this example first, and then he can react to it.
  Irrespective of what one thinks of the euro, the debate on the launch of the euro, on 2 May 1998, was a historic one for the European Parliament. What was the position of the British Conservative group in Europe? Two voted for, three voted against, nine abstained and four did not bother to turn up.
  Mr. Steen: Now that we are on the question of definitions, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Liberal Democrats are the I Can't Believe It's Not Butter of British politics—yellow and easily spread?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman had obviously been preparing that intervention for a very long time and it would be wrong for me to try to top it, so I will not.
  On the European Commission, the second major topic for the European Parliament, where were the Conservatives when we held the essential debate on the conduct of the two Commissioners in question—when the European Liberals, Democrats and Reformers, led by that excellent man, Pat Cox, were leading the charge against Mrs. Cresson and Mr. Mann? They were all over the

  489
  place, as usual. They were split, they were unable to persuade their colleagues and, eventually, they went along with the fudge put together by Mr. Santer and the Socialist group on the European Parliament. The result was that the opportunity passed, and the chance to identify and get rid of the people who had abused their position in the Commission passed with it. I believe that the European Parliament will come to regret that.
  The third issue is that of MEPs' pay and allowances. On 18 June 1998, MEPs were asked—it is an important question, because that was the point at which we could start the process of getting MEPs' pay and allowances into line—whether a system should be established
  "whereby all allowances for MEPs reflect actual costs".
  That is not an unreasonable request, one might think—not something that one would oppose easily. Well, the Conservatives in Europe managed it. Four voted for it, eight voted against it, two abstained and four could not be bothered to turn up. I do not know whether it was the same four who could not be bothered to turn up.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Perhaps they were arrested at customs.
  Mr. Heath: I could not possibly comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  On 3 December, we had the introduction of the "statute for MEPs", setting pay and conditions and allowances. What was the reaction of the Conservatives in Europe to that? Two Conservatives were for it, 12 abstained this time, and four did not bother to turn up. [HON. MEMBERS: "The same four."] I have my worries about those four.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Since we have reached December, may I tell the hon. Gentleman that he is doing a very good impression of the man with the nice white beard who gave my young son a gift at Christmas? [Interruption.] Not, indeed, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Are the Liberal Democrats seriously trying to be an Opposition at all? What gifts does the hon. Gentleman expect from Ministers? Does he expect the reward received by the Liberals in my local council, Blaby district, who ran the district in a Lib-Lab pact for four years and, as a result, were thrown out in last week's election?
  Mr. Heath: One of the most memorable things ever said to me by a Conservative was in the chamber of Somerset county council, when I was accused of being a cross between David Lloyd George and Father Christmas. I have rather liked that ever since.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Which part?
  Mr. Heath: That is for the hon. Gentleman to discover. His briefing notes are clearly inadequate.
  Let me give one last example of the Conservatives' inadequacy in the European Parliament. On 13 April, for once, the Tories all voted the same way—all those who turned up. I suspect that four were absent. They voted en masse to support an independent report on the "Corpus Juris". Unfortunately, they voted en masse the wrong way.

  490
  Edward McMillan-Scott, the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, had to come to the BBC later to say:
  "Having discovered what it said, I changed my vote."
  He had not read the document before telling the Conservative Whips which way to vote, so the Conservatives all trooped into the Lobby to vote for something that was the opposite of what they thought.
  That is a measure of the consistency, the coherence and the ability of the Conservatives to do their job properly in the European Parliament. The Tory party is not a party that can provide proper scrutiny in Europe or persuade others to embrace the reform that is essential in Europe. It is a confused disgrace.
  The Conservative party no longer knows what it is for. Over the past week we have seen how confused it is about funding public services. It is in denial over its record in government. It cannot understand that others have longer memories than it does. It is chronically disordered and incoherent in its response to Government policy. It cannot muster the slightest pretence at a united policy on Europe.
  The Conservative party has elevated expediency to an art. Its answer to any question of policy is to ask the relevant Minister to resign. One day we will want a Minister to resign—possibly as a result of the revelations made in a point of order earlier—but no one will take the slightest notice when Conservatives call for that, because they do so every week. The Conservative party is, as we have seen, ineffectual to the point of peripherality in the European Parliament. It is failing in its duty as an Opposition—a duty that we believe to be important. I commend the motion to the House.
  5.3 pm
  Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move, To leave out from "opposition" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes with contempt that the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party considers it to be a constructive use of specially allocated opposition time to indulge in a petty and vindictive attack on Her Majesty's Opposition rather than to challenge the executive and hold it to account; and points out that, in so doing, a Party whose record of attendance and willingness to sacrifice principle for party advantage shows that it has no constitutional claim to the position and privileges which are rightly accorded to opposition parties in the parliamentary system."
  I shall deal first with the motion that we seek to amend. We owe a debt of gratitude to the Liberal Democrats today. They have given us half an hour of enormous fun. In their incredible motion, they have shown a way of raising hypocrisy to a new height. They have shown how to take the science of sycophancy to new frontiers, and they have broken all records in arrogance and sanctimony.
  I use those two words carefully. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has made a lifetime career of perfecting the arts of sanctimony and arrogance, yet even he has not had the gall to lead the debate today. He knows that there are

  491
  limits to the credulity of the British public, and he has left the jester's role today to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
  Mr. McNulty: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) has done very well as a jester.
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman's appreciation of parliamentary debate needs a little improving. I have never heard such a load of synthetic rubbish as we heard over the past half hour.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome got quite carried away and even sat in the seat of his rather more senior namesake, who is at least listened to with great respect when he addresses the House, but we should not be surprised that we find ourselves facing this motion today. We know that the Liberal Democrats, in their increasing desperation for recognition, have for many years been prepared to abandon all their principles, and even sell their grannies, to get a part share in the back seat of a ministerial car.
  Today, the Liberal Democrats have left their grannies far behind and gone one further. In an attempt to curry favour with the Government, they have quite simply abused an Opposition day. It is worth recalling that an Opposition day gives the opposition parties the chance to choose and debate a motion which holds the Government to account on the vital issues of the day.
  Opposition days, as we know and appreciate, are valuable and rare. There are many matters of great moment which we might have thought the Liberal Democrats would have chosen for debate today—Kosovo, the situation in Northern Ireland, or education, which they are always telling us they are so interested in. We might have debated health or we might even have had a proper debate on their European dream—but which, of all those important topics, have they chosen? None. Instead, they seek to launch a half-baked, ill-informed, misdirected and totally ineffective attack on us.
  The motion talks about
  "competent, coherent and constructive opposition",
  but the Liberal Democrats have launched this debate, which shows clearly that they are no Opposition at all. All I have learned from today's debate is that Liberal Democrats can be pathetic and antipathetic at the same time.
  The Liberal Democrats have been caught in a quandary. At this very moment, they are working out a coalition deal with Labour in Scotland, even at the expense of having to abandon pledges made in the recent election. They are, rather tragically, in mourning—I suppose that we should have some sympathy for them—because they have not even been invited to join a coalition in Wales. They long for Cabinet participation in England; indeed, I understand that they and the Government have published today their joint vision on a further sell-out of British sovereignty in Europe. They have not come to the House to tell us about that; they did not even bother to give us any indication of it in the debate.
  No wonder the Liberal Democrats have tried to deploy the smokescreen of this synthetic attack on the Conservative party in opposition. They did not dare take the Government on because they want to get into bed with them, but that will not work. Everybody knows that the
  492
  motion has been tabled because they are no longer, in reality, an opposition party or even part of the Opposition. The motion comes from a party that is now so firmly in bed with the Labour party that it has become little more than a shapeless lump under the Government's duvet.
  The Liberal Democrats talk about effective parliamentary democracy and competent opposition. What a time for them to choose to do so—they are effectively leaderless. Their leader has announced that he is going and I cannot say that his absence will be noted, because he is rarely here. His potential successors are at sixes and sevens on the direction that their party should take. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"' Even when the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was on his feet, less than half the parliamentary Liberal Democrat party was here to support him.
  We are told that the Liberal Democrat leadership campaign has not started, but I have never seen such manoeuvring as is going on at the moment—it gives a totally new meaning to the phrase "a fluid situation". There is even a chance that a Scottish Member of Parliament will become the leader of the Liberal Democrats; imagine the coherent and effective leadership there would be then. Such a leader would be preaching the Liberal Democrat mantra of more public spending on education in England, but would not even be in a position to influence education in his own constituency after the Scottish Parliament has taken over.
  Such a leader would be a part-time Member of Parliament who would be cut off from the normal day-to-day problems of our constituents, which the rest of us have to deal with. It would be very like having a party leader appointed from the House of Lords. Yet this is the party that seeks today to lecture us on coherence, competence and effectiveness. Let me make it absolutely clear that we will take no lectures on competence from the Liberal Democrats.
  Last week, the electorate gave their verdict where the Liberals have been in power, and where that competence has been tested. Worthing gave them the order of the boot, as did Horsham, Waveney, East Dorset and New Forest. The Liberals lost control of 19 of the 32 councils that they were defending; we gained 48. Last week, overall, the Liberals lost 160 seats in England and Wales, while we gained more than 1,300. That is the real test of competence: that is the electorate's verdict on Liberal competence compared with ours. Where the Liberal Democrats had a real track record on which to base their judgment, the electorate found that competence wanting.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's thesis that that is the real track record. Four years ago, when the seats were fought, the party of which the right hon. Gentleman is chairman lost 2,000 seats. The fact that it gained 1,300 on this occasion is a result of its winning back the seats that it lost when its Government were among the most unpopular in the modern history of Britain. Was that the correct verdict of the electorate?
  Mr. Ancram: I am glad that the electorate saw the error of their ways in the recent elections, having been taken in four years ago by the Liberal Democrats' pretence that they could be competent administrators in local government. After four years, the electorate have

  493
  now discovered—in the case of more than half the councils that the Liberals used to control—that, far from being competent, all they produced was indecisiveness and drift; and the electorate have taken the first possible opportunity to get rid of them.
  The Liberal Democrats know this. We have heard the excuses for the lack of a motion relating to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; but for days the Liberal Democrats have trailed with the media the idea that today's debate would constitute a personal attack on my right hon. Friend. After last Thursday, they suddenly realised that they would look more foolish than they normally do, and—if I may use a current expression—they have degraded their motion into the pathetic specimen that is now before us.
  Mr. Steve Webb: I hesitate to return the right hon. Gentleman to an issue of substance, but may I pursue the question of the consistency of the official Opposition? The deputy Leader of the Opposition made a speech in favour of public services in the context of health and education, and a few days later, sitting next to me on a public platform, repeated his plans to privatise pensions. Which of those views does the right hon. Gentleman think is consistent?
  Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should examine the facts more closely before making statements like that. He ought to take a little account of what is happening at this moment in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. In the words of the Paymaster General herself, the Committee is debating matters of vital importance to British industry. I understand that for most of the afternoon no Liberal Democrat has been present in the Committee, and that while the Minister was making her statement about the vital importance of the matters being discussed, one Liberal Member wandered in. That is the test of opposition. The test is whether the Liberal Democrats are prepared to get down to the grind of opposition, and to take part in Committee debates.
  For the Liberal Democrats to attack our record in opposition really takes the biscuit. The disparate bunch sitting on the Liberal Benches today represent the party that was so "coherent", to use their own word, that last September it turned turtle on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will recall the embarrassing climbdown of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is present now. During the emergency debate on the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Bill, dealing with the Omagh terrorists, the hon. Gentleman had to withdraw publicly his support for the Government's position when his attempt to ingratiate himself with the Government fell foul of his leader's arrogance. No doubt hon. Members recall his immortal words:
  "I am sincerely sorry if I have in any way led"
  the Government
  "to expect my full support for the whole motion."—[Official Report, 2 September 1998; Vol. 317, c. 728.]
  That expectation was based on the fact that the hon. Gentleman had appended his name to the motion. I suppose that he is going to tell us now that we should not regard the fact that the names of his colleagues are on today's motion as any indication that they support the motion.
  494
  This is the party that was so coherent before Christmas that, having spent the whole of the previous year demanding open list systems of voting for proportional representation elections, voted consistently against our attempts to achieve that for the European Parliament elections. It is the party that is so coherent that it continues to talk about its education policy in terms of 1 p on income tax, which does not sound very much, as opposed to telling the truth: it would mean that each average family would pay £150 extra in tax. The Liberal Democrats know that that would not go down too well.
  The Liberal Democrats are the party that is so coherent and honest that, even now, it is negotiating to make a deal with Labour in Scotland which will compromise the pledges that the Liberal Democrats made to the Scottish people during the recent election. Far from coherent or constructive opposition, that is a betrayal of those who voted for them in the Scottish elections. It is Liberal Democrat politicians behind closed doors cocking a snook at their voters, while abdicating constructive opposition, or indeed any opposition at all.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says that he does not know what is going on. He must be the only person who is not reading today's newspapers. One of the Scottish newspapers describes it as a sell-out. The Guardian describes it as a "fudge" by the Liberal Democrats, saying that they must have compromised on their position on tuition fees, when they gave a clear pledge to the Scottish people at the election. The ink is hardly dry on the ballot paper before their coherent, consistent and courageous party starts to change its position.
  What is clear is that no one is sure of the outcome of the negotiations in Scotland except in one respect: the Scottish people will not get the policies for which they voted. They will get a fudged compromise, which will be a mixture of the agreements arrived at behind closed doors to give the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) a seat in the Cabinet of the Scottish Administration.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend is being awfully unfair. The Liberal Democrats have been absolutely consistent for about 10 years: they will do anything, go anywhere and make any deal provided that they can get themselves the semblance of power which being in the Cabinet would give them.
  Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He sums it up well.
  What is worrying is that, having discovered in the elections in Scotland and Wales that, if they have the right sort of voting system, they can come fourth in the elections and still get a share of power in government, the Liberal Democrats now support proposals by Lord Jenkins of Hillhead to change our national electoral system. They are not satisfied with just trying to opt out of opposition in Scotland and Wales: they are trying to abdicate responsibility for opposition nationally as well. They seek to do that not by winning the support of the British people, but by creating a system that will keep them permanently in coalition without any great support. We will find that Scotland and Wales's instability today will be this part of the United Kingdom's tomorrow.
  Mr. David Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative party as represented in

  495
  Westminster has opted out of Scotland and Wales completely and that, in terms of council representation, it has opted out of Liverpool, Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester, Wigan, Gateshead, Knowsley, Salford, South Tyneside; in fact, out of almost every major city in the north of England?
  Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has deliberately left out Carlisle, which, after many years of being a Labour council, is under Conservative control. He talks about our position in Scotland and Wales. I assure him that my party in Scotland and Wales will keep its election promises in the way in which it conducts itself in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. The Liberal Democrats have already start to break theirs in both.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Before my right hon. Friend moves from his theme about the way in which the Liberal Democrats wish to gerrymander the voting system, is he aware that, in every general election since 1983, the total number of votes cast for the Liberal Democrats has gone down?
  Mr. Ancram: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which speaks for itself.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ancram: I shall give way once more, then make progress.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm two points of Conservative policy? First, is it now Conservative Members' position that, despite opposing the method of election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, they now accept it; their Members will take their seats in those bodies; and they recognise that it is a perfectly legitimate method of election? If so, and secondly, does the Conservative party now guarantee that, if it were ever again elected to power, that election system would remain in place?
  Mr. Ancram: On many occasions since the referendums and passage of the legislation, we have said that we do not like the electoral system created in Scotland and Wales. However, those are the rules of the game, and we play the game by the rules that we find. We still believe that first past the post is the right way of conducting elections in the United Kingdom.
  In their motion, the Liberal Democrats mention the word democracy—which is normally understood to mean rule by people—yet, in everything that they seek to do, they are attempting to create "Libocracy", which means unrepresentative nile by the Liberal Democrat party itself.
  Liberal Democrats lecture us on effective and constructive opposition, but I should put a few facts before the House. Liberal Democrat Members are such an effective opposition that, since November 1998, they have spent a grand total of 42 hours and 41 minutes speaking on main business. That contrasts with the official Opposition's 150 hours spent on main business.
  The Liberal Democrats are so effective in opposition that, in the 1997-98 Session, on major Bills, they voted with the Government two out of every three times. As my
  496
  hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) has said, the Liberal Democrats are so effective in opposition that, earlier this year, having already voted against Second Reading of the Rating (Valuation) Bill—and realising that the Bill could be defeated without their abstention, for which Labour would subsequently smack their bottoms—they abstained on the Bill's Third Reading.
  The Liberal Democrat party is such a constructive opposition that, until February 1999, it allowed the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) to sit on the Defence Committee, scrutinising the Government, while he was simultaneously working with the Government on their much vaunted Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee. If by "constructive" they mean simultaneously being both the scrutiniser and scrutinised, they have certainly achieved it. However, it hardly matches their pious words in today's motion about providing
  "that necessary check on the executive".
  The Liberal Democrats preach to us about opposing, but we have opposed, questioning the Government every step of the way. We warned of the anomalies that devolution would throw up, which we are now seeing with each passing day. We fought against the raft of regulations and burdens that the Government have imposed on business. We have opposed the tax increases that have been introduced by stealth. We warned about the dangers to the health service resulting from Labour's wrong priorities. We have spoken up for farmers, fishermen, road hauliers, parents, and small businesses. We have stood up for the people of the United Kingdom who are suffering because of the Government's actions. In short, we have opposed.
  Where have the Liberal Democrats been? They have been all over the place, except on one issue. To be fair to them, they have shown a coherent position on one subject—Europe. Their motion criticises our position on Europe and the conduct of our Members of the European Parliament. They accuse us of failing in several respects, particularly in reforming the European Union's policies. The easiest way of understanding what they mean by that criticism is to examine what they have done and are doing in practice.
  We know that the Liberal Democrats ignore the views of the British people and call for us to join a single currency now. We know that they want a fast track to integration. We know that they want a common European foreign policy, a common European defence policy and a common European social policy. Their ultimate aim is a common European Government. It is strange to say, but on Europe, they almost make Romano Prodi look like a reactionary.
  Liberal Democrat MEPs have voted for a common asylum and immigration policy and a common visa policy. They also voted for abolishing all border controls, and for ending the veto in justice and home affairs.
  What about social Europe? On 19 January, Liberal Democrat MEPs voted for
  "a genuine European social area to be established".
  It was to be based on the European social model, with social legislation
  "binding and to apply throughout the Union."

  497
  The motion continued:
  "Rather than allowing a certain trend towards deregulation, legislation must remain the essential instrument for enshrining social rights".
  Liberal Democrat MEPs have also voted for tax harmonisation. They want more environmental taxes and taxes on energy products. They want to harmonise European education systems. They want a pan-European electoral system and have voted for a motion calling for "a genuine European executive" with a view to promoting a union acting as an integrated, united and coherent body. In short, they want a United States of Europe.
  Presumably that is what the Liberal Democrats mean by being a constructive opposition in Europe. We want no part of it and neither do the majority of the British people. If they criticise us for not pursuing their Euro-integrationist dream, let them have the courage to come out openly in the coming European election and defend the policies that they have voted for in the European Parliament. Let them ask the British electorate for their verdict. We shall argue for Britain in Europe, but not run by Europe. Let them argue for a Britain submerged and subsumed by Europe, which is the logical outcome of their policies. But I am probably hoping for too much. I suspect that, as usual, we shall see the unedifying sight of Liberal Democrat candidates hiding their European light under a bushel for fear of being seen too clearly.
  We shall place our position on Europe clearly before the British people and we shall show how our MEPs have worked for that position. Conservative MEPs have fought a strong rearguard action in favour of a free market Europe, securing important successes. They prevented the quotas on non-European television programmes that the Commission had wanted. They frustrated socialist attempts to impose impossible burdens on business, including a policy last week on the distance selling of financial services. Those meat and potato issues are the work of the European Parliament and the Conservatives have been defending the interests of the people of this country.
  On fraud, the record of Conservative MEPs has been second to none. Two of them—Edward McMillan-Scott and James Elles—have done more than anyone else in the European Parliament to make the fight against fraud and mismanagement such a big issue. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was wrong about the record of Conservative MEPs in the votes on the Commission. The Conservative MEPs said no to signing off the 1996 accounts in the first move that set off the recent events. Conservative MEPs sponsored the motion to sack the Commission in January. Conservative MEPs went into alliance with the Commission's auditor-turned-whistleblower, Paul van Buitenen, to expose the scale of mismanagement in the Commission. Conservative MEPs pushed for Edith Cresson to step down immediately. Conservative MEPs are leading the campaign to ensure that the so-called caretaker Commission—better referred to as a cling-on Commission—packs its bags and clears out as soon as possible.
  We have a clear position on Europe. It is the position of a responsible Opposition. The motion is a sham. It is put forward by a party that is leaderless, rudderless and
  498
  without principle—a party that has been rejected in the country by those who have experienced its "effectiveness", its "coherence" and its "competence". Not only have the Liberal Democrats failed for years to oppose: today they seek to promote and join the Government whom they were elected to oppose.
  Many of us have known for a long time that Liberal Democrat politics and straight dealing have never been easy or close companions. The motion is a second-rate motion from a second-rate party. It does nothing for democracy and even less for the party's reputation. If I am ever again asked to define the words "rank hypocrisy", I should be hard pressed to find a better example than the motion. I ask the House to reject it with the contempt that it deserves and to support our amendment.
  5.29 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I hope that I shall not give offence by saying that I have never heard a more inconsequential set of speeches made in the House of Commons on the subject, allegedly, of our role as a Parliament in our system of government. I say that without offence because I do not want to join in the exchange of abuse.
  I hope that the Hansard of today's debate is not made available to our troops and airmen involved in the war in Kosovo. Most hon. Members know that, over recent years and for a variety of reasons, Parliament has become less and less relevant to decision making in our society. To avoid following the pattern of the previous speakers, I should point out that the process of bypassing Parliament; the centralisation of power; the use of patronage; and the use of the royal prerogative to avoid serious debate began under earlier Governments and is being continued under the present Government.
  I wish to speak about the relevance of this debate to next Tuesday's debate on Kosovo. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have asked on a number of occasions—the request has been echoed by Opposition Members—for the House of Commons to be allowed to express its view on this major war, which is involving not only our service men but their families, and which will cost the people of this country a great deal. The Government have consistently refused to allow that.
  I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—whom I have known and worked with closely over the years—whether we could have a vote. In reply, on 22 April, she said that
  "although I well understand the express wish of Members on both sides of the House for a decision-making procedure of the type that he describes and suggests, there is no precedent for that in the House."—[Official Report, 22 April 1999; Vol. 329. c. 1053.]
  That is to say that the present Government, who are committed to modernisation, are basing their decisions on the mediaeval principle that the question of going to war is a matter of royal prerogative—and so indeed it is.
  I looked back to the journals of the House for 1621—a month or two before I got here—when James I sent a direction to the House of Commons that it had no business discussing foreign or defence policy. The House passed a protestation, and the King then dissolved Parliament. The question whether the legislature has any role in the conduct of foreign and defence policy must concern people who take different views in this House.

  499
  Some of my hon. Friends are in favour of the deployment of ground troops and of stepping up the bombing, and should be allowed to express that view in the Lobby. Others, such as myself, think that the venture was ill judged, ill thought out and has failed. I should be allowed to express that view, on behalf of the people who elected me. A vote could then take place. If we are to discuss parliamentary democracy—as distinct from this debate between the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, which may have been fun for them but was not for me—we ought to discuss that matter.
  For our children, we describe ourselves as a democracy. I always attend state occasions and, in this House, we talk about a parliamentary democracy. When the Queen makes a speech, she does not mention either word—she says that we are a constitutional monarchy. There is all the difference in the world between a democracy, a parliamentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy. The reason why the Queen says that is that Parliament cannot be called without a writ inviting the returning officers to return Members. When we meet, I have to tell a lie to sit in this House—I must say:
  "I swear by almighty God that I will bear faithful and true allegiance".
  I do not believe that—I am a republican. Every Minister must swear an oath of allegiance. The Privy Councillors's oath is even worse. They must say that they will defend the monarch from "foreign prelates, potentates and powers". When they go as Commissioners to Brussels, Privy Councillors take another oath, and say that they will take no notice of any nation that might put pressure upon them. These may not seem to be significant questions, but they become so when a war occurs and we are not consulted.
  I wish to refer to the growth in patronage. All Prime Ministers appoint all the bishops; why cannot the Church of England have the confidence to choose its own leaders? Why cannot we select or vet judges in the way that the Senate does in the United States? The Prime Minister has just appointed a new Commissioner to Brussels who, I understand, is not even the choice of the Conservative party. He has used his patronage to appoint a Conservative representing a different view, but that is the practice. All Ministers are appointed and dismissed by the Prime Minister.
  If the Labour evidence given to the royal commission on the reform of the House of Lords is to be believed, all the House of Lords is to be appointed. Some wonder whether it is not the intention to appoint the whole House of Commons, but we have not reached that stage yet. It is certainly true that the use of party patronage in choosing a First Minister in Wales or a mayor in London, or disposing of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), shows a desire to control everything.
  Everyone with power wants to do that, so we must ask not why they do it but why we accept it. The House has the capacity to do something about it. I introduced the Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill—
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Benn: I hope that this will not cut into my time.
  Mr. Blunt: The right hon. Gentleman is debating parliamentary democracy, but he is not speaking to the
  500
  motion. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on whether we should be debating the motion or the short title, as chosen by the party that chose the motion. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the short title is most misleading.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): First, let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there is injury time, so he has not lost out as a result of the point of order.
  I have not heard anything out of order so far. There is a broad title to the debate, and I shall naturally listen to all hon. Members to ensure that they stay within it.
  Mr. Benn: It would be difficult for me if discussing parliamentary democracy in a debate under that heading were itself ruled out of order. If I ever left Parliament it would be to devote more time to politics, because it is very difficult to be in the House and have any political role.
  The Crown Prerogatives (Parliamentary Control) Bill was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow, for Preston (Audrey Wise) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson); by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews); by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster); by the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman); and by the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). That is broad support. Even the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) signed an early-day motion calling for the Commissioners to be approved by the House of Commons.
  Trying to be constructive, I consulted the 17th-century precedents, when the abuse of Executive power had reached similar proportions, and decided that we should send a humble address to Her Majesty. I have drafted it, and I would be grateful for support from all parties. I have written to certain Privy Councillors.
  The draft reads:
  "To Move:
  That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Royal Prerogatives relating to the making of war and the commitment of the Armed Services to the present military operations in the Balkans be now placed at the disposal of the House of Commons for the purpose of permitting Members of Parliament to debate and vote upon a substantive Motion on the merits of that policy and any alternative Motions that might be moved designed to lay the foundations of a just and peaceful settlement in line with Britain's international obligations."
  I wish that this debate was about our role. The media have taken over. The governor of a central bank, not elected by proportional representation, although one might have expected that from those who favour it, is coming along, as is Rupert Murdoch. They are squeezing us. They do not report us. I hope that they do not report the early speeches in this debate, because they did the House no credit. I say that from the depth of my feeling.
  We must restore parliamentary democracy in Britain before it is ultimately squeezed out. I genuinely fear that, so I hope that the speeches that follow will not be a further exchange of hustings schoolboy abuse but will try

  501
  seriously to address the question that must concern us all: have the House of Commons and the people whom we represent any role whatever in the decisions that matter in our lives, or are we merely spectators of our fate, and not participants in the future that we want to shape?
  5.39 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Although I do not share his view on Kosovo, he expressed precisely the concern that I have felt in the two years that I have been on the Back Benches in opposition. I have been a Minister for almost my entire parliamentary career. I was determined to retain my seat in Parliament and act in a constructive and responsible way in opposition. I have been appalled that many of the conventions that were familiar when the Conservative party was in government have been eroded and that the role of Parliament has been diminished. I have been appalled by the use of patronage, the culture of the control freak, the manipulation of the media and the abuse of the House of Commons to the extent that statements are leaked and consideration of legislation is taken away from this Chamber. Patronage has moved to a new level.
  The Liberal Democrats' motion comes at a time when there is a greater need than ever before to check the tyranny of the Executive. The Labour party was understandably desperate for power after 18 years. The disciplines of the control freaks have been applied ruthlessly in government. The activities of the No. 10 policy advisers around Westminster and Whitehall are legion. It has been embarrassing to behold the Liberals, who officially believe in parliamentary democracy, using their motion for a childish attack on the official Opposition when they themselves have sold out the role of opposition because they are so desperate for government. They have played a sycophantic, embarrassing charade in breaking through and joining a Cabinet Committee. The people who most despise that behaviour are the Liberal voters.
  I was moved to respond directly to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield because I have a growing appreciation of his concern that Parliament will become progressively more irrelevant. I am extremely alarmed by the use of referendums bounced through without proper debate. I support and endorse the Neill committee's condemnation of the Government for so tilting the argument about, and the funding of, the Welsh referendum. It is the duty of the Opposition to hold the Government to account and scrutinise in whatever ways we have left to us the way in which they make decisions and the probity of their behaviour.
  Last weekend, many important articles appeared which got to the heart of what motivates the new Labour team. Andrew Marr talked not about the politics of contentment, which apparently is a way of stirring up apathy—the real winners of the elections last week were the apathetic and disinterested—but about prozac politics: the refusal of the Government to expose issues to honest and open debate. The Government walk into things without knowing what to do next. The launch is the product. It is all about the launch. Whether it is devolution or, tragically, the situation in Kosovo, reform of the House of Lords or whatever, we have the launch but then no one seems to
  502
  have any idea about what happens next or how to take the issue forward. We should be able to look to the Liberal Democrats to assist us in our work of rigorous examination of the Government's behaviour and policy-making processes.
  The debate has been called by the Liberal Democrats on a most curious occasion. It is one week since a great number of us joyfully took control of previously Liberal Democrat-controlled councils. My council is one of the six in which the Conservatives took control from the Liberal Democrats. I am delighted that Worthing was another such council. Eight of the 75 Liberal Democrat seats that were lost last week were in Waverley; 12 of the 1,345 Conservative seats that were gained were in Waverley.
  I felt that the House would want to know what Liberal Democrats were like in government. In Waverley, they could not have been described as coherent, constructive or responsible. Indeed, there was an overwhelming desire there to be rid of the Liberal Democrats, who were wasteful, profligate and, above all, secretive. The more they spoke about openness, the less openness they provided. They engaged in empire building, and the management of their different projects was deplorable.
  The irony for me, in following the speech of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), is that the Liberal Democrats in my constituency go around saying that they blame Labour for losing the election. However, those same Liberal Democrats made no effort to resist the appalling treatment that the home counties have received at the hands of the Government. There have been vindictive and deplorable settlements on local government and health spending, but apparently they have been supported by the Liberal Democrats. In my constituency and others, their approach to expenditure on roads is different from what they profess elsewhere when they ignore the appalling transport problems of the A3 at Hindhead.
  I urge the Liberal Democrats, at this time above all others, to take up the obligations and duties of opposition and help us to hold the Government to account. This Government want their members to be on pager control and to speak on-message on all possible occasions. In an extraordinarily ruthless and professional way, the Government insist on placing their spokesmen—and their friends and cronies—in positions of responsibility and influence. The Minister shakes her head, but I shall be happy to give her a number of examples, the most glaring of which involves a person who time and again was rejected for a health appointment. When he made it clear that he had been a lifelong Labour supporter and party member, he was given an appointment at a local health trust within a fortnight.
  Mr. Phil Woolas: How does the right hon. Lady square what she has said with the appointment of Chris Patten to the European Commission?
  Mrs. Bottomley: It is not remotely difficult to square the two propositions. I was Chris Patten's Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I think that he is an excellent appointment. The Opposition may submit names for the post of European Commissioner, but it is for the Government to select one. Chris Patten, as chairman,

  503
  guided the Conservative party to victory at the 1992 general election, when the party gained a million more votes than the Government managed in 1997. I believe that he will conduct his duties with great distinction.
  The task now is to ensure that, before Britain and its national interests are eroded beyond repair, the Conservative Opposition secures the co-operation of the Liberal Democrats, who at present show only sycophancy towards the Government. We must build on our successes of a week ago.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am pleased to follow the two previous speakers, who have greatly elevated the debate. I was disappointed when the debate began, as I had expected a debate on parliamentary democracy to be a grand occasion, with stirring speeches being made. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) have raised the tone of the debate considerably. That said, I disagree with each of them almost equally, but that is parliamentary democracy.
  If there is a serious point in the motion—it is difficult to detect one—it is about effective scrutiny. We have heard something of Kosovo, and I shall say more later, but I was impressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's generous and principled response yesterday to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), in which he affirmed the importance of questioning, even in war.
  When I hear the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey and read newspaper reports about Labour Members being enslaved to their pagers, I wonder whether they are facing reality. I have a pager. In fact, it is vibrating away as I speak, which is quite delightful. It usually tells me that there is a Division in the Commons while I am waiting in the Lobby to vote. The nicest touch of all is that, as I wend my way home, it says, "Goodnight and God bless from the Chief Whip"—or words to that effect.
  As a Member of only two years' standing, I honestly do not recognise all the talk about control freaks. As a Back Bencher and as a member of the parliamentary Labour party, I have dissented in the past, and I am dissenting now about crucial aspects of Government policy. In my experience, honest dissent and principled disagreement are acknowledged. People are listened to, and attempts are made to accommodate one's point of view and to reconcile it with policy.
  Another important element of parliamentary democracy—the bottom line, as it were—is that parties which trumpet their policies in manifestos before elections should keep their promises. The Government are keeping their promises. Waiting lists are coming down. Class sizes are being reduced. Crime and disorder is being tackled. We have a new deal for young people, and a stable, sustainable economy. On the reform of the House of Lords, progress has been made that has been dreamt of for 100 years. Devolution has happened. Real progress is being made for those who struggled through 18 dreadful years of Conservative rule.
  Tories talk about oppression by the Labour Government, but anyone who experienced life beyond Parliament during the 18 years of Conservative Governments knew what oppression was. I
  experienced
  504
  oppression. Almost on the day on which I was promoted in my local government job, a Conservative councillor tried to have me disqualified from my elected position as a councillor because I had reached a certain salary level.
  As a social worker, I experienced the poverty and powerlessness of oppressed people throughout 18 years in which the previous Government dictated to local authorities and ordinary people. Conservative Members have nothing to teach the Labour party about parliamentary democracy.
  Those of us who yearned for a Labour Government know how important it is to people that this Government are keeping their promises. It is essential that voters can trust that politicians, when elected, will be prepared to do what they said they would do. This Government are to be utterly and heartily commended for keeping their promises. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House can acknowledge the importance and truth of the need to keep faith with the electorate.
  Mr. Blunt: What advice would the hon. Gentleman give the Liberal Democrats in Scotland on their election manifesto promise on tuition fees?
  Mr. Dawson: I have no interest in intruding in the trivial spats between the two disappointed groups of people on the Opposition Benches. I want to stay on the subject of parliamentary democracy and to discuss representation in this House. It is my experience that people want us to be representatives—
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of coalition with the Liberal Democrats or not?
  Mr. Dawson: I am talking about parliamentary democracy and the representation of the people. I have no interest in entering into the argument with which hon. Members demeaned the beginning of this important debate.
  The electorate are looking for representatives in the sense of Edmund Burke—people of conscience. They are certainly not looking for delegates, but for people who value all their constituents, especially, perhaps, those whose views are contrary to their own. The electorate value representatives who listen and learn—whose views and speeches in this place are enriched by the knowledge and experience of those whom we are privileged to represent.
  I smiled when the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was protesting—
  Mr. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dawson: I am sorry, but I intend to continue. The Conservative spokesman was talking about all the great campaigns that Conservative Members have fought during the past two years and how they are the party of the countryside and of business.
  I have long known that many urban areas are out of bounds to Conservatives, or at least to those who do not relish close encounters with fierce dogs or fierce constituents. However, in a constituency one part of which had been represented by a Conservative Member

  505
  for 27 years and another part of which had never had other than a Conservative Member, I have been amazed that farmers, parish councillors and people who would otherwise be described as the bastions of the countryside have told me, disarmingly and honestly, "Actually, we didn't vote for you, but at least you've turned up, talked to us and listened, unlike the other so and sos. We never saw them from one election to the next."
  That phenomenon is not confined to the Lancaster and Wyre constituency. Colleagues from throughout the country have reported the same thing—Conservative Members who have complacently neglected the most basic element of parliamentary democracy, which is to get out and listen to what the people are saying.
  However, it is not about representative democracy, but taking opportunities to put people directly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The Conservative party seemed to think that this was a trivial motion but, contrary to their expectations, the debate has been better attended by Conservative Members than were their own debates on Tuesday. I welcome them to the Chamber.
  Some serious points have been made already, and I hope to add to them. I am anxious to follow the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). When I was a young and impressionable student, I campaigned on his behalf in a Bristol by-election. At that time, Conservatives, Liberals and Labour supporters came to his aid because we felt that the sovereignty of the people was more important than the extraordinary, outdated rules that prevented him from taking his seat in this House. I do not think that I have confessed that to him before and I hope that he will not hold it against me.
  Some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield are germane to this debate and relate to the motion. It is not only that I agree with him about the disestablishment of the Church of England—which, as a good Anglican, I think would release the Church—nor because I agree with him about the royal prerogative. One of the most significant things about our Parliament is that it has responded and evolved throughout history. I have confessed to the hon. Gentleman before that I am a descendant of Oliver Cromwell. When he mentions the 17th century, I follow his history lesson with interest, but I remind him that British politics has evolved since then. It is no longer roundheads and cavaliers, Whigs and Tories or 19th century Liberals and Conservatives. The House and the country have a multi-party system. It is precisely because we have a different political system on the eve of the 21st century that this Parliament must mature and catch up with the rest of the body politic.
  It is good fun this afternoon, as it was yesterday at Prime Minister's questions. American viewers no doubt enjoy the mock mediaeval jousting match that they see on Sunday as late-night entertainment. However, in terms of achieving things, that is all out of date. There is a serious point to our motion. The Conservatives must adapt to a different type of politics.
  506
  What is the new politics? The new politics says that effective opposition is selective opposition, not opposition for opposition's sake. The only time that the Government have come within a hair's breadth, or even several miles, of being defeated in this Parliament was when the Conservatives, had they voted with the Liberal Democrats and Labour rebels, could have defeated the Government over single parents. The Conservatives were logical in supporting the Government because it was their Bill. I do not blame them for that, but they must understand that in this Parliament, simple frontal attacks will achieve nothing. Last night, I spent some time trying to think of a single Conservative achievement in this Parliament.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, will he now define consistency?
  Mr. Tyler: The Conservative party was consistent on that occasion. It supported the Government on that proposal because it had its origins in a Conservative Bill. I have no objection to that. I object to the corporate amnesia to which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred and to Conservative Members' constant attacks. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) was a member of the Cabinet that imposed capping on local authorities yet she complained this afternoon. I reject such examples of the rank hypocrisy to which the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred.
  It is difficult to think of a single instance in this Parliament where the Conservative Opposition have achieved anything. Surely we come here not just to stand up for people and make a noise but to achieve things. I know that the far left and far right resent it, but more of the Liberal Democrat agenda on constitutional reform in our 1997 manifesto has been put in place by the Government than ever appeared in a Labour manifesto. I take pride in that and give credit to the Labour party for it. That is what politics must be in future. It must not be the politics of opportunism or automatic opposition but the politics of influence and achieving things, of making real reforms to our country.
  As has been said, it is true that this morning we succeeded in reaching some agreement with the Government about important reforms to the institutions of Europe to ensure that we have an effective NATO and defence policy. I regard that as an achievement. Why is compromise such a dirty word in this extraordinary place? The only reason is that we are hung up on the two-party nonsense that was created by fact that in the reign of Edward IV, as the right hon. Member for Chesterfield may recall, the King had a redundant chapel. It had Benches like those on which we sit and it was handed to the House of Commons. The two-party arrangement is an anachronism and has been one for a long time. It will continue to be an anachronism while we have a multi-party state.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Should Labour Back Benchers be represented on the joint Cabinet consultative committee?
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is true that he and other Labour Members have less influence than the Liberal Democrats over Members on the Treasury Bench. However, the fact is that there are

  507
  many more voters for our style of politics than for his. That is a fact of life. Furthermore, I remind the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey that, last week, our poll figures went up from 17 per cent. to 27 per cent.—that was a real poll, not one that was taken by the pollsters. I have no problem with that.
  After two years, the House has an opportunity to take stock and to understand that we are now in a multi-party state. Even in Chesterfield, there is a multi-party state, because the Liberal Democrats won several seats from the party of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield. Surely, that is healthy local democracy. We must realise that the House will have to find different ways of ordering its business. That is what the motion is all about. The Conservative party must realise that, in this new situation, opposing merely for opposition's sake is not sufficient. That is why we say that the Conservatives must look again at their tactics and their cohesion and must examine the extent to which they are prepared to take account of that new situation.
  Some of my colleagues suggested that we should personalise the motion by proposing a reduction in the salary of the Leader of the Opposition. Given the attitude of the Conservatives to performance-related pay, to value for money and to market testing, that might have been a nice idea. However, we felt that it was more important to deal with the wider issue. It may interest Labour Members to know that the Government propose to give the official Opposition £500,000 more. That information was in a written answer—sneaked out last Thursday. By the end of this Parliament—taking the House of Commons and the House of Lords together—the Conservative party will have received £4 million each year from the taxpayer, if the Government's proposals go through. Naturally, my party will not receive anything like that amount.
  Even if the Government believe that the official Opposition are giving good value for money, I do not believe that that is the view of the country—as public opinion polls show every day. I do not want to dwell on that point as there are only a few moments left of my allotted time. The most important point is to emphasise that good government depends on effective opposition. Effective opposition does not mean trooping through the Lobbies every night, although it was interesting that Members of the Conservative Opposition sat on their hands during the 4 o'clock Division while we voted on one of the biggest issues of the day. They felt that it was not necessary to scrutinise what the Government were doing or to hold the Government to account. It is not the quantity but the quality of opposition that matters.
  I hope that the Conservatives will learn the lesson, eventually—I hoped that they would have learned it by now, after two years—that this is a different sort of Parliament. Our colleagues in Scotland and in Wales are adjusting to madifferent sort of politics—majority rule for the first time. The majority of people in Scotland will now be represented by a majority in the Scottish Parliament. Such majority representation will also be true of the Welsh Assembly. The figures show that Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will represent pretty accurately the division of opinion in the
  508
  country. That is not true of this House, almost half of whose Members do not represent the majority of those who voted, let alone the majority of their constituents.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I was elected by a majority.
  Mr. Tyler: I was too, and I am grateful for that. However, we are now moving towards a different type of politics. In any sane, deliberative system—whether an organisation in this country or different sorts of Parliament in different parts of the world—compromise is not a dirty word; it is quality that matters. The quality of opposition that has been afforded us by the Conservative party not only does them discredit, but does discredit to the institution of Parliament.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Tony McNulty: In relation to the closing remarks of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), it is entirely right that compromise and quality go together. Compromise is not a dirty word, as we have seen throughout the country. However, given the activities of the Liberal Democrats in the House, I have looked long and hard to find much to do with quality. If the opening speech on the motion and the words of the motion itself genuinely have anything to do with either quality or parliamentary democracy, the hon. Gentleman is using a rather perverse definition of quality. It is not one that I would share. The hon. Gentleman spoke about grown-up politics, but if what we heard from both the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and—although the right hon. Gentleman was much funnier—the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was grown up in any respect, a lot still needs to be done.
  I was going to start my speech by saying that I rise more in anger than in sorrow, not least because, given the way in which the debate has proceeded, the best part of three hours of valuable parliamentary time has been utterly wasted. If the motion we were debating held the slightest resemblance to what have been described as matters of substance, I would happily withdraw that charge, but it does not. If what the Liberal Democrats do, both inside the House and outside it, lived up to the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I would withdraw that charge, but it does not.
  My main experience is of London. I would not describe the distribution on the Isle of Dogs of racist leaflets showing a black boxer and saying, "Vote for local people"—nod nod, wink wink, the clear implication being that the black boxer is anything but local, like the black and Asian population in Tower Hamlets—as being anything but the politics of opportunism. Putting out a leaflet in my neighbouring constituency of Harrow, West, that says to local residents, not "A school is about to be built in your area. What do you think?", but "A Jewish school is being built in your area. What do you think?", when there is no planning matter to which religion is anything other than incidental, cannot be called anything but the politics of the gutter and of opportunism.
  We might hear the mellifluous tones of cosy old Etonians in this place, but in the real world, that is not the reality of the new politics described by the hon. Gentleman. I could quote liberally other examples of that reality from London and from other metropolitan areas, although I cannot speak for rural areas.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I have no knowledge of the second matter

  509
  to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but in respect of the first matter, does he at least accept not only that the Liberal Democrat party held an inquiry that included people from outside the party—from the Commission for Racial Equality and other bodies—and dealt with the matter, but that we are the only party ever to have put an investigation of clear bad practice within its own ranks to independent scrutiny, and to have published the evidence and the conclusions of that inquiry?
  Mr. McNulty: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the details of the Harrow case. In response to his other remarks, I shall say what the people of Tower Hamlets said at the time of the pernicious racist leaflet being distributed on the Isle of Dogs: too little, too late—horse bolted, stable door shut. If people mess about with racism, especially somewhere with experience of racism like the Isle of Dogs, holding a cosy little independent inquiry afterwards is too little, too late.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. McNulty: Of course—unlike others, I know the injury time rule.
  Mr. Prentice: The Labour party put the allegations in respect of Monklands in Scotland to an independent inquiry led by a Mr. Nimmo, QC, so it is not true that the Liberal Democrats are the only party that is prepared to look at malpractice within its own ranks.
  Mr. McNulty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. We shall let the matter lie there.
  Given the way in which they have spoken in the debate, the Liberal Democrats have shown a profound lack of wisdom in respect of the proper use of parliamentary time. That is a cause of sadness to me, if not anger. The hon. Member for North Cornwall is entirely wrong to say that the motion is a serious one—it is not, yet it is the motion that the debate addresses, not the points of substance subsequently made in hon. Members' speeches. It is a matter of regret that parliamentary time is being absolutely wasted on such a motion.
  As a side issue, I find it deeply interesting that right hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) have somehow developed a distaste for the patronage that served them so well when they were in government and about which we heard not a peep from them when they were the recipients of it. I do not cite the right hon. Lady as the only transgressor in that respect, for there are plenty of hon. Members who, while not saying a word against patronage throughout the period in which they are recipients, suddenly discover an aversion to it when they are no longer recipients.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I particularly mentioned health appointments. The hon. Gentleman would be interested to know that Baroness Jay, Baroness Hayman, Baroness Dean and very many others were given health appointments by the Conservative party when it was in power. My argument was that the party now in government have abused the system to an extent that I personally regard as deplorable.
  Mr. McNulty: That is nonsense. The matter has been looked at thoroughly, and all the appointments that we
  510
  have made have been fair and above board in a far more transparent sense than anything that the right hon. Lady did. However, she did agree with others that, all of a sudden, patronage has become something to be rebuked, and is regarded as profoundly anti-democratic in this place.
  The motion is not serious because it is entirely wrong. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome almost traduced his own motion by his speech, because the Conservatives, to some extent, have a consistent Front-Bench line. I would happily say, in or outside the Chamber, that the line is congealing nicely around an extremist position on any number of issues. On the European Union, the Conservatives have adopted a dreadfully xenophobic and right-wing extremist position, but at least it is a position and it has some coherence. On public services, they consistently, as a party, seek at least to mislead the nation.
  I believe that if one looks in detail at the current Finance Bill and the previous two Finance Bills, the running total of revenue measures that the Conservatives have voted against and have declared that they would repeal is about £40 billion-worth. Apparently, they have also signed up to the £40 billion that we shall spend on health and education. Where will that money come from? It is impossible to do both. It is misleading to suggest that it is possible.
  The latest transgression is that the Conservatives say that they would freeze fuel duty and tobacco duty. That would cost £7 billion by 2002-03. No mention is made of where the £7 billion to replace that revenue will come from; yet they are still signed up to the £40 billion. I thought, reading some of the details of the Finance Bill, that Conservative spokespersons had gone to the Disneyland school of economic thought and the discussions that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) had attended. His economics is just as bankrupt and nonsensical.
  I am very happy to say publicly that the Conservatives are turning into an extremely effective, albeit redundant, extreme, right-wing, rather nasty, little Englander outfit, who have probably reached their peak in terms of parliamentary representation, and who will go down, and down with a vengeance.
  I am extremely grateful to the people of England. They have ensured that, as a result of the Conservatives' mediocre performance in the English council elections last week, the biggest jester—a phrase used by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), is secure in his place. We could do no better in this country than to ensure that, with the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks secure in his place, the Tory extreme, nasty, xenophobic, little Englander ship goes down, glug glug glugging. Whether it is to be replaced by 30 or 40 more—
  Mr. John Hayes: I shall try not to be too nasty in my intervention because I would not want to confirm any of the hon. Gentleman's stereotypical prejudices, but will he reflect on the following? If the Conservative performance in the local government elections was mediocre, how would he rate, against that measure—against mediocrity—the Labour party's performance in those elections?
  Mr. McNulty: If the hon. Gentleman—as he has often done in the past—clearly leads with the chin, I will hit

  511
  him. Tell me, please. anyone—amateur psephologist or not—the last time that the Government of the day led in mid-term local elections. At our nadir, in 1982-83, when we were led by dear old Michael Foot, we were still three points ahead of the Conservative party. If the hon. Gentleman calls that mediocrity, he is taking a silly, ahistorical position. May I add that when I say "nasty", I mean the policies of the hon. Gentleman and his party, not the hon. Gentleman at all. I do not regard him as nasty—far from it. He is a gentleman in all respects, even though his politics are somewhat confused.
  In conclusion, I say of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, more power to his elbow. Ultimately—in this the Liberal Democrats are entirely wrong—by causing the death of Conservative England, he will do the House and the country a great service. A statue of him should be put up in Parliament square in time to come. The death of that nasty little party will be music to the ears of the rest of the country.
  6.20 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Listening to the opening contribution from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), which was entirely consistent with the flippant tone of the Liberal Democrat motion, and reflecting on the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), which rather deteriorated towards the end, I came to the conclusion that the debate was more interesting and even a touch more constructive than I had anticipated.
  Throughout the debate, a number of points became clear to hon. Members in all parts of the House. The first was that we all take our own constituents extremely seriously, and we bring their interests to this place. The second was that we ought to take seriously the arguments and the issues with which we deal, and we should bring them to this place. Thirdly, whatever our party label, and whether we are Ministers in government, on the Back Benches or on the Front Bench of Opposition parties with a duty to scrutinise Ministers, we should have a commitment to the arguments and to making the right decisions on behalf of the country. Of course we are all party politicians, and we all come to this place to do that job as well. We have many roles to fulfil, but we are ill advised if we lose our grip on those essential truths. I hope that that came out in the debate.
  However, we should not overlook the fact that there is a perfectly proper role for humour and amusement in this place. If we all took ourselves terribly seriously doing the job all the time—if we could not even laugh at the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome when he spoke to the motion, rather than perhaps laughing with him—that would be a deficiency on our part.
  Equally, I warn the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) that we should not expect compromise on everything, if we are to commit ourselves to the argument. There will be passionate dissent between one Member and another on important issues. By all means let us compromise and agree when we can, but do not let us sweep under the carpet, in the interests of some coalitionism, some "politics lite" or some new style of politics, the fact that we will not always agree about everything. Let us just commit ourselves to taking the job reasonably seriously.
  In that context, I have a little news for the House concerning the Liberal Democrats in my constituency. They did not do very well this time. Their role in the joint
  512
  administration in South Northamptonshire was swept out comprehensively—in my view, on its merits. Perhaps there was a precursor to that.
  After the last general election, there was a problem with a proposal to put a prison on a particular site, which has since been addressed. I wrote to my Labour opponent, who ran me second—I have no great interest in the Liberal Democrats in that respect, but perhaps I would be better off if I could pump them up—and I wrote to my Liberal Democrat opponent, suggesting that we make a joint approach to the new Home Secretary on the matter, which had exercised us all during the campaign.
  About a month later, my letter to the Liberal Democrat, which had been addressed to his headquarters in Daventry, was returned to me bearing the words "Gone away." He had not maintained his interest or his commitment to his prospective constituents.
  We need to do better than that. When we get to this place, we need to take legislation more seriously than we do. One or two of the hon. Members who spoke in the debate pointed out that it is rather a long way from the press release or even, these days, the press briefing that precedes the press release, and the softening up on the "Today" programme, to creating a piece of legislation that takes policy through to delivery.
  We are here partly to debate issues, but also to legislate on those issues and to try to get that legislation right. It is no good the Government saying, "Wouldn't it be a wonderful idea and something we could all sign up to"—which I do not—"if we could all have devolution?" Nor is it any good announcing a policy on this or that and assuming that it will happen. I have news for the House—I am not against fairness at work, but the issue is what that means, how it is to be delivered and what are the implications for the businesses that will have to deal with it. That is why legislation matters a lot.
  The Whip has temporarily left the Chamber, but at least one other member of the Opposition Whips Office is aware of my views. I am like the man in the Bateman cartoon who admitted to a staggered world that he enjoyed Standing Committees, and enjoyed the detail of legislation and trying to get it right. In pursuit of these new politics, the Liberal Democrats may be well advised to take a certain lesson from some of the older hands here about the need to work the system correctly to probe the Government.
  My experience of Standing Committees since we have been in opposition—on the Treasury side and in respect of my responsibilities for employment legislation—is that the Liberal Democrats have not failed to make constructive contributions. When they have been present, they have generally contributed well, but they have not majored, as the Americans would say. Their style has been Committee-light, and they do not go into something more than they have to in order to fulfil the obligations to be present and to take an interest.
  The Liberal Democrats do not take the Government through the night in Committee a couple of times and do not table hundreds of probing amendments, which are designed to test Governments. If they want to be serious and want to play a part in this place, they should perhaps think about improving on that. They need not necessarily think that doing that would be a waste of time because, as we found with the minimum wage legislation, the Government have to respond—perhaps even a year

  513
  later—to points that we have made. That seems to me to be the right way to work. I offer one piece of friendly advice to the Liberal Democrats in respect of Standing Committees: if they want to table probing amendments, they should sharpen up their pencils, and pretty quick, just as they should in a number of other ways.
  We do not necessarily receive great accolades because we carry out such work here, but my experience is that the only Members who engage in it seriously, and at least make Ministers consider what they are doing, come from these Benches. That is why tonight's motion is particularly inappropriate, but, because of the nature of the politics that we are trying to build, perhaps we should end on a note of consensus.
  I am prepared, as I was during consideration of employment legislation, to seek consensus when it is appropriate. I say to Liberal Democrat Members, if they are not aware of it, that I can say with complete accuracy that Lloyd George knew my father, and knew him well enough not to be a supporter of the Liberal party.
  Mr. Hayes: Did he get a peerage?
  Mr. Boswell: No, he did not. He was naturally opposed to the Fabian consensus, which was beginning to develop at that time.
  The point about Lloyd George, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who is back in his place for the winding-up speeches, as he should be—and all of us is that we come here with something important to say and with our own experience. Members of Parliament, including Ministers, should listen to what people say; they should not concentrate on the soundbite or the press release.
  Some of us have been members of Governments, but we do not resent the fact that we are in government no longer; we have a job to do. Back Benchers—members of Her Majesty's Opposition or the tacit supporters of the Government—do not have the right to suspend their own judgment or to sit on their hands. We have a duty to think about what is involved in legislation and speak out when we should. We will do so from these Benches and, in doing so, we will discharge our historic duty to speak for this country and to make sure that this place is used on behalf of the people of Britain to its best effect.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I think that the House has been entertained, but there is a serious point behind the motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) pointed out, good government requires good opposition. The Conservative party is on its heels not just because it has lost power, but because it is rudderless in terms of its philosophy and its ideology. As a consequence, it has no ammunition with which to take on the Government and provide effective opposition.
  I entirely agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which was very pertinent. The right hon. Gentleman will find that Liberal Democrats believe that, in the case of issues involving the royal prerogative—such as war and peace—the House should vote on a substantive motion. We wholly endorse
  514
  the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, and consider that it would be in the national interest, and the Government's interest, to allow such a debate to take place.
  In response to the remarks of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), I can only ask, "Where have you been for the past 16 years?" The answer is that, for 14 of them, she was in government, demonstrating the very arrogance and patronage of which she now complains, and which we had to experience at her hands throughout that period. I find it a little hard to take that, now she has suddenly found out what that experience is like, she appears genuinely shocked, as if she did not realise what she and her party were doing and the extent to which it stultified the democratic process by failing to recognise that there are times when those in opposition have a contribution to make.
  The right hon. Member for Chesterfield expressed his frustration at the fact that the Government cannot always be right, the Opposition are not always wrong, and if this place is to work at all there must be some recognition of that from time to time.
  To understand the dilemma of the Conservative party, we need only refer to exchanges that have taken place over the past three or four weeks. The intention was to deliver a new, improved, revised Conservative party. The deputy leader of the party gave a lecture featuring a redefined Conservative philosophy around which the party could unite before the next election. He said:
  "the public's area of unease about Conservatives is our supposedly hostile attitude to the Welfare State and particularly to Health and Education.

  That remains our Achilles heel … Conservatives … must renew public confidence in our commitment to the Welfare State … But we will only do so if we openly and emphatically accept that the free market has only a limited role in improving public services like health, education and welfare."
  That is a clear restatement of modern Conservatism, designed to unite the party; but what actually happened? I have read that only three speakers supported the deputy leader of the Conservative party during a frosty meeting of members of the 1922 Committee, while five spoke against him. He received "perfunctory applause". MPs left the meeting saying that they were confused about how big a policy shift the speech represented.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Are we to take it that, first, the hon. Gentleman believes that particular newspaper report, and that, secondly, every newspaper report of a private Liberal meeting will also be accurate?
  Mr. Bruce: I have every reason to believe that that is the case, because a number of MPs put their views on the record very clearly. We are told that
  "Iain Duncan Smith, the Shadow Social Security Secretary, demanded and got a meeting with him"—
  the deputy leader—
  "on Monday, but he refused to budge. There were also strong complaints from Gillian Shephard, the Shadow Environment Secretary … and from Ann Widdecombe, the Shadow Health Secretary",
  who had not been consulted.
  Such is the state of disarray in Her Majesty's Opposition. They no longer know what they believe in, and those who do not know what they believe in are in no state to take on the Government.

