Sitting of 4 November 1999

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

  ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION BILL) [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation Bill) [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
  Ordered,
  That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the United Reformed Church Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  Ordered,
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and shall be ordered to be read the second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read);
  Ordered,
  That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited during the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
  Ordered,
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  Ordered,
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Private Recruitment Industry
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: When he plans to respond to the consultation document, "Regulation of the Private Recruitment Industry". [95822]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): We will respond once we have fully considered all the representations received.
    Mr. Swayne: The Department's regulatory impact assessment gives little indication of the compliance cost of the proposals, because the Department says that it cannot calculate the extent to which behaviour will change as a result of them. Behaviour will change because elderly and vulnerable people will be unable to afford the cost of care in the home. The VAT element of the proposals alone will add £1 an hour to that cost. What is the benefit to public policy of charging that to elderly people in order to raise £40 billion a year for the Chancellor's burgeoning general election war chest?
    Mr. Johnson: The consultation documents that we published in May have been well received by everyone involved with the employment agency business, for instance, those concerned with health care, such as Age Concern and the United Kingdom Association of Home Care Workers. The review is designed to promote labour market flexibility and protect elderly and infirm people where there is ambiguity about whether their carer works for the agency or for the hirer.

    461
    We shall not be awarding any Dan Dare badges to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that there are VAT implications. That was stated clearly in our document and we are working closely with the Treasury to resolve those problems during the consultation period.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Would the Minister acknowledge that he has received some strong negative representations about the proposals' impact as they relate to temp-to-perm fees? Does he agree that, if this regulation goes through in its current form, it could do serious damage to people who wish to enter the labour force on a flexible basis, particularly women returning to work and people from disadvantaged groups? Will he give a categorical assurance that, once the regulation is published, he will have a further round of consultation with those most likely to be affected by it?
    Mr. Johnson: We pointed out clearly that we do not seek to end the practice of temp-to-perm; we seek to end the situation where an individual who works for a company is prevented from being hired as a permanent employee by arrangements that have been condemned by many in the industry. We seek to end restrictive practices among employment agencies, and that has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time and congratulate him on his appointment. Does he realise that the proposal to introduce restrictive regulations on temp-to-perm fees charged by employment agencies, and the proposal to charge VAT on all a temporary workers' wages rather than just the agency fee element, are hugely damaging, bureaucratic and interfering? Is not that yet another example of the Government saying one thing to business about lightening the burden of regulation, but doing the opposite and introducing huge swathes of new, burdensome regulation on British business?
    Mr. Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box. He has got this matter wrong. Age Concern has made the position absolutely clear in its submission, which stated:
    "Many of the proposed changes are entirely consistent with the broader thrust of Government policy: enhancing the protection of vulnerable people; improving the quality of services; and ensuring minimum standards in employment practice. Age Concern…wholeheartedly supports these changes."
    The simple truth is that if we did not change the regulations that have been in place for 26 years, we would leave the most vulnerable people—the elderly and infirm—in a position where, as Age Concern recognises, they would be responsible not just for employment law but for tax law and the health and safety of the people caring for them. That is why the changes are necessary and why we intend to carry them through.

    Enterprise Challenge Centres
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on progress in establishing enterprise challenge centres in universities. [95823]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): We have recently announced the establishment of eight centres of enterprise in the university sector at a cost of £25 million. The centres will promote the exploitation of knowledge and will make a major contribution to the development of an enterprise culture in the UK.
    Mr. Edwards: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House where the centres are to be located and how they complement other initiatives introduced by the Government to bring science and enterprise together?
    Mr. Byers: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, because I can now prove that there are eight centres: at Bristol, Cambridge, Glasgow, Imperial College London, Manchester, Nottingham, Sheffield and the London business school.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: That is seven.
    Mr. Byers: No, there are eight—I just checked.
    Those centres will have a wider regional focus, looking not just at the needs of their own cities but at those of their whole region. The objective of the new centres of excellence is to ensure that we can exploit commercially the knowledge that resides in our university sector, which was badly neglected during the 18 years of the previous Administration. We shall provide £25 million to ensure that we can use that knowledge to create British jobs and British investment for British people.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the roles of those enterprise centres is to seek partnerships with people outside universities in knowledge-based industries? Why did he not make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security to prevent the regulations on IR35 from going through? I have received—as, I am sure, have many hon. Members—representations from many people in the knowledge-based industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] I have received 2,600 representations from people saying that they will leave the United Kingdom or will invoice from outside the UK, because they cannot survive with the IR35 regulation. Does the Secretary of State accept that, without the writing of software, there is no e-commerce and there is no knowledge-based industry?
    Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has learned nothing from his party's 1997 election defeat. The Tories are yet again defending a tax loophole. We have heard it all before, and we are hearing it again today. The Government consulted widely on the changes that the House voted in favour of last night. As a result, we were able to close a tax loophole with the support of the industry. That is what our proposals do, and that is why the House agreed to them yesterday evening.

    E-commerce
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What steps he is taking to promote the expansion of e-commerce. [95824]
    Mr. Denis MacShane: What measures he is taking to encourage e-commerce. [95840]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): The Government are determined to ensure that the United Kingdom is the best place in the world for electronic commerce. Our vision and strategy for achieving that was set out in the report "e-commerce@its.best.uk", which was launched by the Prime Minister in September.
    Mr. McWalter: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new duties. She has the ability and energy to do this important job.
    I understand why the Treasury felt it necessary to close a tax loophole with IR35, but yesterday alone I had seven green cards notifying me of contact about it from my high-tech constituency. Many people who act as consultants for the IT industry enjoy substantial remuneration, but they may be tempted to move to other countries. If the industry was subject to wholesale relocation there could be consequent damaging effects.
    Although I welcome the changes that have been made to improve the IR35 regulations, will my hon. Friend tell us whether the Department of Trade and Industry will provide a scheme to ensure that the information technology knowledge base is kept in this country?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, especially in view of his distinguished professional career in the IT industry. I welcome his recognition of the fact that the Government have listened carefully to the views of that industry and many others, and have responded to them in the revised proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published. The new proposals provide the flexibility that is needed in the fast-growing IT sector, and are welcomed by many of his constituents and many IT contractors.
    It is essential that we close a crude tax loophole that I am sure neither my hon. Friend nor his constituents would defend. That loophole enables a subcontractor earning £1,800 a week to avoid paying any national insurance contributions, whereas nurses, teachers or IT employees earning significantly less pay their fair share.
    I can confirm that Inland Revenue officials are already working with the IT industry, and with my officials, to ensure that full consultation with the industry takes place while the guidance on the application of IR35 is prepared. I urge my hon. Friend and his constituents to work with the Revenue as it develops those guidelines.
    Mr. MacShane: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment as Europe's first E-Commerce Minister. It shows that we are not only in Europe, but running ahead of Europe.
    464
    May I suggest, before we are all invited to "get an e-life", that we dispense with the idea that putting "e" before everything solves all the problems? The Opposition Front Bench is clearly an e-rogenous zone, but that will not enable it to contribute to the debate on this subject.
    As the IT revolution rolls out across the United Kingdom, there should be no red lining. As BT and other companies introduce ADSL and similar advanced e-commerce technology, that technology should be available throughout the UK, particularly in poorer areas such as South Yorkshire, and there should be no rich and poor IT or e-commerce Britain. Will the Minister ensure in her discussions with the telecommunications and IT companies that all British citizens have access to the e-commerce revolution?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and, indeed, for the kind remarks that he made on BBC Online about my appointment. He possibly meant to describe the Opposition Front Bench as an exogenous rather than an erogenous zone—but perhaps we should pass rapidly over that.
    I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend said about the need to ensure that a digital divide does not open up between advantaged and disadvantaged areas. That is why, through our information society initiative, we have already established some 3,000 "IT for all" centres throughout the country, which anyone can use free of charge. It is also why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment recently announced the creation of nearly 1,000 ICT—information and communication technologies—learning centres in disadvantaged areas, so that everyone in every community can have full access to the benefits of the internet.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Is the Minister aware that, following changes to the Brussels convention, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Department said on 19 September:
    "the prospect of having to defend cases in a foreign court could deter some businesses from making the most of e-commerce."
    What did the Minister's Department do to stop those damaging changes?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Brussels convention has been in existence for 31 years. It governs private law disputes between, for instance, contracting parties, and simply provides that in a private law dispute between a consumer and a supplier the case may be heard in a court in the consumer's country. That is a clear and settled principle.
    Of real importance to the development of electronic commerce is the e-commerce directive. The draft proposals provide—correctly, in my view—that, provided that a trader complies with the regulatory requirements of the country in which he is based, he can sell electronically to consumers in any other member state, and regulatory barriers cannot be put in his way according to the laws of the consumer's country. That proposal, which we strongly support, will ensure—provided that it is adopted; I hope that it will be adopted soon—that the European Union will indeed be a good place for electronic commerce.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: The expansion of e-commerce requires a short and simple Bill.

    465
    The published draft Bill is too long and too heavy-handed. Of its four parts, only part II is necessary—the part relating to electronic signature. Indeed, that is all that the industry wants. Part III on interception should not be in the Bill at all. If the Bill is to be acceptable, part III should be removed. That is what we demand, and I predict that that is what we shall succeed in getting. Will the Minister now make a commitment to the House that she will remove part III altogether, so that we can get on with the rapid expansion of e-commerce without this cumbersome dog's dinner of a Bill?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman clearly belongs to the militant tendency of the Conservative party. I am not interested in listening to lectures or demands from a member of the party that wanted to impose mandatory key escrow on electronic commerce.
    Perhaps I can reassure the House. Bill Gates and Microsoft have welcomed our draft electronic commerce Bill as a model for Europe. We shall introduce it shortly after the start of the new Session. We shall get it right and we shall get it soon. I shall reply, when I publish the Bill, to the extremely helpful responses that we have received during the consultation on the draft Bill.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Ivan Henderson: What research he has commissioned on the link between the introduction of the national minimum wage and levels of poverty. [95825]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The latest results from the new earnings survey show that the introduction of the national minimum wage has removed the worst excesses of low pay. Coupled with the introduction of the working families tax credit, we expect literally millions of workers to be lifted out of poverty pay.
    Mr. Henderson: Did that research cover seaside resorts with areas of high social deprivation such as the one that I represent? The Government's policies on the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal have started to raise families in my constituency out of poverty. Is that not the clear difference between this Government and the Conservative party, which offers no help and no hope to my constituents? The Labour party offers them self-help and self-confidence.
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have put on the record their views on the national minimum wage. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) called it a "cretinous idea"—he should know. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who leads for the Conservative party on this issue, said that she was fundamentally opposed to the introduction of a national minimum wage. That is still their position, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is the defining line between our two parties. We are in the mainstream of British politics; we are creating prosperity linked with compassion. By linking the national minimum wage and the working
    466
    families tax credit, we shall lift literally millions of hard-working parents out of poverty to the benefit of themselves and their children.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I must apologise on behalf of the Secretary of State for that oversight. We all know that you are Madam Speaker, not Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I have been called worse.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Secretary of State agree that we do not need any research to prove that the introduction of the minimum wage, taken together with the increase in national insurance contributions, has put people the length and breadth of this country out of work and will lead to increases in poverty? What is the Government's answer to that?
    Mr. Byers: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that point. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said that the introduction of the national minimum wage would cost millions of jobs. In reality, traditionally low-paid sectors, such as the retail and hotel and catering industries, have seen an increase in employment since the minimum wage was introduced. Those are the facts. I know that the hon. Lady, like most Conservative Members, would prefer dogma, rather than fact, to rule, but we shall not base our policies on prejudice. We shall do what is right for hard-working families.

    Regional Development Funds
    Mr. Harry Barnes: What representations he has received in response to proposals he has submitted to the European Union for Objective 2 funding. [95826]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): My Department has received over 30 representations since submitting our proposals to the European Commission on the new United Kingdom objective 2 areas for 2000 to 2006. Two of the representations were from my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Barnes: I welcome my good friend the Minister to his new position. Is he aware that—according to the index of local deprivation and the Coalfield Alliance's coalfield index—Holmewood, Hasland and Clay Cross, south in my constituency are areas of high deprivation, and that Wingerworth and Clay Cross, north are former coalfield areas? Is he also aware that north-east Derbyshire has lost 70 per cent. of its objective 2 funding? Does he agree that the loss of that funding is made even harder to bear by the fact that areas near us, in South Yorkshire, seem to be doing quite well in obtaining objective 1 status, and that other areas, in parts of the east midlands, have also received a good settlement? Will he re-examine the situation in north-east Derbyshire to determine whether a fresh case on objective 2 could be made to the European Commission?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend, as I said, made two representations to the Department, and I responded in some detail to him on those. We have now responded

    467
    to requests covering 1.71 million people in the coalfield communities, and I am sure that he will appreciate that we have conducted the most extensive consultation in trying to ensure that, in implementing our regeneration strategy, all regeneration moneys—from the single regeneration budget, assisted area status, the new deal for communities, and structural funds—are used to deal comprehensively with any structural weaknesses. The Government have responded to 91 per cent. of the requests made by regional development agencies in the English regions. Indeed, 91 per cent. of north-east Derbyshire that has received objective 2 funding is covered by both the objective 2 submissions and the transitional arrangements.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Now that, for the first time in a generation, Britain has higher tax rates than Germany, does the Minister realise that the Government are rendering huge swathes of British business and economic life uncompetitive? Surely that fact will lead to a need for massive European assistance across Britain, and not only in the coalfield areas to which he referred.
    Mr. Caborn: That does not accord with the facts. On Wednesday, 3 November, the business section of The Journal, a Tyneside newspaper, stated:
    "Half of Tyneside manufacturing firms are reporting fuller order books than six months ago and their optimism about the future is growing. Eight out of 10 companies"—
    Mr. Brady: What about Germany?
    Mr. Caborn: These are the facts. The article states:
    "Eight out of 10 companies expect both their domestic and export orders to rise or at least stay the same in the coming months, according to the latest TEC 200 Tyneside Economic Trends survey."
    The article describes not a decline, but the first good news that north-east England has had for many years.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What programmes he has developed to assist people running small businesses in acquiring new skills. [95827]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My Department helps managers of small businesses to develop their skills through the network of Business Links, which provide companies with information and advice on management development and other training issues. The new Small Business Service that we are establishing will strengthen that work on skills by ensuring that we have first-class business support centres in every part of the United Kingdom. In particular, they will give very high priority to developing skills in e-commerce, so that all our small businesses are able to exploit fully the potential of the new information and communication technology.
    Mr. Quinn: May I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend on her new position? As she will know, the composition of many seaside economies is built on the bedrock of small businesses. May I have some assurances
    468
    that constituencies such as my own will benefit from the regeneration opportunities available from developing the ideas that she has been describing?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. There is no doubt at all that small businesses, self-employment and small and growing enterprises play an enormously important part in regenerating disadvantaged areas. Two days ago, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I published the report of the social exclusion unit's policy action team on enterprise in disadvantaged areas. I can assure my hon. Friend that the new Small Business Service, through the new franchised network of Business Links, will ensure that business support services are available to entrepreneurs and self-employed people in every part of the country, including disadvantaged areas such as his own.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: First, may I welcome to the Government Front Bench the new Ministers, many of whom appear to have moved from the Treasury? I hope that they will use that experience to stiffen the resolve of the Secretary of State—also a former Treasury Minister—as the DTI needs to take up a few issues with the Treasury on behalf of British business. The 13th report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on small business condemned the Secretary of State's regrettable habit of issuing potentially misleading information, and said:
    "Much of the funding of the Small Business Service
    —as referred to by the Minister—
    "described in March 1999 as 'new money' has been subject to multiple announcement."
    What is the exact figure of new funding for the SBS?
    Ms Hewitt: We will respond fully to the Select Committee Report, and we are finalising the budget for the Small Business Service. We will be investing significantly more in small businesses across the country through the SBS than is currently invested through Business Links. Although the Business Links network that we inherited from the Conservatives was a significant improvement on what went before, it is not good enough for our small businesses. I hear repeatedly from small businesses and entrepreneurs that there is too much inconsistency and variation in quality across that network. We are determined to put that right with the creation of the new Small Business Service.
    Mrs. Browning: No business person asked to give an account of the financial position of their business would be unable to answer a specific question such as the one I just asked the Minister, particularly as much of what the Secretary of State has said—which has been analysed by the Select Committee—is on the public record. If the Minister cannot give me an answer today, will she agree to write to me and give that figure? She will be aware that the report said that the Department had failed to publish clear figures relating to the small firms merit award for research and technology—the SMART fund—which, given her responsibilities within the Department, must be close to her heart. Exactly how much new money is in the SMART fund?
    Ms Hewitt: I had the great pleasure recently of opening the business park at Nottingham-Trent university, where

    469
    three of the four companies incubated by the university are recipients of SMART fund awards. It is an excellent programme, and its evaluation has shown that it contributes significantly to high knowledge-based start-ups in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "How much money?"] We will be responding in due course to the Select Committee report, and I will announce to the House the full details of the budget for the Small Business Service and the Business Links franchises.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that probably the biggest single barrier to small businesses getting into e-commerce is the cost of getting on-line, and then the cost of local telephone calls? Will she pressurise the Director General of Oftel and the telecoms companies to put together packages to free small businesses from their fear that the meter will be running for 24 hours a day if they have e-commerce and proper links with the rest of the world?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There are a number of barriers preventing small businesses from going on-line, including the lack of skills and confidence. We are addressing that lack through the new local support centres which we are creating as part of the Business Links franchises. However, there is a problem with charges. Although internet access charges at weekends and evenings in this country are among the lowest in the world, the problem of metered charges for daytime, peak-hour access is undoubtedly a barrier, particularly to the small business user.
    I recently met the Director General of Office of the Telecommunications, who confirmed that there is no regulatory barrier to BT introducing new tariff packages to provide cheap or completely unmetered local phone calls to heavy internet users in return for a flat-rate subscription. I am delighted to say that on Tuesday, the Prime Minister announced a new agreement with BT and several other telecommunications companies to provide such a package to further education colleges, citizens advice bureaux and libraries. I very much hope that BT will soon introduce a similar tariff package for other heavy internet users.

    Rural Post Offices
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What plans he has to assist small rural post offices. [95828]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): This Government are fully committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. We will publish access criteria, which the new regulator will have a duty to monitor and which will aim to ensure that everyone in the United Kingdom has reasonable access to Post Office Counter services. We are making a substantial contribution to the costs of automating the counters network; and the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an urgent study on the post office network. Rural post offices may also benefit from the various rate relief schemes mainly funded by Government and administered by local authorities.
    Mr. Robathan: Does the Minister not appreciate the important role that sub-post offices play in rural areas, such as villages in my constituency? Is he aware that
    470
    many rural post offices are facing closure? I recently visited Whetstone and Cosby in my constituency, where sub-post masters told me that they could not go on for much longer without their businesses closing. Is he aware of the damaging effect of the Government's abolition of the benefits card system, which exacerbates the problem? Given his background in the post office union, is he not ashamed of presiding over such a decline in rural sub-post offices?
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is the man who put the hype into hyperbole. As someone who not only represented post office workers, but was a postman for 15 years, I understand the crucial importance of the rural post office network. It is no exaggeration to say that it is part of the country's social fabric. Post offices have closed; the number has decreased by almost 25 per cent. in the past 25 years. As Opposition Members know, the closures are usually due to an inability to find someone to take over. We are looking, for the first time, to set in legislation access criteria that will protect the post office network.
    I remind the House that the Opposition's solution to the problem of retaining the rural post office network was to split the Post Office Counters network—from which 21 per cent. of income is derived—from the rest of the Post Office, leaving it completely separate. The rural post office network is safe in the Government's hands.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: As my hon. Friend said, post offices are crucial to rural areas. However, they should maintain a full range of services. Therefore, is not the guaranteed network system the best way to ensure that they will serve us well into the next century and provide the essential services that people in rural areas need?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend is correct. I remind him of the terms of reference for the performance and innovation unit report on the post office network: to identify the contribution made by post offices to the vitality of local communities; to consider how best the post office network can contribute to the Government's objectives; and to formulate objectives for the post office network. I am taking over from my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) as chairman of the Horizon working group, whose specific job is to identify new areas of work and ensure that post offices can offer even better services to the communities that they serve.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Given that, in 2003, the average sub-post office will suffer a drop of 30 per cent. in its income because benefits will no longer be paid through post offices, we were extremely encouraged during the summer recess when, in response to the announcement that Camelot and the Post Office would act jointly in the next bid for the national lottery, the Secretary of State said that that would be a great help to rural sub-post offices. My understanding is that, under the current regulations, when Camelot puts a till, or a position—
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: A terminal?
    Mrs. Browning: A terminal. I am always grateful for help from the hon. Gentleman, whose views I respect greatly.

    471
    I understand that Camelot looks for at least 3,000 transactions a week from a terminal in a sub-post office. What discussions took place between the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Unless the rules have changed fundamentally, I am mystified as to how small sub-post offices will be helped.
    Mr. Johnson: By 2001, we will have automated 19,000 post offices and 40,000 counters positions, and that will help us enormously. Post office counters are the biggest seller of lottery tickets in the country. We would like to extend that, and during our examination over the next couple of years we will consider how to get more terminals in more post offices so that there are more available to the rural public.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend consider helping rural post offices, as well as urban post offices, by opening a rural bank that may engage people who may not have been able to open an account in the past? That would ensure the long-term future of the post offices, by giving them new work and new moneys. I ask only for consideration to be given to that idea.
    Mr. Johnson: We will consider that. It should be remembered that 65 per cent. of villages in this country have a post office, compared with only 5 per cent. with a bank. If we can automate the network and make it more user-friendly, we can help to preserve those post offices and the communities that they serve. One of the specific objectives of the current review is to extend to the financially excluded the opportunity to have bank accounts and all the advantages that go with them, so that they can draw their benefits either in cash or through an account.

    National Minimum Wage
    Mr. Philip Hammond: What representations he has received from voluntary organisations in respect of the operation of the national minimum wage. [95829]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): My Department has received a considerable number of representations from voluntary organisations. Where appropriate, they have been passed to the independent Low Pay Commission, which is monitoring the national minimum wage.
    Mr. Hammond: During the passage of the national minimum wage legislation, Conservative Members drew attention to some of the potential problems for voluntary organisations and volunteers. The Government rode roughshod over those concerns. Now that the legislation has bedded down and the Government can perhaps afford to be a little less paranoid, will the Minister acknowledge that there is a grey area where volunteering meets employment and that many voluntary organisations are still having difficulties with the legislation as it affects volunteers? Will the Minister ask the Low Pay Commission to conduct a review of the impact of the law on voluntary organisations, volunteers and people with disabilities?
    Mr. Johnson: That is a legitimate area of concern. I am pleased that some Conservative Members have
    472
    moved away from their outright opposition to the minimum wage and are considering some of the problems. The shadow Chancellor, however, said:
    "Scrapping the national minimum wage is absolutely the first thing we would do within five minutes of getting through the door."
    Far from riding roughshod over the representations that we received, we took them extremely seriously. Indeed, this March, we asked the independent Low Pay Commission to examine the situation, especially with therapeutic workers. We are now asking it to examine the matter again. The Low Pay Commission will consider the national minimum wage as it affects people right across the disability groups.
    I want to counter the suggestion that somehow the national minimum wage is not in the interests of the disabled. The Association for Supported Employment said:
    "Disabled workers have gained as much from the introduction of the minimum wage as have non-disabled."
    The National League for the Blind and Disabled said:
    "The minimum wage will ensure added security for our disabled members in employment."
    There are areas for concern, but that should not detract from the enormous benefit that the national minimum wage has brought to all people in this country, especially the disabled.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: Does not all the evidence suggest that the minimum wage is a common-sense policy, good for the economy and good for working people? Did my hon. Friend notice that the Leader of the Opposition, speaking to the CBI this week, continued to characterise it as a burden and something that should be scrapped? What does he think the risks would be to ordinary working people if the Conservatives reversed the minimum wage?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point; under the previous Government 880,000 workers were paid less than £2.50 an hour. We were pleased to see that the first enforcement order for the national minimum wage was made last week on behalf of Mr. Aldred of Bognor Regis—ironically, he lives in the constituency of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb)—who was paid only £1.50 an hour.
    I believe that there is a fundamental change in this country. People recognise that for the first time they have basic minimum civilised standards in the workplace, and a political party that tampers with that will do so at its peril. I have always believed that trying to explain social justice to Conservatives—or rather, to Her Majesty's Opposition, as I should call them—is rather like trying to explain origami to a penguin.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: I think the Minister has misunderstood the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), which was about people who worked for voluntary organisations such as charities. There is a grey area; for instance, in my constituency people who volunteer to drive in and spend the morning in a charity shop have been receiving a small sum to help to pay for

    473
    their petrol. There is a perfectly genuine case for an inquiry. When will such an inquiry be set up, and when will we see a result?
    Mr. Johnson: We do not believe that there is ambiguity. We made it clear that the definition of whether there is an entitlement to the national minimum wage is whether there is a contract of employment. We do not intend to allow a low-paid ghetto to develop around the voluntary sector. We have excluded voluntary workers from the national minimum wage when they are genuine volunteers in complete control of their time, without a contract of employment, and we do not intend to go further than that.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Brian White: What plans he has to improve access to business information, advisory and support services for small businesses. [95830]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): May I congratulate my hon. Friend on single-handedly saving the small business in his constituency that leads the world in the production of vellum? As he knows, we are in the process of establishing the new Small Business Service, which will deliver a number of services nationally and establish a network of franchises to deliver high-quality world-class business support for small and medium-sized enterprises in every part of the country. The new Small Business Service will be established by April 2000, and the network of local franchises will be up and running by April 2001.
    Mr. White: The Minister will be aware that the people running small businesses do not have the time to go and see what is happening in other firms and other industries. Will she assure the House that the Small Business Service will be proactive and go out and give examples of good practice, especially concerning the opportunities provided by the internet? People who run small businesses may not be aware of those, because they are too busy getting on with their job.
    Ms Hewitt: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, I recently launched at the DTI a new interactive benchmarking service to enable any self-employed person, sole trader or small business that is on-line to use the benchmarking service that helps to spread best practice among SMEs.
    At the heart of the Small Business Service will be a single gateway—an electronic network of databases providing information, knowledge and interactive services, which will be accessible by SMEs both directly and indirectly, through the telephone, through local Business Links or trade associations, or through a private sector support organisation.
    Mr. Brian Cotter: In view of a comment the Minister made earlier, will the service be truly accessible to the smallest businesses? Given the comments she has just made about quality, it is important that business advisers should be accredited and properly
    474
    trained. As many hon. Members will know, in the past, people have set themselves up as business advisers with poor qualifications and no real ability to advise.
    Ms Hewitt: I agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, but I am sure that he will agree that there are some outstanding personal business advisers working in the Business Links network. However, the quality of the Business Links service is patchy around the country and we will make it clear in the bidding guidance for the new franchise areas that we expect to see proper training and development, as well as the use of accreditation services for the new Business Links franchise services. We are determined to ensure that the best possible business support services are available in every part of the country to all our small business community.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: What assessment has been made of those small businesses that fail because of the inadequate financial management expertise of their proprietors? Can the Minister assure the House that Government Departments will not be over-zealous in claiming VAT, income tax and national insurance payments when a company has cash-flow problems and that no Government Department will force a small business into bankruptcy when other creditors are confident that, given time, the company may trade out and become profitable?
    Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, because too many owner-managers and self-employed people do not have the basic financial skills that are needed to run an efficient and successful small business. Therefore, part of the service that will be provided through the Business Links franchises will support those people in gaining those basic financial skills. As I am sure that he will be aware, we are reviewing bankruptcy law, in co-operation with the Treasury, to ensure that businesses that could be managed through a period of difficulty into survival and subsequent success are given the chance to achieve that.
    Mr. David Taylor: I welcome my good friend and constituency neighbour to the Front Bench. I also welcome the measures taken so far to help small and medium-sized enterprises by the Government, including the Small Business Service. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that that service will be able to help the microbusinesses—the one-man or one-woman bands—that are so numerous in parts of the midlands? When I last had a proper job, before May 1997, I was an accountant for many such organisations and I know what difficulties they have in grappling with the regulatory burden and updating their trading skills. Will she focus on that issue?
    Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I can certainly assure him that the new Business Links franchise in Leicestershire, as in other parts of the country, will meet the needs of small businesses of all sizes and different stages of development, including the pre start-up or start-up phase through to the high-growth potential companies. The electronic network of information and knowledge to which I referred a moment ago will make it much easier

    475
    and more cost effective for Business Links franchises to provide high-quality support to the self-employed and sole trader as well as the more intensive support that is needed by the high-growth potential companies which have in the past tended to be the clients on which Business Links have focused.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Would not the greatest service that the Government could give to small businesses be to respect their overwhelming opposition to British entry into the single currency? According to the latest ICM poll, that view is shared by 64 per cent. of the population.
    Ms Hewitt: I wondered how long it would be before we heard the true anti-European voice of the modern, extremist Conservative party. Given that half our trade is with our fellow European Union members, withdrawal from the EU would be a disaster for our business community, small and large.
    I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to congratulate the Government on the fact that there have been more business start-ups this year than last year. More small businesses are surviving, fewer are failing, and we have reversed the 1992 situation, when start-ups hit their lowest level in recent years.

    Oil and Gas Industry Task Force
    Miss Anne Begg: What plans he has for further work by the oil and gas industry task force. [95832]
    The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The oil and gas industry task force will move into a new phase in January 2000 to drive forward the initiatives announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in September, when he visited the offshore engineering conference in Aberdeen.
    It is crucial that the momentum created by the very successful task force is not lost. The task force will continue to identify actions, but much of its activity from now on will be to concentrate on the implementation of the conclusions that it has already reached.
    Miss Begg: I am very glad to hear what my right hon. Friend says. I also attended September's exhibition in Aberdeen, so I know that the report from the oil and gas industry task force—which was delivered in quick time—was very well received by the industry. For the first time, oil companies, service companies and contractors are working with the Government and trade unions to find solutions and produce ideas. That work will make sure that the UK continental shelf continues to produce oil and to contribute to the economy of Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland for years to come.
    476
    Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that she will continue the work of chairing the task force which was begun by her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), who is now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office? I wish her well in that task, and hope that the economic well-being of the north-east of Scotland, which stems from the oil and gas industry, will continue.
    Mrs. Liddell: That is a very important point. By its very nature, the shape of the oil and gas industry in the North sea is subject to change. It is therefore very important that the companies involved in the UK continental shelf concentrate on maintaining their global position. The oil and gas industry task force is a classic example of how the Government, working with industry, can address the problems of change in that industry. As a result of the task force's work, it has been identified that an additional 100,000 jobs can be created in a critically important industry that employs a third of a million people throughout the United Kingdom.
    I shall certainly continue to chair the task force and follow the excellent example of my predecessor. From January on, at the request of the industry, the task force will be renamed Pilot, and will concentrate on the new initiatives required for the future.
    Sir Robert Smith: I welcome the greater awareness of the working of the industry that the Government have gained as a result of the work of the task force and the industry. I hope that the Minister will use that understanding to recognise the important part played by those of my constituents whose services are contracted to the industry.
    Will the right hon. Lady use that understanding to make it clear to the Treasury and to the Department of Social Security that those people are not all tax scroungers? They are merely adapting to the modern industry in a flexible way to make it competitive in the world market, and to that end are accepting cuts in income. Will she recognise the damage done by the Government when they failed to recognise that flexibility in the IR35 consultation?
    Mrs. Liddell: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the oil and gas industry, and of the position of contractors. I know too that some tensions have arisen. Some contractors behave totally honourably and legitimately and fulfil their obligations to the Exchequer in the proper manner, but others do not.
    However, it is of particular interest to contractors that we develop an effective supply chain for the oil industry. Indeed, when I launched Logic, the supply chain initiative, in September, it was recognised that the future of the contracting industry depended on an adequate supply chain. The development of technology also depends on a good link between the big players and the smaller contractors.

Business of the House
12.30 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House please give 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 8 NOVEMBER—Conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill.
Supplemental allocation of time motion followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Food Standards Bill.
TUESDAY 9 NOVEMBER—Supplemental allocation of time motion followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
WEDNESDAY 10 NOVEMBER—Until 2 o'clock, there will be the usual debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the House of Lords Bill.
THURSDAY 11 NOVEMBER—The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments that may be received.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for next week's business. Will the right hon. Lady tell us whether there will be oral questions on Thursday, the planned date of prorogation?
Clearly, the Government have a lot of business to complete in the few days that remain of this Session. On Monday and Tuesday of this week, the House finished its business early. We are now confronted with significant congestion, with guillotine after guillotine on important Bills and hundreds of amendments to the badly drafted Greater London Authority Bill. Would it not have been common sense to take the House of Lords Bill on Monday and Tuesday of this week to minimise the rush and chaos next week?
What statements are planned by the right hon. Lady's colleagues? We know that the Chancellor will be making a statement on Tuesday when, hopefully, he will respond to the case made by the road transport industry and get off the fuel escalator. When will we have a proper debate on that statement and on today's damaging Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report, which shows that taxes are rising faster here than anywhere else in Europe?
Will the Home Secretary be making a statement on fox hunting to clarify the confusion there? Will the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be bringing us up to date with progress in lifting the ban on British beef?
We will have completed this Session without the usual defence debate, without a debate on the royal commission on long-term care, without the usual small business debate and with the Government in growing disarray on tax, welfare, beef and hunting, and with their programme in this House in a shambles. In Parliament, this has been not a year of delivery but a year of disaster.
Mrs. Beckett: Whether there will be oral questions on Thursday will depend on the progress of business. It is a matter that can be discussed through the usual channels.
478
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the House rising early and the handling of the Greater London Authority Bill. I accept that there is a substantial number of Government amendments to the Bill, but, as he is well aware, many are in response to concerns that were properly aired and considered in this place, which I am afraid is in no way unprecedented. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about statements planned. It was not clear to me whether he was pressing for fewer statements so that there would be more time to consider amendments, or for extra statements.
Mr. Eric Forth: Both.
Mrs. Beckett: That is typical. In other words, whatever one does not get, one will complain about.
As to what is planned, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) is correct to say that the Chancellor is to make the pre-Budget statement on 9 November, as has already been announced to the House. We will endeavour to keep to a minimum the number of other statements because we believe that that will be helpful to the management of the House and to Members' expectations. There will be a debate on the issues raised by the pre-Budget statement in the debates to follow the Queen's Speech, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that it would be unusual to have a debate immediately after it.
It is not accurate to say, as the Conservative party and the right hon. Gentleman have said, that the OECD report shows that taxes in the United Kingdom are now rising faster than elsewhere in Europe. From memory, I think that nine countries have a higher tax burden than ours. On anyone's measurement, the tax ratio in this country is lower than the Conservatives predicted in their pre-election projections for the handing of our financial affairs. The only way in which the Conservative party can even begin to support the nonsense that its members speak about tax is to include the windfall tax, which funds the new deal, and which is consequently extremely popular.
Mr. John Bercow: It is still a tax.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, it is, but most people would not feel it valid to include it in the figures in the way that the Conservatives choose to do.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Home Secretary would make a statement about how fox hunting will be handled, and my right hon. Friend will make such an announcement when he is ready to do so. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; he will know that discussions continue—
Mr. Forth: It's a shambles.
Mrs. Beckett: The shambles happened when the Conservative party presided over the BSE crisis. Unlike Conservative Members, we have resolved the problem rather than boasting about resolving it while utterly failing to do so. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has consistently kept the House informed and I am sure that all hon. Members will recognise how meticulously he has done so.