  515
  Reference has been made to an electoral success. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, regaining 1,300 of the 2,000 seats lost in the worst ever performance, with a reduced overall result, is not exactly success.
  I point out a couple of quotes:
  "The Liberal Democrats defy gravity. The Liberal Democrat share of the vote is up on 1995. You can't put those Liberal Democrats down … they have done well."
  Those comments were by Professor Michael Thrasher. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey should take note of the other quote:
  "I never thought I'd sit in a TV studio and hear the Chairman of the Conservative party boast about retaking Worthing."
  That is how far the Conservatives have fallen.
  We can all claim successes. Ultimately, the electorate will decide, but the Liberal Democrats are engaging in modern politics and in new-way politics. The Conservative party does not even know what that stands for.
  Today, nominations close for the European elections. How many independent Conservatives will have been nominated who oppose official Conservative candidates? Indeed, how many on the official Conservative list will embrace official Conservative candidates who have opposite views on the most fundamental issue that faces us in the European context: whether we should join a single currency?
  Mrs. Browning: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: I do not have much time.
  That is the degree of confusion and incoherence that characterises the modern Conservative party. It explains why, fundamentally, it is unable to engage the Government in serious and realistic debate.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am a Devon Member. How does he account for the fact that there is still in this country a Liberal party, which has representation on local councils and fields parliamentary candidates?
  Mr. Bruce: It is a free and open democratic country in which people are allowed to put up candidates. I am rather in favour of that; so are other Liberal Democrats. This country has a multi-party system. I represent a Scottish constituency in the House. As has been demonstrated in the elections, Scotland has four political parties.
  The Conservative party claims that the result in Scotland is an indication of their fightback. It fought back by achieving a lower share of the vote in Scotland than at the previous general election and by failing to win back any of the first-past-the-post seats that it had lost. It has managed to get representation in the Scottish Parliament on the basis of a voting system that it does believe in, with its Members being elected to a Parliament of which it is not in favour.
  I do not know what the Conservatives will do there because, clearly, they do not believe in co-operative politics. They are on record as saying that they regard it as deplorable that parties should seek to co-operate and to form an Administration to deliver their pledges to the people of Scotland. One wonders, therefore, what is the
  516
  point of the Conservatives' presence in the Scottish Parliament. The answer is: not much more point than there is at the moment in the Conservative party's presence in this—
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bruce: I do not have any time. I want to allow the Minister time to reply to the debate.
  The motion is completely serious. We believe that we have not wasted the House's time in tabling it because the people of this country have to consider what intellectual and coherent debate is coming at the Government—who have a massive majority—to engage them and to force them to explain, justify and develop what they do. That is what effective opposition is about.
  The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party are engaged in a debate. We often disagree, not about what we want to achieve, but about how we think it should be achieved and in what order. However, that is a real debate about real issues.
  We have consistently exposed the fact that it is not possible to deliver additional resources on health and education unless we are prepared to find money and to be realistic about it. The irony is that the Conservatives are so confused. They say, on one day, that they welcome the fact that more money is being spent, then complain that it is not as much as they would have spent, and then suggest that taxes are too high and they would cut them. It does not add up. That is the sort of economics that defies gravity, or realistic analysis.
  The truth is that Conservative Members cannot understand that we are in a new era of co-peration politics—which they absolutely hate and attack at every quarter. The truth is that they hate co-operation and coalition-style politics because they cannot build a coalition even among Conservatives, never mind attaching anyone else. They are a shrinking and irrelevant force.
  The Government will receive from the Liberal Democrats coherent and effective opposition, whereas they are getting nothing but incoherence, division, confusion and irrelevance from the Conservatives—who are not fit to oppose.
  6.41 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. After an hon. Member has replied for the party tabling the motion, is it not the normal practice for a Minister to reply on behalf of the Government?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the occupant of the Chair, and is judged on the basis of the debate and its construction. I call Sir Patrick Cormack.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nevertheless, I appreciate the typical timidity of the fawning hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) in seeking to prevent my having a say after this extraordinary debate.

  517
  I slightly agreed with the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) when he said that the debate has not been a waste of time; in one sense, it has not. This debate has demonstrated that the Liberal Democrat party is totally unsuited to be regarded in the House as an opposition party. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—who made, as he always does, a very considerable parliamentary speech—is far more entitled to Opposition time than the Liberal Democrats are. If we are able to determine, through the usual channels, a way of giving one of the Opposition days to him, we should be most interested in doing so.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) said that he was speaking in anger rather than in sorrow. He has not only a pretty turn of phrase, but rather a low boiling point. I tell him that I am speaking far more in sorrow than in anger. Has the party of Gladstone and Lloyd George been reduced to this? It is no wonder that, today, the leader of the Liberal Democrats is not in the Chamber, and that those who are, we are told, the principal contenders for his somewhat tarnished crown also are not here.
  Mr. Bob Russell: Hang on—I'm here!
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Ah—we have a declaration; the first hat is officially thrown into the ring. However, in common with many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was under the impression that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. Members for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) and for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) were among the principal contenders. Where are they? It was also very noticeable that, for much of the debate, the man whom I should regard as the Liberal Democrat party's most distinguished elder statesman—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—lacked the stomach to listen to the drivel that was being served up.
  The Liberal Democrat opening speech really was an absolute dog's breakfast. They set themselves up to be holier than Labour and "prole-ier" than us, and try to set an example of what parliamentary democracy is all about, but they have only provided an example of how a once great party has been reduced, first to oblivion, and then to claiming triumph when managing the election of 46 hon. Members to the House. We shall certainly never seek to emulate that example.
  The Liberal Democrats have lost their history, but have not yet found their place. They are grubbing around the gutters of politics, trying to get some form of power. Today's Scottish Daily Record says it all:
  "Lib Dems Cave In".
  In Scotland they are catching on to the coat tails of the Labour party—as they would have liked to do in the Principality—to enjoy some little influence and power. The hon. Member for North Cornwall let the cat out of the bag when he told the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who is assiduous in his attendance in this place, that the Liberal Democrats have more influence than he has. That may well be true, but whether it will give the staunch Labour supporters of the hon. Member for Pendle much comfort is another matter.
  518
  Over the past two years we have seen an extraordinary approach by a group of people who individually are entirely charming but who collectively are what my sergeant major in the cadet force called a proper shower. We have seen them fawning their way into a position of some little influence. In tabling this motion, giving up the opportunity for scrutiny and holding the Executive to account, they have effected the ultimate abdication.
  The hon. Member for Gordon told the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that he agreed with his substantive point. So why did the Liberal Democrats not choose that or another important subject to debate? They could have done so, but instead they tried to turn petty, vindictive fire on Her Majesty's Opposition. They did so very ineffectively, trying to show that we were inconsistent and incoherent. With every word that they uttered, they demonstrated that they have a claim to any Nobel prize that is going for inconsistency and incoherence.
  The Liberal Democrats are the vegans of British politics. They have an extraordinary ragbag of policies.
  Mr. David Heath: Vegans? Explain.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: They are not fit to eat the red meat of British politics. In the last Parliament they gave a new meaning to the phrase "the Sunday joint". Among their number is the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), whose purpose in life seems to be to instal pregnancy kits in nurseries and issue condoms to toddlers. The Liberal Democrats should be laughed out of court. They do not deserve to be regarded as a serious Opposition party. In the past two and half hours they have demonstrated beyond peradventure that they are not one.
  The Liberal Democrats are also trying to undermine this place. Many of their proposals would take the life away from this Chamber and put it elsewhere. They are attending in reasonable numbers this afternoon, but I cannot remember a day when I have seen so many Liberal Democrats on the Benches. Even today, there have never been more than 30 of them here. In the Division earlier, 38 of their 46 Members voted. This has been a shoddy performance by a rather third-rate crew. I hope that the House will reject their motion with derision and accept our amendment.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): When I first read the motion, I wondered whether it was up to the Government to comment at all. I have never seen a motion quite like it in my 12 years in Parliament, and I was reinforced in that view by the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who has been in this House for much longer.
  Listening to the two opening speeches, I wondered whether I was taking part in some new form of parliamentary spectator sport. One of my colleagues suggested helpfully that I should have brought a whistle and acted as referee—although that would not have met with your approval, Mr. Deputy Speaker, since you referee our proceedings wisely. During those two speeches, I felt glad and relieved to be sitting with my colleagues on the Labour Benches.

  519
  I wondered also which Minister should respond to the debate, because the motion covers a range of topics including policing, education, the NHS and other public services. It was difficult to know how to respond to such a motion. However, there are various elements of the motion that accord with my ministerial responsibility, particularly the references to
  "Britain's positive role in Europe"
  —something with which I strongly agree—and the importance of
  "necessary reforms of the institutions and policies of the European Union", to which I attach considerable importance.
  Given the nature of the motion, it is not surprising that the contributions have ranged widely and, in the 10 minutes that I have left, it will be difficult to respond to many of the issues. I shall refer to one or two of the points made at the outset. I support some of the arguments made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), including his strong condemnation of the centralist policies pursued in this country in the 18 years until 1997, and the importance of decentralisation, devolution and the constitutional reforms which I am proud have been undertaken by my Government.
  Mr. Rowe: Has the Minister any idea of how upset large numbers of head teachers and health trusts are by the welter of centralising documents that have come pouring out, and by the loss of initiative that they have been forced to accept in the past two years?
  Ms Quin: On the contrary, I find that people in my constituency are pleased at the amount of consultation that the Government have undertaken. On a policy for which I used to have some responsibility—the fight against crime and the local partnerships against crime—the local consultations to launch those partnerships were tremendously welcome, and people throughout the country felt that their views on those important issues were being taken into account.
  I very much welcome decentralisation and the constitutional changes upon which we have embarked. I welcome devolution in Scotland and Wales, and I welcome also the regional development agencies and decentralisation within England.
  Hon. Members from both sides of the House—or perhaps I should say from all three sides—talked about the elections last week. The Government take considerable satisfaction from those elections, which produced the best ever results for a Government two years into their mandate.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: The Minister has just made out that the Government believe in consultation. Can I draw her attention to the review of meat inspection charges? The industry has been given 10 days, until noon on 17 May, to respond. The letter went out on 7 May, but some in the industry did not receive it until 11 May. Cabinet guidelines alone would require eight weeks in which to respond. Is that equivalent to consultation for an industry?
  Ms Quin: I understand that there had already been many discussions on the issue with the people and the industry concerned. My colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food consult widely with the interested parties.
  520
  Many hon. Members referred to the elections. Our results were very satisfactory; in fact, on the basis of those results, we would have retained some of our most marginal seats in the House. Indeed, in some cases we even improved on what was previously our best ever result.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Quin: No, because, like all hon. Members, I have been very much constrained by time in this debate.
  We have heard some interesting and thoughtful speeches, especially from Labour Members. I listened with especial interest to the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, of the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), whose speech I increasingly disagreed with as it proceeded, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who reminded us that, although the Government have responsibility to Parliament, we also have responsibility to the people and must deliver on the manifesto commitments on which we were elected. I am very glad that we are delivering on those commitments.
  When I first came into the House in 1987, the Conservative party was in government and seemed to me to be governing in a way that treated people with contempt. We remember issues such as the poll tax, and the arrogance of that large majority, which stands in stark contrast to both the style and the practice of the present Government.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey accused us of bypassing Parliament. I find that strange. As the motion refers to European policy, let me remind her and the House of the improvements that the Government suggested, and then introduced, for European scrutiny procedures, precisely in order to give hon. Members a much better opportunity to question the Government and scrutinise European legislation. I welcome the changes and the fact that all aspects of the European Union can now be scrutinised in the House within a satisfactory time.
  Far from bypassing the House, it seems to me, from my admittedly mere two years' experience as a Minister, that one rightly spends a great deal of time dealing with parliamentary questions and correspondence and giving evidence to Select Committees on a whole range of issues. We respond day by day to Parliament's very reasonable demands that we should explain and discuss our policies. Hon. Members use the various procedures open to them to bring that about.
  It has been suggested that the Government do things by stealth, and European policy was mentioned in that context. I remind the House that we are committed to holding a referendum on the single currency. It is not possible to avoid debate or introduce a measure by stealth if one is committed to holding a referendum on it.
  The Government's record on European policy is a proud one. We have played a positive role in Europe that has brought considerable benefits to our people. The real protection of British interests and the real patriotism are in the positive role that we are pursuing. That shows that

  521
  Labour is by far the best party to deliver, in government, good and effective results in Europe for our people.
  That is why, at the forthcoming European elections, as well as at other elections thereafter, the electorate should spurn both the oppositions from whom we have heard today and support the Government and our policies.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr.Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already called a Division.
  Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I did not hear you propose that the original words stand part of the Question.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman are forgetting the new procedures of the House for raising points of order, which should be done from the Benches by the Chair. I have followed exactly the correct procedure in putting the Question on the amendment first. That Question has to be dealt with before the next Question can arise. I have called a Division on whether the amendment be made.
  The House having divided: Ayes 137, Noes 36.

  Division No. 174]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Amess, David

  Flight, Howard

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bercow, John

  Gale, Roger

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gibb, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Brady, Graham

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brazier, Julian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gray, James

  Burns, Simon

  Green, Damian

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John

  Cash, William

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  Hammond, Philip

  Clappison, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Hayes, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Horam, John

  Day, Stephen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Faber, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  522

  Johnson Smith,

  Robathan, Andrew

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Key, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Ruffley, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Leigh, Edward

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Letwin, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Lidington, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Spring, Richard

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Swayne, Desmond

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Syms, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mates, Michael

  Walter, Robert

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wardle, Charles

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wells, Bowen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Norman, Archie

  Wilkinson, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Page, Richard

  Woodward, Shaun

  Paice, James

  Yeo, Tim

  Paterson, Owen

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pickles, Eric

  Prior, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Randall, John

  Sir David Madel and

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Breed, Colin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Oaten, Mark

  Burnett, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Burstow, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chidgey, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

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

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hancock, Mike

  Tyler, Paul

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Webb, Steve

  Harvey, Nick

  Willis, Phil

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Keetch, Paul

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with contempt that the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party considers it to be a constructive use of specially allocated opposition time to indulge in a petty and vindictive attack on Her Majesty's Opposition rather than to challenge the executive and hold it to account; and points out that, in so doing, a Party whose record of attendance and willingness to sacrifice principle for party advantage shows that it has no constitutional claim to the position and privileges which are rightly accorded to opposition parties in the parliamentary system.
  Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What advice can you give the House on the debacle of that vote? Is there a case for amending Standing Orders? A minority Opposition party tabled a motion criticising the main Opposition party and urging us to be competent, but the Liberal Democrats were so incompetent that they failed to provide tellers, and we had to do the work that they were too incompetent to do.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: None of that is a matter for the Chair. The procedure followed was perfectly in order.

  SELECT COMMITTEES (QUORUM)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—
  '(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITION

    Association with Europe (Referendum)
    7.15 pm
    Mr. David Hinchliffe rose—
    Mr.Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will wait for a moment before presenting his petition. Hon. Members who are not staying to hear it should please leave quickly and quietly. Thank you.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: I wish to present a petition signed by my constituent Mr. Bernard Calvert of Linton road, Eastmoor, Wakefield. The petition contains only his signature, but he has expressed a desire for it to be formally presented to the House and I am happy to oblige.
    The petition states that, as a citizen of the United Kingdom he has not been consulted in any referendum on our association with Europe since 1975 when a referendum was held to ascertain whether the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would remain in the European Economic Community, which was known as the Common Market. He says that that has happened notwithstanding what he suggests is the progressive surrender of our national sovereignty since then.
    The petition states:
    Wherefore your Petitioner prays that your honourable House shall urge the Government to:

    1. introduce legislation providing for a referendum on the United Kingdom's membership of the Common Market:

    2. call a Speaker's Conference, to comprise members of the House, academics and others, to decide the formulation of the question to be put to the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at this Referendum:

    524

    3. bear the cost of the aforementioned conference and Referendum through Her Majesty's Treasury and

    4. make arrangements for the allocation of equal air time on television, radio and other media to supporters of either side of the question that shall be determined by the aforementioned Conference.

    And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray, for the continual well being of the House of Commons, the historical defender or our liberties.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Job Losses (Renishaw)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Renishaw is a small, compact community—there are fewer than 1,400 people on the electoral register—which suffered a number of years ago from a pit closure at Renishaw Park, which devastated the community. On 22 April, a foundry went into receivership, which led to 140 people being made redundant. Another 40 people continue to work at the foundry, wondering about their future.
  Renishaw foundry is now cosmopolitan. Many people who were employed there came from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and a number also came from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—about one third were from my constituency. However, we are talking about more than 140 job losses, as many suppliers and haulage firms will be affected, as will those who are dependent on people in the community having a full wage packet.
  Why did the job losses arise in such stark circumstances? The receiver moved in on 22 April and, almost immediately, 140 workers were made redundant. They had not known that that would occur, although they feared that it might. The community was devastated.
  In October 1997, Carbo Ltd. leased 5.8 acres out of a 13.4 acre site in Chesterfield, which it leased to a firm that called itself Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd., although the company had previously had nothing to do with the foundry.
  The first payment was planned to be £375,000. In July 1998, the new company purchased Renishaw foundry from British Steel for £800,000 and took on British Steel's pension and other liabilities. The land was bought by a company called Renishaw Properties Ltd. for £35,000. However, the major shareholder of Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. and Renishaw Properties Ltd. is a Mr. Ling. There is a clear connection between the two companies.
  In the meantime, Carbo Ltd. persuaded Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. to relinquish the lease at Chesterfield by waiving the outstanding initial fee of £375,000 and promising £500,000 if any profits were made later from a property deal that it hoped for on the site. I shall deal with the property bonanza later, but it was that favourable arrangement that allowed the company to purchase Renishaw foundry.
  In return, Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. moved about 100 workers and some machinery to the Renishaw foundry, where only 70 workers were then employed. That was completed by the end of 1998. In 1999, and perhaps in the months before, Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. lost money hand over fist, even though it did not pay any rent in that period to its other half, Renishaw Properties Ltd. No accounts have been recorded in Companies house for Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. or Renishaw Properties Ltd. I understand that the auditor would not sign the Bryan Donkin accounts because he felt that the company was not viable.
  Let us consider the gainers and losers in those interlinked transactions. The workers are clearly losers, with 140 made redundant and 40 facing an insecure
  526
  future. The firm's collapse means that they are not entitled to jobseeker's allowance payments for several weeks. They are entitled to a week's redundancy money for each year that they have worked, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) discovered from a question that she tabled, it takes nine weeks on average for the redundancy payments office to deliver payments.
  The only substitute for JSA payments is income support on the ground of urgency, yet out of 90 cases in jobcentre areas in north Derbyshire, only six have been given income support so far, and two are due to get it shortly. That is because all income in a household is assessed by a means test. A wife's earnings, or other earnings in the household, are considered for income support purposes. In one case, a wife's disability payments have been taken into account and prevented payment of income support.
  The matter has been raised previously by my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley and for Erewash (Liz Blackman). In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) said:
  "We are aware that, under existing rules, if money is owed from an insolvent employer, full benefit cannot always be paid immediately to ex-employees claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or Income Support, although payments can be made to avoid hardship.
  Since this problem came to our attention, we have been working to simplify the complex legislation in this area and we are currently considering proposals for changes to the relevant benefit rules."— [Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 715.]
  No announcement has yet been made on proposed changes to the legislation. Today, I received a fax from the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities, pointing out that that will not occur yet, although there is concern about the matter. I doubt whether my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry will be able to give a different reply from the one that I received. However, it would be welcome to hear that there was to be urgent consideration of the matter and that an announcement will be made soon of help to overcome a problem that affects many firms going into receivership or into liquidation.
  At present, the ex-workers' pensions seem to be guaranteed. A great deal of work has been done by the trade unions. Indeed many people have tried to assist in this desperate situation—no one more than a local district councillor, Brian Ridgeway. He has been behind much of the activity and organisation to try to help those workers who are in very desperate circumstances.
  There are losers, but there will also be clear winners, if things turn out as some people hope. The workers will not be among those winners in any way, unless some miraculous changes take place. The first to gain is Carbo, which has got rid of Bryan Donkin's work force, but it has had to meet no redundancy or other payments. Carbo looks to make a fortune in the future. On 27 July 1998, the chairman of Carbo, Bill Goodall, was reported as saying:
  "The new agreement with BDFL"—
  that is Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd.—
  "substantially improves the development potential for the Chesterfield site. In due course, the disposal of the enlarged site for development will conclude the group's exit from its former Bryan Donkin business and enable both shareholders and the Company to benefit in the resultant value creation."
  Matters have developed since then. Last week, a draft plan was submitted to Chesterfield borough council in order to cash in on those provisions. The company is looking to

  527
  create a development in which there will be a hotel, supermarkets, a business centre, a traffic centre and a host of other facilities that will lead to considerable financial developments. At present, it is only a draft plan at an early stage. Chesterfield borough council is obliged by law to undertake a screening process under the 1999 environment assessment regulations. However, if Carbo and its associates gain a fortune, at least the ex-Bryan Donkin workers should have some share when that development takes place.
  Another winner is British Steel, which sold Renishaw foundry and its land for £835,000 and saved £1.5 million in potential redundancy payments alone. Ex-British Steel workers who were made redundant at Renishaw should also be sharing in British Steel's good fortune.
  What about Mr. Ling, who is the key shareholder in Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. and in Renishaw Properties Ltd.? Is he a gainer or a loser? The assets he seems to have are a potential £500,000 from the property deal in Chesterfield, if it goes through, and rent and other moneys from the ownership of Renishaw Properties Ltd. and from any new firm that the receiver is able to find. His liabilities are any unfulfilled hopes that he may have and the possible loss of the £800,000 that he initially paid out to purchase the company.
  I want a Department of Trade and Industry inquiry into all those arrangements, so that we know who is getting what and from whom, and I call for immediate action to clear up the matter of the jobseeker's allowance. It is entirely unacceptable that the people who are at the rough end of the affair should be the former work force. I call for attention to be given to losses incurred by suppliers, hauliers and so on, in the area, so that some help may be given to them. We also need to do all that we can to assist the receiver and to encourage the receiver to find a buyer for the foundry. If there is a buyer the re-employment—even if the conditions change—of some of the work force becomes a significant possibility. If a buyer can be found, we should try to ensure that those who are re-employed are those who are losing their jobs now.
  Via the Employment Service, we should give the ex-workers every assistance by ensuring that job opportunities are found for them. I understand that there is some possibility of those who are ex-British Steel workers having access to appointments publicised through British Steel. It is just as well that the fight to save the Eckington jobcentre was successful, because that centre serves Renishaw, Killamarsh, Eckington and the surrounding area, a large part of which is affected by the job losses.
  I hope that the Minister will consider those matters seriously. A crisis is affecting a community that has been badly hit in the past, so everything that can be done must be done. When I met them, the work force asked me, "Why have these events occurred? Why have we suffered in this way? Who has done this to us? Who has benefited from it?" Answers to those questions can be provided only by an inquiry.
  7.33 pm
  Mr. Tony Benn: I should like to speak, if the Minister will allow me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The right hon. Gentleman may speak, as long as the mover of the motion and the Minister are agreeable.
  Mr. Barnes indicated assent.
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle)indicated assent.
  Mr. Benn: I shall take only a minute, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) has handled the case with his usual brilliance.
  There is a lot wrong. Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. is one of the most highly skilled companies in Britain, producing for the gas industry. When the company was privatised, no long-term planning was carried out and it got into difficulties. Then, when the foundry was moved and merged, the trade unions went along with it because they thought that jobs would be saved, but that hope was dashed. Now, the workers might be denied not only redundancy pay but jobseeker's allowance.
  The Government must take all those issues on board, in addition to the fact that high interest rates damaged the foundry's prospects. I hope that all the points that my hon. Friend has made will be considered extremely carefully. I speak not only as a Member of Parliament, but as a former Secretary of State for Industry and for Energy who appreciates the relevance of the company and its contribution to British manufacturing industry.
  7.34 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): In an Adjournment debate, it is traditional to congratulate the hon. Member who secured it, but I should like to say rather more. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) always champions his constituents' interests, whether relating to job losses or other matters, with serious, passionate concern. Tonight, he has demonstrated what the House of Commons should be about by the way in which he has brought to our attention an individual case that allows us to extrapolate specific structural questions. I regret that we have only a short time for this debate; it would have been better if we had spent three hours on this topic, rather than on the previous debate.
  I listened intently to my hon. Friend's speech, which was full of carefully researched details of the financial transactions that have led to the collapse of the company, and the job losses. I cannot respond to every detail, but I shall certainly follow through every detail that is raised in the House tonight—if not at the Dispatch Box, then elsewhere.
  Why were there job losses? I know that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is present, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). It concerns the relationship of redundancies and insolvencies, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) drew attention.

  529
  Why were there job losses? On 22 April 1999, Robert Kelly and John Newell, two partners in Ernst and Young, were appointed joint administrative receivers of Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. They were appointed by the debenture holder, Smurfit Paribas International, at the request of the directors, as the company was no longer able to meet its liabilities as they fell due. Department of Trade and Industry officials have been in touch with the receivers, who explained that, by the time that they were appointed, the company's working capital was exhausted.
  It may help if I briefly scan the history of the company. I understand that Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. was incorporated in 1997 to acquire the assets of the foundry division of the company known as Bryan Donkin Company Ltd, which traded from Chesterfield. It paid £2 million for the assets, of which some £800,000 was payable immediately, the balance being spread over three annual instalments.
  It appears that problems began at quite an early stage. The receivers have told my officials that draft accounts to 30 September 1998 showed trading losses of about £1 million on a turnover of £6 million. It seems that those losses eventually led to the receivership, which may have stemmed in part from the acquisition of the business of the Renishaw foundry, which was formerly operated by British Steel, in 1998. Simultaneously, the land and buildings at the Renishaw site were acquired by a newly incorporated company called Renishaw Properties Ltd, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, was effectively under the control of the same individuals as Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd.
  Having moved to the Renishaw foundry site, Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. surrendered the lease of its existing site at Chesterfield back to the landlords, Carbo plc. The sum received by the company on the surrender of the lease appears to have been used partly to fund the acquisition of the Renishaw foundry assets.
  That move from the Chesterfield site to Renishaw has been described as unsuccessful. The cost of the move appears to have been substantially underestimated. The move itself seems to have taken two months longer than anticipated. Finally, having established the business at Renishaw, it became apparent to the directors that their turnover forecast could not be reached. Management accounts then showed a substantial trading loss.
  The receivers say that, upon their appointment on 22 April 1999, they had no alternative—in the absence of assets that could be rapidly converted into cash to provide further funding—but to serve redundancy notices. Since then, the receivers have carried on trading in a limited way, while advertising the business for sale. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, they are continuing to seek to sell the business as a going concern. He asked whether there might be a buy-out of the foundry. That would be a way forward, if it could be achieved; it would certainly save jobs. My hon. Friend's ambitions in that regard would be helpful.
  Let me say a word on the position of the workers. I am told that the receivers have already had a meeting with the full-time union officers representing the work force, and that a further meeting is planned for tomorrow. I understand that my hon. Friend has been invited to that meeting. I hope that other right hon. and hon. Friends who have attended tonight's debate have been invited.
  530
  The local jobcentres at Chesterfield, Eckington and Staveley are offering what help they can to the employees who have been made redundant. A recent meeting to discuss help for the work force was attended by representatives of the North Derbyshire training and enterprise council and others, including the Employment Service, North East Derbyshire council and the East Midlands regional development agency. I understand that a bid was then made for assistance from the rapid response fund, to assist retraining and job searches for all those involved. Early entry has been agreed to the work-based learning scheme for adults and to STEPS—a programme centre offering intensive help with job search. Two awareness sessions have been held at the Renishaw hall, and further sessions and presentations are planned.
  On 5 May, the Government office for the east midlands received a request from North Derbyshire TEC seeking approval for large-scale redundancy terms to be applied to the redundancies at the Bryan Donkin foundry. The Government office replied on the same day, agreeing to that. The application of large-scale redundancy terms will enable immediate access for Donkin staff to Employment Service and TEC programmes.
  I shall deal with jobseeker's allowance and the letter sent earlier today to my hon. Friend by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. In his letter, my right hon. Friend stated that if employees were dismissed by an insolvent employer without notice or with insufficient notice, they could claim a compensatory payment under the DTI's insolvency provisions, once the notice period had expired. That should be arranged by the receiver.
  Before the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, ex-employees could claim unemployment benefit during their notice period and the compensatory payments would then be reduced accordingly. That is not possible under jobseeker's allowance, because of a regulation that treats people as already possessing any income that is due to be paid, regardless of whether it has actually been paid.
  Any notice payment due must, therefore, be taken into account in calculating jobseeker's allowance during the notice period, even though it has not yet actually been paid. That is the double bind. People are being penalised twice. We acknowledge that the benefits legislation is complex, but it seems that people are getting caught in the rules and being forced to pay twice. I shall raise the matter again with my right hon. Friend the Minister.
  I know that efforts are being made to conclude the matter of the Donkin employees as soon as possible, and I hope that my hon. Friend, together with our other right hon. and hon. Friends, will make the point powerfully as a result of this debate.
  With regard to the company's accounts and the request for an investigation, neither Bryan Donkin Foundry Ltd. nor Renishaw Properties Ltd. has filed accounts at Companies house. The receivers told officials that the accounts for BDFL for the period ended 30 September 1998 were completed, but had not been signed off by the auditors prior to the receivers' appointment.
  The time limit for filing accounts at Companies house for a private company is 10 months from the year end. As the directors had until 31 July 1999 to comply, they are not in default. Renishaw Properties Ltd. was not incorporated until 8 May 1998, so the accounts for its first year are not due.

  531
  On the question of an investigation, the joint administrative receivers are under a duty to report to the Secretary of State if it appears to them that the conduct of any of the directors was such as to render him unfit to be concerned in the management of another limited company. On receipt of such a report, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to apply to the court for a disqualification order against that director.
  The receivers have told my officials that concerns that have been raised in the House tonight have also been mentioned to them. No doubt they will be taken into account when the receivers consider their report to the Secretary of State.
  In addition, the DTI has wide-ranging investigatory powers under companies legislation which can be exercised if there is good reason to do so. The powers are generally used in relation to live companies, but in suitable cases, we would not hesitate to use them where a company was already subject to insolvency proceedings. The receivership is of course at an early stage, but officials will ask the receivers to let us know whether they have continuing concerns, so that the use of the investigative powers can be kept under review as a possibility, in the light of comments that have been made tonight.
  I shall say a word about Carbo plc and the development of the Chesterfield site. My hon. Friend raised the question of the proposed redevelopment of the Bryan Donkin factory in Chesterfield. Officials have established that Chesterfield borough council received a planning application to redevelop the site. The council is considering whether to refer it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Development) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Directive 1993, so there is still room for challenge. It seems to me that this particular case is almost a classic tale of asset stripping at the expense of people's livelihoods, and it should be thoroughly investigated. I will do my best to ensure that this matter is taken further after tonight's debate.
  532
  As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, and as I have tried to spell out, this case ranges across Departments—the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, given its planning responsibilities. I have listened intently to his case.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On rogue employers, there was a story knocking about the DTI before the turn of the year to the effect that, in the interests of the business community and of getting more economic activity, it would not be a bad idea for the new Labour Government to be a little bit more lenient with these eager-beaver employers. Has that idea been put to bed?
  Mr. Battle: I hope that it has. We have no intention of backing rogue employers and people who jeopardise other people's livelihoods through malpractice. People may legitimately start up companies—or, indeed, co-operatives—and things might not go well the first time round, but why do we so readily write them off when they have made a fair, open and transparent effort? I think that there have been conversations about whether the bankruptcy laws could separate rogues from people who have made a genuine effort, but we have no intention whatever of going soft on rogues.
  In a sense, rogue is too general and too generous a word, because some of this malpractice jeopardises people's lives and blights them for generations. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire spelled out, that involves not one particular company, but the supply chain and other companies in the area, and communities suffer as a result. If we can look into the detail of this matter, I only hope that an occasional case study—not a hypothetical example—might highlight flaws in the structure that we in the Government ought to address in achieving a legislative framework that would ensure that the same thing does not happen to others.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health and Social Services Estates Agency
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for 1999–2000 for the Northern Ireland Health and Social Services Estates Agency. [84333]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The targets, which have been set for 1999–2000, are based on the corporate aims and objectives of the Agency as set out in section 5 of its Corporate and Business Plan and reflect in part a refinement of the previously set targets. The targets are in line with the Government's policy of seeking to improve the service provided to clients in terms of both quality and value for money and I am satisfied that they present a demanding challenge for the Agency. A copy of the Corporate and Business plan will be placed in the Library.

  The targets are as follows:

  Delivery of Services

  1. Provide a regional support service to the HSSE and the Department on embedded systems and medical devices in relation to the Y2K problem in the HPSS estate. As a central part to this support service, obtain the compliance status of Northern Ireland utilities (electricity, water etc.) and provide guidance on the required level of contingency planning recommended for these utility services.

  2. Provide the consultation draft of the Review of the Key Management Document in the Firecode suite "Policy and Principles", by March 2000.

  3. Provide and Energy/Environment Report for the Minister on the progress of the DHSS and the HPSS is making towards meeting the Government's targets on green issues by November 1999.

  4. Assess and advise the HSSE on 60 per cent. of capital investment business case submissions within 20 working days, subject to a maximum 24 business cases per annum.

  5. Provide the HSSE with a Defects Centre in relation to the HPSS estate. Investigate and clear (60 per cent.) of all adverse incidents within six months (and 90 per cent. within two years) of notification to Health Estates subject to a maximum of 120 adverse incidents per annum.

  6. 80 per cent. of clients to regard the Directorate's Client Support and Project Management Services as satisfactory or better in respect of:
  Two projects being procured by the PFI/PP process with an estimated capital value of £2.6 million.
  Preparation and completion of 5 Outline Business Cases with an estimate capital value of £15.35 million.
  The completion of the tendering and contract award stages of 4 projects with an estimated capital value of £12.25 million.
  Nine projects during the construction/completion stages with an estimated capital value of £134.85 million.

  7. Complete 90 per cent. of periodic specialist sterilizer equipment tests by the programmed dates and 100 per cent. within 6 weeks of that date subject to a maximum client request for this service of 500 man days.

  176

  8. Complete 95 per cent. of diagnostic equipment and laboratory equipment acceptance tests, and other tests within 4 weeks of receipt of written request and the remainder within 10 weeks.

  9. Complete 95 per cent. of the initial evaluations for Diagnostic Imaging Equipment Projects within 4 weeks of receipt of written request and the remainder within 10 weeks. Complete Diagnostic Imaging Equipment Projects within 10 months of clients providing their instruction to proceed.Financial Management

  10. Ensure that the Agency lives within its running cost allocation and demonstrates that its full costs are recovered, on a notional basis, through Service Level Agreements with clients.

  Emergency Provisions Legislation
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she intends to publish the report by Mr. J. J. Rowe QC on the operation during 1998 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996. [84334]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Mr. Rowe's Report is being published today and copies are being placed in the Library. I note that Mr. Rowe recommends that the legislation be renewed.

  The UK's counter terrorism legislation is currently under review. The Government intend to bring forward, as soon as possible, new UK-wide legislation to replace the existing temporary provisions.

  In December last year, the Government published a consultation paper entitled, "Legislation Against Terrorism". Around eighty responses have been received. The process of examining each contribution and preparing the Government's legislative response is well underway. The Government have made clear that during the period the new legislation is being prepared it will not leave the people of Northern Ireland without the protection of necessary counter-terrorism measures. For that reason I propose to continue the EPA in force for a temporary period and I shall lay before the House as soon as possible a draft Order for consideration which would have that effect.

  The Government are committed to steadily transforming the security environment in Northern Ireland and achieving complete normalisation as part of the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement as a whole. In such circumstances, the Government's position is that there will be no need for any temporary Northern Ireland specific powers. The Government will make a judgment about that nearer the time the new UK-wide legislation is introduced.

  Valuation and Lands Agency
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on the Review of the Valuation and Lands Agency. [84335]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  On 27 February 1998,Official Report, columns 413–14, I announced to the House the Review of the Valuation and Lands Agency. Each Agency undergoes a periodic review to evaluate performance and to reconsider whether agency status is the best way of doing the job.

  I am pleased to announce that this Review is now complete. It has found that there have been substantial improvements in productivity and efficiency, and in the

  177
  overall quality of service to customers. The Review recommends that the Valuation and Lands Agency should remain an Agency within the Department of Finance and Personnel.

  The Review goes on to recommend that a feasibility study should be carried out into the possibility of a merger with the Rate Collection Agency. The decision, under devolved arrangements, to transfer the Rate Collection Agency to the Department of Finance and Personnel should facilitate such a study and I have commended the findings in the Review Report to the First Minister (Designate) and deputy First Minister (Designate).

  I am placing a copy of the Report in the Library today. Work will continue on a revised Framework Document and this will become a matter for the devolved administration in Northern Ireland to approve in due course.

PRIME MINISTER

  Devolution
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the Civil Service Code to take account of devolution for Scotland and Wales. [84171]

  The Prime Minister
  There will continue, under the Devolution settlements, to be a unified Home Civil Service whose members will serve their respective Administrations in accordance with the well-established principles of integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity. A revised Civil Service Code is being issued to all civil servants to reflect the changes brought about by devolution to Scotland and Wales. Copies of the Code have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Intelligence and Security Committee has reported to him on Sierra Leone; and if he will publish the report. [84486]

  The Prime Minister
  The Intelligence and Security Committee sent a Report examining the intelligence aspects of the counter-coup in Sierra Leone to me in February. Following discussions about which parts of the Report must be withheld for security reasons, the Report is being published today. The Government intend to publish a formal response to the Report in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  M11
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the eventual total cost of the M11 Link Road; and on what date it is expected to be fully completed. [83598]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.
  178
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 13 May 1999:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the Al2 Hackney to Mll Link Road.
  The current estimated total out turn cost of the scheme is £360 million.
  We anticipate opening the road to traffic in phases, starting next month. The whole scheme should be open later this Summer, although finishing works will carry on until the Autumn.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in how many instances in each of the last five years for which figures are available, a request for change of the sex recorded on a driving licence was(a) received and (b) acted upon. [83571]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No separate record is kept of applications. Provided the application is supported by appropriate documentation, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will accept the request.

  M6 Corridor
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in commissioning the M6 corridor transport study; and what timetable he has agreed. [83743]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Lord Whitty announced on 23 March 1999 the start dates for the programme of multimodal and roads based studies. The West Midlands to North West Conurbation Study will begin in Summer 1999. Consultation with the Regional Planning Conferences in both the West Midlands and the North West will start before then, initially on the preparation of the consultants' brief, and will continue throughout the life of the study. As part of the multimodal study, consultants will develop a full range of options to tackle the traffic problems of the corridor, including the possibility of modal shift.

  Multimodal Transport Studies
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to prospective consultants in respect of consultation with the public as part of the proposed multimodal transport studies. [83746]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is currently preparing guidance on the methodology for the multimodal studies. The guidance will be aimed at consultants undertaking work on the studies and will cover the role of consultation in the study process.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what opportunities there will be for local stakeholders to be involved in drawing up the terms of reference for the proposed multimodal transport studies. [83745]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government Offices responsible for taking forward the multimodal studies will draw up terms of reference in consultation with the local Regional Planning Bodies and agree them with the study steering group.
  179
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued in respect of the geographical scope of multimodal studies; what area the proposed M6 corridor transport study will cover; and which major routes will be included other than the M6. [83744]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The geographical scope of each multimodal study will be set out in its terms of reference, which will be drawn up by Government Offices in consultation with the Regional Planning Bodies.

  The terms of reference for the West Midlands to North West Conurbation study have not yet been agreed, but the geographical scope is expected to be the broad corridor along the M6/west coast main line routes, including the A500, A50(M1), A34 and other possible rail and bus routes.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1999,Official Report, column 473, on genetically modified crops, if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay between the holding reply and the final reply. [83820]

  Mr. Meacher
  The sudden upsurge in media and public interest in genetic modification technology earlier this year resulted in a very substantial increase in the volume of Ministerial correspondence, Parliamentary Questions and correspondence from members of the public needing to be handled by officials. My officials have also been required to handle significantly increased levels of briefing resulting from several Select Committee appearances and the general increase in Ministerial activity in this area. This increased level of activity coupled with the need to provide full and considered replies to the large number of sometimes detailed and complex Parliamentary Questions tabled has inevitably resulted in some increase in response time, which I regret.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to put in place to ensure that local authority transport schemes which currently exceed the proposed minimum standard of half price concessionary bus fares for older people do not reduce their benefits to older people when the proposed national scheme is implemented. [83845]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Beyond the terms of our national standard minimum for concessionary travel schemes for elderly people, local authorities will continue to have full discretion to decide on the terms of their concessionary travel schemes. Local authorities will therefore remain entirely free to provide concessionary fare schemes which are more generous than our proposed statutory minimum. We believe that it is right to maintain the principle that locally elected authorities should consider these matters in the light of local needs and circumstances and their overall financial priorities, and to be locally accountable for the decisions then made.
  180
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if his proposed minimum national concessionary bus fare scheme for older people will be applicable to all people aged over 60 years. [83844]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Our proposed national minimum for concessionary fares will be based on the present statutory position, whereby concessionary travel for older people is linked to the state pension age.

  Waste
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact the landfill tax has had on reducing the proportion of total waste which is disposed of through landfill sites; and what proportion of United Kingdom waste has been recycled in each of the last 10 years. [83623]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: The information currently available suggests that the landfill tax has reduced the quantity of material going to licensed landfill sites, particularly construction and demolition waste. There is little statistical information at this stage to support any conclusions as to the extent to which this results from a reduction in the amount of waste generated as opposed to being diverted to different outlets.

  The data available for municipal waste only are as follows:

  Municipal waste recycling rate

  Percentage

  Year

  England and Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1998

  18

  2—

  2—

  1997

  17

  2—

  3.4

  1996

  6.5

  no data

  no data

  1995

  no data

  no data

  no data

  1994

  no data

  0.64

  no data

  1993

  no data

  0.66

  no data

  1992

  no data

  0.68

  no data

  1991

  no data

  0.61

  no data

  1990

  no data

  0.63

  no data

  1989

  no data

  no data

  no data

  1Data still to be fully verified

  2Data still to be collected or processed

  Single Vehicle Approvals
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made following his consultation on the system of single vehicle approvals. [84208]

  Dr. Reid
  Changes to the current limit on the number of commercially traded vehicles which can be approved into the UK each year under the Single Vehicle Approval Scheme (SVA) scheme will be introduced from March 2000. The main elements of the changes are:Progressive lifting of limits on the total number of commercially traded vehicles which can be approved and registered under SVA, starting with 1,000 vehicles in March next year and increasing by 1,000 each month until the end of year 2000 when all limits will be lifted.

  181
  Introduction of enhanced technical standards for key environmental, safety and security (anti-theft) items to apply to commercially traded vehicles. The current SVA standards will continue to apply to amateur-built vehicles and genuine personal imports as redefined below.
  Complete lifting of limits on vehicles which have been approved to equivalent standards to the enhanced SVA in other European member states.

  Tightening of the rules for vehicles to qualify as "personal imports" by requiring importers to have lived abroad for at least 12 months and used their vehicles abroad for at least 6 months.

  Transport (EU)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response his Department has made to the European Commission White Paper establishing a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU. [83941]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Commission has not invited member states to comment on its White Paper and neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have made any formal response. However, as proposed in the White Paper, the Commission has established a committee of experts to develop guidance on methods to estimate the marginal costs of transport, and our officials are participating in that process.

  Auditors
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the maximum period of time for which an auditor may be appointed by the Audit Commission; [84044]

  (2) what powers the Audit Commission has to terminate the appointment of an appointed auditor (a) in general and (b) for professional incompetence; [84045]

  (3) what powers the Audit Commission has to vary the personal fee levels of appointed auditors. [84046]

  Ms Armstrong
  Section 3 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 makes provision for the appointment of auditors by the Audit Commission. There is no prescribed maximum period, but it is the commission's general policy, in accordance with good professional practice, to change a council's auditor at least once every seven years. The Audit Commission may terminate an appointment where the auditor fails to comply with the statutory Code of Audit Practice, or other statutory obligations. Where an auditor is not a Commission employee, section 3(8) provides for the appointment to be on such terms and for such period as the Commission may determine. Such terms include the personal fees payable by the commission to the individual auditor or the firm of individuals.

  District Auditor's Inquiry (Westminster)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the impact on Westminster City Council's fulfilment of its statutory 182
  functions of the reimbursement of legal costs associated with councillors and officers in connection with the District Auditor's inquiry into designated sales. [84065]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of any such representations.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take, in relation to the work of the auditor involved in the inquiry, following the Court of Appeal's judgment reducing the Westminster auditor's calculation of loss in connection with the inquiry into designated sales. [84064]

  Ms Armstrong
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has no function in relation to the work of auditors appointed by the independent Audit Commission.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average time taken between the completion of a planning inquiry and the announcement of the inspector's decision within the south-west region. [84220]

  Mr. Caborn
  Such information is available only for Planning Appeals made under S78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In the last year April 1998 to March 1999 the average time taken for cases in the south-west region decided by the Secretary of State was 27 weeks compared with a national average of 34 weeks.

  Rents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the average rents in each year since 1989 for(a) local authority properties, (b) housing association properties and (c) private properties. [84047]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The average weekly rents for England are as set out. These averages take no account of differences in the size, age or location of dwellings covered under the three tenures.

  £

  Year

  Local authority

  Housing association1

  Private

  1989–90

  20.86

  n/a

  n/a

  1990–91

  23.92

  n/a

  40

  1991–92

  27.59

  29.62

  n/a

  1992–93

  30.84

  34.34

  n/a

  1993–94

  33.70

  38.17

  61

  1994–95

  35.79

  40.71

  65

  1995–96

  38.41

  44.00

  70

  1996–97

  40.17

  46.74

  76

  1997–98

  41.18

  49.71

  79

  1Housing association rents are at 31 March in each year. The series above runs from 31/3/92—31/3/98.

  Source:

  LA: DETR Housing Subsidy claim forms.

  HA: annual Housing Corporation HAR 10/1 and RSR.

  Private: 1990, Survey of Private Renters. Other years, DETR Survey of English Housing—like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department when he proposes to publish the Community Legal Service consultation document. [83822]

  Mr. Hoon
  I expect to publish the document shortly.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the current caseload of the Serious Fraud Office. [83889]

  The Solicitor-General
  The current caseload of the Serious Fraud Office is 66 active cases. Caseload figures for the three previous financial years, as set out in the SFO Annual Reports, are as follows: 70, 82 and 78 (for 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 respectively).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) discussions he has had and (b) proposals his Department has put forward at Council of Ministers' meetings in respect of EU fraud; and if he will make a statement. [77775]

  Ms Quin:
  [holding answer 19 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Treasury on 19 March 1999, Official Report, column 858–59.

  European Commission
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 505, for what reason he has not received from the European Commission the information requested by the hon. Member for Ludlow on 13 January. [81980]

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1999,Official Report, column 505, on the European Commission, what steps he has taken to secure the information requested from the European Commission. [82179]

  Ms Quin
  I have written to the right hon. and hon. Members. A copy of these letters has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the proposals which he has made at the Council of Ministers for the reform of the European Commission. [82482]

  Ms Quin
  The UK has shared with partners a number of specific reform ideas aimed at making the Commission more efficient, transparent and accountable. These include changes to Commission internal management structures,184
  personnel policy and financial control. Some progress has already been made. For example, the Council is expected shortly to approve plans for an independent fraud investigation office within the Commission, the make-up of which will owe much to UK ideas.

  EU Council Meetings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the average proportion of the agenda for European Union Council meetings attended by his Ministers which change in the period between his monthly announcement of the proposed agenda and the actual meeting. [82296]

  Ms Quin
  The agendas for EU General Affairs Councils (GACs) are subject to changes in the run-up to the meetings: Ministers often need to react quickly to events. Over the last six months, I estimate that the agendas for the GACs have changed by up to 50 per cent. between the monthly announcements and the actual meetings.

  As part of the Parliamentary process, my department provides the Scrutiny Committees with updated agendas for the GACs two weeks in advance of the meetings, which are updated thereafter if there are further significant changes.

  EU Treaties
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a single paper the texts of the revised Treaties on European Union and the European Community as coming into effect on 1 May together with all the protocols and declarations contained in their component treaties and showing for each article therein references to earlier numbered Articles related to those now current. [83819]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper CM 3780, presented to Parliament by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in October 1997. The consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union begins on page 110, that of the Treaty establishing the European Community on page 130. This text also includes references to the previous numbering of articles.

  Peacekeeping (UN)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 421, on UN peacekeeping, if he will list the cases which have arisen, other than in Kosovo, when in the light of all the circumstances a limited use of force has been deemed justifiable under international law in support of purposes laid down by the Security Council. [84066]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A limited use of force was deemed justifiable in support of the purposes laid down by the Security Council but without the council's express authorisation in order to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq shortly after the Gulf War. The No Fly Zones were established in 1991 (northern Iraq) and 1992 (southern Iraq) in support of UNSCR 688 which called on Iraq to end its brutal repression of the civilian population: coalition aircraft help protect the interests of the Shias in
  185
  the south and the Kurds and other minorities in the north by ensuring Iraqi aircraft cannot fly below the 33rd or above the 36th parallel.

  Military Exports (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of British military equipment exported to Yugoslavia since 1989 on the present conflict. [80160]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since the introduction of UN and EU arms embargoes in 1991 we have no evidence of UK companies, either directly or through intermediaries, supplying the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with any military equipment prohibited by the embargoes. Details of military equipment exports during the period 1 January 1989 to July 1991, when the EU embargo was applied, were published on 16 February 1993, Official Report, columns 124–32, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). These included military aircraft component spares, which were short term consumable items and are unlikely to still be in service. We assess that they have had little direct impact on operations.

  Radar equipment and spare parts to support the civil/military radar system were also supplied. Many of these assets have been attacked and damaged or destroyed by NATO air-strikes. We believe that some UK supplied equipment is continuing to contribute to Serbia's remaining air surveillance capability.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  SOLOTEC (Chief Executive)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the financial compensation package paid on the resignation of the Chief Executive of SOLOTEC. [83377]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Board of SOLOTEC is responsible for setting the terms and conditions of SOLOTEC's staff. I understand that the Board decided last summer to vary the then Chief Executive's terms of employment to incorporate the severance payment he has since received. I further understand that the Board at the time believed that the financial compensation package was necessary to retain the services of the Chief Executive. When the Board subsequently decided to part with the Chief Executive, they decide to make the payment in full.

  The compensation package was agreed and paid without the knowledge of the Department. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear our view that there are no circumstances in which a payment of this size could be justified for any TEC employee.

  Latin American Students
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the(a) number of and (b) origin of students studying at British universities from the countries of Latin America. [83369]
  186
  Mr. Mudie
  The latest available data are given in the following table:

  Number of higher education students from Latin American countries studying in higher education institutions in Great Britain 1998–99

  Country

  Number of students1

  Argentina

  365

  Bolivia

  35

  Brazil

  1,046

  Chile

  202

  Colombia

  475

  Costa Rica

  25

  Cuba

  10

  Ecuador

  50

  El Salvador

  15

  Guatemala

  12

  Honduras

  6

  Mexico

  1,056

  Nicaragua

  8

  Panama

  27

  Paraguay

  15

  Peru

  120

  Uruguay

  43

  Venezuela

  279

  Total

  3,789

  1Full-time, part-time, undergraduates and postgraduates

  Mature Students
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency showing the numbers of part-time and full-time mature students who entered higher education in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998. [83590]

  Mr. Mudie
  Information for the three years requested is given in the table.

  Mature1 entrants to UK higher education institutions

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1996–97

  172,100

  226,000

  398,100

  1997–98

  170,400

  230,800

  401,200

  1998–99

  168,700

  250,100

  418,700

  1Mature entrants are defined as students in their first year of study aged 25 and over on postgraduate courses and aged 21 and over on undergraduate courses. The numbers cover home and overseas domiciled students and are taken from HESA December Student Record datasets.

  Note:

  Comparisons between 1997–98 and 1998–99 are affected by a change in the basis for identifying first year students used by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Adjusting for this change gives a growth rate of -4 per cent. in full-time entrants (rather than -1 per cent. suggested by the unadjusted numbers) and +5 per cent. in part-time (rather than +8 per cent. suggested by the unadjusted numbers).

  The figures show that the numbers of mature students have increased since the introduction of tuition fees. The tendency for more mature students to opt for part-time rather than full-time study began before tuition fees were introduced for all categories of student and has continued since.

  Brain Drain
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the proportion of UK citizens with post-graduate degrees
  187
  obtained at British universities who have subsequently taken up employment abroad; and if he will make a statement. [83356]

  Mr. Mudie
  The available information relates only to the destinations of individual cohorts of postgraduate qualifiers six months after qualification.

  The latest figures relating to 1996–97 show that of the 17,367 UK domiciled full-time postgraduate qualifiers from GB higher education institutions for whom we have destination information, 1,100 (or 6 per cent.) are reported to have taken up employment overseas.

  Wirral Metropolitan College
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will call for a report from the FEFC on the decision of the previous directors of Wirral Metropolitan College to award an enhancement of eligible service to the recently retired Principal of Wirral Metropolitan College; [83689]

  (2) what external advice he (a) sought and (b) received about the appropriateness of the retirement package of the recently retired principal of Wirral Metropolitan College. [83691]

  Mr. Mudie
  The retirement package was a decision made by the previous governors of Wirral Metropolitan College. The decision was made in line with guidance provided by the FEFC in its financial memorandum to colleges. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked the FEFC to review the advice it gives to colleges to ensure that careful consideration is given to the guidance so that it is appropriate in different circumstances.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Romania
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out her Department's planned financial assistance towards orphanages in Romania in the financial year 1999–2000. [83965]

  Clare Short
  We have no plans to provide financial assistance for orphanages in Romania for the financial year 1999–2000. We are considering a request from the Romanian Department for Child Protection which may include support for orphanages.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Macpherson Report
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the findings of the independent investigation into the leak of material relating to the report by Sir William Macpherson into the death of Stephen Lawrence. [84332]

  Mr. Straw
  I have now received from my Permanent Secretary the report of the independent investigation into the leak, carried out following longstanding practice by a member of the panel maintained by the Cabinet Office. The summary findings of the report are as follows:
  188
  Information deriving from the draft report of the Judicial Inquiry was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph on 21 February. The most likely route for the leak was not the draft Report itself but a summary of its findings and associated commentary which were internal to Government. The leak is not, therefore, thought to have come from the Inquiry team or from the printers.

  Appropriate security arrangements were instituted by the Home Office to control tightly the handling of the draft Report and related papers. They excluded advance briefing of the media. The handling procedures and the restriction on briefing of the media were observed. All copies of the relevant papers were accounted for. No-one was found who had had unauthorised access to the material. Despite intensive investigation, it has not been possible to establish who deliberately leaked the story to the Sunday Telegraph.

  I regret that it has not been possible to trace the originator of this deplorable leak. I had access myself to the papers, and I have already given in my Statement to the House on 22 February 1999, Official Report, columns 21–34, my personal word that I was not responsible. The only other Minister with relevant access was my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) who has asked me to relay to the House a similar absolute assurance which he has given me and which I fully accept. The number of officials and advisers who also had access to the relevant papers is small, and I do not intend therefore, to publish their names which would only serve to throw suspicion unfairly on them as a group when there is no evidence that identifies any individual as responsible.

  Cigarette Lighters
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the number of house fires which are caused each year by faulty cigarette lighters; and if he will make a statement. [83813]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1997, there were 527 fires caused by cigarette lighters which resulted in 10 fatal and 265 non-fatal casualties. The statistics do not specify whether or not the cigarette lighter in question was faulty.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the financial costs to the Metropolitan Police of the additional security arrangements in London in response to the recent nail bomb attacks; and what additional financial provision he proposes to make to cover these costs. [83888]

  Kate Hoey
  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis tells me that the estimated cost of the enhanced high visibility policing provided to reassure the public, in particular, in policing in areas populated or frequented by all known minority groups, as part of the measures to combat the recent nail bombings, is £1,435,144. The figures do not include policing of the bomb scenes themselves.

  These policing operations were of the character for which the funding of the Metropolitan Police already provides.

  CCTV
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the benefits of compulsory registration of privately operated CCTV systems with the local police. [83886]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no requirement for owners of privately operated Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems to register with the local police, nor are there any plans to assess the benefits of requiring them to do so.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 provides a framework for the statutory regulation of CCTV systems. Their controllers will be required to notify details of their processing of personal data to the Data Protection Commissioner who will make them publicly available in a register. They will also have to comply with a set of enforceable principles of good data handling practice.

  Our recently published White Paper on the statutory regulation of the private security industry would require those operating CCTV systems to be licensed.

  Case Allocation Unit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the throughput of files achieved by the case allocation unit for the latest available period. [83954]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  During the week ending 8 May, the case allocation unit allocated a total of 3,563 files to Case Management Units. A further 1,545 files were sent to other locations.

  Prison Visitors
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the National Association for lay visiting about custody suites at police stations regarding(a) length of service of lay visitors, (b) retirement age of lay visitors and (c) the future of the lay visitors scheme; [83967]

  (2) what representations he has received from (a) the West Midlands Police and (b) other organisations regarding proposed changes by the West Midlands Police Authority to the lay visitors scheme; [83969]

  (3) what role he has in approving changes in the operation of the West Midlands lay visitors scheme; [83971]

  (4) what discussions he has had with the police authorities regarding the National Association for Lay Visiting schemes for custody suites at police stations with reference to (a) length of service, (b) retirement age and (c) the future of the lay visitors scheme; [83968]

  (5) what proposed changes to lay visitors schemes have been notified to him by the West Midlands Police Authority. [83970]

  Mr. Boateng
  Lay visiting to police stations is a non-statutory function which is the responsibility of police authorities. The National Association for Lay Visiting (NALV) is an independent voluntary organisation which works to support and promote lay visiting to police stations. The Home Office has issued guidance to police authorities on the operation of lay visiting schemes.
  190
  This guidance states that visitors should be independent persons of good character, able to make informed judgments which the community and the police will accept, and that as far as possible they should be representative of the community in terms of age, gender, race and so on.

  The Home Office guidance makes no reference to any age limits for the appointment of lay visitors. However, the separate guidance issued for the Metropolitan Police area currently states that persons who are under the age of eighteen or over the age of seventy will not normally be appointed. This guidance is shortly to be reviewed and the upper age limit likely to be removed.