479
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that we have not yet debated the Defence White Paper. As has been explained, that is a consequence of the changes required following events in Kosovo. I have told the right hon. Gentleman that I expect an announcement. The Department of Health has said that it hopes to say something about long-term care before Christmas, and I will be happy to schedule a debate on that matter when I can do so.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the lack of the usual small business debate. In fact, that debate was an innovation introduced by the Government.
I completely dismiss the right hon. Gentleman's general comments. This has not been an easy Session; it was never going to be so, given our determination to finish business that has been outstanding for 88 years, namely reform of the House of Lords. We shall complete that business.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Leader of the House initiate a debate, perhaps in the next Session, on the economic situation in the north-east of England? Only this week, 400 jobs have been lost at the last mine to close—Ellington colliery. In the new year, a power station will close with the loss of 300 jobs, and 100 jobs are going at Blyth harbour. Down the road, at Spennymoor, 100 jobs are being lost in the tobacco industry. The situation in the north-east is serious. We seem to be haemorrhaging jobs, but nothing is being done.
Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. News of job losses is always unpleasant, no matter in what industry they occur, and it is particularly difficult when several announcements come together. My hon. Friend will know that the Government try to assist in areas where that happens. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has secured a debate on the coal industry next Wednesday morning. The Government's action on the economy is designed to achieve steady and sustainable growth so that we can deal with issues, such as that which my hon. Friend raises, as they arise. In the debates on the Queen's Speech, we will have an opportunity to focus on a range of issues, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House recall that the Labour party, in its manifesto, said—on the basis of discussions with the Liberal Democrats—that it was committed to reforming the business of the House in order to avoid the sort of nonsense that we face over the next seven days? Does she agree that the lack of any attention to real priority in the organisation of business this week, and the inadequate time that has therefore been allowed for important legislation—not least on matters of concern raised by those on her Back Benches—gives the lie to the idea that any modernisation of the business of the House has truly taken effect? She said that this was an exceptional Session. Can she guarantee that this time next year, we will not have the ludicrous brinkmanship from which we are suffering now?
Mrs. Beckett: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the behaviour of the House of Lords. He talks about a lack of attention being given to priority, but the
480
Government have taken great care in handling priority issues. He suggests that there has been insufficient time, but the record of our debates shows that all the issues that we have still to resolve have received many hours of scrutiny both here and in the House of Lords. I fear that such a backlog or traffic jam at the end of a Session is a feature of our present parliamentary system. That was particularly likely to happen this year, largely because of the time that the Lords spent on the House of Lords Bill. I do not attack that, because it is perfectly acceptable, sensible and reasonable for the House of Lords to spend considerable time discussing its future. The time spent on that has taken time from what would usually have been available for the Government's legislative programme. If one includes the 15 hours in the Privileges Committee, 165 hours were spent on debating Lords reform, of which 111 hours were on the Bill itself. That would have made a serious hole in the time available for discussing any Government's programme, and it has had a knock-on effect. The hon. Gentleman talked about the staging of business this week, but we can only deal with such matters when they come back from the Lords.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Has the Leader of the House studied the report from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Kosovo, which shows that people lack food? Given next week's busy timetable, will she ensure that, if there is no opportunity to discuss it in the House, the appropriate Department will take the lead in ensuring that the cut in food aid, which will cause starvation in Kosovo, is reversed before the aid donors meeting on 17 November?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend has taken a great interest in affairs in Kosovo, has studied the matter closely and undertaken a visit. I am grateful to him for telling me that he might raise the issue. I understand that the Department for International Development is considering the issues in Pristina that he raises, is endeavouring to assess the consequences of the problems that he has identified and will write to him shortly.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Given that the Greater London Authority Bill came out of Committee at the end of March but that the Government did not choose to bring it back for Report and Third Reading until May, despite having had 13 years to consider the legislation, is it fair that Londoners should be asked to take this mountain of amendments in less than two days at the end of the Session?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill came out of Committee in March, but he knows that one outcome of the Committee was that the Government undertook to take on board a great many issues raised there. He also knows that it is a substantial Bill that changes the structure not only of London government but of London transport and other matters. If we compare the time taken on the Bill with that taken on legislation less than a third of its size in, for example, the early 1990s, it is clear that reasonable time has been allotted. No one is happy about so many amendments coming so late, but he is well aware that many are technical. With regard to the time that we have had to consider the matter, he knows better than most that no one spends all their time thinking about a legislative

481
programme the details of which we may be able to consider only two or three years into a Parliament. However, the principles underlying the Bill have been well considered and are being effected.
Mr. David Chaytor: Does the Leader of the House agree that the World Trade Organisation conference in Seattle this month is of enormous importance to the economy and environment of the United Kingdom and globally? Does she further agree that there is increasing public concern about the powers and responsibilities of the WTO and its influences on our everyday life, and that there is little debate and scrutiny of its activities in this House? Will she find time in the near future to debate the implications of the conference in Seattle? If that leads to a new millennium round of trade negotiations, there needs to be a permanent mechanism of scrutiny of the negotiations in the House.
Mrs. Beckett: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view that the trade negotiations in Seattle are extremely important and that the role of the WTO is of great importance and increasingly recognised as such. I agree that it is important to get the balance right, although I take the view that there is merit and benefit for all in an expansion of free trade. My hon. Friend is right to say that the issues are among the many important issues that we do not always find enough time to consider in the House. I remind him, as I reminded someone last week, that we shall be expanding the opportunities for debate with the Westminster Hall meetings in the forthcoming Session, and my hon. Friend may think it worth raising the work of the WTO there. However, I cannot share my hon. Friend's view that we can readily find time to introduce some permanent mechanism for scrutiny of what happens at the WTO over and above that available for scrutiny of Department of Trade and Industry responsibilities.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the speed at which taxes are rising is giving rise to great concern? Will she ensure that the Chancellor deals with that issue head on in his statement on Tuesday?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's analysis, as he will know, but he can be pretty confident—
Mr. Nigel Evans: It is an independent report, not government spin doctoring.
Mrs. Beckett: No, the OECD analysis refers to some relatively out-of-date figures—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says sotto voce that I have not read it, but he clearly has not read it or he would know that the OECD report itself recognises that it refers to figures that are out of date. I think I am right in saying that it uses calendar years rather than financial years, so there is a different basis of analysis, and the OECD makes an important caveat. I expect that Opposition Members do not even know that the OECD has said that the figures that it has produced should not be used to make incautious and invalid comparisons.
482
In answer to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I am confident that he can expect my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to deal with these issues in his pre-Budget report, if only because I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will seek to raise them then.
Shona McIsaac: Will my right hon. Friend use all her influence to arrange for a statement on the recent High Court decision to award compensation to Spanish trawler men? It is yet another example of how Tory hostility to Europe backfires on the British people, not least former trawler men in constituencies such as mine, and in Grimsby, Hull and Fleetwood, who are fighting their own campaign for compensation for the loss of their jobs. There is considerable passion about the issue in my area. Since the High Court decision, I have received some 200 letters about it, so I hope that my right hon. Friend can arrange for a statement.
Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that I can undertake to find time for an early statement, but I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and her strength of feeling and that of her constituents. However, she is uncharacteristically over-generous to the Conservative party. It was not only its hostility to the European Union but its incompetence as a Government that led to the decision to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. James Clappison: Does not the right hon. Lady herself make the point that there is a strong case for a debate on tax, so that we can have a full debate on the whole matter rather than discussing the selective points that she makes? Is she suggesting that an organisation as reputable as the OECD is in the habit of issuing out-of-date reports, based on invalid statistics? Should we not hold a full debate to assess whether we have the fastest rising tax burden in Europe?
Mrs. Beckett: One reason why the OECD is reputable is because it is careful to publish accurate information. The OECD does not say what Conservative Members claim—they have clearly read their lines, but not the OECD report.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate in Government time on the climate change levy before the Government conclude their consultations with industry on that matter, and announce the final shape of the levy? Such a debate would allow all parts of the House to contribute—or to make a final contribution—to the consultation process, and to discuss the persuasive argument that the levy should be flexible enough to distinguish between those sections of manufacturing industry that have been responsible and have reduced energy use, and those that have not.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will have to forgive me, as I cannot immediately recall when the consultation period on the levy ends. However, I can certainly tell him that, as he is aware, in the coming days, there will be opportunities to raise a range of issues. I am sure that he will take the opportunity—as will others—to raise that matter and ensure that it is aired. Even if we are close to

483
the end of the consultation period, he will know that all Governments sensibly take into account the comments and advice that they receive.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate, or for a statement to be made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, early next week, so that we can discuss the Minister's incompetence in giving way to the French, when we had the law and the science on our side? Why did he have to give further concessions to the French? Those concessions are now leading to problems with the negotiations with the Germans. Will he also tell us when he will lift the beef on the bone ban?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry that I cannot undertake to find time for my right hon. Friend to make a further statement on that issue during the next few days, although, of course, if he has a major announcement to make, no doubt he will do so. However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman is whistling in the wind; most people recognise the extreme competence—[Interruption.] I have read the comments of the National Farmers Union, and very forthright they are. For example, Ben Gill stated:
"I do not believe that the timetable we have been looking at for the lifting of the ban has been knocked off course. I am not unhappy with this outcome."
The NFU complains that some Conservative Members are trying to use farmers' experience in order to make a party political point, and it attacks those Members for doing so.
I realise that such a debate will give the Government and my right hon. Friend a chance to remind the House of the incompetence of the Conservatives and the success that he has enjoyed, but he might become swollen-headed if we give him many more such opportunities.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the extra 1.1 million homes recommended for the south-east of England is not Government policy, but merely advice from a panel of inspectors? Will she also confirm that hon. Members will have ample opportunity in the House to raise the concerns of their constituents before the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions reaches his decision, and that they will not need to engage in the cheap, hypocritical point scoring that we heard from Conservative Members yesterday evening?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. Most people who have carefully followed these issues are well aware that the report was not produced by the Government; it was a report to the Government, which the Government will consider and upon which they will pronounce. He is also right to point out that there will be many opportunities for the House to consider the issues raised in the report. It is most important that we do so sensibly—not based on the scare stories put about by the Conservatives.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Given the damning indictment by the OECD report, drawing attention to the fact that, in the first full year of the Labour Government, we saw the biggest tax increase for 16 years, will the Leader of the House please arrange for the First Lord of
484
the Treasury to explain to the House why, according to The Times, he told my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, on 10 March, that
"We have not raised taxes, we have cut them."?
Mrs. Beckett: We have dealt with that issue several times. My right hon. Friend comes to the House every week, so the hon. Gentleman will no doubt endeavour to raise the matter on one of those occasions—unless, in the meantime, he reads the OECD report, in which case, he probably will not.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May I press the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) raised about the World Trade Organisation? In yesterday's Question Time, the WTO was discussed with the Secretary of State for International Development. We have had many oral and written questions and three early-day motions, but we have not had a debate on that important subject. Given that the WTO is due to meet in Seattle on 30 November and that there are massive problems with international trade and the third world, could we have a debate before 30 November?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He might find an opportunity to raise those issues in and around the debates that take place in the new Session. I cannot undertake to provide time for a special debate, although I recognise the importance of his point, and will draw it to the attention of my Cabinet colleagues.
Mr. Bercow: May we have a full day's debate in Government time next week on the Prime Minister's astonishing determination to drag Britain into joining the euro, with a cost that he will not calculate, for a benefit that he cannot quantify, and at a risk to the self-government of the British people that he dare not admit? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the merit of having such a debate now is all the greater because a recent ICM poll, wisely commissioned by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), showed that 64 per cent. of British people oppose entry to the euro? Should not the Prime Minister open a full day's debate in the House and explain his minority extremism, as opposed to the majority common sense of the British people?
Mrs. Beckett: I am tempted to say "no" and sit down, but that would be unfair on the hon. Gentleman, who regularly attends these enjoyable occasions. I shall therefore simply say that I see no call for a full day's debate, let alone in Government time, on the euro in the near future. The Government's approach is quite clear and has been for a long time: we shall act in the national interest. When we judge that it is in the national interest to enter the euro, we shall put the case to the British people and they will make the decision.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the way in which planning applications are considered? Those of my constituents who support the excellent work of the Shaftesbury campaign against McDonald's and who live close to the site where a new takeaway restaurant is planned for the west Harrow part of my constituency are

485
understandably extremely concerned that, because the restaurant is being built on the site of a former public house, it does not require a high level of detailed planning consideration. Given the impact on my constituents and on the excellent Whitmore high school nearby, can I persuade my right hon. Friend to make time for such a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand how great concern can be caused within a constituency when planning issues are being considered, particularly if people feel that the development will have a substantial impact on the quality of their lives. I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate in the House on the matter, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will use his ingenuity to raise it. May I recommend to him the opportunities for debate that will arise in Westminster Hall?
Mr. Forth: The Leader of the House could not possibly—could she—be seeking to avoid a debate on the OECD report? Does she recall the tax bombshell, which turned out to have a much longer fuse than many of us imagined? Now that the facts are in the public domain, however, and an authoritative, impartial source has clearly established that tax levied by this Government has increased and is continuing to increase, surely it is in the Government's interest to set the matter right and to give the House an opportunity to consider it properly? The Government could then set out their version of events and my colleagues and I could explore the OECD's authoritative and impartial account of the steep and continuing rise in taxation on the people and businesses of this country.
Mrs. Beckett: No, I am not worried in the slightest about having such a debate. Indeed, many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would look forward to such an event with considerable relish. We all enjoy contrasting the Conservative party's record of economic management with that of the Government and the Chancellor. However, I fear that we must be denied that treat, at least in the near future, although there will no doubt be an economic debate in the aftermath of the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Is it not a matter of regret that the House has never debated the scandal of the mis-selling of endowment mortgages? Requests for such a debate were made 10 months ago at business questions and have been made repeatedly since, and the matter was raised in early-day motion 881.
[That this House is alarmed at the evidence published in Financial Adviser and The Sunday Times that reveals that more than two million people may have been mis-sold endowment mortgages; notes that leading independent financial advisers stress that endowment mortgages have been unsuitable for virtually everyone for the past 10 years; regrets that the Personal Investment Authority/Financial Services Authority have not already acted despite evidence of widespread mis-selling revealed by the recent mystery shopper exercises by the Consumers' Association and Suffolk Trading Standards; and calls on the Treasury and FSA to launch an immediate investigation into mis-selling and urges them to consider outlawing endowment mortgages, as the
486
United States has done, and to further consider whether compensation should be paid to those who have suffered financial losses.]
Is it not a matter of regret that the House has never debated the scandal of the mis-selling of endowment mortgages? This month, a half a million victims of endowment mis-selling will be told that their premiums must be substantially increased. It is clear that 4 million endowment mortgages have been sold in the interests of the sellers not the purchasers, because they attract up to seven times more commission than repayment mortgages. Is it not right that we should consider this matter? It is commendable that the Government are drawing attention to this scandal, but at the moment they are only barking, and they should now show us that they are determined to bite.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend refers to an issue that has become more clear over the past year. He correctly said that this problem was flagged up much earlier, but the picture was not clear until more recently. There was a mortgage summit last Friday, and the Government are considering, in discussions with the industry, what action should be taken. I cannot undertake to find time for a special debate on the issue in the near future, but I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Evans: Is not one of the reasons why we have one of the fastest-growing tax burdens wasteful Government expenditure? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the future of the Government's annual report? There have been only two editions, and 100,000 copies of the most recent edition were printed but only 8,000 were sold. The Government bought 41,000 copies, and are now prepared to buy the remaining 51,000. That is the clearest example of vanity publishing. It is usually the author who picks up the tab, but, in this case, it is the taxpayer. Will she arrange for a statement to be made, so that this publication can cease to be published?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of wasteful Government expenditure, as it is a matter on which we certainly ought to have, and probably will have, debates in the future. The Conservative party has attacked as wasteful and extravagant the Government's expenditure on the health service, education, the national minimum wage and other matters of much greater interest to the British people than expenditure on the annual report. As for it being a classic example of vanity publishing, I cannot recall the exact figures, but I think that I am right in saying that between 10,000 and 20,000 copies were sold to the general public. If the hon. Gentleman wants an example of what he calls vanity publishing, and one that involved greater cost and less interest, I recommend to him the previous Government's White Paper on competitiveness, which cost about three times as much and sold far fewer copies.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Next week is very congested, but is it possible to squeeze in a statement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—I appreciate that we have just had Trade and Industry Questions—about the objective 2 structural funds and the map that was submitted by the British Government to the European Commission last month? It unfortunately

487
contained an error in that two of the most deprived wards in my constituency were omitted because of a cock-up and an oversight by the regional development agency, which did not consult my authority before submitting the map to the Government office for the north-west. That has enormous ramifications for my area. The European Commission is due to make a pronouncement this month, so the matter is urgent. If we could have such a statement, that would greatly please me, and my hon. Friends who have experienced the same problem.
Mrs. Beckett: Despite my hon. Friend's blandishments, I fear that I cannot undertake to squeeze in such a statement next week. As he said, the report is before the Commission. He raises an important and serious point, and I undertake to draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State, who will no doubt be in touch with my hon. Friend about it.
Mr. Owen Paterson: Rural areas are suffering from the underfunding of public services. The fire service in Shropshire is underfunded by 46 per cent., and the local authority will therefore have to spend more than its standard spending assessment allows.
A recent report by independent experts, commissioned by the Home Office, recommended that sparsity should be taken into account in the distribution of police forces. We have the lowest ratio of policemen to population in western Europe, yet it is proposed that 36,000 new houses should be built in Shropshire. We want houses for the purposes of indigenous growth, but there must be a full debate on the impact of those building plans on publicly funded services that are already stretched to the limit.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are indeed very concerned about the position in rural areas, and that they have taken steps to try to reduce some of the difficulties that became so severe under the Government whom he supported. He will know that we have introduced rate relief for village shops and post offices, invested substantial extra money—£170 million—in rural transport, given extra help to small rural schools, and increased spending on conservation and rural development. He will also know that the Government are committed to introducing a rural White Paper. We are not saying that all problems experienced in rural areas can be overcome overnight, but those developments show that the Government are aware of the difficulties, and are taking steps to redress them.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is the Leader of the House aware that, in October 1998, I asked whether we ought to have a debate on, in particular, the centrality of biotechnology to the Government's science policy—
Mr. Swayne: I remember!
Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
When I asked my question, I bore in mind the fact that real dangers would arise in regard to genetically modified crops and other such matters. I asked a similar question in June. In 1998, the Leader of the House said that such matters were of great importance. She also said that she could not promise me an early debate, and, in that respect, she has been as good as her word. Every hon. Member is
488
now aware of the seriousness and importance of those matters. Will the Leader of the House, 13 months on, try to make room for a Government initiative?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the spirit in which he raised this matter, and for his recognition of the accuracy of what I said to him. I fear that I still cannot undertake to find time for a debate, but I commend to him the sittings in Westminster Hall, and remind him that Cabinet Office questions will take place on Wednesday, when he may find an opportunity to raise the matter again.
Mr. David Chidgey: The Leader of the House may be aware that parents of vaccine-damaged children came to the House yesterday to make representations to Members about their financial plight. She may recall that, under the last Labour Administration, the Vaccine Damage Act 1979 was passed, providing for compensation for parents of children who had suffered 80 per cent. brain damage or more. I am sure that she will agree that a £40,000 one-off payment is hardly sufficient compensation for the lifelong injury that those children suffered. Can she assure me that, at some stage, the Government will find time to revisit that earlier legislation—passed, I think, with the agreement of all Members—and to provide an equitable arrangement for parents and the children whom they care for?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a debate in the near future, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. I think the hon. Gentleman will find that debates about the handling of health care are due to take place in the coming week; he may have an opportunity to raise the matter then, or doing debates on the Queen's Speech.
Mr. Mike Gapes: May we have an early debate on the promotion of this country abroad, and, in particular, on the work of the British Council? In that context, could we find time to congratulate Mr. Stephen Shaw of the British Council on achieving such high international status that he is recognised more widely than the Leader of the Opposition? Could we perhaps arrange a job swap between Mr. Shaw and the Leader of the Opposition, which would enable the British Council to raise its profile in the House of Commons, and enable the Leader of the Opposition to raise his profile abroad?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. All Members from all sides of the House very much value the work of the British Council, and I heartily congratulate Mr. Stephen Shaw. I am not sure what message my hon. Friend's question holds for the future of the Leader of the Opposition—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: He has to worry about a job swap with Michael Portillo.
Mrs. Beckett: I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) talk about a job swap. Indeed, that may be in the Leader of the Opposition's future stars, but not in those of Mr. Shaw.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Has the right hon. Lady read the OECD report on taxation,

489
because her remarks about it did not give me the impression that she had? Will she give the House an honest answer? If we cannot have the debate on taxation that we so evidently need to clarify the position, can we have a debate on honesty in government so that we can probe the Prime Minister on what he meant when he said before the election
"We have no plans to increase taxes at all."?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was made perfectly well aware of the Government's plans when they made their announcements before the general election. We made it plain that we would not raise the rate of income tax and that we would not raise the higher rate of income tax. It is very dishonest of Conservative Members to pretend that we have increased them.
Mr Evans: What about honesty?
Mrs. Beckett: I am about to come to that. Like the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), I believe in honesty in politics and I am perfectly prepared to answer his question. I have read a very thorough and clearly more detailed summary of the report than that seen by Conservative Members.
Dr. George Turner: I was slightly surprised that my right hon. Friend's business statement did not refer to the ping-pong match which, I understand from the media, we are going to play with the other House next week. Have the Government any contingency plans to ensure that, if such a match takes place, the democratic will of this Chamber will win and that we shall not see demob unhappy hereditary peers trying to impose their will on the people of this nation?
Mrs. Beckett: Although we do not use media descriptions such as ping-pong match, the phrase in the business statement
"The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received"
covers such an eventuality.
I hope that all Members accept the supremacy of this elected House. The purpose of the House of Lords is to scrutinise, consider, advise and put a different point of view on some of the issues raised. That is right and proper. However, this House is elected and that is where final decisions should rest. As for contingency plans, I suppose that that is how one could describe our consideration of the House of Lords Bill on Wednesday.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that, according to Government figures in the Treasury Red Book, the share of national income that the Government take in tax has increased from 37 to 41 per cent? That is equivalent to an extra £36 billion a year.
490
Will she arrange for the appropriate Minister to explain to the House why, in the last week alone, two constituents have written to me to say that they have life-threatening heart conditions, but, after months of waiting, they still cannot obtain a firm date for the operation that they need? Can we have a debate about that?
Mrs. Beckett: That is a classic example of the muddled thinking that seems to be so prevalent among Conservative Members. The hon. Gentleman lambasts the Government for, he says, raising too much money in taxation, while calling for more spending on the health service. It is time that the Conservative party sorted itself out and worked out which argument it is putting.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Not surprisingly, the right hon. Lady refused Conservative Members a debate on the Government's increase in taxation. Therefore, before the pre-Budget statement next week, will she make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to come clean with the British people? Despite what she said in her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the Prime Minister promised that he would not increase taxes "at all". We see from the OECD report today that Britain now has the fastest rising taxes. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said to the Prime Minister yesterday, this Government not only increase taxes by stealth, but they are stealthy when it comes to telling the truth.
Mrs. Beckett: First, I remind the hon. Lady that I did not refuse a debate, but refused to undertake to find time next week for such a debate. I also pointed out that there would be opportunities for such debate in the aftermath of the Queen's Speech, and, undoubtedly, also on other occasions. Secondly—on the nonsense of pretending that the Government somehow misled the British people—as I have already pointed out several times today, the only way in which Conservative Members will be able even to begin to justify their allegations—
Mr. Bercow: It is all on the record.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It is all on the record—and the British people are familiar with that record. Contrary to the statements of Conservative Members, the British people know that, for example, the windfall tax—which Conservative Members use as the basis for justifying their figures on tax rises—was more than well publicised before the general election. The notion that the British people did not know that we would levy a windfall tax on utilities to fund the new deal is ridiculous. The tax was one of the reasons they voted for
us.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Thank you. We will move on now.

Points of Order
1.15 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you give us some guidance on the appropriateness of the Minister for Housing and Planning attending our debate on the Greater London Authority Bill in the light of his very prominent political role in the coming mayoral elections? Indeed, the Minister may wish to consider whether his presence is appropriate; whether it might prejudice his position, and that of the candidate to whom he is giving such visible support; and whether the House would think it appropriate for him to be so involved in a crucial stage in the Bill's passage, given his highly prominent and prejudiced position on parts of it.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford)rose—
Madam Speaker: I see that the Minister wants to respond.
Mr. Raynsford: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the House begins to debate the Bill, I think that it would be right for me to make my position clear to the House.
As hon. Members are well aware, on 30 September, I relinquished my responsibilities as Minister for London. On that same day, the Under—Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), became Minister for London and took over lead responsibility for all decisions on London policy, including policy on the Greater London Authority Bill.
Hon. Members will also be well aware that the Bill is very large and complex. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill, will know just how large and complex it is. For that reason, and because of my considerable involvement in the earlier stages of the Bill's passage, I am continuing to have a role in its passage through the House.
I should like, at the beginning of these proceedings, to emphasise that I have not been responsible for decisions on policy on any of the amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill either in this House or in another place since I ceased to be Minister for London.
492
My involvement today is merely to bring my experience and knowledge of the Bill to the House's aid, and to assist the passage of this complex measure.
Madam Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice on how adequate scrutiny could be given to the Bill. Since the Bill's introduction, there have been no fewer than 1,932 amendments to it. Those amendments have been dealt with in two days on the Floor of the House, two days on Report and 120 hours in Committee. We must now deal with 820 amendments. Although, so far, the time available to us to consider them is open-ended, let us imagine for a moment that we shall have only two days to do so. That would allow us precisely 45 seconds to scrutinise each amendment, thereby denying us the type of scrutiny that was allowed on Second Reading and Report. I should be grateful for your advice, Madam Speaker, on how adequate time might be made available.
Madam Speaker: The answer is in the hands of the House itself. I have just taken business questions lasting three quarters of an hour; if there had not been quite so many questions, we could have moved on sooner to consider the main business. The House itself will decide when we move on.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker; I seek your guidance. You have often told hon. Members that you are not responsible for statements that are part of the cut and thrust of political debate, but are willing to attend to inquiries relating to matters of fact. I am very concerned—as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and other hon. Members are—about the statement made by the Prime Minister on 10 March—I quote The Times—that
"We have not raised taxes, we have cut them".
In view of very widespread concern about that flagrant untruth—I am sure that it was accidental—by the right hon. Gentleman, are you able to tell me whether there is any procedure to force the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement about his selective amnesia and inattention to detail, and his proposals to cure those very serious disorders?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Prime Minister will be here on Wednesday to answer questions for half an hour. I would have thought that it was up to the Opposition—and certainly the Leader of the Opposition—to probe the Prime Minister during that period.

Greater London Authority Bill [Money]
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to make loans to the Greater London Authority or any functional body, within the meaning of the Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the National Loans Fund.—[Mr. Hill.]

1.20 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: It is unfortunate to say the least that the Minister failed to seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to explain the nature of this money resolution. Normally, that would be criticised, because Ministers have often failed to do it. However, it is particularly important in this case because the money resolution carries with it significant implications.
I would have thought it a proper courtesy to the House—and essential to the debate—that the Minister explained the background to the money resolution, and gave some indication of the amounts involved. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) wish to intervene?
Mr. Oliver Heald: I was simply on the edge of my seat with excitement at my right hon. Friend's comments.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend ain't heard nothing yet. The complex nature of the money resolution is such that it requires a fuller explanation than we would normally expect.
The money resolution refers to the national loans fund and the public works loans commissioners making loans to the Greater London Authority or any functional body, and to the payment of sums into the national loans fund.
It would have been helpful if the Minister had explained—however briefly—the role that he sees the national loans fund playing in this matter. I would have benefited from a brief explanation of the nature of the fund, its size, where its revenue comes from, and its accountability, as that is all crucial to the money resolution, and therefore to the approval that the Government are seeking.
We are being asked to approve the payment out of an as yet unspecified fund of any sums required. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, and to say that we are content that any amount of moneys may he paid out of the fund. Also, we must have fixed in our minds the work that the commissioners do. I would like to know who they are, who appoints them and to whom they are accountable for the loans that they will make to the GLA.
Two bodies are involved in the provision of considerable sums of money, and I would appreciate some guidance from the Minister on the amounts. I have no idea whether we are talking about £50 million, £500 million or £1 billion passing through the mysterious fund and the hands of the hitherto mysterious commissioners, of whom
494
I know little because the Minister has not enlightened us. They, in turn, will make loans to the GLA. On what basis might loans be made?
Before the money resolution is agreed, it is essential that we be given information about the basis on which public works loans commissioners can make loans to the Greater London Authority. I suspect that we are talking about considerable sums of money, so it is important that we understand the relationship between the public works loans commissioners and the Greater London Authority. Those matters are fundamental to proper consideration of the money resolution, which is more complicated than usual. It involves different bodies, and hints at their possible relationship.
We must envisage the flow of moneys into the national loans fund from an as yet undescribed source—it would be useful to know how the national loans fund obtains its funding and moneys. The fund will, in turn, make moneys available to the public works loans commissioners—again, it is essential to know on what basis. The commissioners will in turn make loans to the Greater London Authority.
In any other circumstances, that would begin to look like money-laundering. Although I do not suggest that that is so in this instance, we require more than the usual perfunctory explanations from a courteous Government and a considerate Minister—with whom, regrettably, we are not faced. The Minister seemed to imply that we should nod through the money resolution without showing us the courtesy of providing an explanation of these complex matters.
Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend has alerted the House to a worrying subject. Are public works loans commissioners possessed of a financial expertise that is denied to mere mortals, or are they simply well-meaning laymen?
Mr. Forth: We need to explore that in this short debate. We need to know more about the fund and the identity of the mysterious commissioners. We want to make a judgment about their competence to deal with large sums of money. I suspect that such sums will be taxpayers' money, but I do not know, because the House has not been informed of the source, prior to the meander through the convoluted process of funds and commissioners, before the money ends up in the hands of the Greater London Authority.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will have studied the matter carefully, and noticed that the money resolution refers to "any functional body". Thus funds will not only flow to the Greater London Authority. We are considering a complicated nexus of relationships between the origin of the funds and the filtration process by which decisions are made about the disposition of the funds. That is more than enough reason for curiosity about relationships between bodies and amounts of money, and about whether we should approve the money resolution, which, in effect, is a blank cheque.
If the Minister had sought to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, he might have been able to allay such fears, simply by providing explanations and so allowing us to move on briskly after that reassurance. However, he has, regrettably, taken a high-handed attitude, which I hope will not set the tone for the next debate.

495
As my hon. Friends have pointed out, we must consider many complex matters in the next debate. It would help the Government to ease the passage of the business if the Minister gave us a succinct but sufficient explanation of each matter, rather than simply expecting the House to nod the business through.
It is an understatement to say that our Committee proceedings were unsatisfactory. The number of Lords amendments makes us even more suspicious that the Bill has been grotesquely mishandled and mangled and that it is effectively now a new Bill, in which case we will have to scrutinise it even more closely than we might otherwise have done.
I am trying to give the Minister some guidance on how to ease the Bill's passage through the House; but before we get to all that, I hope that he will tell us more about the money resolution.
1.30 pm
Mr. Peter Brooke: As he so often did in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) spoke with such eloquence and comprehensiveness that there is little left to say in support, but I have one observation that reinforces what he said.
At business questions, the Leader of the House referred to the large number of technical amendments which, she sought to argue, excused the fact that we were confronted with 193 pages of Lords amendments that we have two days at most to consider. We all sympathise with the new Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for having had to cope with this welter of paper since 30 September. His Back Benchers clearly have confidence in him, for they are not present. His predecessor, now the Minister for Housing and Planning, cannot be invisible in the normal manner of prompters on a stage and is therefore rather conspicuous.
By not speaking to the money resolution, the Minister has demonstrated that what is clearly a technical element of the business for today and Monday will not be explained to us by Ministers. If that is a presentiment for the rest of the two days, some of us, I am afraid, may get slightly impatient before we are through. I very much hope that the Minister will respond fully to the questions that my right hon. Friend has raised, not least because the climate of the rest of our considerations will be a great deal better if he does.
1.32 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: There are some genuine questions to be answered before we decide whether to vote for or against the amendments. I do not like deciding what to do first and trying to work out what the Bill means afterwards. I am unhappy with any suggestion from any Government of whatever political persuasion that we should create a new tier of bureaucracy, which will undoubtedly add to costs, without being told where there will be compensating savings by reducing bureaucracy somewhere else. The House should never authorise any additional expenditure without being crystal clear about what control Parliament has over it.
Will the Minister please put a figure to what he considers to be the meaning of "any sums required"? If so, we can double it and know that we are somewhere near the truth. What will the money be used for?
496
Where will it come from? When the Government were considering the supposed benefits of the authority, what attention was paid to the cost of obtaining those benefits? Some sort of cost-benefit argument is absolutely crucial.
Where will the savings come from to be set against what we are being asked to authorise? What power will Parliament have to scrutinise and control the spending? What control and scrutiny will there be by the GLA itself, what by the mayor, and what by the Treasury? Those are genuine and necessary questions, and we must have answers to them before we vote on the technical matters that follow.
1.35 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: I associate the Liberal Democrats with what has already been said. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has raised some important points, and it is incumbent on the Minister to explain to the House why the money resolution is needed.
1.36 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I feel well and truly chastised by the observations made by Opposition Members. Yet all was done with the best of intentions. I rather expected something to be said on the subject, so it seemed only right to listen to the questions so that I could more properly answer them. It is exactly those questions, as posed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and others, that I now propose to answer.
A money resolution is needed to authorise the issue out of the national loans fund of sums required by the public works loans commissioners to make loans to the GLA or any of its functional bodies. It will also cover consequential payments by the commissioners into the fund.
As bodies whose capital finances are regulated under part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the GLA and its functional bodies have power to borrow from the public works loans commissioners. The commissioners can lend money at rates that are often below those obtainable in the market.
Section 3 of the National Loans Act 1968 makes provision for the funding of loans made by the commissioners out of the national loans fund. The commissioners are empowered to make loans to precepting authorities. The GLA will be a major precepting authority, so the commissioners will be able to lend money to them. Lords amendment No. 169 would amend the National Loans Act 1968, which specifies bodies to which the commissioners can make local loans, to allow them to lend money to the functional bodies, which are neither local nor precepting authorities.
Mr. Forth: Where does the national loans fund get the money from?
Mr. Hill: I propose to come to that point in due course. It was an issue that the right hon. Gentleman raised, and I shall answer it in the proper order.
It is most important that the GLA and the functional bodies should be able to obtain funds for their capital programmes from the public works loans commissioners.

497
That will ensure that those bodies can achieve the best value in borrowing for capital purposes by providing them, in common with all other local authorities, with an alternative to borrowing at open market rates.
Questions were asked about the identity of the public works loans commissioners. They are appointed by the Treasury, by royal warrant under the Public Works Loans Act 1946, on the advice of the Prime Minister in consultation with the Chancellor. The current commissioners are listed in the 124th annual report of the Public Works Loan Board, published by HMSO this year, a copy of which is in the Library.
However, before the right hon. Member for Bromley hastens—
Mr. Forth: Bromley and Chislehurst.
Mr. Hill: I am sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Before he hastens to the Library to check that information, may I deal with the other questions raised by Opposition Members?
I was asked how much money was involved. That entirely depends on how much the functional bodies wish to borrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—and on how much the public works loans commissioners decide to lend. How will it be spent? It will be spent on the public purposes defined by bodies such as Transport for London, the London development agency and others. Those functional bodies, and the GLA, can borrow up to the amount for which they have credit approvals available.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, having been a distinguished education Minister in his time, will undoubtedly have dipped into the national loans fund from time to time. As a former Minister, he will certainly know that the functional bodies to which such loans are granted have credit approvals available. Such credit approvals as are available are subject to the scrutiny of Ministers. Indeed, they are dependent on ministerial approval. I hope that that answers the question.
Mr. Bercow: I am perplexed by the explanation the Minister has just given. Can he confirm whether a local
498
authority, such as Lambeth borough council, in whose area he represents the Streatham constituency, would be eligible to apply for such loan assistance? If it would, does he agree that that would be a legitimate source of anxiety to thousands of law-abiding taxpayers, because that council has an almost unrivalled capacity for spending money like confetti in a wholly irresponsible fashion that a Conservative authority would not allow?
Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that I have the honour and privilege of representing the south of Lambeth, an area which he represented briefly in the early 1990s. Under the Bill, there is no question of a local authority taking such a loan. However, in answer to the broader question, I confirm that £6 billion a year is lent to local authorities by the PWLB and the outstanding debt is currently about £45 billion.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of the National Loans Fund of any sums required to enable the Public Works Loans Commissioners to make loans to the Greater London Authority or any functional body, within the meaning of the Act; and

(b) the payment of sums into the National Loans Fund.

Sir Sydney Chapman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the business statement earlier today, the Leader of the House said that next Monday's business would include the remaining consideration of the Lords amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill, followed by the guillotine motion on another Bill. She did not say when she intended that the guillotine should fall on the first Bill. It would be helpful to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members if we were told whether it will be at 7 o'clock or 10 o'clock. Whichever it is, it is a scandalously short time in which to examine 820 amendments.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We cannot pursue business questions at this stage in the afternoon and we must proceed with the matter before the House.

Greater London Authority Bill [Ways and Means] (No. 2)
1.42 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision for or in connection with the imposition of charges to corporation tax (including corporation tax on chargeable gains) on bodies or persons to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred or granted by or under the Act.
This is a technical matter, but, lest I should be misinterpreted, I shall briefly explain for the benefit of the House why it is required. It is needed to authorise the tax-neutral transfer of property, rights and liabilities being made under the Bill. We will consider the clauses that will effect the transfers in the course of our consideration.
1.43 pm
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, when I hear someone talk about a tax-neutral transfer, it suggests to me that tax will be payable although it will be the person receiving whatever is transferred who pays it, rather than the person making the transfer. Even though the transfer is described as tax-neutral, somebody will have to pay tax. How much tax are we talking about? Someone must have worked out what will be transferred, so it would be helpful to know how much tax will be due. I assume that the tax to be paid will be corporation tax at the normal rate that all businesses pay, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that. Then we will know roughly how much somebody will have to pay.
As I understand it, when the resolution refers to "bodies or persons", it is talking about public bodies and public persons, although I am not sure what a public person is. In any case, the activity will take place in the public sector. If I am correct, the public body or public persons who have to pay the corporation tax once they have assumed the liability will have to get that money from somewhere. Again, I would be most grateful if the Minister would confirm that, once the bodies or persons have been given a tax liability, they will have some form of precepting power—that is, that once they know how much tax they must pay, the bodies or persons will send the matter back to the GLA, which will raise council tax to meet the bill.
If my analysis is correct, will the Minister say how much extra council tax will be payable by the people within the GLA area, so as to give effect to the resolution, when and if the House passes it?
Mr. Forth: Although in one sense I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for taking the initiative and giving the briefest of explanations about this rather complex matter, I am also rather puzzled. That same Minister told us earlier that he was here only in some slightly odd advisory capacity, that he was no longer the Minister responsible for the substance of the measure that we are considering today, and that he had no knowledge of or input into the amendments tabled today. I am therefore surprised that he has come to the Dispatch Box
500
and purported to explain to the House elements of a Bill for which he has no responsibility and to which he has made no recent input.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend paints a very depressing picture of the Government's lack of respect for the institution of the House of Commons. If the Minister's position is as my right hon. Friend has described, is he not about as much use to our deliberations today as a bicycle without a wheel?
Mr. Forth: My point is that I am genuinely confused about today's proceedings. The Minister did us the courtesy earlier of explaining why he was not responsible for the Bill and how he had had no part in the amendments under consideration. Now, however, he appears at the Dispatch Box as a Minister of the Crown and explains a key element of the Bill to the House.
We must get clear in our minds the relationship between the two Ministers—the Minister for Housing and Planning, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—who are now sitting on the Front Bench. Who knows what about what, and who does not? Who has responsibility for what, and who has not? As I pointed out earlier, the Minister for Housing and Planning is playing a key role in a political campaign outside the House, on behalf of someone who has a direct interest—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must make it clear to the House how his remarks relate to the Ways and Means resolution.
Mr. Forth: That is quite simple. The Minister for Housing and Planning was the Minister who tried to explain the Bill when he set out his role today. I am offering him the chance to give a final explanation to the House before he resorts to silence—but I see that the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) wants to tell us.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that we spent 100 hours considering the Bill in Committee? He contributed to many of those hours. At the end of our deliberations, my hon. Friend the Minister received unanimous congratulations from members of the Committee on the way in which he had conducted proceedings.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention also does not relate to the matter before the House.
Mr. Forth: I shall conclude by saying that, if the Minister for Housing and Planning replies to the debate, he should clarify his position. That would enable you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the rest of us, to judge the weight that we give to his comments in the context of this Bill.
Mr. Raynsford: I had thought that I made my position clear in my earlier statement to the House, but perhaps I should repeat it for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Since 30 September, all responsibility for policy matters relating to the Bill, including new amendments tabled since that date, rests with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. However,

501
as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, I have been associated with the Bill for most of its existence, including the many hours of debate devoted to it in the House and in Committee. Given the size and complexity of the Bill, it seemed sensible—and courteous to the House—to make available that expertise and experience in this debate.
Modesty has never been one of the greatest characteristics of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but I must tell him that we are dealing today with issues that were clear as points of principle when the Bill was first published.
Essentially, we are dealing with transfers from public sector bodies. The purpose of the resolution is to ensure that simply because of reorganisation within the public sector, a liability for tax does not arise that would not have arisen if the previous public sector framework had existed. As I said, we will deal with each of the individual transfers when we come to them.
An illustration may be helpful. One obvious area is transfers from English Partnerships or the Commission for New Towns to the London development agency. Because of English Partnerships' role in reclaiming land and encouraging development, when that land is sold it will have a liability to pay tax on the proceeds, but it can offset against that the cost of reclamation and other work. Lords amendments Nos. 522 and 525 will ensure that any expenditure incurred by English Partnerships or the Commission for New Towns in developing assets such as land for reclamation or regeneration can be offset against any tax payable on the proceeds of sale of that land by the LDA. That is the point—to achieve a tax-neutral position, which would exist but for the fact that a new public sector framework had been created.
There is no sinister purpose—it is a policy objective that was clear from the outset, when I was responsible for the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will accept that it is proper for me to answer on that point.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Greater London Authority Bill, it is expedient to authorise the making of provision for or in connection with the imposition of charges to corporation tax (including corporation tax on chargeable gains) on bodies or persons to which property, rights or liabilities are transferred or granted by or under the Act.

Orders of the Day

  Greater London Authority Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  1.53 pm
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 10, 12 to 14, 168, 169, 204, 206, 207, 232, 515, 555 to 557, 740 and 794 which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

  Greater London Authority Bill
    Clause 2

      MEMBERSHIP OF THE AUTHORITY AND THE ASSEMBLY
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
      ("; and
      (c) the holding of an election for Mayor in the event of a vote of no confidence in accordance with section 14(d) below")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 6 and the Government motion to disagree.
      Mr. Raynsford: We are dealing with impeachment, which was debated at great length in earlier stages in this House and in the other place. The key issues are, first, the separate role of the mayor and the assembly in the new structure of governance that we have created in London, with a division of powers between an executive mayor and an assembly performing essentially a scrutiny function. The second key issue is what checks are in place to ensure that the mayor exercises those powers responsibly and properly. The third is procedures for removal from office of a mayor if he or she is guilty of wrongdoing.
      The amendments would allow the assembly to dismiss the mayor if 19 of its 25 members voted to impeach him or her. Essentially, that would make the mayor subordinate to the assembly and it would change the structure of the new authority created by the Bill. We debated the subject at length and the Government made it clear why such proposals were unacceptable. Essentially, they would allow the mayor to be removed as a result of a political action by the assembly, which was never the Government's policy intention. We believe that that would be wrong.
      Mr. Simon Hughes rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I will give way in a moment, but want to make a little progress first.
      The mayor and the assembly members will have different mandates and roles. The mayor will be a directly elected executive and the assembly will be there to

      503
      scrutinise the exercise of his or her executive powers. Potentially, just over 5 million people could vote for the mayor. It seems astonishing that someone who could be elected by 5 million people should be liable to be removed by the votes of only 19 people, who are elected under a totally different mandate.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I have already said that I will give way to the—
      Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have heard the Minister's explanation of his role here today. We are dealing, however, with a matter that bears directly on the position of a future mayor of London under the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is the campaign manager for an aspirant to that office. Is it correct—is it proper—for the hon. Gentleman to deal with a matter that relates directly to the role of a future mayor of London? It strikes me as not only inappropriate but possibly improper.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The matter being dealt with is a matter of public policy, and any Minister is entitled to deal with it.
      Mr. Raynsford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can quite understand why the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is concerned about the possibility of a mayoral candidate being subject to impeachment procedures, considering the candidate that his party has chosen. Let me make it clear that I am talking about the principles of the Bill, which I defended in the Chamber and in Committee on many occasions. The right hon. Gentleman was well aware of my position during those debates, and it is exactly the same today as it was then. To suggest otherwise is absurd.
      If, after four years in office, a mayor no longer commands the confidence of the people of London, it is for the people of London to remove that mayor. That is the framework that we have put in place, and it is the right democratic framework.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: When the Minister's responsibilities included London, some three months ago, he circulated a consultation paper for which he had written the preface. It included these sentences:
      "The election of a Mayor and Assembly for London fulfils the Government's commitment … Londoners will choose the Mayor whose policies match their needs and aspirations, and Assembly members who will work with the Mayor and hold him or her to account."
      How can the Assembly hold a mayor to account if its members have no sanction by which to get rid of him?
      Mr. Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, the Assembly has a number of sanctions.
      Mr. Hughes: Not to get rid of him.
      Mr. Raynsford: It has a number of sanctions. However, we do not propose that its members should be able to override the democratic mandate of the people of London who have separately elected the mayor. The Liberal Democrats never accepted that distinction,
      504
      because they believe in a more traditional, old-fashioned style of local government, in which the leader is elected from among the elected members of the authority. We debated at length why that system was not appropriate, why there should be separate mandates and why the mayor of London should be elected by all 5 million Londoners—or, at least, by all those who choose to vote out of the 5 million who are eligible. Those votes determine who shall be the mayor; they shall determine if the mayor should no longer serve as mayor.
      As I have already stressed, the Assembly has considerable powers—to scrutinise, to highlight weaknesses and, ultimately, to adjust the budget, which will have a profound effect on the mayor's ability to deliver his or her programme.
      Mr. Hughes: How does the Minister think that the Members of the European Parliament, who are directly and democratically elected by the people of the European Union countries, would feel if they were told that they had a right to hold the members of the European Commission to account—a commission appointed by Governments elected democratically—but no right to get rid of them if it was thought that they were not doing their job properly?
      Mr. Raynsford: That is a curious and completely inapposite parallel, because the European Commission is not elected. We are talking about a framework within which the mayor of London is elected by the votes of 5 million Londoners. It would be quite inappropriate for the people of London to elect a mayor one day and be told the next that the person whom they had elected was put out of office because a majority of three quarters in the Assembly did not like that mayor. That would be preposterous.
      If the amendment were accepted, a mayor could be elected who was extremely popular but whose party had little or no support in London and, because of the way in which elections take place, the parties that gained three quarters of the Assembly seats on the same day as the mayor was elected could vote that mayor out of office the following week. That would be nonsense, and it would show contempt for the people of London, but it would be the consequence of accepting the amendment. That is one reason why we ask the House to disagree with the Lords amendment. I give way to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who was a member of the Standing Committee.
      Mr. John Wilkinson: If the mayor were found to be corrupt or to be acting improperly or abusing his office, especially early in his term, it would be wholly wrong for him to be able to continue, notwithstanding a two-thirds vote against him in the Assembly. How could the people of London bring him into account in such circumstances? Is there no mechanism for that other than rioting in the streets or civil disobedience?
      2 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: I agree that if the mayor acted corruptly, were convicted of an offence or adjudged incapable or unfit to hold office, he should be removed. That is the exactly what the Bill provides. If the mayor is convicted of an offence and a sentence of more than three

      505
      months' imprisonment is passed on him or her, is adjudged bankrupt or disqualified under part II of the Representation of the People Act 1983 or under section 17 or 18 of the Audit Commission Act 1998, he or she is disqualified from office. As hon. Members know, those circumstances are analogous to those that apply elsewhere in local government. Such provision is right and proper, but it is a different matter to suggest that a body elected on a separate mandate should have the power to remove someone elected by the people of London whom they simply dislike. I should have thought that Opposition Members would be only too well aware of the unfortunate consequences of going down that route.
      At the end of last year and the early months of this, we saw an extraordinarily banal process develop on the other side of the Atlantic. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) uses a rather unparliamentary word.
      Mr. Edward Davey: I said "crass".
      Mr. Raynsford: I misheard the hon. Gentleman and I am delighted that he has clarified the matter. The American Senate's impeachment of President Clinton was crass and demeaning for the whole democratic process on the other side of Atlantic, as the people of America now know. It was a crude, partisan attempt to replace a president on essentially trivial and trumped-up grounds. That is exactly the process that would apply if we accepted this amendment.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: Quite right.
      Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that it is in the interests of democracy that a mayor elected with the support of the people of London could be removed by a partisan group of people from other parties who happen to gang up in a political conspiracy against him? That is what happened in America. It was demeaning to American democracy and we will not import it into our democratic structures.
      Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman may believe that it was crass and not like the idea that America has a democratic system that allows impeachment, but does he believe that it would have been better if President Nixon had remained in office?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, because I believe that the impeachment was justified in those circumstances.
      Mr. Woodward: Pick and choose.
      Mr. Raynsford: It is not pick and choose. I was comparing the case of a president who had committed clear wrongdoing on a major scale and attempted to cover it up with that of a president who acted in a way that was below the highest standards of conduct but had not diminished his ability to do his job. It was the partisan conspiracy against the President because of his sexual behaviour, irrespective of his ability to perform the functions of President, that made the process look demeaning and inappropriate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it would be utterly wrong if a
      506
      mayor of London elected by a majority of people in this capital city were subject to impeachment procedures and removed from office simply because three quarters of the Assembly did not like his sexual behaviour. That is the parallel, and I hope that he will answer my point.
      Mr. Woodward: The parallel that the Minister raises is a good one. I ask him again about the case of President Nixon. If the process of impeachment and hearings did not exist in the United States, how does he believe that President Nixon would have been dealt with? Or does he believe that it would have been better for him to continue in office?
      Mr. Raynsford: As I said, I believe that in that case the process was appropriate, but, in the case of President Clinton, it was abused. We believe that on the whole the safeguards in the legislation provide a bulwark against wrongdoing by a mayor. Sanctions are provided through the control of the budget to ensure that the mayor does not pursue policies at variance with the interests of the people of London. We do not believe that it would be in any way right to allow a mayor to be removed from office simply because three quarters of the members of the Assembly elected under a different mandate happened to disagree with him or her. None of the Opposition Members have answered that point.
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: I will give way in a moment to the hon. Gentleman, who was an assiduous member of the Committee and led for the Opposition, but I put it to him that the Opposition have not answered the point that the procedure agreed by the other place would allow a mayor democratically elected by the people of London to be removed on the say so of 19 people elected on a separate mandate, who could be acting for purely perverse, partisan purposes. That would be the consequence of the amendment, and it would be wrong. Unless Opposition Members can answer that point, they have no case.
      Mr. Ottaway: Does the Minister accept that there is a zone somewhere between his mandate, as he calls it, and the provisions of the Bill in which someone convicted and sentenced to less than three months imprisonment would be disqualified? In this Parliament, Ministers have resigned as a result of an error of judgment on Clapham common. Ministers have resigned because they have offshore funds. I am talking about the former Paymaster General. Ministers have resigned because they failed to declare loans taken from building societies. None of those things resulted in convictions or sentences of up to three months. There must be a. way in which someone who makes such errors of judgment can be called to account, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said.
      Mr. Raynsford: As I have already said, the mayor will be called to account. He will be liable to scrutiny in the monthly Assembly meetings. His or her budget will be subject to approval by the Assembly. If the Assembly has a two-thirds majority, it can override the mayor's budget. If the mayor is absent for a period without good reason he can be removed from office. If he is guilty of offences,

      507
      is bankrupt or is disqualified under other legislation, he can be removed. Those are important safeguards. They provide the necessary framework of accountability. To do otherwise is to confuse the two mandates—the mandate given to the mayor by the vote of all Londoners as against the mandate given to members of the Assembly either by the constituencies or at large for members of the Assembly.
      Mr. Edward Davey rose—
      Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee.
      Mr. Davey: It is interesting that the Minister cites in his defence the impeachment process in the United States. When we raised that in Committee to support our argument for accountability, the Minister said that the case was not relevant. He seems to have changed his tune. Can he cite one example of a mayoral system—not a presidential system—in another country in which there is no democratic safeguard between elections?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman's comment is preposterous. He proposes not a democratic safeguard but a means to ensure that the mandate of one group of people can overrule another. I accept that he does not understand our framework. He was always committed to a different one, with which the Liberal Democrats are more familiar, in which all members of a council are elected together and one is elected from within that number to be leader. We have rejected that system. We have gone for an alternative model of a separation of powers. In that model, it is right that the mayor, who has the executive power should be subject to scrutiny by the Assembly. It is not right that the mayor can be removed by the Assembly because the two have different and distinct mandates.
      I made it clear in Committee—I remember it only too well—that the procedures in America made a mockery of the process of impeachment and provided a good reason why we should not adopt such a model for London.
      Mr. John McDonnell: We must acknowledge that, as we are introducing a new system, there is genuine concern about the concentration of so much power into the hands of one individual. At present, there are relevant parts of other measures and of this one that can overcome the problem of the mad and the criminally bad, but there is also the difficulty of the zone of differences that has been mentioned. I do not want to enter into discussion of the problems of the gradations of bizarre sexual practices, or whatever.
      However, if there are gradations of unacceptable behaviour and if the mayor's behaviour leads to public opprobrium, such matters need to be dealt with, although not necessarily in this Bill. If the mayoral system is to be developed under measures to be introduced in the next Queen's Speech, perhaps we could address those matters at that time, or we might review them after five years—the first period of office for the mayor of the Greater London Authority that will be elected in May next year.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's reservations as to the model that we proposed; he has expressed his concerns. We have tried to establish a framework under which the mayor can act effectively.
      508
      We want a model for effective city governance, but we are also determined that such governance should be accountable. The framework ensures openness on a scale that no one could possibly criticise. The mayor will be subject to intense scrutiny at all times; his or her actions will be transparent, and will be examined in detail by members of the Assembly. I have already referred to the safeguards; it would be tedious for me to repeat them.
      Mr. Wilshire: It may make the Minister somewhat nervous when I tell him that I have a little sympathy for the point that he made as to the perverseness of some actions. However, what we are hearing are arguments for limiting the power of impeachment—not for making it impossible. Will he consider tabling an amendment that increases the number from 19 to 20 or 21, or that tries to define the perverse reasons when impeachment should not be used? The grey area to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) referred is absolutely crucial: there are some actions that are politically unacceptable; they fall short of being criminal, but they are not perverse. Will the Minister consider an amendment, rather than saying that there should be no impeachment?
      Mr. Raynsford: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. During our considerations in Committee, at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress, we explored several different options, tabled as amendments. Some of those proposed that there could be petitions from the people of London to remove the mayor—a large number of signatures being sufficient to trigger that. We decided that it would be difficult to verify a large number of signatures in such a way as to give confidence. We discussed different permutations of the maximum number of people who might be required to sign or agree with an impeachment motion so as to make it effective. Our conclusion was that all those proposals were defective and that the danger of abuse of the system—simply to put out a mayor on a partisan vote—was such that it was better to leave the original framework that was in the Bill. That was our judgment at that time; it remains our judgment today.
      As I have said, the mayor will be subject to intense scrutiny, and his or her actions will be constantly reviewed—not only by the Assembly, but by the London media. The people of London will have every opportunity to make their views known. Furthermore, a mayor who is running into difficulty, and does not have a popular mandate, will be extremely vulnerable when the Assembly scrutinises his or her budget. That will be the Assembly's key sanction against a mayor who strays into territory—I accept that it is possible—where he or she has not acted in a way that is outright criminal, but where
      his or her actions appear not to be in the interests of the people of London. In that case, the Assembly will have the sanction to take measures—through control of the budget—to amend the mayor's policies. That is the safeguard. The people of London have the right to remove the person whom they entrust with the job of mayor. That is the ultimate democratic sanction, which can be properly exercised only by the same group who have the right to elect the mayor in the first place.
      2.15 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister explain to the House why, during discussion of measures introduced by his Government on the effect of a vote of no confidence in the Scottish Parliament, this Parliament decided that a majority in favour of such a vote against the First Minister of Scotland—the Executive of Scotland—would be sufficient for the First Minister to resign?
      Mr. Raynsford: I put two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, that what he describes is not impeachment, and, secondly, it is a separate matter because it involves the Scottish Parliament. We believe that there should be different provisions for different tiers of government. What we propose in London is unique. We have not done it before. The hon. Gentleman may not like it; he made it pretty clear throughout the previous debates that he and his party do not want a mayor—they want the old, traditional local government pattern, with everyone
      elected and the leader being elected in the way that has been done for time immemorial.
      I am sorry, but we disagree. We believe that that is not the right way forward for London, where we want a radical and innovative framework that allows the mayor to be directly elected, so that he or she can exercise the type of power and influence that directly elected mayors elsewhere in the world are able to exercise in the interests of their cities. If hon. Members consider the way in which effective mayors, throughout the world, have transformed their cities and have made a difference, they will understand why we have introduced these measures. The intervention made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is a throwback to the old Liberal Democrat style of doing things.
      We are moving forward; we are setting up a new structure of government. Our proposals provide for transparency and accountability. There are safeguards; and there is an appropriate disciplinary framework. I do not believe that the impeachment procedures that were added to the Bill in another place could operate without the gravest risk of abuse. That would bring the whole exercise into disrepute, in the same way as occurred in the United States. I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.
      Mr. Woodward: This is an extremely important matter. The consequence of a vote of no confidence in the mayor would be very serious, as the Minister acknowledges. Such a power should not be used lightly. However, Conservative Members take the view that we should trust those who have been democratically elected to the Assembly to exercise their responsibilities with seriousness and due diligence, and that we should trust them in this important matter of impeachment. It is a huge power; it is a significant demonstration of our trust in those whom London will elect next May to exercise that power diligently. We believe that we should trust the Assembly members, who will have been democratically elected, and that the Minister is wrong not to trust them to behave suitably.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have listened carefully to the debate. How does the hon. Gentleman define the word "diligent"? It is a wonderful
      510
      field for legalese. I can picture litigation ad nauseam in the divisional court on that one point. I suggest that it is not a solution.
      Mr. Woodward: That there is difficulty in defining "diligent" is no reason not to trust that people will exercise diligence.
      We look forward to hearing the views of hon. Members on the important subject of the amendment. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Members for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) have decided not to be in Chamber this afternoon. I would have thought that a debate on a Bill to set up the institution that they want to lead would be an occasion on which they could take time out of their busy schedules to turn up at the House. However, perhaps they have received advice from the Minister for Housing and Planning, whom we are delighted to see in the Chamber this afternoon—if only in his capacity as the campaign manager for one of the candidates.
      Mr. Gapes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether Lord Archer is also in the House at this time?
      Mr. Woodward: It is significant that the hon. Gentleman does not realise that Lord Archer sits not in this House but in another place. However, we hope that the hon. Gentleman will catch up with the movement of history as the afternoon continues.
      Mr. Gapes: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Lord Archer is sitting up in the Gallery watching us?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. First, it is not right to refer in that way to Members, or anybody in other places, who might be present outside this Chamber. Secondly, those remarks are straying far from the subject of the debate.
      Mr. Woodward: This Bill is about the future of London—our city. The mayor's responsibilities are great and, for the sake of London, a mechanism should be enshrined in the Bill that can effect the mayor's dismissal. Of course, it must be fair to the mayor, to the Assembly and, above all, to the people of London. Although we hope that the power would not need to be exercised, it would be a mistake to assume that there could never be circumstances in which the Assembly would lose confidence in the mayor and which would therefore give rise to a motion of no confidence.
      We are concerned about the principle of the amendment. We have legitimate concerns about the provisions for impeachment but, realistically, the two are related. In considering the amendment, we must ask what sort of circumstances could cause the Assembly to lose confidence in the mayor. To assume that that could never happen is to ignore the lessons of history. For that reason, we find it difficult to agree with the response by Ministers in another place to reject that procedure. At best, it is baffling and, at worst, foolish.
      The Government have needed to revise dramatically their original proposals, which is why today we begin a debate on more than 800 Government amendments to the original Bill. Given that the first draft of the Bill was

      511
      inconsistent and technically flawed, and that the Government have already given very poor consideration to major parts of the Bill, it would be arrogant of them to assume that they might not need to give proper consideration to this amendment. It is remarkable that such a long and complex Bill does not include the power to dismiss the mayor through a vote of no confidence.
      In another place, the noble Lord Whitty defended the Government's decision not to give the Assembly powers to dismiss the mayor by saying that the Opposition had misunderstood the nature of the Assembly and the mayor. He said that giving the Assembly the power to sack the mayor would make the Assembly's mandate
      "in some sense superior to that of the mayor."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 1999; Vol. 604, c. 231.]
      We believe that his interpretation is flawed. Like assemblies throughout the world, the London Assembly must serve as a check on the Government. Where appropriate, it should also serve as a check on the mayor. There should be a mechanism to redress both the conduct and the power of the mayor, if that power appears to have been abused. The alternative is simply to make the mayor untouchable.
      The Government say that the mayor could be unseated in a "frivolous" act by the Assembly, or for the
      "crime of being momentarily unpopular."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 1999; Vol. 604, c. 231.]
      In an Assembly of 25 men and women elected under proportional representation, almost all parts of the Assembly would have to be united in opposition to the mayor under those proposals. The suggestion that that could happen for a frivolous act or for being momentarily unpopular is, therefore, remote—even incredible.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I follow what my hon. Friend is saying, but I could also conceive of the political parties, for some extraordinary reason—but it could happen—getting together to get at the mayor. If that happened, surely the common sense of Londoners would visit vengeance on Assembly members in the following election. In any case, it would not preclude the mayor, having undergone a vote of no confidence, standing again and being re-elected. Does not that cover the Minister's concerns?
      Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a great shame that, when those concerns were raised in another place, the Government failed properly to consider the proposals.
      It is important to trust members of the Assembly. Conditions could be found which would appease people who are genuinely concerned. Let us look at the circumstances that might give rise to such a vote and at whether it would be appropriate. Let us assume that the mayor has been elected. Let us even assume that a Labour candidate has become mayor. He or she would have survived the bewildering electoral machine of the Labour party, which, unlike the Conservative party, does not believe in one member, one vote. Also unlike the Conservative party, its members' votes are not treated equally, but are weighted to give advantage to particular candidates.
      Having survived that selection procedure—which, we note, is not inclined to favour candidates such as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone)—and having
      512
      been supported by the Prime Minister, the candidate goes on to win the popular vote of our city. What would happen if it were discovered that, in the process of securing that nomination as mayor, the candidate had breached the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998? It sounds incredible. Could it really happen?
      Only this week, The Observer reported that a campaign team for one Labour mayoral candidate may have breached, either in principle or in point of law, the Data Protection Act. Information was allegedly made available to one candidate, and not to others. The Government have given many explanations, but have not yet settled on the precise one that they wish to use. As they told the "Today" programme, they do not quite know, but they think that that is because it is not relevant. That is why the Data Protection Registrar is now looking into those allegations, and the House will await the outcome of that serious charge with interest.
      There may or may not be a case to answer. Evidence of such a breach may not emerge fully until after the election on 4 May next year. If so, and if that Labour candidate has become mayor of London, would it be in the interests of London and our democracy that the Assembly has no power to express a vote of no confidence in a figurehead who has gerrymandered the process in such a way? A criminal or civil offence may even have been committed. The power to dismiss the mayor would be essential to the well-being of democracy and of London. The Minister for Housing and Planning, a campaign manager for one of the candidates, makes the extraordinary proposition that the Assembly should have no power to get rid of a mayor. He believes that such a democratic check is "preposterous". Now we know where Labour's arrogance leads us—a repeal of the quinquennial Act will no doubt follow.
      Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend is instructing the House on some serious issues. The Labour party may be keen to follow what I might call the Welsh model, whereby the Welsh Agriculture Secretary had a significant vote of no confidence cast against her and then refused to resign. By so doing, the authority and credibility of devolution in Wales have been called into question. That is hardly the way for our Assembly and mayoralty to begin.
      Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
      There may be circumstances other than breaches of the Data Protection Act in which the Assembly may wish to test its confidence in the mayor. Let us imagine the candidate, now mayor, who finds himself driving the Assembly to commit the kind of folly that he last perpetrated when he was leader of a London borough council. It can happen, because it has happened. Under those conditions, a vote of no confidence in the mayor would be entirely appropriate.
      Let us remember what happened in Camden when millions of pounds were squandered on ideologically driven, wasteful schemes, in which buildings in Hampstead, Belsize Park, Swiss Cottage and other areas were knocked down. In their place were built ugly, concrete housing blocks, which represented some of the worst examples of post-war architecture. Between 1965 and 1975, Camden spent £100 million pulling down large areas of the borough to make way for towers and terraces of modern council flats.

      513
      We know under whose direction that happened. Had the population of Camden increased, that expenditure, while not forgivable, might have been understandable. Yet between 1961 and 1975, when all that money was being wasted, Camden's population fell by a fifth. In 1975, Camden proposed spending the then colossal sum of £2 million to convert just nine houses into council flats. That seems beyond belief, but that was what happened when the then leader of Camden council encouraged his cohorts to behave in that way. What if the right hon. Gentleman exercised the same leadership in his capacity as mayor of London? He would have control of £3.2 billion.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a debate about potential candidates or particular parts of London. I should be grateful if he would address his remarks specifically to the amendment before the House.
      Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As it is essential that we consider the whole business of impeachment and what might constitute grounds for a vote of no confidence, we must test the conditions that may arise. If we cannot think of any conditions for a vote of no confidence, the Government would be right to resist the amendment. However, if the Government properly considered the evidence available, they would have the humility to say that they have made a mistake and that they were wrong not to provide powers of impeachment.
      When the mayor is elected next year, he will have control of £3.2 billion. That is a large sum of money, and the mayor will have great authority over how that money is spent. It is relevant to examine how candidates may spend that money if they became mayor. The way in which that money is spent may give rise to a vote of no confidence.
      That London borough became a byword for waste and incompetence. It would be a tragedy if, as a result of the Government's arrogance and refusal to consider this issue, London became a byword for waste and incompetence. It is relevant that a borough such as Camden had a housing revenue account deficit of more than £1 million.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again doing what I asked him not to do.
      Mr. Woodward: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am testing a proposition. What would happen if someone had control of an account and irresponsibly allowed it to increase 24 times in a decade?
      Mr. Gapes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is it in order for the debate to be used to slur the integrity of an individual, as is happening at the moment?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.
      Mr. Woodward: I am sure that we are all grateful for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
      514
      not least because there is no intent to slur. I am reporting the facts and considering the consequences of the Assembly being unable to dismiss a mayor of London who carried out such policies and behaved in that way.
      We would have been delighted if the right hon. Gentleman had come to the House this afternoon to explain himself. We are sorry that he is not present. We understand why the Minister for Housing and Planning has directed his candidate not to be here. It is probably wise for him not to be present this afternoon.
      Inquiries have been made into the running of some London councils. Those independent inquiries have had something to say about waste, incompetence, arrogance and corruption. When those allegations have been tested in the courts, some individuals have been fully acquitted, but some have not.
      I am sure that hon. Members will remember the Appleby inquiry into Lambeth council in July 1995. It reported a catastrophic litany of fraud, mismanagement and dogmatic left-wing leadership that had resulted in the loss of millions of pounds and plunged the Authority into chaos. The inquiry stated:
      "Lambeth is in an appalling mess and it is unlikely that any department is properly managed."
      That is relevant to London and to the mayoral election next year. If the mayor were responsible for waste and mismanagement, we would expect an inquiry to be held. If the Assembly were to uphold the recommendations of that inquiry, it might want to dismiss the mayor. Regrettably, councils in London have had such policies. We believe that it is a mistake not to be able to dismiss the mayor.
      The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) accused me of casting a slur. We give credit where credit is due. Although they beggar belief, the House should be reminded of the views of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras when he was shadow Environment Secretary. In 1995, he condemned Lambeth. He said:
      "Waste and incompetence cannot be tolerated. What happened was a disgrace for everybody concerned."
      Mr. Raynsford: Quite right.
      Mr. Woodward: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty I have is that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras carried out in Camden the very policies for which he condemned Lambeth.
      Lambeth now has £929 million of debt that was built up under Labour. We are concerned that similar debt should not build up when we have a mayor for London. If a mayor for London allows such a debt to build up, he should be dismissed by a vote of no confidence.
      Incompetence in Lambeth continues. We now learn that Lambeth council has been exposed as so incompetent that a squatter is claiming ownership of a £400,000 house. He has lived in it for 16 years and has paid no rent because the council forgot that it owned the house. What is the council's response? It says that it will try to reclaim the property. It is spending council tax payers' money on legal fees. If a mayor presided over such incompetence, the Assembly should have the power to dismiss him.
      What if the mayor abused the power to raise revenue in London? In Hammersmith and Fulham, the council tax has increased by 50 per cent. since 1993. As a result,

      515
      five old people's homes have been closed and there is no provision to replace them; 70 home helps have been sacked; only 34 per cent. of council house repair appointments are kept; burial costs have gone up by 60 per cent. and cremation costs by 50 per cent.; and libraries have been closed. If the mayor presided over such chaos in London, should not the Assembly be able to get rid of him? Does it have to wait years to dismiss the mayor, with people paying more and more tax to meet higher and higher bills?
      What if the Assembly were to discover that fraud was taking place under the mayor's administration? The Minister for Housing and Planning tells us that it is all right, because if the mayor does not have a conviction of more than three months inside Wormwood Scrubs all is well. Presumably, his question and answer sessions would take place every day on the hour in the exercise yard. Some of us think that that is not a good standard to set for the mayor of London.
      Mr. Andy King: The Conservatives should change their candidate then.
      Mr. Woodward: The interesting thing about the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that the gentleman to whom he referred has twice been exonerated by a DTI investigation.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want the House to talk about specific personalities or candidates.
      Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding us of that, because, as the DTI said, there was no case to answer.
      Even if a mayor is not charged with a criminal offence, the Assembly should take action if there are strong grounds for assuming that fraud has taken place in his administration. As the Bill stands, the Assembly would be powerless to dismiss the mayor. Some hon. Members may believe that that could not happen. However, in the Appleby report, some 500 council employees were believed to have committed fraud by falsely claiming housing benefit and income support.
      If a mayor presides over waste, incompetence and fraud, is it preposterous—to use the Minister's word—that the Assembly should be able to dismiss the person who presides over such chaos?
      Mr. Gapes: The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware that neither the mayor not the Greater London Authority is responsible for housing or housing benefit.
      Mr. Woodward: What a telling point the hon. Gentleman makes. That was absolutely first class. We have all enjoyed reading the Bill, and are grateful for his telling observation. We take note of his point, but we have read the Bill, too.
      Regrettably, corruption has been a hallmark of left-wing councils. It is obvious that the Labour party is still worried about low council standards. In August 1997, newspapers reported that the Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry into the activities of Labour-run councils throughout Britain in an attempt to avoid allegations of corruption or impropriety.
      Senior Labour officials told newspapers that the Government's image had been damaged by revelations about authorities in Glasgow, Monklands, Doncaster and
      516
      Hackney. More than 30 authorities in various parts of Britain were reportedly being investigated by district auditors, by the police or by the party's own national executive committees. If such revelations were to appear one day about the mayor, surely the Assembly should have the power to dismiss him. Does the Minister still believe that that would be preposterous?
      The mayor will have the power to create a climate of opinion. In London, we rightly depend on the authority and high standing of our police, and our support for the police is essential if we are to have a well-protected city. The mayor's attitude to the police is also essential to fostering a spirit of trust and co-operation. We are now told that some mayoral candidates are prepared to bend their views to comply with the views of the Prime Minister.
      Labour often wants to rewrite the past but, if there is a Labour mayor, that past will not be ignored. We should not dismiss from memory the views of those who have said such things as:
      "The task, surely, is to break the Metropolitan Police Force as at present constituted."
      The hon. Gentleman who made those remarks may regret them today, but we should not forget such remarks, and we should not forget that the GLC spent £400,000 a year on a propaganda battle with the police. The expression of such views would rightly require the Assembly to review the question of whether it had confidence in the mayor.
      There are many reasons why the question of impeachment is relevant. The only thing that is feeble is the Minister's attitude: he is too arrogant even to consider the proposal. He may think it old-fashioned. He may be one of those Labour Members who have changed their views on everything that they stood for when they were elected. The truth is, however, that London needs a strong voice. London needs a mayor in whom it can believe. London needs an Assembly that will be able to throw out a mayor who exceeds or abuses his powers, or behaves in a corrupt, fraudulent or bad way.
      This afternoon we have been given a number of illustrations of ways in which power can be abused and can corrupt the individuals who exercise it. No one wants a return to such values; no one wants to see them in practice in London. But there can be no guarantee that the former politics of the GLC, or of councils such as Camden and Lambeth, will not be implemented by a future mayor trying to run the Assembly.
      The power to dismiss the mayor must be enshrined in the Bill. Not to enshrine that power would be an act of enormous folly and arrogance. We urge the House to support the amendment, and to encapsulate this crucial principle in the legislation.
      Mr. McDonnell: I do not support the proposals because I do not think that they are practical at this stage. I accept that powers exist in this and other legislation to remove lunatics and criminals. Arguably, that could apply to some of the present candidates, but there is the issue of behaviour that engenders such public opprobrium that the climate created among the London public suggests that the mayor must go, and I feel that we should consider that at some future date. Certain issues relating to the governance of London may cause people eventually to lose all confidence in a certain individual.

      517
      At present, we in the House of Commons rely not on process but on moral pressure when the question of a resignation arises, but I fear that, for some, moral pressure may not be enough. The mayoral system constitutes a step change in our system of local government—it concentrates powers in the hands of one individual to an extent that has not been seen before. The new system may well be extended throughout the country by means of possible future legislation, and I think that we should review it at some point in order to ensure its effective operation. We should, for instance, consider the possibility of a right of recall of mayors during their period in office. Perhaps we could develop a mechanism that would not depend entirely on Assembly members.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. John Randall: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman—who is my near neighbour—agrees with us in principle, but why does he feel that the matter should be addressed in the future rather than now? I should have thought that this was the ideal opportunity for us to address it.
      Mr. McDonnell: I do not think that we can address it now because none of the options that we have considered so far strikes me as both practicable and fair. More work is needed. Rather than delaying progress on a Bill that is so important to the future of London, we may be able to deal with the issue in a local government Bill. We should at least review it after a period during which we have experienced the mayoral system in London and, perhaps, elsewhere.
      We need a mechanism that does not rely on the dangerous principle of placing responsibility on Assembly members, but seeks to ensure that the mayor may have to reaffirm his or her mandate with the London electorate. If the mayor is found to be acting in a way that generates sufficient public opprobrium, and if moral pressure is not sufficient to cause him or her to resign, at least he or she will be forced to let the people decide whether he or she should continue in office—or even continue to implement certain policies.
      I believe that we should review the position after, perhaps, five years, and that we should start the examination fairly soon. None of the options that have been described so far satisfy my wish for a balance between consistency of government and fairness and the involvement of the electorate. I think that we should consider options that may go further, triggering a re-election that will ask the electorate to decide.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: In many circumstances, the argument of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) would be entirely valid. If the Government cannot find the necessary time now, however, no doubt we shall have a later opportunity to consider the issue.
      The Government on whose platform the hon. Gentleman was elected had been in opposition for 18 years, and had been committed to restoring Greater London government for 13. It had had plenty of time to think about the issue. The Bill has been going through Parliament for a year. It has been considered at length in
      518
      Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. It has returned from the other place having secured a majority of nearly two to one for the simple proposition—let us not confuse the issue—that it should include a provision stating that, if a motion of no confidence is passed by 19 or more of 25 Greater London Assembly members, the mayor should go. I feel that, although re-examining the position over the next five years may be a wonderful idea, there is no good reason not to face up to the issue now.
      As the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, we are returning—for a final two days or so—to what I gather from the Clerks is probably the largest Bill with which Parliament has had to deal during this century. It has 330 clauses and 27 schedules, and 820 amendments have been tabled. I also gather that it is the first two-volume Bill. Moreover, as the Minister pointed out, the Bill proposes a unique structure. Earlier, we asked whether it was fish or fowl; I think that, as the day goes on, we are reaching the view that it is increasingly less fish and more fowl.
      Mr. Raynsford:Very fine fare.
      Mr. Hughes: The Minister was partly responsible for the Bill's creation, so he would say that, wouldn't he?
      I think that we should concentrate on the central issue—the only issue in regard to which the Lords overturned the Government's proposals by a significant majority when the Government did not undertake to return with similar proposals of their own. Later, we shall have an important debate on equality and anti-discrimination measures. The Government were defeated on that matter, but they agreed to accept the Lords amendments. On this occasion, the amendments remain contentious.
      I pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee, who moved the original amendment in the Lords and who worked with Conservatives and independent Cross Benchers to try to find the best alternative proposal. As we did in the House and in Committee, they considered various options.
      In Committee, my hon. Friends and I originally proposed a 90 per cent. disaffection trigger. Either 90 per cent. of members of the Assembly or 10 per cent. of the London public would have been able to trigger a recall procedure. We have now arrived at the proposal that commands the greatest confidence. Therefore, it demands more respect and more support, and I hope that it will find favour with hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      Today is a test for Labour Back Benchers. Will they always do as their pagers tell them? Will they always be told by Downing street how central, regional and local government should be run? Will they always be merely obedient voting fodder or will they stand up for some sort of democracy in the capital city? Perhaps they will all troop through the Lobby and say, "We're sorry but, on this issue, we cannot afford to protest because that would be too embarrassing." If the three Labour candidates for the mayor of London are conveniently not present so that they do not have to have their votes recorded, we will remind the public of that fact.
      Mr. Gapes: What about the Liberal Democrat candidate?
      Mr. Hughes: The intelligent Member for somewhere in the east end asks about the Liberal Democrat candidate.