  Although the guidance for police authorities outside London does not mention age limits, it suggests that lay visitors should be appointed for a fixed term. The reason for this is the desirability of lay visitors not becoming too closely associated or over familiar with their local police stations. On the other hand, it is necessary to take into account the need for lay visitors to gain sufficient experience to make an effective contribution. By way of example, the guidance mentions that in London, lay visitors are appointed for a three-year term of office, with the possibility of renewal for a further final three-year term.

  The implementation and interpretation of guidance issued by the Home Office is a matter for individual police authorities. In practice, it has been recognised from the earliest days of lay visiting that individual schemes must evolve to suit local circumstances.

  There have been no recent discussions between the Home Office, NALV and police authorities regarding lay visiting, but the Home Office shortly expects to discuss with NALV the recommendations arising from research commissioned by the Home Office on lay visiting. The Home Office will then consider the issue of fresh guidance to police authorities. The research report has already been copied to police authorities.

  The Home Office has become aware of proposed changes to the lay visiting scheme operated by the West Midlands Police Authority through correspondence from Members of Parliament.

DEFENCE

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when live firing experiments using animals were last carried out(a) in the UK and (b) involving UK personnel. [82521]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Michael Hancock, dated 13 May 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about live firing experiments using animals. My reply refers to the arrangements at DERA as we undertake, on behalf of MOD, the majority of work involving the use of animals.

  191
  DERA, or one of its predecessors, has conducted research into the prevention and treatment of physical injuries certainly since the mid 1970s. Over the course of the last year live firing experiments using anaesthetised animals were carried out in the UK involving UK personnel during May, June, July, September and November 1998 and February 1999.
  Recent areas of research include:
  the use of anaesthetised pigs to develop enhanced blast protection for military personnel and to validate physical and computer models of chest injury from blast waves.
  work on anaesthetised rats to determine the pathophysiology of abdominal and thoracic injury from blast waves and the development of treatment strategies for injured military personnel.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Research Spending
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's planned spending on research broken down by category in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and what was actual spending in 1998–99. [83473]

  Mr. Spellar
  Planned defence expenditure on major customers' research budgets for 1999–2000 is £453 million as set out in the Government's Expenditure Plans 1999–2000 to 2000–01, Cmnd. 4208, published in March 1999. Actual spending in 1998–99 is estimated at £460 million. The main categories within this expenditure are the Applied Research Programme, about £325 million in 1998–99, and the Corporate Research Programme, about £120 million. A similar breakdown is expected to apply in 1999–2000. Total figures for subsequent years will be published in subsequent editions of Government Expenditure Plans.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individual members of the Territorial Army are currently serving with British forces in the Kosovo theatre; and with which units they are serving. [83627]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 12 May 1999]: 19 individual members of the TA are serving in Macedonia with the following units:

  HQ 4 Armd Bde: 9

  2 Sqn RAF: 1

  HQ UK NSE: 3

  21 Engr Regt: 4

  28 Engr Regt: 1

  23 Para Fd Amb: 1.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is departmental policy to refer to the "New Territorial Army" in official communications or publications. [84098]

  Mr. Spellar
  No.

SCOTLAND

  Census Records
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are (a) the storage space occupied by the enumerators' books for the post-1920 decennial
  192
  censuses for Scotland and (b) the estimated costs of micro-filming each of these census records. [83772]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]: (a) The census returns for Scotland which remain closed to the public occupy approximately the following amounts of shelving in secure storage belonging to the Registrar General for Scotland.

  Linear metres

  1901 Census

  776 volumes

  18.3

  1911 Census

  1,225 volumes

  38.3

  1921 Census

  1,720 volumes

  39.2

  1931 Census

  1,175 volumes

  34.8

  1939 National Registration1

  2,087 volumes

  91.0

  1951 Census

  3,720 binders

  247.1

  1961 Census

  10,800 binders

  591.1

  1966 Sample Census

  3,528 binders

  146.2

  1971 Census

  19,279 boxes

  1,290.2

  1981 Census

  19,150 boxes

  1,666.1

  1991 Census

  12,852 boxes

  1,863.5

  All closed censuses

  6,025.8

  1No census of the population of Scotland was taken in 1941. Instead, shortly after the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the Registrar General undertook 'national registration', which amounted to a census of the population for the purposes of conscription and the rationing of food etc. The original paper volumes remain in the ownership of the Registrar General and are treated essentially as if they were closed census returns.

  (b) No estimates are available of the costs of either photographic microfilming or digital imaging of these closed records. Since closure is for 100 years it is likely that, with changing technologies, such estimates would be out of date before the need to release the records to the public made their imaging necessary. A pilot exercise has however begun to provide information about the most appropriate methods, and the costs, of imaging the 1901 closed census returns. This set of census returns is due for release to the public on 1 January 2002.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Vaux Brewery
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will commission an independent assessment of the advice given to Swallow plc regarding the asset value of Vaux brewery. [79361]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 30 March 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made during his Adjournment debate on this on 29 April 1999, Official Report, columns 596–600.

  Law Commission Report (No. 227)
  Mr. Gander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his Department's policy with regard to the report from the Law Commission (1994 No. 227), entitled "Restitution: Mistakes of Law and ultra vires Public Authority Receipts and Payments". [82307]
  193
  Mr. Byers
  This is primarily a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I refer the hon and learned Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department on 29 April 1999,Official Report, column 245.

  Oil and Gas Industry (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the prospects for the oil and gas industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [82728]

  Mr. Battle
  Work is being carried out or is planned to be carried out under landward licences held over acreage in North and South Wales.

  I expect to be able to offer further licensing opportunities for onshore areas in due course which will allow further appraisal of the hydrocarbon potential in and around Wales, including coal gas related prospects.

  Industry Council (Luxembourg)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the outcome of the Industry Council held in Luxembourg on 29 April; and if he will make a statement. [83263]

  Mr. Byers
  My noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe represented the UK at the EU Industry Council held on 29 April.

  The Council reached political agreement on a common position on a late payments directive. The purpose of this directive is to deter late payment by giving all businesses a right to statutory interest on debt not paid on time, regardless of where the debtor is based in the EU. Now that Ministers have reached a political agreement, a common position will be finalised for communication to the European Parliament for the Directives second reading.

  Council conclusions were agreed on shipbuilding which sent a strong message of support to the European shipbuilding industry, given the lack of orders for European yards so far this year. In particular, the Conclusions provided a mandate for Commissioner Bangemann's forthcoming discussions with South Korea. The Commission also presented the third monitoring report on aid to German and Spanish shipyards.

  The Council had an open debate on globalisation and competitiveness. Ministers spoke on a wide range of themes. The Presidency summed up by identifying the key themes arising from the discussions: venture capital, take-up of university research, intellectual property, strengthening the internal market to create the framework conditions for the information society training and the global context of competition policy and liberalisation. The Presidency concluded that the Council saw itself as having a co-ordinating role in updating EU industrial policy, and there was a need for further rationalisation of Council structures.

  The Council adopted a Resolution settling the outstanding issue of ownership and administration of the assets of the ECSC after the expiry of the Treaty in 2002. The Resolution reflects agreement reached by member states by which the assets will be transferred to the ownership of the remaining Communities, while
  194
  being ring-fenced from other Community funds. The Commission also presented the latest monitoring report on past steel aid cases and noted that there were no particular problems.

  A lunchtime discussion was held on industrial aspects of enlargement of the EU. There was agreement that enlargement should not lead to competitive distortions, that effective implementation of the EU acquis was essential, and that restructuring would be needed in several sectors. A meeting of representatives of such sectors and Ministers from candidate countries would be held in Estonia in the autumn, to help them learn from EU experience.

  Agreement was reached on two amending regulations which would allow the Commission to bring forward a new block exemption policy for dealing with vertical agreements between companies. The Presidency also noted agreement of a Council declaration on the essential elements that the new block exemption should contain. The Commission undertook to take on board the content of the Council declaration and made its own declaration to this effect.

  The Presidency withdrew its proposed Council Conclusions which encouraged the Commission to bring forward and adopt its White Paper on the Modernisation of Competition Policy, following the Commission's adoption of the White Paper on 28 April. The White Paper is intended to bring about debate on the future implementation of Articles 85 and 86.

  The Council also adopted Conclusions on benchmarking, sustainable development, the Business Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST) Report and the Commission's White Paper on Commerce.

  The Commission gave presentations on the economic situation in the EU and its Communication on Tourism and Employment.

  Competitiveness
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 1999,Official Report, column 444, on competitiveness, on what basis he has defined productivity performance. [83316]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 5 May 1999]: Labour productivity can be measured by value added per worker or by value added per hour worked. Irrespective of the measure chosen, the UK's productivity performance is disappointing. The Analysis and Background document, which was published along with recent Competitiveness White Paper (Cm 4176), showed that only Japan has lower productivity as measured by value added per hour worked, and that the UK lags all of the G7 on a per worker basis. Both documents are in the Library of the House.

  Assisted Areas Map
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what joint meetings he has attended with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and the Deputy Prime Minister to discuss the Assisted Areas Map. [83619]
  195
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]: I meet my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues including the Assisted Areas Map.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent Ministerial Council of the European Space Agency. [84387]

  Mr. Byers
  My noble Friend the Minister for Science and Space was invited to chair the Ministerial meeting held in Brussels. At the meeting the UK led its partners in the European Space Agency (ESA) to embark on a new £400 million programme of environmental research. The "Living Planet" programme will help scientists to understand and predict the Earth's environment and humankind's effects upon it. For example, it will monitor the effect of global warming on the polar ice caps and measure soil moisture and other factors that are essential to the accurate modelling of climate systems.

  We have announced £67 million investment in the programme by the British National Space Centre (BNSC). The UK has taken a strong lead in devising this programme. Our scientific community has worked closely with the BNSC in identifying how to deliver a challenging value-for-money initiative, using state of the art equipment and know-how. The agreement we secured is the first step towards providing an assured long-term programme of scientific research which looks at the Earth and its environment from space. We are putting Earth sciences on an equal footing with ESA's traditional areas of scientific research—astronomy and planetary exploration.

  We also announced further commitments of around £40 million to other new ESA programmes in satellite multimedia and global navigation satellites. These were coupled with renewed commitments of around £46 million per year to existing science and facility investment programmes.

  The Government's support for space has allowed the UK to make major commitments not only to science, where the substantial increase in funding in the recent Comprehensive Spending Review is already bearing fruit, but also to the continued health of the UK space industry. Our subscriptions to the satellite multimedia and navigation programmes will position our companies at the forefront of the knowledge-driven economy and give them the opportunity to maximise their share in global markets that will be worth around £65 billion a year within the next decade.

  I am confident that, with the current spirit of co-operation between the member states of ESA, we will now be able to press ahead with the exciting missions of ESA's Horizons 2000 programme, such as Planck/FIRST, and that we will be able to include the unique Mars Express mission. This is a new chapter, opening a period of great potential for European space.

  Export Licensing
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if errors have been identified in the information 196
  on export licensing decisions included in Part II of the Government's Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls; and if he will make a statement. [84388]

  Dr. Howells
  Regrettably, a small number of recording errors and omissions have been identified. These errors were identified in the course of work carried out to compile certain information requested by the quadripartite committee established to carry out a joint inquiry into the Government's first Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls. As was noted in the Report, human error cannot be eliminated altogether in the compilation of such a large body of data.

  The recording errors identified are as follows:
  Eleven refused applications were omitted from the data published in the Report. These did not cover goods specified as subject to control in the relevant legislation but goods subject to the end-use control because of concern about their use in weapons of mass destruction programmes.One licence, covering military imaging equipment, was described as covering exports to China but should have been described as covering exports to Taiwan.Two items for which a licence was refused were in error included in the list of military equipment licensed for export to Turkey.There was some duplication in a Table in the Report giving information on the coverage of Open Individual Export Licences issued during the period. The final, correct ratings of the goods concerned were given in the Table, but the original, incorrect ratings were not removed.Some destinations excluded from the coverage of 2 Open Individual Export Licences during the period were omitted from the relevant Table in the Report, as were some of the ratings of the goods covered by 1 such licence.Errata sheets will be placed in the Library of the House, and arrangements are being made to ensure that these sheets accompany all copies of the Report disseminated in future. The procedures for recording export licensing information and checking such records prior to publication are being reviewed with the aim of ensuring that these errors do not occur in future.

  Sub-postmasters (Remuneration)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of sub-postmasters' remuneration is accounted for by(a) sale of postal services and (b) payment of benefits. [84058]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that around 25 per cent. of sub-postmasters' remuneration is accounted for by the sale of postal services and around 35 per cent. is accounted for by the payment of benefits. The remainder of their post office remuneration derives from banking, bill payment and other financial and licensing transactions.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current hourly target rate of remuneration for sub-postmasters. [84057]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Sub-postmasters are not employees of the Post Office but are independent business people who provide post office service on an agency basis.

  The Post Office makes payments to sub-postmasters based on the amount of transactions they perform, plus some core payments and allowances. The concept of an hourly rate of remuneration is therefore not applicable.
  197
  Because of their contractual position, sub-postmasters are able to—and typically do—operate a private retail business from the same premises as the sub post office. This enables them to gain income from the private business as well as from the post office, whilst sharing overheads.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which employment sectors are currently excluded from the 48-hour week provision of the Working Time Directive; for which of them Her Majesty's Government have tabled alternative proposals; and what maximum hours respectively are suggested in these proposals. [83839]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The employment sectors currently excluded from the Working Time Directive are air, rail, road, sea, inland waterway and lake transport, sea fishing, other work at sea (essentially the offshore oil and gas industry) and doctors in training.

  It would not be appropriate for the Government to discuss specific details of its negotiating position. However, the Government are not opposed to the extension of working time in principle, although we want to ensure the new measures accommodate our concerns and do not adversely affect the competitiveness of industry or the delivery of healthcare within the NHS.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will modify the Working Time Regulations to take into account hours at work spent not continually working on account of machine breakdown, supply difficulties or for other reasons beyond the direct control of management. [83840]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  There are no plans to amend the definition of working time in the Working Time Regulations. Under the Regulations working time is defined as time when a worker is 'working, at his employer's disposal and carrying out his activities or duties'. For time to be working time all three elements must be satisfied.

  Post Office
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to(a) introduce and (b) modify minimum standards of service for the Post Office, with particular reference to deliveries. [83841]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The targets for the percentages of first class mail delivered the next working day after posting and second class mail delivered within three working days of posting are set by the Post Office in consultation with the Post Office Users' National Council. The targets to achieve first delivery in urban areas by 9.30am and to achieve delivery in rural areas by 2.00pm are set internally by the Post Office.

  A key element of the package of Post Office reforms announced last December is the creation of an independent regulator to protect consumers' interests including standards of service. It is also planned to give the Post Office Users' National Council a more central role and increased powers. Together with the other
  198
  elements of the reform package these changes will ensure that service standards will improve over time. Further details will be set out in a White Paper shortly.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he proposes to publish the Post Office White Paper. [83842]
  Mr. Ian McCartney: It remains my expectation, as I told the Trade and Industry Select Committee on 9 December, that the White Paper will be published in the first half of the year.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) Crown post offices and (b) sub-post offices have shut during the last 12 months. [84055]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that there has been a net reduction of one Crown post office and 232 sub post offices in the 12 months to the end of March 1999.

  The Crown office reduction was the net result of merging two nearby offices in London when the opportunity was taken to open a new flagship Crown office in their place.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of sub-post offices is located in rural areas. [84053]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office classify approximately 50 per cent. of sub-post offices as being in rural areas.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), will respond to the letters from Mr. P. Pritchard of Eastbourne dated 21 January and 5 March. [83159]

  Angela Eagle
  We can find no record of Mr. Pritchard's correspondence from January and March. The last recorded correspondence for Mr. Pritchard was in November 1998 in response to a letter from the hon. Member. If the hon. Member could forward copies of Mr. Pritchard's correspondence we will reply urgently to his concerns.

  Ancillary Workers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance has been issued to Benefits Agency Offices on the payment of those ancillary workers affected by the Social Security Commissioner's decision CIS/14661/1996 of December 1997 who had been advised not to sign on with the Employment Service for the period of their unpaid leave. [83903]

  Angela Eagle
  Since Social Security Commissioner's Decision CIS/14661/1996 was made on 21 August 1997 (received by the Department on 13 September 1997), guidance has been issued to Benefits Agency and
  199
  Employment Services staff explaining that Jobseeker's Allowance cannot be paid under normal rules to those who did not claim at the relevant time.

  It is, however, sometimes possible for ex-gratia payments to be made to people in these circumstances. Agency staff have been asked to keep a note of those ancillary workers who have inquired about such payments so that consideration can be given to their requests.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, under the proposed reforms to Incapacity Benefit, persons who have their entitlement reduced to zero by their level of pension will continue to receive national insurance credits. [83721]

  Mr. Bayley
  People who have their entitlement to Incapacity Benefit reduced to nil under the proposed reforms will qualify for national insurance credits for each week they remain incapable of work.

  Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the Green Paper, "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future", is no longer available on his Department's website. [84042]

  Mr. Timms
  Following the wide endorsement of the proposals in the Green Paper, we have set out how we are putting our plans into action in "A New Contract for Welfare: Safeguarding Social Security" which is available on the website.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of housing benefit claimants are unemployed. [84048]

  Angela Eagle
  About 12 per cent. of Housing Benefit recipients are unemployed and claiming Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Notes:

  1. Data used to calculate the answer is provisional.

  2. The data refers to benefit units and has been rounded to the nearest whole percent.

  3. The data is for those Housing Benefit claimants who are unemployed and claim Jobseeker's Allowance.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System Annual 1 per cent. sample taken May 1998.

HEALTH

  Testicular Cancer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for improving public awareness amongst men of the benefits of self-testing for testicular cancer, with particular reference to the highest-risk age group; and if he will make a statement. [83597]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department encourages men to consult their doctor as soon as they notice any unusual changes in their testicles.
  200
  Leaflets produced by the Department and by the Health Education Authority draw attention to testicular cancer, particularly for men in the 20 to 35 year age group who are potentially most at risk, provide advice on self-examination and re-emphasise the importance of early reporting of possible signs of cancer to a general practitioner. GPs are bound by their terms of service to carry out all appropriate health promotion and prevention activities and are generally well aware of this risk to health in young men.

  The "Our Healthier Nation" health strategy is designed to improve the health of the whole population, including men. The strategy highlights cancer prevention as one of the main areas for action.

  Medicinal Products (Registration)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made with plans to hold an international conference for the Harmonisation of Technical Standards for the Registration of Medicinal Products. [83789]

  Ms Jowell
  The International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) was established in 1990 as a joint regulatory/industry project. The aim of the project is to improve, through harmonisation of the regulatory requirements, the efficiency of the process for developing and registering new medicinal products in Europe, Japan and the United States, in order to make these products available to patients with a minimum of delay.

  The Fourth International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH 4) was held in Brussels, 16–18 July 1997. Plans for a fifth phase are currently under discussion.

  Licensed Medicines (Children)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that the issue of establishing a proper licensing system for medicines used in the treatment of children is given the highest priority at a European level; [83788]

  (2) what steps he plans to take to examine the experience of the United States in the licensing and regulation of medicines used on children; and if he will make a statement; [83790]

  (3) what steps he is taking to press the European Commission to monitor the implementation of EU guidance on the licensing of medicines used in the treatment of children. [83787]

  Mr. Hutton
  The United Kingdom took the lead in revising the European guideline and is committed to working closely with the European Commission and other Member States to monitor the effectiveness of its operation. The Government are committed to ensuring that the regulatory system within Europe effectively addresses the licensing of medicines for use in children. We will work with other Member States to press the Commission to take further action should this prove necessary.

  We intend to monitor closely the combination of financial incentives and legislation which has now been introduced in the United States. We will keep the

  201
  Commission informed of the effectiveness of the US initiative, and its suitability or otherwise for replication within the European Union.

  Iophendalyte
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much iophendalyte was purchased by the National Health Service in each financial year from 1969–70 until 1987–88. [83793]

  Ms Jowell
  As with other pharmaceutical products purchased by National Health Service trusts this information is not available centrally.

  Cigarette Lighters
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the forthcoming White Paper, Our Healthier Nation, will include measures aimed at preventing injury from accidents caused by unsafe cigarette lighters; and if he will make a statement. [83814]

  Ms Jowell
  Accidental injury was one of the four national priority areas in the "Our Healthier Nation" Green Paper, published last year. It set out the framework for a range of measures to be carried out by the many Departments and agencies with a role to play in reducing death and injury from accidents. Although product safety and fire safety issues are integral to this overall effort, the White Paper, to be published later this month, will not include an exhaustive list of measures relating to the safety of specific product types, such as cigarette lighters.

  Minister

  Date

  Location

  Counterpart

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  14 January 1999

  Washington

  Al Gore: Vice President

  Minister for the Cabinet Office

  28 November—2 December 1998

  Washington

  Al Gore: Vice President

  Janet Reno: Attorney Generalplus senior officials including General Barry McCaffrey: Director, Office National Drug Control Policy

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  21–24 June 1998

  Washington

  Senior officials only

WALES

  New Deal
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who have entered(a) further education, (b) training and (c) employment programmes under the New Deal in Wales. [83767]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest information from the Department for Education and Employment indicates that, by the end of February 1999:
  just under 2,200 young people had entered the Full-time Education and Training Option of the New Deal for 18–24s in Wales (separate totals are not available to show the numbers entering Education or Training);almost 1,500 young people had entered subsidised jobs under the Employer Option of the New Deal for 18–24s in Wales.
  A further 1,900 young people had entered a period of work experience with either the Environment Task Force or the Voluntary Sector.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue new guidelines on the use of beta interferon in the NHS. [80174]

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make beta interferon universally available on the NHS. [78995]

  Mr. Denham
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1999, c. 131]: I regret that the reply I gave was misleading. It should read:

  The Department will shortly he consulting interested parties on a draft health service circular on the prescribing of beta-interferon for people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [82266]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Ministers have had the following meetings with members of the US Government:

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has in respect of the improvement of North-South rail services; and if he will make a statement. [84296]

  Mr. Hain
  I consider that a better rail service between North and South Wales is essential for the economic and social cohesion of Wales. The Welsh Office is now working in partnership with the North Wales Economic Forum to secure two return services a day via Wrexham, and to reduce the fastest journey time between Bangor and Cardiff by half an hour. I expect to see the new services in place by the summer timetable next year.

  Following the transfer of functions, the National Assembly will take a close interest in rail services in Wales. Responsibility for the regulation and financial support of the railways will remain with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Owen-Corning
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect on employment at Pentre, Deeside, of the decision not to allow Rockwool to take over the Owen-Corning's plant. [83982]

  Mr. Hain
  My hon. Friend, the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs published the report of the Competition Commission, `Rockwool Ltd. and Owen-Corning Building Products (UK) Ltd.; a report on the proposed merger' on 7 May, and a copy is in the Library of the House.

  As part of the report, the Commission considered that the most likely outcome of prohibiting the merger would be that Owen-Corning would sell the Queensferry plant to another party.

TREASURY

  Road Fuel Duty
  Mr. Brady
  : To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the level of road fuel duty per litre of diesel in (a) the UK and (b) other EU member states in 1999–2000. [83201]

  Ms Hewitt
  The rate of duty on ultra low sulphur diesel in the United Kingdom is 47.21 per litre and on standard diesel the rate is 50.21 per litre.

  The latest available rates of duty in the other member states range from about 18 per litre in Luxembourg and Greece to 28 per litre in Italy.

  Pension Funds
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of Government economic policy on the overall value of UK pension funds. [83202]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are pursuing policies to promote economic stability and raise productivity, and so enhancing the worth of pension fund investments.

  Financial Support (Families)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the measures he is taking to increase financial support to families. [83203]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  All families will have benefited from the increase in child benefit for the eldest child which came into force in April and from the above-inflation increases announced for next April. Following the introduction of the new children's tax credit in April 2000 a family with one child receiving this and child benefit will get double the support for their child, £23 a week, compared with their position in May 1997 when they would have received £11.40 a week.

  In addition, the working families tax credit will be introduced in October this year and will benefit 1.5 million families. It will provide a guaranteed minimum income of £200 for a family with someone in full-time work on the national minimum wage.
  204
  The WFTC and related increases to the child premia in income related benefits will ensure that all low-income families benefit from the increased support for children. Overall, as a result of the last two budgets, families with children will, on average, be £740 a year better off. As a result of the budget measures, 700,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. The tax rate for a family on average earnings with two children will be cut to its lowest level since 1972.

  FTSE Index
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account he takes of the level of the FTSE index in devising economic policy; and if he will assess its accuracy. [83204]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government take account of all relevant economic and financial information in devising economic policy, including the level of stock market indices.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the change in levels of national insurance paid by the self-employed in 2001–02 as a result of the March Budget. [83205]

  Dawn Primarolo
  It is estimated that the self-employed will pay about £420 million less in National Insurance contributions in 2000–01, but £520 million more in 2001–02 as a result of the March 1999 Budget.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions his Department has had with the Department of Social Security in respect of practices adopted by some companies to avoid paying national insurance contributions. [83207]

  Dawn Primarolo
  One of the benefits of transferring the Contributions Agency and policy responsibility for National Insurance to the Inland Revenue is that the Departments will be able to combine their efforts in detecting and preventing artificial avoidance of National Insurance which cost the National Insurance Fund hundreds of millions of pounds a year in lost revenue.

  In my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget we announced a further move. We shall be bringing forward legislation shortly to counter avoidance in personal service provision.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his reform of national insurance contributions. [83197]

  Mr. Milburn
  In March 1998 the Chancellor announced the most radical restructuring of the National Insurance system for 20 years, in line with the recommendations of the Taylor Report, The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefits System'.

  These reforms will improve work incentives by reducing burdens on the lower paid thereby encouraging people to move from welfare to work and simplify the structure of the National Insurance contribution scheme for both employees and employers.

  Debt Relief (Poor Countries)
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report on progress made on debt relief for poor countries at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings. [83206]

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will report on progress made on debt relief for poor countries at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank spring meetings. [83216]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  At the Spring meetings of the IMF/World Bank last month I took forward proposals for faster, deeper and wider debt relief. There was general consensus on the need for an enhanced initiative.

  I am now hopeful that we can resolve to:
  cut the burden of unpayable debt by at least 50 billion dollars in the year 2000;sell IMF gold to help pay for this;increase the aid for health, education and economic development;give a billion through our own charitable giving.

  Duty-free Sales
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the future of duty-free sales. [83209]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Duty free sales on journeys made wholly with the European Union are due to end from 30 June as a result of a decision taken by the Council of Finance Ministers in 1991. The Government are pressing for an extension to allow time to work out better duty paid arrangements. However, we have never underestimated the difficulty of this task as it requires unanimity among member states. The Government will continue to press for the best and most sensible deal possible for the UK. Duty free sales on journeys made to countries outside the EU will continue unaffected after 30 June 1999.

  Objective 1 Projects
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to provide funding to allow objective 1 EU projects to proceed. [83210]

  Mr. Milburn
  The funding arrangements for EU projects are a matter for the Departments, and devolved administrations, which administer the Structural Funds programmes as well as the individual project applicants. Departments' and devolved administrations' overall expenditure is decided in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect on the level of tax paid by business from 1999–2000 to 2001–02 of the March 1999 Budget. [83211]

  Mrs. Roche
  All companies who pay tax will benefit from the cuts in Corporation Tax that were announced in this year's Budget and in previous Budgets.

  Intrastat Returns
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to enable companies to make Intrastat returns electronically. [83212]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Companies have been able to submit Intrastat returns using Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) since the start of the Single Market on 1 January 1993. This allowed companies to send in their data on floppy disk, tape or via the Value Added Network.

  In December 1998 two further methods of submitting Intrastat data electronically were introduced using the internet. A third method of submitting data via the internet, of particular benefit to smaller companies, will be considered later this year.

  Savings Ratio
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his projections for the saving ratio in 2001–02. [83213]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Government's forecast for the saving ratio is set out in the March 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report. This shows the saving ratio rising from 7 per cent. in 1998 to 7½ per cent. in 1999 and beyond.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he made of the prospects for the UK joining the single currency(a) at the time of the announcement of the five tests and (b) at the most recent date. [83214]

  Ms Hewitt
  In his statement to the House of Commons on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 584–88, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to join the single currency was not realistic. But preparations should be made so that Britain would be in a position to join a successful single currency early in the next Parliament, should Government, Parliament and the British people agree. This position was restated by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House of Commons on 23 February 1999, Official Report, columns 179–83.

  Sixth VAT Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met EU Finance Ministers to discuss the sixth VAT directive. [83215]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The last occasion was at a meeting of ECOFIN on 15 March, when a European Commission proposal for the introduction of an experimental reduced VAT rate on labour intensive services was briefly considered.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of(a) children and (b) adults in households whose income

  207
  will increase to above half average income in each of the next three years as a result of measures introduced in each of his Budget statements. [83217]

  Ms Hewitt
  As a result of tax and benefit measures announced in the last two Budgets, 1; million people—700,000 of them children—will no longer be living in households below half the average equivalised income after allowing for housing costs.

  Company Values
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Government's monetary policies on the value of companies quoted on the London stock exchange. [83218]

  Mr. Milburn
  Maintaining low and stable inflation is the best contribution monetary policy can make to the Government's goal of high and stable levels of growth and employment. Economic stability is good for companies' performance and may be one of several factors behind recent equity market valuations.

  Global Economic System
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next plans to meet European Finance Ministers to discuss the global economic system. [83219]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECOFIN was asked by the Vienna European Council to produce a report on reform of the international financial architecture for the Cologne European Council starting on 3 June. The draft report is expected to be discussed by EU Finance and Economic Ministers at the 25 May ECOFIN.

  Taxation Changes
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the changes in taxation paid in 2001–02 as a result of Budgets since July 1997. [83220]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Costings of the measures in the July 1997, March 1998 and March 1999 Budgets can be found in tables 2.2, 1.3 and 1.3 of the respective Financial Statement and Budget Reports.

  Work Incentives
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his measures to increase the financial incentive to work. [83221]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are determined to make work pay through reforms to the tax and benefit system aimed at alleviating both the poverty and unemployment traps. From April this year a new lop rate of income tax was introduced, this will halve the tax bill for 1.5 million low-paid workers. It will be complemented by a series of reforms to National Insurance Contributions which will take 900,000 low-paid workers out of NICs 208
  altogether and reduce burdens on employers and employees alike. The Working families Tax credit Will be introduced in October 1999. It will increase the return to work for at least 1.5 million people. In combination with the National Minimum Wage and other tax and benefit reforms the WFTC will provide a minimum income guarantee for families with someone in full-time work at the national minimum wage of £200 a week.

  Financial Services and Markets Bill
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill. [83222]

  Ms Hewitt
  We commend the Committee for a very thorough inquiry, and are grateful to the many organisations which gave evidence. The Committee has broadly endorsed the approach to reform set out in the draft bill published last year, and the improvements announced in the light of public consultation. They have also made constructive recommendations for further improvements, which we will consider carefully before responding.

  Married Couple's Allowance
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 55 to 63 are eligible for the married couple's allowance in 1999–2000. [83223]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We estimate that there will be 1.8 million claims to the married couple's allowance from people aged 55–63 for 1999–2000. Around 200,000 of these claimants will not have sufficient income to be able to benefit from the allowance.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of new savers who will open individual savings accounts in the current year. [83225]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 810.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the road haulage industry on(a) vehicle excise duty and (b) duty on diesel. [83226]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have received a number of representations in writing from the road haulage industry about vehicle excise duty and fuel tax.

  Representations are also being made through the new Road Haulage Industry Forum which had its first meeting on 8 April and which brings together Transport, Treasury and Trade and Industry Ministers with industry and union representatives. The Government hope that the Forum will provide a helpful dialogue on the issues facing the haulage industry and give hauliers an opportunity to put across their concerns in a constructive way.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reasons(a) working families tax credit is classified as negative income tax and (b) mortgage interest tax relief at source is not so classified. [83227]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families' Tax Credit will be paid by the Inland Revenue through pay packets as an income tax credit, and will be regarded as such by families. Mortgage interest tax relief is officially classified by the Office for National Statistics as public spending.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the numbers of households which will be eligible for the working families tax credit which are(a) single parent families, with the woman the sole earner, (b) single parent families, with the man the sole earner, (c) couples, where the male is the sole earner, (d) couples, where the female is the sole earner and (e) dual-income families. [83807]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]: Estimates for 2000–01, the first full year of the Working Families Tax Credit, are given in the table:

  Family Type

  Number of recipients

  Lone Parent

  Female

  580,000

  Male

  30,000

  Couples

  Male sole earner

  480,000

  Female sole earner

  100,000

  Dual-earners

  210,000

  Total

  1.400,000

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the difference in the estimate between the number of euro coins required for UK participation in the single currency set out in the Outline National Changeover Plan and that indicated in his answer of 18 June 1997,Official Report, column 239, on the Euro. [83734]

  Ms Hewitt
  The estimated coin requirement set out in the Outline National Changeover Plan relates to the initial quantities needed to launch euro coins on the first day of their circulation, should the UK decide to join the single currency. The higher figure quoted in 1997 was the estimated total needed to replace all the coins in circulation. The preferred timing for the introduction of euro coins would be when coin demand is seasonally low, and for up to six months euro coins would be circulating in parallel with sterling coins.

  The estimates for both the initial launch quantities and the ultimate total coin requirement are subject to ongoing review with the banks and other interested parties.

  ECOFIN Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the agenda for the ECOFIN Council of 10 May. [83817]
  210
  Ms Hewitt
  The agenda for the 10 May ECOFIN, as finalised by Coreper on 6 May, listed the following substantive items for discussion:

  (a) the European Commission's recommendations for the 1999 Broad Economic Policy Guidelines;

  (b) the Presidency's draft for an European Employment Pact;

  (c) the Preliminary Draft Budget for the financial year 2000;

  (d) European Union common strategy on Russia: Economic and Financial aspects.

  ECOFIN Ministers also had lunch with the Social Partners.

  European Community Pension Scheme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the new European Community pension scheme will be privately funded; what liabilities currently exist; and if he will make a statement. [83931]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no new European Community pension scheme. Any changes to the pension arrangements for the staff of the European Community institutions would need to be proposed by the European Commission, and they have not made any proposals for a new pension scheme.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for the current tax year(a) the number of people in work whose marginal income tax rate will be 10 per cent., (b) the number of people in work whose marginal income tax rate will be 23 per cent. and (c) the proportion of group (b) whose marginal income tax rate would have been 20 per cent. had the income tax rates remained the same and the thresholds been increased in line with statutory indexation only. [83761]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimated numbers of people in work with 10 per cent. and 23 per cent. marginal tax rates in 1999–2000 are shown in the table.

  Marginal rate (%)

  Numbers (million)

  (a)

  10

  1.4

  (b)

  23

  18.4

  Around 3.3 million of those with a 23 per cent. marginal rate would have had a marginal rate of 20 per cent. had income tax rates remained the same as in 1998–99. However, these are people with taxable incomes of between £1,500 and £4,500 and overall they will pay between £150 and £60 less income tax per year as a result of the introduction of the lop starting rate.

  Low-income Families
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the gain from work for a one-earner couple on £200 per week with two children under 11 years(a) previous to the 1998 Budget, (b) after the 1998 Budget and (c) after the 1999 Budget. [83762]
  211
  Dawn Primarolo
  The data requested is given in the table:

  Gain from work for a one-earner couple on £200 per week with two children under 11 years

  £ per week

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Gross earnings

  200.00

  200.00

  200.00

  Net earnings after FC/WFTC

  185.65

  189.29

  232.90

  JSA

  110.95

  113.60

  121.05

  Gain from work

  74.70

  75.69

  111.85

  Notes:

  1. Net earnings are gross earnings minus income tax and National Insurance plus Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit.

  2. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the household receives no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment.

  3. All earners are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  4. 1999 net earnings assume all tax and NIC measures announced in the 1999 Budget and due to be introduced after 1999–2000 are already in place.

  5. For the calculation of JSA both members of the couple are assumed to be 18 years or over.

  6. Net income is before housing costs.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Research
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much the Government spent on research and development relating to(a) organic farming, (b) genetic engineering biotechnology and (c) agricultural biotechnology at 1999 prices, in each of the most recent 10 years for which figures are available. [83241]

  Mr. Rooker
  Details of how much Government spent on the research and development of(a) organic farming, (b) agricultural genetic engineering and (c) agricultural biotechnology are shown in the tables. All the figures are given at 1999 prices.

  (a) Organic farming

  £000

  Year

  MAFF

  SOAEFD

  BBSRC

  Total

  1994–95

  1,030

  161

  42

  1,233

  1995–96

  950

  178

  14

  1,142

  1996–97

  1,173

  183

  0

  1,356

  1997–98

  954

  192

  0

  1,146

  1998–99

  1,576

  240

  0

  1,816

  (b) Agricultural genetic engineering (including risk assessment research)

  £000

  Year

  MAFF

  DETR SOAEFD

  Total

  1994–95

  377

  531

  183

  1,091

  1995–96

  1,827

  419

  625

  2,871

  1996–97

  1,769

  371

  1,045

  3,185

  1997–98

  1,876

  647

  1,618

  4,141

  1998–99

  2.718

  856

  2,230

  5,804

  212
  BBSRC could not provide figures for agricultural genetic engineering because it proved too difficult for them to separate agricultural genetic engineering from biotechnology.

  (c) Agricultural biotechnology (excluding agricultural genetic engineering)

  £000

  Year

  MAFF

  SOAEFD

  DANI

  BBSRC

  Total

  1994–95

  17,347

  4,002

  unavailable

  unavailable

  21,349

  1995–96

  18,260

  6,393

  unavailable

  unavailable

  24,653

  1996–97

  21,173

  6,805

  1,000

  unavailable

  29,029

  1997–98

  23,339

  7,429

  1,000

  113,800

  46,318

  1998–99

  26,191

  5,729

  1,200

  114,500

  48,415

  1As explained in (b), the BBSRC figures do not distinguish between agricultural biotechnology and agricultural genetic engineering

  Further information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  BSE
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on whether the rendering process carried out by approved rendering plants guarantees the denaturing of the prion thought to be responsible for BSE/nvCJD. [83741]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF commissioned two major studies on rendering processes. One examined the inactivation of the BSE agent by rendering procedures (see D. M. Taylor et al. Veterinary Record 1995. Vol. 137, 605–610) and the second examined the effects of rendering procedures on the scrapie agent (see D. M. Taylor et al. Veterinary Record 1997. Vol. 141, 643–649). The results of these experiments resulted in European Commission Decisions 94/382 and 96/449 being made, which set standards for the rendering of mammalian animal by-products throughout the European Union. This European legislation is currently implemented in the UK in the Specified Risk Material Regulations 1997 and the Animal By-Products Order 1999 and all approved UK rendering plants operate to these standards.

  BSE is a notifiable disease in the UK. Cattle showing clinical signs suggestive of BSE are slaughtered on farm and sent for incineration. They are not rendered.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire can expect a reply to his letter of 18 March to the Minister of State on behalf of his constituent Mr. Marshall. [83751]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 May 1999]: I received the right hon. Gentleman's letter on 23 April. I replied on Monday 10 May. This was well within the Department's published target for the return of replies.

  Food (Supply and Demand)
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the current worldwide balance of supply and demand is for food; and what estimate he has made of what it would be if Northern American and Western European
  213
  agricultural demand switched to organic produce in the proportions (a) 5 per cent., (b) 10 per cent. and (c) 20 per cent. [83891]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of current and future trends in global production and consumption of agricultural commodities can be found in the OECD publication `Agricultural Outlook 1999–2004'.

  Aspects of possible futures for agriculture in 2020 and 2050, including different levels of low-input and organic farming, are being addressed as part of a project at Sussex University. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is funding the researchers to develop a number of socio-economic scenarios as an aid to climate change studies. The work is due to report by autumn this year.

  Green Transport Plan
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the introduction of a green transport plan for his Department. [82840]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: Since last July's Integrated Transport White Paper, which sets out targets for the introduction of green transport plans for Government Departments, my Department is finalising four plans covering all of our London headquarters buildings and our York building, which houses two of the Ministry's Executive Agencies. We are developing plans for our remaining 19 sites in line with the target for March 2000 set in the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  GM Foods
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from consumer groups and individuals in relation to the details of genetically modified flavourings 214
  and additives to be included on food labelling; and what actions are being taken by his Department in pursuance of this. [83783]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 May 1999]: I have received a number of representations requesting that GM additives and flavourings be labelled. We are pressing the European Commission to bring forward proposals in this area as quickly as possible.

  Meat and Bonemeal
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made in disposing of meat and bonemeal derived from the over thirty month scheme. [83781]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 11 May 1999]: Over 27,000 tonnes of MBM from OTMS animals has now been burned in the high temperature waste incinerator at Fawley.

  The Intervention Board announced the first contract for the large scale incineration of MBM with energy recovery in October 1998. Burning under the contract is subject to the company, Fibrogen Ltd. obtaining the necessary planning and environmental consents in accordance with normal procedures. Following a detailed technical assessment of, and extensive consultation on, Fibrogen's application, the Environment Agency granted an authorisation to burn waste MBM under Section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 on 26 April 1999. Fibrogen are considering whether to mount an appeal following the decision by North Lincolnshire Planning Committee on 12 March 1999 to refuse planning permission to change fuel from poultry litter to MBM, which has delayed tangible progress.

  The Intervention Board has completed its evaluation of the costed proposals received for the balance of its OTMS MBM incineration requirement and contract negotiations are on-going. Details of the companies will be announced when contracts are signed. These companies will also need the necessary planning and environmental consents from the relevant authorities before the burning of MBM can commence.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock. THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

The Horse Industry
Baroness Wharton Baroness Wharton asked her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in improving the dialogue between them and the horse industry.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has maintained its dialogue with the horse industry in respect of the department's responsibilities for animal health and welfare. Moreover, we have actively encouraged all parts of the industry to collaborate to promote the wider economic interests of the horse industry. The setting up of the British Horse Industry Confederation in early March this year was a major step in that direction, which I was able to welcome in a speech at the National Equine Forum on 25th March.
Baroness Wharton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. I also thank the Government for the steps they have taken to help set up the British Horse Industry Confederation. However, given the fact that over 100,000 people are employed in the industry and some 2.4 million people in this country ride, why has no government department accepted responsibility for the horse, particularly given MAFF's involvement now with the BHIC?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the short answer is because no department has been offered the responsibility or asked to take it. This is a complex area involving a whole network of departments. MAFF deals with some aspects of welfare and a lot of veterinary matters. The Home Office deals with the racing industry, which includes betting regulation and off-farm welfare. The Department of the Environment deals with rating and planning issues involving the horse industry and what might be called the "right to roam " of the horse. Customs and Excise are also involved. It is a complex area. The Government are actively concerned with this question and are looking to see whether they can resolve it. My impression is that the Prime Minister, for whom alone this is the decision, has had other matters to engage him of late.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the concerns of the British Equine Veterinary Association and other bodies, such as the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe, that there is
1290
urgent need to review the regulations concerning the provision of equine medicines, both in this country and in the European Union?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are aware of a number of concerns in this area, particularly relating to the European situation. I suspect that the noble Lord, with his great experience, has in mind the problems with the minimal residual levels and the 1990 directive which attempted to ensure that there were not veterinary products in food. Of course, on the continent the horse is seen as a food animal but here it has higher ambitions. We certainly do not want, for instance, our race horses to be prevented from using veterinary products, of which Bute is a prime example. We have been pressing this in Europe quite strongly. I assure the noble Lord that in 1990 we had a statement, but not entrenched, that Europe would be sympathetic to our position. The German presidency has submitted a paper on this matter. It has been considered by a working party which is looking at possibilities such as indelible marking of horses which are clearly not for eating. We hope that that will be discussed at next week's meeting of the Agriculture Council. We are still lighting hard for the British position and the position which our vets have so strongly argued to us.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following on from the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Wharton, does the Minister agree that the horse concerns MAFF only if it can be eaten or worked'? Apart from that, the Ministry of Agriculture has absolutely no responsibility for the horse. Any of the ministries mentioned by the Minister could equally well have answered this Question. Does he agree that other European countries have ministers for horses? This surely is not a difficult matter for the Prime Minister to decide.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, it is true that most other European countries which have a serious horse industry have ministers for the horse who, it so happens, are normally ministers for agriculture. That is a logical position. It is equally true that our problem is that the 1947 Act defined the agricultural horse as being one that works on the farm or is involved in food production. If it is not as defined in the Act, it is not treated as a horse in that way. These complex issues are being considered. I felt that the noble Baroness was going to ask why on earth I was answering the Question. I have to say that the same thought crosses my mind most times I am at the Dispatch Box!
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the majority of cruelty cases have been dealt with under the 1911 Act, and that that Act is now in need of revision? Can he say what plans there are to revise that Act and, in particular, equine welfare matters?
Lord Donoughue: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord raises an important issue. The International League for the Protection of Horses is one body which has been to see us. The concern is that the existing Act may be too narrow and requires waiting until there is terrible existing evidence of cruelty to horses before action can be taken.

1291
It is argued that it would be better if it were possible to take action to protect the horse where the behaviour of the owner or manager is such as to raise serious questions that cruelty would arise. That is being considered. However, that is a question for the Home Office, not for MAFF.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have a non-financial interest to declare as the new confederation's representative on the horse and pony taxation committee. Like the Minister, I welcome the creation of the confederation. Whoever the proper Minister to answer the Question may be, I would welcome him. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the work he has done to help bring about the confederation. However, can the Minister say whether, like me, he was disappointed that from start to finish the rural England discussion document did not mention horses? That was a grave omission. Does the Minister think that there is any chance of that omission being remedied?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding us about interests. Perhaps I should declare that I own a small, and certainly a rear, part of a very good jumper. However, on rural matters, it is true that our statement in March contained very little reference to horses. Indeed, it could be argued that the horse is a very important part of our rural economy and of rural society. I can assure the noble Lord that we intend to take it much wider. That statement, especially the parts relating to the right to roam and access, was about access on foot. We are considering legislation in the area of rights of way, including bridleways. We hope to produce a consultation paper next month and will look to legislation in the future. This is a very important issue. Indeed, the number of accidents on the roads involving horses amounts to anything up to eight per day. I believe it is most important for horse to have the same right of access to the countryside as human beings.

Arms Exports
3.15 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they propose to introduce legislation on strategic export controls, as announced in July 1998 in the White Paper Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989).
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, as I stated in the Written Answer which I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on 29th March (Hansard, col. WA21), the Government are currently reviewing the proposals contained in the White Paper in the light of responses received and are committed to introducing legislation as soon as time is available in the legislative programme.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, although I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on that encouraging news which will be widely welcomed by all
1292
who hope for a more stable world, can he improve his response in two respects? First, is it intended to extend controls for the brokering of arms deals and the issuing of licences to manufacture outside the United Kingdom by UK companies? Secondly, will the Government set in place arrangements to monitor the accuracy of end-use certificates?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his opening comment. In trying to be positive about the two particular issues he raises, I can say that the White Paper contained a proposal to introduce controls on traffic and brokering in the most critical areas. Those include arms to all arms-embargoed countries and equipment used in torture. However, there were varying responses to the review as to how far to take any control. That issue, together with the other issues in the White Paper, is currently under review.
In terms of the end-use monitoring, I can tell the House that the Government attach great importance to ensuring that UK exports are not diverted or re-exported to undesirable end-users, in line with our published national criteria. The EU code of conduct sets out the factors to be considered by member states in assessing the risks of diversion. Comments on both those issues are also contained in responses to the White Paper, and will be taken into account.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in looking at the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer—namely, the brokering of arms from third countries—have the noble Lord and the Government had any discussions with our partners in the EU, bearing in mind the fact that some of the procurement of weapons from third countries, although perhaps originated by individuals in Britain, is apparently being organised through countries such as Belgium? The procurement of these arms is largely from eastern Europe. Therefore, surely we need also to have discussions with our partners in the OSCE to ensure that whatever decisions are made can be extended throughout the whole region.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, one thing is absolutely clear. In setting up the EU code of conduct, we had discussions with our European partners. As to the specific methodology with which we are taking forward the consultation now in terms of the response to the White Paper, I think it will be wise if I write to the noble Lord and confirm which process we are using to take our internal instruction further with our colleagues in Europe.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, when preparing legislation, will the Minister bear in mind the importance not only of brokering but also of licensing arrangements? For example, does the noble Lord recall the case of British Aerospace which licensed assault rifles, via a German company, to Turkey?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not aware of the case that the noble Lord cites. However, the issue of licensing is taken extremely seriously by the Government. The whole process of the review of licence requests and

1293
the accountability for those responses has been heightened, particularly in view of the fact that we are now publishing an annual report on licences granted.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the EU is planning a regime to control the export of what it calls "dual use technology"? Therefore a fairly innocuous thing such as a tyre might require a licence if it can be fixed to a military vehicle. Further, is the Minister aware that there are plans afoot to extend this regime to information conveyed by electronic means, for example by e-mail or fax, or even by the telephone?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, am aware that the export of technology via electronic media is being carefully studied at the moment by both the European Council and the European Commission. I hope very much that the outcome will be positive rather than restrictive because all of us are aware that establishing a good electronic regime for the transfer of information and data is absolutely vital to the competitive capacity of the Union.

Better Regulation Task Force
3.21 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposal they have to reduce the disincentives for small firms arising from regulations under the recent employment legislation, as described by the Better Regulatior Task Force.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I said in response to a three-Pour debate on this very subject only yesterday, the Government are committed to tackling barriers to the growth and performance of small firms and are particularly concerned about the impact of regulations. We are reviewing existing regulations so that outdated or unnecessary rules can be struck out. We are taking a strategic approach to regulatory proposals, including EU proposals, which may arise in the future, and we are setting up the Small Business Service which will help small firms meet the demands of regulation.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that comprehensive reply. My Question was of course tabled before the notice appeared announcing yesterday's debate in which the chairman of the task force, the noble Lord's noble friend Lord Haskins, made a notable maiden speech. But did the Government start any action last month when the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, presenting the latest report of the task force, commented that the working time regulations would be a dog's dinner, and called for more clarity and consultation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord says about the excellent maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Haskins, which deserves careful study. Certainly the review of the working time directive regulations has been ongoing since they were first introduced. We recognise the force of the task force's
1294
criticisms of the regulations, particularly of the explanatory material, and we have been working on them both before and after the publication of the report.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his statement that future EU regulations will be watched closely is extremely welcome? However, will he go a little further and say that Her Majesty's Government, together with other EU countries, will undertake a full review of all the regulations which have been passed and which are injuring businesses, particularly small businesses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I rather think that the Commission and Her Majesty's Government may have to suspend other activities for a period of several months in order to carry out a review of the scope that my noble friend suggests. However, his comments on our proposals are welcome.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, further to what the Minister said yesterday in his excellent reply to the debate, and the Answer that he gave to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, will he tell the House why, if the Government are so concerned about small businesses, they turned down the amendments which we tabled in the other place to the Employment Relations Bill to define such a business as one with fewer than 50 employees rather than one with 20, as everyone in this House knows that the provisions of that Bill will be harmful to all small businesses?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suppose I ought to declare an interest as one who for many years ran a business with between 20 and 50 employees. However, we do not think that the cut-off point for trade union recognition as it occurs in the Employment Relations Bill should be anything other than it is. I am sure the noble Baroness has read the Financial Times this morning and has seen the report published by the CBI which states that new workplace regulations will not dent competitiveness and in particular points out that smaller and medium-sized businesses are less likely to be damagingly affected by employment regulations than larger businesses.

Balkan Refugee Camps: Support for NGOs
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What support they are giving to the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations for contracting out locally the needs of the refugee camps in the Balkans.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in the Balkans as elsewhere, the Department for International Development supports the procurement of local goods and services where this is possible, cost-effective, and does not harm the local economy or reduce access of the local host population to

1295
essentials. We strongly encourage the other organisations we fund to follow the same principles. In Macedonia, for example, NGOs supported by DfID's Skopje Field Office have already procured £750,000 worth of goods and services locally.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. The Red Cross is doing a fantastic job in the Balkan camps and—this is even more important—in the homes where there are even more refugees than in the camps. However, does the Minister agree that if the Bulgarian Red Cross can feed the refugees in the Radici camp in Macedonia three hot meals a day for four deutschmarks while it is costing 16 deutschmarks for only one hot meal a day in other camps, the Government should not only encourage the NGOs, but also take a much more positive lead themselves, to contract out all aid locally in the Balkans to those countries that have been so seriously affected by the Kosovo war?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, in commending the work of the Red Cross, which has done some excellent work in the region. I can assure the noble Baroness that we make every effort to support local procurement. For example, NGOs that we have funded have purchased food, building and construction materials and medical and sanitary supplies from local sources in Macedonia. NATO has also made significant local purchases for building works and also for the running of refugee camps. As I said in my original Answer, in Macedonia itself the total value of our local purchases comes to some £750,000. The Government of Macedonia have requested that international agencies should buy from local firms. I shall certainly convey the noble Baroness's concern in this matter to my colleagues, but we are firmly committed with respect to local purchases.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at a large gathering of the Moslem community last week my right honourable friend the Prime Minister commended the work of organisations such as Muslim Aid and Islamic Relief? In the light of that can my noble friend tell the House what steps are being taken to ensure that these organisations are considered for inclusion in any of the Government's future contracting arrangements?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I join my noble friend in commending the work of a range of NGOs. I am aware that Muslim Aid is currently working in Albania although DFID is not supporting it at present. Some time ago Muslim Aid gathered some 50 tonnes of assorted goods and medicines from the British Moslem community and asked DFID to fly that out to Albania. We had to inform them that we already had non-stop flights to the region and we had warehouses which were already crammed full of supplies. That is why our consistent message to the British people—who have been magnificent in their response to this crisis—is that it is better to supply cash rather than goods.
1296
As to my noble friend's other question about contracting arrangements, we have undertaken to have a meeting with Muslim Aid and other agencies once the crisis is over.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among the refugees in the camps are many people with skills that are needed—doctors, nurses, teachers, those with previous administrative experience—and whose skills are not currently being used? Would it not be sensible, as far as is possible, to encourage self-help and self-management for as long as the refugee camps continue?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. Efforts have been made to utilise local skills, particularly in respect of doctors, at the various refugee camps. I am aware that that effort will continue. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will be aware that there are difficulties in terms of managing that kind of effort, but it is something we will continue to do.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is effective international monitoring of financial and other practical assistance destined for refugees to ensure that they benefit from it and that it is not diverted to other less deserving channels?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we consistently monitor our assistance as part of our on-going effort. We make every effort to ensure that development and humanitarian assistance are targeted towards places of greatest need and are not diverted.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, how many Kosovar refugees have arrived in the United Kingdom so far? What measures are being taken to ensure that children are reunited with their families?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our top priority has been to ensure that, in the main, Kosovar refugees receive care in the region. We are conscious that refugees have said to us time and time again that they would prefer to stay within the region in order that they can easily return home. Having said that, we have worked with UNHCR in terms of indicating the United Kingdom's willingness to accept refugees on the basis of agreed criteria. As to numbers, 645 refugees had arrived by Sunday, 9th May; one plane arrived on Tuesday, 11th May; and another plane is expected today. I should also say to my noble friend Lord Ahmed that to help facilitate the move of refugees from the region to here, a Home Office team arrived in Macedonia on 9th May to assist UNHCR with the processing.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, do the Government accept as a duty that they and the allies must provide humanitarian aid to all the victims of this war, not simply to the Kosovars?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our humanitarian policy is carried out on the basis of need. If there is a need in

1297
the region we will try to ensure that we deal with it as best we can. The noble Earl will be aware that in Kosovo itself we a-e unable to do anything as we do not have access.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the proportion of European humanitarian aid which is using locally contracted services? There seems to be a problem in that area. If the noble Baroness does not know the answer, will she look into the matter and let the House know?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness. Lady Chalker, that as far as I am aware the commitment of the UK Government to local procurement is shared by the European Commission. I will happily write to the noble Baroness if I find that there is anything I can add to my answer.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, what criteria do the Government use to select the refugees who come into this country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the criteria are as follows: that evacuation is on an entirely voluntary basis; that we respect the need for family unity; that priority is given to the most vulnerable refugees; that consideration is given to family links for refugees who already have contacts within the United Kingdom; and that refugees must be medically fit to sustain travel.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the noble Baroness comment further or the supplementary question of my noble friend Lady Rawlings which drew attention to the extraordinary difference between the costs of meals provided from Bulgaria and those provided from Germany? Presumably there would be an enormous increase in the amount of food available if the source of supply were changed. Is this under consideration?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I hope I made it clear in my original Answer that there is a very strong commitment to purchasing locally. However, we have to recognise that in doing that the countries in the region have to feed and clothe their local populations. There is a trade-off to be made here.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, following on from that last point, does the noble Baroness agree that the people of Albania and Macedonia are carrying a very sizeable share of the responsibility? Are the Government doing anything to support the host families, who I gather are helped by the Churches in this country?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we pay tribute to the host families which have taken in refugees in those countries. The Government are working with organisations such as the Red Cross to give support to such families in the region and we will continue to monitor the situation.

House of Lords Bill
3.37 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.71:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL INTERESTS
(". —(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission.

(2) The function of the Appointments Commission is to make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(3) The Appointments Commission shall ensure that following the passing of this Act persons representing—

(a) agriculture, and

(b) rural affairs, are recommended to Her Majesty for appointment to the House of Lords under the provisions of the Life Peerages Act 1958.")

The noble Lord said: My main interest in the Bill is to try to extract from the Government what is to be the future, if any, of the House. I doubt whether it will come as any surprise to the Committee that I am most concerned that there should be agricultural and rural representation in any interim or future House. I hope that the Government are aware of the strong feeling that rural and, in particular, agricultural interests have been, and are, being ignored by the Government. As evidence of that I draw attention to the demonstrations which have taken place during the past two years. All the demonstrations have been peaceful but that should not disguise the strength of feeling. I move the amendment in order to obtain a constructive reply from the Government that the agricultural and rural voice will be heard loud and clear in any future Chamber.
The amendment goes wider than agriculture. It deals with a problem which cannot be answered unless we know the Government's intentions as to the job of the House in the future. Obviously, they would prefer a unicameral system.
My interest is in the small print of legislation. Is it the Government's wish that the reformed House, interim or final, should have as its primary job revising and improving legislation? If so, some of its Members should surely be drawn from certain sectors of our national life or economy. The amendment suggests that agriculture should be one of them.
The point was made firmly and well by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern in chapter 27 of his report. I therefore find it difficult to accept that the House should be 100 per cent elected. However, I believe, for credibility's sake, part should be democratically elected, apart from the fact that it would

1299
be in line with the Labour Party's manifesto that the Government keep shoving down my throat, or the bits of it that they wish me to eat.
The amendment seeks to point out that minority interests have always been represented in your Lordships' House. Sadly, I have to accept that agriculture is now a minority interest. There is little knowledge of it in the Commons. The Welsh Office, in its explanatory notes on the Welsh Assembly, made no mention of agriculture, although there was the usual platitudinous waffle about the environment. The situation in your Lordships' House has been totally different. Many noble Lords have farming interests. That fact was mentioned and, I think, disliked by the Leader of the House. It was well illustrated by the noble Lord. Lord Bruce of Donington, last time we were in Committee. He stated that the greatest number of hereditary Peers—seven—served on Sub-committee D which was chaired at one time by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Most agriculture Peers here have done their stint on that committee.
The amendment asks who will do the vital job of revising legislation. It is not vote-catching. A study of the Commons Committee proceedings proves that. It seemed to me that 90 per cent of the time was devoted to points of order.
As we all know, the devil is always in the detail. That is the case with agriculture. Look at the ghastly mess the European Union has made of the common agricultural policy or the hilarious muddle the Government have got into dare I say it?—over beef on the bone. There have also been the rules about animal cleanliness, demanding the impossible task of shearing cattle's stomachs before slaughter, which no sensible, reasonable or practical farmer would attempt to do. My experience is that your Lordships have dealt with such technical matters conscientiously and well. The amendment is designed to ensure that the future House does the job as well, if not better.
Committee stage in your Lordships' House has not been marked or muddied by party politics. I fear that that will not be so in the future. Each party will nominate full-time party hacks who will have to promise to turn up, regardless of their lack of knowledge of a particular subject. I accept that I am flogging my own horse and there will be no room for amateurs or amateur backwoodsmen such as myself. The House will consist of those who possibly have little experience of outside life. They will be political animals who believe that the sun shines out of their backsides. Sadly, as we all learn, the sun shines out of none of our backsides.
I am therefore anxious to know the Government's view on how they intend to address such problems. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend, but before going further perhaps I may make a plea to the Leader of the House. For the first three days of Committee many of us tried to get the Government to enter into discussions but were met with the stonewall
1300
answer that it was not in the manifesto. That seemed to end discussion. After the reversal of the Government's policy with the acceptance of the Weatherilll amendment, I had hoped that we would enter into discussion on Tuesday evening. Perhaps the emotion of voting against the holy grail of the manifesto proved too much and we were not constructive.
Although it is a great honour and privilege to have one's amendment answered by the noble Baroness, it would make us happier and the proceedings more pleasurable if we received answers to our questions. It is in that spirit and with that intention that I put forward views on the amendments tabled today. I hope that the Government will be more forthcoming than to date.
The amendment can be divided into two parts. One is the function of the appointments committee in making recommendations. It may be helpful if we do not discuss that specifically and take that part of the amendment later when we discuss the appointments committee more generally. It seems to fit better there.
Therefore, the vein of my argument now is to support my noble friend in his request that the minority interests of agriculture and the countryside are represented in any future Chamber. There are one or two notable exceptions on the Benches opposite, but by and large the Labour Party is not—
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. I am puzzled because, under the present system of appointments, which could be enormously improved on, there are a considerable number of life Peers in the House—the Government Chief Whip is one and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Prior, are others—who have considerable experience of agriculture. It would be difficult in this country to have any appointments system that worked at all if it did not reproduce what we already have.
The Earl of Caithness: I was intending to deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. There are one or two notable exceptions, but if the noble Lord had listened to what my noble friend Lord Stanley said about the composition of the committees, he would know that the great majority of Members of your Lordships' House who take part in agriculture debates are hereditary Peers. The majority of those who take part sit on these Benches. If we are to have an influx—as undoubtedly we shall—of new Peers in the interim House—the Leader of the House said on Tuesday that about 40 new Peers would be introduced—it is important that the interests of the countryside are taken account of.
Further, as we move into a more full-time House and there is less time and opportunity for people like my noble friend Lord Stanley to attend, it will be essential to hear from those who live and work in the countryside. Too often the view of the countryside is that portrayed by the townie—that the countryside should be preserved in aspic and that it is not a living and working environment. As the Committee knows, that is exactly what it is. It changes and adapts. Therefore, the people who work in, and who have produced, the beautiful

1301
countryside, where many of us live and have the opportunity to work, should be represented here so that it remains a living and viable entity for the future.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This seems to be an important discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made the point—and I can see why he made it—that there are a number of life Peers under the present system who know about agriculture. But it is a larger subject for this House than the noble Lord probably appreciates. That is mainly because of the European Union where agriculture is, and will continue to be, an enormous issue. The interests of the various member states of the European Union diverge. The interests of this country diverge because our agriculture is different. I know the noble Lord appreciates that.
It takes more than three or four Peers to cover the whole discussion that must go on. The agriculture sub-committee of the European Communities Select Committee is a sizeable one. The subject crops up in other areas too. It is extremely important that there should be a good spread of people who understand the issues.
The problem in regard to agriculture as opposed to other subjects is that it is both technical and cultural. If one lives in the countryside and are engaged in it, one cannot help knowing quite a lot about it, and one can easily find out a great deal more. If one does not live in the countryside, it is rather theoretical and not so easy to deal with. The character of this House would change very quickly if everyone who dealt with agriculture had to "mug up " on the subject, as working Peers must do on various subjects It is important to retain a proper spread of people in this area. If there is to be an appointments commission, there should be some form of requirement on it to consider this matter above all others when the spread of expertise is considered. The noble Baroness laughs. I do not think she either understands what I am saying or wants to understand it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I respectfully say to the noble Baroness that I was exchanging a comment with my noble friend which had nothing immediately to do with what she was saying.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With the greatest respect, that was my fear.
My noble friend's amendment is extremely important. I hope that the Minister's reply will be sympathetic and that the Government will find some way, if the committee itself cannot find one, of placing some requirement on the appointments commission to consider this matter carefully.
Lord Goodhart: This is the first of a considerable series of amendments dealing with the appointments commission. The Government's White Paper proposed a non-statutory appointments commission which will make non-political nominations, leaving the political appointments to be nominated by party leaders. That aim is limited but welcome; it removes the possibility that the making of non-political appointments through
1302
the Honours List can be abused to reward what are in fact political services to an incumbent government—for example, donations to a party.
A large number of these amendments propose to bring the appointments commission onto the face of the Bill and make it a statutory body. All of them, however, do rather more. Some extend the powers of the appointments commission to cover political as well as non-political appointments. This amendment does not do so and I do not propose to say much about it at this stage. Other amendments are concerned with the basis on which non-political appointments will be made, and this amendment falls into that category. It is concerned with ensuring the representation of agricultural and rural affairs in the transitional House.
Implicit in this approach is an important constitutional change in the nature of the creation of peerages. At present, we have two categories of new Peers: first, the political Peers, who are either galley slaves like myself. appointed as political working Peers on the basis of an undertaking to turn up and work; or distinguished alumni of the other place who are appointed through the dissolution or resignation Honours List. The second category of new appointees are the non-political Peers, usually appointed through the Honours List as a result of outstanding service to the country. It is hoped that they will turn up and take part in the work of the House, particularly on matters in which they have expertise, but there is no obligation or requirement on them, moral or otherwise, to do so. Most, but not all, of the Peers appointed through the Honours List take seats on the Cross-Benches.
What seems to be proposed in this amendment, and in some others to like effect, is that Peers who are now appointed through the Honours List will be nominated by the appointments commission in a representative capacity and therefore necessarily on an implicit basis of commitment to take part in the business of the House on issues on which they have specific experience. That creates the new concept of the appointment of a working Cross-Bench Peer. There is a good deal to be said for that concept.
Lord Marsh: Perhaps I may intervene to make a semantic point. The idea of a working Cross-Bench Peer would not be an innovation!
Lord Goodhart: There are of course many Cross-Bench Peers who do a great deal of work. But they have not been appointed on the basis of any kind of undertaking to do so.
If the second Chamber is ultimately to be partly appointed, the concept of expert, working Cross-Bench Peers in the sense in which I have used it—namely, people appointed specifically in order to work—will be plainly desirable; indeed it may be essential. But that is a matter for the Royal Commission and what follows after the commission has reported. It seems to me to be jumping the gun to alter the nature of the appointment of non-political Peers to this House in the transitional stage. I suggest it is more appropriate that non-political

1303
appointments should continue to be made on the basis of outstanding service, which has conferred benefits on the nation, and on that basis only.
Turning to the specific amendment under discussion, I do not think that special representation for agricultural and rural affairs is justified. Many Members of this place have such experience. Indeed, those interests are represented well beyond that which would be justified simply on the basis of agriculture as a share of the economy or employment in this country. That representation may indeed be reduced as a result of the Bill, but there is no reason to suppose that it will be reduced to a level where agricultural and rural affairs will not be adequately represented in the debates and the working of the committees.
In addition, under the Weatherill amendment which has been passed by the Committee, 42 Conservative and 28 Cross-Bench Peers will be elected and will no doubt include a number of people who can speak from great personal experience of agricultural and rural interests. What is more, the grant of special rights for one interest would be bound to lead to a request for special rights for others, which would not be appropriate, certainly not in a transitional House. We on these Benches are therefore unable to support the amendment.
Baroness Strange: I support my noble kinsman Lord Stanley of Alderley. Although my words may seem irrelevant, they are not. I wish to talk about the practicality of farming. Some time ago I attended a reception at the Russian Embassy. One of the Russians said in conversation: "Of course, you are a Peer, and I am a peasant ". I said,"That is very interesting. Have you picked blackcurrants and redcurrants, raspberries and strawberries? ". He replied that he had not. I said: "Have you picked potatoes, or planted potatoes, carrying a sack round your waist and putting them down one by one as you go along the drill? ". His answer was no. I said: "Have you milked a cow by hand? ". Again, his answer was no. I said: "Have you ploughed, using a horse? ". He said that he had not. I said: "I have done all those things, so I reckon I am just as good a person as you are ".
Lord Milverton: I support my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but my noble friend made some good points which need to be taken into account. Although I have been a minister all my life, I started out in Kenya studying agriculture and practising there for a time. Therefore, I have an interest in agriculture. I have also spent most of my ministry not in a large town or city but in more rural areas. There may be many representatives in this House on agricultural or rural matters. Even so, there could be a danger that those matters are not properly defended, as it were, or looked after.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has given the Committee an opportunity to have a brief discussion on what the
1304
House may look like after reform and the important aspect of the rural community, agriculture, fishing and so on. There is absolutely no doubt that your Lordships' House has a range of people very expert on rural matters, obvious examples being farming and forestry. My noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch springs to mind as someone with an unparalleled knowledge of forestry. Although he may not attend often, when he speaks on forestry matters your Lordships listen, quite correctly, attentively.
My noble friend's amendment simply asks for an indication from the Government that when Peers are appointed in future the rural interest may be taken into account and that the balance of new creations is such that the important role that rural communities play in our lives is represented in your Lordships' House. The simple fact of the matter is that the other place is a lot less knowledgeable and representative of countryside matters than it was, for example, when I joined it in 1979.
One takes the example of beef on the bone. The other place voted overwhelmingly to ban it and this House voted overwhelmingly to retain it. From press reports, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are about to vote fairly overwhelmingly to lift the ban. That is an issue which my noble friend Lord Stanley teased out a week or two ago when it was discovered that the Government had made an about-turn from the position explained by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, during Committee stage on the Welsh Bill.
The countryside rally held some time ago showed that there were real fears in the countryside that people's interests were being overwhelmed not just by urban interests but by urban interests pretending to be countryside interests. If one looks at the 56 Labour life Peers appointed since the general election and checks their addresses in Dod's and Who's Who, even if one throws in the geographical designations of their peerage one finds only about three with strongly stated rural connections. That may not be a very scientific way of doing it; I may have missed a holiday cottage or two, but it is significant and not very reassuring.
One is also aware—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House was also involved in this in part—that the three main accusations made against hereditary Members in your Lordships' House are: first, that too many of them are Conservatives. In my view, that just shows good sense. Secondly, it is said that too many of them went to Oxford or Cambridge. I find that a bit odd. I have just checked and discovered that the three people who lead for the Government in your Lordships' House went to Oxford or Cambridge. I did not. I thought that it had something to do with British vintage motorcars, but there you are. The Prime Minister also went to one of those universities. Therefore, to have attended Oxford or Cambridge cannot be too great a crime, although I understand that for too many of my noble friends who are hereditary Peers it is considered in that light. One can almost say that too many of the senior members of the Government went to Oxford or Cambridge, but a good number attended Scottish universities.

1305
The third accusation is that too many hereditary Peers are farmers and landowners. I do not believe that someone is any the worse for being a farmer or landowner. In its evidence to the Royal Commission the Labour Party said that the House of Lords should be fully representative of the different interests of the country. One wonders whether three new life Peers out of 56 can be considered to be fully representative of rural communities. I hope that the Committee will receive a constructive reply from the Government on this issue so that those who come from rural areas, and those of us who would rather live their than in cities, will feel that in the House of Lords to come rural interests will be properly represented.
Lord Desai: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that three out of 56 is about 6 per cent, which is more than the proportion of the labour force engaged in agriculture?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: But it is a good deal less than the total land area of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I believe that the point is related to land ownership.
Before I respond to the important points which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, raises in his amendment I should like briefly to reply to the matters touched on by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about the way that the Government have attempted to respond to earlier amendments and intend to speak to them. I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that, in my estimation and that of most people who judge the appearance and substance of these proceedings, five government Ministers have tried to respond in detail and with great concern and care to a number of issues which, in some cases, are somewhat repetitive. I suggest to the noble Earl that simply because he does not necessarily like what is said in reply to the amendments does not mean that those points have received an inappropriate response.
I turn to the amendment moved by the noble Lord. Lord Stanley of Alderley. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, this is the first of a number of amendments that deals with the future size and type of membership of the House and the possibility of an appointments commission. I recognise that individual noble Lords wish to speak to their particular amendments, and they should do so. Those amendments deal with specific points to which we shall respond thoroughly as they we raised.
But it may assist the Committee if at this stage I respond fully to the Government's overall attitude to the amendments that deal with a public appointments commission. I recognise that these amendments are intended to be helpful to the workings of the transitional House and to clarify certain mechanisms that may be involved in that. However, the Government are not sympathetic to the principle which lies behind the amendments. We believe that the individual proposals are either somewhat technically flawed or raise more questions than they answer.
1306
Addressing first the underlying principle, I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—as on Tuesday night, I shall not now invoke the manifesto—that the Government intend the Bill to be a self-contained statute to end the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in this House. This Bill is not about life Peers or life peerages; nor does it intend to prescribe the regulation of the transitional House. This is precisely because the Government are resolute in their determination that the transitional House should be just that; that is, a temporary institution. If, for example, the Royal Commission made proposals—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, referred to this—to include nominated Members of the second Chamber that would be the time to consider legislation to achieve the appropriate systems for nominating those Members. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, that that would be the time to discuss the functions and future role of the second Chamber.
Perhaps I can most clearly express the position of the Government on the appointments commission and its possible place in this particular Bill by turning the question round. I ask the Committee to consider the reaction if the Government had themselves proposed a statutory prescription for selecting Members of the interim Chamber in this Bill. I can well imagine the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asserting vigorously that that was a clear signal that the Government intended the transitional arrangements to be permanent. The question raised by any noble Lord would be: why go to the trouble of establishing an appointments commission or quotas of different types of Peers in primary legislation for a short-term arrangement? It must mean that the whole arrangement is designed to last for years.
I understand that many of the amendments related to the appointments commission are concerned with the underlying issue. We are engaged in building confidence about the intentions of the Government in this area. I say again that our intentions are as soon as we can to take the action set out in the White Paper on the interim House and to move to the second stage of long-term reform as soon as we can. Everyone who has spoken from the Front Bench on this side of the House in the many debates on this subject, notably my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in Tuesday's debate on Amendment No.31, has underlined those long-term intentions. Of course, I am happy to do so again.
In the short term, in relation to the transitional House, I hope that I can persuade your Lordships that our plans meet, or in some instances exceed, many of the proposals and suggestions incorporated in some of the amendments which are to be discussed this afternoon.
I turn to Amendment No.71, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. We have had a brief discussion this afternoon, but we have had several debates on this general point before. This amendment reflects the genuine concern felt by some noble Lords about the representation of agricultural and rural interests in your Lordships' House, particularly once the hereditary Peers have left.

1307
Certainly, the agricultural sector contains a formidable lobby among the hereditary peerage. I shall not hesitate to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said when talking about the unrepresentative nature of the total peerage. We have recognised that that background must extend beyond the ancient titles which, in your Lordships' House, were always based in land, to the representation of more recent interests.
I have no difficulty in reasserting that the Government think that that is one many unrepresentative aspects of the present House and that the balance of the House will be changed—in our view for the better—in terms of being more balanced once the hereditary Peers leave.
Specific interests need to be properly reflected and articulated. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, that is something that I am sure we can leave, with confidence, to the life Peers.
To say that we do not think that there should be a specific or particular representation of agricultural and rural interests is not the same as saying that we think that those interests should not be represented at all. Of course, we believe that they should be represented, but that representation must be commensurate with the importance of those interests in the national economy. My noble friend Lord Desai made that point succinctly in his intervention.
There are a number of important industries whose value and importance to the economy and the general nature of our community must be protected in some way, but none should be uniquely protected. There are many ways of life which are of importance to us all and to everyone who benefits from those different ways of life. The countryside is important to us all, but a vast range of interests is involved in that, and agricultural interests and rural interests are not necessarily the same. I sometimes wonder whether the great attention given to this subject by noble Lords opposite, and other members of the hereditary peerage who purport to represent agricultural interests in general, is concerned more with agricultural land ownership than anything broader.
The key point is that the membership of the House should be "balanced ". The Government's intention is that it should be more balanced once the hereditary Peers leave. We shall make every effort to bring that about and in the future we intend to maintain that broad representation of interests, but not to the particular protection of any one group.
If the noble Lord intends to press his amendment, I hope that the Committee will not support it.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: Perhaps I can seek clarification from the noble Baroness. She has spoken generally of the Government's attitude to the appointments commission. A sizeable group of amendments, starting with Amendment No.75, deals with the general desirability of the appointments commission. Am I right in understanding that those of us who are interested in the appointments commission should speak at that stage
1308
about our views on that commission, despite the fact that the noble Baroness has expressed the Government's position at this stage?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I was responding to the particular point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that insufficient attention was paid to the amendments which had been addressed before. Therefore, I was giving a brief "preview " of the Government's position, which I shall hope to develop substantively when we come to the group of amendments to which the noble Viscount refers.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. As she went on, the noble Baroness became considerably more helpful than when she started to speak. I thought that she was far from helpful when she said, among other things, that this is a self-contained Bill and that we should not think any further than that.
I was interested in an exchange that occurred when we were last in Committee on this Bill between my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Richard. My noble friend Lord Ferrers said, words to the effect, that one cannot say that getting rid of the present Chamber would not have an effect. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, replied in the same column:
"Of course I know that it "—
that means "they "—
"has an effect ". —[0fficial Report, 29/4/99; col.461]
I would like the noble Baroness to accept, like the noble Lord, Lord Richard. that in getting rid of the present Chamber and changing the whole pattern, in future agricultural and rural affairs will be represented. I do not disagree with her that we have too high a proportion of agriculturists in the Chamber, as I believe that we do compared with the House of Commons. I simply ask that in future agricultural and rural affairs are represented. That point was made clearly, as usual, by my noble friend Lord Mackay. It is important because, as I said in my opening speech, we feel, rightly or wrongly, that we have been neglected and that is one of the many reasons for so many demonstrations.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness found it more interesting to talk and laugh with her neighbour than to listen to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. In mitigation, I must admit that I too often do that when I get bored with what is happening in the Chamber. However, it emphasises the technical and cultural differences between those from the countryside and our politicians. We are very short of agricultural politicians who have a knowledge of what is happening in the countryside.
I agree with the fact—raised by the noble Baroness—that many who think that they represent us, however, do not live in the countryside, and do not really understand what is happening. That has a lot to do with the problems that we face at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Caithness also pointed out that there is, sadly, a big difference. The difference is growing wider and wider, as I get older and older. I realise how old I am getting and that is one of the reasons why I must leave the House soon. I am sure that

1309
the noble Baroness will be pleased about that. That will keep her smiling for a little longer. There is a big difference between the way in which we in the countryside think and the way in which Parliament thinks, and I regret that.
Of course, at this stage, I shall withdraw the amendment. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, but I am not sure that I agree with him. I am not sure why he is so confident that agricultural and rural interests will be represented in a future House. I can see no reason why they should be. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No.72:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATION
(".—(I) There shall be an Appointments Commission.

(2) The function of the Appointments Commission is to make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(3) The Appointments Commission shall ensure that following the passing of this Act persons representing religions other than the Church of England are recommended to Her Majesty for appointment to the House of Lords under the provisions of the Life Peerages Act 1958.")

The noble Earl said: With this amendment, I hope that I am pushing at a slightly more open door. On page 28 of its submission to the Royal Commission, the Labour Party states that it believes that it is desirable to extend representation in this House to the other religions and faiths, than the Church of England, that take their place in British society. This amendment seeks to do that. It does not mention numbers—that is for the appointments commission—but it is merely concerned with the principle.
The 26 Lords Spiritual have played an important role in this Chamber but, with respect to them, as they are all from the Church of England, they do not, indeed they cannot, represent the spiritual needs of Britain. In 1995 the Anglican community was estimated at some 26 million. Only about 3 per cent of them were regular attendees in Church—that being some 854,000. The Catholic community was smaller at 5.7 million, but about 23 per cent of those attended regularly, giving an attendance of over 1.3 million, considerably more than the Church of England. However, they have no bishops here to represent them.
Thankfully, the Catholic Church has well defined principles on many controversial issues that face us and we, in this Chamber, are the poorer for not having the benefit of their views on issues such as abortion. But within the Trinitarian Churches many others, such as the Scots, Methodists and Baptists have substantial numbers of regular attenders. They, too, should be eligible to be appointed here. We must not overlook the non-Trinitarian Churches whose religious communities totalled over 4 million in 1995. There must be opportunities for them.
As we approach tile millennium, there is a clear and increasing need for a more comprehensive spiritual input into our lives. For many of us it is vitally
1310
important already, and we could all do worse than to step back from the hurly-burly of modern day living and listen to and act upon the advice of our religious leaders.
I appreciate that the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley and myself would mean that fewer than the 24 bishops of the Church of England would be able to attend, but no offence is meant to them. Indeed, I am sure that they would be among the first to agree the need to widen the representation and ability to put forward different views from the Spiritual Benches to enable us to enhance our discussions and probably improve our legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Noble Lords may well ask why I am breaking my own rule by participating in matters that are not agricultural, of which I have personal experience. My answer is that it is extremely difficult to be closely involved in farming without realising that something other than money makes it tick—even though most people think that that is the only issue that farmers think about.
Moreover, as we discuss the tiresomeness of our hereditary genes, I cannot but be reminded that my family fully appreciated the importance and practices of differing religions. Over the past two or three generations, members of my family have included an Anglican bishop, a Roman Catholic bishop, an outspoken Dean of Westminster, a Jewess. the first Peer to become a Moslem, and an agnostic or two or three—I look at my noble kinsmen on the Liberal Democrat Benches, most of whom I believe are agnostic.
I declare my interest. I try to be a practising Anglican although I admit to resigning as a churchwarden through a slight disagreement with a former Bishop of Oxford. The unfortunate noble Lord, Lord Runcie, who was my rural dean at the time, had to act as mediator. I fear that he did not succeed particularly well, but that was not his fault. I fear that I would have similar difficulties and problems with the present right reverend prelate the Bishop of Oxford; but that is neither here nor there. I am fortunate in having an extremely good rector in the church in Wales.
I have been brought up to realise the importance of a religious belief. That importance should not relate just to church services, far from it. I do not find most of the church services in the Anglican Church thought provoking, devout or indeed inspiring, which I much regret. Religious belief should be part and parcel of our day-to-day life, and in this case our political life, hence the amendment.
As my noble friend pointed out, the amendment ensures that that need is met and that religious leaders will have a right to a place in any reformed House. I accept that that would inevitably mean less Church of England representation, but with devolvement in Wales and Scotland I should have thought it right, in order to prevent further break-up of the United Kingdom, that the Churches of Wales and of Scotland should have representation.
Britain's cultural society is based on Christian principles. Therefore, those religious Members should be predominantly Christian, although, as I pointed out,

1311
I am not banning the Moslem faith. I believe that other faiths should be represented, in particular the Jewish faith on which our own Christian faith was based.
The amendment is widely drafted to give the Government an opportunity to express any view they may have, including the view held by some of my noble kinsmen on the Liberal Benches, which is agnostic.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. However, the Bill is concerned with the interim House. This issue relates more to the work of the Royal Commission.
I speak as a member of the Methodist Church. We regret the passing of Lord Soper, but are delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, is now among our membership. I understand that so far as concerns the Roman Catholic Church, my friend—I speak as a supporter, as is he, of Newcastle United—Cardinal Hume would have been a Member of this House had it been possible for him to be admitted as a Bishop of Rome and not as an individual. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church would not allow the nomination of any of its bishops or cardinals to a political chamber but would have accepted their nomination as a Bishop of Rome.
I trust that the Royal Commission will bear that matter very much in mind. I urge strongly that this issue is considered by the Royal Commission, rather than debated in this Bill.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Subsection (3) of the new clause includes the phrase,
"persons representing religions other than the Church of England ".
There is obvious justice in that proposal. However, do the two noble Lords who tabled the amendment agree that the subsection should also include persons of no religious conviction? From a number of surveys over recent years, it appears that most people in this country have no religious belief. If judged by church attendance, the answer to that question would be clear. I was interested in the figures given by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. They seem in part at least to support the case which I now make.
Some noble Lords may not be aware that there is a parliamentary humanist group. It has no fewer than 53 members of all parties and from both Houses. That gives some indication of the state of religious belief in the country as a whole.
I am opposed to the new clause. But if such a change were to be made, Parliament should recognise the reality of the situation in the country, and not limit the provision to that proposed in the new clause.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, quoted the Labour Party manifesto. The most important point he cited was that all sections of society should be included. That is the point I am making.
Lord Goodhart: I have a good deal of sympathy with the principles underlying the amendment. The argument for this amendment is markedly stronger than for the previous one. Unlike agricultural and rural affairs, it
1312
cannot be said that faiths other than Christianity, or Churches other than the Church of England, are over-represented in your Lordships' House. A number of individuals are members of Churches other than the Church of England and others are members of other faiths, but few of them have the standing to speak on behalf of their Churches or faiths that the bishops have. Nevertheless, for the reasons I expressed in response to the previous amendment, and for the reasons put extremely clearly on this amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, it seems inappropriate that any group of persons should be selected in a representative capacity for membership of a transitional House by the appointments commission. Therefore, with regret, we are unable to support the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Caithness has introduced an interesting amendment, and one which chimes—as it is a debate about religion that seems the correct word—with paragraphs 21 and 22 of what I think is the White Paper. It is a little confusing as to whether such documents are White Papers because although the pages are white, the covers are no longer white. I refer to the document, Modernising Parliament, Reforming the House of Lords which was published by the Government. Paragraphs 21 and 22 address this issue. Paragraph 22 states:
"The Government also recognises the importance of the House of Lords reflecting more accurately the multicultural nature of modern British society in which there are citizens of many faiths, and of none. We shall be looking for ways of increasing the representation in the Lords of other religious traditions. In particular, there is a case for examining the position of the Church of Scotland which is an established church but has never had representation as of right in the second chamber ".
I also understand that when the Church of Scotland was offered the possibility of seats in your Lordships' House, the problem rapidly arose that the "head "—he is not, of course—the chief minister, the Moderator, holds office for only one year. Therefore, there was some difficulty in identifying who might represent the Church of Scotland in your Lordships' House. I understand that the same problem arose when a bishop or archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church was offered a peerage. On advice from the Vatican, he was unable to accept it, which is a great pity.
I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that the Government in their White Paper have gone some way towards sympathising with the amendment. I am sure that that is what we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when she replies. I recall, when we voted on whether the Church of England should allow lady priests, turning to the right reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and asking him whether when the Division was called he would like a Presbyterian vote. He indicated that he would. As the Church of Scotland has successfully had women ministers for many years, it seemed only right that I should give him that vote. Indeed, the free churches are rightly represented here by a noble Baroness who is a minister.
It is right that the Government have acknowledged that and I look forward to hearing their comments. The Minister may be interested to hear what the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which is currently

1313
meeting, has had to say about your Lordships' House. It is being presided over by the Queen's representative, the noble Lord, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld. Indeed, the Church of Scotland is well represented in this House, although not by the clergy but by many elders of the Church. A noble Lord who has recently taken his place on the Government Front Bench is married to an elder of the Church. So we are represented, if not by the clergy. However, I do not believe that your Lordships are too keen to hear a moral lecture from me—perhaps from some of the other elders, but not from me.
The Church of Scotland, in its supplementary report on church and nations, published this week, said this about your Lordships' House:
"Indeed, given the role the House of Lords has usefully played so far in revising, or 'mopping up', the actions and mistakes of the House of Commons, it could be said that it would be better to delay decisions on reform of the House of Lords until one can see more clearly the various corrective roles a reformed chamber may be able to play with regard to various parts of government ".
Before the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tells me that I am slightly out of order, perhaps I may say that, surely, people with such judgments thoroughly deserve a seat in your Lordships' House.
The report goes on to say that the committee wishes to argue for a strong second Chamber doing a worthwhile job. I believe that in that the position of the Bishops has been important. The Bishops have not always agreed with me; the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Oxford and Ripon in particular proved troublesome for me when I was a Minister in the Department of Social Security. I recall one day going into the Division Lobby on some other issue and seeing a Bishop—neither of those—I looked at him and said, "I have an awful feeling that one of us must be in the wrong Lobby ". He assured me that we were both in the correct Lobby on that issue.
I believe that the Bishops have played a very important role. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who sits on the Cross Benches, has made some very interesting speeches on moral issues. Even if one did not agree with them, one had to agree that they were made powerfully and on a well-argued case that should be heard. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk performs a service as a kind of unpaid Whip for the Roman Catholic Members of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, who was recently in his place, gave us an indication of the attitude of the Moslem faith to issues such as the age of consent.
All of us can agree: that such contributions strengthen your Lordships' House. Therefore, it is important that my noble friend's amendment will allow the Government, in the person of the Leader of the House, to underline their commitments made in the White Paper to ensure not only that other parts of the Christian Churches in the UK are represented here, but other faiths which play a significant part in life in many areas of our country and—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand—those of no faith at all. It is important that your Lordships' House in future represents a broad cross-section of the British people. That includes the religious persuasions of that broad cross-section.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: Perhaps the noble Baroness could help me and some of my noble friends on these Benches who follow the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. This whole issue about appointments committees will be discussed by the Royal Commission and we are going over the ground that we shall go over after the commission has reported. This is a fine way of wasting time and I ask the noble Baroness to express her own feelings on the issue, although I do not wish her to take a lead.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I shall reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Annan. As I cannot always get the line of sight over my right shoulder, I am not sure whether he was in the Chamber when we discussed the previous amendment. I then made it clear that the Government believe that much of the substance of the points being made is legitimately in the domain of the Royal Commission, and I emphasised that in response to the previous amendment.
However, noble Lords have raised particular issues and, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the Government believe it is appropriate to make full replies to those points. I agree with the noble Lord. Lord Annan, that underlying some of the points is a discussion that it would be more relevant to have in the future. I am happy to agree on that and I shall make the point again in my remarks.
I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be encouraged to hear me say that the Government entirely sympathise with the principles lying behind the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for reading out the appropriate extract from the Government's White Paper. I am only sorry that he did not appreciate or recognise the reproduction of the "racing colours " of the House of Lords on the front cover because that was designed to be attractive to your Lordships. Obviously. it has failed in that.
Turning to the role of the right reverend Prelates, their representation ex officio clearly has its roots deep in the country's history. Those roots have as much to do with economics and politics in the past as religion. But, clearly, religion and the religious aspects of their representation have become much more prominent in recent years. However, the Government sympathise with the concerns of noble Lords who have spoken to introduce the amendment that the Bishops' Bench probably no longer adequately reflects religious feeling in this country. It is perhaps surprising that no right reverend Prelate has intervened to challenge that, but there has been agreement around the Committee that we have become a multi-faith, multi-cultural society and it is important that that is represented in your Lordships' House. As several noble Lords have said, that need not be through official representation. As has been pointed out, since the legal disabilities were removed. the Roman Catholic Church has been strongly represented by lay members, although its clergy continue to be barred by their own laws from taking an active part in this type of political activity. Similarly, as has been

1315
mentioned, there are a number of distinguished Jewish Members of the House. There are as yet fewer Moslem or Hindu Members, but perhaps that will change in the future.
However, it is difficult to think how one might achieve the understandable desire to have more official representation, at least in the present circumstances. Many denominations rotate their senior officers, sometimes even annually. Others have no central organisation to speak for them, so it might be difficult to identify who was truly representative. Some, by their very tradition and history, find it very hard to accept the kind of formal leadership of that nature that would necessarily be involved in selecting someone to represent them in this House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was kind enough to remind us, the Government's White Paper asked the Royal Commission to look at this matter and try to find an appropriate way forward, particularly on this difficult issue of appointing sensible and appropriate representatives. Perhaps I may take it one step further, in the light of the Royal Commission's present deliberations, and refer to the Labour Party's submission to it, not the Government's. The Labour Party's submission, which was published early this week, states:
"The Labour Party believes that the Royal Commission should explore the options and opportunities for extending representation of the other religions and faiths which take their place in British society. The Labour Party believes that this is desirable as Britain becomes an increasingly multi-cultural and multifaithed society ".
I hope that that reassures the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, of the intentions of both the political party and the Government, as represented in the White Paper.
In the meantime, however, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Annan, Lord Walton of Detchant, and Lord Goodhart, that these matters are appropriately left to the Royal Commission. I do not think that it would be sensible at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill or at this stage of the proceedings of the Royal Commission to—
Lord Aldington: Has the Leader of the House taken account of the fact that in the White Paper the appointments commission comes in the chapter on the transitional House? Why, then, is it wrong for my noble friends, and later me, to talk about these very important matters on this Bill?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: There is absolutely no question but that the transitional House is the subject—and it is the subject of further amendments, which we shall address in a substantive group—of the appointments commission. All that I am saying, as I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in regard to his Amendment No.71—the same arises on this amendment—is that the amendment refers to long-term membership of the House of Lords, as it should be reformed, and therefore that is not necessarily an appropriate matter for this Bill.
1316
I was about to say that we do not feel it sensible to prescribe to the appointments commission, or the Prime Minister under this amendment, what is desirable or workable in terms of the transitional House. But it is important that the noble Earl and the noble Lord have raised these matters of general principle, which I think have been generally accepted in that vein around the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: I must first apologise for being slightly late for this amendment, in which I have some interest when we come to the tangential Amendments Nos.89 and 90. Surely the Government could give this undertaking: "We will make sure in our appointments procedure that these various groups and interests are represented by suitable life Peers ". If that happens, we make the transitional House a better House. Those of us who have doubts whether the House of Lords mark 3 will arrive by Lady Day of next year will be happier if we see that the Prime Minister's power of patronage is—not destroyed or reduced—but much more transparent. That is what those of us who want a representation of interests and groups wish to see: that the Prime Minister's power of patronage shall be transparent.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: That is precisely the matter that the Committee intends to discuss under those amendments which describe various forms of appointments commission, amendments which I hope we shall come to shortly.
The noble Earl was right to mention that he was not here for our earlier discussion on why the Government felt it inappropriate to prescribe these matters in the way that they are prescribed in the amendment. I am sure that we shall return to those general points when we come to the later group.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for dealing with the matter so fully. If nothing else, we have moved a step forward, because what she said was more positive than what appeared in the White Paper or the submission to the Royal Commission. The noble Baroness did not go quite as far as my noble friend Lord Onslow wanted, but I hope that with a little more pushing we might get her to be a little more positive on this at a later stage.
The noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Walton, said that they did not like the amendment because it was for phase two. No, this amendment is for phase one. This is a stand-alone Bill. We are thinking about the next House, the successor House; we are not looking two away. Many of us believe that the successor House will last a great deal longer than a short, interim period. As the noble Lords, Lord Annan and Lord Walton, will be aware, in 1968 the House of Lords agreed that the hereditary Peers should go, but nothing has happened since. We might approve this Bill, but it is really up to another place, which has always been the stumbling block to further reform.

1317
Therefore, I am concentrating on the transitional Chamber, in which I should have liked to see a wider representation on the Spiritual Benches. I understand some of the problems about appointments; for example, the transitory nature of some of the senior positions, such as the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. If nothing else, I hope that the amendment has taken the matter a step forward, and I am grateful for so much consensus within the Committee. beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No.73:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
(". The Senior Salaries Review Board shall keep under review the salaries, expenses and allowances paid to members of the House of Lords, having regard in particular to their functions and duties as members of that House.")
The noble Lord said: I should like to refer to one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and raised continually by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, which is basically that we should not be discussing the future role or the constitution of the House of Lords, but should leave these matters to the Royal Commission, the Government or A. N. Other. With respect, or perhaps, as lawyers would say, with "the greatest respect ", I cannot agree. I believe that before I, or indeed we, depart, it is our job to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that the future House of Lords is as good as or better than the present one and to establish what it is likely to look like. However, in replying to the previous amendment, the noble Baroness was considerably more helpful than earlier, when replying to my Amendment No.71.
My reason for tabling this amendment is the statement made in the Government's Explanatory Notes, printed on 17th March, which state in paragraph 27 that the financial effects of the Bill "will be negligible ". The Committee is surely entitled to know what the Government have in mind with regard to the future expenses of the interim Chamber, or whatever it is called, and what Members will be paid. My amendment suggests that if the powers of the House are to be the same as, or similar to, those of the present House, and if, as the Explanatory Notes state, the financial effects of the Bill "will be negligible ", future Members of the interim House should not be paid a salary of any kind whatsoever, but should be reimbursed for their expenses in the same way as noble Lords are today.
I must admit that because I live 260 miles from your Lordships' House my expenses are nearly always greater than the amount I may claim. Coffee and tea on the train are neither cheap nor particularly good. I am not complaining about that. Indeed, I am strongly of the opinion, which is very old-fashioned, that once you are paid for doing something, you are always in hock to
1318
whoever pays you. You lose your soul and your independence. We do not want that to happen to members of the interim Chamber.
Lord Avebury: Does my noble kinsman not think it a good idea to take a Thermos with him on the train?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I do not think that I could persuade my wife to do that.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am giving her dinner this evening. My noble kinsman was not here while I was having a go at him about his lack of religion; he is obviously having a go at me now.
Before I am accused of having been put into a position by my forebears of being sufficiently rich to take such a view of not being paid, I assure the Committee—and I am sure my noble kinsman will agree with me—that my forebears squandered my family's wealth on themselves, thus leaving very little indeed for me to similarly indulge myself. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I wish to seek the Government's views on the existing system of allowances and expenses. Do they consider what prevails now to be fair and equitable? Secondly, do they believe that the current arrangements are sufficient to ensure that individuals are not discouraged from membership for lack of adequate resources?
That is a particularly important question in view of the imminent expected influx of at least 40 new Labour Peers. I remind those who are waiting in the wings that this is an incredibly cheap House to run. The average per capita cost per Member is £37,000 whereas for an MP it is £366,000 and for a Member of the European Parliament, £948,000. So any prospective Peer will not get rich quickly coming here.
I also remind those waiting in the wings that on many occasions our daily attendance equates on an hourly basis to less than the minimum wage. That is even more so if one takes into account the amount of time one spends preparing for debates if one is an active Member.
Paragraphs 53 and 54 of the excellent report of my noble and learned friend Mackay suggests that as most Members of the phase 3 House will sit full time, salaries and allowances should be paid commensurate to those paid to MPs. Do the Government agree with that statement by my noble and learned friend? If they do, do they consider that that transition should happen suddenly, when phase 3 comes in, or should it happen on a gradual basis so that during the time of the interim House allowances and expenses ratchet up to be more in line with those of another place?
Lord Elton: For the record, and for the guidance of the Table, will my noble friends confirm that they are speaking also to Amendment No.105 which is grouped with this amendment? I take it that they are and I shall give way if I am wrong.

1319
I wish to put this point which is relevant to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and others said earlier. I know it is considered bad manners by Members of the Committee opposite to refer to it but we must countenance the possibility that, in spite of their great commitment and very best intentions, the Government may not be able to replace the House we are creating by this Bill with another. The question of whether or not it is to be a salaried body is, therefore, extremely germane because if it is a salaried body it will be quite different from the House as it is at present and will behave differently. Its Members will increasingly see their attendance and work here as almost their exclusive occupation, as people at the other end of the Corridor consider it to be theirs.
One of the important balancing factors which your Lordships provide in the constitution as it is at present is a large of body of people who attend and pay critical attention to legislation, major issues of policy and detailed matters of drafting based on considerable experience outside this building. They bring in that experience; that is their value. If the principle of my noble friend's amendment is not accepted, that is liable to be lost for ever. It will be a very substantial loss indeed. Therefore, the noble Lord the Chief Whip, who is to reply, should know of our concern that if, in spite of his best intentions, the transitional Chamber is in place for a long time, it should not be unintentionally changed into something quite different.
Earl Ferrers: My noble friend Lord Elton wondered whether his noble friends were speaking to Amendment No.105. Unfortunately, due to the alacrity of my noble friend Lord Caithness in getting his feet, I was unable to suggest that I might speak to my Amendment No.105. Although grouped with Amendment No.73, my amendment is fairly different.
My noble friend Lord Caithness is anxious to see that those who participate here should have their expenses paid properly. We all agree with that. But my amendment states:
"The salaries and allowances payable to the members of the second chamber of Parliament shall be the same as those payable to members of the House of Lords on the day before this Act comes into force ".
The transitional House, the Government have told us, is to be of short duration. My great fear is that once there is an appointed House, its Members will say,"We have been sent to do a job. All the hereditary Peers have gone. We must do the job properly. In order to do the job properly, we must have secretaries and research assistants. The accommodation is impossible and we must have better accommodation ", and the whole thing will escalate out of all proportion. That is wrong.
The whole idea of the amendment is to ask the Government to give an assurance that that will not happen, with those remaining, once the hereditary Peers have gone, in receipt of very considerable expenses and all the extraneous facilities that go with them. We have seen the building on the other side of Bridge Street for Members of the other place. The cost was £250 million. It does not need a great stretch of the imagination to
1320
predict that it will not be long before someone says, "We'll have one of those too, please." I ask the Government to give an assurance that that will not happen.
Lord Lyell: It may be worth bearing in mind that I am following in the footsteps of the great Prime Minister Lord Attlee who said that periods of silence from one of his colleagues might be welcome. For various reasons, I was not able to be present for the Second Reading debate. However, looking at this amendment, I believe that it merits scrutiny from the Government and the Minister who is to reply.
I reiterate everything said with great humour by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. But what my noble friend Lord Caithness said made me gasp. When I heard the figures he mentioned and what Members of the European Parliament earn, I wondered whether that was in lira, drachmas or roubles but I am told it was pounds sterling.
I hope that the Government will take on board what my noble friend Lord Ferrers said about the salaries and allowances that are paid today. I am sure that there is enormous misunderstanding outside your Lordships' House, not just about the nature of the Bill but about what Peers "get ". We heard from my noble friend Lord Stanley about his expenses. I am—and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, may confirm this—one of the more remote Peers. My noble friend Lord Rankeillour may be more remote than I am. I live 70 miles from the nearest airport and 25 miles from the nearest railhead. I am a fairly regular attender and, since the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Caithness in 1971, I have been attending about as regularly as he has. The calculation of my expenses to attend the House and to get home each week will therefore be of some interest to your Lordships.
One of the benefits of the system we have grown up with is that every single Member of your Lordships' House is placed on an equal footing once he or she comes past Redcoat or the Doorkeeper at the Peers' entrance. These expenses which we are entitled to claim are set out, as the accountant said to me about 30 years ago, so that "Your Lordship does not lose in coming to your Lordships' House." I take with a pinch of whatever refreshment might be necessary what was said by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderney. I have to advise him, as those noble Lords who regularly fly on the Anglo-Scottish routes will testify, that we are pretty well fed in the lounges, let alone on the plane.
There is a rather dangerous point here. I believe we should never equate these allowances with earnings. The allowances that Back-Bench Peers are allowed to claim are fairly reasonable; certainly, they are something which could be agreed through the usual channels and fairly quietly. Perhaps the noble Lord the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms can arrange through the usual channels that the Senior Salaries Review Body keeps these expenses permanently in mind on the current basis.
What was said by my noble friend Lord Ferrers is of great relevance. If a newly reformed and modernised second Chamber comes about, some questions may be

1321
asked by the Inland Revenue as to exactly the nature of our duties. That might very well end up being to the detriment of Members of your Lordships' House as it may be constituted in six months' time, in a year's time, or in five or 10 years' time. It could very well provoke some rather difficult questions. I beg the Government to take this amendment on board. Above all, I ask them to consider the main text of what has been argued by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
5 p.m.
Lord Nickson: For six years I was chairman of what is now the Senior Salaries Review Body. We used to call it the Top Salaries Review Body but the word "Top" had a rather unattractive connotation and we persuaded the then administration to change it. I say that I had the honour to hold that post. My predecessor, when handing the job over to me, said that it was the ultimate poisoned chalice. We had some rough times with the previous administration trying to persuade them of the importance of paying our top 2,000 public servants, including the judges, the senior civil servants and the military, a reasonable and acceptable figure.
However, I am not responsible, and I take no credit or any blame, for the expenses paid to your Lordships because during those six years they were not referred to the review body. There were certain great pleasures; for example, seeing the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, who is not in her place, who, when she was leading the First Division Association of civil servants, used to come and sit opposite me once or twice a year. That was very congenial.
The two amendments are very different, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I see no problem—I may be wrong—in the Government referring to the Senior Salaries Review Body, as they have done in the past, the matter of expenses and remuneration of whatever House is in being for comment at any time. A great problem is highlighted by Amendment No.105 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, because it deals with a different matter—the question of permanent salaries.
During my time we had to advise the Government on what we thought should be the appropriate remuneration and expenses of another place. We gave a perfectly excellent report as to how the other place should be remunerated; we took enormous trouble over it. We made comparisons with the Chambers of other Parliaments in Europe and throughout the world. We were rather proud of what we said and the previous administration did lot appear to disagree enormously with it. But what happened? The other place voted themselves an enormous salary increase, greatly in excess of what we had recommended. The increase covered researchers and everything else.
There are two points of principle here. The first is that, whether we are talking about a phrase-two House or a phase-three House after the Royal Commission, I can see no problem in the Government referring the matter to the Senior Salaries Review Body at any stage. That is always open to them. If I may say so with due diffidence, I cannot see a case for including Amendment No.73 on the face of the Bill.
1322
As to Amendment No.105, an important point of principle was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. That applies both to the successor body to this House and to what the Royal Commission says, which is a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle which this House needs to debate and on which the Government need to give a view; that is, whether future Members of this House and future Members of the House after the Royal Commission has reported—stage three—should be paid a salary or should merely be recompensed for their expenses in coming here. I do not believe that that matter can be left in the air. The Government, if I may respectfully say so, have to come to a conclusion on the interim House, as is suggested, and the Royal Commission will no doubt give its views in due course as to what any successor body should do.
Lord Crickhowell: I was brought promptly yet very briefly to my feet by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Elton who referred with approval to the report of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. My noble friend quoted the paragraphs concerning pay and allowances. The first paragraph starts with the following reference:
"Granted that most members of the reformed chamber are to sit full-time, they should be salaried accordingly ".
Neither in the reformed Chamber nor in the interim Chamber must we make the assumption that Members will be full-time. One of the great strengths of this House is the experience that is brought in from outside. It would be a deplorable step if we went down the road of assuming that everyone who came to this House should be full-time. It would be a step backwards.
Incidentally, if there are those in this Chamber who are concerned about remuneration in the future. perhaps they should hang their coat-tails on to the Welsh Assembly where they should not be full-time but are to collect substantial remuneration packages, removal packages and other packages of one kind or another. There will be 60 people sitting in that Chamber doing the job three Ministers used to do when I was Secretary of State. I calculated the other day that I have a back pay claim due for my eight years or so as Secretary of State, together with my two colleagues who served with me, of something over £30 million, perhaps with interest accumulated for the time since.
There is no doubt that my noble friend Lord Ferrers is right; there is a grave danger that the costs will escalate in future. I suggest that reasonable remuneration and expenses should be paid. I believe that they will need to be paid if we are to attract the sort of Members (from all sides of the House) that we need. I would press for a reasonable remuneration. We need to have a balance. We do not necessarily want to assume that it will be a full-time House, either in the interim or the long term. We want to try to contain some of the vast escalation of costs that seems to be taking place in other deliberative assemblies.
The Earl of Onslow: I was interested to note that when my noble friend Lord Crickhowell made that

1323
rather good joke about his back pay, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was laughing. The rest of the Front Bench opposite were not. That amused me somewhat.
My point is apposite to the Liberals more than anything else. People paid vast sums of money to become Liberal Peers. Unfortunately for them, they then became Tories. That is one of the reasons why the Liberals are so bored by having so few representative Peers. Having said that, there may be a serious point here. People are desperate to become Members of your Lordships' House. As my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, when he was Lord Privy Seal there were people queuing up outside his office, banging on the door, longing for ermine and coronets. As people are so keen to become Members, I thought Mr. Adam Smith said that we do not have to pay them very much; they are paying anyway in some form or another. I apologise. I shall take that back completely. I did not mean it. However, it has happened in the past. The Government do not need to pay people any more. Above all, to be serious, we do not want a professional House. We want a House of interests, with Members who can come and go when necessary. The moment we start paying it to become a clone of another place, it will be disastrous.
I hope that with the combination of amateur in its best sense and the yearning to adorn these leather Benches, the Government's cash limits are quite happily contained without having to pay people large chunks of money to come and sit here.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: I endorse many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about having a proper sense of balance in Peers' expenses. I cannot help noticing that the Chamber is much more full for this debate than it was for the previous debate about religious representation in this House.
When I was a local councillor in Wandsworth, the mantra repeated among my colleagues was that the expenses for local councillors should not act as a disincentive to being a local councillor. In those days, the early 1990s, as a local borough councillor I received a few hundred pounds per year. I understand now that my successor receives around £7, 500 as a back-bench local councillor. There has been a huge change in the effective level of pay of local councillors.
I am one of those noble Lords who juggles part-time jobs with trying to support a small family. I am under constant domestic pressure to go out and get a proper job. However, I try to hang on here as much as I can because I believe it is an important place to be and I try to make a contribution. Peers such as myself should not be barred from taking an active part in this House because of the cost of not having proper jobs. I believe that should be reflected in the expenses system of this House.
Lord Swinfen: I rise to support Amendment No.105 tabled by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. However, I believe that it should be amended to allow the position to be reviewed from time to time; otherwise, expenses will stay exactly the same and no one will turn up.
1324
Expenses were first given to Members of this House when it was found that some of the life Peers, when first created, physically could not afford to attend, particularly from far parts of the country.
A large proportion of Members of the other place comprise professional politicians; men with very little experience outside politics. It is extremely valuable that those who are Members of this House now and in the future should earn their living outside the House so that the House can continue to benefit in the future from the vast amount of experience present among its membership today. It is essential that that outside experience is brought to bear on legislation and the business of the country.
Lord Jopling: I should like to add a word of what I hope is realism to the discussion on this issue. I do not necessarily disagree with the comments of my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Crickhowell. However, the implication of everything that has been said is that we turn our backs totally on any future component of this House being elected. I believe that it is totally unrealistic to expect people to stand for election to this House in the future on the basis of the expenses which we now receive.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Of course, he will understand that this amendment refers only to the interim Chamber, as does the Bill, and not to the successor Chamber, whatever that is.
Lord Jopling: I understand that. However, I believe that like it or not whatever we set up with regard to the interim House will have an influence on the future. My noble friends have been implying that they do not, under any circumstances, want salaries to be paid to Members of this House. My point is that once we have elected Members, we are bound to have salaries. It will be impossible in the longer run to have a two-tier system in this House whereby elected Members are paid salaries but appointed Members are not. I am merely trying to make the point that once we have elected Members, we shall have to pay salaries to all Members.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I hope that in consideration of this matter the Government will not ignore two words which I believe to be hugely important; that is,"duty " and "amateur ". I hope also that all noble Lords agree that whatever their feelings about the hereditary peerage, these are particular virtues of the whole House which we should strive to maintain, even in the interim House. The question, therefore, is how that can be achieved in the short term. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may have imperfections so far as the wider issues are concerned, but it does, at least, provide a mechanism to achieve that objective.
There is one other small point I should like to tease out. My noble friend Lord Caithness drew the attention of the Committee to paragraph 27 of the Explanatory Memorandum. That contends that the financial effects

1325
of the Bill will be negligible. The Bill was originally drafted to remove approximately half those noble Lords who regularly attend the House. It seems to me, therefore, that there will be a substantial saving as a result of the enactment of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose that this could be described as "the trade unions' half-hour ". It is only appropriate the chief shop steward, the Government Chief Whip, should reply to it. My noble friend Lord Jopling made an important point. This is not just a simple issue; it ties in to a much bigger issue. The salaries or expenses of Members of your Lordships' House in the future will be entirely dependent on the nature of the House. If we come, in stage three, to have an elected House, it will be an elected House in which salaries are paid, which I hope will be commensurate with those paid to Members of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and not the House of Commons. I gather that the computer companies have had a heyday in both of those new organisations in the supply of PCs, desktops and goodness knows what else.
It is obvious that elected Members would, quite naturally, expect to be paid, but they could be paid only if they were full time. We are talking here of the interim Chamber, or perhaps of the Chamber that might be stage three. If one reads the Government's evidence to the Royal Commission, it certainly looks as if matters are pointing in that direction.
If we have that kind of Chamber, which is not dissimilar to the one we have at present but without the hereditary component, it seems to me to be essential that we keep away from salaries. I say that because those noble Lords who come here and who have other jobs outside obviously do not attend anything like all the time. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, appeared yesterday to make his maiden speech. Despite the best endeavours of a chief shop steward, I have no doubt that he will not be coming here all that often—otherwise, I might consider selling my shares in his companies; that is, if I had any.
Clearly, one of the strengths of your Lordships' House is the fact that there are Members who do not attend all the time. Therefore, one could not possibly give them full-time salaries. My noble friend Lord Nickson, although now retired, was in your Lordships' House when he held the important position of chairman of the Clydesdale Bank. That inevitably meant that his membership of this Chamber would not occupy all the days that the House sits. That is only right. I name my noble friend because he actually took part in this debate. In fact, I could look round the Chamber and pinpoint certain noble Lords, although some of them are not here, who have very demanding jobs outside but who, nevertheless, play a valuable role in the House. That is one of the strengths chat I hope we can actually maintain in the future. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Marsh: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I totally agree with what he is saying; certainly, I do not want a full-time House, nor indeed a totally elected House. We do not know what is going to happen. However, does the noble Lord agree that there
1326
is a serious problem in terms of people who live way outside the metropolitan area? If those people have a job, they cannot leave it to come down here. I suspect that one of the problems of this debate is that we cannot really reach any sort of conclusion until we know what the new House will look like.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is right. Let us take, for example, the Scottish academic institutions. I was going to say that they are not nearly as well represented but, in fact, they are not represented at all in comparison to the triangle of London, Oxford and Cambridge where people can carry on their academic studies and work. I have in mind people like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is sitting in the Chamber today, and many others. They play an important part in your Lordships' House. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in that respect. It is important for us to stick to the kind of system that we have at present.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, but I do not know whether I feel the same about that tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I just wonder whether the latter is a case of, "Well, I don't want to see the expenses going up after I've gone; indeed, I don't see why you lot should be paid more than we are ". It is important for us to suggest gently to the Government that they, in turn, suggest gently' to the senior salaries review board that it could perhaps come forward with a report. If I recall correctly, the board took evidence in 1996–97 on the question of your Lordships' position. It was not just a matter of the expenses; indeed, it was also the salaries and pensions of Ministers.
I gave evidence at that time, while working as a government Minister. I did not give much evidence about Ministers' salaries, but I thought it was right to give some evidence about ministerial pension provision, as you would expect a pensions Minister to do. In fact, some of the anomalies have been highlighted by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, a retiring—if I may use that gentle word—or a retired, Leader of your Lordships' House, received absolutely no pension at all for the time he spent in that position. Perhaps the noble Lord did not really need it because he might have got a pension as a result of having been a European Commissioner. I am sure that such a pension would look after someone pretty well. None the less, he might not have had such a pension. Therefore, having given a few years' service to your Lordships' House and to the Government, it would seem quite unfair that he could be left without a pension just because of the way that the pension rules rest with the ministerial pension fund.
I also gave considerable evidence regarding the role of the Opposition. Those Members concerned worked a great deal in your Lordships' House. My example was my then opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. Bluntly, I gave evidence on her behalf and she also gave evidence on mine. It is possible that both of us thought that we might he changing places in the very near future. However, we never admitted that at the time. I trust that I can use the

1327
noble Baroness as an example, despite the fact that I have not given her notice. I do not believe that she will mind.
When we had social security Bills, which were to be dealt with on Tuesdays and Thursdays, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, had to come down to London on Monday and appear in the House, despite the fact that she had no other business, if she was to collect her attendance allowances, and so on, for that day. She could probably have spent the time much better and much more to my detriment if she had managed to stay at home and work there, fashioning the bullets to fire at me, rather than having to take the train to London and come here. I emphasised to the senior salaries review board that I thought at least some Members of this House could have a dispensation from having to clock in every day because of the important role that they played either on the Liberal Democrat Front Benches, the Opposition Front Benches (the Labour Front Bench as it then was) and, indeed, in certain parts of the Cross Benches.
I do not want to go on at any great length, but there are some serious points that we should address with a view to keeping the remuneration of your Lordships' House clearly focused on the attendance allowance and on expenses. That is the right way to proceed. If we do end up with a House where membership is by appointment, which certainly seems to be the direction that the Government's evidence is taking, it would be sensible not to go down the salaries route for future Members. I believe the amendment of my noble friend Lord Stanley is certainly to be recommended, but I cannot say the same for that of my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
Lord Carter: My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made the point that I intended to make; namely, that the Chamber has filled up remarkably since we started to debate this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, referred to me as the shop steward on the Government Front Bench. Indeed, having heard the debate, I can see why my noble friend the Leader of the House asked me to deal with the amendment.
The effect of Amendment No.73 would be to require the senior salaries review board to keep under review the salaries, expenses and allowances which are paid to Members of the House of Lords. It would substitute a legal statutory requirement for the present situation where the issues in question are within the board's terms of reference as matters on which it, from time to time, should advise the Prime Minister, but for which there is no statutory requirement.
The amendment deals with the question of remuneration of Members of your Lordships' House. It suggests that such matters should be kept under review, having regard to the functions and duties of the House. That, of course, is unexceptionable. It is, indeed, the present position. Peers' allowances already fall within the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body, to give it its correct title. Therefore, there is no need to put it on the face of the Bill.
1328
However, we do not think that there should be any change in the status of the review body's remit during the period of the transitional House. The review body is a non-statutory body. It advises the Prime Minister about Peers' allowances on the same basis that it advises on pay, pensions and allowances of Members of the other place and of Ministers. Why should the basis on which it deals with Peers' allowances be changed for what is an explicitly temporary arrangement?
I turn now to a few of the points raised during the debate. A point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and others, about what will happen if there is no stage three. We have said over and again that we intend there to be a finally reformed House. We have said so endlessly. So there is no need for me to speculate on something not happening which we fully intend to happen. It really is as simple as that. The Royal Commission will make recommendations. These will then be considered by a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses—an important point—and then the Government will take the appropriate action. As I said, there is no need for me to speculate on something not happening which we fully intend to happen. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: Will the Minister accept a simile? When the Pilgrim Fathers sailed for America they expected to make the journey in about five weeks but, fortunately, they carried stores for about 14 weeks. You cannot count on arriving somewhere where you intend to arrive; indeed, you can only do your best.
Lord Carter: That is a statement of process; I am dealing with a statement of policy. The policy of this Government is that there will be a finally reformed Chamber. We are not quite sure what the policy of the Opposition is on this matter. We have made our intentions entirely clear. I do not intend to speculate on something not happening which we know will happen. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made a shrewd point when he referred to the difference between allowances and earnings. The Committee will be aware that at the moment allowances are tax free.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
5.30 p.m.
Lord Carter: Exactly! The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, made the point indirectly that if we start to put all this on the face of the Bill and start to discuss salaries, that would be inappropriate as regards the transitional Chamber. What we have to consider is the principle of allowances or salaries, which is a matter for the Royal Commission, and the level of allowances, which is a matter for the review body on senior salaries. All Members of the Committee can give evidence to the review body. I shall return to that point.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, laughed when the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, referred to his back pay of £30 million. I laughed because I knew he was joking, but my colleagues on the Front Bench thought he was being serious.