      519
      If she were a Member of the House, she would be here. She was selected by one member, one vote; she is not tainted by records from which most people would run a mile and she is not in the middle of an appointment process that has been rigged by Downing street.
      Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Hughes: In that process, every debate becomes more incredible—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member sit down when I am on my feet?
      Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier, you correctly advised us that we should not discuss the Labour party and Conservative party candidates for the mayor's job. Does that ruling apply to the Liberal Democrat candidate?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would be grateful if candidates were not mentioned in the way that they were earlier. I hope that they will not be mentioned again.
      Mr. Hughes: I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do not consider such references to be out of order. You are making a request—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will appreciate that the Chair will decide what is in order.
      Mr. Hughes: I hear your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was just wondering what its basis was.
      Those of us who have listened to the debates realise—I hope that the Minister does, too—that this vote will be a test of whether we have democratic or autocratic government. If he keeps nailing his colours to the mast of autocratic government, he and the Labour party will live to regret it. It is living to regret it, because the Government's reputation for being autocratic grows every day and their reputation for being democratic diminishes every day. The British public will grow disaffected with the Government probably for that reason as much as any other.
      We had a bit of a debate earlier—when the Minister got going—about why we should not have an impeachment provision. A debate on such a provision would have been highly relevant. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has remarked, the argument used against the provision was crass. When we raised the issue in Committee, the Minister said that an impeachment provision would be irrelevant. However, when impeachment proceedings were begun against the current American President, I do not remember anyone saying that there should not be such a facility. It was simply argued that it was inappropriate for the special prosecutor to proceed or for Members of Congress to trigger the proceedings. There lies the rub. Members of Congress may pay the political price and suffer from triggering a procedure that was not in line with the public's view of what was appropriate.
      In that case, the need for an impeachment procedure was not questioned. As the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) argued, the other impeachment
      520
      proceedings that took place in America in the 20th century were necessary to ensure that a President resigned. Impeachment was not carried out, because the President resigned beforehand. However, the fact that he could have been impeached was probably necessary to ensure his resignation. If we do not have the sanction to force the mayor to go during his term of office, we are giving him power the like of which we have never before given to people in British elected public office.
      If the Prime Minister is defeated in the House by a majority of one—by 50 per cent. of Members plus one—on a no confidence motion, he or she goes.
      Mr. Terry Rooney: He does not have to.
      Mr. Hughes: He does not have to, but, even though we do not have a written constitution, he goes. Lord Callaghan is the last living example of that.
      In the Scottish Parliament, it is expressly the case—we debated the matter here—that a vote of no confidence in the Executive leads to their being expected to go. Evidence from the Welsh Assembly suggests that a vote of no confidence—not in the Agriculture and Rural Development Secretary, but in the Executive—would mean that the Executive were expected to go. One can argue that the London Assembly is not the same type of body and that point is relevant because we are dealing with different levels of government. However, it does not make the Minister's argument for him.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does not the hon. Gentleman's logic take him to the conclusion that I have reached, which is that, when public opinion, officials and Assembly members have no confidence in the mayor, he or she will go? Let us logically think it through. How can someone perform if everyone is against him? He cannot, and that is why Prime Ministers and Ministers go.
      Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman argues for what most people would expect to be the case. However, under the Bill, if the mayor does not resign, there is nothing that anyone can do.
      It is possible that the mayor might not resign. In recent years, mayors elected in the western world, and in cities such as the capital of America, have carried on in office while they were in prison. If the mayor of the capital city of America did not go when confidence was lost in him, there is no evidence to suggest that the mayor of London might.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hughes: I shall give way shortly.
      As the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out, we as a legislature should not put into place a system that will allow years to pass, something to go wrong and confidence in politicians and London government to be lost before anyone can say, "Now we must do something." It is no good shutting the door after the horse has bolted and saying. "I'm sorry. We forgot to provide for this eventuality." If we do that, people will go to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and tell him that he was warned.
      Mr. Bermingham: If a chief executive works for a mayor who has gone completely barmy—I do not mean

      521
      mentally, but he behaves absolutely stupidly—the chief executive will simply not do what he is told. The mayor will become ineffective because no one will take instructions from him. What will happen then? The mayor will resign, and that is what happens in the States and elsewhere—they go.
      3 pm
      Mr. Hughes: First, that did not happen, and it does not always happen, in the United States.
      Secondly—as the Minister is constantly at pains to tell us—the office of the London mayor will be different. The Bill will provide for Britain's first mayor to be elected directly by the voters. The mayor would be quite entitled to wave two fingers at the London Executive, Assembly and electorate and say, "I was elected for four years by you lot—I was elected with far more votes than the Prime Minister. I am staying." There has been no precedent for the office, and we must ensure that, in creating it, we do not make a terrible mistake.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman has just made the point that I wanted to make. A person who has been elected directly for a fixed term is much more likely to put up the proverbial two fingers to the Assembly. That fact strengthens the case for creating a corrective mechanism.
      Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentlemen and I share exactly the same view on the issue.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton asked the Minister a very simple factual question. He said, "Minister, you are the one who studied the Bill for a year and piloted it through Parliament, and you are now the campaign manager for the Labour camp. Give us one example of one directly elected mayor in any other city in the world—it does not even have to be a capital city—that has no provision for a recall or no-confidence motion." Answer came there none.
      In Committee, we cited the procedures used in St. Louis, Washington, San Francisco and Tokyo. Although they all have different procedures, suited to local circumstances, each of those cities provides for a remedy in dealing with a mayor who goes off the rails. The greater the power that we give to the mayor, the more reason we should have to enable the Assembly to take control of the situation.
      The Minister might say that our arguments apply only to the Scottish Parliament and the European Parliament, but they apply also to local government. I have friends who have served in London local councils. Although I have not asked them about it, I am sure that they all believe that the leader of a Liberal Democrat-controlled council would be voted out of office if a majority of council members felt that he or she should not be entitled to continue in office. Council leaders are elected by the council, and they may be removed by the council. There are mechanisms to remove a mayor or council leader everywhere, except in the Bill.
      The Government are not offering an alternative proposal. They are not saying, "We don't like the idea of a no-confidence motion being triggered by 19 of the 25 Assembly Members; we want to set the number at 22." The Government are offering no alternatives.
      522
      We really must support the Lords amendment, and ask Labour Back Benchers to be braver than they are usually. Not content with a Bill that pretends to give power to London government, but leaves much power in the hands of the Secretary of State; not content with a Bill that, initially, was described as giving regional government to Londoners, but that now is said to create just another form of local council; not content with a system in which Labour Assembly candidates are not elected by London Labour party members, but appointed; not content with a system in which, on instructions from No. 10 Downing street, the mayoral candidate selection process is being fixed; not content with having rigged the candidate selection process in the Labour party from beginning to end, the Government now want us to buy a package in which, for four years, we would not be able to get rid of the person whom they tried to force on us. That would just not be acceptable.
      So far, of all the proposals that the Government have made in their two and a half years in office—half of the Parliament—their proposals on the London mayor are the most autocratic.
      Although there is a party political reason to have a no-confidence provision, there is also a much more important reason. We are in an age in which every opinion poll states that the public do not have great confidence in politicians. Moreover, the person who currently has the confidence of the greater part of the London electorate may not even be allowed to stand for election. The Government's proposals would undermine London government's ability to have the confidence of the people of London.
      It would not be good for London to have a mayor who does not enjoy the support of the people, and it would not be good for London government if the mayor and the Assembly had no confidence in each other. As the Minister said, one Authority will be composed of two parts. If the two halves of the same Authority have no confidence in each other, London government will not operate effectively.
      Regardless of our disagreements on how much power the mayor and the Assembly should each have, if we want the mayor and Assembly to work well together in doing their job, we shall have to allow the Assembly to force out a mayor who does not enjoy the Assembly's confidence—which may have been lost because of corruption, laziness, illness, arrogance, or personality and performance in office. I shall give one example.
      People should be regarded as innocent until they have been found guilty. Let us imagine—I have no one specifically in mind—that a London mayor is being investigated on serious financial allegations. Perfectly properly, he or she might say, "I have not been found guilty. I am defending my case and arguing that I am not guilty. I want to stay in office." Regardless of the truth of the allegations, would it be good for London—the world's financial capital—to have a mayor who, perhaps for two or three years, was being investigated?
      Mr. Hill: There was no truth in the allegations?
      Mr. Hughes: Not at all; and the mayor would be absolutely right in saying, "I am not guilty." However, would it be in the best interests of London government for the mayor to stay in office throughout those

      523
      investigations? [Interruption.] The Ministers say yes, but previous Ministers have not always taken that view. Even allegations undermine confidence. We have to foresee a situation in which the greater interest dictates that someone should step aside, regardless of their view on their own performance.
      Mr. Woodward: The hon. Gentleman is making a common-sense point. Creating a no-confidence provision would give the Assembly the power to decide whether to exercise it. The Assembly might take the view that allegations being peddled about a mayor are nothing more than rumour, gossip and innuendo, and are therefore valueless. If so, the Assembly would not be compelled to pursue a vote of no confidence. Nevertheless, such a provision would invest in Assembly Members the trust to act with due diligence.
      Mr. Hughes: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Additionally, between 75 and 80 per cent. of Assembly Members would have to decide the matter. I cannot imagine a London electoral result—it has not happened this century—in which 75 per cent. of electors vote for people from the same party. Therefore, a decision to pass a no-confidence motion would have to be taken by Members of two or more parties.
      Assembly Members would also be aware that they would have to account to their electorate for their decision to get rid of a mayor. As the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said, if they act irresponsibly in voting for such a motion, their electorate probably would not take a favourable view of it.
      Mr. McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman was unusually disparaging about my earlier remarks. Nevertheless, we are now debating the key issue of natural justice, which we shall have to resolve. If allegations have been made against someone, should he or she immediately be penalised because of them, before a full investigation has been conducted to determine the truth?
      A number of us—including the hon. Gentleman—have dealt with miscarriages of justice cases, in which it has been discovered that, because of the failure of an investigation, the climate of the hunt has led to someone being pilloried and removed from a position, despite subsequently being found innocent. The issue of whether there should be a suspension mechanism, rather than a rejection mechanism, must be reviewed as we have not yet found the appropriate mechanism.
      Mr. Hughes: I always try not to be disparaging about the hon. Gentleman. There may be arguments for suspension, but if the Bill receives Royal Assent with no such provision, the press—not the elected Members of the Assembly—will decide whether the mayor resigns in the event of a serious allegation. I would far rather that 80 per cent. of the Assembly, rather than the press, decided.
      I wish to strengthen the point made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, who is an experienced London colleague. Let me be modest about my colleagues. Let us imagine that a Liberal Democrat mayor is elected next May, as we increasingly expect. Let us imagine that a Liberal Democrat mayor comes to office with huge support from the London electorate, as is increasingly
      524
      possible. Let us imagine that we do not sweep the board in the Assembly, and that there is a coalition of 19 members coming from the other parties, while we have all the others. If those 19 vindictively and conspiratorially decided that the best form of government was not available to Londoners and that they wanted to vote out the Liberal Democrat mayor, the point made by the hon. Gentleman is the answer.
      If they did so, the candidate could stand again—and probably would, depending on the party's view. However, the electorate would decide both on that candidate and on the people who got rid of the mayor. The history of this place shows that when, for other reasons, it kicked out people such as Bradlaugh, the electorate sent them back. In the end, the electorate won the day.
      If we want to improve confidence in public life, the amendment must be accepted. It may not be the amendment that my colleagues and I would have wanted to table, nor is it theoretically the best in the world. It is not the amendment that we might have had had a royal commission inquired into the matter in five years' time. It is not even the amendment that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might have come up with after reflection and consultation. However, at the moment, it is this or nothing.
      If the Government turn this amendment down today, they will send the message that they want the office of mayor of London to be more autocratic than any other position in British constitutional life. They will want to give the mayor more power, and others less control over the mayor.
      I hope that the House will support the amendment that was passed by nearly two to one in the Lords. If this place reverses the amendment, I hope that the Lords make one last stand—some of them have not much more to lose. If they go out for the last time next week, it is better that they do so with a bang than a whimper. They could do no better service than to say to the Government that there will be a power for Londoners to have a no confidence vote in their mayor and to get rid of him if that is appropriate.
      I hope that we overturn the Government's view and support the Lords. If not, I hope that the Lords make certain that the amendment is still in the Bill next week.
      3.15 pm
      Mr. Gapes: I am grateful to be called at this point in the debate, as it is always a pleasure to follow the sanctimonious nonsense of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). I and others had to sit in Committee through hours and hours of it, and we have just had another example from the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talks about democracy, and then invokes the hereditary peers as a means of defeating the democratically elected Government—a Government elected on a mandate to establish the mayor and Assembly. He says that, if the democratic decision of this House goes once more for the Government's proposal, the hereditaries and his friends in the Conservative party in the House of Lords should vote down a democratically elected Government. So much for the democracy of the Liberal Democrats.

      525
      The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey talks about the public not having much confidence in politicians. They certainly do not have much confidence in Liberal Democrat politicians—that is why the party only gets 11 per cent. in the opinion polls, and why there are only 46 of them in this democratic place. They may have more in the House of Lords at the moment, but they do not have democratic support in the country.
      I wish to refer to the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who is not here at this moment. I must say that I preferred the approach in Committee of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). The hon. Member for Witney cast a series of slurs and smears at Labour politicians and others unable to answer them. If that is the way the Conservative party intends to fight the Assembly and mayoral elections, we will have the dirtiest election campaign that this city has ever seen.
      I hope that the Conservatives think carefully before going down that road, as those who live in glass houses should be careful when they start throwing stones. I suspect that it would rebound against the Conservatives—and their candidate for mayor—among the general public.
      Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) was entirely open handed in terms of the strictures that he raised, and he referred to the conduct of the London borough of Camden between 1965 and 1975. Between 1968 and 1971, the Conservative party was in control of the London borough of Camden, and I was a member of it. Although I did not intervene on my hon. Friend to say that I resented his strictures, I do not think that he can remotely be described as having cast slurs.
      Mr. Gapes: As always, we benefit from the great advice and sagacity of the right hon. Gentleman, who entertains us with his insights into politics. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Witney has come back into the Chamber, and I hope that he heard what his right hon. Friend said.
      Clearly, we are involved in a new concept, and we are employing two different electoral systems, neither of which is used for the election of local councillors or Members of Parliament. The system for electing the mayor is the supplementary vote, which means that whoever is elected as mayor of our city will have a substantial first preference and a large second preference, giving them the support of more than half the people of our city.
      Members of the Greater London Authority will include people who—for the information of Liberal Democrat Members—have been democratically selected by the Labour party. That process included ballots in borough pairings to select candidates for the 14 constituencies, such as the one in Redbridge and Havering, in which Labour party members voted overwhelmingly for our candidate, and selection for the top-up party list, which will be used if we do not win many seats. I suspect that we will not need many people on our top-up list, because we shall win many of those constituencies. However, all parties will probably benefit from the top-up.
      The Greater London Authority will also include members who, given that they pass the threshold of 5 per cent., will have received very few votes. That is
      526
      presumably how the two or three Liberal Democrat members of the authority will be elected. Although they may win one or two seats, they will be reliant, to some extent, on the top-up list. Such members will not have received a great personal vote; they will have been elected by virtue of their place on the party list.
      So the mayor's democratic mandate will be different from that of the 25 authority members. Yet the Tory-Liberal Democrat coalition proposes that 19 of the 25 members should have the ability to remove from office somebody who might have secured the votes of 1 million, 2 million or more Londoners—by methods that could be subject to political intrigue reminiscent of the behaviour of Republicans in the United States.
      It is a pity that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is not present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I do not know where he is—probably issuing press releases that attack Labour Members of Parliament, as he did in my constituency this week. In 1981, when the Labour party won the Greater London Council election, the leader of the Labour group was Andrew McIntosh—now Lord McIntosh. After that election, there was a coup, and the hon. Member for Brent, East became leader of the council by a majority vote in the Labour group. That happens in other parties from time to time, too. I remember that the Conservative party in the GLC also changed its leader through an internal coup.
      Such a model is appropriate when all members of the authority are elected on the same basis, and when the leader of the authority is from that common electoral college. However, once a mayor is elected by direct mandate, the whole system changes. It is difficult to understand why the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are in league on a proposal that will allow them to manipulate a coup against a democratically elected Labour mayor, without any democratic sanction by the public.
      Mr. Nigel Waterson: I am grateful to my former pair for giving way. It is always a coup when one is on the losing side. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that he has stumbled on the point of the debate? Under the traditional model that he has described, a coup, or house-cleaning, can always occur by a vote of the democratically elected members who originally elected the leader or mayor. However, that does not apply here because the Government have chosen a system of two separate mandates. There is therefore no mechanism for dealing with the Mayor Barry factor. Will the hon. Gentleman address that point?
      Mr. Gapes: I am happy to do so. The Conservative party opposed the concept of a Greater London Authority; it wanted only a directly elected mayor. I would be interested in its proposals for removing a mayor without an Assembly. Would it be done by osmosis or extrasensory perception? The Conservatives have obviously changed their position.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who support the amendment base their argument on

      527
      a two-tier democracy: the populace will elect the mayor and those who have been elected will deselect the mayor? That is nonsense and a contradiction.
      Mr. Gapes: As my hon. Friend says, if the public have elected the mayor, they should be able to remove the mayor. It would be wrong to provide that those who are elected on a different mandate can remove the mayor.
      I have some sympathy with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) that there should be a review. The system is new, and there may be lessons that we can learn from London and other cities over the coming years. However, the proposal that we are considering is dangerous. Given the nature of politics and the views that have been expressed in the debate, the provision could be used maliciously for party political ends. It is not in the interests of London, Londoners or our mayoral system.
      Mr. Randall: Logic is not one of the hon. Gentleman's strong points, but perhaps he recalls that, during the many happy hours in Committee, the Conservative party proposed that the populace, as he puts it, could remove the mayor by petition. Given his reasons for opposing Lords amendment No. 1., why did he vote against our proposal?
      Mr. Gapes: I did so for the good reason that a petition signed by Mickey Mouse or Colonel Blimp, or whoever the Conservative party puts up, is not the best way forward. "Petitionitis" politics, which is more typical of the anoraks on the Liberal Democrat Benches than the Conservative party, is not the way forward.
      Mr. McDonnell: Speaking as someone who was there during the GLC period, coups or not, I can inform the House that a petition was presented to the House, asking the previous Government to abandon their abolition proposals. The Conservative party ignored that petition. It is therefore ironic that it is now calling for petitions. I went through the petition personally to remove all the Mickey Mouse and Ronald Reagan signatories. It was a genuine petition, organised in order to preserve the GLC, which the Conservatives ignored.
      Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that information. I remember banging on doors in my hon. Friend's constituency to get him re-elected—in a campaign of which the Conservatives thought so much they did not even put up candidates.
      I shall not delay the House any longer. [Interruption.] I might speak again later, if hon. Members want me to do so. I hope that the House votes against Lords amendment No. 1 and supports the Government.
      Mr. Ottaway: We are discussing how an unfit mayor can be removed from office. I agree with the Minister—the locum for this afternoon—that the amendment does not provide the right way of doing it. With only 19 people having the matter in the palm of their hand, it would be too easy for the mayor to manipulate them. One could easily buy off eight or 10 people. It would also be possible for political parties to gang up against an independent mayor—there could quite easily be one—for purely political reasons rather than because he was unfit.
      528
      3.30 pm
      That, however, is the limit of my agreement with the Minister. I believe that the amendment is right in principle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said, we proposed in Committee a recall petition. There are many other approaches—there are a lot of ways of skinning a cat—but if one is considering the fundamental issue of the mayor's competence to do the job for which he was elected, the fact that half a million people agree about his not being up to it and that the principle is enshrined in legislation should be good enough to force the mayor to submit himself to re-election or to stand down.
      That principle is widely used in the United States of America, where there are directly elected mayors, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. The Government, however, propose that there should be no principle whatever. A local authority can dismiss its leader with no trouble at all. We had the example of the coup led by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) against Lord McIntosh after the 1981 election—when my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was a candidate, I believe.
      It is easy to remove a sitting leader. The Prime Minister can be removed. Lord Callaghan was removed by the House of Commons and Baroness Thatcher by her own party. In Europe, the Commission was effectively sacked, although its members chose to resign. In the United States, President Clinton survived the impeachment proceedings and President Nixon decided that he could not survive the Watergate proceedings.
      Those were principles enshrined in legislation for the good of the Executive, but there is nothing comparable in the Bill. The Assembly could be unanimous—that had no effect in Wales, when the Agriculture Minister was censured—and there could be unanimous motions of both Houses of Parliament, and indeed every psychiatrist in Harley street could declare the mayor insane, but nothing could be done about it. That is a matter for grave concern.
      There are proposals in the local government White Paper for directly elected mayors for councils. I believe that surveys show that nearly 90 per cent. of councils are against the proposals, because they know that they will not be able to get rid of the bloke if they lose confidence in him.
      The Minister spoke of two principles allowing the mayor the authority to continue. The first was his electoral mandate. That is not a good enough reason, as a mayor could come to office on the crest of a wave, squeaky clean, and incidents could happen thereafter. I thought that the Minister was going to say that there are no fewer than 270 powers reserved to the Secretary of State in the Bill. The Government are so worried that the hon. Member for Brent, East might be elected that we called those provisions Livingstone clauses. The Minister then said that the Assembly had powers to scrutinise, to highlight and to veto the budget. Those powers could not deal with a corrupt mayor. I believe the point about the mandate to be irrelevant and disingenuous.
      The Minister's second point was that there were provisions for conditions in which an unfit mayor could be removed. One of those was if the mayor is convicted and sentenced to three months or more in prison. That is a pretty unlikely scenario. For a start, it could take a year

      529
      or more to convict the mayor, and he could continue in office during that time. There is a huge credibility gap in the principles outlined by the Minister.
      I spoke earlier of Ministers who had resigned during this Parliament. One resigned as a result of an error of judgment on Clapham common—that was not a criminal offence, so there was no question of a conviction—and another resigned because he failed to disclose a loan from a building society while his own Department was investigating the man who had made him another loan. Comparable circumstances would be justification for the mayor to be declared unfit for office, but the difference is that the Ministers resigned because they knew that they would otherwise be sacked, but the mayor is untouchable and could not be sacked.
      One could come up with numerous examples of people being unfit but having the power to continue. In my judgment, a mayor should not have powers without checks and balances. No mayor should be able to continue unchecked, and the Government do not have the right to do what is wrong.
      Mr. Bermingham: I did not serve in Committee on the Bill but I have listened to the arguments on whether the ultimate sanction of giving the Assembly the power to dismiss the mayor should be in the Bill. The arguments in favour are superficially attractive but do not take us very far. To put it mildly, such a sanction is unfair. The mayor is elected by the electorate of the whole city and serves for four years. He has certain powers and employs certain people: the council employees, presumably, who will run the authority. This massive Bill, which has changed shape several times as I have followed its progress from a distance, sets the precedent for the major cities of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, so one wants to see how it will develop.
      Should the ultimate sanction be in the hands of the Assembly or of the electorate? I say the latter: he who gives must have the power to take away. The Assembly is elected on a different franchise and serves in a different way. One can foresee a wholly independent mayor faced with an Assembly, elected in the two-stage process of constituency members and top-up members, that does not like him. Under the amendment, that Assembly could dismiss that independent, elected mayor. That would not be right. The argument would then, of course, be that the electorate could do something in due course—but that would create a hiatus and a period of disturbance.
      The other side of the argument asks the question, "What if we have a wrong 'tin as mayor?" Bringing in personalities would do the argument no service, so leaving out all such arguments, why would we want to get rid of a mayor? If he had gone mad, section 28 and the other restraining sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 would give us more than enough powers to certify him, and that would take him out, just as it would anybody else in public office—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) says that does not work in here. I have thought about that on many occasions, but I have never had the courage to find two psychiatrists to certify the many Ministers, regardless of political party, whom I have wanted to have certified over the years. If I had had the courage to do so, I might have been able to prove that the mechanism worked here.
      530
      If a person is in prison for three months or more, that person is pretty obviously a crook. Of course, people have to face the allegations and the horrendous "News of the Screws" exposés that are published against politicians of all parties all the time. The mud sometimes sticks—although some of it is totally unjustified, and the beneficiary usually walks away clinking the coins in his pocket for the rest of his life. We have the sanction, the counter-sanction and the remedy.
      What would a mayor have to do for people to want to throw him out? Probably he would have to be incompetent. That is probably the mischief that the amendment seeks to chase, but it is not needed. If a mayor is incompetent, that starts to show up, as it does when a council leader loses his or her way. Fellow councillors begin to notice and worry about it, as do the chief executive and the employees. Once the chief executive and the other employees begin to see that someone has lost the plot, they begin to react, and the press begins to publish.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the fact that, as far as I know, all forms of local government have an annual meeting, and the leaders, the mayors and the other office bearers are elected annually? There is an annual sanction against somebody who does not want to go. However, with the London mayor there is only a four yearly sanction, and someone can do a lot of damage in three years.
      Mr. Bermingham: I served on a council that threw the leader out half way through the year—or perhaps that happened just after my time. That has happened on many authorities.
      At local government level the sanction is always there. With the new Assembly and the new mayor, people might be after the mayor simply because he was incompetent. When I intervened earlier in the speech by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me do so—I was trying to point out that the pressure of public opinion often drives out incompetents.
      I rely on the Minister to correct me later if I am wrong, but I think that under the Bill, once that degree of incompetence builds up and is demonstrated, the executive and the Assembly will have the power to isolate the wrong decisions made by the mayor. The mayor does not personally go down and run the tube trains or exercise the various economic powers. He employs people to do that for him and follow his instructions.
      Local government employees in general are liable and can be sued for negligence if they wilfully follow a path that they know to be contrary to the interests of the local authority. As I understand the Bill, the employees of the Assembly of the Greater London Authority are also in that position. If I am wrong, most of what I have said in the past few minutes is rubbish, but if I am right, the sanction and the corrective are there.
      Mr. Paul Burstow: One of the problems with the hon. Gentleman's line of argument is that many of the people who will be discharging the functions of the mayor will have been appointed by the mayor—such as the chairmen of the boards, the members of the executive boards that will discharge and oversee

      531
      the works, and the deputy mayor. All the people who the hon. Gentleman says would turn against the mayor are the mayor's place persons.
      Mr. Bermingham: The chief executives of Sheffield city council and Birmingham city council are appointed by the committees of the council, but they are employees of the councils themselves. The same is true of the Assembly. The mayor may select the employees, but the employees are employed by the authority. Therefore the rules on negligent behaviour apply equally to them.
      Much as one would like to think that this world is full of cronies, it is not. A good employer employs the best people, and I would be staggered if the employees of the Assembly were not thought to be the best that could be found. The Assembly will not go in for jobs for the boys and girls. If it does, the fiercest of all rows will break out in this place. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) might be the first on his feet screaming about what had happened, but he would probably lose the race by about 30 seconds to me, because I would be here screaming even more loudly.
      Mr. Burstow: But when the Bill becomes an Act, speaking in this place will not enable us to get the mayor to resign on such grounds—unless we legislate again.
      Mr. Bermingham: Then I go back to the old saying about the fuel of publicity. I finish where I started. This is not a necessary amendment; powers exist and the remedies are there, so the Bill does not need it.
      3.45 pm
      Sir Sydney Chapman: We are discussing two of the 820 Lords amendments that we have to deal with, and the Leader of the House told us earlier that she intended to introduce a guillotine some time on Monday. I realise that trying to deal with all those amendments is trying to put a gallon into a thimble, but it would still be helpful for the House to know the size of the thimble. Do the Government intend the guillotine to fall at 7 o'clock on Monday, or 10 o'clock? That could be the difference between having nine hours to discuss the amendments and having 12 hours. The Government at least owe it to democracy in some form to let us know how long we will have. I have a high regard for the Minister, and I hope that he will tell us as soon as possible.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: May I help the hon. Gentleman? My understanding is—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are dealing with one group of amendments. It is not our concern now to worry about what we have done or failed to do. We can concern ourselves only with the amendments before us.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I entirely accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that I made an important point.
      I support Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6, and will therefore vote against the Government motions to disagree. I accept, however, that this is a question of balance. I served on the Standing Committee, and I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon,
      532
      South (Mr. Ottaway) who introduced the amendment for a call-in petition. I followed his arguments closely, but I have had time to reflect on our debates in Committee, and I now veer towards saying that a vote of no confidence would be a better and more practical method than a call-in petition.
      I do not need to go into all the detail, but although when we are dealing with such matters the expense is not the only consideration, I now believe that the mechanisms and the expense would be somewhat cumbersome and arbitrary.
      I can be much briefer than I originally intended now, because most of the points have already been made and I can simply allude to them. It is true that the mayor and the Assembly will have separate powers and responsibilities, but they will be interactive. For example, the Assembly is responsible for scrutinising the mayor's decisions and actions. To put it another way, it will be the duty of the Assembly to hold the mayor to account for his actions.
      The Bill will create a precedent and will possibly be a model for extending to other cities the principle of elected mayors. Therefore, we owe it to the country, let alone Londoners, to get this issue right. There are two options for removing the mayor—the first is by petition and the other is by a vote of no confidence. I prefer the latter.
      We can argue about the number of votes that would be needed for a no confidence motion to be successful. Personally, I would not favour a requirement for fewer than 19 of the 25 members of the Assembly. I would also not favour a requirement for unanimity, because the mayor will appoint the deputy mayor, who might feel that he owes an especial loyalty to the mayor. Whether the figure is 19, 20, 21 or 22 is a matter for debate.
      Serious charges could be made against the mayor that are not covered by section 28 of the Mental Health Act 1959—I know that the Minister is more familiar with section 106 agreements and town and country planning legislation—but that would require the mayor to resign in the interests of Londoners. Clauses 13 and 14 cover the issue, but in the case of clause 13 only if the mayor fails to attend six consecutive meetings of the Assembly. Clause 14 covers criminal offences.
      Parallels exist abroad for ways to deal with the matter. The mayor will have a high profile and a dominant personality, at least within greater London, and the safeguard against the abuse of an option to remove him through a vote of no confidence supported by at least 75 per cent. of members of the Assembly is the good sense and political intuition of Londoners. Given the fragility of my majority, I wish to point out that all my constituents are extremely sensible and politically "with it". However, that might explain why I have only a wafer-thin majority.
      I commend the Lords amendments to the House and I hope that Labour Members will realise that they are not a cobbled-together machination between the two main Opposition parties. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House genuinely believe that this issue should be tackled.
      Mr. Edward Davey: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who makes his case forcefully. I agree with everything that he said. It is a pleasure also to be able to welcome

      533
      the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is now in his place; I wonder whether he will give the House his views on the amendment. I hope that he will tell the House that, if he were to be elected to the great office of mayor, he would not be afraid of democratic censure. I hope that he feels that he would be able to meet any vote in the Assembly by argument and would not need statutory protection against a vote of censure.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) is unfortunately no longer in his place, but he made an important point when he said that the Lords amendment was not needed because the power of the press and public pressure could be used to keep the mayor in line. The reality is that however the press attack the mayor—and whatever views the Assembly members or employees have of the mayor—he can still refuse to go. That is the whole point of the amendment. However much bile is poured on the mayor by the press, he can stay put.
      If the amendment is not accepted, the danger is that the mayor may be the subject of a groundless attack but would have no protection. The amendment would ensure that a tabloid-led campaign to try to get rid of a mayor who had done nothing wrong could be answered by Assembly members who, by defeating a vote of no confidence, could say, "Case not proven." It would provide protection against scurrilous press campaigns against a democratically elected politician and as such the Government should support it.
      The main reason why the Government should support the amendment is because of its effects on the Brent, East question. We have had the West Lothian question in connection with the Scottish Parliament, we have had the Cardiff, West question in connection with the Welsh Assembly and now we have the Brent, East question. I submit that the Lords amendment would provide a solution to the Brent, East question. It would help to solve the Government's Ken conundrum. Even at this late stage and given their problems in this area, they would be wise to consider whether the amendment might help them to dig themselves out of the hole that they are in.
      The Brent, East question is a problem for the Government, whose reasoning is, "If Ken is not on the ballot paper, Labour party members and Londoners will hate us, but if he is, he may win and embarrass us." If one considers those two dangerous outcomes for the Government, one can see why the amendments would be in the Labour party's interest. The option of keeping the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) off the ballot paper is a lose-lose situation—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to discuss selections or ballot papers, because my understanding of the amendment is that it covers the situation after the mayor is elected. The hon. Gentleman should keep to that issue.
      Mr. Davey: My remarks are aimed at ensuring that the mayor will be democratically held to account and that the Government accept the measure that will assist that process. If the hon. Member for Brent, East were not on the ballot paper, the Government would be in a lose-lose situation after the election. They would have alienated
      534
      their party in London, and Londoners. If the hon. Gentleman decided to run as an independent candidate, the Government would still lose out. However, it seems as though the Government will pursue that lose-lose situation.
      If the Government were to accept the amendment and allow Londoners and the GLA Assembly the ability to ensure democratic accountability, that would be a win-win situation. If the hon. Member for Brent, East were to be allowed to stand and became the mayor, the outbreak of democracy would curry favour with the London Labour party—a win for the Government. It would restore credibility to the Labour party's proposals among the electorate—another win—and even if the hon. Gentleman were elected, the Assembly could keep him in check. That is the answer to the Brent, East question and the way out of the Government's hole. Assuming the role of a political risk analyst, I offer that last-minute solution to the Government. The argument may not persuade Liberal Democrat Members, as it is not in our interests to help the Government get out of the hole, but I occasionally like to be helpful.
      4 pm
      Mr. McDonnell: I wish to raise a point with the hon. Gentleman, really out of a personal grudge. He is concerned about democratic accountability, but why was he absent when the House voted on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill the other night? Why was his—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the amendment.
      Mr. Davey: Although I am tempted, I know that you would rule me out of order if I responded to the hon. Gentleman now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be more than happy to speak to him afterwards.
      The Government have put forward against the amendment no concrete, constitutional argument that holds water. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, we are used to votes of no confidence in British political institutions—that is how our various democratic institutions have evolved. However, the change introduced by the Bill is that that is not to be allowed in the new GLA. The Government may well say that that is the point: the GLA is a new body, so it is right that it be different from the institutions that have existed before.
      Given the shenanigans that are going on, that is a doubtful claim, but let us take it at face value. When I asked the Minister whether the Government had learned from the experience in other countries and cities when they adopted this new model, he was unable to give me a single example from elsewhere in the world of the new type of institution that the Government want to introduce into Britain that did not have a democratic safeguard.
      That failure speaks volumes. I should be more than happy to give way to the Minister if he would like to intervene with an example of the sort that I seek. However, the fact that he does not want to intervene suggests that no such example exists.
      Therefore, the Government will be introducing a unique form of mayoral government, which has never been experienced before. Again, the Government might claim that they have designed a new form of Government that