1329
I quote from page 31 of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission. That will make a change for the Committee from hearing quotes from the Labour Party manifesto. The evidence states:
"The Labour Party believes that a modern chamber should have modern working conditions and arrangements…The Labour Party believes that the Royal Commission should consider the physical and other conditions necessary for the new body to carry out its work in an efficient manner, having regard to needs such as office accommodation and meeting rooms ".
Under the heading "Allowances ", the evidence continues:
"The Labour Party would welcome an examination of this issue by the Royal Commission, to determine whether current arrangements fairly meet the needs of members. The Royal Commission should consider whether the current arrangements are sufficient to ensure that individuals are not discouraged from membership for lack adequate resources ".
The view of the Labour Party on this matter is entirely clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, commented on the nature of the Chamber and on elected Members. Those are matters to be decided in stage three. They are matters to be decided by the Royal Commission, and not in this Bill. As we have said endlessly, this Bill is not about stage three. The noble Lord was quite correct to say that the evidence was previously taken in 1996–97. I think I am correct in saying that the question of allowances was deferred until either 2000 or 2001. That might be thought appropriate in terms of the transitional Chamber. It looks as if the review body will consider allowances in that timescale. It has considered the salaries of Lords' Ministers a little earlier than that, as we have just discussed.
I shall discuss a point which is slightly tangential to this amendment, but which I think is relevant. It has been implied that once all but 92 of the hereditary Peers have gone, we shall need additional resources to attract people to do the work of the Chamber. We do not believe that that will be the case. We believe that the 500 life Peers who will remain are competent to keep the work of the Chamber going. We have now added to that figure 92 hereditary Peers. Thus we shall have a total Chamber of well over 600 Peers. Life Peers have always been prepared to come forward on this basis in the past and we see no reason why they should not continue to do so in the few years that the transitional Chamber will last.
I now mention what I call a Chief Whip's point. Due to the size of the various groups in this Chamber and the relative strengths of each of the groups, Labour Peers do not comprise more than 30 per cent of the membership of any of the committees of your Lordships' House. I have a list of life Peers who are willing to serve on committees but I cannot accommodate them. Therefore, it is clear that there will be a sufficient: number of life Peers to carry out the work of the committees and the other work of the Chamber.
When the time comes, depending on the outcome of the long-term review, it will obviously be relevant to consider the question of remuneration. That will depend on the composition, role and functions of the reformed second Chamber. There will be decisions to be taken about whether Members of the second Chamber in the
1330
future should continue to receive allowances or should be paid a salary. However, that is a matter for the reformed Chamber. There will be decisions to he taken about the degree of administrative support to which they should have access. We have already made it clear to the Royal Commission that the cost of its recommendations is one of the issues to which it should have regard. However, these are matters to be dealt with once we know what the long-term picture is; they are not matters for the present Bill. The review body already has a role; it should retain that role, but not strengthen it.
I turn to Amendment No.105 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The effect of this amendment would be to fix the salaries and allowances of Members of the House of Lords as they were on the day before the Act came into force. The noble Earl has many good friends in this Chamber and I count my self as one of them. However, if he is really suggesting that all our allowances should be frozen for the foreseeable future, I believe that the number of those friends will considerably diminish! Just as we rejected the idea that there should be a statutory requirement on the review body on senior salaries to review noble Lords' allowances, so obviously we reject the idea that there should be a statutory bar on changing those allowances in the lifetime of the transitional Chamber.
We are not, of course, proposing to make significant changes in the way in which we remunerate life Peers in the transitional Chamber, as I have said already. However, that is not the same as fixing the present allowances in stone. Although under the economic policies of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inflation is at historically low levels, it is still with us. The noble Earl's amendment would not even allow for the uprating of allowances in line with inflation. Even at 2.5 per cent a year over four years, that would amount to about a 10 per cent cut in real terms. However, I note that it is more than that because it is a geometric and not an arithmetical progression.
I do not believe—nor do I think the Committee will believe—that it is equitable to fix allowances in this way at this point. As we know, these are, after all, mostly expenses allowances. Leaving room to consider changes in the costs which they are meant to cover seems to us to be only reasonable. I cannot promise of course that any particular level of remuneration will be offered when the allowances come to be reviewed. That is a matter for the review body. I simply make the point that the removal of the hereditary Peers is not a reason for changing the system that we presently have, and is certainly not a reason for removing from it all flexibility.
As I said on the previous amendment. the advisory remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body extends to all Members of both Houses of Parliament. In our view, there is no justification for singling out Peers alone for statutory treatment.
We have had a useful debate. The Committee has expressed its views on this matter extremely clearly. Most of the views that have been expressed did not surprise me. However, when the Committee has

1331
considered the arguments I have produced and the background to these amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The Chief Whip was firm about the Government's commitment to stage three. Can he give us some idea of the time-scale the Government have in mind to back up that commitment? Will the noble Lord answer the questions I asked originally? Does he think that the current allowances and expenses are fair? Further, does he consider them to be a deterrent to any future potential Peers becoming Members of the interim Chamber?
Lord Carter: As regards whether they are fair, we can all submit evidence to the review body which will report next year. I believe that most Members of the Committee believe that they are a little on the low side. That point is often made to me. I am sure that all noble Lords will have the opportunity to make their case on expenses and allowances and the way in which they are paid when the review body begins to take evidence next year. As regards whether the allowances are a deterrent to those who may seek to become life Peers, if the contents of my postbag are anything to go by, they are certainly not a deterrent.
As regards the time-scale, I do not have the slightest intention of setting out a timetable from this Dispatch Box. We have set out what we intend to do. We have asked the Royal Commission to report by the end of this year. It is a tight timetable, but the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, has said that he thinks he can meet it, or within a month or two of that date, as he said on the radio yesterday. The Joint Committee will then report and the Government will have an opportunity to respond. We intend to deal with the matter quickly, but I am not saying exactly how long that will take.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I have certainly enjoyed it. More importantly, some very relevant points arose. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Mackay will understand when I say that I cast out to catch a minnow and somehow caught a shark; some very important points were made.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a point which I could not understand in so far as it seemed to me that the Labour Party comments that were made in that pamphlet differed from the Explanatory Notes. The Explanatory Notes said that the costs would be negligible. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that the costs are bound to go up. I cannot see any way that they will not.
Lord Carter: The quotation that I gave was from the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission for stage three. The Explanatory Notes refer to the costs of the Bill, which deals only with the transitional House.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the Minister for clearing up that matter. But, one way or the other,
1332
I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that, whether or not they relate to the interim House or the final House, both will cost more.
My noble friend Lord Nickson has not been in the Chamber recently. He must realise that as he has rural interests—and indeed having served not only with me but with my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Middleton in the Coldstream Guards—he falls into the category of people that the Leader of the House considers to be over-represented in the Chamber. Perhaps I might quote back to him: he is in great danger of receiving the poisoned chalice that he spoke of.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell raised an interesting point. However, I disagree with him. It will be impossible to be a backwoods Member of your Lordships' House in the future. I find it difficult enough already to be a backwoodsman; it will be far more difficult in the future. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was supporting my noble friend Lord Crickhowell when he said that there would be specialist Peers, but I think he will find it very difficult to appoint them.
My noble kinsman Lord Ponsonby can afford an unpaid job because my great-uncle so stupidly gave property away to his grandfather. He was able to squander that on himself rather than I being allowed to squander it on myself. I would have enjoyed that far more, I am sure, but perhaps it might not have been frightfully good for me.
A serious point was made by my noble friends Lord Elton and Lord Ferrers and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I raised the point in Amendment No.71 but I do not think the noble Baroness quite answered it. We badly need an answer as to what the interim House is going to do. The sort of person one wants in the House and, dare I say it, how much the House will cost, depends upon what the House is going to do.
I will leave the amendment now. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ferrers will come back to the issue in his amendment. I hate to disappoint my noble friend Lord Mackay, but I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers in his amendment and I, too, would keep all the costs the same for ever and ever. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley move Amendment No.74:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
STYLE OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
(". From the end of the Session of Parliament in which this Act is passed, temporal members of the House of Lords shall he referred to and known as Peers.")
The noble Lord said: I hope I am pushing at an open door with the amendment in as much as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have both said that in future Members of the House should not be called "Lords ". I do not know whether they said what Members of the House should be called, but they said they should not be called "Lords ". The noble Baroness and the noble Lord spelt out a number

1333
of reasons for that, from modernising the appearance of your Lordships' House, which I agree with, to the avoidance of any one confusing those who stay on as Members of the second Chamber with those such as myself who will retire to the real world outside. They said it would make the job easier for those responsible for the electoral register and we would not be pushed off the list of voters in a general election. I presume that those who stay here will not be able to so vote. It would also prevent citizens asking hereditary Peers about political problems. assuming that they still had some influence—not that we had very much before. Perhaps it should be the other way round and we hereditary Peers should relinquish our titles. I 'certainly would not be unhappy to agree. It would avoid an awful lot of begging which one has to submit to. If the Government wish to do so. I shall not object. Unfortunately, that is not in the Bill. The Government are not showing any signs of accepting any amendments to the Bill, apart from the Weatherill amendment—I shall not be caught out—that do not suit them. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may be permitted to say one or two words. My Amendments Nos.101 and 102 are grouped with this amendment.
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he was pushing at an open door. No doubt I shall discover that I, too, am pushing at an open door. I have suggested in Amendment No.102 that from the day on which the Act comes into force the Members of the second Chamber of Parliament should be known as "Members of the Appointed Chamber ". The Chamber will be an appointed one and therefore it is appropriate that it should be called the "Appointed Chamber " and not the House of Lords. After all, there will no longer be a mixed and unpredictable membership of your Lordships' House and it will therefore no longer be a House of Lords.
In the olden days people became Peers; and when they were Peers they joined the House; and what did they join? They joined the House of Lords. Now, of course, that is being totally reversed. The hereditary Peers will be removed from the House of Lords and those who are here will be here because they have been appointed. Sometimes when they are appointed, as I understand it—I have not had direct experience of it—people are asked whether they are prepared to attend and whether they are prepared to vote in certain ways; they are told they will have to do this, that and the other; and make little subscriptions here and there. Having gone through all those formalities they are then appointed to the second Chamber. Whereupon they say "Ah! I am a Peer ". That is completely the wrong way round; they are not Peers as such. I know that they are described as Peers now, but the House of Lords will not be a House of Lords; it will be an appointed Chamber. It would therefore be right to refer to it as an appointed Chamber.
I have had the temerity to table a later amendment that the Bill should be changed from being the House of Lords Bill to being the Appointed Chamber Bill. That is a satisfactory amendment which, in this thoroughly democratic era in which we live, I am quite sure that
1334
those on the Government Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the Leader of the House, will be willing to accept.
Perhaps I may speak now to Amendment No.102, which also stands in my name. I apologise for cluttering up the Marshalled List, but my amendments are quite modest and quite short. Amendment No.102 states:
"From the day on which this Act comes into force the members of the Appointed Chamber of Parliament shall be styled as 'Lords of Parliament', with the initials 'LP' appended to their name but without reference to their rank in the peerage ".
As they will be Members of the Appointed Chamber—they will not be Earl so and so, Viscount so and so or Duke so and so—and as they will not be Members of the House of Lords, it is rather pointless that they should refer to themselves as "Lords ".
I know that the amendment will have the sympathy of the Government Front Bench, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. She has great influence in these matters. From her speeches during the course of the Bill it has been obvious that she has a great influence over what goes into it. She pontificated on the subject way back in August of last year. There is an article about her in the Daily Telegraph. I know that normally one cannot believe anything the newspapers say, but one can sometimes, particularly when what is said is in quotations. It was said that Baroness Jay, the new Leader of the House of Lords, wants life Peers—life Peers, not hereditary Peers; the noble Lords behind the Front Bench are in for it too—to be stripped of their aristocratic titles. Presumably that is because they are not aristocrats, I do not know. She wants them to be called "MLs ", Members of the Lords. There is not a lot of difference between Members of the Lords and a Lord of Parliament, as I have suggested. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, the noble Baroness said that she was keen to remove the elitism of the names used in the upper Chamber. She said:
"I'm not sure that I wouldn't like to move to a situation where you had ML after your name, Member of the Lords, rather than [being called] Baroness Jay of Paddington ".
A great sign of humility on which I congratulate her. She said:
"The proposal would mean that the only people able to call themselves Lord or Lady would be hereditary peers— "
so we are being looked after by the noble Baroness—
"who under the Government's plans for reform would no longer be entitled to vote in the Upper Chamber ".
She goes around as if in Boadicea's chariot, knocking people off left and right. Those who stay are all right, but they must not be called "Peers." Those who are thrown out can be called "Peers ".
The noble Baroness added that she would be happy to be known as Margaret Jay ML:
"I wouldn't mind not having the title—although some of my colleagues might think it terribly sad to get rid of them ".
I reckon she could say that again. The article continued:
"She said it was important to create a way of differentiating between peers who were born with their titles and those who won a seat in the Lords on merit ".
Now we are differentiating. I thought we had been told earlier that we must consider the House as one where all people are Peers, whether hereditary or life Peers.

1335
But no, the noble Baroness wants to differentiate. I think that is a remarkable comment to make. I can quite understand her saying she would be quite happy to be called "the right honourable Margaret Jay LP." I can quite see the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, being happy to be called "Miss Crawley LP."
Baroness Crawley: I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Under his amendment the initials might be "LP" after the name, "Lord of Parliament ". Would the noble Earl mind being mistaken for a member of the Labour Party?
Earl Ferrers: In that case "LP" would not stand for "Labour Party." I have been mistaken for many things but never for being a member of the Labour Party. But one never knows what will come next.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is having a cup of tea. I am sure that he would not mind being called "the right honourable John Mackay LP." What about the noble Lord, Lord Steel? He was quite happy to come here as "Lord Steel "; he has climbed up the Christmas tree and now finds himself Speaker of the Scottish Parliament. He says that he wants to be called "Sir David Steel ", another act of humility. Perhaps he prefers not to be identified too much with such a retrograde place as the House of Lords. It was said the other day that when he returns here doubtless as a Speaker he will have to sit on the Cross Benches. That is interesting. What would he be called? Would he be called "Lord Steel? " It is a bit of a rum do if he is "Lord Steel " when he is here and "Sir David Steel " when he is up in Scotland. I am sure he would not mind being called "Sir David Steel LP ".
We come to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. Empathising with this proposal will cause him no difficulty because quite a left-wing heart beats under that glorious right-wing exterior. I am sure he would be happy to be called "the Right Honourable Gareth Williams LP ".
My noble friend Lord Stanley said that he was pushing at an open door. So am I. Perhaps the Committee wishes to consider this fascinating subject which the noble Baroness happened to start, inadvertently, in a newspaper article.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Earl sits down, if Amendment No.101 is accepted we would become MACs, and we would surely quickly be known as "Big MACs ".
The Earl of Onslow: I wish to speak strongly against the amendment. I do so because it would spoil my life if the noble Baroness ceased to be "Lady Jay." She has grandeur and aristocracy; she looks every bit in the mode of an 18th century duchess. She inherited it from a long line of distinguished Labour Peers, so she is, if nothing else, a hereditary Peeress manquée who, bless her cotton socks, will stay through stages one, two and probably three as well. We cannot possibly not call her "Lady Jay ".
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wish to go further than the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I should like the
1336
reformed House to be called "the Senate " and its Members to be "John Smith MS." I do not like the idea of Members of the House being called "Lords of Parliament " and I shall tell the Committee why. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not yet have had time to read what I sent him. He says he has. It concerned the old Scots peerage and why the lowest rank in the Scots peerage is not baron but lord of parliament. That will lead to great confusion because there are those of us who sit in this House and who are about to be kicked out who are of the lowest rank of the Scots peerage, like myself and noble Lords who are not in their place such as the noble Lords, Lord Forbes, Lord Gray and many others. I am looking round for one or two of them but I am sorry I cannot see them.
This will lead to considerable confusion because we are lords of parliament; we are lords of the old Scots Parliament. If future Members of this reformed House are to be called "Lords of Parliament ", goodness me, the mind boggles, it will be very confusing.
I go further. If I read the paper correctly, I thought that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said some months ago that she would like the reformed House to be the senate. She shakes her head; perhaps I am mistaken. I cannot go along with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for those reasons.
Lord Annan: To cut through the badinage on this amendment, the noble Earl will be surprised to know that I am in sympathy with it, except that it seems muddled. The first amendment he proposes is that this be an appointed House. Then we are to be called "Lords of Parliament." I agree entirely that we cannot change the name of this place into "Senate." It would lead to infinite confusion and the pretension that we are in some way comparable to the United States Senate. We are and have been for centuries the House of Lords. But there is a difference, once the hereditary Peers go, between ourselves and the hereditary peerage. I honour the hereditary peerage, I have no wish to see the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, called "Citoven Cecil ". I want him to keep his title, and I want the noble Earl to remain an Earl and someone whom I respect and honour.
However, I do not want to have pretensions to those titles. I have never earned them and never had, in any sense, pretensions to the noble lineage which I see opposite. The whole business of calling people "Lords " when they come here reinforces the snobbery endemic in our society. That is why the noble Earl so cleverly put what we ought to be called, "LP", "Lord of Parliament".
There is one reason why that is not a good title. When I said to my daughter that it was the kind of name I wished to be called, she said: "You do know what `LP' stands for: long-playing record ". By George, we have had some good examples of that today.
I do not know that I shall be able to go into the Lobby with the noble Earl, but he is right that in a reformed House we should not try to ape a splendid body of people who, as we know, have given great service to the nation but are no longer to be Members of this place. We should content ourselves with being called "Lords of Parliament" and de-erminise this House.
6 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: I have found myself in agreement for some time with the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Annan. However, I should tell the noble Lord that I was recently approached by someone—who shall remain nameless— who said to me: "I see, Cranborne, that you have inherited all the regrettable radicalism of members of your family ". So "Citoyen Cecil " may not be too far away from what I shall become.
There is something to be said for attempting to differentiate between the House as it is now, and the House as it will be following the passage of this Bill. It is right to say, as I have understood by implication from some speakers, that to be called "Lord Snooks " does not necessarily mean that you are a Member of this House. The appellation "Lord " does not automatically entitle anyone to a peerage. I believe I am right in saying that only at the beginning of the 15th century did it become customary for heredity to be the only qualification for membership of this place. I believe that, before then, people were summoned here, not always because of who their father or mother was. We also know that, since 1958, it has not been necessary to be a hereditary Peer to be a Member of this House. Equally. Irish Peers, and Scottish Peers before 1963, were entitled to call themselves Lord Mac-Something because of who they were, not because they were Members of this place. There are plenty of other examples.
Nevertheless, the present House is dominated by the ethos of the hereditary principle. The Labour Party does not like that fact and is trying to change it. But in spite of the increasing proportion of life Peers, particularly among those who attend this House, I submit that the courtesies and habits of the hereditary peerage dominate our proceedings—and the proceedings are none the worse for that.
After the Bill's passage, that will change. If we believe that language means anything, it is at least sensible to differentiate, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested. between someone calling himself "Lord Snooks ", which by the evolution of history has come essentially to imply a hereditary peerage, although it did not start that way, and someone with membership of this House, which from now on will, I suspect, be largely by nomination if the Prime Minister gets his way.
It will be interesting to decide what the new Members of this House will be called. It would be a mistake for them to pretend by implication that this place is still a House of "Lords ". As the word "Lords " has come by custom to mean effectively a hereditary order, it therefore seems extremely sensible to change that—
Noble Lords: Not so.
Viscount Cranborne: I hear murmurs of, "Not so". I have acknowledged that since 1958 that has emphatically not been the case. Nevertheless, the appellation "Lord", in spite of the number of life Peers in this place, has all the trappings of the hereditary peerage. Indeed, is it not curious that life Peers are introduced in the full panoply of ermine, when, after
1338
all, hereditary Peers are not? That implies at least some connection with the hereditary peerage even though it is more apparent than real, for the reasons that my noble friends behind me suggest from a sedentary position. It would be extremely sensible to drop the appellation "Lord" in the new House.
I am all for differentiating Members of the new House from members of the public, and indeed Members of another place. I am doubtful about calling them "senators ", for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. There is merit in some form of continuity in terms of popular language. I suspect that in the "Dog and Duck " it will be difficult for people to talk of a senate; inevitably, the upper House will be forever associated with the idea of "Lords ", no matter who is a Member of it. The suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers is probably about as good as we shall get.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I did not think that at any stage in this debate I should be substantially in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, but let me assure the Committee that the amendments that they propose commend themselves to some of us on these Benches.
Let us be absolutely clear about the situation. Many of us believe that we are involved in the Bill's passage as a small step towards improving what is, inevitably, an imperfect democracy in this country. All democracies are imperfect and can be changed by intelligent reform. Our democracy is less perfect than some. It certainly remains imperfect while such a substantial role is played in our deliberations by the hereditary peerage. That is why the Bill is before the Committee and why we support it.
But many of us who are Members of this House and who play our part in advancing democracy have no pretensions at all to joining the aristocracy or to glorying in the title that we now enjoy. I use the word "enjoy " in this sense: I have my title because it is the only way in which I can participate in the work of the upper Chamber. I had to become a Peer. I did not take the title because I had any wish to be associated with the attributes of the aristocracy through the ages—quite the opposite: the whole of my political life has been dedicated to challenging so many of those values. I am well aware of the element of affection that gave rise to the expression,"Everybody loves a Lord ". I have not noticed it a great deal in my own particular circumstance, but that may be because I do not have the hereditary quality which is a crucial dimension. However, I assure the Committee—
Earl Ferrers: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. The noble Lord's remarks are fascinating. If he had such a huge dislike of coming to the House of Lords, why did he do so? Why did he not go to the House of Commons?
A noble Lord: He did.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I did not say that I arrived in the House of Lords in preference to the House of Commons. I have had a series of opportunities to serve in the lower House. I should certainly have welcomed

1339
the opportunity, had the Boundary Commissioners not done such damage to my seat, to remain a Member of the House of Commons. But in the circumstances in which I was not privileged to be able to sustain my position in the Commons, I assure your Lordships that I welcomed the opportunity to serve in this place. It is the second Chamber of our legislature. It has a role to play in advancing the interests of our people and enhancing our democracy. That is the precise purpose upon which we are bent at the present time. The noble Earl sometimes employed a rather tongue-in-cheek approach to the amendment, but we subscribe to the view that a reformed Chamber should assuredly take a different name—of course it should. As it will be radically transformed, that is a necessary change.
The only reason why the amendment is possibly misjudged is that the real change that is to be effected must surely follow the Royal Commission's report and the establishment, not of an interim House but of the new second Chamber. That will be the time to consider this. I hope that the Royal Commission will receive endless representations regarding this matter.
Whatever happens, the Second Chamber needs its name changed from "House of Lords ". I am by no means convinced that that should apply to the interim Chamber. I fear that if we give a semblance of radical change to the interim Chamber precisely the anxieties expressed so often on the Benches opposite, that the interim Chamber will appear to be a sound enough reform for no further progress to be necessary, may come to pass. For that reason I am not sure that the amendment should be applied to the interim House. But I assure the noble Earl that if he is not part of our counsels in the future—I wish him well with regard to the interim Chamber—very many of us on this side of the House will argue the very case that he has made today.
The Earl of Erroll: It is important not to pretend that the transitional Chamber will be a continuation of what is here now; it will not. It will be a complete break from the present situation. To rename it at this stage will be to highlight the great constitutional change that is taking place. I find some inconsistency in the approach of those life Peers who wish, as if by association, almost to take on the cloak of the hereditary peerage that is about to disappear.
I agree and disagree with my noble kinswoman Lady Saltoun. I agree that there is a problem in the use of the term "Lord of Parliament ". It would cause great confusion in Scotland if one had lairds and Lords of Parliament. That expression means something very different. However, to add "MS " after one's name may have sclerotic connotations. I tend to think of it as denoting an unfortunate disease from which certain friends suffer. I would hate that to be associated with the interim or transitional Chamber, or any future Chamber for that matter.
I was also interested to hear that Sir David Steel wished to be known as such. Once again there is confusion, in that "Sir" may denote a title of merit—in
1340
other words, the conferring of a knighthood—but it may be associated with a baronetcy, which is a hereditary honour.
Lord Marlesford: The Government have done a most wonderful job. At last, beneath that aristocratic exterior I find in my noble friend Lord Ferrers a Maoist spark burning deep down. I remind your Lordships that for the first 20 years or so after the liberation of China all ranks were abolished and officers wore exactly the same clothes as everybody else. For a while badges of rank did not change but the cut of the uniform began to change. As the cut became better one realised that the rank was higher. Now they have gone back to the gold braid and everything else that everyone so much enjoys.
I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, at whose feet in matters of political philosophy I used to sit many years ago as an undergraduate, referred us to the more relevant example of the period of the French Revolution. It is terribly important that we give proper due to those of our hereditary brethren who have served so well and who may be leaving us. I believe that we should reflect what they have done. The French had a very good system. I suggest that those who are departing should use the French prefix—or perhaps suffix—"ci-devant ". The term "Lord of Parliament " is correct and those who are departing should have it but should be known as "ci-devant LP ".
Lord Stanley of Alderley: When French Peers left the aristocracy they lost their heads.
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Strafford: I do not want to be a party pooper, but I disagree with almost everything that has been said in this debate, particularly by hereditary Peers. I believe that much of what has been said is sour grapes. We are dumbing down the status of the upper House. I believe that the titles, including those of life Peers, are very important. One is selective about how one uses one's title, whether one has a hereditary or life peerage. For instance, when the noble Lord, Lord Rees-Mogg, writes in The Times he does not write as Lord Rees-Mogg but as William Rees-Mogg because it is appropriate to that situation. But, given the background to this House, to change the name would be crazy. People understand the House of Lords and like it.
I believe that life Peers are worthy followers of all hereditary Peers. After all, all hereditary Peers way back—it does not matter when the title was bestowed—did something which was considered worthwhile at the time. I had an ancestor who was rather good at fighting the French and that was how he got his title. The great thing about life Peers is that they are a slice of the meritocracy. When one comes here one takes part in ceremony and is clothed in ermine. One takes on the mantle of all others who have served here. It would be a great mistake to ditch all of that and adopt a Maoist approach or the method adopted by the French during

1341
the revolution. We should be very careful before we change it. I am highly dubious about this amendment. I believe that this is a matter of sour grapes.
The Earl of Dudley: Without disrespect to the Committee, I believe that this debate serves to remind us that this House is and has been for many centuries very much like Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland. It is a wonderland fiat has served this nation well over many generations. Some of the suggestions made this afternoon will do nothing but take away the magic of this wonderland. That magic should remain as part of the whole tradition of this institution and should not be lost even when we hereditaries go. Any hereditary Peer who believes that outside this House in this computer age he has control over how he is described needs his head examined. As a computer cannot cater for more than eight bits I am variously described as "Mr. Earl ","Lord Dud " and, fortunately, both as far as the Inland Revenue is concerned. I hope that we disabuse ourselves of the thought that we can go around insisting on being called "Earl of Dudley " or whatever it is. The odds are very much against it, particularly as the computer age develops.
The Earl of Caithness: On this amendment I was a little slower in getting to my feet than on the previous one, and I have been able to follow my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I have one difficulty with my noble friend's Amendment No.101 which refers to "Members of the Appointed Chamber ". As a result of the Government's U-turn it will not be just an appointed Chamber, it will have 90 hereditaries. Whoever they are, I am not sure that they will wish to be cast as "appointed " because they will not be so.
I prefer Amendment No.74 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley. It is important to differentiate the second Chamber from the first. Doubtless there will be a differentiation when it comes to the third Chamber. If one is to excommunicate the vast majority of hereditary Peers, the successor Chamber to this one must change its name to reflect its different role and the different personnel sitting in it.
I was interested that the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was quick to criticise but did not have any solution to the change in name—at least not that I heard. I would be very interested if he would come forward with a proposal. He was very keen to get rid of ermine. I believe that he will have a lot to say about stage three, but as to stage two he does not appear to have any ideas.
Lord Annan: To answer the noble Earl, I said that I was wholly in favour of "LP".
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not listen to him as carefully as I should have done. I hope that he will change his mind and just become a Peer.
Lord Rotherwick: Everybody appears to have a terrible hang-up about these handles. One remembers being told most carefully that as an officer one is saluted not because of one's position but because of the
1342
commission that one holds. One is beholden to live up to that commission. It is a great way of informing people about oneself. If you are a managing director, or whatever, that title informs people of your position and what you are expected do in life. Equally, someone who has a tag to his name is beholden to live up to that. Therefore, it is helpful that people who are Members of this House have such a title so that people are informed that they are a Peer or a Lord.
It would be very confusing if people called themselves "Sir Something" in one part of the country and "Mr. Something" in another part. We should try to inform people what we are about. As we have a historical name here, it is appropriate that people hold that name of Peer or Lord.
Lord Lucas: It is important that we recognise that we are making a substantial change to this House, as the Government would no doubt claim and agree. Symbols are important and we should recognise this change and the way in which people look on the House when considering a change of name.
As to the amendments before us today, I favour that in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. After all, we all refer to the Door downstairs as the "Peers' En-trance "!
Lord Henley: As my noble kinsman Lord Stanley moved this amendment some time ago, it is appropriate for yet another of his noble kinsmen to respond from these Benches.
Clearly, a change in this House that will remove about 90 per cent of those of us who sit by succession, but have the informal style of "Lord " is likely to create some confusion in terms of those who remain and those who do not. It is clear that the separation of the privilege of peerage from the right to sit in Parliament, which is the explicit aim of the Government expressed from time to time, is a deliberate policy and must have the logical effect at some point of detaching the style of "Lord " from the right to sit in this place.
As is made clear by Clause 2, Members of your Lordships' House will be able to sit in another place in the full flower of their title should they so wish. I wonder, in passing, whether my right honourable friend, the current chairman of the Conservative Party, may wish to reapply his proper name. If some of us seek election to another place, I wonder whether we would want to call ourselves by the names that we have held in this House.
My great-grandfather sat in another place as an Irish Peer, but always called himself Lord Henley. I once speculated in the local press that I may stand for election to my local constituency, Carlisle, should we be abolished, to which the response from the PPS of the Lord Privy Seal was that Carlisle was not ready for a "toff". Since then, Carlisle has returned to the Conservative fold after 23 years. If I were to stand for

1343
election in such a place, I would be keen to stand as Lord Henley, preserving the name that I have had for a number of years.
Earl Ferrers: I see that the noble Lord takes great pride in his name. He really should not do so because the only reason that his predecessor was made Lord Henley was to ensure that my predecessor was executed.
Lord Henley: My noble friend is correct in saying that it was a direct forebear of mine who was ennobled as Lord Henley so that he could preside over a trial of a forebear of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The forebear of my noble friend in that trial made the rather odd mistake of defending himself—by not employing counsel—on the grounds of insanity, which meant that if he did a good job he was not insane and he would go down, but if he did a bad job he would go down anyway. I can assure the House that my noble friend's forebear did go down and was hanged, in due course, with that privilege of peerage, by means of a silken cord.
I am descended from another Lord Henley, of different creation, a son-in-law of that first Lord Henley. I do not sit as Lord Henley in this House, as the title of "Lord Henley " relates to an Irish peerage. I sit as Lord Northington, a name that I have to remember once every five years when I take the Oath.
Returning to the amendment, it may be disappointing to some noble Lords. It is not disappointing to many noble Lords on the Benches opposite, as was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham. It seems inevitable that the title given to Members of this House must change at some point after reform. Whether that is after an interim stage or another stage is a matter for debate.
Three suggestions have been put forward, one from my noble kinsman Lord Stanley and my noble friend Lord Caithness, and another two from my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I would not wish to be the one to adjudicate between those suggestions. No doubt the Government will have a number of responses to those and they will give us, no doubt, their views as to the appropriate one. I presume that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn will respond, or should I say the right honourable Gareth Williams LP or LS or MS, or whatever he will be called in due course. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will be able to assist us in terms of what would be the appropriate name.
At this stage, I do not want to judge between the different suggestions made by my noble friends. Having heard what the Minister has to say, I am sure that my noble friends may wish to return to this at a later stage of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I have waited, with mounting indignation and impatience, throughout these five days, to get to the only point of this Bill that really matters. We have spent hours on trivia such as the Weatherill amendment and the question of the appointments commission instead of getting on with what really matters!
1344
I almost said, "This has been a unique occasion", but I have so often thought that, that I know in a few weeks' time there will be another such unique occasion.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, the soul progenitor of the "West Cranborne" question, told us that the behaviour of this House had always been modelled on the habits of the hereditary peerage. I wonder which particular defined habits he had readily in mind. I thought of illegal immigration in 1066, followed by theft, pillage and usurpation over the succeeding centuries.
Viscount Cranborne: I rather anticipated that such a crack might be forthcoming from the noble Lord, so I was careful to differentiate between the medieval period, which was not hereditary, and the later medieval period and the subsequent period, which were. I am the first to admit that in subsequent centuries the habits of the hereditary peerage outside your Lordships' House were rather less elegant than they were inside.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I continue. The alternatives put forward are fascinating. This is a serious question of importance to the public, the outcome of which the world is awaiting. Our post-nominals are extremely important.
I remember prosecuting a case in Swansea Crown Court when I first became a Queen's Counsel. Afterwards, with trembling hand, I looked at the success which I would undoubtedly be accorded and which would be recorded in the Swansea Evening Post, known locally as the "Two Minutes' Silence " because that is all it took to read it. I was horrified—my mother even more so—to find the immortal phrase on the front page:
"Prosecuting for the Crown was Mr. Gareth Williams, w. c."
I thought of complaining to the editor, but all my friends told me that there would be little point.
We have had interesting offers from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. We have heard references to the French Revolution. I remember Phillipe Egalite, the renegade, and I suppose that if the madly determined dash of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the lowest common denominator continues, we shall have to call him "Robin Egalite " because beneath his Right-wing exterior there beats a radical heart.
It has been quite wrongly suggested to me that the hereditary Peers may be known as PCs, Pedigree Chums or something of that sort. The possibilities are endless. The fact is that we see no reason for change. I hope that that robust approach of no change in any circumstance commends itself in particular to the hereditary element of this House.
There is an internal contradiction to be detected by the unkind eye in the two amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Amendments Nos.101 and 102 are mutually exclusive. Amendment No.74, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, wants everyone to be known as "Peers ". We think that there is no point in that, except as the subject for an amusing debate of this

1345
type. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wants us to be called either MAC or LP. We should not lightly throw away the inheritance of the centuries.
6.30 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: I am still puzzled by the noble Lord. Throughout all the debates the Government have said that we must change; we must modernise. The only times when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, refuses change is when, first, he says that we cannot have "an " and must have "a " hereditary Peer for the good reason that the parliamentary draftsman has said that that has been so for years; and, secondly, as regards an obviously correct provision such as the amendment today. Again, he says,"No, we must not change." I wish that he had used that expression a little more and earlier in the Bill.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank all noble Lords for their contribution. If I did not hook a shark on this occasion, perhaps I may say that it was a noble salmon. I agree with my noble friend Lord Dudley. I, too, have heard that the Bill is commonly called a sequel to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Having listened to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on many occasions, I wonder whether he is a reincarnated Lewis Carroll because he plays the part extremely well.
Perhaps I may refer to my noble friend Lord Onslow as my noble kinsman. His comments were wrong.
Lord Elton: Can the noble Lord tell us how many noble kinsmen he has in the House?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: It depends how many are legitimate. The question of illegitimacy arises, in particular with one quite close to me at the moment!
I am not sure what side my noble kinsman Lord Henley is on. It was probably the wrong side if he was a kinsman, needless to say. His family were fortunate enough to inherit lands and wealth due to the extreme awkwardness—I could use a worse name—of a female member of my family who died not all that long ago.
I think that he should be grateful and perhaps might buy me a drink on occasion.
I commiserate with the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I understand that former members of his family were not called to this House in the 15th century. I am sorry about that, but I suppose we all have to start somewhere.
I conclude with the serious point of the amendment. The House which remains will be different from the present Chamber. It should be made quite clear that it will be different. My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the point, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies. It is a serious point which the Government should address. I do not mind what the Members are called. I picked out Peers because it was the first name, I am sorry to say, that came into my head. But there must be a better way.
It is a valid point. We are changing. Let us not hide it. The noble Lord; ought to hide behind his bushel. Let us make clear that we are changing in fact. in ceremony
1346
and so on. Let us make up our minds what we shall be called in future. I may return to the point. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington moved Amendment No.75:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
LIFE PEERAGES COMMISSION
(". —(1) There shall be a Life Peerages Commission ("the Commission ") which alone shall make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958.

(2) During the two years immediately following the passing of this Act the Commission shall recommend to Her Majesty the conferment of life peerages to the extent necessary to ensure that—

(a) no one political party commands a majority in the House of Lords,

(b) the Government has broad parity of numbers with the main opposition party, and

(c) the proportion of Cross Bench peers to the total number of life peers in the House remains as it was on the day before the passing of this Act.

(3) In each subsequent year the Commission shall recommend to Her Majesty the conferment of no more peerages than is necessary to continue to ensure as nearly as possible that—

(a) no one political party commands a majority in the House of Lords,

(b) the Govemment has broad parity of numbers with the main opposition party, and

(c) a significant independent Cross Bench element is maintained,

and in no circumstances shall the Commission recommend the creation of more than fifty peerages in any such year.

(4) The Commission shall consist of eight members of the Privy Council appointed by the Prime Minister.

(5) One Commissioner shall be appointed from each of the three largest parties in the House of Commons on the nomination of the Leader of each such party, and one shall be appointed from the Cross Bench peers on the nomination of the Convenor of the Cross Bench Peers.")

The noble Lord said: I can assure the Committee that we now deal with a matter of considerable substance. There is nothing Alice in Wonderland about this amendment. Many of the words in the amendment will be familiar to Members of the Committee. They are all taken from the Government's White Paper.
The Government state that they do not want one party to dominate what they call the transitional House. That is what the Government have stated at page 4 of the White Paper.
The Government say that they will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in this House. That is what the Government have stated as their intention at page 9 of the White Paper.
The Government say that they will maintain a significant independent Cross Bench element. That is the Government's stated intention at page 31 of the White Paper.
If that is what the Government say they want for the transitional House, let us put that in the Bill. Let a statutory body receive nominations from the political parties, the Prime Minister and others, and then carry out the duty of recommending peerages in numbers and

1347
from the various parties in accordance with what the Government say are their own intentions. What possible objection can there be to that?
Even if it were guaranteed to last for only a limited time, no harm would be done by writing the Government's intentions into the very Bill creating the transitional House. But in truth there can be no guarantee as to how long the transitional House will last. The fact that it might last quite a long time provides another reason—some might say an even stronger one—for writing appropriate provisions into the Bill creating the transitional House.
I must emphasise that to doubt whether the transitional House will last for only a short time is not to question the Government's good faith. I state the obvious. It is that no government can guarantee that another Bill providing for long-term reform will reach the statute book. On Tuesday the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said he could guarantee that stage two would come about. He said that speculation that stage two would not take place was fanciful and without foundation. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had been about the place in 1968 he would have learned that some matters are not always in the government's control.
I have to give exactly the same reply to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. She stated today that the Government are resolute in their determination to have stage two. Sometimes members of the Government seem to forget that it is Parliament and not the Government which ultimately decides whether a Bill will reach the statute book. Whether a Bill reaches the statute book depends ultimately on Parliament. I recommend to the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal what her noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Shepherd said on Tuesday last. I commend in particular to the Committee what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said at col.1111 of the Official Report of 11th May. He said that there were a number of reasons why the transitional House might be with us for a long time. One is that with 600 noble Lords in the transitional House and 600 in the other place, there would be 1, 200 different views as to what kind of second Chamber there should be.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, whether or not it is more likely that there will be an indeterminate interim period if a clause such as this is introduced into the Bill and will it not greatly reduce the pressure to introduce stage two?
Lord Waddington: I do not agree with that for one moment, but if the noble Lord were right it does not alter the fact that if the Government say their intentions are clearly stated in their own White Paper it is difficult to mount a powerful argument as to why they should not be put in the Bill.
I submit that what I say is plain common sense. In view of the Government's declared policy, it would not disadvantage them to write their intentions into their Bill. The argument advanced by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal earlier today—that the time to discuss
1348
methods of appointment of life Peers will be when we come to stage two—is no argument when, first, there can be no guarantee of a stage two in the foreseeable future and, secondly, the Government have announced a detailed policy for appointment to the transitional House.
One thing must be made clear. The new House without most of the hereditary Peers will be a much smaller House. If the power of appointment of life Peers were left in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day, it would be much easier for him to make sufficient appointments to gain an absolute majority in this place. In no way is it an aspersion on present life Peers to say that in future a government less scrupulous than the previous one or their predecessors could appoint people who were concerned more to do the government's bidding than to protect the constitution.
It has been argued somewhat faintly by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on more than one occasion that if the Prime Minister's power to make appointments poses a danger, it is a danger that has been with us for a long time; that nothing has gone wrong as yet, so there is no need to do anything. That is not much of an argument. The Government are making a big change to our constitutional arrangements. The Prime Minister acknowledged in his own White Paper that the present system of creating life Peers is far from ideal and needs some change. Very well, let us deal with these shortcomings in our present arrangements and, as we are legislating, let us deal with them in this legislation.
We have no right to throw away the opportunity to put things right by legislation when the opportunity is right here staring us in the face. We have no right to ignore the present rather unsatisfactory constitutional and legal position that is open to the Prime Minister and, if this Bill is not amended, to any future Prime Minister to secure for himself an absolute majority in this place and render the House completely ineffective as a check on the executive.
The wording of the amendment is clear enough. Admittedly, there might have to be a large number of new Peers to create the new balance envisaged both by the Government and by this amendment. Later, it should be possible to stick to a statutory maximum, and to have a statutory maximum is desirable as a safeguard against abuse. The amendment envisages the statutory maximum being imposed after the first two years; a statutory maximum of 50, as set out in subsection (3).
The House will also note that subsection (2) seeks to ensure that:
"the proportion of Cross Bench peers to the total number of life peers in the House remains as it was on the day before the passing of this Act ".
That is an attempt to put in clearer and more felicitous language the Government's assurance at page 9 of the White Paper that they will maintain a Cross-Bench representation at around the present proportion of life Peers. Strangely, and for reasons best known to themselves, the Government used less precise language and gave a less generous undertaking at page 31 of the White Paper. The words there are:
"We shall maintain a significant independent Cross Bench element ".

1349
Again, we have picked up the Government's own words in order to drive home the point that we are aiming to do no more than put in statutory form the Government's own policy. If on reflection the Government regret having used two different formulations in the White Paper, I am sure that the amendment can be redrafted to the satisfaction of all.
I leave it to others to discuss the methods of the appointments commission. Surely, all we have to do today is agree in principle to there being a statutory appointments commission and then work out the best formula to ensure its complete independence. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: Subsection (1) of the amendment provides that:
"There shall be a Life Peerages Commission … which alone shall make recommendations to Her Majesty ".
I followed the noble Lord's political career with some interest and I recall that he was the Chief Whip, or patronage secretary, between 1987 and 1989. I am sure that in that capacity he played some small part with the Prime Minister in deciding who should come to this place and who should not. When did he change his mind about that and why did he change his mind? Was it in spite of or because of his experiences as Chief Whip?
Lord Waddington: I do not believe that the question of why I changed my mind, if I did change my mind, has anything to do with the amendment. In the amendment, I am saying that if the Government are telling this House that it is their intention to have a House in which there is no party with an overall majority, let the Government put their money where their mouth is and put in the Bill which they are asking us to pass a clear statement of their own intentions.
That is what is important, not my own views on this. If the noble Lord wants my own views, he will note that I stated them in an earlier speech. The fact is that we are creating a much smaller House and one which it would be much easier to manipulate. We are creating a House over which it would be much easier for the Prime Minister of the day to gain control simply because he would not have to make many new appointments in order to achieve an absolute majority. That is how the position has changed, but what matters is the Government's own intentions.
Lord Bach: When the noble Lord was Chief Whip, the Prime Minister had complete control over the majority in this House. Is that not right?
Lord Waddington: I do not follow the purpose of the noble Lord's question. Perhaps he will tell us later in the debate why he expects us to have such faith in the Government's claim that they are bound to get through Parliament a second stage Bill and that it is quite unnecessary for us to write into this Bill what the Government say are their own intentions. Perhaps later the noble Lord will be able to tell us what would be the disadvantage to the Government if they wrote into this
1350
Bill their own intentions. What are the Government afraid of? Perhaps we shall hear that from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal.
Lord Crickhowell: My Amendment No.86 is grouped with this amendment. Although all the amendments in the group propose a statutory appointments commission, they cover a wide field and have different objectives. As my noble friend Lord Waddington has made clear, his amendment translates the Government's intentions into a statutory form. However, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lamont, who is not in his place, proposes to impose a cap on the number of creations. I have some sympathy with that proposal. These amendments, and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas, propose the setting up of an appointments commission to deal with the appointment of all life Peers.
My Amendment No.86 has a more restricted and specific intention. The commission that I propose is concerned only with the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers. It is intended to carry into effect in statutory form the Government's declared policy set out in Chapter 6,"The Appointments Commission ", of the White Paper, which we now understand from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is in official racing colours. Paragraph 9 recognises,
"the tremendous contribution made … by the independent cross-bench peers ".
It adds:
"There is no reason why the Prime Minister of the day should control the nominations to the cross benches."
The Government therefore propose that there should be an "advisory non-departmental public body ", which
"will operate an open and transparent nominations system for cross-bench peers ".
So far, so good. But, incredibly, this independent appointments commission is to be established by the Government, by the Prime Minister, and not by statute. That is an extraordinary, and to me completely unacceptable, proposal. The nature of the commission, the way in which its chairman and members are appointed, the objectives it is given, and the rules under which it operates, should be, must be, a matter for Parliament, not the Prime Minister and the Government.
If there is any responsibility that should be removed from the hands of the Prime Minister and the Government, it is surely that which embraces the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers. I go further than the White Paper's statement:
"There is no reason why the Prime Minister of the clay should control the nominations to the Cross-Benches ".
There are a multitude of compelling reasons why he should not do so, but there are equally compelling reasons why he should be distanced from—I go further; why there should be a wide and unbridgeable gulf between him and—the body tasked with the responsibility of nominating Cross-Bench Peers.
Having been the chairman of a non-departmental public body established by statute, I inquired under what provisions the commission would be appointed by the Prime Minister. The Library tells me that because it is

1351
advisory and not executive, and because its expenditure will be small, it can be set up by the Prime Minister, just as the Nolan Committee was set up. I accept that advice. But it is not a technical reason that moves me to propose the amendment. It is surely a matter of the utmost constitutional importance that Parliament should, in this Bill, provide the statutory authority for the commission.
No doubt I shall be told that the present Prime Minister is a person of absolute integrity and that all kinds of rules of propriety will be observed. But the fact is that the present Prime Minister and his successors are political animals. It is no criticism of their integrity to say that their judgments are inevitably influenced by their political views and aims.
I have been a Minister responsible for appointing the members of quangos. I have also been the chairman of a very large quango. Appointments to quangos involve the exercise of judgments about individuals. However honourable the intentions, appointments may involve bias; and even if they do not, the world outside may believe that they do. Public perception is as important as the reality.
Furthermore, I have learnt from experience that Ministers and their civil servants have a thousand subtle, and sometimes far from subtle, ways of seeking to influence the actions of quangos that they have set up, even though the quangos are supposed to be independent. Whitehall hates independence. The more independent-minded the quango, the more determined is Whitehall to quell that independence and regain control.
It may or may not be right for a Prime Minister to appoint the chairman of a Royal Commission to consider the future of the House of Lords, a European Commissioner of another party, or the leader of the devolved Assembly in Wales. It is certainly wrong that he should have any say in, or influence over, the appointment to a commission that will recommend who should be Cross-Bench Peers.
My new clause makes it clear that the commission should have regard to all the desirable objectives about breadth of membership that the Government set out in the White Paper and the Labour Party recommended in its evidence to the Royal Commission. I find it hard to believe that the Minister can object to the principles behind my amendment.
There is, however, one aspect on which I am particularly anxious to hear the views of the whole Committee. I refer to the question of membership. In subsection (2) I propose a membership designed to guarantee independence, but with the Cross-Bench Peers themselves given a major say in the appointment process. There is plenty of room for variety.
My noble friend Lord Waddington proposes for his commission a membership consisting solely of Privy Counsellors appointed by the Prime Minister. I toyed with the idea of Privy Counsellors, but not with the idea that they should be chosen by the Prime Minister. My noble friend Lord Lucas makes an alternative suggestion.
1352
I have not fixed irrevocably on my particular solution. This debate provides an opportunity to test the Committee's views on the subject. That is the principal reason why I do not intend to seek to press my amendment to a vote tonight. But before the Bill leaves the House of Lords, such an amendment must be incorporated into it. I have proposed something which I think fulfils the intentions that the Government have set out. It seems to me absolutely essential that on this crucial matter of the appointment of Cross-Bench Peers the commission must be controlled by Parliament, must be seen to be wholly independent and must be separated entirely from the actions of the government of the day. Therefore, I give proper warning now that, having considered the views of the Committee on the detail, particularly on the nature of the appointments to the commission, I shall certainly want to return at a later stage and press to a vote an amendment with similar objectives.
Lord Richard: With great respect to the two noble Lords who have just spoken, there was an air of almost total political unreality about their speeches. They were both members of the Cabinet of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. A vision came to my mind of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, as Chief Whip, and the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, as Secretary of State for Wales, and perhaps other noble Lords, saying to the then Prime Minister,"We are very worried about maintaining the independence of the Cross Benches in the upper Chamber. Therefore, Prime Minister, we think that you should now accept a statutory curb upon your right to appoint Cross-Benchers ". I would merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that he would not have been appointed Governor of Bermuda, but of St. Kilda—and I suspect that the tenure of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, in the Principality would have been somewhat curtailed.
There has never been this sort of curb upon the power of the Prime Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, says that he is merely setting out what is in the Labour manifesto. I refer him to subsection (5) of the new clause that he proposes in Amendment No.86. The manifesto sensibly proposed that there should be an advisory committee. I hope that the Committee will accept that. But what is the noble Lord's proposal? It is that
"The Prime Minister shall not have the right to refuse a recommendation of the Commission ".
That is a strange advisory commission. For the first time that I can recall—I am pretty sure I am right about this—a Prime Minister would be voluntarily offering some public curbs—not statutory; and they should not be statutory—on his right to appoint people to the House of Lords.
For the first time, he has said that, in relation to the Cross-Benchers, in order to preserve independence and to secure a reasonable cross-section of people sitting on the Cross-Benches, that should go first to an independent appointments commission. With great respect to the noble Lord, you cannot expect a government to go further than that.

1353
Therefore, I come back to where I started. There is an air of political unreality about the way in which the two noble Lords are attempting to entrench in statutory form that which the Prime Minister has offered voluntarily. That is wrong and if there is a Division, I trust that Members of the Committee on this side at least will oppose the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Crickhomell: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He made a great deal of the freedom of the Prime Minister to make the appointments and the need for that body to be advisory. I have based my amendment entirely on what the Government said in the White Paper. That states specifically that the Prime Minister will have no right to refuse a nomination that the commission had passed. It is for that reason that I included that phrase in my amendment. If the noble Lord feels as his words suggest, he should be arguing against his own Government's White Paper and not against my amendment.
Lord Richard: It is not for me at this stage to argue with the Government about their White Paper. It may be within the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that that is precisely what I have been doing ever since the White Paper was published.
Lord Waddington: Again, before the noble Lord sits down, surely he recognises that although St. Kilda might not have been quite so congenial as Bermuda, the situation has changed since those days because the Government have announced that they are prepared to put a voluntary restraint on the Prime Minister's power to make appointments to this place.
The Prime Minister has said that he is prepared to promise that he will not make appointments which will give him an absolute majority in the House. The only question is, as he said that in his own White Paper, what harm will be done by putting it in the Bill?
Lord Richard: The noble Lord has asked me a question which provokes me to respond to him. This is another example of what we have experienced throughout the whole Committee stage of the Bill from Members of the Committee opposite. They have said that all is perfectly safe and people could be relied on to behave well so long as there is a Conservative administration in No.10 and so long as there are 350 hereditary Peers on their side of the Chamber. If that is the situation then they say that there is no need for those checks and no statutory provision needs to be made. They say that they do not need a Prime Minister voluntarily to agree that there should be some non-statutory curbs upon his power. They say that all will be well in those circumstances.
I am sorry, but I do not accept that. I do not believe that anybody else on this side of the Committee accepts that. If one starts on that basis, then the unreality of what is being proposed en the other side of the Committee becomes totally clear.
Lord Elton: Is there not a little unreality in what the noble Lord has just said? He has demonstrated to his
1354
own satisfaction and that of many of his noble friends that what pertained under the Conservative administration and the current constitution is unacceptable. Why should the change of parties suddenly make acceptable that matter of principle? Surely all politicians are equally to be treated with great reserve. I do not defend the record of my own side. I merely tell the Committee that in the end the record of the other side is likely, over the years, to be very similar.
Viscount Bledisloe: I am concerned with the principle as to whether there should be a statutory commission for the appointment of independent Peers. I am not concerned about how the political appointments are made. Therefore, I am somewhat closer to the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the substance of his amendment although I am in no way concerned with the detail of any particular amendment. If, at the end of the day, the Government will tell us that they are happy to have a statutory body, then they should devise precisely how it is to be formed.
I am also not concerned with the party points made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for which I have a certain amount of sympathy. I should be making these points whichever party were bringing forward this Bill and whichever party was likely to be making the appointments.
The Government expressed the desire to maintain in the interim House—and I emphasise in the interim House—a substantial independent element. They have also expressed a willingness to have those who are appointed to fulfil that role recommended by persons other than the Prime Minister.
This Bill will reduce substantially the number of independent Members of the House and will reduce substantially the number of noble Lords opposite. Therefore, my submission is that it is a necessary element of this Bill to consider how that substantial independent element is to be maintained. With respect, I do not understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that this matter does not arise under this Bill but is a matter only for stage two. This is a matter that concerns how the interim House is to be filled.
The common theme behind the amendments is that the commission which is to fulfil that role should be embodied in statute and should not be dependent on the particular wish of whoever may be the Prime Minister for the time being, because, if it is a voluntary body, a future Prime Minister can disband it and revert to absolute appointment.
Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that the concept of that commission is extremely necessary for the interim Chamber. It seems highly likely also that some such body will have a necessary role in the stage two House. If, as appears to be the wish of virtually everybody, that second stage House is to have a strong independent element, pace the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that independent element must stem from some system of appointment and not from a wholly-elected Chamber.