      535
      has been tailored especially to London's unique features. We heard various weak arguments like that during the Committee proceedings.
      However, it is odd that, at the end of the 20th century, Britain's new Labour Government should be able to find a new form of democracy that has not been invented before. In that form of democracy, a great deal of power will reside in one person's hands but cannot be checked by a democratically elected body between elections.
      What is so unique about the new authority and about London's political culture that would justify that lack of democratic accountability? What can explain the Government's position? So far, they have offered no explanation themselves, so I shall hypothesise.
      Perhaps the answer has to do with the powers of the Secretary of State. Those hon. Members who have been involved with the Bill all the way through got used to the assertion that the Secretary of State should have reserve powers to prevent the mayor from doing things that the Government of the day did not like. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was not voted into office by Londoners, so it would not be democratic to allow him oversight of the mayor's activities.
      However, the problem is worse than that: in the case that we are debating today, those powers do not even exist. The Government have not performed even their usual trick and reserved for the Secretary of State the power to kick out the mayor. I hasten to add that I do not suggest that they should do that, as that would really expose the weaknesses and undemocratic nature of the institutions that the Government are establishing, but the logic of such an approach is typical of their attitude to other elements of the Bill.
      When this amendment was debated in another place, it was argued that the fierce nature of party politics could lead to gridlock. It was stated that parties could gang up on the mayor, and that the repeated hiatuses so caused would render the new Authority unable to govern London properly.
      The proposal to impose democratic accountability takes account of that problem because it is based on a qualified majority. I would encourage the Government if they were to argue that that qualified majority should be higher. That would be a fair argument, but the point is that such devices exist to prevent procedural abuses that could render institutions powerless. The Government could bring forward their own device, and the fact that they have not is incredibly worrying.
      It is odd that a mayor should be allowed to continue if he or she were unable to command the support of only seven or more Assembly members. It would be bizarre for a mayor to have so little support. I doubt that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras would be happy if he could not rely on the support of at least seven Authority members so that he could stay on as mayor.
      I fear that the Government's opposition to the amendment is based on their conviction, when they put the Bill together, that their candidate was certain to win. They believed that the mayor would be one of theirs, a Labour party member who was signed up to the new, Blairite project, so they did not worry about putting in place the safeguards that we have discussed. However, events have shown the error of the Government's original thinking. By now—after the experiences in Wales and
      536
      Scotland—one would have thought that the Government would have learned from their mistakes and looked for another solution.
      Although the Government appear to be trying to rig procedures and prevent other people from standing, recent history should have told them that the best laid plans can go awry. I suggest that the Government find a new faith and trust in democracy. They should not allow the mayor of London to be an untouchable, but should make sure that he or she can be brought to account.
      Mr. Keith Darvill: I shall keep my remarks brief. This debate has been similar to the debate in Committee on the same subject. Disappointingly, in their support for the amendment, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members have concentrated on narrow party political issues rather than on the issue that we are discussing.
      Throughout the consideration of the Bill, the Opposition have often appeared to misunderstand the nature of the balance between the Assembly and the mayor. That misunderstanding was evident again in the contribution from the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey).
      Clause 14 sets out a number of ways in which the mayor could be removed. Additional powers are available if the mayor were to act ultra vires, and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) did the House a service when he referred to them.
      Two methods of removing the mayor have been considered—by petition or by vote of confidence. What are the respective benefits of those systems? Clearly, the House of Lords has not considered the petition option suggested in Committee by Conservative Members. The debate in Committee exposed the several disefficiencies involved in having a petition and a recall.
      By contrast, one has to ask whether a confidence motion, such as we are considering this evening, would mean that Assembly members would in effect take away from the mayor the authority and the mandate that he or she received from the population of London. Given that such a change of power would be quite possible, the confidence motion option would be unfair. The House must therefore consider whether the Bill would give the proposed Assembly sufficient powers to protect Londoners. My view is that there are—not only are there the powers set out in clause 14 and the other statutory provisions, but there is the power of the Assembly to challenge the mayor and his strategy in a number of ways, and the power to examine the financial settlement. Those are the considerable powers that will be open to the Assembly, as well as public debate.
      Mr. Randall: I agree that we should be looking at the principle. Would the hon. Gentleman support the principle that the people of London should be able to remove the mayor in office? If so, that is the case that the Minister made in Committee.
      Mr. Darvill: If one supports that principle—the Conservatives have advanced it only through a recall petition—one must consider and debate the number of signatures that would be required for the recall and how one would authenticate the petition. There are massive practical difficulties. The hon. Gentleman asked whether

      537
      I am in favour in principle, but the principle has to be backed up by the practicality of putting that into effect in legislation. On balance, my view is that such legislation would be unwieldy. It would certainly lead to the destabilisation of the mayoralty and the governance of London so it would hinder the governance of London.
      Mr. Randall: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will agree, but I find it disappointing that despite the length of time that has been spent on the Bill—it has been Labour party policy for some time—a suitable method has not yet been thought of and that is why it will not be included in the legislation. Although the hon. Gentleman does not agree with some of the suggestions, does he agree that there should be some mechanism for removing the mayor and that we should have had something by now?
      Mr. Darvill: With respect, there are ways in which the mayor could be disqualified. Many hon. Members have made no reference to those provisions in advancing their ideas. Some scurrilous attacks have been made on various people, but that is no justification. When one looks at the debit and credit columns of the argument, one has to take into account all the credits and then see whether there is a weakness.
      There is no perfect constitution. There is always a balance between democracy and the ability to govern, whether in a country, a region or a city. There has to be that balance. In this proposal for an elected mayor and Assembly, we are for the first time vesting executive power in a mayor. If that mayor is to operate properly, he or she cannot constantly be open to a vote of confidence. The Bill provides that the mayor will go up for election every four years and that seems sufficient. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the Lords amendments.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I do not represent Greater London so I hesitate to take part in this debate, but it is an important constitutional matter. We are creating a uniquely powerful post. For some years I was both a London borough councillor and a member of the Greater London council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Before my hon. Friends cheer too much, I should say that I voted against the abolition of the GLC. I also voted against the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill earlier this week, as I did not consider it sufficiently democratic. Therefore, I have some credentials in arguing for a democratic framework for Greater London government.
      We are creating an extraordinarily powerful post. People are only just waking up to how influential the mayor will be. Ultimately, the Government will always be able to control the purse strings, but the mayor will be the only official to be elected by 8 million people. Therefore, he or she will have an enormous reservoir of political influence, and that may explain what is happening in the Labour party. The person who is finally elected to be mayor of London in the spring may well be either an independent candidate or a candidate who is independent of the Government albeit of the same party, without getting into the question of personalities. So there is room for enormous political controversy. That is why I support the Government to a certain extent on this amendment. We are creating a unique institution.
      538
      I accept the Government's argument that the mayor will be elected by a certain form of representation—voting—and the Assembly will be elected completely differently. We do not want to create a situation in which there is constant controversy and members of the Assembly feel that if a certain number of them gang up—whether 10, 15 or even 19—they can remove the mayor. I have considerable sympathy with the Government's view. We want the mayor to have the powers and the political independence, not to feel that he is the plaything of politicians. To that extent, I accept what the Minister has said.
      I also agree with some of the arguments made in the debate. There is no perfect way to remove a directly elected official. The Minister is on weaker ground as regards the experience in the rest of the world. As numerous contributors to the debate have said, there is no example of any directly elected official, as far as I am aware—whether a president or a mayor—who cannot be removed by a democratic assembly. That is a matter of some concern.
      Incidentally, I do not think that this situation is likely to arise. We have heard amusing comments about the mayor going insane or spending three months in prison, but that is unlikely. There has been some criticism of the candidates. We have one distinguished representative sitting in the Chamber. No one is seriously suggesting that he will go bonkers, whatever he may think of his opponents or potential opponents. That is not going to happen.
      We all know the arithmetic in the House. The Government will get their way tonight and the amendment will go crashing down to defeat. That is the way the House works. The Minister is a fair-minded man and we much admire the way in which he has piloted this legislation through the House. I hope that he thinks that fair arguments have been made in this long debate, which we could mull over if we were thinking of creating mayors in other cities or if we revisited the legislation.
      One could envisage a situation not in which the mayor is deemed to be insane under the Mental Health Acts or convicted of an offence, but in which London or any great city becomes ungovernable and the mayor for some reason simply loses the confidence of the people—we have heard the Mayor Barry example several times during the debate. There is no mechanism to deal with that.
      Since the 18th century, when people have devised new constitutions they have always created systems in which there is a division of powers. Basically, there is always an executive or an executive office, a legislative office and a judicial office. There is a separation of powers between the three. All constitutions have some mechanism for legislators who are elected by the people to remove a chief executive who loses the confidence of the people for whatever reason.
      In introducing the debate, the Minister alluded to the impeachment trial of President Clinton. He said that it was an abuse and that it showed how impeachment could be misused. As he knows, the American Senate rose above party politics. Although it was Republican dominated, it decided that there was no case for impeaching the President on the basis of high crimes and misdemeanours. Any directly elected assembly can rise above politics when dealing with such a situation. As far as I know, no American President has been successfully impeached.

      539
      President Nixon resigned before the process started, President Clinton was not impeached and, in the previous century, President Jackson survived the trial.
      Although all types of impeachment have their faults, surely it should be possible for the House to develop some mechanism, whether a recall procedure, a petition or a procedure by which a large portion of the Assembly has to vote for impeachment or no confidence or establish their case. Surely we are capable of developing some means by which a person in what will be a uniquely powerful directly elected office can be removed. That is all that we are asking, and the debate has proved that it is possible.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am not wedded to this amendment, but we must have some provision to achieve what it attempts to do. It has been said that all the contributions from Opposition Members have sounded party political. Rather than joining in a party kick-about, I wish to focus on matters of principle to try and clarify the situation and thus persuade Labour Members to see the merits of our very valid case.
      I consider the debate to be about accountability, and I suspect that most hon. Members would agree. Accountability and democracy are not the same thing, but the words have been used interchangeably by most previous speakers. One does not have to be elected to be accountable; even political accountability does not flow directly from the method of election, as some Labour Members have argued. Political accountability exists as a matter of principle, irrespective of the method of election. Even if we concede that there is an indirect link between accountability and the method of election and democracy, the link is not as simple as some have suggested.
      The Minister stressed in his opening remarks—others have echoed the point—that there is direct political accountability between the post of mayor and the people of London. That may be stating the obvious, but it does not help us understand why an amendment of this sort is needed. Direct accountability between the mayor and the electors of London is as simple as the Minister wants us to believe only if there is no link of any sort to an Assembly. Once an Assembly is introduced, as the Bill provides, there is direct accountability between the mayor and the Assembly. There is no point in saying that it is nothing to do with the Assembly and that the Assembly will somehow trample on the mayor's accountability to the people of London. That is to misunderstand the concept of accountability and the political process.
      We need to define accountability. A simple description that is frequently used is that it means hiring and firing. That is not necessarily the best definition, but as it always comes to mind, it is worth pursuing. As the Bill stands, the electorate hire the mayor, but they cannot fire him until the end of the four-year term. If hiring and firing is a reasonable description of accountability, the current method is both flawed and dangerous. If I were to be a successful candidate for the post of mayor of London, and I had no intention of seeking a second term of office, I could run amok. I could go out of control for four years because I would fear nothing. A one-term mayor would not be accountable to the electorate.
      Under the Bill, the electorate cannot fire the mayor, except at the end of four years. It follows that somebody, or something, must have the power to fire the mayor if
      540
      the post is to be truly accountable. If the electorate do not do the firing, the Assembly is the only realistic alternative. I consider it logistically impractical to use any of the methods that have been suggested to enable the electorate to get rid of the mayor. Even if we did, the arguments of perverseness would apply just as much to the electorate as the Assembly.
      It would also be wrong in principle to allow the electorate to fire the mayor. If we think through the concept of hiring and firing, it will become obvious why we should focus on the Assembly. Hiring and firing is too slick and simplistic a phrase to describe any part of the political process. Accountability involves more than hiring people and firing them if they are unsuitable. It involves giving the hired person work to do and checking to ensure that it has been done; and if the work is not satisfactory, the person can then be fired.
      Apparently, criticism sometimes works. We have heard this afternoon that sometimes if people are criticised enough, they will get the message and go away; but sometimes pigs will fly before that happens, so criticism is not a practical sanction. Neither is censure. It is all very well to allow people to pass a vote of no confidence, and then, lo and behold, through some mystical process, the mayor goes away. He might, but there is no guarantee.
      There seems only one practical sanction to deal with all the problems that have been mentioned this afternoon—that is, to remove the mayor from office. That brings me back to the point that somebody must have the power to fire a mayor who has transgressed. The Bill makes no provision for that; it provides only that a court can remove the mayor in specific circumstances, or the electorate after four years. That is the Government's argument.
      In fairness to the Minister, I have some sympathy with his point about the petty and perverse use of such a power. I also have some sympathy with the argument that it is possible to overrule a mandate if the Assembly goes too far. Those are valid points, but neither is an argument for having no sanction; they are arguments for accepting a different amendment that guards against what the Minister is concerned about.
      The Minister also said that he was worried that if we granted this power, it would make the mayor subordinate to the Assembly, whereas the Government want the mayor to be subordinate to no one but the electorate—but only after four years. But if there is no accountability on a day-to-day basis, the mayor is out of control.
      4.30 pm
      I am not wedded to the Lords amendment but I hope that the House, like me, is prepared to consider an alternative such as a bigger majority or defining the circumstances so that the power is limited. The Minister used the example of perverseness. In the case of President Clinton, the perverse activity seemed to be misuse of a cigar. It should not be beyond the wit of even this Government to frame an amendment to the Lords amendment to rule out the improper use of cigars as a ground for impeachment. However, that would not breach the principle that there have to be some such grounds.
      The Government's logic is deeply flawed. If they want to use perverseness as the reason for opposing the amendment, where does that argument end? If the electorate to whom the Minister wants us to turn were so

      541
      perverse as to vote for someone of whom the Government did not approve, would they use the same argument and say, "This is perverse, so we should not have elections because the power that we have given the electorate is not being used in the way we want"?
      My neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), argued that it would be sensible to leave it for now, see how we get on, and review the situation once we have a mayor. I would rather suffer from the perverse use of the power in the amendment than have a mayor who ran amok without any control.
      Mr. Wilkinson: What is noteworthy about this debate is that so few London Labour Members have seen fit to participate in it. It is true that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has given his aide-de-camp, the Minister for Housing and Planning, leave from his day job to come to the House and that we had a spirited intervention from the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes). I see a great future for him as a Labour Whip, rather like the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) made a conscientious contribution, as we would expect from an assiduous member of the Standing Committee.
      The fact is that the Labour party in London, in its heart of hearts, realises that this stinks. The Government are prepared to have a mayor in office with no proper check, balance or effective sanction on the exercise of his power. That is typical of the Labour party today. It is an utterly undemocratic party and wishes to institutionalise autocracy in the capital. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) put it well. It is a shameful process because Labour could foist an unpopular candidate on the people of London who may then find himself in office.
      The characteristics needed to win high-profile election campaigns such as that for the mayoralty are not necessarily those needed for good, effective, conscientious, trustworthy government. A high-profile personality may be great for winning elections but it remains to be seen whether such personalities can avoid letting the excitements of office go to their heads. The opportunities for abuse of the mayoralty's powers are manifold. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) said, they are perhaps greater than those for any public servant in our constitutional history apart from the Prime Minister. I was struck by what was said by two highly independent and senior Conservative Members, my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). Not having had to sit through the Committee, they come late to this debate, but, from their objective perspective, they understand the real danger that the mayor may abuse his power.
      The British political system is noteworthy for its powers of patronage. They typify the goings-on in this place, which are being institutionalised in the reform of the other place that will be completed by the end of next week. Such cronyism seems all set to be institutionalised in London, too. The people of London need to check it, and ensure that there is no abuse. The men and women
      542
      whom they elect to the Assembly will be seen by the electors as the custodians and guardians of their interests. Fourteen will have constituencies and will represent local interests. The other 11 will purport to represent the interests of London as a whole, although we know that, because of the closed lists by which they are chosen, they will represent more the interests of political parties.
      The Londoners who elect the Assembly men and women do not wish them to be paper tigers. They would not imagine that the men and women whom they put into the Assembly would have the power only to question the mayor once a month and comment on mayoral strategies for transport or spatial development. They do not expect the biannual people's question time to be much more than a political circus and media event. The serious examination of the performance and character of the mayor in office is surely the proper role for an elected democratic Assembly for London. The right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras laughs, but these are serious issues and are so regarded by the people of London.
      Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Assembly doing its job properly by questioning and holding to account the mayor, day in and day out, is how the checks and balances in the system will work?
      Mr. Wilkinson: No, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made so eminently clear, unless there is an ultimate power to fire him, a high-profile, aggressive self-confident mayor may think that it is all made for him, especially if he may not wish to stand again at the end of his four years. He may have become cosy with the construction companies and too familiar with other business interests so that he does not care a jot or tittle for criticism. He will press on regardless, conscious that he will earn a good pension and hopeful of being put on the board of big companies. He will feather his nest. Any publicity is food and drink to the media-hungry big personalities who may vie for the office.
      I listened with great attention to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who brings much legal and local government expertise to this debate. However, I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne: unless the Assembly can fire the mayor, it will prove to be a paper tiger. That would not only demean the Assembly but diminish the credibility of the authority as a whole. It is a binary system, and unless both parts work effectively, it will not carry authority.
      I forgot to mention the contribution of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I should have because it was exceptionally thoughtful. He brings more local government experience—or would new Labour call it baggage—to our debates than most Labour Members. The hon. Gentleman uttered many serious words of caution. He showed plainly that he was not satisfied that there should be no power to remove the mayor. He did not believe that it was feasible politically to implement the amendment. Of course, arithmetically it is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out. From the point of view of the hon. Gentleman's career, it is not worth sticking his neck out and voting against the Government. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) made it plain in his earliest intervention in proceedings on the Bill, I think on Second Reading, that, if he voted against the Government, he would be deselected, and that he therefore would not do so.

      543
      We must understand that autocracy is being imposed in London and that the Labour party has scant regard for democracy in London and the rest of the country. If the binary system is to work effectively, the mayor will have to co-operate, and work hand in glove, with the Assembly. They should be as one. The mayor should welcome consultation. He should be given an incentive to consult, in the knowledge that, if he upsets the Assembly, which is made up of elected representatives like him, his future could be on the line. That is the kind of democracy that the people of London expect and to which any objective observer would believe that the people of London or any great capital city are entitled. The tragedy is that the Labour party will not provide it.
      Mr. Waterson: This has been a fascinating debate. It was especially fascinating to see the Minister for Housing and Planning drop in and explain to us that he was not really here; that he is a sort of virtual Minister for these purposes.
      I express my pleasure at seeing the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) here. He is obviously expecting a rough campaign because I see that he has recruited a stunt double. I do not know whether wearing a beard is a requirement of his campaign, but it seems to be quite common among members of the team. It is good of the right hon. Gentleman and some of his team to fill up the Chamber, no doubt taking time off from the arduous sending of identical letters to people about the campaign.
      The debate has done credit to the House. It has been extremely wide ranging. I do not have time to go through in detail the points that have been made. The speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was useful in highlighting what I have called the Mayor Barry parallel. If there is no power to deal with a mayor who kicks over the traces and loses the plot, how on earth is any control to be exercised except, as he pointed out, perhaps by the media? The errant mayor would simply be hounded from office by the press.
      The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) expressed sensible reservations about the legislation, but I parted company with him on his suggestion that the issue could be dealt with later on. It would be a nightmare to have to deal with the problem when it had arisen and we had a mayor who was out of control or facing criminal or other investigations.
      The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) seems obsessed with the notion of coups on the GLC. He reminded me of the quote:
      "Treason doth never prosper, what's the reason?
      For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
      It is a coup if one is losing and not a coup if one is winning. I noted that he stumbled across the central issue. If one does not have the ability to stage a coup, as happened to the former leader of the GLC, how is one to make a mayor who is behaving badly stand down?
      4.45 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), with his encyclopaedic knowledge of the Bill, at least in the shape in which it left the House some months ago, had some penetrating things to say about it. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham)
      544
      made some interesting comments on the proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) spoke of the good sense of Londoners, and that will be brought into play if the amendment is not accepted by the Government. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) had a lot to say on votes of confidence and so on. From what I can gather, with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) claiming to lead his party outside Parliament, perhaps his own leader will face a vote of confidence fairly soon.
      The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) talked about protecting Londoners, but surely the Government's attitude to the Bill would principally protect a mayor, and a bad mayor at that. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) rightly referred to international comparisons. My hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) respectively, talked about the need for accountability and the autocracy of the Government, as displayed by the Bill.
      On any view, we need a mechanism for removing a mayor on the grounds of dishonesty, any other serious misbehaviour, if he has forfeited the support of the Assembly, or if he has just lost the plot generally. There have to be mechanisms for removing him or her. In other places such as Los Angeles, mechanisms exist to remove the Mayor by petition or otherwise.
      Much time was spent on the attempts to impeach the President of the United States for high crimes and misdemeanours, but saying that the US system is hopelessly flawed is not a good argument against introducing an equivalent system here, but one that works. With due respect to the Minister, the principal charge against the President was perjury. Surely even the Minister would not suggest that a mayor guilty of perjury should continue in office.
      The amendments have moved away from the so-called nuclear option described in the other place, but there is no provision for votes of confidence. If a Prime Minister loses a vote of confidence, he resigns, but constitutionally he does that because there is a higher authority—the Queen. There is no higher authority in London under the legislation than the mayor. The mayor would join the select band, which includes His Holiness the Pope and the Grand Mufti, of people who simply cannot be sacked by anyone, at least on this earth. If the mayor lost touch with reality and barricaded himself in his bunker, convinced that he was right and everyone else was wrong, there would be nothing that could be done about it.
      We think that the proposal strikes the right balance; 80 per cent. seems to be a reasonable proportion. If the Government felt that they could accept the principle—even though they have not yet done so—but achieve it differently, we should welcome their proposals.
      The Government's basic position is that the matter should be left to the ballot box in due course and, if appropriate, to the law in the meantime. However, we all know that the law can take a long time; in America, arguments are deployed that a sitting president should not even have to face legal action until he has left office. Similar arguments could be deployed in this country.
      The Government's only other argument against the proposal is that other parties would somehow gang up on the hapless mayor, who enjoyed the wholehearted support of ordinary folk in London, and get rid of him as soon as he was elected. However, the hon. Member for Ilford,

      545
      South—my former pair—pointed out that that could have happened under the old GLC; indeed, it did happen. It seems crazy and enormously risky for the Government to have no provision whatever to remove a mayor from office, except in severe circumstances.
      If a legal case were brought against the mayor, it could well take the rest of his or her period of office for such a case to be resolved. That would be to take an enormous risk with the constitutional arrangements. It would be an enormous risk for the people of London and, for that reason, I urge the House to accept the amendments.
      Mr. Raynsford: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few comments in response to a rather uneven debate. We have heard some thoughtful and interesting contributions from both sides of the House. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), who speaks for the Opposition, chose, in his introductory remarks, to take an ill-judged, party political approach—including some extremely distasteful personal attacks on individuals. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who must have been somewhat astonished to find himself included in the catalogue of supposed Labour extravagance and waste, made an astonishingly elegant riposte.
      Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister for that last comment. However, does he agree that the animadversions about candidates in the mayoral election fell first from his lips, not from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward)?
      Mr. Raynsford: When I introduced the debate, I focused on the key issue—whether there should be a means for the Assembly to remove a mayor from office. I gave examples of when I thought that it would be inappropriate for that power to be available. I did not set out to impugn individuals in any way—except in one aside about one candidate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] It was an aside, referring to one gentleman whose past might well lead some people to conclude that the Conservatives have a strong reason for wanting a power of removal, to avoid embarrassment.
      Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me again. Could he devise some system by which—while delivering speeches during the debates on the Bill—he could indicate whether an observation is substantive or an aside?
      Mr. Raynsford: With his considerable experience of this place, the right hon. Gentleman knows the difference between an aside, delivered with a degree of humour, and an ill-judged, party political rant.
      It is clear that there is no single model to which all Members of the House—or indeed all members of one political party—can sign up. Several different options have been considered and explored by various people, who have all concluded that no single model can be satisfactory. Whether we are talking about a framework for impeachment, or for a vote of no confidence, or to recall petitions, they are all subject to weaknesses. Those weaknesses were identified. The risk of abuse and of the demeaning of those powers—in the way that the
      546
      American constitution was demeaned by the activities of those wanting the impeachment of President Clinton—provides a salutary reason why we should not lightly take that route.
      The key question must be whether sufficient and satisfactory safeguards are in place. Are there sufficient and satisfactory phone cards—safeguards—
      Mr. Woodward: Phone cards? [Laughter.]
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Member for Witney, who revealed his ignorance by referring to "our city" earlier in the debate—presumably implying that he lives here and identifies more with London than with his own constituency—really should know better than to make such facile and juvenile contributions.
      The key question is whether there are adequate safeguards to ensure that any mayor who acts improperly or incorrectly can be held to account. The answer is that, in our legislation, there are. Let me summarise them.
      First, the mayor is subject to a rigorous system of accountability. He will have to account, on a monthly basis, to the Assembly; twice a year he will be subject to open questioning at people's question time; he will have an annual state of London debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) seems to regard a people's question time as beneath his dignity. I am sure that he would not expose himself to the electorate—[Interruption.] He would not expose himself to the scrutiny of the electorate—far from it. That is not his style. He would much prefer to hand down his views from on high and not be accountable at all.
      Our framework allows for proper accountability. In addition to the explicit arrangements for accountability, as everyone knows, the mayor will be subject to regular scrutiny by the media and the public of London. There is also a budgetary provision under which the Assembly will have the power to veto the mayor's budget if it regards it as unsatisfactory. That provision is a safeguard against inappropriate spending, waste and abuse—[Interruption.] Opposition Members clearly do not wish to listen to the debate and are behaving in a childish manner—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call on the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) to be quiet.
      Mr. Raynsford: I was referring to the budgetary safeguards, which ensure that the mayor will be subject to proper scrutiny by the Assembly. The mayor's budget can be changed and overruled by the Assembly if the Assembly believes that the mayor is misusing his power.
      Next, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) pointed out, there are the statutory officers, whose role in this Authority is the same as in any local authority. Finally, there is explicit provision in the legislation for the mayor to be removed from office if he is convicted of an offence, is bankrupt or is disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1989 or by the Audit Commission.
      The hon. Members for Witney and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) suggested that there could be circumstances in which the mayor was suspected of wrongdoing, but that wrongdoing could not be proved

      547
      in a court. In such circumstances, they believe that it would be appropriate for the Assembly rather than the courts to remove the mayor.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I did not say that.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am sorry, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at the record tomorrow, he will see that was the thrust of his remarks.
      It is a dangerous constitutional principle that someone could be removed from office on the basis of suspicion about his or her actions, when those actions would not lead to a conviction in court. That is a dangerous route to go down.
      Mr. Hughes: I have one simple question: why is it that everyone else in office—the First Minister in Scotland, the Prime Minister in England, Commissioners in Europe and mayors in local government—have constraints, restrictions, qualifications, and other people controlling what they do, yet, uniquely in any UK administration, the mayor of London cannot be removed by the Assembly of which he is part?
      Mr. Raynsford: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be aware from our earlier debate that the clear distinction, in the case of the GLA, is that the mayor is separately elected by the people of London on a different mandate, and it is inappropriate for someone elected by the people of London to be removed by another group of people who do not have the same mandate. That is the principle. He and his colleagues asked about overseas experience. We looked carefully at that. We looked at the arrangements in Washington, where there is provision for Congress to appoint an official to take over responsibility for functions in that city as a result of the failure of its mayor. I doubt whether the Liberal Democrats would have been pleased if we had provided for the Secretary of State to have powers to intervene.
      Washington, however, is just one model. In preparing the Bill, we discussed the matter with people in many parts of the world and their advice on this matter was, overwhelmingly, be very careful. Provisions for impeachment or recall may sound attractive, but they can be abused. The ability to abuse the system and, on the whim of a political grouping, remove a mayor who has been democratically elected by the people of London is a danger that we do not believe it is right to allow in the legislation.
      The Liberal Democrats urged us to have faith in democracy. We have faith in democracy, and in the people of London. We are giving them back the right to elect their own mayor and Assembly. Only the people of London should be able to remove the mayor. That is a proper framework of accountability in a democratic structure. The people of London will elect the mayor, and only the people of London should be able to remove that mayor.
      Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 151.

      Division No. 293]

      [5 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davidson, Ian

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ainger, Nick

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Alexander, Douglas

      Denham, John

      Allen, Graham

      Dismore, Andrew

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Austin, John

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Banks, Tony

      Doran, Frank

      Barnes, Harry

      Dowd, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Drew, David

      Battle, John

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Edwards, Huw

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Efford, Clive

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Fisher, Mark

      Berry, Roger

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Best, Harold

      Flint, Caroline

      Betts, Clive

      Flynn, Paul

      Blackman, Liz

      Follett, Barbara

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Foulkes, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Gapes, Mike

      Borrow, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cann, Jamie

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Grogan, John

      Casale, Roger

      Hain, Peter

      Caton, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Hanson, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Healey, John

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clelland, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clwyd, Ann

      Heppell, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hesford, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Colman, Tony

      Hill, Keith

      Connarty, Michael

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoey, Kate

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hood, Jimmy

      Cousins, Jim

      Hope, Phil

      Cranston, Ross

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Crausby, David

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cummings, John

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Hurst, Alan

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Darvill, Keith

      Illsley, Eric

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      549

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kemp, Fraser

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Khabra, Piara S

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kidney, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rooney, Terry

      Laxton, Bob

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lepper, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Levitt, Tom

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Salter, Martin

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Linton, Martin

      Sawford, Phil

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Love, Andrew

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCabe, Steve

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      MacShane, Denis

      Snape, Peter

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Soley, Clive

      McWalter, Tony

      Spellar, John

      McWilliam, John

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Meale, Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Merron, Gillian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Miller, Andrew

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mountford, Kali

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Timms, Stephen

      Mudie, George

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mullin, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Touhig, Don

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Tynan, Bill

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Vaz, Keith

      Pearson, Ian

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pendry, Tom

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Wareing, Robert N

      550

      Watts, David

      Wise, Audrey

      White, Brian

      Wood, Mike

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Woolas, Phil

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Worthington, Tony

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Wray, James

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Wills, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winnick, David

      Mr. Tony McNulty and

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Mr. Kevin Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Allan, Richard

      Horam, John

      Amess, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Baker, Norman

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Beggs, Roy

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bercow, John

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Blunt, Crispin

      Body, Sir Richard

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Key, Robert

      Brady, Graham

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Brake, Tom

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Brazier, Julian

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Breed, Colin

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Leigh, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Lidington, David

      Burns, Simon

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Burstow, Paul

      Loughton, Tim

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Luff, Peter

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Chidgey, David

      MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

      Clappison, James

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Collins, Tim

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Cotter, Brian

      Madel, Sir David

      Cran, James

      Malins, Humfrey

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Maples, John

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Mates, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Duncan, Alan

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Evans, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Faber, David

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Fallon, Michael

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Öpik, Lembit

      Flight, Howard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Page, Richard

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Paice, James

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Paterson, Owen

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Pickles, Eric

      Gale, Roger

      Prior, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Randall, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gibb, Nick

      Rendel, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Gray, James

      Ruffley, David

      Green, Damian

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Greenway, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Grieve, Dominic

      Sanders, Adrian

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hammond, Philip

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Heald, Oliver

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

      551

      Soames, Nicholas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Webb, Steve

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Spring, Richard

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whittingdale, John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Willetts, David

      Syms, Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Yeo, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tyler, Paul

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Wardle, Charles

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.

    Clause 3

      TIME OF ORDINARY ELECTIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 20, at end insert—
      ("(d) for or in connection with enabling electors to vote in the poll at such polling stations or other places as may be prescribed, at such times as may be prescribed, on such one or more days preceding the date specified in or provided under subsection (1) above for the poll as may be specified in the order.
      ( ) The provision that may be made by an order under paragraph (d) of subsection (4) above includes provision for such enactments or statutory instruments as may be specified in the order to have effect with such modifications as may be so specified.
      ( ) In this section "prescribed" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, an order under this section.")
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5, 7 to 11 and 586 to 611.
      Mr. Raynsford: This group of amendments deals with a range of matters relating to the election of the mayor and Assembly. It provides for a system of early voting, amends the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take account of the new electoral arrangements—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: This group of amendments will amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to take account of the new electoral arrangements that the Bill introduces; provide for the filling of a vacancy in the office of mayor in particular circumstances; and give the Secretary of State powers, by order, to set limits on campaign expenditure and to incur expenditure on the Greater London Authority's first election in advance of the appointment of the Greater London returning officer. The group also includes a number of drafting or technical amendments.
      552
      I commend the amendments to the House. If any hon. Member wishes to raise a point of detail, I shall be happy further to explain the amendments.
      Mr. Woodward: We have various concerns about this group of amendments, particularly its late introduction and precipitate consideration in another place. However, because of the short time that the Government have afforded for debate on the Bill, I shall address my remarks specifically to Lords amendment No. 2, on early voting, which seeks to introduce a completely novel system at the first election to a completely novel authority. We oppose the amendment.
      We support sensible measures to increase the often dismal turnout at local elections—turnout at Britain's local elections is often the lowest of all European Union member states. We also do not in principle oppose the concept of early voting. In June 1998, in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Conservative party largely supported the principle. However, we believe that introducing early voting at the first London election would be one experiment too far.
      It has already been decided that an untried, untested system of electronic counting will be used at the election. It is debatable whether computer scans, rather than hand-counted votes, will increase transparency of the process. Voters already feel perplexed by the election, thanks to the convoluted electoral system giving each Londoner four votes. Few members of the public—indeed, few hon. Members—could properly explain the system to be used for electing Assembly members, and I suspect that only a few more hon. Members could wax more lyrical about the supplementary vote to be used to elect the mayor.
      It would be ironic if the early voting experiment, which is designed to increase turnout, has the opposite effect of decreasing turnout, making voters feel even more distant from the process. A simpler process would have keener followers.
      Contrary to an argument advanced by the Government, the experiment will be of no use to those analysing the impact of early voting on turnout. There has never been a Greater London Authority election. The place to run a trial of early voting is surely in local government elections, in which a change in turnout could be compared with results over many years.
      As I said, the experiment could diminish turnout below the levels of interest that this high-profile, personality-driven campaign might otherwise attract—however, with no baseline comparison to make, we shall never know. If early voting is to be explored as an option, we should favour pilot projects. The first election for a mayor and Assembly for London should not be a pilot project for anything other than itself.
      Clause 3 is badly drafted and vague. I wrote to the Minister for some clarification on the clause, as I thought that it might be helpful to have such clarification before this debate. On Tuesday, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), replied:
      "The Government Office for London wrote to the London Boroughs and the Common Council in August seeking initial comments on outline proposals…I have placed a copy of the letter in the House Library. We are considering the responses received".—[Official Report, 2 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 81.]