1355
Therefore, if, in the stage two House, there is to be an ongoing need for the appointment of an independent element, surely it is desirable now to start with a strong statutory body making those recommendations. Then, by the time stage two is for consideration, there will be practical experience of the working of that body which can enlighten the deliberations of stage two.
If the Government believe in that independent advisory body, I do not see why they should be reluctant in any way to put it on the statute book. That has the great advantage that a less high-minded government hereafter would not be able to abolish the idea at the whim of the Prime Minister. I very much hope that the Government will indicate not that they accept any particular amendment but that they accept the idea of a statutory body and will bring forward proposals at a later stage.
The Earl of Erroll: As a Cross-Bencher, I sometimes despair of the political point scoring which takes place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Richard, about the past performance of some Tory policies. But—and I totally disagree with him—I am glad that they have finally seen the light because it provides a way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, summed up the concerns of many Members of the Committee and put them in a nutshell. The real problem with the Bill is that it cannot be assumed that future governments will be such pillars of moral rectitude as the present government. That temporary and interim House may have to last a very long time. Therefore, we must remove from future governments and Prime Ministers the power to manipulate the interim or transitional Chamber. If it is not on the face of the Bill, it is all too easy for a Prime Minister to change things in the name of efficiency when he really means expediency. For that reason, this should be a statutory provision.
Viscount Cranborne: Not for the first time, I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, with a certain amount of sympathy. After all he, like me and, I suspect, a surprisingly large number of your Lordships, has been a business manager. As the noble Lord well knows, one of the main weapons at the disposal of any government—I suppose in your Lordships' House it might be the whisky bottle—is the power of patronage. Until fairly recently, if that power of patronage was exercised discreetly and was not abused beyond a certain amount—after all, the words "abuse " and "government " go together; otherwise the power of Parliament would not be as important as it is—then it has been thought perfectly acceptable, as the noble Lord implied, for the Government to exercise the power of patronage as a means of ensuring that their objectives are achieved. Of course, it is only when there are evident abuses of that power that problems arise. One does not want to get too far up to date for fear of being a little invidious, but the history of the last administration of Lloyd-George would perhaps do as an example. I have a certain amount of sympathy, as part of the former business managers' club, with the sentiments that the noble Lord expressed.
1356
The difficulty for a number of Members of the Committee on this side when considering this pragmatic and rather eighteenth century view of politics, some of which has persisted until the present day—there is every sign, particularly in view of what the noble Lord said. that it persists with the present Government—is that before it came to power the Labour Party took a rather different view. I would not mind betting that one of the reasons why people viewed the imminent arrival of a Labour Government with something like equanimity was that the Labour Party had persuaded a large part of the electorate that the Tory government of which I was a member were enmired in sleaze and that the whole system needed cleaning up. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, nodding. I assume that she not only agrees about the need to clean up but also that that was one of the reasons why the Labour Party won the election.
I well remember how the noble Lord, in some of his more eloquent speeches from the Dispatch Box, when I was quaking in my boots about how I was going to reply to his barbs, made very great play of this disgraceful exercise of power of patronage and of sleaze generally.
It is for that reason, I suspect, that we on this side of the Committee would like to see the Government put their money where their mouth was when they wrote the manifesto, when undertakings were given by the right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister, and when the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was Leader of the Opposition. It seems to me perfectly consistent, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said, for us to ask as an opposition that the Government do that, not because we think we are guiltless, but because it seems to us perfectly sensible for any opposition to hold the government to their word.
I quite understand what the noble Lord, Lord Richard, says. As the House knows by experience, he is a very frank individual. He has been very frank about his disagreements with his own party on the matter of reform of your Lordships' House. It is perfectly plain by implication that the Government are beginning to enjoy the exercise of power. That is what governments do, and part of the exercise of power is a power of patronage. It is very easy therefore for them to suggest that what has been done is enough. A concession has been made; a nod in the direction of their former rhetoric has been made; and that is enough, because the practicalities of government mean that the power of patronage must continue to be exercised at least in some measure.
I do not believe that that is consistent with what has gone before. It is therefore perfectly legitimate for us to ask, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell asked: under what authority will this commission be established? It sounds as though it will be established under royal prerogative. It also sounds as though the Government, like all governments, are growing to love the idea of preserving what is left of the royal prerogative for the reason I have given.
If that is what the commission is going to be established under, and if we fail to persuade the Committee of the justice of the arguments in general

1357
terms of my noble friends who have put amendments so far, then it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the terms and riding instructions of the commission provide for regular reports informing the public of the basis on which it operates and that those reports should be extraordinarily transparent in so far as that is consistent with the obvious restrictions as to how it goes about its business. For the reasons that my noble friends gave, I do think that there is a great deal to be said, in view of the previous rhetoric of the Labour Party, particularly before the last election, for my once again posing the question put by my noble friend Lord Waddington: why not put it on the face of the Bill? It would be entirely consistent with the rhetoric with which the Labour Party has bombarded us for years. I look forward to hearing from the Government Front Bench the reasons why that should not be so.
I hope also that the Government will deal with the question to which by implication both my noble friends addressed themselves in their different ways. Why is the commission only to concern itself with the Cross Benches? I am sure the answer will be that Peers taking the party whip should rightly be appointed at the suggestion of party leaders. We also know that some of the rhetoric of the Labour Party over past years has questioned whether the strength of scrutiny of names put forward by party leaders has been quite sufficient. Surely it is sensible for any names submitted by party leaders to be scrutinsed by an authoritative commission of this kind. I should be very interested to know from the noble Lord, if: ndeed it is he who will be replying, why he feels that at least some role should not be played by the commission in the appointment of all new Peers if consistency is to be maintained with the rhetoric we have heard.
I hope we shall be told when the Government expect to appoint the commission and how its members will be appointed because inevitably, as my noble friends explained, the question guts custodiet rnust arise in any consideration of the proposal. I hope too that the Government will talk not only about transparency but also about how the recommendations themselves will be made. Will the commission draw up lists? Will it be possible for people to submit names? I hope too that it might be considered helpful if the public were encouraged to make submissions in the same way as they have been encouraged by both parties to make submissions on the Honours List in another context.
It would be very helpful if the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, could answer not only those questions but above all the question: why not put it on the face of the Bill? The Government have been adamant in their refusal so far. Perhaps they can be induced to think again.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Shore of Stepney: Perhaps I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Having sat here silently for the whole afternoon I think it is reasonable that we on these Benches should be allowed to express an opinion. It is quite understandable and in my view perfectly reasonable for people to put down amendments
1358
dealing with the appointments commission. The matter was identified during the Cook-Maclennan talks before the last general election when it was agreed between ourselves and the Labour Party that no party should attempt to get a majority in the House and that there should be a solid block of Cross Bench Peers who would hold the balance. That seemed to me entirely sensible. Many of the speeches today have covered that ground. I was mildly surprised at the language of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when he expressed his concern about the misuse of patronage. He referred to abuses of power and went back to Lloyd George. I think that there are one or two rather more recent examples, if he will forgive my saying so. I refer, in particular, to the time when he was a member of the previous administration.
I have a list of the life Peers who were created under the premiership of Mr. Major. To be fair, he did not go to the extremes of his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. However, when he created life Peers under the Life Peerages Act, he added 83 to the Conservative numbers in this House; a House which already had an overwhelming Conservative majority. That was two more than the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats put together. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was a senior member of that government. I wonder whether he expressed his grave concern about what might be interpreted as an abuse of power by the behaviour of his right honourable friend the then Prime Minister.
When we go back to the record of the noble Baroness. Lady Thatcher, the examples under her premiership are even more interesting. During her period as Prime Minister, she appointed twice as many Conservative life Peers as Labour life Peers, and 11 times more Conservative life Peers than Liberal Democrat life Peers. That gives some indication of what abuse of power is really about.
During the many days of discussion on the Bill, we have heard an absolute torrent of humbug from the Opposition Benches on this issue. Of course it is necessary to try to create arrangements to avoid future misuses of power by a government of any political persuasion. However, perhaps I may say, with great respect to the noble Viscount, that there has to be just a touch of humility when he addresses the House on this issue.
I turn, briefly, to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, which proposes that the Government should have broad parity with the major opposition party. However, as he would recognise, by the terms of the Government's White Paper and, indeed, the interesting amendment tabled by his noble friend Lord Lamont, who unhappily is not in his place, the Conservative Party is still substantially over-represented in this House. It will continue to be, given the ration of 42 new Conservative hereditary Peers who will he allowed to remain here. When the noble Lord makes such a proposition, one inevitably has to look at it rather critically.
Lord Waddington: Does not the noble Lord recognise that those words are taken straight from the White Paper? Surely I have made it plain enough that the point of the amendments is to ask the Government whether they are prepared to write into the Bill what they state are their own intentions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that I have pointed out that the document was produced by the Labour Party and ourselves even before the last general election. Therefore, it was available to be discussed at that time. It was agreed that the proportions of party political Peers should be not on the basis of equality between the Conservative and Labour Parties, but on the basis of the proportion of people supporting those political parties in a general election. That is the difficulty.
Lord Waddington: If that is the case, the noble Lord's argument is with the Government and not with me. He is now saying that the Government have changed their ground.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Lord will reread the White Paper, he will see that what I have said is incorporated in it. However, the point before us is a simple one; that is, whether the amendments should be agreed as part of the Bill. If the Conservative Party behaves as it has on previous occasions, in a few moments the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, will withdraw the amendment. I do not know whether he proposes to divide the Committee. As I have indicated, I consider that the discussion on this matter is entirely reasonable. However, what are not reasonable are the constant assertions that there was purity in the past and there may be malevolence in the future as far as the present Government are concerned.
The Earl of Errol: As a Cross-Bencher, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Does he agree with the premise I put forward earlier that the Tory Party needs equally to be controlled in the future by an amendment such as this? I believe that is what he was saying.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: It is perfectly reasonable for us to discuss the particular circumstances in which an appointments commission should be created. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will be listened to with great care for that precise reason. Of course, it is reasonable to discuss that matter and to seek reassurance that the behaviour of such an appointments commission will be fair.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, could he kindly substantiate two comments he made? Who, exactly, has been making assertions of purity in the past,
1360
because I have not heard them, and where in the White Paper is the proportionality recommended as he described it?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: In answer to the first point, there has been a series of suggestions, both today and on previous occasions—
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord has asked a question. If he is good enough to allow me to reply, I shall endeavour to do so. We had the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for instance, that under the Bill as presently drafted it will be easier to manipulate the House. As I have tried to point out, manipulation took place under Conservative Ministers. Noble Lords such as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he was patronage secretary, did absolutely nothing to deal with the situation.
As regards the second matter, I have stated my belief. I shall gladly look again at the White Paper after this discussion.
Lord Shore of Stepney: I hope that my noble friends will not be dismissive of the proposals put forward. I would be the last to suggest to them that they should simply adopt the amendments. That clearly is not on. However, I hope that they will think further about the matter and perhaps, at a later stage, tell us of their conclusions.
Perhaps I may explain why I say that. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on Second Reading. What he has done in these amendments was foreshadowed in that speech. Frankly, I thought that his speech then fell into two parts. In one part, with which I strongly disagreed, he was highly critical of all that we were up to and our motives. However, I thought that the second part was really rather good. He picked out those features of what we have volunteered and have put to the country which I believe, on merit, are extremely attractive.
In the past our criticism of the House of Lords, apart from its hereditary composition, which is well understood, has been its total imbalance of party strengths. We volunteered and, with tremendous courage, committed ourselves, first, to parity, not supremacy, and, secondly, not to fall for the temptation of giving one party a majority over the whole second Chamber or upper Chamber, whatever it will be called. These are enormously important features of our proposals. The proposal that we shall seek to ensure that a substantial number of independent Peers, the Cross-Benchers, will be retained, gives that promise of a real element of independence in the future Chamber. On merit, I find the latter arguments to be very powerful.
Perhaps I may put to my noble friends the following point. Whether bogusly or genuinely, many people are writing editorials criticising what we are doing and saying that the principal objection is that it will leave

1361
unlimited patronage, as it were, to a future Prime Minister to determine, as he thinks, the composition of the interim Chamber. Not a bit of it! We have deliberately put ourselves in baulk; in other words, we have put chains Hound the absolute patronage of a Prime Minister for almost the first time in our history. It is remarkable.
I put it to my noble friends that, if we can find a way of incorporating these principles into the Bill itself, although not in detail, we will have a very persuasive additional ability to sell it to the country as a whole. We really are saying to the country, "Look, we stand for the genuinely independent second Chamber, one where the parties are equally balanced ". It is a guarantee of many of our liberties and, indeed, of the fairness with which our constitutional arrangements will be carried out in the future.
Obviously, there can be quite a considerable argument about the proposed commission and I would not wish to come to a conclusion in that respect. In some ways, I believe it to be of secondary importance to the three principles. If we are to have a substantial number of Cross-Bench representatives in the second House and if we are really to stick to the business of one party not having an overall majority and the two main parties being equal, the room for mischief in the use of patronage as regards the appointment of independent Peers is not all that great.
Therefore, in thinking about this, I hope that my noble friends will take a. serious look at the matter to see whether we can fit this into the framework without it leading to unnecessary difficulties. I understand that any such amendment will inevitably raise questions of further debate in the other place. Nevertheless, I do not believe that there will be any resistance in the other Chamber if we can find a way to incorporate these most desirable features which we, ourselves, have proposed and volunteered.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Lucas: It may appear that I have some amendments in this group, but that is not so. Indeed, I have taken them out and ungrouped them from each other. When we come to deal with them, I hope that it will be unnecessary for me to move them. I hope that we shall find that we are in dialogue with the Government in dealing with the underlying issues which cause us and, evidently, others on all sides of the House, so much disquiet. However, if we find that we are faced with an intransigent Government and that, like the rest of the House, we are having to discuss how we should tackle the matter, I trust that my amendments may give us a reasonable opportunity to consider the various aspects of the proposed appointments commission and other ways of dealing with this problem in some detail. In that case, we may perhaps be able to bring back an amendment on Report, which is likely to command wide-spread support in the House.
As the Bill is set at the moment, the Government are inviting us, as I said on Tuesday, to set to sea in a sieve on the basis that they will rush out to our rescue before the water is up round our necks. I accept everything
1362
that the Government have said about their intentions and about the determination and the will with which they approach the idea of stage two, but they are not in perfect control of events; indeed, they can never be so. It would be extremely remiss of us to leave the consitution of this country and of this House in such a poor state that it could be sunk in a few years' time if we were to have a Prime Minister who, looking back over the history of Prime Ministers, merely equalled the performance of some of our past Prime Ministers in the way in terms of treatment of this House.
In an earlier interjection, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, suggested that we should not change this Bill in any way which would reduce the Government's incentive to move on to stage two. However, if we leave this Bill in a state where the Government, merely by appointing 30 or 40 extra Peers and exercising some judicious selection of the Cross-Bench Peers, were able to have effective control of this House, there will be no incentive for the Government to go through the pain—and it will be painful—of introducing stage two. Indeed, it will be a difficult and time-consuming thing to do, but if the Government are left in a position where they have effective control of the House, there will be no incentive whatever for them to make any changes.
The Government need look no further than our own record in office to see that we were perfectly content with a manifestly inequitable and indefensible system because we were in control of it. When we were in power, there was never any hope of persuading the Government in another place to make any changes. We cannot let that happen again. I very much hope that the Government are as determined as I am to ensure that: we leave this Bill in a state where that cannot happen again.
Beyond anything else, it is proposed that we should be bought with the arrangements arrived at under the heading of the "Weatherill amendment ". But if the Bill remains as it is and the Government can obtain control of the House over two or three years merely by appointing Peers in a way for which there is adequate precedent, the Weatherill amendment will be worth nothing to us. We will have achieved nothing by it. We will merely have let this House be acquired as pan of an arm of the executive without offering any resistance. I do not believe that that should be part of the deal we are being offered. I believe that the Government are being honest in offering us the Weatherill amendment. When we come to discuss ways of making that water-tight and the Bill acceptable so that we are being offered a real proposition in the Weatherill amendment, I hope that the Government will go along with us in trying to ensure that what we are being offered is a real compromise.
I do not have any particular attachment to the ways in which it has been suggested that we should tackle these problems. Indeed, I have no particular attachment to what I propose in my own amendments. There may well be other ways to approach the matter; for example, we might do it by something declaratory in the Bill, which would make it extremely difficult for a future Prime Minister to behave in a way which is not envisaged by this Government. I look forward to listening to the Minister when he responds to the debate.

1363
I very much hope that he will attempt to meet us half-way or that he will propose some other way of removing our concerns about the Bill. If he does not, I believe that this is something on which we will need to fight to the death.
Lord Northbourne: I have not wanted to intervene in the terrifying crossfire between the two major parties and the very distinguished speakers who contributed to it. However, I want to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to Amendment No.134, which is included in this group of amendments. In scale, this amendment is more modest and does not refer to the proposed appointments commission. Indeed, it refers specifically to the independent Peers. Noble Lords may say,"Well, you would talk about independent Peers because you are speaking from the Cross Benches ", but it is the other way round. It is because I believe passionately in the importance of independence that I sit on these Benches. The debates—I was tempted to say "the interminable debates "—that we have already had on this Bill have been splattered with references to the importance of the independent Peers. Of course, the Government have acknowledged that they want a strong independent element, and have said that they want a significant Cross-Bench element.
Amendment No.134 is a probing amendment, the purpose of which is to see whether the Government will explain a little more clearly what they mean by the word "significant ". I find it fairly easy to understand what they mean by "broad parity " between the two major parties, but what do they actually mean by "significant "? In the context of cot deaths, or road accidents, 1 per cent could be significant. In another context 50 per cent could be insignificant. Will the Government tell us something more about what they mean by "significant"? I do not have the undivided attention of the Front Bench but on Tuesday the noble Baroness said,
"the Prime Minister has already said…that the number of Peers who sit on the Cross-Benches, independent Peers, should be determined by an Appointments Commission and not by personal patronage ". —(Official Report.11/5/99; col.1191.]
I may have missed something but I was not aware that the number was going to be determined by the commission. I always understood that the appointments were to be determined by the commission, but it appears that the number will also be determined by it. What criteria will be used to decide the number of Cross-Bench Peers who will be appointed? If the noble Baroness can help me on this matter, I shall not need to bring it back on Report. I hope that she will be able to do so.
The Earl of Sandwich: I speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Shore, was the only person who spoke about the future and what the public will think about this Chamber. The other day I took some sixth-formers from Dorset into Parliament. I showed them the single Independent Bench of the Member of Parliament for Tatton. That may only be a temporary Independent Bench. Then I brought the sixth-formers to this Chamber. They were amazed at the
1364
proportion of Members in this Chamber—it has now risen above 25 per cent—who are independent. I believe this is the most valuable asset of this Chamber, of which the electorate are completely unaware. I go further. I believe that we should strengthen and increase the proportion of the independent Peers in this Chamber. I should like to see a progressive reduction of the party political element in favour of the independent element.
The White Paper at Chapter 6, page 33, refers to the appointments commission. I understand that the new commission will have a status somewhere above the present Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and it will do more than safeguard independent Peers. This is a significant move by the Government which will ensure that the country understands the role of our independent element in this Chamber and that it is not looking for another elected Chamber.
I supported Amendment No.31 on Tuesday in the cause of reform, not in the cause of democracy. I trust the Government will continue to resist the idea of a sham democracy through an elected Chamber here. It is becoming an old red herring waved about by both parties and sections of the media. It will not satisfy anyone who believes in the balance between our present Chamber and another place. To ensure that this happens the Government will have to make more of the idea of the valuable quota of independent Peers. As has been well argued by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. that measure should be on the face of the Bill. It already enables us to argue that we are not a pale shadow of another place. I would like to see more public recognition of independent Peers as Peers who are seen to represent their professions in a voluntary or part-time capacity. However, that is a discussion for another day.
Much more detail will be needed when the proposal comes back from the Royal Commission. I have written to the Royal Commission in these terms. In the meantime I hope that the Government will stand up to the pro-election lobby and secure the principle of the element of Cross-Bench Peers. I believe that that is what the modest amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, sets out to do.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I know the Committee is anxious to hear the Minister reply. However, I venture to take a minute or two to support what the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, has urged upon the Government Front Bench. I know that they took careful notice of what the noble Lord said, as it is always sensible to do. I wish to add one facet to the point that he made, which was that the country will find it difficult to understand why the Government should resist the intention—these are not necessarily the exact words—behind the amendments put forward by my two noble friends.
I wish to add a little force to that, if I may without presumption, by going back a few days to the tremendous battle that we had on Clause 1. We had put forward a formulation which we believed would without any doubt secure the declared intention of the Government. The Committee will remember that the matter concerned the words, "by virtue of a hereditary

1365
peerage". I shall not repeat the arguments that were made. However, the Government said time and again that they were going to proceed in this way because that was stated in the manifesto. The manifesto commitment was recited time and time again. After a while I came to recognise the force at least of what was in the Government's mind. They were concerned not to allow any perception—we know the force of perception—that they were somehow going back on what they had put before the country in their manifesto.
The executive summary of the White Paper states,
"The Government set out its approach to reform of the House of Lords in its manifesto ".
There then follows a summary. The document continues,
"This White Paper sets out how we intend to deliver on those promises, through a step-by-step process of reform ".
All that my noble friends seek to do is to assist the Government in their declared intention to deliver on those promises by writing into the Bill the very words that the Government employed in the White Paper.
I rise only to prevent myself from having to interrupt the Minister in the course of the reply. If it were so essential to have on the face of the Bill that which appeared in the manifesto relating to Clause 1, why is it somehow wrong to put on the face of the Bill that which appears in the White Paper which is declared only to set out,
"how we intend to deliver on those promises "?
I cannot see why that decision should at the moment be so firmly held by the Government. I wish, therefore, to hear from the Minister how the Government propose to deal with the fear behind the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shore; namely, that they will be seen somehow or other to be casting an aura of unreality over what they stated in the White Paper.
Lord Marlesford: I ought to make one brief point. Quite apart from the desirability of underwriting in statute important undertakings given by government on important matters, We matter that worries me is that there has been much talk about the past and the virtue, or lack of it, of previous administrations. The whole point of this Bill is that it will totally change the House of Lords. It will give us a situation in which not just the temptations but the opportunities for changing the composition of the Chamber will be infinitely greater. Quite frankly, in the past, with the inbuilt Conservative majority among the hereditaries, what could be done was pretty marginal, even if it was occasionally offensive to certain noble Lords. The real point is that we are now in a new situation—or will be—and it seems reasonable that the safeguards which will be so much more necessary should in some way or other be underwritten in statute.
Lord Kingsland: So effectively have your Lordships conveyed the fundamental messages that underlie the various amendments that, I am glad to report, I have very little to say.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Kingsland: However, I shall say it. I listened to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of
1366
Greenwich, with some bewilderment. I think the best I can do—perhaps I can say this on behalf of the Government Front Bench—is to refer him to paragraph 19 of their own White Paper which states, inter alia, that,
"For the transitional House, the Government will ensure that no one political party commands a majority in the Lords. The Government presently plans to seek only broad parity with the Conservatives ".
No clearer statement of what the Government intend to do could possibly have been made than that.
I think that the fundamental question the Government have to answer is the one put by my noble friend Lord Waddington. He quoted from the White Paper. I dare to quote from it once more.
At paragraph 3 of chapter 6 the White Paper states,
"For the transitional House…We will establish an independent Appointments Commission to make nominations to the cross benches and to oversee the propriety of all recommendations of political peers, so that all peers are vetted to the highest standard ".
The White Paper is absolutely clear, therefore, that the appointments commission is an integral part of the interim House. The arrangements for the appointments commission must be set in place before the new House comes into being. If that is not done in the Bill, how is it to be done? Perhaps the Government are proposing a second Bill about which we as yet know nothing.
In the press release on the Labour evidence to the Royal Commission, the Labour Party—which, dare I say it, has some loose connection with the Government—said:
"Tony Blair is the first prime minister to relinquish powers of patronage in the appointment of life peers, through the establishment of an Independent Appointment Commission for the transitional chamber "—
again underlining what the Government have said in their White Paper.
I do not understand the kind of argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. If the Government are sincere about the undertakings in the White Paper, why cannot they put them in the statute? Those undertakings are ideally suited to statute. The Government have spent the past two years putting enormous constitutional changes, of the most wide-ranging implications, into statutes. For instance, the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, which handed over large areas of power from Parliament to the judges; and the devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales which devolved powers from the centre to the periphery. All of those were dealt with by statute in the most minute detail.
If that is so, why are the Government so afraid of doing the same thing in relation to the appointment of Peers, who are, after all, independent of both or, I should say, of all three political parties? What is so special about that which requires the Government to handle it by prerogative, especially since the Government have said that the transitory House will be very transitory indeed?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am afraid that I cannot follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and be brief and precise. The Committee would rightly criticise the Government Front

1367
Bench if in our response to these very complicated issues we did not give some extended reply, particularly on the basis of our own plans to deal with many of the issues which have been raised in this interesting debate and which we may feel are not appropriately dealt with in the way suggested by the amendments before the Committee tonight. But I am grateful to the Committee for discussing this group of amendments together. As has been shown by this very good debate, there are a number of issues which overlap between the different amendments, even if they are not precisely contiguous.
Perhaps I may make some general points in response. I think that we are now considering Amendments Nos.75, 86 and 134. I hope that we can consider them in the spirit of the dialogue which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, enjoined on us. I hope that he will find that satisfactory. I am grateful to him for what he said about the reason for not including his particular proposals in this group.
Let me begin by saying that the Government recognise that this is a complicated area. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shore of Stepney for making that very clear. I can assure him that we have thought about this and have considered carefully the role of the appointments commission and the way that Members of the Cross Benches particularly—that is what we consider the appointments commission will deal with in the interim House—should be appointed.
We find that the individual amendments—they have been very forcefully moved—are flawed or, frankly, raise more questions than they answer. I support my noble friend Lord Richard in feeling that some of them suggest a world of political unreality.
The number of specific amendments on this subject which we have considered tonight, and those which are on the Marshalled List but have not been spoken to so far, illustrate that there is no agreement about precisely what the appointments commission should do; how it should be constituted; and, frankly, how complex the statutory provision would need to be which attempted to answer all the questions which have been raised by Members of the Committee and in the several amendments, either those which have been spoken to or those which remain on the Marshalled List.
I shall deal with the specific difficulties that the Government see in the various amendments that have been spoken to, but I should like to explain to the Committee—I am afraid this may be in some detail—the Government's plans and why we do not at the moment think that statutory provision as has been suggested is appropriate for this stage. Perhaps I may repeat what I said much earlier today in response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. I refer to Amendment No.71. I have no doubt at all that if we had introduced statutory provisions, the accusation would immediately have been made that we intended the transition arrangements for your Lordships' House to be permanent. That was a point made in an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and which we discussed earlier in relation to Amendments Nos.71 and 72.
1368
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was at that time replying for the Official Opposition, that I could almost put in his mouth the arguments that he would have made had we proposed statutory provision. His reaction, which was not verbal but expressive, suggested to me that I was not far off the mark. The noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber, but I do not think that he would quarrel with my remark. We did not want to send the signal that we were proposing provisions which would be seen as determining a long-term life for the transitional House. We want to do precisely what we intend, which is to move swiftly to an appropriate short-term transitional House and then to move further on to long-term reform.
When last February we debated the White Paper, which has been much referred to in the course of the debate, I explained the commitments which the Government were making and which we intend to follow through. Perhaps I may briefly review them. We have consistently made it clear that we do not intend the transitional House to be under the control of the Government; quite frankly, as we have said on several occasions, that would be completely absurd, given that the 500 life Peers who will be Members of that transitional House have been nominated by eight Prime Ministers over the past 40 years since the Life Peerages Act. The majority of them are Conservative life Peers. We do not at this stage need to go into the relative virtues or otherwise of individual Prime Ministers during that period.
We said that no one party should seek a majority in the House of Lords; we said that the system of appointment of life Peers would be reviewed; we committed ourselves, as has been pointed out by the further amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, to maintaining the independent Cross-Bench presence of life Peers; and we said, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, indicated, that, over time, party appointees should more accurately reflect the votes cast at the preceding general election.
There are three elements to those proposals: first, the principle which will inform the overall numbers in the transitional House; secondly, the introduction of the independent appointments commission to nominate Cross-Bench Peers; and thirdly, the undertaking to forward to the Queen, without interference, the recommendations of other party leaders and the commission.
I should like to emphasise two aspects of that. First, the very act of setting up the appointments commission is an indication of the Government's continuing commitment to the idea of independent Members in the House of Lords. It is also an indication of our commitment to the idea that they should be working Members of the House since the change in the nominations process will distance them effectively from the honours system. The second aspect is, of course, the reduction in patronage which will follow.
As I have said before—this is something which has been of concern to noble Lords who have taken part in the Committee proceedings this evening and is the burden of the two main amendments we are

1369
considering&—the commission does not need to be set up by legislation. In response to the noble and learned Lord Mayhew, the point of difference between Clause 1 of the Bill and our proposals with regard to the appointments commission is that we can remove the hereditary Peers only by statute; we do not need legislation to set up an appointments commission as an advisory non-departmental public body. As the White Paper makes clear, the commission will include members of the three major parties and have a majority of independent members. The appointment of the independent members will be in accordance with the relevant rules of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the so-called Nolan rules to which the noble Lord. Lord Crickhowell referred. Those include a number of principles. I hope not to detain the Committee unnecessarily but I shall go through them because they suggest the degree of transparency and probity which this kind of body has. The initial proposal emerged under the previous administration, not in this context but in general. The arrangements include a number of principles: appointment on merit, no appointment taking place without being subject to independent scrutiny, and a selection system which demonstrates openness and transparency. Within those principles, the commissioner for public appointments rules lay down strict requirements for appointments to bodies of this type. Perhaps I may list them again. They are that application forms roust be completed by all candidates; selection will be on merit, as judged against an agreed job or person criterion; an independent assessor must be used in the selection process; appointments should be publicised; and appointments should be monitored for statistical purposes.
The whole process should be overseen by a panel, not by an individual, and this must include at least one independent assessor. All candidates&—and that includes those put forward by Ministers&—must be scrutinised by the panel. If a Minister wishes to act independently in making an appointment and not follow the code or guidance, the commissioner for public appointments has to be informed. He may require that a public statement to that effect be made. Ministers are, of course, accountable to Parliament.
How the parties choose their members for the appointments commission is a matter for them, although they too are encouraged to follow this open process. The appointments commission itself, once established, will be encouraged to seek nominations from a wide field. As has been said, the commission will take over the role of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee in vetting all peerage nominations for propriety. This is a substantial commitment, one which goes far beyond the slightly broad headlines in which it was described by Members of the Committee in speaking to their amendments. It is worth considering the provisions which exist under the Nolan rules.
The third element of our proposals is that the Prime Minister will relinquish control over individual names from anyone except his own party. As noted by several contributors, the Prime Minister has for the first time publicly committed himself not to interfere in the details of other parties' nominations. This goes much further
1370
than any Prime Minister and any administration has gone before. I realise that Members of the Committee are concerned that although this may demonstrate good intent on behalf of this Government and this Prime Minister, they cannot be confident about the future. Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that we are already taking forward the preparatory work on setting up the commission as a non-departmental public body without the legislation which, as I said, is unnecessary but within the rules originally agreed by the previous administration which have been developed by bringing them under the public appointments commission administration.
The Committee may be interested to know that I have opened discussions with my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to ensure that there is at least a process for recruiting members of the commission to start work in the near future. Thus the commission would be ready to start functioning at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, as we have always suggested it should. I am sure Members of the Committee who have had experience of dealing with the Treasury in their government experience realise that I would not tangle with my right honourable friend on the matter if I considered that it was either a theoretical proposition or one that had little weight behind it.
I hope that the Committee will accept that these are earnests of our good intentions and that we can move rapidly ahead with the non-departmental public body appointments commission. Many of the regulations which are in place to govern such a body are tougher than those contained in some of the amendments.
I turn to Amendment No.75 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Waddington and Lord Elton. It is the first of the amendments which raise in detail those facts about the appointments commission which could have a life of their own. As both noble Lords explained, the amendment takes care to address a number of principles and&—as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said in introducing the amendment&—in proximate language, those points which the Government have laid down as criteria for recommendations as life Peers in the future. They include the idea that no one political party should command a majority in the House of Lords, that there should be rough parity of numbers between the two main political parties and that there should continue to be a significant presence of independent Cross Bench Peers.
The Committee will not be surprised to know that on the Government Benches we are delighted by the noble Lord's confirmation that these are the right principles to pursue. However, we feel that the amendment has some serious flaws. I imagine that some of the concerns will be shared by Members of the Committee on the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has already identified some of them from his perspective.
First, under Amendment No.75, the appointments commission would recommend all life peerages, not just those to the Cross Benches. This would be the

1371
reduction in patronage which the noble Viscount rightly addressed in his remarks. All those who were to represent the political parties would be included. Under the amendment, the political parties would be represented on the commission, but although represented there is no formal language to suggest that they would be consulted on individual appointments.
There is a second point on which the proposals diverge from those we feel are appropriate. It also causes the Official Opposition some concern, I imagine, that the amendment gives the Prime Minister apparently unfettered power to choose the individual members of the commission. I understand from the amendment that the only undertaking is that members of the commission should be Privy Counsellors. There are no other criteria. The criteria under our proposals, as I have explained at some length, would be governed by the provisions of the Nolan rules on openness and transparency. The Government have pledged themselves to an open appointments process. Although the provisions of Amendment No.75 would be statutory, they do not go so far as we would go in distancing the Prime Minister from the appointments process.
I also query a point which is not very great, the limit on the number of new peerages in any one year under the amendment. Although the figure of 50 looks quite generous, if one considers the year 1997, when we were taking account of both dissolution and resignation honours, there were 31 appointments under the provision. In an average year 50 might not be as generous as initially appears.
I submit to the Committee that the net effect of the amendment produces a rather inflexible statutory process and it does not deliver the independence that Members of the Committee seek because it provides no extra safeguards. In some instances it provides slightly fewer than those which will arise under our non-departmental public body appointments commission.
Amendment No.86 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, provides yet another variation. It limits itself to the Cross Bench Peers explicitly and to that extent it is consistent with the Government's clear proposals. But we are concerned about the details of the numbers in subsection (2) and how they are supposed to work. The subsection suggests that the commission could apparently be limited to only five members, yet it provides that eight shall be appointed. I am not sure whether this is a way of ensuring that the commission could continue to function when it had vacancies or that it could be limited to five members, four elected by the Cross Benches plus one; for example, one of the two nominated by the Prime Minister. What happens when there is vacancy among those elected by the Cross Benches?
The fundamental question arises: are those to be chosen by the Cross-Benchers also to be Cross-Benchers? What provision is made for holding elections to the Cross Benches, whether or not the candidates are limited to existing Cross-Benchers? We
1372
would have difficulty with providing that so large a proportion of the commission be existing Peers. I am sure that the final membership of the appointments commission under our proposals will reflect the fact that people should have expertise and understanding of the House. We fear that there must be a danger, despite the provisions of subsection (7) of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that such a commission might simply co-opt members in its own image.
We also have difficulties&—this is the general point in relation to all these amendments but I raise it particularly in relation to Amendment No.86, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell&—regarding what exactly would be the constitutional position of the commission. Subsection (3) of the amendment states that its role will be to make recommendations to Her Majesty. On the other hand, subsection (5) states that,
"The Prime Minister shall not have the right to refuse a recommendation ".
That seems to imply that he would continue to have a role.
So are the recommendations under this proposal being made to the Prime Minister, as we propose, or will they simply be passed on to the Queen? What, for example, would be the grounds for the Prime Minister refusing a recommendation? We have made it clear that under our proposals the Prime Minister would not have the right to reject any recommendations from the appointments commission, unless of course issues of national security were involved. So once again we feel that, despite the statutory basis, under this proposal the appointments commission would be less free of Prime Ministerial interference than under the non-statutory basis that we propose.
On the question of the Cross-Benchers, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, seeks statutory guarantees that there will continue to be a certain minimum non-party representation in the transitional House. As I have said on several occasions, we have no difficulty with the idea of guaranteeing a continued non-party presence. We have repeatedly made it clear that we are committed to maintaining the independent presence of a substantial number of life Peers. We have been pressed as to the actual numbers. They will depend on the overall make-up of the House. It would be very difficult, other than on a strictly proportionate basis, to make provision for absolute numbers at this stage. The noble Lord will have to accept that the words "substantial " and "significant " mean what they say in commonsense language. We have to see what are the final numbers, the numbers of hereditary Peers who remain on the Cross-Benches and the numbers that are proposed by the appointments commission, before we can be absolute in regard to those numbers. I hope the noble Lord will accept that. But we are uneasy, for reasons that go beyond that, about trying to set out the proportion in statute.
One of the questions that arise is the definition of "owe allegiance to " in the terms of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. For

1373
example, there are only three political parties that are presently organised in this House, but there are many more outside. Some already have former Members of another place sitting on the independent Benches in this House. For example, would the Bishops need to be included on either side or both sides of the calculation? Do the numbers include those who are on leave of absence? Also, what happens, as has happened several times over the past few months, if Peers change sides after entering this House? They either become Cross-Benchers or decide to adopt a party allegiance once they have achieved membership. For those reasons, and for the general reason—I know that the Committee may feel that it is inappropriate but I must repeat it because it is the Government's position—that we feel that this Bill is not about establishing rules far life peerages in the future, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that, overall, our plans for the transitional House are at least as precise and, I hope, as exact in their provisions in terms of appointments, as those that are proposed in the amendments that are before the Committee.
Lord Waddington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the courteous way in which she has replied to the amendment. I am grateful also for her comments and criticisms of our scheme for a statutory commission, which I am sure will come in handy when it comes to drafting an appropriate amendment on Report.
The noble Baroness did not get very far in addressing the principles behind these amendments. She did not begin to explain why there should not be a statutory commission responsible for all appointments, carrying out the very policy that has been propounded by the Government.
At the beginning of her remarks, the noble Baroness said that the Government recognise that this is a very complicated area. I respectfully agree. It is complicated enough for the noble Baroness to go away and think again. It is complicated enough in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Shore, for her to think again about the whole matter. I am confident that she will, and that she will pay regard to the views of her noble friend Lord Shore. I shall certainly return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage does not begin again before 9.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Location of Victims' Remains) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Pollution Prevention and Control Bill [H.L.]
8.15 p.m.
Report received.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty) moved Amendment No.1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS
(". —(1) The purpose of section 1 is to enable provision to be made for or in connection with—

(a) implementing Council Directive 96/6I/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;

(b) regulating, otherwise than in pursuance of that Directive, activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution;

(c) otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing any such pollution.

(2) In this Act— "activities " means activities of any nature, whether—

(a) industrial or commercial or other activities, or

(b) carried on on particular premises or otherwise, and includes (with or without other activities) the depositing, keeping or disposal of any substance; "environmental pollution " means pollution of the air, water or land which may give rise to any harm; and for the purposes of this definition (but without prejudice to its generality)—

(a) "pollution " includes pollution caused by noise, heat or vibrations or any other kind of release of energy, and

(b) "air " includes air within buildings and air within other natural or man-made structures above or below ground.

(3) In the definition of "environmental pollution " in subsection (2),"harm " means—

(a) harm to the health of human beings or other living organisms;

(b) harm to the quality of the environment, including—

(i) harm to the quality of the environment taken as a whole,

(ii) harm to the quality of the air, water or land, and

(iii) other impairment of, or interference with, the ecological systems of which any living organisms form part;

(c) offence to the senses of human beings;

(d) damage to property; or

(e) impairment of, or interference with, amenities or other legitimate uses of the environment (expressions used in this paragraph having the same meaning as in Council Directive 96/61/EC).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos.3 and I I, which are closely related.
Noble Lords who have followed the progress of this Bill will know that it has changed somewhat during the course of its consideration in this House. During earlier stages of its passage, serious constitutional doubts were raised about its nature and drafting, not least by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee made a number of

1375
suggestions for limiting the scope of the Bill and safeguarding parliamentary security and control. I therefore tabled a series of amendments which were agreed in Committee to meet those recommendations and which have, by general consent, clearly improved the Bill. They more than meet the specific concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Nevertheless, we had a fairly lengthy debate in Committee about whether further changes were necessary to improve the clarity and purpose of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, tabled an amendment for which a number of noble Lords expressed support. He also proposed an amendment to the Long Title, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, favoured that approach. I am happy to inform the House that I propose to move on both fronts in accordance with the wishes of noble Lords in that debate.
In the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, conceded that his own amendment for a purpose clause might not be sufficiently well drafted. He asked if there were perhaps some other way of shuffling the drafting of the Bill. That is, in practice, what I have done. Amendment No.1 effectively accepts the Bill's purpose and will make that purpose clear from the start rather than moving direct to regulatory powers—with which the noble Lord said that he a psychological problem. Amendment No.1 fully meets the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on that occasion and that of other noble Lords.
I am pleased to say also that, having taken legal advice, as I was not sure at that stage whether we could move in this direction, I am also able to amend the Long Title. That is dealt with in Amendment No.11. So we have both changed the Title and introduced a new purpose clause.
I hope the House will agree that these amendments, along with those that we made in Committee, leave the Bill in a much clearer, more properly defined state, and have set in the Bill a proper degree of parliamentary control over the issues that it addresses. I hope that noble Lords will also agree that the constitutional doubts raised at earlier stages have now been met.
There was never any disagreement, certainly among the major parties, on the substance of the Bill. We all wanted to see a co-ordinated system of pollution control in this country reflecting both European standards and British practice. I contend that that is what we now have. The purpose clause in Amendment No.1 and the related amendments are important in achieving the aims of noble Lords at previous stages. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may put a couple of questions to the noble Lord the Minister so we can get the answers confirmed at this stage of the proceedings. I ask him to confirm that this Bill is before us only because of EC Directive 96/61. In other words, if that directive had not been issued, would this Bill be with us? I come to my second question, which is perhaps supplementary to the first. Can the noble Lord tell us whether there was anything wrong with the
1376
Environmental Protection Act 1990? Were we dissatisfied with that in any way? Was it not working? Has it been improved by importing this directive as proposed into British law?
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I begin by explaining why my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is not able to be with us. He had a cataract operation today and it was not possible for him to alter that appointment. He is very sorry not to be here. I hope that the House will understand if we return to my noble friend's amendment at Third Reading. I should also explain why my noble friend Lord Renton is not able to attend. When we agreed to hold this particular stage of the Bill at this hour of the night, he was due to attend a legal dinner that he was unable to unload because of his very senior position within the legal profession. Consequently, he too is unable to be with us.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in his capacity as a Minister for persuading his colleagues to bring forward these amendments. We have been pressing for them very hard for a long time. I hope that the noble Lord will not find it too depressing if I say that nothing will make this into a good Bill, but that what he proposes tonight certainly makes it a better Bill and is therefore to be wholly commended. The provisions answer a good many of the points raised by ourselves and Members on other sides of the House.
As to Amendment No.11, delighted as I am to see it, I hope that the Minister has not fallen foul of his advice to us during recommitment. He said then that his advice was that once a Bill has been produced, its Long Title could not be changed unless other amendments so required. My only concern is that in agreeing that the Long Title should be amended, he does not imply that we have completely lost our capacity to amend the Bill further at Third Reading, should it be determined that that is necessary. However, it is perfectly possible that if we do that, it will not create the need further to amend the Long Title. I hope that what I say is not a hostage to fortune.
I welcome these amendments. They are what we have pressed for consistently during the passage of the Bill both in Committee and now on Report. A good deal of the credit for that must go to the Minister for persuading the Government of the merits of the case. I am delighted to see these amendments before the House tonight.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I too thank the Government for these amendments. I look forward to agreeing Amendment No.1 and, in due course, Amendment No.11—I pick up the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—which reflects our agreement to Amendment No.1. Congratulations are due to the Minister. It is perhaps a pity that the provisions must be framed in this way. I hope that I detect increasing willingness on the part of the Government to accept when matters can be made better and to reflect general agreement particularly on relatively technical measures such as this, which are intended not to undermine policy but simply to improve legislation. We have seen that recently in the way in

1377
which the Government have approached the Rating (Valuation) Bill. I very much welcome what I detect as a commonsense attitude.
Having said that, I have one minor quibble which arises in subsection (3)(e) of the new clause. That imports definitions by reference to the Council directive. I make this point with regard not only to Council directives but also to other legislation. I believe that it is desirable to provide definitions in legislation so that that legislation is self-contained to the greatest possible extent. As this is a fairly technical piece of legislation, I recognise that generally readers will not be leafing through it in an interested way and that the Council directive will be readily available to those who need to know. Nevertheless, it is not a practice that I want encouraged. Apart from that little quibble, I support the amendments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like previous speakers, I welcome these amendments, if only because now on the face of the Bill—it is a pity that it was not there at the beginning—we know exactly what this piece of legislation is about. Unfortunately, all too often matters European are slipped through without Members of either this House or the other place being perfectly aware of what is happening. As this House is starved of resources, it is extremely difficult for individual Members to be able to understand exactly what is going on, particularly as the flood of legislation, both primary and secondary, continues.
I congratulate my noble friend on tabling this amendment. Does this set a precedent for all other Bills that may very well have a European content, whether they enact regulations or directives? It is important to know the answer to that question.
As it is quite clear that what we are about here is implementing a directive, does it matter whether or not we discuss it? If we make any significant amendments to the directive, will they be lawful under British law? I believe that the directive has been agreed by qualified majority voting and therefore it becomes European law. I must have the confusion in my mind cleared up as to whether, if this House and the other place are not prepared to implement all or part of the directive, that will be lawful under European law.
8.30 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, in my inexperienced way, I have been trying to follow this Bill and, like the previous speaker, I am very aware of the lack of resources that one comes across in trying to keep up with everything.
So much of what vie want to know about the Bill will be contained in Statutory Instruments. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions tried to give us some indication in the third consultation paper that came out last December. Another consultation paper was promised this spring, but I have been unable to lay my hands on it. It was also suggested that the final regulations would be out by July 1999. I think the timing has slipped.
1378
One matter leaves me slightly in the dark. Under Schedule 1(1) of the draft statutory regulations, the activities that should be controlled are listed. However, Schedule 1(2) simply states,"Etc ". I do not know how many sections there are after that or how many other areas there are. I would have hoped that by this time some indication would have been given as to what other areas the Government wish to bring under the focus of the Bill.
This amendment talks about harm to human senses. I notice that the text has been imported from the Environmental Protection Act. In the Environmental Protection Act the Government tried to define "harm ". Further on in the 1990 Act, I came across another definition. Under "statutory nuisances ", it refers to activities prejudicial to health and refers to activities which are,
"injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health ".
It struck me that perhaps that was a useful definition to attach to the question of harm to human health or to human senses, which needs more definition than the Bill presently contains.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I welcome the support and expressions of gratitude that I have heard from some noble Lords. However, I remind the House that from the word "go " we decided, in relation to this particular directive, that we need primary legislation because we want to bring together the effects of the European directive to which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, referred and British practice. It is true that we would not have this legislation in this form were it not for the directive, but the opportunity of the directive has allowed us to rationalise the British as well as the European aspects of pollution control. The 1990 Act was working reasonably well, but it was not a comprehensive system of pollution control covering both the national and the local authority sides. Also certain sectors were excluded. This is an opportunity to make some major improvements.
My noble friend Lord Stoddart asked whether this is a precedent. It may be a precedent in terms of clarity of primary legislation, but it is not a precedent for the way in which we shall deal with directives in the future, most of which can easily be transposed—I know he does not like it—under the European Communities Act. However, we want to bring together the European and British regimes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised a query about the definition. Perhaps I should write to her in more detail. The directive uses expressions, but does not define them, so we can simply repeat the definitions in this Bill. It will not be seen as a precedent in other respects.
On the consultation papers mentioned by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, we shall be sticking to the timetable. The final consultation paper will be issued in June and will include the final draft regulations. The other regulations referred to relate specifically to the oil and gas offshore side. Those regulations are also available for consultation about now and have been dealt

1379
with under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry, which has consulted widely with the offshore industry.
I am not sure that I can reply immediately to the other points raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, but I shall do so in writing. Some points require double-checking against the wording of the 1990 Act. Many of them are repeated in the draft regulations to which he has already referred.
The main point of the changes is to respond to the constitutional questions which were raised at earlier stages. I believe that they do so, and do so fully. I expect that we shall hear again some of the additional points raised in relation to the European dimension before the debate is finished. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether other interested noble Lords can receive copies of the reply to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that.
[Amendment No.2, as an amendment to Amendment No.1, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No.1 agreed to.
Clause 1 [Regulation of polluting activities]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.3:
Page 1, line 8, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
("() In accordance with subsection (1) of section (General purpose and definitions), the provision which may be made by regulations under this section is provision for or in connection with any of the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) of that subsection.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.4:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall require individuals or bodies responsible for carrying out such activities as are referred to in the regulations to employ the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (in this clause referred to as "BATNEEC ") to be used for minimising the pollution which may be caused to the environment as a whole by those activities:
Provided that—

(a) regulations under this section may specify circumstances where a more or less restrictive regime than BATNEEC may he required either to comply with European or other international obligations, or on account of other circumstances;

(b) where regulations are made pursuant to paragraph (a) above, they shall be accompanied by a statement explaining why such a more or less restrictive regime should be applied; and

(c) the regime to be employed is more restrictive than BATNEEC, the regulations embodying that regime shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for entering the fray on this disturbing Bill so late in the day. Perhaps I owe the House an explanation.
I have to confess that I was not aware of this Bill until the closing stages of the Bill in Committee on Monday 19th April. On that day, I came into the Chamber to listen to the debate on European economic and monetary union which was to follow. My noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding and my noble friend Lord Renton were clearly doing valiant battle to amend the Bill, but it all seemed rather dense stuff and I did not pay much attention until I heard my noble friend Lord Renton say at col.974 of Hansard that he had been in Parliament for 53 years and that this Bill was the only example he had seen of an Act of Parliament of national and international importance being replaced by regulations. That Act of Parliament was, of course, the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
My noble friend then divided the House and lost his amendment which was intended to prevent the Bill from removing the first 28 sections of that Act from the statute book and replacing them with this Bill and its regulation-making powers. Therefore, unfortunately, we cannot bring this amendment back on Report. Indeed, it is unfortunate that my noble friend Lord Renton is unable to be present this evening.
I was sufficiently worried by what I had chanced to hear that I went and looked up the history of the Bill. I was deeply shocked by what I discovered. I submit that most Members of your Lordships' House are still not even vaguely aware of what the Government are attempting to do. Although we are at Report stage, I fear that we have to consider a brief history of the Bill so that we can decide whether these amendments, now tabled by the Government, are worth accepting or whether, together with the rest of the Bill, they should quite simply be thrown out at Third Reading.
The Bill received a low-key Second Reading on 7th December last, with no Conservative or Labour Peer taking part. This is scarcely surprising, as the true purpose of the Bill, which is to import EC Directive 96/61 into British law, was hidden in line 42 of Schedule 1 on page 6 of that Bill. The Bill's Explanatory Notes do not mention that fact until point 5 on page 2. At Second Reading, only the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Byford, appeared to have woken up to the Bill's inherently unconstitutional nature. The Bill then went before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which on 16th December issued a most damning report on the Bill saying that as drafted it was a "skeleton " Bill and therefore inappropriate for secondary powers.
Nevertheless, the Government pressed on with the Committee Stage on 15th February, and got into such trouble from all sides of the House that they were forced to lift the Bill and re-commit it on 19th April, tabling a number of amendments. In the meantime, the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had made a number of further recommendations on 10th March, saying that even if the House accepted the amendments which the Government were then proposing the committee,
"would not wish this Bill to be regarded as a precedent for the future. It remains important that the purposes and ambit of legislation, together with any important governing criteria, should be clearly specified within the primary legislation, and not simply left to the exercise of delegated powers "
The committee concluded somewhat reluctantly that the amendments that the Government proposed to move on 19th April made the Bill just about acceptable. It even accepted the Government's assurances as to how they would deal with one of the Bill's most serious flaws, which is to replace the Environmental Protection Act's criteria for pollution control, being "best available techniques not entailing excessive costs " (BATNEEC), with Directive 96–61's criteria, which are simply "best available techniques " (BAT), which could clearly be vastly more expensive and even ruinous to small and medium sized business.
However, my noble friend Lord Jenkin was clearly not quite so satisfied with the Government's assurances as was the Select Committee, because he tabled an amendment at re-commitment on 19th April to bring BATNEEC back into the Bill.
I am not sure whether my noble friend is satisfied with the Minister's explanation at COL 967 of the Official Report of 19th April as to why there really is not much difference between BAT and BATNEEC, but I am afraid I am not, which is why I have had the impertinence to retable my noble friend's amendment tonight. I, too, very much regret that he is not here owing to his operation.
At col.967 of the Official Report of 19th April the Minister stated;
"Paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the directive makes it absolutely clear that cost is a key consideration. It states "—
and I now quote from the directive from which the Minister quoted—
"available techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementat on in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages "'.
The Minister then said:
"We are therefore not losing the reference to costs which may be behind some of the concerns expressed ".
We may not be losing a mere reference to costs, but that is far weaker than to say that pollution must be controlled by methods which do not entail excessive cost, with that requirement placed on the face of the Bill, as it is in Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which this Bill consigns to oblivion together with the remainder of Sections 1 to 28.
Furthermore, the Minister did not quote the whole of paragraph 11 of Article 2 of the directive, which I am afraid I should now do. It states:
"'Best available techniques' shall mean the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation which indicate the practical suitability of particular techniques for providing in principle the basis for emission limit values designed to prevent and. where that is not practicable … to reduce emissions and the impact on the environment as a whole: 'techniques' shall include both the technology used and the way in which the installation is designed, built, maintained, operated and decommissioned—.
We then come to the part quoted by the Minister, that,
"'available' techniques shall mean those developed on a scale which allows implementation in the relevant industrial sector, under economically and technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and advantages ".
However, the directive continues:
"whether or not the techniques are used or produced inside the Member State in question, as long as they are reasonably accessible to the operator, 'best' shall mean most effective in achieving a high general level of protection of the environment as a whole. In determining the best available techniques, special consideration should be given to items listed in Annexe IV".
I shall not trouble your Lordships other than to say that Annex IV is very extensive.
I hope that that gives a slightly broader picture of what the directive actually says than the perhaps slightly selective quotation used by the Minister. As I have said, even in the quotation used by the Minister, the directive and the Bill are far weaker than the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
As I have said, I am not really sure what the present position of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding is on this matter. I may be wrong—in which case I apologise, especially in his absence—but in any case I mean no offence when I say that I understand my noble friend has been speaking on this Bill so far on behalf of the Confederation of British Industry. It may be that the CBI, for reasons that are not clear to me, has withdrawn its opposition to this clause. Be that as it may, the CBI generally speaking represents big business which might well feel that it can cope with the Bill as amended so far. But what about small business? They are clearly more likely to be affected by the abandonment of BATNEEC than are big businesses.
To discover how they felt, I had a word with the Federation of Small Businesses, whose executive director has sent me the following fax today. It is not long but I fear that I should quote it in full. It states:
"The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) which represents over 135,000 members, responded to the Government on the implementation of the IPPC Directive on 26th February 1999.
"The FSB's response expressed grave concerns that the proposals would add tighter regulation to all businesses without any concessions for small businesses.
"The FSB contended in the strongest possible terms that small businesses could not afford the implementation of such a directive.
"Following the FSB's response to that consultation, it does seems to us that we were taken out of the loop as far as further discussions on this item were concerned and the FSB has no evidence of even an acknowledgement to its original response.
"The original Government consultation stated that the Bill was in accordance with Better Regulation policy. The changes following the CBI's alleged change of heart clearly mean that the Bill is now not in accordance with Better Regulation policy.
"The CBI represents large businesses. We do not believe that it was speaking for small firms on this issue.
"Large companies, when push comes to shove, do not really mind excessive regulation. They have the resources and the personnel to comply, knowing that at the same time, their small competitors will face difficulties and costs because of those same regulations.
"The FSB supports the concept of 'Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost' (BATNEEC). The FSB is horrified that such a concept is now not being considered. We would urge Ministers to think on this and to add the concept as a schedule to the main legislation.