      553
      The House is therefore being asked today to pass legislation before the Government have even finished considering responses to the outline proposals.
      The clause, without going into any further detail, would give the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers—we have become rather used to those with this rather autocratic Government—to allow voting at places other than polling stations. The Secretary of State would have the power to set polling hours and to permit early voting on any number of days prior to polling day. That runs counter to the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that that should apply only from the Monday of polling week onwards. The Secretary of State has the power to make changes to enactments. The amendment mentions little about safeguards, and I look forward to the Minister telling us about those this afternoon.
      There is nothing to ban exit polling of early voting. Is it the intention of the Minister so to do? It is clear that the early release of exit polling data can and does materially affect election results. We do not know who will pay the extra bills for early voting. I imagine that the Minister for Housing and Planning—taking part not in his advisory role, but once again at the Dispatch Box—will inform us. Who will pay for the guarding of ballot boxes outside polling hours? What will be the implications for the police?
      One of the biggest concerns in the boroughs is the risk of personation—multiple voting by the same individual, whose multiple appearance over several days is not recognised by officials at the polling station. What specific steps is the Minister taking to prevent that? Or is this yet another area for consideration which the Government have not yet considered? We are being asked to pass a measure which—like much of the Bill—the Government have not thought through.
      Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly incumbent upon the Government in this case immediately to provide practical reassurance that their procedures do not provide scope for personation, in view of the fact that, in another area of Government legislation, the Government are undoubtedly guilty of providing exactly such scope for personation—namely in relation to petitions for grammar schools?
      Mr. Woodward: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope the Minister will take those matters seriously. The Government have a lot of experience of canvassing individuals for their votes. Perhaps more consideration has been given to running the campaigns of individual members of the Labour party than to the proper business of the Minister—the consideration of his responsibilities for organising early voting and telling the House today what the implications and safeguards will be.
      The Government office for London wrote to electoral registration officers on 10 August this year, outlining the proposal to allow early voting from 9 am on Thursday 27 April to 5 pm on Sunday 30 April. Polling hours would be 9 am and 9 pm on Thursday to Friday, and 9 am and 5 pm on Saturday and Sunday. With the polls open on Sunday, there would be three clear days before polling day proper. Why is the experiment not conforming to the advice of the Home Affairs Committee, which proposed having one early polling station per borough, located centrally? This is an experiment too far.
      554
      This is already a highly complex new situation in London. Why have the Government not looked at ways of making proxy and, in particular, postal votes more easily obtainable for Londoners—as that very probably would be a far better solution for London next year? We should retain an open mind on closely monitored trials for early voting where the impact on turnout patterns can be measured, but not in this election. This amendment carries high risks and high costs, and the House should not agree to it.
      Mr. Forth: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). What disturbs me more than anything is that this radical measure is being slipped in at this stage, when the House cannot do justice to it. Any change to our electoral and voting procedures is of great importance and should be made only after great thought and with caution. To suggest such a general and loose wording is completely unacceptable, and I hope that the House will oppose the amendment for that reason.
      In any case, I am not convinced that we need to make voting easier for the electorate. I do not take a patronising attitude to voters which assumes that they are incapable of getting to voting station in the generous hours that are currently allowed to them. I do not start from the same assumption as many: that our voters are stupid or incapable of getting to a polling station.
      Even if I made such an assumption, and thus patronised the electorate, the provisions of the Lords amendments would not be the right way to deal with the problem. I would want more reassurance than the amendments could possibly provide about the security of such an approach to voting. As soon as we start to spread voting procedures physically and chronologically, we are in danger of losing the control that has been such an integral and important part of the voting process since it began in this country.
      The risks outweigh any potential or claimed benefits of the dubious proposal to extend the voting process by the means that the Lords amendments describe so vaguely and inadequately. We have no idea what
      "polling stations or other places as may be prescribed, on such one or more days preceding the date specified"
      means. The process threatens to become dangerously out of control and could jeopardise the foundations of our electoral system, which we have rightly taken for granted because of the excellence of the provisions to which we are accustomed, and of the work of electoral registration officers and others. The Lords amendments, which the Government support, are unacceptable. The House should throw out Lords amendment No. 2, and insist on proper consideration before it is brought back.
      Mr. Brooke: Arrangements in my constituency have always been in advance of those in the rest of the country. When the Great Reform Act 1832 was passed, the franchise in Westminster declined because its parameters were more liberal than the Act's provisions.
      In 1784, at the end of the first week's polling in a six-week campaign, my predecessor, Mr. Charles James Fox, was 300 votes behind in an electorate of about 6,000. The Duchess of Devonshire was brought in, and in the next five weeks kissed every tapman and navigator between Hounslow and Temple Bar, and Mr. Fox was returned. The state of the poll was made known regularly

      555
      during the six weeks. In 1846, although polling occurred at least on one day, the result of the poll was declared at every hour, so that both parties knew what was happening.
      I assume from Lords amendment No. 2 that what I have described constitute the evils of conservatism, and that what we are promised in the next century are the benign benefits of radical modernisation. However, I must disagree.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) is as informative as ever, but he failed to make it clear that Charles James Fox was not his immediate predecessor, for which we—and probably he—are grateful.
      We welcome Lords amendment No. 2 and the thrust of the group of amendments. I want merely to reflect an aggravation for voters. People often realise too late that an election will be held and that they will not be in their constituencies. I hope that the Lords amendments will provide for orders to be made to allow people who know that they will be away, and have only just discovered that a poll is to be held, to register and cast their vote by post or proxy up to the last minute. Inability to do that is a perpetual frustration.
      People regularly claim that they would have voted if they had known about the election in time. If we can do something about that, we will improve the reliability of an election's outcome, its reflection of the community's views and the credibility of the exercise by maximising the number of people who vote.
      Mr. Wilshire: The Minister said that the proposal was for early voting. That put me in mind of, "Vote early, vote often." That is at the heart of why I am opposed to it. It is foolish in the extreme and simply asking for trouble to try to do yet more things on an occasion when we are voting for a mayor and an Assembly of a type that we have never had before, with two ballots on the same day using two different systems. That is to play fast and loose with the electoral process. When politicians start tinkering with the electoral process alarm bells should start ringing all over the place.
      5.30 pm
      Having been a councillor, I understand why people would like more than 30 per cent. to vote in council elections, but I have observed that in a general election, using exactly the same system, for some mysterious reason 70 per cent. are able to cope. I simply do not buy the idea that when there is a local election it becomes impossible for those same people to vote again. The simple explanation for only 30 per cent. bothering to vote is that only 30 per cent. could care less. The moral is not to play fast and loose with the electoral system but somehow to make local government more relevant and important to electors. If the Assembly and the mayor are to be so important, so popular and so good, 70 per cent. will surely turn up, so why worry? If we use the same system and only 30 per cent. turn up, the message to the Government will be clear.
      I am seriously worried about tinkering in this way. If we are to go down this route, because the majority says that we should, we should settle for the principle that every elector can vote at only one place rather than having electors running all over the place whenever and wherever
      556
      they like. How else will the candidates have any chance of checking on personation? Voting early and often becomes much more likely if there are lots of different polling places.
      We should limit the number of voters who can vote at any one place. How on earth can a returning officer and a presiding officer cope with anyone on the entire register being able to turn up, without either chaos ensuing, producing a flawed result, or queues forming that are so long as to put people off voting?
      Mr. Wilkinson: The amendment might be thought frivolous but it is deadly serious, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made plain. Any monkeying about with the electoral system should be undertaken only after the most careful scrutiny and with plenty of notice. The amendment has simply been popped into the Bill at the Government's behest to suit their convenience, because they realise that the Assembly and the mayoralty are not likely to arouse much public interest and they have to find a way of getting more people to vote.
      The concept of a multiplicity of polling places belittles the seriousness and importance of a voting day as an occasion. Voting is one of the most important functions that a citizen can fulfil. We should not trivialise it. The Labour party talks about voting in supermarkets and other public places—no doubt hairdressers will be next—but that will make it like filling in a national lottery form rather than exercising a democratic franchise on which the good governance of the country depends.
      There is a very real danger of personation if the polling process takes place over several days. I am sure that it will be argued that if the turnout persists in being low, even with early polling, we ought to have late polling. That happened when I was an observer at an election in Peru. I do not think that it affected the result but it is not good electoral practice to have late polling or polling over several days—we heard earlier about exit polls influencing a result—as political and economic circumstances can change and make a material difference to the outcome. That is why traditional voting hours make good sense.
      One of my memories of the February 1974 general election may make people realise how important the problem of impersonation is. Had I won at that election, I would not tell this story, but one of my Pakistani supporters came up to me in the university ward in Bradford, West and said, "Mr. John, Mr. John, I have done very well. Not only have I voted for you, but I have voted on behalf of my brother, who is in Pakistan, and my uncle, who died last year." I can tell that story because I did not get in, and it reveals the seriousness of the problem of personation.
      Mr. Randall: I echo what has been said by my hon. Friends. I am appalled that such an innovation should be brought into the Bill at such a late stage. We had many happy hours on the Standing Committee, and, if the Government had wanted to introduce such a system, I cannot understand why they did not do so then. There are important questions that should have been be debated, but knowing the Liberal Democrats' propensity to debate such matters for ever, I have a slight feeling of dread that if that had happened, we might still be in the Standing Committee

      557
      now. I am surprised that the Liberal Democrats have accepted the amendment so easily; its wording is so wishy-washy, and would allow so many different things to happen, that it should be rejected straight away.
      All sorts of questions have been raised, and I agree with what has been said about exit polls. There is always a bandwagon effect, and we should be careful to ensure that exit polls are not made public, or perhaps do not take place at all.
      As a former campaigning agent, I have some advice for the Minister. In my experience, it is difficult enough to cope with one election day, so if he had to deal with an election taking place over several days he might lose even more of his hair. Will schools that are used as polling stations be shut for considerable periods? Will supermarkets be used, or even furniture stores? There are some very important matters to discuss.
      I cannot understand why the people of London are to be treated as guinea pigs. The main meat of the Bill—the Assembly and the mayor—already makes them guinea pigs, and the people in my constituency are not particularly happy about that. They will be even less happy about having the new arrangement thrust in at the last moment as well.
      Why is that happening? Is it a desperate attempt to get more core Labour voters to turn out? I suggest that the reason why they do not come out now is not because they have not got time, but because they do not want to. Keeping the polling stations open for longer, and on other days, will make no difference.
      I have great respect for the Minister after all those hours on the Standing Committee. I know that he is an honourable man and he did an excellent job. I therefore ask him whether he will kindly withdraw the amendment—although I do not know whether he can do that, as it is a Lords amendment. I promise that if the Government agree to withdraw it—or not to agree with it, or whatever—I shall say no more about it, but will put it down to campaigning exuberance and the Minister's desire to please his master.
      Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate, which seemed to reveal a degree of panic in the Conservative party at the idea of anything designed to make it easier for people to vote. The suggestion that early voting will discourage turnout is nonsense, and the idea that civilisation will end if we break the habit of allowing people to vote in local elections only on the first Thursday in May was well demolished by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), with his delightful descriptions of voting patterns in the 18th and 19th centuries.
      All that this modest proposal will do is to give powers to the Secretary of State to introduce an arrangement for voting in advance. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly pointed out, the amendment is simply a response to the problem of people finding, relatively late in the campaign, that they will be away but have not registered in time for a postal or proxy vote. To cover that eventuality, this modest proposal is designed to make it easier for some people to retain their democratic rights. I find it astonishing that the proposal should have been treated as it has been by the Conservatives.
      558
      In response to the question put by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, I can confirm that we are consulting with local authorities on the best way to achieve advance voting. They have practical considerations to take into account, but we wish to engineer it so that—
      Mr. Woodward: Yes, engineer it.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is funny that we are talking seriously with local government about how to introduce arrangements that will work and enable people to vote who otherwise could not. He may regard the failure of democracy, when people cannot vote, as gerrymandering: we do not. It is in everyone's interests that people should be able to vote if they are entitled to do so. I am appalled by the hon. Gentleman's casual attitude and the smirk on his face when I am talking about serious matters.
      Mr. Woodward: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: No, I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman had a smirk on his face while we were making serious proposals to make it possible for people to vote who would otherwise find that their democratic rights are denied. The Labour party believes in democracy, but the Conservative party has once again shown its contempt for democracy and why it is the party of conservatism.
      Mr. Woodward: If the Minister so strongly believes in one member, one vote, why will he not allow it to be used for the selection of the Labour party candidate for mayor?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the subject of this debate. I will take no lessons from him on democracy. We are talking about making it easier for people to vote in the GLA elections in May next year and I shall not be diverted by him into another channel. He should know that. If he spent more time doing his own job properly, instead of making cheap gibes at other people—including a distasteful personal attack in which the Deputy Speaker had to intervene in an earlier debate—the hon. Gentleman would do the House a service. Perhaps he might show a little more judgment in future.
      This modest measure is designed to ensure that we help people to vote who otherwise would be unable to do so. That may increase the turnout or it may not. I cannot guarantee that it will achieve the objective of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and improve the reliability of the outcome. That is hoping for too much from measures that are modest but appropriate. I hope that the House will endorse them.
      Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 119.

      Division No. 294]

      [5.43 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Ainger, Nick

      Austin, John

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Barron, Kevin

      Allan, Richard

      Battle, John

      Allen, Graham

      Bayley, Hugh

      559

      Beard, Nigel

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Edwards, Huw

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Efford, Clive

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Ennis, Jeff

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Etherington, Bill

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Berry, Roger

      Fisher, Mark

      Best, Harold

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Blackman, Liz

      Flint, Caroline

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Flynn, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Follett, Barbara

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Boateng, Paul

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Borrow, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Foulkes, George

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Gapes, Mike

      Brake, Tom

      Gardiner, Barry

      Breed, Colin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Godsiff, Roger

      Burden, Richard

      Goggins, Paul

      Burstow, Paul

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Grogan, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Hain, Peter

      Caplin, Ivor

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Cawsey, Ian

      Hanson, David

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Chaytor, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Chidgey, David

      Healey, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clelland, David

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clwyd, Ann

      Hill, Keith

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hinchliffe, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Coleman, Iain

      Hoey, Kate

      Colman, Tony

      Hood, Jimmy

      Connarty, Michael

      Hope, Phil

      Corbett, Robin

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Cotter, Brian

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cranston, Ross

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Crausby, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hurst, Alan

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Illsley, Eric

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jamieson, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobbin, Jim

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dowd, Jim

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Drew, David

      Kemp, Fraser

      560

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rendel, David

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Rooker, Jeff

      Laxton, Bob

      Rooney, Terry

      Lepper, David

      Rowlands, Ted

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ruddock, Joan

      Levitt, Tom

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCabe, Steve

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McDonnell, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Skinner, Dennis

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      MacShane, Denis

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McWalter, Tony

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

      McWilliam, John

      Snape, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Meale, Alan

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Merron, Gillian

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Stringer, Graham

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miller, Andrew

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moffatt, Laura

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Mountford, Kali

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Mudie, George

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mullin, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Timms, Stephen

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Todd, Mark

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Touhig, Don

      Olner, Bill

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Neill, Martin

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Pearson, Ian

      Tyler, Paul

      Pendry, Tom

      Tynan, Bill

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Pike, Peter L

      Wareing, Robert N

      Plaskitt, James

      Watts, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Webb, Steve

      Pond, Chris

      White, Brian

      Pope, Greg

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pound, Stephen

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Purchase, Ken

      Wills, Michael

      561

      Wilson, Brian

      Wray, James

      Winnick, David

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wise, Audrey

      Wood, Mike

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Woolas, Phil

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Tony McNulty.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Amess, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Luff, Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Baldry, Tony

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Beggs, Roy

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Bercow, John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Madel, Sir David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Malins, Hurnfrey

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Maples, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Mates, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Brazier, Julian

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Moss, Malcolm

      Burns, Simon

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Norman, Archie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Clappison, James

      Ottaway, Richard

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Page, Richard

      Collins, Tim

      Paice, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Paterson, Owen

      Cran, James

      Pickles, Eric

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Prior, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Randall, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      Robathan, Andrew

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

      Evans, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Faber, David

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Fabricant, Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fallon, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Fox Dr Liam

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Spring, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Gibb, Nick

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gill, Christopher

      Syms, Robert

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gray, James

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Green, Damian

      Townend, John

      Greenway, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Trend, Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Viggers, Peter

      Heald, Oliver

      Wardle, Charles

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Horam, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Whittingdale, John

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Willetts, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Wilshire, David

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Key, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. John M. Taylor and

      Lidington, David

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 5 agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 6 disagreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 11 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

    New Clause

      SALARIES AND EXPENSES
      Lords amendment: No. 12, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—Salaries and expenses—
      ".—(1) The Authority shall pay to the Mayor and the Assembly members salaries at such levels—

      (a) as the Authority from time to time determines; or

      (b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State directs.

      (2) The Authority may pay to the Mayor and the Assembly members, in respect of expenses incurred in the exercise of their functions, allowances at such levels—

      (a) as the Authority may from time to time determine; or

      (b) before the first determination, as the Secretary of State may direct.

      (3) A determination or direction under subsection (1) above may provide—

      (a) for a higher level of salary to be payable to the Mayor than to any Assembly member;

      (b) for higher levels of salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding the offices specified in subsection (4) below than to other Assembly members; and

      (c) for different salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding different such offices.

      (4) The offices mentioned in subsection (3)(b) above are—

      (a) Deputy Mayor;

      (b) Chair of the Assembly.

      (5) A determination or direction under subsection (2) above may provide for different allowances for different cases.
      (6) A determination under this section may provide for levels of salaries or allowances to change from time to time by reference to a specified formula.
      (7) The Authority's functions of making determinations under this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor and the Assembly acting jointly on behalf of the Authority.
      (8) The standing orders of the Authority must include provision for the publication of every determination under this section.
      (9) The Secretary of State shall publish any direction under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after it is given."
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16, 115, 532, 564, 658, 742 and 788.
      Mr. Raynsford: The amendments provide for the Authority to pay the mayor and Assembly members' salaries and expenses, and to abate those salaries where the members hold other paid public offices to which they have been elected or appointed. They provide for the Authority to establish a pension scheme for the mayor and the Assembly, and for the Authority to publish details each year of salaries and expenses that have been paid and of the financial provision made for pensions. They also provide for the exclusion of Assembly members from attendance allowance or other remuneration schemes of

      563
      the fire authority and the London development agency. Such provision is already made in relation to the Metropolitan police authority, and Assembly members cannot be appointed to Transport for London. The other minor amendments are consequential on these principal amendments.
      Mr. Forth: This is all very well, but it is yet another case of a substantial issue being slipped in quietly at this stage of the Bill's progress, presumably in the hope that not too many people will notice or pay attention to it.
      The amendments raise the substantial issue of whether an elected authority should be free to set whatever pay levels for itself that it deems fit. Not even this House has that freedom: we defer to the Review Body on Senior Salaries, which gives the public a degree of confidence that Members of Parliament are not voting themselves excessive salaries—at least, we think it does. But no such reassurance is built into this mechanism. We are saying, in the purest possible form, that we will trust the elected members to pay themselves an appropriate salary, without any longstop or backstop.
      Mr. Raynsford: To avoid any confusion or uncertainty, I should like to make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman, as I hope I did in Committee, that the salaries will be based on the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Board.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. I had not spotted any such provision in the Bill. The Minister's confirmation will give some comfort to the public, particularly as this is a completely new venture, and for that I am grateful. If nothing else, the debate has clarified one matter.
      I should like a similar reassurance from the Minister who, I am interested to see, is playing a prominent role in our proceedings. He started by saying modestly that he was more of an adviser or bystander, but we have had the privilege and pleasure of his very active participation. We have not heard much from the other Minister, but we may hear more as time goes on. I await the moment.
      I have another point on which I hope to elicit a similar reassurance from the Minister. Lords amendment No. 14 concerns pensions, which are, if anything, even more sensitive than salaries. Salaries are relatively open and transparent, but pensions are complex and it is often difficult for the public to understand exactly what is being paid and on what basis. There are questions about length of service and who makes contributions—the employee or the employer—and so on. There are huge variations in pension schemes for elected representatives around the world. Some are extraordinarily generous—in passing, I think that ours is particularly parsimonious and, given that the average length of Members' service is only 12 years, unfair.
      6 pm
      We need some reassurance from the Minister, similar to that which he gave on salaries, that in making provision for pensions at the start of this new body, there is no question of members being able to vote themselves over-generous pension arrangements that require excessive input from the hapless taxpayer. A balance must be struck, but we need some reassurance that there will
      564
      be a mechanism to reassure the House and the taxpayer at large that the pensions provisions will have a safety mechanism attached and not be excessively generous.
      Mr. Wilshire: The Minister may be able to confirm something for me and thus make most of what I want to say irrelevant. I was not on the Standing Committee, but he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that he had made it clear in Committee that guidelines would have to be followed. Will that be enacted, or is it only what the Government hope will happen? Will the Assembly be able to note the guidance of the top Review Body on Senior Salaries and then move on, or will it be bound by it?
      Mr. Raynsford: I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks. In the ethical guidance that will be issued, we intend to indicate that the initial salaries will be set by the Secretary of State on the recommendations of the Review Body on Senior Salaries. Subsequently, the Authority itself should have regard to the recommendations of the review body in any upgrading of, or changes to, those salaries.
      Mr. Wilshire: Sadly, that has not rendered what I want to say useless. Ethical guidelines are wonderful things that we should all follow and recommendations are useful, but I was seeking reassurance that there was a statutory obligation that bound the Authority. Without that, my concerns still stand.
      Whatever the ethical considerations, we are being requested to vote to allow the Authority to pay itself whatever it likes. It has only to listen and think before doing so. That is not the case in local government, so why should it be with the Authority? Why are the guidelines, whatever they may be, not being put in terms that require them to be followed? If that is not possible, why cannot we pass the setting of salaries to an independent third party, so we do not have people deciding what they want to put in their pockets and doing so at the public's expense? We should review what we are being asked to do. This is not party political, because my worry applies irrespective of which party the Assembly's members come from.
      I am even more concerned about expenses. It is always easy to home in on someone's salary, but expenses often get published only as a general figure. Over the years, many people have wanted to spare their own blushes and avoid the bad publicity of a pay rise by turning their attention to setting their own expenses.
      I do not see anywhere in the Bill proposals to limit the power of the Authority's members to set their own expenses. There is not even any reference to guidelines or codes. The Minister may say that there will be guidelines. That would help a bit, but it is not enough reassurance.
      The Bill allows for indexation. I am all in favour of indexation as a way of dealing with inflation, but there ought to be some limit on the amount of indexation that can be applied, or some terms that will have to be followed. If I understand it correctly, at the moment the Authority can simply say that it will index salaries by 25 per cent. a year, without justification. That will have the power of law. So I hope that, even at this last moment, the Government will consider limiting automatic indexation of salaries and expenses to the rate of inflation.

      565
      If the Authority wishes to go above the rate of inflation, it should have to discuss it at a public meeting at which the press can hear what is said and report it.
      The Bill also makes reference to the publication of information. All of us who have been through local government know only too well what happens when a minute advert is put on page 43 of the local rag. That amounts to publication, but it does not tell anyone anything—because no one sees it. In saying that matters must be published, this House, the Government or whoever should specify that information is to be published in such a way that it is clear for all to see, and in a place and form in which the public will understand it.
      The other matter on which I ask the Minister to comment is pensions. Rather like expenses, pensions can become a useful way of acting in a fashion that the press and public do not necessarily notice. Will details about pensions include just the employees' portion of the payment? Will they include the employer's portion, or will the two be listed separately? Will details be given of when pensions are payable? There are some splendid examples from around the world. Australia is the one that always come to mind. A person has to serve in the Parliament for only a short period to go on to a full pension. That is a relevant matter for the Greater London Authority.
      Will we be told what the end benefits are for people whose contributions are paid at public expense? If a body which is subsidiary to Parliament and the Government is given financial freedom which is not given to other people, we shall lay the system wide open to abuse. In due course, there will be a scandal and we shall be back here having to legislate. We can prevent all that by getting the Bill right tonight.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has given some wise words of caution. The first days of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament gave those bodies no good publicity because all they appeared to discuss was salaries, costs and so on. There is a wider issue here about the management of public money paid in salaries, expenses and pensions. I understand the implications: this would take us down the road of public sector pay control for all public bodies.
      I have three specific questions for the Minister, but I flag it up that devolving to each body in the public sector the power to make its own pay arrangements provides a large opportunity for actions that produce great criticism. I have checked with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) that my understanding is right. Local government, for example, is now much more free to make its own arrangements. The danger of that whole process is that, if the chief executive of the next door authority is paid £120,000, we have to pay the same to our chief executive, and then the members will decide that they have to pay themselves a decent amount because they will not otherwise receive anything like the same as their chief executive. The sums never go down—the process never works in the other direction.
      Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman thoughtfully referred to public sector pay restraint, but I hope that he
      566
      can see the difference between a debate about elected members and one about paid officials. That is the only distinction that I should like him to draw.
      Mr. Hughes: I understand that, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that, for example, when a person is considering whether to be a full-time councillor, and—in this instance—a full-time council leader, he or she might ask, "How much would that pay me, and how much are the people who work with me paid?"
      I have three questions. First, I accept the Minister's proposition that, in effect, we should start with the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Body as to what the salaries of the mayor and Assembly members should be. That is the proper way to determine their salaries, and I am not against the idea that the salaries should continue thus to be determined. I do not know whether I have the authority to say that—it is a personal view.
      One relevant issue that has been recorded with the review body by London local government leaders, cross-party, is that whatever amount is decided should reflect those aspects that are particular to living, working and serving in the capital city. The amount should reflect, first, the cost of living and travelling in London; and secondly, it should be comparable with that received by people who do comparable jobs. We want the mayor to be worthy of the city, but if he or she chooses not to take their salary, that is their responsibility. However, we should consider how much they are paid compared with mayors of other great European cities—also how large an electorate they represent, what their work load will be, and so on.
      That raises some difficult questions, because if one is on the top-up list in London, one is part of a group of people who represent the whole of London, but that should not mean that one can expect a salary that is X times more than someone who represents a particular constituency. Representations have been made to the salaries review body, and I hope that the points that apply specifically to London will be taken properly into account.
      My second question does not seem to have been answered thus far. Amendment No. 13 is headed:
      "Limit on salaries of members of other public bodies."
      It deals with the fact that the dual mandate is not precluded. My understanding is that one could be a Member of Parliament and a member of the Assembly, or a councillor and a member of the Assembly. I accept that, and I support the idea that one should not be able to accumulate salary after salary and expenses after expenses. However, behind that amendment is the question of whether people are expected to be full time or part time. For example, if there is to be a deduction for someone is a Southwark councillor and a member of the Greater London Assembly, why should there not also be a deduction if that person has a private salary?
      There is one answer to that question that I can understand, but I do not think that it is sufficient. People who are not doing a full-time job should perhaps expect a reduction if they have other income. That point also applies to the debates about our costs in this place.

      567
      Will the Minister consider whether my third question could be dealt with under secondary legislation? Amendment No. 12 includes the provision:
      "A determination or direction … may provide … for different salaries to be payable to Assembly members holding different such officers."
      Under a normal understanding of the drafting, that would allow, at least in theory, for a different salary to be paid to everybody in the Assembly, because everyone would be doing a different job—chairing different committees, sub-committees and so on. It cannot be right to give great discretion to the Government of the day to determine the salaries of different people so differentially. I am not suggesting that that is in the Government's mind, but Government must be seen to act impartially. I want to ensure that the wording does not allow abuse of the system, with some people getting a good deal, while others get a less good deal.
      Mr. Randall: May I offer the Minister a cautionary tale with regard to people setting their own salaries and allowances? In the London borough of Hillingdon, councillors enjoy the second lowest allowances in London. All the parties have got together to try to increase them and to bring them more in line with those of other boroughs. However, it is a time of financial constraint in the borough and the subject is regarded by the public as very poor for the status of councillors. Week after week, the Uxbridge Gazette is full of letters saying that the councillors should show self-restraint.
      6.15 pm
      I fear that, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, the new Assembly will get off to a bad start if the first weeks are taken up with wrangling over salaries, whether they should be means-tested, and whether there should be a greater deduction for a Southwark councillor because he gets more or less than one from Hillingdon. Thus there is a whole Pandora's box, which will not bode well for the first days of the Assembly.
      May I ask the Minister another question, as I may not have been clear enough when I spoke on the previous amendment? Why could this matter not have been addressed in Standing Committee, when we had plenty of time to deal with it? Why has it arisen now, when we are in a bit of a rush?
      Mr. Raynsford: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall start by responding to the last question. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will recall from our debates in Committee that various stages had to be gone through before the Government could incur expenditure on certain items. Before Second Reading, we were not entitled to incur expenditure on those items. We have now progressed beyond that. It was not, however, possible to include in the initial stages of the Bill the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Board, which we could not commission to undertake that work until we had the sanction and cover to do so.
      A number of those processes have, of necessity, taken place later than I would, ideally, have liked, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is simply the mechanics of introducing a new procedure of this nature.
      568
      We are very much committed to the recommendations of the Senior Salaries Review Board. We asked it to look into the question of both salaries and pensions, and it will be on its recommendations that the Secretary of State will set the arrangements that will begin the process.
      On salaries, the fear is that the first days of the GLA will be overshadowed by decisions being taken by Assembly members on their own salaries. That fear can be allayed by my saying that the Secretary of State will take the decision on the initial occasion. It will therefore be the Government's decision. However, it is not right that an autonomous body—a strategic authority for London—should be entirely precluded from having any responsibility in these matters in future years. The model that we propose is that the SSRB will be required to report periodically on those matters.
      Mr. Randall: Will there be any indication of the salary on or around the election date, because we shall all be asked that question on the doorsteps?
      Mr. Raynsford: Indeed. We hope that the SSRB will report to the Government next month. The Government certainly want those recommendations, whatever they are—the decision will be taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—to be made public well before the election.
      In the first instance, the SSRB will make recommendations. It will be required to report periodically on those matters to the GLA, and the GLA will have to have regard to the SSRB's recommendations before it takes its final decisions. As I said, it would not be right to create a framework in which the GLA has no discretion at all. As a responsible body, it should have the ability to set salaries and pensions for its members. We are dealing now only with the salaries of the mayor and Assembly members, not with those of staff. We believe that the matter should be dealt with within an ethical framework, which requires the GLA to have regard to the SSRB's advice. If it departs without good reason from that advice, it would certainly be open to challenge, and some people would no doubt consider mounting such a challenge. I hope that those safeguards reassure hon. Members who are concerned about this provision.
      I shall now deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). It will be up to the Senior Salaries Review Board to consider what London costs should be taken into account in its recommendations. It will be difficult for the board to find posts comparable to those of mayor and Assembly member, because to the best of my knowledge there are none. The post of mayor is unique, and there are no other assembly members in local government with a strategic role and a salary. It may, therefore, be difficult for that aspiration to be met.
      It is proper that people should not be paid from the public purse for performing two functions without an abatement of their salaries. That is the crucial point. Abatement of salaries does not apply to people who have a private income from another source. However, an abatement provision is a proper safeguard for public money.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Labour party will require its Assembly members to be full time, or will it allow them to be part time?
      Mr. Raynsford: That provision is not precisely defined in the legislation, but the presumption is that the amount

      569
      of work will require Assembly members to devote the great bulk of their time to that job. There is no statutory requirement that it must be a full-time occupation with no other activity.
      On the hon. Gentleman's third concern, he will understand from what I said in response to the question about the role of the Senior Salaries Review Board that we have had to provide flexibility in the wording to allow different salaries for Assembly members doing different jobs, because we cannot anticipate the board's recommendations. From the evidence given to the board, we have identified different posts and responsibilities that might be considered for a salary uplift because of special responsibilities. The statutory provisions must be flexible to take account of possible recommendations from the board, and we will deal with them when we receive them.
      I hope that I have covered all the issues, and that hon. Members will recognise that this is a sensible basis for proceeding. It provides proper safeguards, and will ensure that the Greater London Authority can get off to a good start without allegations of improper preference given to members in their salaries or pension entitlement.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 13 to 16 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

    New Clause

      EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
      Lords amendment: No. 17, after clause 27, to insert the following new clause—Equality of opportunity—
      ".—(1) The Authority shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that—

      (a) in the exercise of the power conferred on the Authority by section 25 above,

      (b) in the formulation of the policies and proposals to be included in any of the strategies mentioned in section 33(1) below, and

      (c) in the implementation of any of those strategies,

      there is due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
      (2) After each financial year the Authority shall publish a report containing—

      (a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) above which had effect during that financial year; and

      (b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.

      (3) The functions conferred or imposed on the Authority under or by virtue of this section shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority."
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 29, 54 to 57, 499 and the Government motion to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, and Lords amendments Nos. 583 and 612 to 633.
      Mr. Raynsford: This is a lengthy group of amendments, and I shall try to cover it as quickly as possible, but I hope that the House will bear with me because a number of
      570
      different issues are involved. They boil down to four key concerns: equality of opportunity; the standing orders of the Authority; delegations to be made by the Authority; and the office of acting mayor. I shall invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 499.
      Amendment No. 17 is a Government amendment, but the credit for it must be shared with the Opposition in the other place. In particular, Lord Dholakia, Lord Harris and Lord Archer deserve recognition for their efforts in drawing up proposals that were designed to match the Government's aspiration of ensuring that the GLA is accessible to all Londoners and provides them with equal opportunities.
      The new clause will require the mayor to make appropriate arrangements in exercising the Authority's general power and in the preparation of the mayor's strategies, with a view to securing that due regard is had of the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
      These are not just fine words. The clause also imposes a duty on the mayor to produce, in each financial year, a report setting out the arrangements that have been established, and assessing how effectively they have been in promoting equality of opportunity. That will ensure that the Authority cannot ignore its responsibilities.
      I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 499, which we accepted in another place, and to accept amendment (a), tabled by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendment would make it a duty of not only the Greater London Authority but the Metropolitan police authority and the fire authority to exercise their functions with "due regard" to the need
      "to promote equality of opportunity for all persons irrespective of their race, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation or religion".
      Mr. Burstow: I understand that the phrase "due regard", which the Minister just used, is fairly important in legal terms. Lords amendment No. 499 in its original form made an explicit reference to due regard, to which the courts attach particular importance, but the Government's revised draft—the version that we are considering today—does not include the word "due". Would that weaken or change the legal status of this part of the Bill in any way?
      Mr. Raynsford: It will not change the impact of the legislation. It will simply reduce the number of words in the Bill by one, which must be a good thing. If one must have regard to need, one must have regard to need, and one must be reasonable in doing so. Adding the word "due" will not enhance the legislation. That is the advice that we received, and that is why, for drafting reasons, we removed the word.
      Authorities must also have regard to the need to eliminate all forms of unlawful discrimination, and to promote good relations between persons of different racial groups, religious beliefs and sexual orientation. I am sure that the House will agree that, in a city that is home to so many different communities, this is the least that Londoners should expect from authorities, and, indeed, from all public bodies that serve them. The amendment restores the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976, which we believe should remain in the Bill but which was removed in the House of Lords by a Liberal Democrat amendment. It also removes the word "secure" from subsection (1).

      571
      I should explain why we are doing that. We do not believe that it will be possible in all circumstances for the Authority to ensure that it secures equality of opportunity for all. If the word "secure" remains in the Bill, the Authority will be vulnerable to frequent legal challenges, and we do not believe that that would be correct or fair. We want the Authority to use its best endeavours to promote equal opportunity, but we do not wish to bring about circumstances in which it might find itself in the courts because, despite its best efforts, it had not been able to achieve that objective.
      I hope that I can deal with the other amendments more swiftly. Lords amendment No. 18 provides for the Assembly to make standing orders for the Authority in consultation with the mayor. It limits the extent to which the Assembly can make standing orders in relation to the mayor's functions to those involving a formal interaction between the mayor and the Assembly.
      Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 26 constitute our response to concerns expressed in the other place about the need for clarification of the mayor's powers to delegate his or her functions. Lords amendment No. 19 includes the Common Council of the City in the list of authorities to which functions may be delegated. Lords amendment No. 20 makes it explicit that the mayor may delegate functions to another authority only with its written consent. Lords amendment No. 21 permits the mayor to apply conditions to any delegations that he or she makes, and makes it clear that those conditions remain when further delegations take place.
      Lords amendment No. 22 allows the detailed powers of delegation provided for in part X—the part that deals with culture—to override those in clause 31. One result of that would be the exclusion of Transport for London as a delegate in respect of the mayor's cultural functions. Lords amendment No. 23 adds the Common Council to the list of authorities that can exercise functions on behalf of the GLA, regardless of whether they would already have the power to do so. Lords amendment No. 24 extends to Transport for London and the LDA the delegation provisions of section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, which permit delegations to committees and sub-committees.
      Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 delete current provisions for joint committees, which are replaced by the provisions in amendment No. 27 which are tailored to the GLA's specific needs. Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 provide cross references to part X in clause 32.
      The purpose of the final group of amendments is, I hope, self-evident and I shall briefly deal with the principal amendments only. When a vacancy occurs in the office of mayor, the deputy mayor will not, in all circumstances, take on the role of the mayor until that vacancy is filled. The deputy mayor may either be unwilling or unable to take on that duty. In those circumstances, the chair of the Assembly will be invited to take on the duties of the mayor and to act as mayor.
      6.30 pm
      We believe, therefore, that there should be a formal office of acting mayor to which either the deputy mayor or the chair of the Assembly may be appointed when that is necessary. Amendment No. 613 creates that office. Amendment No. 614 provides the procedures for filling the office of acting mayor. Under these provisions,
      572
      the deputy mayor becomes acting mayor unless he or she is unwilling to accept office—and notifies the proper officer—or unless he or she fails to make a declaration of acceptance. If the deputy mayor does not become acting mayor, the proper officer notifies the chair of the Assembly of the vacancy and he or she will become acting mayor.
      The amendment also provides that, if the deputy mayor or the chair of the Assembly becomes acting mayor, he or she cannot be deputy mayor, chair or deputy chair of the Assembly. The acting mayor will be subject to the provisions of Part II, paragraph 4 of schedule 4, which sets out the functions that are not exercisable by the deputy mayor.
      Amendment No. 619 provides that the acting mayor may not act as an Assembly member other than in relation to the Authority's budget. The reason for that is that the acting mayor is not able to introduce a budget in the way that the mayor can. Amendment No. 630 provides for similar procedures where a vacancy occurs in the office of acting mayor. Amendments Nos. 631, 632 and 633 provide for the chair being treated as mayor when the mayor is temporarily unable to act.
      The other amendments in the group are consequential upon the principal amendments.
      Mr. Burstow: I want to discuss the equality and discrimination provisions in this group of amendments. I shall explore the issues a little further and ask several questions.
      During the Bill's consideration in the other place, much attention was paid to equality and discrimination issues. The Minister was right to draw attention to the work of a number of Lords in moving the agenda forward. In the debate on equality on Third Reading in the other place, Lord Whitty spoke for the Government and said:
      "The outcome of those discussions has been in my view to alter the approach of the Government to the matter and to improve the provisions."
      It is worth recognising that, to some extent and particularly during the Bill's passage through the Lords, the Government listened to noble Lords from all sides. Before the Minister gets too upset, I also recognise that they did that on several occasions when the Bill was in Committee in this House.
      Lords amendment No. 499 was tabled by my noble Friend Lord Dholakia, and the Government accepted it, subject to what Lord Whitty described as
      "a minor degree of further amendment".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 November 1999; Vol. 606, c. 584–851
      During the debates in the other place, concern was expressed that the clause, as drafted at that time, would disapply the Race Relations Act 1976 from the Greater London Authority and its functional bodies, the Metropolitan police authority and the fire and emergency planning authority. That was clearly not the intention of noble Lords and they made that clear in the debates. Therefore, any redrafting that avoids that possibility will be entirely welcome.
      Lords amendment No. 499 provides a simplified and more precise duty that moves beyond the duty set out in section 71 of the Race Relations Act. The Commission for Racial Equality takes the view that the formulation in the amendment is better than the one in the Act.

      573
      There are three reasons why the new duty that the Government are accepting, albeit in a modified form, is welcome. First, it is more direct and positive for anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity. Section 71 was drafted in such a way as to be sufficiently vague to allow local authorities and other public bodies to pay lip service to the provision, but not necessarily to follow that through into tangible actions in the way that they delivered services and operated as organisations.
      Secondly, the duty of promoting equality of opportunity will be extended to encompass all spheres—not only race equality—identified in the European Union treaty, particularly in article 13.
      Thirdly, the duty will relate to all types of unlawful discrimination. Currently, discrimination is unlawful only on grounds of race, sex and disability, but Lords amendment No. 499—and the Government's amendment in lieu—would go on to include issues of religion and sexual orientation. Such a change is entirely to be welcomed in our capital city.
      On the face of it, the Government's amendment in lieu will meet the concerns expressed in the other place and achieve the aims that my noble Friends have been trying achieve. However, the Government's amendment has some important omissions—on which I shall ask a few questions—that go to the heart of the provision's subsequent interpretation in judicial review or by the mayor and Assembly.
      The first omission—which I mentioned in an intervention on the Minister—is in the phrase "due regard". The phrase appears in the Lords amendment, but has been shortened in the Government's amendment in lieu to "regard", omitting the word "due".
      I have spoken to the Commission for Racial Equality about the omission, and, in the short time since the amendment was tabled, it has taken an informal sounding of lawyers who are expert in public law and discrimination law. Those informal discussions have revealed that leading counsel believe that the word "due" has a judicial meaning, and that, therefore, the concept of paying "due regard" could be subject to judicial review. The wording is based on section 120 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, both of which use the phrase "due regard".
      The informal—but informed—view of legal experts suggests that the construction placed on the words in the Government's amendment might lead the courts to attach lesser weight to the provision in the Bill than they attach to the equivalent sections of the Welsh and Northern Ireland legislation.
      I was therefore grateful for the Minister's comments on the point, but hope that he might say just a bit more—as the tone and tenor of his comments suggested that he thought that it was trite and almost does not matter. However, the point is very important in determining how the courts might in future interpret the provision. If it is true that the loss of one word will make no material difference, I am sure that a statement to that effect by the Minister will satisfy the CRE and be entirely satisfactory for future construction.
      The second change, which the Minister mentioned, is the omission of the words "and secure" in subsection (2)(a) of the Government's redraft of Lords amendment
      574
      No. 499. We have been told today that the duty to secure could become rather onerous, and that failure to perform it could result in the Authority appearing in court. There is some dispute and discussion about how far one will have to go before being deemed to have secured the promotion of equal opportunities.
      We think that removing the words weakens the duty that the Lords imposed only a few days ago, and that the Government should make it clear why they have decided that the duty should be watered down. Liberal Democrat Members—and, I believe, the Government—believe that we have to be ambitious in promoting good race relations and equality in London. We also have to ensure that the mayor, Assembly members and the various functional bodies all are clear about the responsibilities that they have to establish a new culture in both the Authority and London and to give a clear lead.
      Lords amendment No. 499 is a vast improvement on the Bill. In our earlier consideration of the Bill, in Committee and on the Floor of the House, we—unlike our noble Friends in the other place—were unable to advance the arguments necessary to persuade the Government of the wisdom of making those improvements. It is a great pity that, in this matter, the Government—who often describe themselves as a progressive Government, and dress themselves in the language of progressivism—failed to take the lead from this place, but required the other place to tell them what to do.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to give us the legal clarifications that will be necessary for interpretation of the clause.
      Mr. Forth: I have always thought that the term "equality of opportunity" was an aspirational will o' the wisp, and nothing that I have heard in this brief debate has made me change my mind. What worries me about the amendment is that it is one thing to be aspirational and to raise expectations—in my view, rather unrealistically; it is quite another to erect a bureaucratic nightmare in trying to give effect to that.
      The measure refers, in the modern way, to the formulation of policy proposals, strategies and implementation, and it then gets worse by talking about publishing reports with statements, or arrangements and assessments of how effective they are. One feels that this will be much more of a self-fulfilling and self-perpetuating bureaucracy than anything that is likely to deliver any remote equality of opportunity.
      The thought occurs to me that we may have lost sight of any effort to try—as we once said we would—to give an estimate of the cost of all these exercises. This is not cost free—there is a large price tag attached. The mind boggles when one imagines the amount of bureaucracy that would be required to give lip service to the measure.
      Maybe "equality of opportunity" in the end will be that we can fill the bureaucracy with people who aspire to some sort of equality of opportunity, and give them their opportunities that way. I do not see the measure working in any other way at all.
      Mr. Raynsford: With leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I cannot add much to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).

      575
      I appreciate his kind words about the improvement to the Bill, and I assure him that we were keen to listen in Committee and in the other place.
      We debated the matter and reflected on it, and there was a further debate in the other place. We agreed an amendment which improves the Bill considerably. This is a practical measure to try to promote equality of opportunity, an objective which I hope we all share. It is designed to ensure that the authority acts in that direction effectively and pragmatically.
      We have not sought to impose unachievable objectives, which could put the authority in a position where it might fall foul of the law through no fault of its own. It would be impossible to guarantee the achievement of equality of opportunity by the authority in every case if it found itself in the courts through no fault of its own. That is the reason why we have changed the wording to "promote" equality of opportunity.
      I cannot add anything to the issue of "due regard", and our lawyers' views differ. I have given an assurance that it does not detract from the meaning of the duty in any way, and I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam will agree.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 29 agreed to.

    Clause 33

      GENERAL DUTIES OF THE MAYOR IN RELATION TO HIS STRATEGIES.
      Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 20, line 14, after ("Thames") insert ("safely")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 47.
      Mr. Hill: It is good to be back at the Dispatch Box, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Amendment No. 30 responds to an Opposition amendment in another place. Its effect is to introduce the concept of safety as a factor that the mayor must consider in exercising his or her duty to promote and encourage use of the Thames.
      Safety on the river is a matter that must be taken very seriously by all concerned. The inquiry currently being carried out by Lord Justice Clark will review the current arrangements for ensuring safety on the Thames, and consider this and other issues arising from the Marchioness disaster. The amendment does not seek in any way to prejudge the conclusions that the inquiry may reach but, in advance of those conclusions, it will flag specifically the need for the mayor to take safety matters into account in exercising his or her functions.
      Lords amendment Nos. 31 and 47 deliver the Government's commitment to require the mayor to set targets on each of his or her strategies so that their progress can be measured and reviewed. Our intention that the mayor should do so was set out in the White Paper. Lords amendment No. 31 provides for the mayor to set such targets as he or she considers appropriate. Lords
      576
      amendment No. 47 requires the mayor to set out the targets, and report on progress in achieving them in the GLA's annual report.
      The targets for which the Lords amendments provide will enable Londoners to assess the strategies: ultimate aims, to track the progress in implementing each strategy, and to press the mayor to improve performance if they are not being met.
      The mayor will be able to exercise his or her discretion in deciding the number and nature of targets for each strategy, but we do not intend him or her to set them in isolation. In setting targets, he or she must have regard to relevant national targets or objectives, and should not set targets that are less demanding. The mayor must also have regard to performance indicators that are set by the Secretary of State that impact on the authorities implementing the strategies.
      Such a framework will enable Londoners to track the progress on implementing each mayoral strategy.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise for detaining the House for a moment or two, but the Lords amendments relate to the Marchioness incident and its consequences, which, as the Minister rightly said, is a matter of importance.
      Since the House last considered these matters, the Deputy Prime Minister has made an extremely welcome announcement that there is to be an inquiry into river safety on the Thames. Lord Justice Clark was asked to report initially on the general matter—ideally by the end of the year—and to consider whether to open a public inquiry into what happened on that terrible night when the Marchioness sank. As the House will know, many of us have been pushing for that inquiry, and welcomed it without qualification. We welcome too the Deputy Prime Minister's honouring of his commitment and Lord Justice Clark's work to date.
      As the Minister rightly said, we must not prejudge the inquiry's recommendations. Therefore, for the moment, Lords amendment No. 30, which flags up the fact that the mayor should consider
      "the desirability of promoting and encouraging the use of the River Thames safely",
      is a useful signal.
      The Minister, and his colleague the Minister for Housing and Planning, will know that there has been a long debate about the appropriate way of including a strategy for the river in the Bill. There is still a large body of opinion, which has been reflected in representations to Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and in amendments in the other place as well as here, in favour of such consideration.
      I agreed entirely with the Deputy Prime Minister that the right way to proceed would be to flag up the issue, but to keep open the possibility that the Greater London Authority Act may need amendment before the Authority comes into operation in July. I shall explain why in a sentence or so. If Lord Justice Clark recommends that the GLA should be responsible for river safety and should co-ordinate search and rescue and other functions, it would be nonsense for it to begin operation without such legislative provision.

      577
      I imagine that the Government will have no difficulty in achieving agreement among Liberal Democrats and other London Members in order that any amending legislation may proceed quickly but properly through both Houses in the time between publication of the inquiry report on river safety generally and the date on which the GLA comes into being in July.
      The current position, in which no one is coherently responsible for safety on the river, cannot continue. The police do a good job but say that it is not all their responsibility and the port of London says the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) and others, not least the former hon. Member for Newham, South, Nigel Spearing, have tried for years to ensure that we have a coherent response on river safety. To achieve that may need amendment of this legislation. It would be a dereliction of duty if we did not do that.
      I urge the Minister to reflect on the need for a wider Thames strategy. I know that the Government have rejected that so far, but I heard the most convincing arguments for it in a docklands forum meeting upstairs, from someone working for the London Planning Advisory Committee. Such a strategy would include not only the water but planning and other issues along the banks. I ask Ministers to take note of the wide body of opinion, represented to all of us who have riverside constituencies, that considers that to be an appropriate way forward.
      I have been asked both by my constituents who operate commercial passenger transport on the river—not least those, such as the City Cruises company, who run the new Thames millennial services inaugurated by the Deputy Prime Minister—and by the wider corporate and private sector in London to make representations that they should be included in the consultation process. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), our tourism spokesman, and others have received representations from people who operate tourism and leisure services and feel that they should be part of the process of ensuring that the river is as safe as possible.
      I hope that Ministers will take those points on board. We may well need to return to the matter in the next Session, and I am sure that the Government will want to facilitate a window of legislative opportunity if we need to pass quick legislation to ensure that the Thames is safe in the future in a way that, tragically, it was not 10 years ago.
      Mr. Hill: I am aware of the distinguished role that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has played in connection with the Marchioness disaster. He and I have made representations on the matter in the past and I pay tribute to him.
      The Government recognise the importance and urgency of river safety. That is the very reason for the establishment of the Clark inquiry. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made a commitment to embrace on an interim basis whatever recommendations the inquiry produces for precautions required for the millennium event on the Thames, but I cannot make any commitment to early legislation arising from that.
      We shall have the opportunity to return to the subject of commercial and tourist services on the river at a later stage in our deliberations, when I hope to be able to offer some reassuring words.
      578
      The issue of a river strategy has been debated at five different stages of the Bill. We made it clear that the Government fully endorse the strategic importance of the Thames and recognise its value as a resource for London. We have in place our own strategic planning guidance for the river. Several policies, such as the Thames 2000 initiative, demonstrate our active efforts to bring life back to the river and restore it as the capital's focal point. We have also made it clear that we expect the mayor to press ahead with the Government's policies in this area. We have made a commitment to produce guidance to that effect in relation to the mayor's planning powers.
      However, we have also pointed out that there are clear advantages in enshrining the mayor's policies for the Thames in the other strategy documents rather than compartmentalising them in a free-standing strategy for the river. That will ensure that the importance of the Thames is recognised across the whole spectrum of mayoral policies, and benefits from the specific powers and mechanisms that those strategies will carry with them for ensuring that the mayor's Thames policies are implemented.
      Of course it will be open to the mayor to take a different view. If he or she considers that there are advantages in collating all policies relating to the Thames in a single document over and above the strategic planning guidance for the Thames that we expect to be contained in the spatial development strategy, and if the mayor wishes to call that document a Thames strategy, there is nothing to stop him or her doing so. That decision should be left for the mayor to take.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.

    Clause 35

      PUBLICITY AND AVAILABILITY OF STRATEGIES
      Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 21, line 27, after first ("to") insert ("the current version of')
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 40, 48, 153, 213, 268 to 272, 424, 445, 446, 455, 483, 641 and 646.
      Mr. Hill: Dealing with those amendments in the time available is an awesome challenge, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They tidy up and extend the arrangements for publicity and for the availability of strategies and other documents. The mayor will be required to keep a copy of the current version of each strategy, and the mayor's guidance document on application for bus service appointments, available for public inspection while they are in force.
      The amendments specifying that it is the current version of those documents that should be kept available for inspection respond to concerns raised in Committee in the other place about requiring those documents to be available for a fixed period, which may have been shorter than the time for which they were in force. Following points raised in Committee in the other place, the mayor will have a duty to send each strategy to each London borough and the common council.

      579
      The amendments also require the strategies and the bus guidance document to be available for inspection at the GLA's principal offices and at such other places as the mayor considers appropriate, at reasonable hours and free of charge. Again, making the documents available at places other than the GLA's offices is a direct response to Opposition arguments in Committee in the other place.
      The mayor will be required to keep copies of his or her annual report, the GLA's budget, substitute calculations—for example, a revised budget—the capital spending plan, Transport for London's annual report and the state of the environment report available for inspection for a period of six years from the date when each was first made available, at reasonable hours and free of charge at the GLA's principal offices.
      Any person—that means organisations as well as individual members of the public—will have the right, on request, to be supplied with a copy of any of the documents, such as the strategies and all the other types of document, or any part of any of the documents, for such reasonable fee as the mayor may determine.
      The amendments thus improve and extend the arrangements for the availability of published GLA documents, and respond to concerns raised in the other place.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 33 to 40 agreed to.

    Clause 37

      THE MAYOR'S MONTHLY REPORT TO THE ASSEMBLY
      Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 22, line 2, after ("three") insert ("clear working")
      Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 42 to 44, 46, 49 to 53, 58 to 80, 83, 86, 92 to 94, 97 to 102, 116, 117, 576, 581, 636 to 639, 642, 643 and 645.
      Mr. Hill rose—
      Further consideration of Lords amendments adjourned.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      To be further considered tomorrow.

  Business Statement
  7 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In view of the lack of progress on the Bill tonight, I regret to tell the House that the first business on Monday will be consideration of a supplemental timetable motion to the Greater London Authority Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments. The rest of the business for Monday will be as I announced in my business statement earlier today.
  Sir George Young: This further guillotine motion is yet more evidence of the Government's inability to draft Bills and to manage their legislative programme. With 818 Government amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill, they have overtaken the record set by the Scotland Bill for the most Government amendments to any legislation.
  For poor drafting, the Greater London Authority Bill is without precedent. Moreover, the House finished its business early on Monday and Tuesday this week, but now the Government are having to rush through consideration of their remaining legislation. We have seen no filibustering this afternoon. Serious contributions have been made from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  The announcement about the guillotine means that serious issues about transport in London run the risk of being inadequately considered. How much time will be allotted for debating the remaining sections of the Bill on Monday and what arrangements does the right hon. Lady propose to make for discussing the Food Standards Agency Bill? Is not the announcement she has just made an insult to London and to Londoners?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is absolutely ridiculous, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. The Government have not hitherto sought to draw debate on the Bill to a close. Indeed, we have had agreed progress of business throughout the previous consideration of the legislation. We offered a programme motion today and we sought reasonably rapid progress, but we have disposed of only six out of 56 groups of amendments. I remind the House, and those Opposition Members who probably do not know much about the Bill, that the Government have sought to reverse only one amendment made in the other place, although some amendments have been tidied up to bring them into order, as the House would expect.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no filibuster, but the first group of amendments today covered an issue that has already been extensively aired in the House in previous consideration of the Bill. The debate took four hours.
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: Does the Leader of the House not recognise that the Government brought to the House the most complicated Bill—with the largest number of clauses and schedules perhaps ever, and certainly for a long time—and we have a booklet containing 820 amendments from the other place over 197 pages? For right hon. and hon. Members to spend a little time considering those amendments and putting their views to the House is entirely proper and in order.

  581
  We have a complex Bill with many amendments, but the Leader of the House now says that she wishes to curtail discussion and restrict Members' ability to influence what is vital legislation.
  We have seen no filibuster, but we have had sensible, sound discussion. Does the Leader of the House not recognise that, with 56 groups of amendments—50 of which are still outstanding—it is outrageous for the House to be expected to complete that business in one day? Will she consider extending the length of time available to Members to deal with the Bill?
  Mrs. Beckett: We did the devolution legislation, which was also long and complex, on programme motions. The Government are prepared, and happy, to agree programme motions and the sensible progress of business. The hon. Gentleman is a newer Member and will not recall, for example, the passage of the Railways Act 1993 or the Water Act 1989. Those Bills were less than half the size of the Greater London Authority Bill and hundreds of amendments were tabled to them. In the case of the Railways Act 1993, some 470 amendments came back to the Commons.
  We allowed two full days. We were perfectly prepared to make progress, and we hoped to make progress reasonably rapidly. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that we have not done so.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: The Leader of the House conceded at business questions this morning that there were problems with the Bill and, by my standards, I behaved like a Trappist monk this afternoon. Will the Leader of the House say how much time she is going to give us for the rest of the very dense business that remains to be done?
  Mrs. Beckett: The motion to be tabled tomorrow will be discussed through the usual channels. However, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we are trying, as we have tried throughout, to arrange discussion of the Bill so that major issues can be properly considered. We shall continue to do so.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I have been in and out of the Chamber all day, and have listened to all of today's debate. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the programme motion. The wittering of Opposition Members is astonishing to hear, and their crocodile tears continue to flow. I welcome the motion and hope that we will see more sensible management of Government business for the rest of the Parliament.
  Mrs. Beckett: Well, we all share that hope. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government are always keen to proceed through agreement, proper discussion and properly tabled debate. However, there are times when the Government recognise that that progress cannot be achieved without a guillotine motion.
  Mr. Eric Forth: No doubt for the best of reasons, the Leader of the House has not been in the Chamber at all during today's proceedings. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady has asserted that there
  582
  has been time wasting and inadequate progress on the Bill, and I invite her to demonstrate how she believes that that has happened. How does she relate that to the completely inadequate amount of time that she proposes to allow the House properly to consider the mess of a Bill that the Government have inflicted on us today, and will inflict on us again on Monday?
  Mrs. Beckett: I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I said earlier. We spent four hours on the first group of amendments, discussing a matter that had been debated extensively already. The Government are not seeking to change more than one of the amendments that have come from another place.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Leader of the House not recognise that, in the time that she is going to make available, it would not be possible to read into the record the details of the amendments that have still to be considered, much less debate them or give them serious consideration?
  Does the right hon. Lady not understand also that, although the Prime Minister's contempt for Parliament is well established, the programme motion shows contempt for the British public, and that they will note that?
  Mrs. Beckett: That is absolute rubbish. The right hon. Gentleman is not a new Member of Parliament, and he knows perfectly well that there has probably never been legislation for which it would have been possible to read into the record all the details of the amendments and still complete the debate. Moreover, in Standing Committee, on Report, in Lords Committee and on Third Reading—
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: There are 900 amendments.
  Mrs. Beckett: There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to shout, as I can hear him quite well. The vast majority of the amendments tabled to the Bill at all its stages were tabled by the Opposition. That is perfectly proper, and I make no complaint about it. However, if we tried to read amendments into the record, we really would be wasting our time.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: That is a contempt of the House.
  Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is displaying contempt, as well as bad manners.
  Mr. John Randall: I have been involved in the deliberations on the Bill at every stage of its progress through the House. I was in the Chamber throughout this afternoon's discussion and can tell the Leader of the House that there was no filibustering. There is a huge amount of detail in the Bill, which is very important to my constituents and to the people of London. Will the right hon. Lady consider whether it would be more appropriate for the House to continue debating the Bill tomorrow, instead of debating family-friendly employment?
  Mrs. Beckett: I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman what I have told the House already. The Government offered a programme motion to achieve

  583
  agreed progress in the debate so as to deal with matters in an orderly fashion, exactly as the hon. Gentleman described. As he will know, that is how all the rest of the proceedings on the Bill have been conducted. I am sorry that it has not been possible to carry that orderliness through to the end.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: There was laughter in the House when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, read the list of amendments just before 7 o'clock. That had nothing to do with the dignity of the Chair. It stemmed from incredulity at the contempt that the Government have shown to the House in proposing to force through a Bill on which 51 groups of amendments are still outstanding. The group that we are currently discussing contains 22 separate amendments. We are debating 197 pages of amendments. Does the right hon. Lady really think that that is good government?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to have to say that I understand that the hon. Gentleman has not been present for the debate. I would simply point out that we have looked into the issue. He should know that the vast majority of the amendments are technical. He must also know, as he has been a Member for a long time, that there is nothing unprecedented about what the Government are doing. Many pieces of legislation have, unfortunately, required hundreds of amendments at this stage. I repeat that the Government sought a programme motion and sought to make orderly progress. That has not been possible and so we have to take steps.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. That is quite enough on a single-item Government statement.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an unprecedented occasion—a Government Bill with 900 Government amendments. Comparatively few Members wished to question the Leader of the House on her totally inadequate statement. The right hon. Lady did not even tell the House of how much time we will have to devote to the Bill on Monday. We are to go away for the weekend with no idea of how much time we will have to debate the Bill, still less the Food Standards Bill, which is also important. We simply do not know what is happening on Monday.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This was a single-item business statement. The other matters—the suitability of what has happened and so forth—can be debated on the allocation of time motion on Monday.

  Campbeltown-Ballycastle Ferry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  7.12 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the future of the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry service and I welcome the Minister, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), to the Dispatch Box. It gives me some confidence to see him there as he knows something about the subject and will, I hope, understand what I am talking about. For that reason, it will not be necessary to go into the detail of the background.
  Suffice it to say, as the Minister will recall, that expenditure was approved for infrastructure at Campbeltown and similarly for Ballycastle and Rathlin island following various meetings that we had with the Northern Ireland Transport Minister way back in October 1994. However, the then Secretary of State for Scotland was determined that if a link were established, it should be run by a private operator. He was most reluctant to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to take it on for various reasons, as spelled out in a letter to me in 1995.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the then Secretary of State's answer. He acknowledged that Caledonian MacBrayne was
  "enjoined, as one of the strategic objectives set by the Secretary of State, to consider, and, where appropriate, exploit commercial opportunities outwith the approved services."
  However, he went on to say:
  "The role of the public sector in the economy should be restricted, and services whenever possible should be provided by the private sector rather than the public sector."
  At the time, in the absence of any real interest from private sector operators, it seemed sensible to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to take on the route. It had the experience, the staff, the recruitment base and the boat.
  Need I remind the Minister of his own words in the Official Report of 3 July 1996? During Scottish questions, the hon. Gentleman asked the then Scottish Minister:
  "Is not the main obstacle that Ministers must overcome their quite irrational prejudice against anything operating in the public sector? Does not everyone involved in the project…agree that the sensible thing to do is to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to operate a vessel that it owns?"—[Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 970.]
  All that is history. Fortunately, Sea Containers made an offer to run the service through its subsidiary, the Argyll and Antrim Steam Packet Company. The company entered into a contract to operate for three years during July, August and September, and, if possible, to extend the service to nine months a year from the third year. That has not happened, and it is no secret that the company has not broken even.
  The inaugural voyage on 1 July 1997 was launched by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar), now the First Minister in Scotland. There was much rejoicing and good will, and many expressions of confidence and support, particularly from the right hon. Gentleman. There can be no doubt that the service has bestowed both financial and community benefits on the Kintyre area during the difficult years during which it has run. In the first year, there was no prior promotion of the service. The second was a disaster for tourism because of

  585
  the strong pound, the world cup, atrocious weather and an unsettled situation in Northern Ireland. Kintyre also had to contend with the closure of its main road following a huge landslide.
  I cannot stress too strongly the need for the service to continue for the benefit of both Antrim and Argyll. I, of course, know more about Kintyre, an area that relies on primary industries such as agriculture, which, particularly in the dairy sector, is currently suffering great stress. The sight of more and more fanners having to give up is too heartbreaking to contemplate. It is also difficult to attract inward investment. The closure of the Machrihanish air base and the Campbeltown shipyard were real blows to the community. There is a high rate of long-term unemployment.
  Shipping services between Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom are properly the concern of the Westminster Parliament, which is why we are holding this debate. The Campbeltown to Ballycastle service connects two fragile parts of the UK that are encountering considerable difficulties. The service unites a common culture, offering opportunities to strengthen ties not only between Antrim and the west of Scotland, but with the whole of Ireland.
  What is to be done? In search of a way forward, Argyll and Bute council and Moyle district council held talks last Friday with Hamish Ross of the Argyll and Antrim Steam Packet Company and with Argyll and the Islands Enterprise. The promotion of tourism is vital to the service. Although better marketing this year, co-ordinated by the local tourist board, resulted in a marked increase in the number of vehicles using the service this summer—some 23 per cent. more vehicles used the service in July, and the August figure was up 19 per cent.—the route still operates at a loss.
  The ferry's introduction has had an effect. Bob Chicken—whom I know the Minister has met—has said, on behalf of the Kintyre marketing group, that it is absolutely essential for the morale of the area that the ferry service should continue. Much depends on business morale, which was substantially boosted on the launch of the service. The area got new investment in hotels and previous negative reports from Campbeltown were replaced by very positive ones.
  There is no doubt that a strengthened overall marketing strategy is needed on both sides of the water, with a pricing structure that provides a range of more competitive fares to potential ferry users. I was grateful to the roads service in Belfast for responding to requests from me and others for better signs to the ferry. Earlier this year that work was completed, with 15 signs giving directions to the ferry. That was welcome.
  Particularly at the beginning, I was also keen to promote the transport of freight, including animals and the export of sheep, cattle and pigs. Kintyre farmers, who strongly supported the service, wanted to build up business with the Province. I then discovered that Ballycastle was not designated as an import port. I asked the then Scottish Minister, Lord Sewel, to take it up with the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture. Eventually, the import licences were amended. I was grateful for that, but, of course, there has been little benefit to the farming industry since.
  586
  There is another freight option. I have a letter from the director of transport for Argyll and Bute council, who says:
  "An option, presently being explored with forestry interests in Argyll and Bute which could significantly aid the financial viability of the service, is the establishment of a complementary freight service between Campbeltown and Troon to facilitate the shipment of timber to the pulp mill at Irvine."
  Troon is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), so both she and the Minister know all about it. I do not know whether that idea is feasible, but it is certainly worth examining. A massive amount of timber is due to be harvested in Argyll and some at least should be transported by sea because the damage to the roads and hundreds of small bridges will result in huge repair and maintenance costs. That is yet another burden for a cash-strapped council.
  Can we find a way forward for the company to continue? I hope that we can. If Sea Containers withdraws, the only option seems to be Caledonian MacBrayne, but how do we get the boat back? As the Minister said in his letter to me:
  "If Caledonian MacBrayne wish to seek permission to develop services outside their traditional area, they would, of course, require to seek the permission of the Scottish Executive as the First Minister is now the sole shareholder in the company."
  Of course, as the sole shareholder the First Secretary has the power, but I would expect the Minister to do all that he can with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish Executive to ensure that this service continues.
  Kintyre is a very vulnerable area. As Ken Abernethy, the chief executive of Argyll and the Islands Enterprise has stated:
  "We do not know of any better way of changing the framework of the economy than retaining the direct employment and the throughput of visitors generated by the ferry."
  I know that the Minister is sympathetic. He said so in his recent letter to me. So is Dr. James Hunter, the chairman of Highlands and the Islands Enterprise. In a letter to me last year, he said:
  "Argyll and the Islands Enterprise have recently agreed to make Kintyre their top priority."
  However, the company cannot make Kintyre a top priority without the proper support. I am told that support cannot be forthcoming because the ferry is not a lifeline service. I suggest that it is and should be made a lifeline service just as much as the Dunoon-Gourock service is. Kintyre is a peninsula. The people in Campbeltown always feel that they are at the end of the line and that they might as well be an island. I look for the service to be developed into a lifeline service.
  I am certainly not being disrespectful if I say that I do not want tea and sympathy. Argyll waited long enough for a change of Government and some hope for the future. The withdrawal of the Campbeltown-Ballycastle ferry line would be indefensible. I ask the Minister to do all in his power to see that that does not happen.
  7.25 pm
  The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on securing the debate and putting the case so eloquently. I can probably cut short the debate by saying that I am happy to give the undertaking that she

  587
  seeks. I will do everything that I can to support the outcome towards which she is working and towards which, as she generously acknowledged, I have a record of working.
  I go back a long way with the service. I remember travelling on its predecessor from Campbeltown to Red Bay in the late 1960s and the 1970s. The service did not stop for lack of demand; it was a successful service. It stopped only because the difficulties at that time made it undesirable to the authorities to have another port of entry and egress from Northern Ireland. It took a long time for the service to be re-established, and I fully endorse the hon. Lady's comment that it would be a tragedy if it were to be lost at this stage. Its potential has not been fulfilled and it needs time to be developed.
  Just to get the constitutional context right, we are discussing the Ballycastle-Campbeltown service tonight because the service is not a devolved matter for the Scottish Parliament. The service does not begin and end in Scotland so it is properly a matter for this House to discuss. I must say that this is the form of devolution that I prefer—two people from Argyll talking about this sort of matter and agreeing on virtually everything. However, some aspects of the debate inevitably impinge on the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Executive, especially the ownership of Caledonian MacBrayne, if it enters the frame again as a player.
  No one would dispute that the subsidy that goes to the services provided for the Scottish islands and other communities cannot be used to cross-subsidise a service outside the Caledonian MacBrayne undertaking. The nub of the matter for Caledonian MacBrayne, as for anyone else, is whether the service can be made viable or can garner support in other ways long enough for it to become viable. The idea of subsidising it through the block grant to the company is a matter for the Scottish Executive and in particular the First Minister. That certainly was not the proposition in 1994. The service was intended to be unsubsidised. Part of the folly of what was done then was that Caledonian MacBrayne did not ask for money to set up the service. However, because it had the power of a network behind it and owned the ship, it would have been infinitely better placed to run the service than the people who were invited in.
  Sea Containers Ltd., through its subsidiary, has operated the service for the past three seasons, as per its agreement. It is well known that the company is involved in a series of meetings with all interested parties to seek a way forward that would enable the route to continue and develop. Everyone knows the possible outcomes of the discussions, but it is important to note, and it is only fair to the company to stress, that as I speak it has not withdrawn from the service or announced that the service will cease.
  The service has been provided by Sea Containers without any direct subsidy, but it has operated free from harbour dues at both ports. Despite that, it is generally acknowledged that the company has been losing money on the service—during the past year, it appears to have lost a significant amount. The company had hoped that demand would increase over time so as to make the service viable. This year, the local tourist board, the local enterprise company—Argyll and the Isles Enterprise—and the Argyll and Bute council supported a £150,000 marketing campaign to increase the use of the service.
  588
  I have not seen much evidence that the marketing campaign was funded in that way—at least at the Scottish end.
  There has been a modest effect. Figures given to me suggest that the average carriage on each journey has risen from about 45 passengers and 10 vehicles to 54 passengers and 13 vehicles. That is quite a large percentage increase, but it is clearly not enough to put the service on a secure footing. Equally clearly, it does not come within a mile of the service's potential. Inevitably, there are difficult matters for us to consider, and we should do so as constructively as possible.
  We should not get hung up on the phrase "lifeline service". This is not a lifeline service in the normally agreed sense—for example, it is not like the service to Colinsay or to Barra. It is an important service, but we should not be trapped into using terminology that cannot be justified in the context of discussions of ferry services in general.
  What can we do? The debate is especially useful, because it focuses attention on the difficulties, and adds to the momentum to find a constructive outcome that is shared by all people of good will towards the service. That is the theme of my remarks this evening. However, there is no easy answer; there are difficulties everywhere we look. There are difficulties with the subsidy, with the current operators, with CalMac—not least because it no longer owns the ferry that operates the service, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute realises—and with EU rules on state aids and public service obligations. There are many complexities, but none of them—individually or collectively—makes a case for washing our hands of the problem. Nothing that I say tonight should be interpreted in that way—indeed, the contrary is true.
  I have written to the Scottish Executive about the service, and about the interface of interests between my Department and the Executive. They are well aware of the difficulties with the Ballycastle to Campbeltown service. I have also held discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill); I am extremely pleased that he is in the Chamber this evening. He has responsibilities for shipping and can be relied on to take a constructive view of the matters that we are discussing. I have also initiated discussions with the Northern Ireland Office, which has a large role in the matter. I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) is in the Chamber.
  We have reached the stage at which we are investigating all the options. At present, no one should put up any barriers to the continuation of discussions on the identification of possible solutions. I hope that we shall have time for those discussions.
  As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute pointed out, the Government have inherited an unfortunate situation that resulted from the refusal of the previous Administration to allow Caledonian MacBrayne to operate on the route. At that time, CalMac owned the ferry—the Claymore—and was anxious to proceed with the service. I understand that it is on record, recently, that the CalMac management is still anxious to proceed. However, it was prohibited from doing so; instead, the Claymore was handed over to Sea Containers Ltd.
  We now need to find other ways to make progress. I assure the hon. Lady that if the Scottish Office—with other Departments and Government agencies—can play a

  589
  part in finding a solution, we are more than willing to do so. I offer my personal commitment to working towards a successful outcome.
  I have no doubt that this service is important to both Kintyre and Northern Ireland. Its potential has not yet been fully realised, and it would be a tragedy if it were withdrawn after so much commitment and public money have been invested in it. Some £8 million has been invested in harbour improvements so that the service can operate. To give up and write off that kind of money after three years is not a sound investment.
  This is a niche service with a tiny share of the overall market, but it is important to the communities involved. Because the service operates outside Scotland, it is properly the concern of the United Kingdom Government, and I am already in touch with the various Departments, the Scottish Executive and the appropriate agencies with a view to establishing how we can assist. It is important to stress that, as of today, the present operators have made no statement on their future intentions.
  There are many avenues to explore. The hon. Lady referred to the possible involvement of an Ayrshire link. I should have preferred her to mention Ardrossan, but I
  590
  shall have a word with her about that later. Going back to the original proposition, I was involved in meetings with the Northern Ireland Office a long time ago, and the intention was that, had CalMac been operating, it would have made perfect sense to have involved Ardrossan because it already has a base there. Once the service was taken away from CalMac, however, that fell through.
  Thus there is the possibility of an Ayrshire link and the environmental benefit from transporting timber between Kintyre and Arran by sea rather than by road. It is also worth stating that there is the general drive, to which I am committed, to improve and widen the links, whether they are infrastructural, economic, social or cultural, between Scotland and the north and south of Ireland. We want to increase those links as much as we can, and this ferry service is an important link between two interesting and historically linked geographical and cultural communities. We now have something that binds them physically. I entirely endorse the view that it should not be lost lightly, and I give my personal commitment to doing everything possible to maintain it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Eight o'clock.

DEFENCE

  In-service Dates
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the expected in-service dates are for(a) the Eurofighter, (b) HMS Albion and Bulwark, (c) the Future Aircraft Carrier, (d) the Bowman communication system and (e) the Trigat anti-tank weapon; and if he will make a statement. [94786]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 20 October 1999]: The in-service date of Eurofighter, which is defined as delivery of the first aircraft, is June 2002.

  The in-service dates of HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are currently planned as March 2002 and March 2003 respectively. We are, however, aware that programme congestion at the shipyard will entail some slippage to these dates. The true extent of the slippage will not be known until Marconi Naval Systems, the contractor, has agreed a revised programme with the Defence Procurement Agency. Initiatives to minimise the slippage are being pursued.

  The in-service dates of the Future Aircraft Carriers are planned to be 2012 and 2015.

  The in-service date of Bowman is March 2002. The date is, however, under review and I will write to the hon. Member when the review is complete.

  The in-service date of Medium Range Trigat is 2005.

  UN Standby Arrangement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Ro-Ro ferries referred to in the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the UN standby arrangement system are civilian; and what discussions he has held with civilian operators about them. [95253]

  Mr. Hoon
  The two Ro-Ro ferries declared as potentially available for operations in the UK's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the UN are run and crewed by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary, although the vessels themselves are chartered commercially.

  The MOU also reflects plans to increase the number of Ro-Ro ferries to six as a result of enhancements announced in the Strategic Defence Review. My Department is currently evaluating civilian and military options (including a combination of both) for providing this capability.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units have been notified that they are covered by the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the UN standby arrangement system. [95251]
  252
  Mr. Hoon
  Individual units have not been specifically notified. The Memorandum of Understanding with the UN under the UN Standby Arrangement System lists a range of forces and capabilities drawn from the pool of Joint Rapid Reaction Forces. The Strategic Defence Review stated that these forces would be available for operations of all kinds across the crisis spectrum and under NATO, Western European Union, UN, OSCE coalition or national auspices.

  In the event of a request from the UN for UK military support and ministerial agreement to contribute to a specific peacekeeping operation, the Ministry of Defence will decide how that support can best be provided. The decision on which unit to task from the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces will be based on an assessment of factors such as the nature, duration and location of the operation, and other ongoing commitments.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if troops committed to peacekeeping in East Timor are referred to in the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the UN standby arrangement system. [95252]

  Mr. Hoon
  The commitment of UK troops to the Australian-led International Force in East Timor (INTERFET) reflects our willingness to support the UN but is not covered by the Memorandum of Understanding concerning the US Standby Arrangements System. This is because the Standby Arrangements are only activated in relation to UN-commanded peacekeeping operations and not for a UN-mandated international force as in the case of East Timor or Kosovo.

  Deployment Days (Army)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the average annual deployment days for Army units from 1995 to the last date for which figures are available. [95323]

  Mr. Spellar
  We do not hold figures for annual deployment days by Army units, and such figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the assessed minimum training requirement for operational effectiveness for HM Armed Forces, by trade, over one year's service. [95325]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Armed Forces include a wide range of trades and specialisations and the necessary amount of training in a year varies accordingly.

  Operational commanders at all levels ensure that all the personnel under their command, regardless of trade, are properly trained, in a timely and cost-effective manner, to meet the operational responsibilities and demands placed upon them.

  Multi-role Armoured Vehicle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the contracts for the production of the multi-role armoured vehicle have been signed; what the size of the contract proposed is; and who the partners to the purchase are. [95864]
  253
  Mr. Spellar
  We expect the contract for the development of the multi-role armoured vehicle to be signed soon. To protect third party commercial confidences, I am withholding information relating to the likely value of the contract under Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information until the contract is signed. Our partner in this programme is Germany and we hope that the Netherlands will join as soon as practicable after contract signature.

  Landing Platform Helicopter Carrier
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to order another Landing Platform Helicopter Carrier. [96094]

  Mr. Hoon
  We currently have no requirement for a further Landing Platform Helicopter Carrier.

  NATO
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that European partner countries shoulder a proportionate burden of contributions to NATO. [96093]

  Mr. Hoon
  The achievement of NATO's aims depends on the equitable sharing among all Allies of the roles, risks, and responsibilities, as well as the benefits, of common defence. NATO Defence Planning gives practical effect to this burden sharing. Force goals, which set challenging but realistic targets for each Ally, are designed to ensure that our collective defence arrangements continue to provide for the full range of Alliance missions.

  In addition, the development of the European Security and Defence Identity (ESDI) will enable European Allies to make a more coherent and effective contribution to the missions and activities of the Alliance. This is being taken ahead in step with NATO's Defence Capabilities Initiative (DCI), which is designed to ensure that all Allies are able to contribute to NATO's effectiveness. The UK is playing a leading role in both of these initiatives.

  European Joint Procurement Structures
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the efficacy of(a) European joint procurement structures and (b) domestic procurement structures. [96227]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The UK has procurement programmes managed by both the Organisation Conjointe de Co-operation en matier d'Armement (OCCAR) and the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency (NETMA), the latter being a NATO agency. Both provide a valuable service in the management of co-operative programmes and we expect to see OCCAR expand its operations next year following achievement of legal status.

  As for domestic procurement structures, I have every confidence that the Smart Procurement initiative, together with new Defence Procurement Agency and Defence Logistics Organisation, will match the expectations of the Strategic Defence Review.