1383
"By their action, Government is now abandoning the interests of small businesses; an action which will also price many out of business".
That is dated today.
There we have it. The big boys think they can live with this Bill if it becomes law, but our vital small businesses take an altogether different view.
I wonder whether I could end with a word of advice to the Minister. He is someone for whom all of us in this House have great respect. We admire his incisive mind, and his endless courtesy from the Dispatch Box. I know that I am stretching his patience today. But I must put it to him that he has made a mistake with this Bill. I am fairly sure that I can see what happened. His civil servants came to him and said,"Minister, we have got to put this wretched directive into British law or we shall irritate our lords and masters in Brussels, and it really is too complicated to attach it to the Environmental Protection Act, so let's do it this way. Let's take all the powers from the Act and all the powers in the directive, and let's just do it by regulation when necessary and when it suits us ". So we have this Bill, which I submit is still entirely unsatisfactory even with the amendments which have so far been forced upon it.
I should have thought it very unlikely that all, or indeed any, of the other EU countries are importing this directive with anything like the enthusiasm of the Minister and his department. But I shall be pressing the Minister upon that under Amendments Nos.7 and 8.
I should have thought that the Minister would be perfectly safe to abandon the whole thing. That is what I suggest that he should do. I beg to move.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, on his persistence and watchfulness over this Bill. He should be thanked for bringing forward the amendment tonight. I shall not keep the House long, but I find disturbing the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses, which represents 135,000 businesses, was not properly consulted about the Bill and its provisions. As we have seen in previous legislation—for example, that relating to small abattoirs—the failure to consult and to take into account the real problems of small businesses has resulted in many being closed down. I am sure that the FSB is most concerned that that may happen to many of its members as a result of the Bill. I sincerely hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that that will not be so.
I should like the Minister to recount exactly why no response was made to the FSB's representations and to say whether the Government will examine the methods by which they consult on all matters, particularly those related to the European Union, with small businesses and not merely large transnational companies. It is an important point. Small businesses are worried. After all, this country is run on small businesses which are entitled to be treated far better than has been the case over the past 20 years. Their interests are important.
I concur with the kind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, about the way in which my noble friend treats this House, the respect he gives it and the proper
1384
consideration and answers he gives to questions. I hope that he will be able to reassure us and small businesses that the Government have their interests at heart and that the Government will ensure that small businesses are properly consulted about regulations and measures which adversely affect them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I, too, associate myself with the personal comments made about the Minister. I, too, admire the way in which he carries out a busy portfolio, the expert way in which he does so, and the courtesy he shows to this House. I stood in his shoes when the 1990 Environmental Protection Act went through this House. I look back on the Act as a seminal piece of legislation in terms of the way in which it brought about a substantial improvement in the environment. There was further evidence of that only this week in the reference in the Environmental Protection Agency report to continuing improvement over the past decade. That is largely due, I believe, to the 1990 Act. What is it that was not in the Act that needs to be put into legislation in order to conform with the European directive?
The BATNEEC principle, which I have always supported, is necessary as a protection for small and vulnerable businesses. The whole point was to ensure that firms would not go out of business as a result of improvements deemed necessary by the regulators when the choice was a matter of survival—complying with their obligations under the Act or going out of business and jobs being lost. A perfectly reasonable principle (BATNEEC) was included in the Bill in order to give people time to negotiate a way in which they could improve their industrial and working processes which did not entail such a financial burden that jobs and/or the company were lost to the economy. Why are the Government so reluctant to see that principle in its entirety reintroduced in this Bill?
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. European directives, often well intentioned, are often considered in isolation one from the other by Parliament. Almost without exception. they are considered without early discussion in their formulation. They are born of commissions in the vaults of the European Community and when we become aware of them it is usually too late to do anything. They have been agreed by endless groups of officials of countries and tacitly agreed to by Ministers and the Commissioners, who will have given birth to them in the first place. By the time European directives come before this House, which does a good job in scrutinising European legislation, it is usually too late for Parliament to act.
Dealing with them in isolation, we as a Parliament fail lamentably to consider the impact of all the burdens placed on business and commerce as a result of different directives and the tendency for us to gold-plate almost everything we do. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend who wishes to import BATNEEC into the Bill. Can the Minister say why we have probably the most unsatisfactorily drafted Bill before the House? It is a poor and dangerous substitute for that part of the

1385
1990 Act which is to be removed. Why do we need the Bill? What was it about the 1990 Act which did not allow us to conform with European directives?
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that sometimes the wording of a European directive is not clear or is broad brush. That gives us an opportunity to interpret it in a way that is satisfactory to the country as a whole but, in terms of this amendment, is satisfactory to the wellbeing and health of our small businesses. I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, and I certainly wish to support my noble friend. If at any stage of the Bill he wishes to press the matter to a vote, I shall support him in the Lobby.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the debate on the amendment has gone wider than the amendment itself. Perhaps I may deal with two points immediately. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked why we do not stick to the 1990 Act. This Bill incorporates many of the principles of that Act, but we want a coherent system which runs across European national level legislation and local level legislation and regulation. Industry as a whole welcomes that coherent approach. That is why the Front Benches of all parties have welcomed the principle of it. Indeed, I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness's remarks. I know that she had left her position in the department towards the end of the previous government, but the Secretary of State, Mr. Gummer, promoted the directive within the European Commission. Indeed, he seconded one of his own officials to help draft it; he was a major drafter of the directive. The previous administration completely supported this approach, and most of industry supports the coherence which the directive, and the regulations and directives under the Bill, will bring to industry.
As for small firms, all our consultations involve them. The Federation of Small Businesses was fully consulted. We do not reply by and large to any of the individual consultations, but in three consultations the FSB was fully informed.
The Bill is not about killing off 135,000 small businesses; it will be applied to around 7,000 mainly large businesses. The House is on the wrong track if it attacks the Bill for attacking small businesses. It does quite the opposite. As to the Government's handling of the Bill, we have accepted some of the criticisms—
9 p.m.
Baroness match: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that there is an exemption for small businesses; that the Bill will impact only on large businesses?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. I am saying that it applies to large installations. Some such installations may be owned by small businesses, but most will be owned by large businesses. The extension to agriculture, for example, applies only to very large pig and poultry installations. It does not apply to the broad range of agricultural enterprises.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I do not know whether this is the moment to disagree with the noble
1386
Lord the Minister, but, from the amendment that he has tabled this evening, that cannot be so, because it says that the purpose of Section 1 is not only to implement the directive, but to regulate "otherwise than in pursuance " of the directive—and of course in pursuance of the directive—any,
"activities which are capable of causing any environmental pollution ",
and,
"otherwise preventing or controlling emissions capable of causing … such pollution ".
It goes on to say that these activities mean,
"industrial or commercial or other activities … carried on on particular premises or otherwise ".
So we go on. In the definition of environmental pollution, as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose has indicated, "harm" can mean causing,
"offence to the senses of human beings".
Technically, that might cover smoking. It certainly covers the bonfire at the bottom of the garden and anything that a small business might produce ifwhen—they get going, that is how these famous regulators want to behave.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the incorporation of the IPPC regime will not extend these controls to areas which were not already covered by the 1990 Act. 'That is the point that I am making. Clearly, those small businesses already covered by the 1990 Act will still be covered by this regime. It is the change brought about by the Bill to which I am referring. Schedule 1 clearly restricts that to plants and installations most of which will be owned by large businesses.
I also have to deal briefly with the suggestion that we tried to conceal the intention of the Bill. The noble Lord. Lord Pearson, may well say that it was a low-key Second Reading. I am a low-key sort of chap, I suppose; but I did introduce the intention in my second sentence, when I said that it,
"arises from the fact that we must implement the European Council directive ". [0fficial Report, 7/12/98: col.778.]
I do not think we were concealing anything from the House, and certainly not from the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may concentrate on the points of the amendment. In Committee, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, two reasons why this was not appropriate. First, BATNEEC is not identical to the concept of BAT, which the IPPC directive requires us to transpose. I accept that we are required to transpose it. Secondly, the directive safeguards the concept of BAT at the heart of the IPPC regime. The requirement to specify in regulations all the circumstances in which conditions more or less strict than BATNEEC, or BAT, might he applied would rob our pollution control system of the flexibility that is its essence and that we want it to see in the directive and in the Bill. Those who want a fuller explanation had better refer back to my comments in Committee.
However, I have an additional reason, which completely addresses the concern about small firms. The amendment would require the use of BATNEEC in all cases to which the regulations apply for minimising

1387
emissions to the environment as a whole. In other words, it would require integrated permitting of air, water and land emissions from all the installations to which the new regime applies.
Our proposals, which are in line with current practice, are that integrated permitting, which is quite burdensome, should apply to the larger installations, including all those subject to the IPPC directive, but that over 11,000 smaller installations should remain regulated by local authorities in respect only of their air emissions. I suspect that that was not the intention of the noble Lord's amendment, but it appears to me that that would be the result. Therefore, if the noble Lord is really concerned about small businesses, he will not press the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, could he assure me of one thing? The Federation of Small Businesses obviously feels that it has not been properly consulted. May I ask my noble friend to look into that complaint to see whether some improvements can be made which will satisfy the FSB that its views are really being taken into account?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am happy to undertake to look into relations with the FSB. What I am not prepared to undertake is that the Government will reply to every single submission that we have in our consultations. That has never been the practice, and certainly the FSB was treated no differently from anybody else in that respect.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am also very grateful, as usual, to the noble Lord the Minister.
As to what the noble Lord had to say, I must say I am very surprised if an organisation that represents 135,000 small businesses in this country does not merit a reply from the noble Lord's department when it writes in the terms in which it obviously wrote about a matter of this significance. I will have to leave that there for the moment.
When the noble Lord the Minister says that the Environmental Protection Act did apply to small businesses, of course he is quite right; but they got BATNEEC under that Act. Now they have lost it. They knew where they stood then, and now they do not. They feel that that is very serious. Depending on how the regulators behave and how the Bill eventually is carried out, they clearly have very good reason to be worried.
I certainly did not mean to insult the Minister when I said that the Second Reading was a low-key affair. Obviously, his presence raises it above that description. But, nevertheless, it is true that not many people took part and that there was not a single speaker from either Conservative or Labour Back Benches—or, indeed, from the Front Bench of the Conservative Party—which means that people really were not awake to it.
1388
As to the Minister's final point, I agree that the amendment is not perfectly worded.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord by pointing out that I was the Whip on duty that night and no one was prevented from speaking.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I was not suggesting that anyone was prevented from speaking. I was merely saying that it is obvious that the House did not accord the Second Reading of this Bill much significance because there were very few speakers—two notable contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Byford, but no other speakers at all. My point was that we have all been asleep at the switch on this one and I think it is time we woke up before Third Reading.
I agree that the amendment is not perfectly worded. I have no intention of pressing the amendment this evening, but I think we may well need to come back to it at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No.5:
Page 2, line 26, after ("industry ") insert (", agriculture ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No.5 is small but important. Clause 1(6) states:
"Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult … such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of local government, industry and small businesses respectively as he may consider appropriate ".
I have always considered agriculture to be a business, but there are those outside who need reassurance on this point. The Minister could deal quickly with the matter either by giving a very clear reassurance that it was always intended that agriculture was recognised as an "industry " or a "small business ", or both, perhaps; or by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may save the time of the House by saying that I accept completely what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said and I support the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.6:
Page 2, line 34, leave out from ("section ") to end of line 6 on page 3 and insert ("shall be laid in draft before, and subject to approval by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall attempt to deal with this one very quickly. It simply removes from the clause the provisions which decide what sort of resolution is to be reached by each House of Parliament under this Bill and makes them all affirmative resolutions. I would be very interested to hear the Minister's reply to this because, given the complications that we are facing and the assurances that we have been given about the way the Bill is going to work, it certainly would be very much safer and give comfort

1389
to small businesses if they thought that Parliament was actually going to look at all these regulations in some detail and have the duty to agree them, rather than just leaving them on the Table and forgetting about them, which is when they are slipped in at moments when, perhaps, no one is looking. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that without exception all officials in every department intensely dislike affirmative resolutions. They will use every argument at their disposal to counter their use. In many instances, they are right. Their arguments are sound and good and relate to wasting time.
However, in some cases, those officials are not right—and that is the case here. I support my noble friend. This Bill has received the most damning indictment from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It is a skeletal Bill. The regulations which will flow from it will be extremely important indeed. If we are to give some comfort to those outside who will be subject to the rigours of the Bill when it becomes an Act, it seems to me important that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity to scrutinise the regulations. For that reason, the affirmative resolution is extremely important.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I too support this amendment. I do so simply because I want to be consistent. My noble friend perhaps was not here when I very often rose to criticise the same sort of legislation as that before us and the suggestion that regulations should be made by the negative resolution procedure. I called the Opposition, when they were in government, all sorts of names in relation to legislation like this. Therefore, I feel that I must he consistent.
Parliament should not he ignored. When orders which involve business and the conduct of business—perhaps the bankruptcies of business—are brought forward I believe that both Houses should have a proper chance to scrutinise that legislation properly and, of course, in the case of this House, to be able to put down some sort of amendment or reject the orders out of hand.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: M y Lords, I remind the House that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee made a number of very specific recommendations as to whether the affirmative resolution was more appropriate than what we had originally in the Bill. In every single instance, we have agreed and amended the Bill in accordance with the recommendations.
The noble Lords' amendment goes way beyond what the committee proposed and would apply the affirmative resolution procedure even to the most minor change in regulations. I do not consider that an appropriate use of parliamentary procedure and clearly neither did the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. As I say, we have met all its requirements in this respect. I can perhaps give the noble Lord a limited degree of comfort and perhaps through him the small businesses with whom he is concerned. The Bill as it stands provides the Secretary of State with a choice of procedure. I can give an undertaking that any
1390
amendments to the regulations which affect matters which were previously included on the face of the Employment Protection Act 1990 will be put to Parliament for consideration under the affirmative procedure.
I hope that with that reassurance the noble Lord will recognise that we have already moved a long way down the road and have met the requirements of the Select Committee. I hope therefore that he will see fit not to pursue his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that crumb of comfort. We shall have to examine and make up our minds as to whether at Third Reading we want to widen the affirmative resolution procedure beyond that recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.7:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
COMMENCEMENT
(". This Act shall not come into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a report setting out the legal basis on which Council Directive 96/61/EC was agreed to, and that report has been approved by resolution of each House.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I propose the amendment because it occurs to me that the famous Directive 96/61 is probably ultra vires under the treaty establishing the European Community or under European Community law. I hope that that is helpful to the Minister because, if so, the Government can forget about this troublesome Bill and carry on with the Environmental Protection Act which is working so well anyway.
I suggest that the directive may not be legal under EC law because at least two articles in the treaty do not appear to have been met by the Community or, more precisely, by the European Commission. The first is Article 174 which, until the Amsterdam Treaty, was Article 130r. It is fairly well known. The article states clearly in paragraph 3,
"In preparing its policy on the environment, the Community shall take account of: available scientific and technical data; environmental conditions in the various regions of the Community; the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action: the economic and social development of the Community as a whole and the balanced development of its regions".
I rather suspect that the Commission did not comply with any of those requirements when drawing up Directive 96/61 which, as the Minister confirmed, is the only cause of this Bill. I say that because in my fairly recent experience of your Lordships' Select Committee the Commission never does with an environmental directive. It simply issues often crazy environmental edicts, such as the bathing water directive and many others, without bothering to meet the terms of the article.
Be that as it may, the particular condition upon which I wish to focus is the third requirement of the article, namely that the Community should have taken into account the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action. In other words, for the directive to be valid the Commission should have produced a cost benefit analysis of its effects if implemented. The Minister may tell me that the Commission has indeed produced such an analysis, in which case I will be pleasantly surprised and will be grateful to have a look at it. Can the noble Minister confirm the point?
The second article under the treaty establishing the European Community is, of course, Article 5 as it now is, Article 3b as it was, the famous subsidiarity clause. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall not quote it in its entirety, but I would point out that the Community can only take action if it wishes to issue a directive by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action. In order for that to be valid, we have to be aware of the scale and effect of this directive, and I do not mind betting that we are not. For instance, has the Minister asked the Commission what the other countries of the European Union have done on this directive? What is the scale and effect? If we do not know that, or the answer to Clause 174 is unsatisfactory, the Government are in a position to say that they will not carry out the directive and will take the risk—I believe a very slim risk—of being taken to the court in Luxembourg for the matter to be adjudicated.
I appreciate that that may run contrary to the Government's well-known "charm offensive " in Brussels. Nevertheless, it is a simple way out if the Government wish to take it. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I assure the House that our legal advice confirms that the Commission followed exactly the right procedures. The cost benefit appraisal was completed by the Commission. By definition, that takes account of costs and benefits. Therefore, the provision complied with the directive's implementation. The legal basis of Article 130 and the directive was adopted subject to the co-operation procedure under Article 189 introduced by the Maastricht Treaty.
The points made by the noble Lord are far wide of the way in which the Commission and the council operate—I know he objects to it but he is well aware of it—and which has not been subject to any legal challenge in that respect. We are transposing the directive in this particular way. Other countries are doing likewise. To agree to the amendment would delay the adoption of the Bill. That would bring the whole procedure into legal danger. We should be subject to infraction proceedings. I know that does not cut a lot of ice with the noble Lord. Nevertheless, if we were to adopt the amendment, there would be a serious delay in our being able to transpose the directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course, some of us think that that would not matter at all. In fact, it would be thoroughly agreeable.
1392
I should be grateful if the Minister could extract from the Commission in Brussels a copy of the cost benefit analysis for this directive. Perhaps he could place it in the Library so that we may all look at it and see if it really does meet the normal meaning of the expression,"cost benefit analysis ". I have certainly never known the Commission to do that. It would be gratifying if they were beginning to pay some attention to this aspect of the treaty which they have always so steadfastly ignored in the past.
Nevertheless, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said and I shall consider it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.8 not moved.]
Schedule 1: [Particular purposes for which provision may be made under section 1]
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No.9.
Page 7, line 23, leave out paragraphs 17 and 18
The noble Lord said: My Lords, very briefly, Amendments Nos.9 and 10 are almost probing amendments at this stage of the Bill. They strike out the creation of offences and regulations which provide for summary indictment, and so on, and set up a prison term not exceeding six months, and fines of £20,000. This aspect of the Bill was referred to by my noble friend Lord Renton on 19th April in Committee. He opined that it was completely unacceptable for regulations which we cannot amend to have this effect. It is on that account that I brought it back so as to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the provision by regulation of new offences in this sense reflects earlier precedent in the Environment Act 1995 and the Water Industry Act 1991. We have adopted an affirmative procedure, as recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee saw it as an appropriate safeguard. I believe the House should similarly view these provisions. I hope the noble Lord will not proceed with his amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I certainly will not be pressing my amendment to a Division. We will consider whether what the Minister said is correct or whether in fact this is really taking regulations, even under the affirmative resolution procedure, too far. I imagine that we may well wish to return to the matter on Third Reading. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No.10 not moved.]
In the Title:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No.11:
Line 1, leave out from ("for") to ("and") in line 2 and insert ("implementing Council Directive 96/61/EC and for otherwise preventing and controlling pollution; ")
On Question, amendment agreed to.

House of Lords Bill
9.25 p.m.
House again in Committee.
[Amendments Nos.76 and 77 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare moved Amendment No.78:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
LIFE PEERS
(". —(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958, other than—

(a) 338 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who are elected in accordance with subsection (2) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (7), and

(b) 16 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who have declared to tie Clerk of the Parliaments that they are ready to serve as Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords or in such other office as the House may require and who are elected in accordance with subsection (3) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (7).

(2) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) shall be the holders of peerages conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(3) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) shall be the members of the House of Lords at the date on which the election is held.
(4) A person elected under this section shall continue to be entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House throughout his life; but if he does not fulfil the attendance criterion in subsection (5) his entitlement ceases and any writ of summons issued to him for that Parliament shall not have effect after that Session.
(5) The criterion is that in each Session the number of days on which he attended that House or a committee of that House is greater than 50 per cent of the total number of days on which the House sat.
(6) The Clerk of the Parliaments shall certify—

(a) the number of days of attendance of each member, and

(b) the total number of days on which the House sat, referred to in subsection (5).

(7) On the death of a peer elected in accordance with this section or his failure to fulfil the attendance criterion in subsection (5) the Clerk of the Parliamenis shall—

(a) publish that fact, together with an announcement of the date of a by-election to fill the vacancy, in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords and in a notice in the London Gazette,

(b) send to each holder of a peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958, or to each member of the House of Lords (as may be appropriate in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) above) a Form of Return listing the names of those peers who have previously signified their wish to be considered for election.

(8) A person to whom a Form of Return is sent is to return the Form, indicating on it the name of the person or persons he wishes to elect, to the Clerk of the Parliaments within 21 days of the date on which it is sent, and. the Clerk of the Parliaments shall publish the name or names of the persons elected in the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Lords and in a notice in the London Gazette.
(9) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may make further provision relating to the holding and conduct of elections and by-elections under this section.
(10) Any question whether a person is elected under this section shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
(11) A certificate or decision of the Clerk of the Parliaments under this section shall he conclusive.")
The noble Lord said: I bring this amendment before the Committee because, after seven years of sitting in this Chamber, I have, to put it mildly, been disappointed by the attendance of some Members who describe themselves as working Peers.
However, before I begin, perhaps I may express my slight puzzlement as to why Amendment No.78 and Amendment No.93D have been grouped together. Although I do not have a great deal of experience in parliamentary drafting, the amendments do not seem to have any connection with each other. When a Minister replies, I hope that he will be able to explain to me why these two amendments have been placed together.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe it is well known that groupings are offered; in other words, they are not mandatory. Indeed, any noble Lord who wishes to de-couple a grouping is at liberty to do so.
Lord Coleraine: I take my noble friend's point. Amendment No.93D has been tabled in my name. We do not seem to have a full Committee at present, but it may be for my noble friend's convenience and indeed that of Members of the Committee if I say that I will let his argument go well forward before I think of starting the argument on my amendment.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I am grateful to my noble friend.
My amendment shadows the Weatherill amendment in its terms. It has been tabled because, as the Minister well knows, I have never been against the removing of hereditary Peers from this House; in fact, I have been an advocate of it for many years. I supported the noble Lord, Lord Richard, at every stage and made it clear that I did. However, at the same time, I have never been in favour of removing from the House hereditary Peers who do work while leaving in the Chamber working Peers who do not work. That, in good old House of Lords terms, strikes me as just unfair and simply wrong.
The Minister is a QC. In the law of this land. I have always thought that judges and QCs believed that, in the end, fairness was the basis of any argument placed in legislation, as well as obviously what is common sense. I cannot see an argument for removing people who have given 20 or 30 years' service, who appear regularly, who serve on committees and indeed who serve this country, and just throwing them out overnight while others who take a peerage, and never turn up at all, hold the title of Lord and serve this House in no way.
I should like to make it known that I see a clear distinction between a working Peer and the great and the good. In the Queen's Birthday Honours and in Her Majesty's New Year's Honours are placed men and women who have served this country with great distinction. I hope I may mention the example of Field Marshal Bramall, who is so obviously one of the great and the good. When we have a debate on defence he speaks on that subject and I am sure that all of us listen with rapt attention. Another example might be the noble Lord, Lord Porter, a Nobel prize winner. When there is a debate in this House on science or on education we all listen to the noble Lord speak with rapt attention.

1395
Those noble Lords have been made Peers of the realm for the service they have given their country. I find that most noble Lords who fall into that category attend the House to speak on the subject on which they are expert. I on the other hand received a letter from the former Prime Minister John Major inviting me to become a working Peer. I took this letter seriously and asked for an appointment with the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Robin Butler, now the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I asked Sir Robin for a definition of a working Peer. He told me that he felt one should serve the Prime Minister who had put one in the Lords for the period of time that he was Prime Minister. I asked what service meant. Sir Robin thought that it meant attendance for 75 per cent of the time and voting for 75 per cent of the time while we were in government. He thought that that was appropriate. I have a record of 75 per cent attendance, or well above that. My record of voting when the Conservative Party was in power was also well above 75 per cent. Since we have been in opposition there has been a different situation because, as all noble Lords know, we have not voted anywhere near as much as we used to.
I also feel that the working Peers do a real job. It is not some casual agreement one makes with the Prime Minister of the day. It is a job much like being a director of a great company. How many great companies who invite someone to be a director and find that that person turns up, say, twice a year would find it appropriate for that person to continue to be a director of that company? How many people out there doing a job, on hearing the expression "working Peer ", would be surprised to find that some working Peers on both sides of the Chamber do not attend regularly? This is not a political point. I have never named anyone in this respect but the guilt, as I regard it, is pretty even. The point concerns how the Chamber works as a working body. If the Prime Minister of the day invites people to join the Chamber as working Peers and they accept and then make no attempt to be working Peers, I do not feel that they have honoured their agreement.
I note that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has entered the Chamber. I must inform him that I mentioned his name earlier in my speech and cited him as an example of the great and the good and not as a day-by-day working Peer like myself. I say this to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, because I am very aware that I am neither great and certainly not good!
I ask the Minister to take this point seriously. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, considers the duties of the Royal Commission he will consider that if we are to have the expression "working Peer " it should mean something and that it will allow the Prime Minister of the day, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to make it clear to anyone who is offered a working peerage what that means.
Perhaps the days have passed when one can casually call in at the Prime Minister's office to be told that one is being offered a working peerage and reply, "Yes, of course, you can rely on me. I shall do my bit". Perhaps, sadly, the day has come when we need to spell out what
1396
that means and to define it now that the hereditary Peers, with the exception of 90 plus two, will no longer be with us. So although I accept that it is not practical to hope to divide the Committee and to win the amendment, this does give the House and me the opportunity to realise that, if we are to have a new interim body for two years and then a new body after that, which will presumably be in existence for a long time before reform is considered, we will not spend years kidding each other that "working Peer " means that one need not bother to turn up. I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: The whole of the noble Lord's contribution has related to the question of attendance rather than participation. It seems to me that someone who perhaps attends less but whose participation is of great value is better than someone who attends for 100 per cent of the time but does nothing.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I heard the slight sharpness at the end of the noble Baroness's sentence. It was not necessary; I agree with the noble Baroness.
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may ask for some guidance from the Leader of the House. Earlier during the course of the Committee stage I sought to move some amendments which referred to the Law Lords. The noble Baroness advised me—reflecting, I believe, the advice of the House officials—that my amendments were outside the scope of the Bill because it deals only with hereditary Peers and not with any other kind of Peer. That was, I believe, the view of the House officials which the noble Baroness reflected in the advice she gave me. As a result of that advice, I agreed that I would not move my amendments. I am in favour of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Archer; but it does not deal with hereditary Peers; it deals with life Peers. How is it that his amendment passed the scrutiny of the Clerks and mine did not?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may briefly intervene and reply to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. He will be aware, I am sure, that a number of amendments have been moved today which dealt with life peerages, all of which have been ruled in order by the Table and to all of which we have replied. The point about the amendments which the noble Lord was proposing to move at an earlier stage of the Committee is that the Clerks took the view, and we accepted the advice, that the Bill was about the political composition of the House; that is, about the hereditary Peers and the life Peers under the Life Peerages Act. On a political basis, I have had some concern about the relevance of some of the amendments which have been moved this afternoon in terms of the attempt to impose regulations on the transitional House. However, I have accepted the guidance of the Clerks, which was that the amendments refer to the forthcoming political composition of the House. The earlier amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—I believe they were Amendments Nos.7 and 8, which were tabled on the first Committee day—related to the retired Law Lords. It has been

1397
explained to me by the Clerks that that is something different from the concerns about life peerages in the future and hereditary peerages in the present—although in commonsense and political terms. I have made the point on several occasions today that I do not think that the Bill is about the future of life peerages either.
Lord Trefgarne: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. I confess I am as baffled as ever. I shall no doubt want to return to the matter at a later stage.
Viscount Tornington: My noble friend Lord Archer, in a sense, does himself a disservice with the amendment. It seems to imply that no working Peer can reasonably transit into being—how can I call it?— "an amateur contributor ". That is the great sadness of removing the hereditary Peers from the House. As many have said today, it will have to become a much more professional House. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Archer, having ceased to be a working Peer, is still a valuable contributor to the House. I do not see how the mechanism in the House for calling on the expertise of occasional contributors can be preserved by any of the proposals in the Bill, nor, I am afraid, by my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Davies of Oldham: When the Minister replies to the debate, and if the amendment is accepted, will he indicate whether one approach could be that certain kinds of role played in the public sector would necessarily inhibit someone from being considered an active. Member of the House of Lords? At present I chair a government quango, the Further Education Funding Council. If the amendment is accepted, would the Government say, "We cannot see how we can allow you to be on a government or public payroll and also expect you to play a full part in the House, even if you attend every day and vote frequently ", as I do.
Would the Government adopt the same attitude towards an important post like the Mayor of London, who would be paid a substantial salary, well above the figure I quoted? II looks as if it would be a full-time job. Would it automatically be proscribed with the implementation of the amendment?
Lord Goodhart: The Bill is about hereditary Peers, not life Peers. I can understand an argument for saying that at any rate the working Peers whom I described earlier as the "galley slaves ", like the noble Lord, Lord Archer, and myself, should be required to turn up for a certain proportion of sittings. However, that is ultimately a matter for the Royal Commission and stage two, not this stage.
There are many life Peers who are not galley slaves. They are here because of distinguished service in the other place or altogether outside Parliament. Their attendance is probably well below 50 per cent, but nevertheless they are valuable contributors. I refer to one whom the noble Baroness the Leader of the House might be reluctant to mention: the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I am sure he does not attend 50 per cent. of the sittings of your Lordships' House but when
1398
he comes here and speaks he does so with immense wisdom. His contribution to the House is extremely valuable.
Lord Desai: I am sorry that I was not here when the noble Lord, Lord Archer, introduced his amendment, and I beg his pardon. One of the problems is that it would make it difficult for people who are not based in London or the Home Counties to become working Peers. We are unpaid and unless the noble Lord also proposes that the category of working Peers should be full-time paid Members of Parliament—and I do not see why we should not do that—it would be difficult for someone living a great distance from London, railways being what they are, to guarantee that he or she would come here in time to attend sittings.
I can understand the spirit of the amendment. Before I came into the House, the Chief Whip subjected me to an investigation as to whether I would attend regularly. As it happens, I am lucky, in that my job allows me flexible working and I can come here. but not many other people can do so. The amendment would restrict membership not only to people in the Home Counties but to people with certain kinds of job who have flexi-time. There are not many occupations like that and the provision would be restrictive. So it should be broadened and toned down, but I welcome the spirit of the amendment.
The Earl of Limerick: This is the first time I have had the opportunity to intervene in the proceedings on the Bill, but my interest is none the less for that. My father was a wise man who made few interventions in the House, but when he did, to my perception, they were wise. He brought me up on the precept that this House should function and did so at its best as a revolving committee. Those who had an interest in matters and a contribution to make from experience came and made it; those who did not made no contribution, whether or not they attended.
As a Member of this House who has revolved more than most others here, on any test of attendance I would fail. But there comes a time in people's lives when they have accumulated some experience and they have a little more time to contribute. That point might be considered alongside the remarks of my noble fiend Lord Archer. It is not merely a question of the number of times people attend; it is what they are able to contribute that will be relevant to the consideration of this amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Northbrook: I support the amendment. At the same time I disagree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Torrington. I apologise to my noble friend Lord Archer for being late and not hearing all of his initial speech on the amendment. I did not quite understand his figure of 338 holders.
I wish to make a point relating to the election process under subsection (3) of the amendment. I wonder why my noble friend Lord Archer did not consider using the process of the Weatherill amendment, by which each party would elect a proportion of the 338 life Peers. The

1399
process in the Weatherill amendment was different for the equivalent of 338 holders and 16 Deputy Speakers. The same process might have been adopted in this amendment: the whole House might elect the 16 and the 338 could be elected by the individual parties concerned.
Lord Trefgarne: Any distinguished person who accepts a peerage ought to be able to play as much of a part as he or she reasonably can in the affairs of this House. If that person is a so-called working Peer, he or she will be expected to do a great deal more than the so-called good and great who come here towards the end of a long and distinguished career. Having accepted a peerage on one basis or another, they should do their best.
What has particularly bothered me recently is that a small number of noble Lords have run for and sought election to either the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I do not know whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, was appointed as a working Peer, but I do not suppose that we shall see much more of him now that he will be running the Scottish Parliament. No doubt the Scottish Parliament will be the better for it, but we shall not have the benefit of his appearance quite so often. One noble Lord was elected to the Welsh Assembly. No doubt we shall not see a great deal of him either.
I am not in favour of noble Lords offering themselves for election to other parliaments. One or two noble Lords on this side of the House have offered themselves for election to the European Parliament. I am not in favour of that either. If one accepts membership of this House, or, as my noble friend Lord Henley says, the House of Commons, one ought to concentrate on that. I should have thought that being a Member of one House of Parliament or another was enough. I hope that that consideration will also guide the discussion on this amendment.
The Earl of Onslow: I am afraid that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. This must be only the second time in 30 years that that has happened. I believe it is an excellent idea that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is a Member of this House, and that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is a Member, because they bring extra experience of the Assemblies in which they sit.
I hope that this House never becomes too professional. The point is that we turn up when we wish; we contribute when we wish. We either make a good contribution or we do not, but we normally notice whether or not people are listening. The whole point is that this House has been an assembly of the powerful and the influential; it has been an assembly of people from all over the place. It has got out of kilter now, which is why it has to be reformed. To say that one attends rather like rota duty in a tea-shop in Scunthorpe strikes me as really rather odd. One of the strengths of this House is that it is not like that. Its strength is that it is varied; there are interests from all over the place. People appear when they have something valid to say,
1400
as my noble friend Lord Limerick has just said. There are others who appear and make equally valid points. One should not exclude people just because they do not come every day. That goes totally against the spirit and history of your Lordships' House.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may make a small contribution and in so doing clarify one point. I am slightly confused. Many of us have in our hands copies of the Labour Party's submission to the Royal Commission. I ask the Government Front Bench to what extent that submission illuminates government thinking. I quote paragraph 6.4 of the submission:
"The Labour Party does not believe that the House of Lords should be a small full-time body. This would threaten the role of independents and experts who might find it difficult to comply with such an obligation. A balance has to be struck between high levels of participation and the participation where relevant of those who speak with genuine authority ".
Obviously, that reflects Labour Party policy and I hope that it illuminates the Government's thinking on this issue.
Lord Marlesford: I apologise to my noble friend for not being here at the beginning of his speech. I have some sympathy with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think that there is anything very practical about it. My noble friend himself probably does not regard it as very practical. I believe that there is a problem but it is very limited. A much better way to approach it is to recall how, some years ago, when various diplomatic missions in London failed to pay their parking fines, Written Answers appeared in another place with a league table showing the number of parking fines attributable to various embassies. The tabloids got hold of it and the league table became an annual event and gained a lot of publicity. If one looks at the league table today it is very different from what it was some years ago. Where in a few cases Peers either do not fulfil the obligations that they have accepted or in some other way abuse the system, a little gentle and discriminate publicity will soon deal with the problem.
Viscount Trenchard: I apologise to the Committee for intervening at this stage in the debate not having spoken at Second Reading, when, unfortunately, I was unable to be present. I rather like my noble friend's amendment. It reduces the discrepancy in treatment between hereditary Peers and life Peers. However, I believe that the hurdles which life Peers must surmount are rather easier than those for hereditary Peers. Does my noble friend believe that all 338 holders of life peerages will comply with the requirement of subsection (5) that they sit on more than 50 per cent of sitting days? Can my noble friend say why he did not adopt the Weatherill proposal and vote for life Peers in party blocks? However, basically I am very positive about the amendment.
Lord Coleraine: Perhaps the time is right for me to speak to Amendment No.93D in my name, which is grouped with my noble friend's amendment. The amendment was tabled after lunch on Tuesday when I had had a chance to look at the Labour Party's

1401
submission to the Royal Commission. For the benefit of the Government, the amendment seeks to take a little further the debate on the composition of the House of Lords that is to follow when I am gone. We on these Benches remain united—if I may be so bold—in our determination that the House will be a better House from the moment of our departure.1 am sure most of your Lordships will agree with the view, with which I sympathise but which I do not entirely share, that this objective has been partially achieved by the incorporation into the Bill of the Weatherill amendment. The ideas that I am seeking to develop are for the transitional House. They are sketched out in the amendment and,. in an uncanny way, track the Labour Party's proposals. They seem to point in a realistic direction.
The paradox that I offer to the Committee is that House of Lords reform should not be difficult to achieve, but may prove impossible. It may prove impossible if too much is attempted at the second stage, or if what is attempted is too complicated.
In one important respect, the Labour proposals are simple and realistic. It seems to me self-evident that the Labour Party, having been forced by this House to set out on a path leading to stage-two reform, has realised, perhaps only subconsciously. that there will have to be a stage three eventually to deal with Parliament itself. That is why I welcome the fact that the proposals are essentially conservative and start with the preservation, in its entirety, of the existing corpus of life Peers. That is exactly the starting point that I would have chosen for stage two and which my amendment would begin to implement in the transitional House.
I am in favour of an appointed Chamber, rather than being a follower of the noble Lord, Lord Richard or, indeed, of many colleagues in another place and others who are true democrats in, as I see it, the worst sense of the word. Yes, I am for an appointed Chamber, but as may be pointed out, the devil is in the detail. Earlier debates on the appointments commission today have made that clear. Therefore, I have in a constructive and positive way left some of the detail of my amendment to be worked out later.
After reading and re-reading the Labour proposals, I must confess that I had to ask myself: how can I be sure that the proposals are indeed meant to nudge the Royal Commission towards an appointed House? The proposals are vacuous; mostly directives telling the Royal Commission the aims of the Labour Party and asking for ways of achieving those aims.
In support of this contention, I quote paragraph 5.2 of the submission which reads:
"It is not the role of the Labour Party to prescribe for the Royal Commission a blueprint for the composition of the reformed House of Lords. This is the responsibility which the Royal Commission has been asked by the government to undertake. It is, however, appropriate for the Labour Party to outline the constitutional context within which any reforms will operate, and to propose a framework of principle which in our view should guide the process of reform ".
We do not appear to have moved very far forward from that earlier stage when the Government were asked whether they would make a submission to the Royal Commission. They said no, but that the Labour Party
1402
would. What we have now seen is really no more than an appendix to the White Paper, hardly a submission at all.
It is in paragraph 6.10 on page 32 that I believe that one finds the intention to have an appointed House. It states:
"The Labour Party is not in favour of a retirement age for existing life peers who were appointed for life and who may have organised their affairs accordingly".
Surely, as in the White Paper, you have there the nod that is as good as a wink in anyone's currency. I say "excellent" to that.
However, there is a problem. The problem is numbers, and the Labour Party seems to have some awareness of that. I shall try not to fall into the trap that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde set for himself and fell into on Tuesday. He half-forgot that his amendment, and the supporting statistics, unlike the Labour Party proposals, had not been prepared and published before the Weatherill amendment was passed, on the assumption that the Weatherill amendment was already in the Bill. I may or may not be better at the numbers game than my noble friend, but undoubtedly I shall fall well below the standard set by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, whose facility is quite admirable and who is available tonight to help the Committee if I go astray.
I have a note of 170 Conservative life Peers, 157 Labour, plus 15 more to give present broad parity, plus 42 to give post-Weatherill parity; 44 Liberal Democrats, 122 Cross-Bench, 27 Law Lords (because they also may organise their affairs on the basis that they may be here, if not for ever, for a long time) and that makes 527. To those 527, I add the five "other party" life Peers, and eight first creation hereditaries on the recent House of Lords briefing, which makes 540. To that, I add the 42 which my Benches will need to maintain parity when the unthinkable happens at the start of stage two and the hereditaries leave. That, I think, makes 582. The exact figure does not matter. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—I see that he is not on the Front Bench—and I share the knowledge that simple arithmetic and property valuation are not exact sciences.
I thought that I had reached a realistic figure of about 600 life Peers when I realised what I had forgotten. Paragraph 8.3 of the proposals tells the Royal Commission that the House of Lords should endeavour to accommodate representation from or by the Scottish Parliament. Whatever that means, that must surely lead to further life Peers. There are, of course, the usual other groups mentioned in the proposals which one would expect to find needing accommodation in this Chamber.
One way or another, a body of more than 500 thoroughly legitimate but inevitably ageing life Peers, will have tenure for life, in addition to an expanding body of other created Peers. I would not be so indelicate as to call it a problem, if the Labour Party did not hint that it had detected something a little amiss here. The proposals tell us, in paragraph 6.10, that,
"Rather than a retirement age, the Royal Commission should consider whether there ought to be some means for those unfit or unwilling to continue to indicate a willingness to stand down".

1403
I can offer the Labour Party and the Royal Commission a solution. It not only gets over the question of how life Peers can indicate their willingness to stand down, which I am sure the Royal Commission can answer without my help, but allows life Peers to stand down. I hope that the Government will accept the disclaimer proposals contained in Amendment No.99 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lamont.
This is where my amendment would be so helpful to the Government, if taken in conjunction with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lamont. It provides for a dual-writ system to operate in the case of future life peerages. There will be no dashing of legitimate expectations of life tenure in the case of such peerages. I shall not now go into the other consequences which might follow from such a dual-writ system. That is another argument. I simply wish to point the way in which the Labour Party's aim to create an appointed life peerage to inherit this Chamber can be brought about in a practical way without the problems which paragraph 6.10 exposes. It can be set in motion for the first stage by the incorporation in the Bill of a fully fleshed-out version of my amendment. That would clear the decks and make it quite clear that although future Peers would be appointed for life, and might have organised their affairs accordingly, they would not thereby achieve life voting tenure.
Subsection (3) of my proposed new clause, imposing a retirement age but one which applies only at the end of the Session in which the Peer reaches the age of 75, is what oils the wheels of the whole operation. I await with interest the views of the Committee and the Minister.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: I support my noble friend's amendment. As he said, it envisages an appointed second Chamber which is wholly appointed, with life Peers, and seeks to accommodate certain inconsistencies arising.
Two differing cases may be inferred, if not stated by my noble friend, each representing irregular attenders. The first case is that of elderly life Peers who are extremely effective when they attend but who may not always be able to do so. The second case is that of a great many other life Peers who are also good contributors but for reasons other than age or infirmity equally do not attend all the time. The question is whether such patterns of irregular attendance undermine the desired balance and function of a reformed second Chamber.
One aim of reform is to achieve approximate voting parity between the main parties. Clearly, at the same time reform of the second Chamber must preserve its present quality of deliberation. Yet the party political voting functions may require Members to be here practically all the time. The deliberative function does not. It includes questions and debates, the highly regarded Lords' European Select Committee reports and the work of Lords' delegations overseas, including the Council of Europe, on which I had the honour to serve
1404
for seven years. It is not necessary to be here every sitting day. And, conversely, part-time attendance is even deceptive as many of your Lordships are often researching and spending time on parliamentary work when they are not here.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coleraine accommodates those considerations. It does so by enabling some life Peers to sit and vote and other life Peers to sit and speak only. Thus, first, it resolves the anomaly whereby otherwise life Peers attending irregularly are inconsistent with life Peers who come here much more. Secondly, there is the allegation, perhaps against my noble friend's suggestion, that the contributions of non-voting life Peers would be ineffective simply because they could not vote. My noble friend's amendment, by implication, refutes that. That is because Members of this place have never made much impression anyway in the Lobbies with their feet. Our votes are easily overturned. What has always been much more difficult for the other place is to resist our reasoned arguments.
That connects with the third main consideration with which my noble friend's amendment is consistent. That is, if a reformed second Chamber is to be appointed with life Peers, it need not conform to party politics anyway, and certainly to no greater extent than it does now. Therefore, it is up to the appointments commission to ensure this and also to lay stress on the deliberative function. Meanwhile, if we have a new voting parity between parties and a new House of life Peers, all with voting rights, regarding part-time attendance then two things follow. First, part-time attendance becomes inconsistent with a new voting function expected of its Members. Secondly, part-time attendance would hardly be recognised as the backbone, which it is, of the deliberative function. Instead, it would be seen to breach the terms and trust of the appointment as a life Peer in the first place.
In my view, my noble friend's amendment provides a useful solution through the two categories of life Peer. Not least does it echo the cross-party agreement of the Labour government's 1968 Lords' reform proposal, whose architects included the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, my noble friend Lord Carrington and the late Lord Home of the Hirsel.
Viscount Torrington: I wonder whether the Committee will forgive me for intervening a second time. My noble friend Lord Coleraine raises an interesting point. Paragraph 6.10 of the Labour Party's submission to the Royal Commission states:
"The Labour Party is not in favour of a retirement age for existing life peers who were appointed for life and who may have organised their affairs accordingly ".
Is it not reasonable to suggest that many hereditary Peers in this House thought that they were here for life and might have organised their affairs accordingly?
Lord Trefgarne: Perhaps I may raise a small point in connection with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Archer. As your Lordships know, we have the benefit of the draft Standing Orders which will apply

1405
to the election of hereditary Peers now that the Weatherill amendment has been agreed. Those draft orders provide an important role for the Clerk of the Parliaments. I have no doubt whatever that the Clerk of the Parliaments will discharge his duty with care, skill and complete impartiality when he comes to do so, but I suspect that from time to time he will have some tricky decisions to make. I am not sure that we ought to put the Clerk of the Parliaments in that position. I hope that that aspect of the Standing Orders can in due course be reconsidered.
My noble friend Lord Archer also includes a role for the Clerk of the Parliaments in his amendment. Although I agree with much of what he said, I believe that that aspect of his amendment bears re-examination and I hope that he will give it that.
Earl Attlee: My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, introduced a very important amendment but it is not perfect, and it did not take long for the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, to insert an intellectual stiletto into it.
There was a reference to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. When I first met the noble and gallant Lord I addressed him as "Sir ", and I meant it. The noble and gallant Lord turns up on a regular basis, and recently he has been turning UD on a more frequent basis. He gives me very valuable counsel and the benefit of his wide military experience. The last time he did so was 45 minutes ago, at dinner. He is great. He is good. If he is not a working Peer. he is a part of the House of Lords that works.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne referred to Members of the House of Lords who are also members of another assembly. I cannot support him. He spoke of the position of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, presiding officer of the Scottish Parliament. I have regular contact with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He does not attend the House of Lords regularly, but I find my contact with the noble Lord extremely valuable. So there is much to be said for being a member of more than one assembly at the same time.
Lord Northbrook: I should like to make two remarks about the amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause would make the system much more complicated than my noble friend Lord Archer has suggested. Secondly, subsection (3) provides that any writ issued to a voting member would not have effect after the end of the Session of Parliament in which he attains the age of 75. I do not understand why the age should be 75 and why from that point he should become a non-voting Member, as if suddenly he had lost possession of his marbles. It seems a rather strange cut off point.
Lord Coleraine: Subsection (1) of the new clause proposed in my amendment says effectively that any new life Peer created after the day when the Bill
1406
becomes an Act will receive either a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords to speak or a Writ of Summons to attend the House of Lords to vote.
The Earl of Northesk: The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine has somewhat fired my imagination. There is a degree of tension between that amendment and the amendment of my noble friend Lord Archer. The Committee will be aware that one of my greatest criticisms of the Bill is that I cannot help feeling it has a political intent. Occasionally it is important to remind ourselves that above all else the House of Lords is a legislative Chamber and, indeed, a Chamber of revision. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine reflects that rather intelligently.
As a sideline, there is an extraordinary comment that I picked out in flicking through the Labour Party's submissions to the Royal Commission. At page 30 we find the words,
"if the House of Lords is to be fully modernised so that it can more effectively serve the political needs of this country ".
I should have thought that what is important is that the House should serve the legislative needs of the country.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The two amendments grouped here have one or two factors in common. Perhaps I may start by saying a few words about the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. What it does in a way is offer a solution to the problem of differentiating between working Peers and Peers whose peerage has been given as an honour, perhaps in the New Year's Honours List or the Birthday Honours List, and who are not really expected to come to the House of Lords on anything like a frequent basis, but who, when they do attend, can make major contributions to debates.
I am not entirely sure on what basis the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, came here. He has not taken part much; he is a very busy man. However, he made a very interesting speech yesterday. I would have thought that he comes into the category of someone who may deserve the honour but perhaps will not be exactly defined as a working Peer.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Coleraine gives the Government, the honours committee and Her Majesty the opportunity to send to the House Peers of considerable eminence but Peers occupied to such an extent in their own field that, although able to make valuable contributions on an important subject, they would not be frequent attenders or participators in debates and business. If I paraphrase it correctly, my noble friend is trying to offer the Government a way to deal with that problem.
My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare is attempting a rather wider solution to some of the problems, but some of those problems arise from exactly the same position: that there are life Peers who were not sent here to work and who do not attend very often. My noble friend was trying to differentiate although I am rather puzzled. He said that his amendment would differentiate between those who came to this House by

1407
way of the New Year or Birthday Honours lists and those who came on lists of working Peers. I may be missing something, but I cannot see that differentiation in the text. No doubt my noble friend will help me later on that.
My noble friend envisages a House which is considerably smaller than that which we have now. There would be 499 Members, if I have calculated it correctly. We all know that there are many more than that in your Lordships' House. Even if we take the people who attend very occasionally and leave out the people who never attend or attend on only one or two occasions, the membership of the House is considerably larger than 500. But generally, on high days and holidays, there is likely to be an attendance of about 400 and for ordinary days, the attendance will be between 300 and 350. Therefore, I believe that a non-professional House, which I indicated earlier is my preference, always needs a little headroom because not all Members will be able to be here on anything like a regular basis, unlike, for example, the other place where the Whipping system ensures the fairly regular attendance of Members.
My noble friend's amendment replicates, very cleverly and with subtlety, the Weatherill amendment for hereditary Peers which we passed on Tuesday. It sets out to create a representative group of life Peers who would be elected by their fellows.
That should be attractive to the Government because those life Peers, elected by their fellows, would obviously have more legitimacy than we all have as the totality of life Peers. I quote no less an authority than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. When discussing the Weatherill amendment and the fact that 90-odd Peers would be elected from the totality of the hereditaries, the noble and learned Lord said:
"Also, the hereditary Peers who remain temporarily will be here not just because they are hereditaries but because they have been elected by their fellow hereditaries. Therefore, they will have greater authority ". —[Official Report, 11/5/99; col.1094.]
I listened to that and then, lo and behold, the noble and learned Lord repeated it. I suppose he thought that I had not heard it the first time. In his concluding remarks, he said:
"It gives the 90 excepted Peers, whose election will have given them greater authority and shows that they have the confidence of their colleagues, a say in the deliberations of this House about its long-term future ". —[Official Report, 11/5/99; col.1096.]
So, no less a person than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and who greater an authority can I quote?—indicates that if one has elections for 92 hereditary Peers from the whole group of hereditaries, that will give the 92 more legitimacy. The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Archer will give the life Peers who are elected more legitimacy. I should love some more legitimacy so long as it does not come at the cost of too much electioneering. Just in case the Government are minded to accept the
1408
amendment, I had better be kind to all my life-Peer colleagues in all my other comments.
I notice that my noble friend makes provision also for by-elections, which is very important. But he addresses the problem also that life Peers are expected to work. My noble friends Lord Torrington and Lord Limerick have pointed out, I think rightly, that there are life Peers, as I mentioned earlier, as there are hereditary Peers, who do not come terribly often but when they do come, they participate in our deliberations on subjects which are of great interest to them and on which they are serious experts. I do not want to embarrass anybody by going round and naming them or to take up the time of the Committee.
I think that both noble Lords are right and if they were suggesting to my noble friend Lord Archer that his 50 per cent cut-off is a bit high, I would agree with them. I think it is far too high. Even if the Government do not accept my noble friend's amendment, we should perhaps look at a way of applying a one-off test to those life Peers who are here now so that only those who have shown any interest in your Lordships' House will be able to continue in the transitional House and perhaps—who knows?—into the stage-two House when it comes about.
On page 32 of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission—it has almost become the most quoted document, second only to the manifesto, and presumably I will shortly be told that it was a best seller, with queues lining up in the streets to buy it—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I do not think that the noble Lord will necessarily be told that, but I suspect we may continue to remind him that that evidence relates to the Royal Commission and its proposals for the second stage of reform. It does not relate to the present Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may not relate directly to the present Bill, but it gives us an indication of what the Government are thinking in the matter of the composition of your Lordships' House.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry, I mean the Labour Party. There seem to be two distinct organisations in this country. One is the Government and the other is the Labour Party. I suppose it is a bit like the two distinct governments that we shall have in this country: the Labour Government in Scotland and the Labour Government in the United Kingdom. But I had better not trespass on the patience of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House by going into any more detail about the goings-on north of the Border, to which I hope shortly to return in order to get closer to them over the weekend for my enjoyment. On Monday I shall report my findings to your Lordships.

1409
To get back to the evidence, page 32 states:
"The Royal Commission should also consider whether membership of the reformed House of Lords—
Lord Shepherd: Can the noble Lord say which train he will catch?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps one a good deal earlier than that which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will manage to catch.
Lord Carter: I think the noble Lord may find the early flight tomorrow morning more convenient!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Ah well, we shall see, we shall see. I shall continue to give that quotation:
"The Royal Commission should also consider whether membership of the reformed House of Lords should carry with it a minimum obligation in terms of attendance and participation in the work of the chamber ".
I think the noble Baroness will agree that that is relevant to this particular debate. The quotation continues:
"A large number of members currently attend very infrequently and play little part in the work of the House of Lords. If there is to be a minimum attendance obligation, the Royal Commission should also consider how it could be enforced ".
I agree with the Labour Party that that is a fair thing to say to the Royal Commission. I also think, for reasons which we have put forward on a number of occasions, that we should also address it to the interim House because who knows how long the interim House may last. If we are improving the interim House by keeping back 92 of my hereditary colleagues, may I suggest that we might improve it even more if we try to concentrate our life Peer Members on those who do attend and play some particular part? My noble friend Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare has raised some interesting points, as has my noble friend Lord Coleraine, and I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has to say.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred to the fact that there were two thriving institutions: one, the Labour Party and, two, the Labour Government. I do understand how discomfiting that may be for him as the Conservative Party has neither a government nor, as far as I can detect, much of a party at all. Certainly in Scotland and Wales, the Conservatives managed to succeed in having no directly elected Member of either the Parliament or the Assembly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would hate to allow the noble Lord the Minister to stray into error, especially with regard to Wales. We old manage one first-past-the-post seat in Wales. But I have to say that
1410
just south of the Scottish Border we had a magnificent victory in the home town of my noble friend Lord Henley in that we won control of Carlisle.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In principle, all Peers, whether they are here on merit or by virtue of an hereditary peerage, have a duty to take seriously their responsibility as Members.
Earl Ferrers: I thought I misheard the noble Lord. Did he say "an hereditary peerage"; and if he did, why did he not accept my amendment?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did say "an hereditary peerage ". I fell into solecism and error in exactly the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, did when he said "a hereditary peerage " on Tuesday.
Earl Ferrers: I did not fall into error at all. I was merely doing what I thought was correct in so far as the Bill refers to "a hereditary peerage "; and, as I said earlier, when you are in Rome you do what Rome does. I therefore referred to "a hereditary peerage ". It was only the noble Lord's automatic judgment which made him go to "an hereditary peerage ", which is what he should have accepted.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Being Welsh, I do what Welsh people do in Rome and I stick to "an hereditary peerage ". But that is a matter of personal taste. Personal taste is not always coincident with present government policy.
In principle, all noble Lords have a duty to take their responsibility seriously. In practice, we know that not to be so. Frequency of attendance is not the appropriate criterion on which to base judgments. The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, indicated that fairness is a useful lodestone—I agree—and so is rationality. I do not accept his constitutional doctrine that if one is asked to come here as a working Peer by a particular Prime Minister one's duties as a working Peer are limited to the incumbency of that Prime Minister. I have not heard that suggested before and I do not believe it to be correct. Indeed, both my noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington and I were invited here by letters originally from Mr. Major—of course it was Her Majesty who actually determines these matters—but there was nothing in my letter, or I think in the postcard of my noble friend Lady Jay, that required us to do anything.
In fact, had we been required to serve only during the incumbency of the person who had originally suggested us, neither of us would have to have turned up at all, because Mr. Kinnock was never Prime Minister. If the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has a claim for back pay of £30 million and compound interest, my noble friend and I have a similar claim, because we have attended here selflessly for so long, to the entire satisfaction of your Lordships—and certainly to our own entire satisfaction—that I think that we ought to have been properly remunerated.
The Earl of Onslow: Can we have an undertaking that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative government,

1411
both the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will continue their presence selflessly and ad nauseam in your Lordships' House?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Unless there is a retirement age of 95, certainly.
I understand the reasons behind the noble Lord's amendment but it confuses quantity and quality. The quality of a Peer's record is not really to be judged on attendance alone. Many of those who attend frequently make a considerable contribution. Many who attend frequently make no contribution that is readily detectable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said, even making a contribution in the sense of joining in a debate does not necessarily or indeed at all advance the argument, as we have recently been able to note.
We cannot accept the amendment as a matter of principle. The Bill is about the removal of "the " hereditary Peers as a class from membership of the House. We have accepted the compromise—a generous one, as was said earlier—to allow 92 hereditary Peers to remain. The position of the life Peers is not in question in stage one of the reform. I have to say yet again what was said a moment or two ago by my noble friend the Leader of the House. We are discussing this Bill at this stage. I beg the Committee's pardon. We ought to be discussing this Bill at this stage.
We have said that people can conscientiously differ and we do, in the same way as some believe the world is flat and others insist it is round. We believe that it is not right for anyone in this legislature to have an automatic right by virtue of heredity. There is no similar argument for removing life Peers. All life Peers, by virtue of the Act of 1963, are here for life. I do not believe that a system of elections would work. I may have misunderstood the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Archer. I did not understand how he arrived at the figure of 338.
The noble Lord says that his amendment is directed to so-called working Peers who do not work. However, it does not deal with the question of those who were put in here on a purely honorific basis. Indeed, a more fundamental criticism which he might accept is that the amendment would allow working Peers, on the noble Lord's definition, to be removed if they were not elected. Even in the terms of his own approach, I believe that would be a significant defect.
There is no mention of a proportionate breakdown of life Peers between the parties. After the initial election, on the basis of previous attendance figures, the Labour Party would do considerably better than the party opposite. If we take the figures for the latter Session, the proportion of Labour life Peers—I exclude those on official leave of absence or those who have not taken the oath—attending over 220 times out of a possible 228, that is on over 88 per cent of possible occasions, was almost twice that of Conservative life Peers.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: The Minister cannot have a great deal of spare time. He has pointed
1412
out how hard he is working. However, I wonder if he would be kind enough to look at the figures in the days when the Conservative Government were in power. The simple facts are that when in Opposition one does not have the problem of having to vote on every single issue and being present the whole time. My attendance and voting record was much better when we were putting Bills through than it is at present.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Whether that is right or wrong, the noble Lord has just destroyed his own argument. That means that if noble Lords are in opposition and not liable to turn up, they are liable to be dispossessed of the opportunity to come here at all simply because they are in opposition and do not bother to turn up. That is the necessary, inevitable and logical conclusion of the observation made by the noble Lord. Whether he intended it to be the conclusion on which I focused, I am not sure.
The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, asked about the relationship of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission. It is precisely that; that is, evidence put forward by the Labour Party. It will be supplemented by oral evidence. I repeat again the comments so often made by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. When we have the recommendations of the Royal Commission, a joint committee of both Houses will consider them and the Government will come to a view. There are practical difficulties deriving from the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: I thank the Minister for giving way. I sought to clarify one simple point. The Labour Party submission exists, it is a public document. The point of clarification I seek is that surely we are entitled to believe that in some way it informs current Government thinking.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can only repeat what I hoped I had said plainly earlier. It is the Labour Party submission. It will be supplemented by oral evidence. The Government will come to a concluded view in a rational way after seeing what the Royal Commission has said—that is why one sets up a Royal Commission—and listening carefully to the deliberations of the committee of both Houses. There is no provision in the amendment—
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may ask if the Prime Minister saw that evidence and approved it. If he did, it must therefore be Government policy.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There is an internal fallacy there. The fact that the Prime Minister has seen and approved something does not necessarily make it government policy in every conceivable circumstance. He may have views of his own about a wide range of matters. Of course the Prime Minister saw the evidence before it was submitted. We are going about this in the proper way and we shall not be deviated from the proper course.
If one sets up a Royal Commission, one ought to be prepared to attend to its conclusions. If one invites a committee of both Houses, which, by definition, will

1413
have an authoritative composition, one ought to have the courtesy and ordinary sense to listen to what it says; and, thereafter, come to one's concluded view.
In this amendment, contrary to the Weatherill amendment, there is no provision for elections to be held in advance of the rest of the Bill coming into force. That would mean that elections could not take place until the Bill was in force and, if the Bill was in force, all life Peers would already have been excluded by virtue of this clause.
There is a specific question from my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham to which I must now attend. He asked whether or not the mayor of London could be a Member of your Lordships' House. I am not sure who the Labour candidate will be, but when he or she is successful I do not see any impediment to the mayor of London being invited to come here by a grateful nation and a thankful Prime Minister.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but the question that I was really asking was whether that was likely to be compatible with the attendance criteria envisaged in the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That would depend on the degree of flexi-time in the London assembly. It is possible that the mayor of London would be able to pop into the House for Prayers in order to secure his or her attendance allowance, which I believe is what some noble Lords do, and then depart for happier climes immediately down the road.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may paraphrase Stanley and ask whether this is a case of "Lord Livingstone, I presume? "
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In fact, Stanley was not his real name at all. It was John Rowland from North Wales, born in the workhouse at St. Asaph! The noble Lord is relying on an impostor who had to change his name—of course, quite unlike some of your Lordships.
If one wants to look at this "in the round ", as people will keep saying, one would have to consider the position of the Bishops. They do not attend every day. But, despite the fact that they represent only one section of the Christian Church, I am sure that most noble Lords would recognise that their contributions are valuable. Indeed. I would make the same point about the Law Lords. Both the Law Lords and the Bishops have, if I may use the phrase, held on to the day job. Nevertheless, they do attend and provide contributions which are extremely important. They are listened to with great care and are generally effective.
Lord Richard: I trust that my noble friend will forgive me, but I should like to raise a point regarding something he just said about the Joint Committee of both Houses. I take it that the Government will not express their views on the shape of the second-stage Chamber until after the Joint Committee has reported. Alternatively, is the position—as I have understood it to be—that the Government will express their views on the
1414
shape of the second Chamber after the Royal Commission has spoken and that, thereafter, the matter will go to the Joint Committee for implementation? Can my noble friend help me in that respect?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. It is the second alternative. I said that the Government would come to their concluded view after we had taken account of the view of the Joint Committee. There is no point in setting up a Joint Committee of that prospective virtue, value and weight unless one is going to listen with great care to its advice.
I turn now to Amendment No.93D. tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. We do not see a place for this proposed new clause in the Bill. It would create two separate distinct classes of life Peer. It would include enforced semi-retirement for those over the age of 75 and would separate into classes those who could attend and vote and those who could not. I cannot see how that would work in practice. Once one got to the age of 75—just approaching the prime of life—one would then be disentitled to vote.
So, on the proposal of the noble Lord, a Peer could attend and speak but not vote. But would he be able to table an amendment to a Bill? I do not find provision for that in the noble Lord's amendment. I am simply raising a question. Would such a Peer be able to ask questions? The noble Lord nods his head. Would he be able to introduce legislation? The noble Lord remains silent. There are difficulties involved. I give way to the noble Lord. Lord Coleraine.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. A noble Lord who is not a voting Lord would be entitled to introduce legislation, but not to vote on it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that illustrates the bizarre nature of the proposal. One could have an impassioned Second Reading speech from a noble Lord of 75 years and one day. By the time he got to be 77 years and one day he might have got to Third Reading and he might be able to speak on all those occasions but not discharge the elementary duty of voting. I recognise that this is a genuine attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, to improve matters but I think that, once one teases out the detail, it does not.
In summary, therefore, I hope the Committee will recognise that I have once again in the best tradition of this Chamber approached all these amendments with an entirely open mind before advising the Committee to reject them.
Lord Northbrook: Before the Minister sits down, I hope I may clarify a point. I understood him to say that life Peers were appointed for life in this Chamber. However, I understand—if I am correct in this—that the

1415
Labour proposals to the Royal Commission suggest that, if there is an appointed Chamber, not all life Peers will be part of it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not immediately recognise that as an accurate quotation from any evidence that has been given. However, I repeat, at the risk of tedium—at least to myself, if not to everyone else present—that we are dealing with a Bill that attends to the first stage. The evidence is given to the Royal Commission, which is to make recommendations for a succeeding stage.
Lord Coleraine: I return to my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has kindly dealt with certain of the lacunae in my amendment. He will obviously be aware from the way I spoke that it was a probing amendment, or perhaps a sighting shot. I am grateful to him for pointing out where he feels I may have gone wrong on the technical drafting aspects. However, as regards the question of the dual writ and voting and speaking Peers, of course I recognise that the analogies with 1968 are not sure in all cases and cannot be taken too far. But one thing is certain; namely, that in 1968 it was well accepted in all parts of the Chamber that there was no particular difficulty about having life Peers or hereditary Peers; and that hereditary Peers were speaking Peers who could introduce amendments and ask questions but could not vote. No difficulty was envisaged with that at that time. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his attention to my amendment and to the others who have spoken on it. I shall certainly not return to it in its rightful place in the Marshalled List.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I too am grateful to the Minister for his serious response. I am equally grateful to those Members on both sides of the Committee who joined in this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, that I think the mayor of London should certainly be in the House of Lords and it would perhaps be convenient for him to be there at the beginning rather than immediately after he is elected.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that the overriding purpose of this amendment is to try to make people think about what the new Chamber should look like. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. It is hard to find a wording that includes reference to the number of times one attends, the number of times one speaks and the amount of work one does. I have wrestled with this matter and I know that it is not easy. I just wanted to place firmly on the record how much I disapprove of people who take the honour that this House offers, and the great distinction with which it is viewed by the rest of the nation, and then make no attempt to give back benefit to that nation by attending this Chamber or working for it. That was the purpose of this amendment. I thank the Minister for taking it in that vein. With that in mind, I shall withdraw my amendment but I may bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No.79:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
APPOINTMENTS COMMISSION(NO.2)
(". —(1) There shall be an Appointments Commission.
(2) The Appointments Commission alone shall make recommendations to Her Majesty for the conferment of life peerages in accordance with the Life Peerages Act 1958, and shall determine various matters in relation thereto.
(3) The Appointments Commission shall consist of eight members, one to be nominated by each of—

(a) the Prime Minister,

(b) the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons,

(c) the Leader of the second largest opposition party in the House of Commons,

(d) the Convenor of the Cross Bench peers in the House of Lords,

(e) the Leader of the House of Lords, and three members, known to be independent of any political party, to be nominated by the House of Lords and approved in each case by a majority of two thirds of those voting.")

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No.79 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.80 to 83. I may be able to be quite brief. I was very impressed by what the Leader of the House said in answer to Amendment No.75. I thought she set out a thoroughly commendable approach to the way in which Peers would be selected in the future. However, I am sure she will recognise that that is subject to executive discretion and that it has no statutory underpinning. I am sure she will also recognise that I and many other Members of the House feel that that is not good enough. There has to be something in the Bill that gives us a greater sense of security that the arrangements she so ably outlined could survive a change of government or a change of opinion by a government, something that gives us a stage better reliance.
If the Leader of the House will agree to meet a group of noble Lords between Committee stage and Report stage to discuss how we might moderate our demands and how we might find some way of satisfying our justifiable fears in a way that is acceptable to the Government, I, and I hope other of my colleagues, will feel able to leave discussion of these amendments to another day, or perhaps not at all. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may take this opportunity to ask either the noble Baroness or the Government Chief Whip about their intentions as to how late we should sit. There has been a general understanding that we should not sit too late on such a major constitutional Bill. I appreciate that we have a great deal to get through; I also appreciate that we have Monday and possibly other days for debate. I think at this stage it is important to know the Government's plans. Obviously that will influence us as to how we deal with certain of our amendments, particularly those amendments that we wish to deal with on Monday.
Lord Carter: We have been sitting for almost exactly seven hours. We are just starting on the seventh group of

1417
amendments. I do not think that we have made enough progress on an important constitutional Bill. I wish to make more progress tonight.
Lord Henley: Is the Government Chief Whip suggesting that we sit for another seven hours tonight? I am not sure that he would have agreement from his own Back Benchers—certainly he would not have it from ours—that we sit for another seven hours.
Lord Carter: 11 am finding it hard to restrain my enthusiasm. It certainly will not be for another seven hours.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may reply to the Amendment No.79, which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The noble Lord was gracious enough to say that he would not speak in detail to these amendments if I responded favourably to his suggestion. I am grateful to him for saying what he did about my response to the earlier amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Waddington, and Lord Crickhowell.
We agree that what the noble Lord has attempted to do in his series of amendments—I think there are five altogether—is impressive. But it is fairly lengthy. I would suggest that that illustrates the particular problems of trying to put into a statute the issues which we discussed at some length before the break for dinner. He has graciously suggested that, rather than going through the details this evening, we might discuss the matter privately. I am happy to pursue that course. I draw his attention and the attention of the Committee to the letter which I wrote at the beginning of the Session to say that: Ministers were always anxious to meet other Members of the House and to try to accommodate their concerns, particularly at this stage of proceedings. If that is the way the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wishes to proceed, I am happy to do so.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. If the Committee is agreeable, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos.80 to 83 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.84:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DISQUALIFICATION OF MSIPS
(". —(1) A member of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords.

(2) Where an individual is disqualified under this section, the disqualification ceases on the day he ceases to be a member of the Scottish Parliament.

(3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.")

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No.84, I shall speak also to Amendment No.85. I am a bit apprehensive about doing this because, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, last spoke about hereditary Peers, I think he said that they make no contribution; and if hey do make a contribution it is of
1418
no noticeable effect. That is rather like the bully at school who asks: "Why don't you say something? " and, if you do, says: "Shut up ".
With these amendments we enter slightly sensitive ground and I hope the Committee will not mind my doing so. I should let Members into a secret, I may have sat next to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, at dinner, although I did not realise it, and I found my glasses had been smashed. I thought he might have done it, but I was not sitting next to him, so it must have been a poltergeist.
Amendment No.84 proposes the following:
"A member of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
Amendment No.85 states:
"A person who is entitled to vote in elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
They are two fairly modest amendments with clear objectives. In the early stages of the Bill we heard much about the manifesto and what it said. I remind the Committee of what was said in the Government's White Paper on House of Lords reform. On the very first page it states:
"Parliament is the central element of Britain's democracy. Britain needs a two-chamber legislature ".
Having said that, what do the Government do? They devolve powers to Scotland and make a single-chamber legislature. So there is a single-chamber legislature in Scotland and a two-chamber legislature in England. That does not bode well for the unity of the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Errol: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. This is not the English Parliament, it is the Parliament of the UK here. I wish to point that out, it is a misconception which I have noticed entering the debate from time to time.
Earl Ferrers: It is kind of the noble Earl to remind us that it is a United Kingdom Parliament and he has courteously drawn me on to the next part of my remarks. If a Bill is passed in the Scottish Parliament, concerning health, education or social security, it goes through the Scottish Parliament and that is that. If you pass a Bill on education, health or social security in the House of Commons, it has to go through your Lordships' House. So there is a two-chamber system here and a single-chamber system in Scotland. I suggest that that is wholly divisive. The Government have constantly refused to address their minds to the point and that is what we are left with. We have the position of a single chamber in Scotland.
Some noble Lords have thought it desirable to stand for election to the Scottish Parliament and some have succeeded. All credit to them. The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, has been successful and achieved what I understood to be his ambition, becoming the Presiding Officer, the equivalent of being Speaker of the Scottish Parliament. That is fine.

1419
Using him as an example, why then should he come to your Lordships' House and decide on what your Lordships and England should do on matters respecting England? If he does, should he sit as Lord Steel of Aikwood or as Sir David Steel, as he intends to do in Scotland? Alternatively, does he sit as both Sir David in Scotland and Lord Steel in England? If he sits in your Lordships' House, will he sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches, where we are used to seeing him, or on the Cross-Benches? Can one imagine Madam Speaker in another place leaving the House of Commons going to the Scottish Parliament and sitting as a Labour Member of Parliament, giving Labour views? Of course not. Lord Steel has sanitised himself by becoming a Speaker, therefore theoretically he ought to sit on the Cross-Benches.
Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. It is curious how they all come from the Liberal Democrat Benches. The Liberal Democrats try like mad to get positions of authority in the United Kingdom Government and always fail. Having failed there, they try Scotland, where they seem to be successful, or Wales, where they are also successful. Now the other part of my glasses has gone, so the noble Lord, Lord Williams, need not worry too much!
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has been successful in Northern Ireland. What does he do? Does he come and sit on the Cross-Benches, or the Liberal Democrat Benches? There is quite a difficulty here. Why should people who have stood for a regional parliament and been elected to that parliament, and have in some cases become administrators of the regional parliament discussing regional matters, in which this House has no part, then come to this place and discuss and take part in matters which are outside their region but reflect the rest of the United Kingdom—England for example? It is the old West Lothian question. It has gone completely unanswered and unaddressed by the Government. That is a great pity.
People have climbed up rather like a monkey going across the trees in the rain forest, swinging from branch to branch, and they have swung from another place into this House and from this House to the Scottish Parliament. They have succeeded in doing all that. Why do they still continue to come to this House and discuss English matters?
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: Will the noble Earl be kind enough to give way? Perhaps I may ask him a question. I understand his argument that it would be inappropriate, and I do not pass judgment on this, for Members of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly to participate in matters concerning mainly England. But as the noble Earl will recognise—and this is enshrined in legislation passed by this House—neither in Scotland nor in Wales, or in Northern Ireland, is there any jurisdiction over trends in international affairs. Will the noble Earl recognise the entitlement of those who sit in
1420
those parliaments at least to come to this House, and at least to participate in debates and decisions on those matters?
Earl Ferrers: The noble Lord is entirely right. He asks whether I recognise "at least" that they should do that. Yes, of course I do. But the trouble is that it is not a question of "at least". In fact they come and discuss everything. They have a right to discuss everything and participate in everything. I am sorry to return to this, but that is the dichotomy that the Government have failed to address. How do you devolve various matters to different parliaments and keep some for Westminster, yet allow people to come to Westminster from regional parliaments and discuss the totality? That is what I believe to be wrong, and the Government have not come to any conclusion.
With my spectacles now in a state of total disarray, I now turn to Amendment No.85, which is marginally more controversial. It proposes that,
"A person who is entitled to vote in elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
If people have the right to vote for their own parliament, which they have, and they secure the parliament of their compatriots' choice, why should those same people then be allowed to come down to the United Kingdom Parliament and discuss United Kingdom matters?
This provision would be quite severe. It would knock out the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who comes from Wales; it would knock out the noble and learned Lord. Lord Falconer; it would probably knock out the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; it would knock out my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—who is so terrified that he has vanished already—and a number of other people. I believe the noble Baroness wishes to intervene.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: From a sedentary position I was merely repeating the conversation that my noble friend the Chief Whip had with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about the time of his train.
Lord Henley: Perhaps I may assist the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. My noble friend has had to catch a train. He has returned north on the sleeper. That is why I remarked earlier on the timing of this debate.
Earl Ferrers: That is of course the difficulty that these poor people who live in Scotland have.
All these people who have the right to vote for whom they want to represent them in the Scottish Parliament equally have the right to come and speak in your Lordships' House, and to vote upon matters—not the hereditary Peers, no, the life Peers—which reflect entirely the interests of England, and on other matters. This is a sensitive area; it is the West Lothian question unresolved. The only reason I have tabled the amendment is to discover the Government's thinking on this matter.

1421
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn (if he is the Minister courteous enough to reply), will address this very serious point. I am all for a few flippant jokes. I do not mind if he also makes some jokes. However, I hope that he will be able to say why people who have been elected to a devolved Parliament can come down to this Parliament and speak to matters in which they do not normally interfere, and equally why those who vote for their own Parliament have the right to vote in the second Chamber. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Elton: My noble friend's amendment draws attention to the desirability of the Government perhaps not pursuing stage two as quickly as they have repeatedly assured us they will because the West Lothian question remains unresolved. I suspect that the relationship between the two Parliaments and the Assembly will not be fully understood until it has been working for a number of years. The Government may tonight propose a resolution of the West Lothian question. However, as matters now stand, Members of another place who are elected in Scotland will have the sole say over Scottish affairs in education, social security, health and so on—a range of matters—whereas Members of another place in this Parliament will have no say over those affairs in Scotland. Members elected in Scotland will have a say over those affairs in this kingdom, but will have no constituency interest whatever in them. My noble friend's amendment does something in gesture politics to redress the balance. In so doing, it illustrates the importance of seeing how the system works before we press ahead too fast.
The Earl of Onslow: I do not like to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but on this occasion I do so for the following reason. Your Lordships' House is not a House of territoriality, but of either individuals or power. Therefore, the West Lothian question, serious and horrid as it is, is not addressed by saying that because an individual comes from a certain part of the United Kingdom, he should be barred from its upper House. The West Lothian question is a brutal and very dangerous one as yet not addressed by the Government. If we were to debar from this House Members who live north of Hadrian's Wall, or Members of the Scottish Parliament or of the Welsh Assembly, it would be even more damaging to tie Union than the present, rather half-baked devolution experiment that is taking place. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Mountgarret: I take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I disagree most profoundly with his observations. I always thought that we operated on the principle of one man. one vote; but here we move into the realm of one man, or one lady, two votes. Frequently, my wife has received electoral papers to be completed in order to vote in both the north of England and London by virtue of two residences. That is illegal. If she had voted in both places there would have been great trouble.
1422
I think the same objections apply to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. It is quite wrong. He will recall that some time ago we had quite a ping-pong match over the question of Summer Time in what was then the United Kingdom, but alas is no longer. The trouble was that, although the Bill passed through: your Lordships' House, the Scots were unhappy because, quite rightly. they said that things were different in that part of the world than in our part of the world. They have a point. They are absolutely right. Therefore, why should they be able to vote in Westminster on matters relating to England—it is no longer the United Kingdom—and not contain their views to Scotland and to the Parliament to which they have been elected? I support the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has tabled a lot of rather entertaining amendments to this Bill which, from time to time, have brought some light relief to this debate. In his Amendment No.85 I believe that he is taking the joke a bit too far.
I have a confession to make to the Committee. I had a great-grandmother whose maiden name was Mackay. Therefore, it would be quite impossible for me to vote for any amendment which would have the appalling result of excluding from your Lordships' House those who, I suppose, I must describe as my noble kinsmen, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Amendment No.85 is plainly absurd and not one that is worth taking much trouble over.
Amendment No.84 raises, as I understand it, the West Lothian question. It seems neither appropriate nor indeed possible in this Bill to answer the West Lothian question, which is something that has been troubling us all for decades. In any event, the matters raised in Clause 84—not only the West Lothian question, but also the dual mandate—are matters that are not appropriate for this Bill. Once again, as with so many of these amendments, this is a matter for the Royal Commission and stage two.
The Earl of Erroll: I think that noble Lords forget that this is still the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It passes laws that affect Scotland and it is able to repatriate to itself powers which are currently devolved to a Parliament in Scotland, which is not a sovereign parliament. Therefore, English Peers and English MPs in this Parliament vote on issues that affect Scotland. That is a matter that works in both directions at the moment.
I recommended and supported the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, earlier because it is essential that there is Scottish representation in this Parliament and not the other way round. The suggestion in Amendment No.85 that Scottish voters should be disenfranchised totally from the sovereign Parliament in this country is quite ridiculous.

1423
On the point of multiple votes, one votes for everything from parish councillors, to district councillors, county councillors, if you are in Scotland a Scottish Parliament Member, an MP and an MEP. So we all have multiple votes.
Lord Northbrook: With due respect to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I did not quite understand his point about repatriating powers to the United Kingdom Parliament.
The Earl of Erroll: I stand to be corrected, but I think it is still within Westminster's power to take power back from the Scottish Parliament because the Westminster Parliament is a sovereign Parliament, which the Scottish Parliament is not. That may happen over tuition fees. In fact, I believe that has already been mooted in Scotland.
The Duke of Montrose: Returning to the question raised by Amendment No.85, if there is any seriousness in it, has the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, thought of phrasing it the other way? On the question of elections to the other place, neither Peers, nor minors, nor bankrupts are allowed to vote. If he wishes to introduce the fact that the same rules should apply to elections to the Scottish Parliament, that would allow Peers to come to this House without having voted for another Parliament.
Lord Henley: I do not intend to get on to the subject of tuition fees. I suspect that that is a problem that the Government will have to address in due course; no doubt the Scottish Parliament will address it.
I begin by again offering an apology on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He has had to catch the last train north because he had commitments in Scotland. The fact that my noble friend has left underlines how unwise it is that this House should continue debating these matters at such a late hour. Perhaps some time after our discussion on this amendment has concluded, I may wish to have further discussions through the usual channels.
I also offer my comnuserations to my noble friend Lord Ferrers on his problems with his spectacles. We saw the further disintegration of them during the course of his speech. We noted that he was missing one lens. I noticed that the lens alleged to have been smashed was the left lens rather than the right lens. I do not know whether he was blaming the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for that destruction. If the noble Lord is addressing these matters, perhaps he will come to that in due course.
I also take time out briefly to correct, I think, my noble kinsman Lord Onslow on his remarks about those living north of Hadrian's Wall. I remind him that I am one who lives north of Hadrian's Wall. A great many of us who live north of Hadrian's Wall are English, remain English and always will be English. The Border, quite rightly, is considerably north of Hadrian's Wall. No doubt the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could confirm that important legal matter should he wish to respond in this debate.
1424
My noble friend Lord Ferrers raised some interesting points. He returned to the West Lothian question. In Amendment No.85, which he describes as being somewhat more controversial, he raises even more points that it is important the Government should address. The points he has put forward have been, as my noble friend put it, somewhat controversial. They have not received unanimity on the Benches behind me. I shall be circumspect in my remarks and careful about what I say. I shall wish to think about them carefully before we offer support from this Front Bench.
However, it is important to remember that three Members of this House have been elected to the Scottish Parliament. All three parties—if I may ignore on this one occasion the Cross Benches—have gained one Member. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, as he is called in this House, whom we understand is to be called Sir David Steel, MSP, elsewhere; the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, from the Benches opposite; and my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas, have all been returned to the Scottish Parliament. We wish them luck. We shall be grateful to hear from the Government about the relationship of what they do there to what they do here. We shall be grateful to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Williams, how the Government consider that these matters should be addressed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did not sit next to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at dinner. I did not sit on his spectacles. I sat next to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and if he were still here, he would be my alibi witness.
This pair of amendments pre-figures a pair of amendments relating to Wales in, I think, virtually identical terms. Amendment No.85 has some curious consequences. It states:
"A person who is entitled to vote in elections for membership of the Scottish Parliament is disqualified for "
—I think that the word should have been "from "
"sitting and voting in the House of Lords ".
That means that the mere fact of being registered on a local government register in Scotland, which is the necessary precondition for voting in elections for the Scottish Parliament, would disentitle any Member with that incubus from sitting in this House. As soon as one analyses the provision in that way, its manifest nonsense is thereby disclosed. It is not even a requirement that one should have exercised the vote, but simply that one should have registered to vote.
Exactly the same point arises in the subsequent pair of amendments further down the list about Wales. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that it would disqualify me because I am Welsh. I am, but I am registered to vote in the Cotswolds. I should therefore escape and I am sure the noble Lord who tabled the two subsequent amendments had that position in mind. However, I must say that if I had been disqualified, I should have been the first to ask your Lordships whether it would be possible for me to retain my club rights.
We decided the question of Amendment No.84 a short time ago. It seems a very long time ago, not least for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the Lord

1425
Advocate, and myself, who sat here during the passage of the Scotland Bill. As your Lordships well know, Section 16(1)(a) of the Scotland Act makes express provision that Members of this House are eligible to be Members of the Scottish Parliament. That was what we determined a short time ago. Can it be said—I ask rhetorically, hoping for no reply—that no one had thought of the West Lothian question at that time?I think not.
On that occasion, we decided that there was no need to bar any of your Lordships from membership of the Scottish Parliament, or vice versa. We do not bar any of your Lordships from membership of the European Parliament, or vice versa, provided the electoral qualifications are met.
I know that the noble Earl raised the issue partly to tweak, but it is not a very successful tweak. With due deference to him, Amendment No.85 is not sustainable, which is the kindest description I can give it, and Amendment No.84 we decided in the context of the Scotland Act by virtue of Section 16(1)(a). I am sorry about the noble Earl's spectacles, but perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, he now realises that both his amendments were misconstrued.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: If you have no spectacles, how can you have hindsight? I can only say to the Minister that
I think I must have done him a credit by saying that he must have been sitting next to me at dinner. I knew perfectly well that he was not. The fact that my glasses were in a smashed state after dinner made me think that
I must have been sitting next to him. The person he sat next to. my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, did not have his glasses smashed; he merely vaporised out of the scene and I cannot think what the Minister said to him to make him disappear so quickly. However, sitting next to or near the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a terrifying experience for all of us.
I tabled the amendments as probing amendments. The Minister will be glad to hear that I had no intention of pressing them; I wanted to know what the Government thought about the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was kind enough to say that they were entertaining amendments. I do not believe that they are entertaining at all; I believe that they are very serious amendments. The fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, will be coming here as speaker of the Scottish Parliament and taking part in the affairs of your Lordships' House. Where is he going to sit? Is he going to sit on the Cross Benches or the Liberal Democrat Benches? I cannot see how he can sit on the Liberal Democrat Benches and all of a sudden become a political animal, white up in Scotland he is a sanitised animal because he must be neutral. Perhaps he will sit on the Cross Benches. But all this is very curious stuff.
I believe a great deal of thought ought to be given to how people can go from one parliament to another and still, fortunately, come back to the first. It seems a very curious arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that Amendment No.85 was not worth taking much trouble over. He said that it was not appropriate to the Bill but was a matter
1426
for the Royal Commission. I can understand that. I repeat that what I wanted to do was to find out how the Government considered this problem, because it is a problem.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, glasses or not, he did not satisfy me that the Government have really addressed the matter. It is not a party matter. It is not a question of being a hereditary Peer, a life Peer or anything else. It is question of what happens when power is devolved to different parliaments, and yet not all power is devolved: some is retained. When those who find themselves climbing up the ladder of the devolved parliaments then also find themselves part of the current Parliament, it is quite a serious problem.
However, for the moment I am quite happy to withdraw the amendment, as I know the noble Lord will be glad to hear. I will, of course, excuse him from any responsibility for the fact that my glasses have completely decapitated themselves.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.85 and 86 not moved.]
Lord Cobbold Lord Cobbold had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No.87:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause-—
MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF LORDS
(". Nothing in this Act prevents the holder of an hereditary peerage from being a member of the House of Lords other than solely by virtue of that hereditary peerage.")
The noble Lord said: Acceptance of the "Weatherill amendment " has dealt with most of the issues I wished to raise with this amendment, and therefore it is not moved.
[Amendment No.87 not moved.]
[Amendment No.88 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No.89:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF INTERESTS
—(1) The Prime Minister shall draw up and publish a of relevant interests.
(2) The Prime Minister shall ensure that persons representing those interests are recommended to Her Majesty for conferment of life peerages under the provision of the Life Peerages Act 1958.
(3)In making recommendations under subsection (2), the Prime Minister shall consult representatives of those interests.")
The noble Earl said: I raise this amendment because I want stage one, or whatever stage we are at now, to work. I want the House of Lords to have authority; I want the House to have authority to argue with the executive; I want the House to have authority to argue with the Commons.
When Sir Robert Walpole, the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, managed to control the Tory majority in the House of Lords, he did it by the use of ruthless patronage of the Bench of Bishops, who were all paid-up Whig Members. He managed by that method, and that method alone, to overcome an inbuilt Tory hereditary majority.
The House of Lords has always been a House of power and influence, and the reason it can be reformed is that we, the hereditary peerage, do not represent the power and the influence that we did even 50 or 60 years ago. We are but small cogs in an enormous machine. Therefore, in some ways I wish the Government well in their efforts at reform. They could have got it more easily, they could have got it quicker, and they could have got it with a great deal more consent. I also think that there is a gradual emergence of quite a lot of consensus about what will happen in the future.
I have put down the amendments because they have precedents in British history. They have the precedents of self-election, in the Scots and the Irish peerage, for those of the hereditary peerage who will stay under the Weatherill amendment, and those who are appointed have precedents in the Bishops and the Law Lords.
Those precedents should now be widened. Whenever I put forward this view, people ask me, "Who do you think it ought to be?" Basically, being rather idle by nature, I thought it would be easier to suggest that somebody else should do this, but that there should be a published list of people who will become Members of the House, who will represent powers and interests. Therefore, the Prime Minister can say "These are the sort of people I will accept, or would recommend, for the House." This would make the process of arriving at the House more transparent.
The more transparency appears in an appointments system the less easy it is to accuse anybody of packing the place, or behaving like Walpole with the Bench of Bishops. Therefore, this is a plea that, when things change—and they are obviously going to change—transparency in the appointments to even stage one of this reform should be as great as possible.
Lord Monkswell: There are only a couple of amendments in this whole Committee stage on which I feel moved to speak. This is one of them. While I cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I must support the sentiments about which he spoke in moving the amendment.
The text of the amendment is flawed in terms of how it may work in relation to the Bill. But the sentiments about which the noble Earl speaks are perfectly valid. The idea that Members of your Lordships' House should represent power in the land is significant. He mentioned that the hereditary peerage does not represent power. I believe that he was wrong in that, because there are Members of the hereditary peerage with seats in this House who do represent power. There are others of us who do not. There are also members of the life peerage who represent powerful interests in the land and there are members of the life peerage who do not.
One can look carefully at what is meant by power; for example, someone who is wealthy or who has a very significant position in terms of business has power. One can see that those are powerful people. But there are other forms of power. The power of knowledge and intellect is commanding in this day and age.
1428
This is really just a marker for the Royal Commission and I am sure that is why the noble Earl has tabled the amendment. In future, we must think of the House of Lords representing different interests from the other place. The other place represents the power of the people but there are other powers in the land, whether they be money, commercial interests or the media. Those should be reflected in Parliament. So I agree with the sentiments behind the noble Earl's amendment although I cannot agree with the text of the amendment.
Viscount Cranborne: I am one of those who has, in the past, been very tempted by the seductive arguments which have seduced my noble friend Lord Onslow when he advocates an ex officio House. The arguments are very much as he put them forward.
After all, your Lordships' House really originated as an ex officio House. Anybody who has read the late Mr. Enoch Powell's history of the mediaeval House of Lords will see how clear it is that it became convenient for the monarch to have the great powers of the land under his eye and to separate the great powers of the land from the burgesses in the House of Commons.
That was convenient for all sorts of reasons. Partly, as your Lordships will know better than I, it was convenient because it did not suit the monarch to give an opportunity for the great powers in the land to make common cause with the burgesses of the House of Commons. Equally, it was convenient, if possible, to make sure that the great powers of the land were able to exercise some influence in a peaceable manner rather than to go out and do battle in the street or rebel against the Crown.
It seems to my that my noble friend has perhaps been seduced by his well-known love and study of history into thinking that the same principle could apply today. Superficially, of course, it might. But you only have to look at what actually happened to the mediaeval House of Lords. I put forward my own analysis with some diffidence because there are many far better historians in this Committee than I. I seem to remember, however, that the basis of power as perceived at the time was that power really resided among those who owned land. Indeed, that was at least part of the reason why so many princes of the Church were Members of your Lordships' House—abbots and bishops—because, as we know, the Church owned an enormous amount of land. It is true that in those days they had great moral authority—perhaps rather more moral authority than right reverend Prelates have today, dare I say it. None the less, the basis of their power was not only a moral authority but also, as Lady Bracknell described it, "really solid assets" as well.
It is therefore attractive to think that the monarch's reasoning was right. But the difficulty is that, if you are going to make a judgment about who deserves to be in such an ex officio House for the reasons that my noble friend set out, you also have to make a judgment about who exercises power in the land. Is it not significant that, just as this principle was beginning to be established at the end of the 14th and the beginning of the 15th century, that was the very time when it was becoming more than apparent that the ownership of land

1429
was no longer the exclusive repository of power that people took it to be? The middle classes were beginning to appear even then—rich merchants and so forth—and therefore this rather cosy and happy arrangement which has so seduced my noble friend was out of date even before it became current. Like all institutions, as your Lordships' House became established, your Lordships preferred to lose power rather than change the House's membership in order to satisfy the original purpose of your Lordships' House.
The only point 1 wish to make—and I apologise to the Committee for what I know is an inadequate and rather unattractive analysis to an expert House from a very amateur historian — is that the same inconvenience of the ex officio House applies in spades today. Not only is it very difficult to see who is going to decide who will be a member of the ex officio House but, because of the rapid nature of developments in the modern age and because, as we see more and more frequently, the gap in time between cause and effect is becoming increasingly narrow—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Desai, can con firm that this is particularly evident in the economic field, perhaps largely because of the march of technological development and communication—it therefore becomes apparent that, if it was not possible to have an adequately representative ex officio House representing the great powers in the land in mediaeval times, it is even less possible today and we would always be—as the military so charmingly put it—a long way behind the curve.
We can see this Ferhaps with the ebb of trade union power. The trade unions undoubtedly would have been very powerful in an ex officio House in the 1970s but less powerful in the 1980s. They are actually rather more powerful today as, with the help of the European Union and, to a lesser extent, the Labour Government, they begin to claw their way back into everyday management considerations in British industry and commerce.
What I would say with the greatest regret to my noble friend is that, while I am seduced momentarily by the charm with which he has introduced his amendment, in practical terms, charming though this may be as a historical analysis, I do not think that even in mediaeval times it worked in practice and I do not think it would today.
Lord Henley: My noble friend Lord Onslow has long argued logically that this House, which arose as a place where the great interests of the country—the Church and the land—were represented, should continue in its revised form to be a House of interests. There is some force in that argument, although I also agree with the line put forward by my noble friend Lord Cranborne that it is somewhat misplaced. But there is some force in that argument, not least because it would mean that the inevitable representation in the House of forces outside the political parties, something which most observers of the House have always seen as one of its great strengths, would continue.
My noble friend has been very skilful in putting forward a probing amendment at this stage of the Bill, although I have no doubt that he will want to return to
1430
this matter to tease more information out of the Government at later stages. The Government have made much of their intention to create what they call a more "representative " House or what my noble friend described as a more "transparent " House. Indeed,"representative " was one of the words that survived on the cover of the Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission. The word "democratic ", which featured so highly in earlier policy documents, including the manifesto, has, as my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out yesterday, been removed from that front cover. Indeed, I regret to say that it disappeared very swiftly in the wake of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when he was replaced as Leader of the House by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal.
The word "modern" is still there on the front cover of the evidence of the Labour Party to the Royal Commission. How could it not be on a document from this Government? But when I saw the gleam in the eye of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, earlier as he said he said he was going to clutch onto his title of "Lord "—I am not whether he did: perhaps the noble Lord said that he was quite keen to give that up—I thought that it would be very interesting to know how long "modern " will be with us.
The word "Independent" is still with us on the front cover. However, after the earlier debate (in which the Government were unable to offer more comfort than they offered about the early creation of an independent appointments commission), one wonders how strong is the commitment to independence. There is room for legitimate scepticism and inquiry about the meaning of the word "representative". The Labour Party's evidence to the Royal Commission gives the following suggestions for what "representative" might mean. It suggests possible representation from newly devolved bodies and the English regions. But in our consideration of an earlier amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that the Government were riot attracted to a fixed degree of representation from Scotland. Perhaps I may therefore ask the Government directly this question—and I do of course expect a reply to it. If the noble Lord rules out what he described as a quota of Scottish Peers, how can there be representation in this House from devolved bodies? That can only be done by sending a specific number of representatives from Scotland and other devolved bodies.
I turn to other interests that might be represented, according to the evidence from the Labour Party. We find reference to age, gender and ethnic composition. That is obedience to political correctness and is only to be expected. But as yet we have seen no firm proposals except the proposition to expel the likes of myself arid other hereditary Peers, from whom most of our younger Members are drawn.
Finally, coming closest to the kind of interests that my noble friend Lord Onslow perhaps has in mind, we find reference in paragraph 5.5 of the Labour Party's evidence to a list of interests that might be represented. They are business, labour, education, science and the arts. Those are some fairly broad classes. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify what that means. By "business " does he mean the CBI or some other

1431
representative of the entire business community? By "labour" does he mean the TUC or other bodies? By "education" does he mean a committee of vice-chancellors and principals or is there a whole range of other representatives within the educational field, whether the National Union of Teachers or any other union? If so, it would seem to be far from modern in its representation of interests.
It would be helpful if, when the Minister replies, the Government follow the thinking of my noble friend and give the Committee more information about the kind of interests they would consider important in the House and how they feel they might be included.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am extremely happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in the arguments he put forward in his generally eloquent way. He did not specifically address Amendment No.90 but I assume he is concerned that we should reply to Amendments Nos.89 and 90. I do not intend to respond to the points made just now by the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip. They are yet again comments on the second stage of reform; comments on a document designed to facilitate the second stage of reform; and comments about the long-term future of this House. Tonight we are considering the Bill before us and the amendment of the noble Earl to which I shall now try to respond.
We applaud the general points made by the noble Earl about the representative nature of this House. It is precisely that reason—I believe the noble Earl agrees with us on this point—which leads us to one of the basic positions that we take about the abolition of the automatic right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote.
We are not convinced that the approach proposed in either of the amendments is the correct one. The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, spoke of being seduced by the arguments. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount and to the noble Earl that the only other time I have been relatively seduced by the arguments put forward in both amendments in the context of what I think is colloquially known as "functional constituencies " has been at the fringe meetings of various conferences I have attended which have been sponsored by the Charter 88 group. That is not a group I would necessarily have associated with support from the noble Earl.
However, moving away from the provenance of these ideas on functional constituencies, perhaps I may examine briefly the details of Amendment No.89. The first issue is that of drawing up a sufficiently definitive list of the interests which should be represented. If the noble Earl has followed the discussion about functional constituencies with the attention I am sure he has, I expect he is aware that such lists tend to fall into economic categories. That obviously leaves out certain clear-cut bodies of opinion and bodies of interest who would not fall into specific economic pigeon holes.
I am interested in the proposal in Amendment No.89 given the length of our discussions on objective and transparent methods of appointment. The proposal leaves the choice entirely to the Prime Minister with no
1432
indication of what might happen if the list proposed by one individual aroused opposition. The proposal also compounds the difficulty of deciding on the interests by adding the requirement to identify formal representatives of the groups in question. Who is to say who those might be? Who would therefore say that the provisions of subsection (3) of Amendment No.89 had been fulfilled? Would a claim, for example, by a group that it was representative of a particular interest be justifiable in court? We have spoken often in the course of debates on the Bill about the potential for judicial review of individual proposals, but this is one instance where it might be more obvious than others.
However, there are other more general dangers in an attempt to make the House a collection of representatives of specific interests. It is self-evident that there is a difference between a representative body and a body of representatives. Everyone in your Lordships' House is expected to consider and debate on the basis of his or her own opinion and expertise. However, I am sure I can say without any fear of it being in dispute that noble Lords are not delegates. Even the right reverend Prelates do not regard themselves as delegates. I believe that such a scheme, if included in the Bill, could well risk setting up a system of delegates where the interests of the body or the industry, for example, being representative of the constituency of interests, might take precedence over the general personal interests of individual Peers.
I have to point out to the noble Earl that we might get into the situation where Peers could be mandated to speak or to vote in a way which was a representation of the group that they were supposed to be representing. To me, that would smack, surprisingly, of extreme Left-wing organisations and concerns that I would not normally associate with the noble Earl.
I turn briefly to Amendment No.90, which takes the concept of representation even further by developing it through ex officio membership. Here again, we have the particular problems of looking at organisations which may or may not have the capacity to release individuals for ex officio representation here. I believe that many of the offices which might appear superficially attractive for inclusion in this amendment are actually only held for relatively short periods of time; indeed, they may even rotate annually. So the amendment could lead to the rather odd anomaly that there would be large numbers of life Peers who were former Members of this House floating about because their term of office had come to an end. I give way to the noble Lord.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Baroness exempt from her strictures the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain who, I understand, have been proposed as ex officio Members of this House?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: They are ex officio Members, but precisely not life Peers nor representatives of any particular body. I thought that the noble Lord might be raising the question of the ex officio membership of the Bishops' Bench which, in itself, is another area where we might have this discussion.

1433
However, having dealt with that somewhat extensively on an earlier amendment, Amendment No.72—indeed, it seems very much earlier now—in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I thought that I would not return to the issue. I am sure that the noble Lord will be grateful for that fact.
However, perhaps we can consider further the question of ex officio membership of people who had a leading role in their organisation and who might be released to take up a temporary position as a life Peer in this House. I think that one could look at it from the perspective of the institution itself as well from that of the individual. We could have a situation where we had such a statutory requirement to provide a Member for this House from a senior executive body, such as the chairman, or whoever it may be. But would an institution then, rightly, be annoyed that someone elected or chosen to work for the interests of the organisation per se was being distracted by his duties in your Lordships' House? For example, could bodies which control "relevant" offices actually decline to have them included in this list? Indeed, where would we get to at that point?
We would need to think through all these questions very carefully before we embarked upon such a proposal and before we took on the concept of functional constituencies, whether derived from ideas put forward by the noble Earl or, indeed, from groups like Charter 88. If the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, rises to say that this is not a relevant consideration for this Bill, I would have to say that I broadly agree with him. This Bill does not seek to make any changes to the terms and conditions of service of life Peers. For that reason alone,
I do not feel particularly seduced by the amendment.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend rises to reply, perhaps I could ask him to deal with one problem which I see in these two amendments; namely, that the best do not always float to the top of whatever their interest or association happens to be. My own experience in this matter concerns, acutely, Lloyd's of London, but I can also think of the Stock Exchange and, generally, most of the trade bodies and associations that come to mind. Indeed, one might even mention the universities. Of course, I would have to exclude the Armed Forces from this question.
Very often, it seems that those who represent the interests which my noble friend promotes are not necessarily in touch with the up-to-date feelings of those whom they represent. I say that because the best often tend to stay doing their job—for example, making money, teaching, being a good doctor, or whatever. So one really would not want your Lordships' House to be flooded or even strongly influenced by those who knew how to climb the particular club tree, and so on, but who were not really representative of the best of the trade or interest that they purported to represent.
The Earl of Onslow: I am not capable of changing human nature or the way that human affairs work and how people climb "trees ". I hope I shall not be seduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, as I might get a certain amount of stick for that!
1434
The point I think I was trying to make is that I want a peculiarly broad appointment of new Peers into the new Chamber. I accept the arguments produced by my noble friend Lord Cranborne up to a point because I would say that the peerage power started to go about 400 years after he suggested, but that is a historical argument in which we amateur historians can get involved later. However, we did certainly—and have historically—represent power. It seems to me that all the powers in the land are not necessarily economic. That seems to me a totally Marxist argument. There are intellectual powers and there are spiritual powers. As has been said, one has only to see how powers wane. Twenty or 30 years ago, Harold Macmillan could say that the two things you do not take on are the Brigade of Guards and the mineworkers' union. The Brigade of Guards still exists but the mineworkers' union does not. Fifty or 60 years ago, shipbuilding, heavy engineering and coal were the great powers and influences in the land. Therefore, I take the point strongly made by my noble friend Lord Cranborne; namely, that powers change now much more rapidly than they ever have.
Earl Ferrers: If I may interrupt my noble friend, I think there was a third person that one should not take on—and that was the Pope and he too is still with us.
The Earl of Onslow: What is it that Macaulay says about the Pope in an essay about New Zealanders under a bridge? I cannot remember the quote which is absolutely majestic, but I accept my noble friend's addition to the list.
I shall, of course, withdraw this amendment. One of the reasons I shall withdraw it is because I simply could not define the list either of interests or of ex officio Members that it should contain. All I hope to do is to ensure that the Government make their appointments procedure as transparent as possible and explain why they have recommended to the sovereign someone for inclusion in your Lordships' House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.90 and 91 not moved.]
Lord Northbrook Lord Northbrook moved Amendment No.92
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—
DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS OF THE WELSH ASSEMBLY
(". —(1) A member of the Welsh Assembly is disqualified for sitting and voting in the House of Lords.
(2) Where an individual is disqualified under this section, the disqualification ceases on the day he ceases to he a member of the Welsh Assembly.
(3) No writ of summons shall be issued to a person who is for the time being disqualified under this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Amendments Nos.92 and 93 were originally coupled with amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, but knowing that I did not have the same humour and rhetoric, I detached them. I am glad to say that my spectacles are still intact!
In moving Amendment No.92, I should like also to speak to Amendment No.93 in my name. My amendments are not deliberate acts of bias against the

1435
Welsh, or the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. They essentially follow Amendments Nos.84 and 85 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, which, as already stated, seek to disqualify Members of the Scottish Parliament from sitting and voting in the House of Lords, as well as persons entitled to vote in Scottish parliamentary elections. The principle of my amendments is the same except that they apply to Wales.
Amendment No.92, as has already been stated, seeks to correct the anomaly by which a Peer may sit and vote in two separate parliamentary bodies within the same nation. That seems to me too great an extension of the democratic principle. I should be interested to know whether there are any other nations where it is possible to sit in two parliaments or assemblies at the same time. Of course, my Amendment No.92 does not preclude those hereditary Peers who are excluded (because they do not qualify as one of the 92 Peers in the Weatherill amendment) from sitting and voting in the Welsh Assembly.
It is not my scope here to contrast the functions, powers and responsibilities of the Welsh Assembly with those of the House of Lords; nor do I plan to go through the areas mentioned in the Act which are subject to the executive powers of the Assembly. However, I should like to make a new point. There could emerge a conflict of interest when a Peer sits and votes in both Wales and London. He might find himself promoting legislation or seeking financial aid for Wales which would impact unfavourably on, or with unfavourable financial consequences for, the rest of the United Kingdom.
As The Financial Times said in an editorial only yesterday, there is a need,
"for preserving a constitutional balance between the newly devolved government of Scotland and Wales and the House of Lords ".
It is immediately apparent that that balance may he disturbed when there is a potential conflict of interest. In order, I hope, to give a clear example of how such a conflict might arise, I set out the following scenario. A major government contract is to be awarded and tenders are received from companies both in Wales and in the rest of the United Kingdom. The tender, say, from a Welsh company proves to be more expensive than those from other parts of the country but the contract will give employment to workers in an unemployment black area. A Peer involved in the matter at the Welsh Assembly department who also happens to be in the same department in the House of Lords could therefore find himself with a conflict of interests. Should he, wearing his Welsh Assembly hat, recommend the Welsh tender, or should he back one of the other bids which gives better value for money for the taxpayer? It could be a very difficult decision. Amendment No.92 seeks to avoid that type of situation by not allowing Peers to sit in the Welsh Assembly and the House of Lords at the same time.
Amendment No.93 seeks to disqualify those Peers who are entitled to vote in Welsh Assembly elections from sitting and voting in the House of Lords. As
1436
English Peers are unable to vote for their own assembly, it seems unfair that Welsh and Scottish Peers should have the advantage of double voting rights. I am sure that by the time the Government have finished their constitutional reforms there will be an English assembly. If the Minister were to give me that assurance I would reconsider my position on the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: As a Welshman and a Member of your Lordships' House I have some interest in the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. He said that he could not think of an example of another country where such a situation arises. I give him Germany. It is perfectly possible for someone to be a member of a German Lander and sit in the second house of the German Parliament, the Bundesrat. As we know, the Bundesrat is designed to reconcile the clashes of interest that might occur between the Lander and the central government. Not only are members entitled to sit in both houses; it is highly appropriate that they should.
We do not yet have a federal system of government in this country—I do not know if we ever will—and I am a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. As a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament it seems to me that my function is to appear here and to debate such matters as come before the House whether they originate in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. As such, if I were to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly, I would not see any conflict whatever between my duties as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament and my duties as a Member of the Welsh Assembly.
I should perhaps point out that, unlike the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly has no responsibility for primary legislation. Its sole responsibility is secondary legislation. As such there is not even the argument that Members of the Welsh Assembly who came to this House would somehow or other be speaking on matters here on which they would be debarred from speaking in Cardiff.
The jurisdiction of this House in relation to Wales is precisely the same as it is in relation to England. I have not yet heard it argued that an English Peer who might become a member of the London assembly, if it is set up next year, should be disqualified. The Committee should be happy to reject this amendment.
Earl Ferrers: When it is a question of hereditary Peers going, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is all in favour of them going. When it is a question of his own position being affected, he says that of course he ought to be able to take his seat, it is absolutely right. There is a conflict of interest insofar as members of the Welsh Assembly can discuss matters relating to Wales with which English people cannot be involved. Members of your Lordships' House can discuss English matters and those involved with Wales can also discuss them, but it cannot work the other way round.
Lord Richard: I am sorry to follow the noble Earl again, but he attacked me in the mild manner he has when he feels particularly aggressive. He said that I was

1437
only concerned with protecting my own interests. I regret to tell the Committee that I am not a Member of the Welsh Assembly. I confess also that I do not have a house in Wales and do not have a vote for the Welsh Assembly, so it does not affect me at all.
Midnight
The Earl of Kin tore: We need not argue about where the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly is to sit because the noble Lord, Lord Ells-Thomas, very sensibly, has already taken the precaurion of sitting on the Cross-Benches.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, spoke to identical amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Although I did not hear the speech, I am sure I would have agreed with everything the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, had I done so.
I shall be daring enough to agree with one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The situation of Welsh representatives is different from that of Scottish representatives because of the nature of devolution to Wales. The Welsh Assembly has no power to deal with primary legislation.
There is a further distinction to make between those Members who have constituencies and those who are elected on the list. It was notable in the European Parliament that those who were both Members of the House of Commons and members of the European Parliament quickly discovered that it was an unworkable combination. That would also prove true in the long run, if not the short ruin, of representatives in the Welsh Assembly who have constituency responsibilities. However, it may not be true of representatives who are on the list. That must remain an open question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has already demolished the point of the amendments. We decided the question recently in Section 13(1)(a) of the Government of Wales Act. The same flaw in the second amendment appears as in the second amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.
The disentitlement arises on this amendment simply from being registered to vote. I cannot think that that can possibly be a sensible approach to legislation.
Lord Northbrook: I am grateful for the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and his comments on the German situation and the ability to sit in two assemblies. I also noted with interest the comments of my noble friend Lord Kingsland on the European Parliament and the problems of sitting in both assemblies at the same
1438
time. I might wish to return to my amendment in a different form at Report stage, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No.92.
Earl Ferrers: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may make an intervention.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord asked to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Ferrers: I wished to say something before he withdrew it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: He has requested to withdraw it. If the noble Earl wishes to object, he may do so. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Earl Ferrers: No. I merely wished to ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, whether he would be good enough to expand on his reply. He gave a very short, technical answer which did not respond to the point that my noble friend made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It was not a technical response; it was a response that focused on the drafting. The disqualification is simply the presence on the register. Whether one votes or not, one is disqualified. The same defect appeared, and I pointed it out, in the noble Earl's second amendment. There is nothing technical about that. It is just a hopelessly, fatally flawed amendment. I did not want to put it quite so plainly when I replied earlier, but I am happy to do so now.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.93 to 93E not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos.94 to 99 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers: had given intention of his notice to moved Amendment No.100
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
RETENTION OF ANCILLARY RIGHTS
(". Any person who is the holder of an hereditary peerage and who would but for this Act be entitled to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House shall be entitled to continue to exercise the same rights of access to, and use of, the House of Lords and any premises occupied by that House to which he would have been entitled but for the passing of this Act.")
The noble Earl said: I shall not move this amendment now. I shall return to the matter on Report.
[Amendment No.100 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos.101 and 102 not moved]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No.103:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
MEMBERS OF THE SECOND CHAMBER: MINIMUM AGE
(". No-one who holds a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House unless he has attained the age of 50 years.")
The noble Earl said: I move this amendment with even more hesitancy. Perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No.104. I wish to retain some friends in this House, although I realise that the lateness of the hour will prevent my retaining many. I fancy that if the two amendments were accepted, I should have even fewer.
Amendment No.103 proposes that,
"No-one who holds a life peerage… shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons … unless he has attained the age of 50 years ".
Amendment No.104 suggests that he ought to give up his position at the age of 70.
If this is to be an appointed Chamber, who will be appointed? Will the appointees all be meritocrats? If you are a meritocrat, presumably you are a person who has done a certain amount in your life and you therefore deserve the peerage you have been given, or you will have earned your passage to being a Member of the appointed Chamber. In that case you are bound to be a person of more mature years. That would effectively exclude anyone who is young.
On the other hand, as stated earlier, if this is an appointed Chamber, people should not be able to stay on until they are 80 or 90, or, like my noble friend Lord Renton, 91, or, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, 93. In fact, those Members contribute a great deal to this House and it would be a pity to remove them, to use the term employed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I therefore propose the amendment to find out what is the Government's intention. Are they saying that they will appoint anyone, even someone who is 25 or 26? Or will they even appoint someone who is 85? Is there to be any form of cut-off point or any age under which people are not appointed? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: The amendment moved by the noble Earl. Lord Ferrers, reminds me of the story of the American senator who lost an election having been in office for some years because his opponent had accused him of being a practising sexagenarian. This amendment will limit membership of your Lordships' House to those life Peers who are quinquagenarians and sexagenarians. I find it remarkably difficult to take this idea seriously. Wisdom does not begin only at the age of 50 or cease at 70. I hope that we do not end up with anything as remotely rigid as this. Although at stage two there may be a case for considering a retirement age, that debate is for the future and is not part of this Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the combined effect of these two amendments is to limit the age at which life Peers can serve in this House to those between 50 and 70 years of age. Even in the annals of the noble Earl's tweaks, this one comes close to taking the biscuit. On 8th June I shall be happy to be the first to say to him,"Happy 70th birthday ". Were the noble Earl to be a life Peer or, as we all hope—I am electioneering on his behalf—one of the elected hereditaries who remain, it would be absurd that he should not stay and give us the pleasure of his company and the benefit of his wisdom and humour.
1440
If the real point is to flush out what we shall do at stage two, I revert to the recidivist in me; namely, stage two is not what we are discussing, but we shall be looking for a representative House in terms of age and ethnic and social background. Excluding the hereditary principle, we want all sections of society, including women, to be properly represented. The noble Earl has flushed me out, but it is wrong that he should go simply because of the accident of his birth being almost 70 years ago. I should not be willing to put my hand to such a device.
Earl Ferrers: I am deeply touched and flattered by the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, as I am by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The latter said that he found it very difficult to take the amendment seriously. He is quite right. If we take both amendments seriously, it will be a farce, because then no one will be able to be a Member who is under 50 and over 70. The point of the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, so graciously put it, was to flush out the Government's intention.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that wisdom did not begin at 50 or end at 70. However, I started here when I was 25. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on having done his homework very well. He has discovered that I shall be 70 on 8th June. Therefore, I would be a victim of my own amendment, which would be bad luck. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would join the Conservative Party. If he was made a hereditary Peer, he would be able to vote for me, which would be a great encouragement. However, that is not possible. I must bask in the fact that he would like me still to remain as a Member of your Lordships' House.
The point of the amendment was to find out what the Government intend. As I understand it, in the good old modernising tradition of the Government, everything is to go on just as before and the temporary House will contain Members young and old; it does not matter which. However, when they come to consider the second Chamber it is a different matter.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his few words of enlightenment and for the encouragement that he has given me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.104 and 105 not moved.]
12.15 a.m.
The Earl of Erroll The Earl of Erroll moved Amendment No.106:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
DECLARATORY (NO.2)
(". Nothing in this Act affects the powers of the House of Lords, and in particular the power to veto any bill introduced by a Minister of the Crown providing for the maximum duration of Parliament to be extended beyond 5 years.")
The noble Earl said: At the request of my noble friend Lord Perth, who is in Scotland, I beg to move Amendment No.106. I have a significant question about the quinquennial legislation.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Perhaps I may point out that the amendment has already been debated.
Lord Henley: However, it is still open to the noble Lord to speak to the amendment. As the noble Lord will remember, the groupings are informal.
The Earl of Erroll: I have one question on the quinquennial legislation and the powers to overthrow legislation. If the 1949 Act established the fact that one can modify the constitutional protections enshrined in the 1911 Act, presumably another Act can be passed to remove the other powers reserved to this Chamber in the 1911 Act.
The Government have been using Pepper v. Hart arguments to gloss over any drafting defects that may or may not lie elsewhere in the Bill. As a citizen of the United Kingdom, can I use the Pepper v. Hart argument, given the Minister's definitive statements about the Government's intentions not to allow the quinquennial provisions to be overthrown, to overturn any future Acts of Parliament that might be introduced
1442
by a future government, possibly from a different political background? Does the Pepper v. Hart argument apply?
Lord Carter: I believe that the noble Earl is referring to a remark that I made when dealing with this group earlier. The remark that I made about Pepper v. Hart was in the context of this Bill, not in the context of the Septennial Act. The Pepper v. Hart point refers only to a Bill that is in front of the House and not to previous legislation.
The Earl of Erroll: Perhaps I may seek clarification as regards the next stage. Is there any way in which we can reassert that the quinquennial provisions still apply unless they are reaffirmed in this Bill?
Lord Carter: That is a technical point with which we should deal by correspondence.
The Earl of Erroll: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos.107 to 110A not moved.]
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past midnight.

  Yugoslavia: EU Oil Embargo
  Yugoslavia: EU Oil Embargo
  Lawrence Inquiry: Report Leak
  Lawrence Inquiry: Report Leak
  Right of Individual Petition under International Conventions
  Right of Individual Petition under International Conventions
  Human Rights Act: Implementation
  Human Rights Act: Implementation
  Kosovar Refugees: Asylum Data
  Kosovar Refugees: Asylum Data
  Volunteers: Checking by Criminal Records Bureau
  Volunteers: Checking by Criminal Records Bureau
  Strategic Export Controls: Errors in Annual Report
  Strategic Export Controls: Errors in Annual Report
  European Space Agency: Ministerial Council
  European Space Agency: Ministerial Council
  BSE: Number of Cases
  BSE: Number of Cases
  Meat Hygiene Charges and Closure of Small Abattoirs
  Meat Hygiene Charges and Closure of Small Abattoirs
  Military Action Overseas 1988–89: Cost
  Military Action Overseas 1988–89: Cost
  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Vehicle Licensing via the Internet
  Vehicle Licensing via the Internet
  Non-working Parents: Social Security Benefits
  Non-working Parents: Social Security Benefits
  National Curriculum Test Standards
  National Curriculum Test Standards
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Releases
  Northern Ireland: Prisoner Releases
  Northern Ireland: National Curriculum Test Results
  Northern Ireland: National Curriculum Test Results
  Northern Ireland: SEN Pupil Expenditure
  Northern Ireland: SEN Pupil Expenditure
  Northern Ireland: SEN Pupil Numbers
  Northern Ireland: SEN Pupil Numbers