  BVRAAM Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what safeguards have been offered to ensure that Britain maintains control over the sale of Raytheon supplied BVRAAM missiles as part of the package with Eurofighter Typhoons to third countries. [96471]

  Mr. Hoon
  The US Secretary of Defence has given undertakings that the US Department of Defence would support the export of Raytheon supplied BVRAAM missiles as part of the package with Eurofighter to certain countries, and proposed that other sales should be reviewed by a joint US/UK group. In the event of the UK Government selecting the Raytheon proposal for BVRAAM, the details would need to be agreed and incorporated in a Memorandum of Understanding.

  Aerospace Company Mergers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of the DaimlerChrysler Aerospace and Aerospatiale Matra merger on British procurement; and if he will make a statement. [96475]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proposed merger will be subject to regulatory approval by the European Commission and, as such, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the issue at present. However, the effects of any restructuring by companies in which the UK has an interest are considered very carefully by the Department. Our views are given to the regulatory authorities in confidence at the appropriate time.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding the Government are providing to Defence Export Services Organisation in the current financial year in relation to Indonesia. [96587]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The provision relating to DESO representation in Indonesia for the current financial year is £80,000. Other DESO costs relating to Indonesia are not separately identified.

  Disposals
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was received from one-off disposals in financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000; and if he will estimate the amount he will raise in financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02. [96656]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The value of disposals achieved in financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99, and the amount forecast for this financial year is set out in the table. It has not been possible to differentiate between the receipts generated through large scale one-off disposals and through rolling disposals programmes for smaller value but larger volume items. Specific estimates for disposals are not available for financial years 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Value of disposals

  1997–98

  224

  1998–99

  209

  1999–2000

  1302

  1 Estimate

  Horse Guards Tattoo
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to continue the tradition of the field gun competition in the proposed Horse Guards Tattoo. [96736]

  Mr. Hoon
  A Military Tattoo will continue to be held in London from 2001 onwards. Using the spectacular backdrop of Horse Guards Parade, the Tattoo will build on the traditional pageantry that has been such a popular element of the Royal Tournament over the years and a special feature of London in summer.

  However we will not continue with the Royal Navy Field Gun competition. In part this is because the event cannot readily be run at Horse Guards Parade due to the surface and the special fixings that are required to meet stringent Health and Safety regulations. But also, the Field Gun competition accounted for more than half of the personnel resources used for the Tournament, some 16,000 personnel-days each year. This could not be justified in the light of operational commitments and the other demands placed on our service personnel.

  The Royal Navy is now keen to look to the future and concentrate on supporting events that more accurately reflect the training and operational activities of the Service in the next millennium.

  Surface Ship Fuel
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Royal Navy's budget for surface ship fuel in(a) the current calendar year and (b) the current financial year; and how much of that budget has been spent to date. [96737]

  Mr. Spellar
  In the current calendar year, the fuel budget for HM warships and RFAs is £27.314 million. Up to 30 September 1999, £20.854 million of this budget had been spent.

  In the financial year beginning 1 April 1999, the fuel budget for HM warships and RFAs is £28.424 million. Up to 30 September 1999, £13.7 million of this budget had been spent.

  Common Security and Defence Identity
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the WEU Situation Centre and Planning Unit, the WEU Satellite Centre in Torrejon, Spain, and the WEU Institute for Security Studies in Paris will be incorporated into the EU. [96970]

  Mr. Hoon
  A decision on the structures the EU will need to assume its responsibilities regarding Common Security and Defence policy is not expected until the end of the year 2000—the timeframe agreed at the European Council meeting in June this year.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to create mechanisms to allow the involvement of WEU member states that are not members of the European Union in EU-led operations. [96972]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Cologne European Council, Heads of State and Government agreed to develop arrangements to allow all non-EU European Allies to take part to the 256
  fullest possible extent in EU-led crisis management operations, building on existing consultation arrangements within the WEU. We are working to develop suitable mechanisms for this purpose.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates the cost will be to his Department of implementing the conclusions of the Cologne summit on Common Security and Defence Identity. [96969]

  Mr. Hoon
  The conclusions of the Cologne European Council supported the development of more effective European military capabilities. Our Strategic Defence Review has already produced plans to this end through better targeting of resources. The nature and scale of the structures needed within the EU to support military decision-making have not yet been decided. Their costs are likely to be modest.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97039]

  Mr. Spellar
  The straight-line method of depreciation will be applied to fixed assets in the preparation of 1999–2000 Departmental Resource Accounts. This method is in accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual, which follows, as far as appropriate, private sector accounting practice and standards issued by the Accounting Standards Board.

  Smart Procurement Initiative
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the 33 integrated project teams working under the Smart Procurement Initiative; what new teams are currently planned; and if he will make a statement. [95963]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: The programme to implement the Smart Procurement initiative is now well into its transitional year. The roll-out of the Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) in both the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation is continuing and will be complete by April 2000. Thirty-three IPTs are now in full operation; a further 39 formed up in September and 69 are planned to roll-out commencing in January. An updated list of the 141 IPTs has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Army Units (Rhine)
  Ms Dan Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the location of British Army units west of the Rhine. [97603]

  Mr. Hoon
  A study into accommodation for British Army units west of the Rhine has concluded that the best use of the available estate is to consolidate units on the Rheindahlen Military Complex and on RAF Brüggen. This will enable Ayrshire and Hampshire Barracks in Möchengladbach; Bradbury Barracks, Krefeld; and Francisca Barracks, St. Tonis to be vacated by the British Army. No significant redeployment of units will take
  257
  place before December 2001, and it is expected that the relocation of the units affected and the hand back of the estate to the relevant authorities will be complete by May 2002.

  Trident
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to update the Trident warheads; and if he will make a statement. [96630]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK has no plans to upgrade or improve the capabilities of our Trident nuclear warheads.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Equal Opportunities Unit (RUC)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when was the most recent tri-annual report of the RUC Equal Opportunities Unit to the Fair Employment Commission; what were its main points; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [94661]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The most recent tri-annual report covering the period 1995–98 was forwarded to the Fair Employment Commission in May 1999.

  The main points were as follows:

  1. During this review period the actual strength of the RUC Regulars for all categories has remained fairly constant. The trend during the review period is one of a slight increase in CB2 representation from 8.18 per cent. to 8.3 per cent.

  2. The workforce was also analysed in terms of length of service and age. Over 60 per cent. of the RUC Regulars fall within the 10–24 years service bands. This grouping had an overall CB2 representation of 7.08 per cent. in 1996, increasing to 7.3 per cent in 1998. By comparison, the 0–9 years service bands, which accounted for approximately 25 per cent. of the RUC, show an increase in CB2 representation from 9.62 per cent. to 9.91 percent. during the review period. Within that grouping, CB2 representation in the 0–4 years service band increased overall from 10.53 per cent. in 1996 to 12.64 per cent. in 1998.

  3. The RUC acknowledges the composition of its members is not representative of the community that it seeks to serve. The main catchment area for applicants to the RUC is Northern Ireland. The economically active population with 'A' level qualification, or equivalent, in Northern Ireland is 60.6 per cent. Protestant (CBI) and 39.4 per cent. Roman Catholic (CB2).

  The Chief Constable has consistently made it clear that he wishes to see a positive change in the representation of the Force by encouraging members of the minority community to apply for a career in the police service and he has sought the support of respected members of the community in seeking to achieve his aim of
  "a more representative police force for Northern Ireland".

  There is no obligation under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 to make reviews under section 31 available to any person or organisation. I understand that the review prepared by the Chief Constable in fulfilment of the requirements of the Act, as an internal document, contains information which could prejudice the security of individual officers. It is not appropriate that it be made public.

  Nerve Centre, Londonderry
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the Nerve Centre, Londonderry, was formed; what has been the public funding of the Nerve Centre in each of the past three years; what public funding has been committed to the CD-Rom concerning(a) the Battle of the Somme and (b) the Bogside Disturbances; and if he will make a statement. [94825]

  Mr. McFall
  I am advised by the Chief Executive of the Arts Council that the Nerve Centre was first opened in 1989 as an alternative educational initiative aimed at encouraging young people to explore their cultural traditions through multi-media technology.

  Public funding of the Nerve Centre through the Arts Council of Northern Ireland was £23,000 in 1996–97, £11,000 in 1997–98, and £11,000 in 1998–99. Funding though the Northern Ireland Film Council was £57,000 in 1997–98 and £57,000 in 1998–99.

  I understand that the project 'Symbols' is based on a CD-ROM which includes material on the Battle of the Somme and a number of other historical events including the Bogside disturbances. The project received funding of £150,000 from the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation and £50,000 from the Community Relations Council. As the CD-ROM covered a wide range of issues, it is not possible to disaggregate the costs relating to any individual element. The detailed content of the CD-ROM is a matter for the Nerve Centre.

  Museums
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the 1998 visitor levels at(a) Armagh County Museum, (b) the Ulster and Transport Museum, (c) the Ulster American Folk Park, (d) the Ulster Museum and (e) the Navan Centre; for what reason these figures were not published in the 1998–99 Annual report of the Northern Ireland Museums Council; and if he will make a statement. [94815]

  Mr. McFall
  I am advised by the Northern Ireland Museums Council that the figures provided in the Council's 1998–99 Annual Report refer only to regional, local and independent registered museums within its membership and not to the National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland which is directly financed from Government. The Armagh County Museum, the Ulster American Folk Park, the Ulster Museum and the Ulster Folk and Transport Museum all form part of National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland which was established on 1 April 1998. The Navan Centre is not included as it is not a Museum.

  The 1998 visitor figures were:

  Visitor levels at Museums and Galleries in Northern Ireland

  Museum

  Number

  Armagh County Museum

  114,175

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  169,794

  Ulster American Folk Park

  111,221

  Ulster Museum

  235,694

  Navan Centre

  36,436

  1 The figure for the Armagh County Museum relates to 10 months of 1998 since the Museum was closed for two months in that year.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answer of 26 July 1999,Official Report, column 17, what characteristics of the flag flown adjacent to the Royal Ulster Constabulary checkpoint at Garvaghy Road, Portadown indicate that the flag commemorated the formation of the original Ulster Volunteer Force in 1912 and not a proscribed organisation as covered by section 31 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. [95348]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 October 1999]: The flag in question is purple and orange with the name Ulster Volunteer Force and the year 1912 emblazoned on it.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers in the RUC part-time reserve, broken down by district council area. [95889]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested as records are maintained by RUC Sub-divisional area. The following table shows the breakdown of full-time Reserves by Sub-division.

  Number of full-time reserves

  'A' Division

  Musgrave Street

  80

  Donegall Pass

  53

  Dunmurry

  57

  Mountpottinger

  30

  'B' Division

  Grosvenor Road

  146

  Woodbourne

  86

  Lisburn

  96

  'D' Division

  Antrim Road

  60

  North Queen Street

  57

  Tennent Street

  16

  Newtownabbey

  37

  Carrickfergus

  58

  Antrim

  71

  'E' Division

  Strandtown

  39

  Castlereagh

  71

  Bangor

  96

  Stormont

  134

  'G' Division

  Newtownards

  63

  Newcastle

  43

  Downpatrick

  43

  'H' Division

  Armagh

  89

  Newry

  106

  'J' Division

  Portadown

  40

  Lurgan

  41

  Banbridge

  40

  'K' Division

  Cookstown

  50

  Dungannon

  78

  260

  Number of full-time reserves

  'L' Division

  Enniskillen

  78

  Lisnaskea

  61

  Omagh

  60

  'N' Division

  Strand Road

  65

  Strabane

  63

  Waterside

  51

  'O' Division

  Coleraine

  49

  Limavady

  40

  Magherafelt

  69

  'P' Division

  Ballymena

  32

  Larne

  33

  Ballymoney

  32

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the numbers in the RUC full-time reserve broken down by district council area. [95892]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: It is not possible to provide the information in the form requested as records are maintained by RUC Sub-divisional area. The following table shows the breakdown of part-time Reserves by Sub-division.

  Number of part-time reserves

  'A' Division

  Musgrave Street

  39

  Donegall Pass

  39

  Dunmurry

  40

  Mountpottinger

  58

  'B' Division

  Grosvenor Road

  —

  Woodbourne

  —

  Lisburn

  40

  'D' Division

  Antrim Road

  29

  North Queen Street

  37

  Tennent Street

  48

  Newtownabbey

  68

  Carrickfergus

  40

  Antrim

  26

  'E' Division

  Strandtown

  66

  Castlereagh

  34

  Bangor

  70

  Stormont

  —

  'G' Division

  Newtownards

  101

  Newcastle

  8

  Downpatrick

  28

  'H' Division

  Armagh

  21

  Newry

  3

  'J' Division

  Portadown

  19

  Lurgan

  41

  Banbridge

  45

  261

  Number of part-time reserves

  'K' Division

  Cookstown

  9

  Dungannon

  7

  'L' Division

  Enniskillen

  30

  Lisnaskea

  19

  Omagh

  46

  'N' Division

  Strand Road

  3

  Strabane

  11

  Waterside

  7

  'O' Division

  Coleraine

  37

  Limavady

  8

  Magherafelt

  8

  'P' Division

  Ballymena

  54

  Larne

  32

  Ballymoney

  11

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average length of tenure in the RUC Special Branch. [95895]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: There is no set tenure. The average period of tenure within Special Branch is not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Description

  Target 1998–99

  Target 1999–2000

  Vehicle test average appointment waiting times

  21 days

  21 days

  Driving test average appointment waiting times

  31 days

  30 days

  Customer satisfaction with booking arrangements (+/-2 per cent. within sampling error range)

  At least 85%

  At least 90%

  Customer satisfaction with test procedures (+/-2 per cent. within sampling error range)

  At least 92%

  At least 92%

  Compliance by contractor with theory test service delivery standards

  At least 92%

  At least 92%

  Composite unit cost

  £16.96

  £17.23

  Aggregate cost efficiency index

  4.5%

  2.04%

  Return on capital employed

  6%

  6%

  Probation Board Annual Report
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the Probation Board for Northern Ireland's Annual report for 1998–99. [97602]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Probation Board's Annual Report for 1998–99 was published today. A copy of the Report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Equality Commission
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, when he last met representatives of the Equality Commission, they discussed matters relating to the extension of section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to incorporate(a) further education colleges, (b) universities and (c) university colleges of education; and if he will make a statement. [96886]

  Health and Social Services Pensions
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the report by the Government Actuary on his investigation of the Health and Personal Social Services Superannuation Scheme in Northern Ireland 1989 to 1994. [97600]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have accepted the report and today placed copies in the Library.

  The report concludes that it would be prudent to increase the rate of contribution required from employers to meet the scheme's future liabilities. The current rate is 4 per cent. of pensionable pay. The Government Actuary is content with our proposals that the rate should increase 5 per cent. from 1 April 2001, with a further increase to 7 per cent. from 1 April 2003.

  The cost of index linking National Health Service pensions is currently met by the Exchequer. As the report notes, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance and Personnel have agreed in principle that the scheme should assume its pensions increase liabilities from 1 April 1994 under a financial restructuring. Officials are discussing the basis of such changes and I will inform the House when final agreement is reached. In the meantime, the Government Actuary considers that the proposed increases in employer contribution rates are consistent with the nature of the changes likely to be required under the restructuring.

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what targets have been set for the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency for the period 1999–2000. [97601]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The targets set for the Driver and Vehicle Testing agency for 1999–2000, compared with the equivalent targets for 1998–1999, are as follows:

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not yet met representatives of the Equality Commission but hopes to do so shortly. No final decisions have been taken on which additional public authorities in Northern Ireland might be designated under Section 75(3)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department

  263
  has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93965]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  When deciding whether to make an oral statement, Ministers are guided by advice in paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code. Therefore, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what briefings(a) he and (b) his officials gave to Sunday newspapers prior to 10 October concerning the future of Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate. [95940]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 27 October 1999]: Following a meeting with the Prime Minister on Saturday 9 October 1999, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the media in Downing Street on the Government's response to the Paddington disaster and HSC report into Railtrack's safety regulation role; a copy of the statement has been placed in the Library. Officials provided similar information to Sunday newspapers on request.

  A27 (Worthing)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much he has allocated to the improvement and to the maintenance of the A27 in Worthing for the next three financial years. [96327]

  Mr. Hill
  As this is an operational matter and the responsibility of the Highways Agency, I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Peter Bottomley, dated 4 November 1999:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your question about funding for the maintenance and improvement of the A27 in Worthing over the next three financial years.
  The attached schedule sets out our proposals for maintenance and improvement works for the A27 through the Borough of Worthing for the next three years. Progress with these proposals will depend upon the priorities assigned to each project within the Agency's detailed business planning process.
  Additionally, with the Government Office for the South East, we are carrying out several studies into transport issues in the Worthing area that may identify further improvements to the A27.

  A27 Worthing Programme of Works 1999 to 2003

  Financial year

  Description

  Cost

  Maintenance works

  2000–2001

  A27 Sompting Bypass Major Maintenance

  £3.68m

  Improvements

  2000–2001

  A27 Worthing and Lancing Lighting

  £500k

  2000–2001

  A27 Worthing low cost safety schemes

  £50k

  1999–2000

  A27 Puffin Crossing (Nr. Hayling Rise)

  £35k

  264
  In addition, there will he on going routine maintenance work such as sign cleaning, drainage and lighting repairs together with minor carriageway and footpath repairs (if required).

  Allotments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list all local authority allotments he has approved for closure since 1997; and how many applications for closure he has refused. [96872]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Secretary of State has given consent for the disposal of 172 statutory allotment sites since 1 January 1997. The information requested has been placed in the House Library. There have been two applications for disposal which have been declined since that date.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made with the study into Regional Eurostar Services; and if he will make a statement. [96621]

  Mr. Hill
  The review commissioned by the Government is currently on-going. The results are expected soon, at which time I will make a statement.

  Council Tax (Pensioners)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the average increase in(a) gross council tax bills and (b) net council tax bills of pensioner households between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. [96674]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department does not hold administrative data on council tax bills by pensioner and non-pensioner households from which the average increase in gross and net council tax bills of pensioner households between 1998–99 and 1999–2000 could be estimated. The latest information from the Family Resources Survey on pensioner households relates to 1997–98.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate, based on his Department's administrative data for each of the last 10 financial years, the average level of(a) gross council tax bills and (b) net council tax bills expressed as a percentage of household income, for the whole population, and separately for pensioner and non-pensioner households. [96675]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department does not hold administrative data on household incomes, nor on council tax bills by pensioner and non-pensioner households.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date in August(a) he and (b) his Department's officials first saw the Signals Passed at Danger statistics for 1998–99. [96680]
  265
  Mr. Hill
  Ministers were informed in a submission from the Chief Inspector of Railways dated 9 August 1999. HSE first sent officials of an early draft of these statistics on 22 June 1999.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times each signal on routes into London mainline stations via Clapham Junction and Norwood Junction involving stops at Cheam or Sutton stations was passed at danger in each of the last five years. [96072]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The Railways Inspectorate do not hold information in this form. I will ask the chair of the Health and Safety Executive to write to the hon. Member with what information they do hold. A copy will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place the weekly reports he receives on signals passed at danger on the railway in the Library as soon as he receives them; and on what day of the week they will regularly appear; [97084]

  (2) if he will produce a table of railway signals passed at danger for each week since 5 October, showing the split between each category of SPAD. [97086]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said to the House on 19 October 1999, information on signal passes at danger will be made available to the House on a monthly basis.

  A published first analysis by the Health and Safety Executive's Railways Inspectorate will be available early November in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many incidents of signals passed at danger have occurred on the main line between London Liverpool Street and Ipswich in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement; [97090]

  (2) how many incidents of signals passed at danger have occurred on the main line between London Liverpool Street and Southminster in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [97089]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: This information is not available in the form requested. The Health and Safety Executive will write to the hon. Member with what information they do hold. A copy of the letter will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the performance of train operating companies with regard to their contractual obligations of maintenance and standards of safety when considering requests to extend franchises; and if he will make a statement. [96930]

  Mr. Hill
  I can confirm that the Deputy Prime Minister's instruction to the franchising director require him to maintain effective liaison with other authorities, including the Rail Regulator and the Health and Safety 266
  Executive, in the conduct of his business. The franchising director will be expected to consult other authorities prior to making recommendations to Ministers concerning the extension of franchises.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the train operating companies that have requested an extension of their franchise; and if he will make a statement. [96931]

  Mr. Hill
  The bids received by the franchising director are commercially confidential and I am therefore unable to list them.

  Airbags
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has carried out in the last five years regarding the effects of airbags in reducing casualties and fatalities in car accidents; and if he will make a statement. [96933]

  Mr. Hill
  Between 1993 and 1996, the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) investigated airbag effectiveness at the Department's request. This included a review of published research on airbag testing and performance in the field. By necessity, this was based mainly on the experience in the US, where airbags have been in use for a number of years. TRL also looked at a sample of accidents in the UK, but the number available for examination was small and there was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion on the efficacy of airbags in cars in the UK.

  The Department, in collaboration with the motor industry, is actively involved in the Co-operative Crash Injury Study (CCIS), which collects detailed information on many aspects of crash protection from a sample of UK road accidents. CCIS is an ongoing study managed by the TRL and involving teams from Birmingham University, Loughborough University and the Vehicle Inspectorate. A study of available CCIS data by Loughborough University published in 1998 concluded that, of all the injured drivers they looked at, those in airbag equipped vehicles had less head injuries, but more arm injuries, than those in vehicles without airbags.

  The relatively low number of cases involving airbag deployment is still a constraint in assessing the effectiveness of airbags. However, we anticipate that a clearer picture will begin to emerge as the number of CCIS investigations involving airbag equipped vehicles increases.

  Planning Guidance
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from supermarket companies on PPG6. [96967]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Secretary of State has received a number of representations from the retail sector. All have been sympathetic to the Government's objective for PPG6 which is to sustain and enhance the vitality and viability of town centres.
  267
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend Planning Policy Guidance Note 6. [96974]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no plans to amend PPG6.

  South Downs National Park
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received following the announcement of his intention to turn the South Downs into a national park. [96934]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 29 September that he was asking the Countryside Agency to consider designation of the South Downs as a National Park, Ministers have received a small number of written representations. Those from members of the public have generally been supportive of a National Park. On 12 October I met a delegation of MPs and local authority representatives from East and West Sussex and Hampshire. I took the opportunity to reassure them that the Countryside Agency and the Government would listen to local interests and take into account all the special factors in the South Downs in considering possible models for a National Park.

  Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to respond to the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill; [96963]

  (2) when he expects to publish the latest version of the Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill. [96962]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill was published earlier this year as part of a consultation exercise to seek the views of local authorities and interested members of the public and to provide the opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of Members of both Houses of Parliament. The Joint Committee published its report at the beginning of August.

  We have no intention to publish a further version of the draft Bill; the next stage would be for the Government to introduce primary legislation to Parliament. A response to the Joint Committee report would accompany the introduction of the legislation. My Department hopes to bring forward the legislation at an early opportunity.

  Building Safety
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Birmingham City Council has complied with his circular 62/68 in respect of building safety. [96961]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  For new building work compliance with the Building Regulations 1991 is mandatory, and any new buildings such as those addressed by Circular 62-68 would be sufficiently robust 268
  to resist disproportionate collapse. The guidance in the Circular is not mandatory, although it impressed most strongly on local authorities the need to put any necessary work in hand urgently. However, while strongly endorsing the guidance in this Circular and in Circular 71-68 which followed it, the Department does not monitor the performance of local authorities with regard to advice in Circulars.

  Motorways and Trunk Roads
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each location on the motorway and trunk road network in England where(a) there is currently a weight restriction below the normal permitted maximum and (b) where the Highways Agency is undertaking monitoring because of concerns about the strength of a structure. [97070]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Bernard Jenkin, dated 4 November 1999:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for information concerning weight restrictions and monitoring of structures on the motorway and trunk road network.
  There are no weight restrictions currently in force on the main carriageways of motorways and major trunk roads. However, there are a small number of structures, primarily supporting slip roads and interchanges, which have some form of weight restriction pending repairs or strengthening. The numbers and restrictions can vary as repairs and strengthening takes place but I am preparing an up to date list for you.
  You also ask for a list of where the Highways Agency is undertaking monitoring because of concerns about the strength of a structure. Special monitoring of structures is being undertaken for a number of reasons on a number of bridges. This can vary from week to week and the details are not held centrally. I am assembling the information you request and shall write to you shortly listing those structures subject to weight restriction as well as those where special monitoring is being undertaken because of concerns about strength.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the inspector at the public inquiry on the future policy of waste disposal in Essex, currently being held at Chelmsford, immediately to make the written submissions to that inquiry available to the press and interested local parties. [97130]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I see no need to. Copies of written submissions made to public inquiries on Waste Local Plans are deposited with those plans as a matter of standard practice so that others may see them, both before and during an inquiry.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy towards publishing written submissions by interested parties prior to the holding of a public inquiry into local waste disposal projects. [97131]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  It is standard practice for the written submissions of interested parties to be deposited with Waste Local Plans so that others may see them, during reasonable hours, both before and during a public inquiry.

  Endocrine Disruption
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision has been made for the co-ordination of Government-funded research in the UK on endocrine disruption. [97535]

  Mr. Meacher
  Government-funded research in the UK on endocrine disruption is co-ordinated by an interdepartmental group comprising representatives from Government Departments, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales, the environment agencies, Research Councils and the Health and Safety Executive. I am pleased to announce the publication of the Group's first report on its activities since its inception in 1995 and I will place copies in the House Library.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sources of funding available to(a) local authorities and (b) voluntary organisations to support the planting of trees. [97033]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme provides grants for planting trees, for creating woods, and for managing woods. These grants are available to local authorities, voluntary organisations, individuals and other bodies. Grants and other funds to support tree planting are also provided by several other organisations such as the Countryside Agency, English Nature, the Environmental Action Fund, the Tree Council, the National Lottery, trusts, charities and private companies. Many local authorities themselves also offer grants for tree planting.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list all performance targets set for her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94988]

  Clare Short
  All of the performance targets set for my Department since May 1997 are listed in the Public Services Agreement.

  These high-level targets are supported at operational level by numerous targets to ensure delivery by individual units. Listing these operational targets would be inappropriate and disproportionate in terms of resources.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council (1) what methods of depreciation her Department will 270
  apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets; [97042]

  (2) if she will list the methods of depreciation her Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [96912]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department will apply the straight line method. This is in accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual. The requirements in the Manual will be underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15, "Tangible Fixed Assets", issued by the Accounting Standards Board.

  Office Costs Allowance
  Mr. Love
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members(a) underspent, (b) spent and (c) overspent their office costs allowance in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [93551]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I regret that the information requested is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Accounting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what methods of depreciation the Lord Chancellor's Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97045]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department will use the Straight-Line method of depreciation in the preparation of departmental resource accounts for 1999–2000. This is in accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual, which is in turn underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15 'Tangible Fixed Assets', as issued by the Accounting Standards Board.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Burma
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the human rights situation in Myanmar. [97053]

  Mr. Battle
  Human rights violations in Burma are appalling and include arbitrary killings, rape, torture, forced labour, forced relocations and denial of freedoms of expression, movement, assembly and association. We take every opportunity to raise our concern about the violations of human rights, especially those of ethnic minorities. For example, our Embassy in Rangoon regularly raise particular concerns with the regime; visiting British and EU officials also raise such concerns when they visit Burma; we have co-sponsored United Nations resolutions which strongly condemn the human rights violations and call on the regime to take urgent action to improve the situation. We will continue our efforts.

  Food and Drug Administration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to propose to the Council of Ministers the establishment of an equivalent agency to the United States Food and Drug Administration within the European Union; and if he will make a statement. [96923]

  Mr. Vaz
  The President of the European Commission, Mr. Prodi, has already said that he intends to bring forward options for an EU food agency in a White Paper expected in December. We are interested in pursuing ideas for such an Agency and we look forward to participating fully in discussions of Mr. Prodi's proposals.

  EU Charter Working Group
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the list of already appointed members of the EU' s Charter Working Group and the names of other members on appointment. [97154]

  Mr. Vaz
  Heads of State and Government at the Special European Council in Tampere on 15-16 October agreed that the drafting body would be made up of 15 representatives of Heads of Government, 1 representative of the Commission, 16 Members of the EP and 30 national Parliamentarians. As of 3 November, the only appointments that have been made so far are ex-President Herzog (Germany), Paavu Nikula (Finland) and Stelios Perrakis (Greece).

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) of 28 October 1999,Official Report, column 993, how many meetings between his Department's officials and the Metropolitan Police took place; on what dates; who was present at each meeting; for what reasons no minutes were taken at any of these meetings; if, as a result of these meetings, letters or memos were sent by his Department's officials to the police or vice versa; and who represented the police at these meetings. [97259]

  Mr. Battle
  Meetings involving Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Metropolitan Police took place on the following dates this year: 13 July, 27 and 29 July (during the first preparatory visit to the UK of the Chinese officials responsible for the Visit), 6 and 8 September (during the second preparatory visit to the UK of the Chinese officials responsible for the Visit), 23 September, 28 September and 13 October. The number of meetings reflected the programme requirements.

  At each meeting, there were representatives from among the following: China Hong Kong Department, Protocol Division and Conference and Visits Group of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Buckingham Palace; Central Area Headquarters, Special Branch, Royalty Protection and Special Escort Group of the Metropolitan Police Service; the Chinese Embassy and visiting Chinese officials; Cambridge University; Cambridgeshire Constabulary; Guildhall; City of London Police; Royal Parks; Royal Parks Police; British Transport Police; Gatwick Airport; Gatwick Airport Police; Sussex Police; Lothian and Borders Police; Royal Air Force; Household
  272
  Cavalry; Royal Logistic Corps; Ministry of Defence; Railtrack Southern; English, Welsh and Scottish Railway; E. C. Harris company.

  Minutes were not taken because the purpose of these meetings was not to take operational decisions, but to go through successive drafts of the programme and discuss new programme proposals. Any outcome of the discussions was subsequently reflected in revised programmes.

  No letters or memos were sent by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials to the police as a result of these meetings, or vice versa.

  Hungarian President (State Visit)
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings took place between his Department's officials and the Metropolitan Police in preparation for the state visit of the President of Hungary in June; on what dates; who represented the police at these meetings; and if minutes were taken. [97254]

  Mr. Vaz
  Meetings involving Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the Metropolitan Police took place on the following dates this year: 8 April, 4 and 6 May (during the preparatory visit to the UK of the Hungarian officials responsible for the Visit), and 11 May. The number of meetings reflected the programme requirements.

  At each meeting, there were representatives from among the following: the then Central European Department and the then Protocol Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; the then Government Hospitality Fund; Department of Trade and Industry; Buckingham Palace; Central Area Headquarters, Special Branch, Royalty Protection and Special Escort Group of the Metropolitan Police Service; the Hungarian Embassy and visiting Hungarian officials; Windsor Castle and Windsor Great Park; Thames Valley Police; Guildhall; City of London Police; Royal Parks Police; Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead; Heathrow Airport; Gatwick Airport; Department of Culture, Media and Sport; Royal Air Force; Household Cavalry; Royal Logistic Corps; Ministry of Defence; Crown Estate Office; E. C. Harris company.

  Minutes were not taken because the purpose of these meetings was not to take operational decisions, but to go through successive drafts of the programme and discuss new programme proposals. Any outcome of the discussions was subsequently reflected in revised programmes.

  Iran
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian Government concerning the trial of the students charged with insulting the Imam; when and at what level such representations were made; what assurances were received; and if he will make a statement. [95783]

  Mr. Hain
  The Iranian Government are fully aware of the importance that we and our EU partners attach to freedom of expression. Our concerns about Iran's human
  273
  rights record, including on freedom of expression, will again feature prominently in this month's EU sponsored UN Resolution on Human Rights in Iran.

  Transfrontier Co-operation
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom has not signed the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities; when the Convention was opened for signature; how many nations have signed this convention; and if he will make a statement. [96474]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities was opened for signature on 21 May 1980 and to date has been signed by 32 member states of the Council of Europe.

  United Kingdom local authorities have entered into a number of transfrontier arrangements with local and regional authorities in other states, which the Government strongly welcomes. None of these arrangements to date have needed to be underpinned by the Convention.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  E-commerce
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to ensure that future legislation on electronic commerce is able to cope with evolving technology. [95833]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Electronic Communications Bill, which will be introduced into Parliament in the next Session, is intended to be technology neutral. Firstly, it will start the process of ensuring that electronic transactions are given the same legal status as paper ones. Secondly it will establish a flexible legal framework which is capable of adapting to different ways of doing electronic commerce and different methods of ensuring authentication, integrity and confidentiality of information. Our policies are designed to increase our competitiveness by promoting electronic commerce, not a particular technology.

  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the development of electronic commerce in the UK; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the UK is the best place in the world for such commerce. [95848]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter),Official Report, column 463.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the European Commission about the regulation of e-commerce; and if he will make a statement. [95831]

  Ms Hewitt
  On 12 October I had a meeting in Brussels with Erkki Liikanen, Commissioner for Enterprise and the Information Society. We discussed and agreed on the need for a market-led regulatory framework for electronic commerce; the actual and potential contribution of 274
  e-commerce to competitiveness in Europe, particularly that of SMEs; and the importance of ensuring close co-ordination of e-commerce related initiatives.

  Onwa Ltd.
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to provide special assistance to employees of Onwa Ltd. in Jarrow. [95834]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have no such plans as it is not the responsibility of my Department to provide assistance to employees in such cases.

  However, I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that his Department has designated the closure as a large scale redundancy, and that all employees will be eligible for immediate entry to the Department's work-based learning for adults programme. I also understand that his Department is considering a rapid response fund assistance package of up to £153,000, which will provide further help to the Onwa workers in obtaining retraining.

  Low Income Families
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effects of his Department's policies on families with low incomes in the last two years. [95835]

  Mr. Byers
  This Government believe that rewarding work is a key aspect of our agenda of modernisation and reform. The national minimum wage, coupled with the introduction of the working families tax credit, will make work pay for hard-working parents.

  Fireworks (Safety)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has for reducing firework-related injuries. [95838]

  Dr. Howells
  The comprehensive measures introduced under the Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 are again being supplemented by a robust, targeted firework safety campaign. This approach has been shown to work. During the 1998 firework season, 831 people were treated in A&E departments compared to 908 in 1997 and 1233 in 1996.

  The theme of this year's campaign, which I launched on 15 October, is that alcohol and fireworks do not mix. As part of the campaign, 1,000 information packs to help mount local safety campaigns have been distributed to trading standards, fire brigades, environmental health officers and for the first time, police forces.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to monitor the efficiency of the use of energy by manufacturing industry. [95839]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Government monitor the energy efficiency performance of manufacturing industry through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Region's Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme and
  275
  related work. This Programme has stimulated annual energy savings of around 150 petajoules in industry, equivalent to 3 million tonnes of carbon.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to increase the protection of consumers against dishonest traders. [95841]

  Dr. Howells
  The White Paper "Modern Markets: Confident Consumers" published in July set out our proposals to introduce much clearer targeting of dishonest traders and specific unfair trade practices by amending the Fair Trading Act 1973. In particular, we intend to provide a power for the courts to grant injunctions against specified practices carried out by specified traders, a power for the courts to ban from trading for a period traders with a history of disregarding their legal obligations, and a power to make orders by secondary legislation to specify that certain unfair practices should become criminal offences.

  European Economic Area
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will next meet World Trade Organisation officials to discuss free trade within the European Economic Area. [95842]

  Mr. Caborn
  We have no plans to meet WTO officials to discuss free trade within the European Economic Area (EEA). This is not a matter for the WTO, but is primarily one for discussion by EEA members.

  Car Prices
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the prices of new cars in the UK and in the rest of the EU. [95843]

  Dr. Howells
  The European Commission publishes a six-monthly comparison of pre-tax car prices across the European Community. The most recent one covered prices at 1 May this year; the UK was the most expensive market for 62 of the 75 models covered.

  The Competition Commission is looking into new car prices in the UK and has been asked to report by 16 December. The Secretary of State will decide what action to take in the light of any adverse findings the Commission may make. We await the Commission's report with interest.

  Trade Agreement (South Africa)
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress with the trade agreement between the EU and South Africa. [95844]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement between the European Union and South Africa was signed in Pretoria on 11 October. The key trade provisions of the Agreement will be implemented from 1 January 2000. Reciprocal free trade will be phased in over 12 years. Of the two partners, the EU will open its import market at a generally faster pace in order to give a boost to South Africa's further integration into the global economy. The EU is South 276
  Africa's major trading partner and this agreement will strengthen that relationship and create new opportunities for British companies to do business with South Africa.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the proposed climate change levy. [95845]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have had many representations from business about the proposed climate change levy and accompanying reduction in employers' National Insurance contributions which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his last Budget. We will be taking account of the views of business in designing the details of the levy so that the environmental benefits can be achieved while safeguarding competitiveness.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effect of the climate change levy on manufacturing competitiveness. [95847]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have said it aims to design the levy in a way which maximises its environmental effectiveness while safeguarding competitiveness. We have therefore been developing our understanding of the perspectives of different sectors of Industry to inform our decisions on the levy for the Finance Bill 2000.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he will take to ensure that consideration is given to environmental protection and sustainable development at the Seattle round of the WTO. [95849]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK and EU are committed to ensuring that sustainable development is a key objective for the new round and that the relationship between trade and the environment is included as a subject of negotiations.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the EU position in respect of the WTO negotiations. [95850]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK's and EU's priority for the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle later this year is to secure the launch of an ambitious, comprehensive round of negotiations aimed at a substantial package to remove trade barriers and so promote growth and jobs in the world economy. Our particular priorities for these negotiations include agriculture, services, industrial tariffs, regulatory standards, trade facilitation, government procurement, intellectual property rights, investment, competition and the environment. Throughout the round we shall want to ensure that the interests of developing countries are taken fully into account. The EU's position for Seattle was discussed at an informal meeting of EU Trade Ministers on 1 October in Florence and at the General Affairs Council on 11 October. Formal Council Conclusions were agreed on 26 October.

  Balkans
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken to encourage British firms to take part in the regeneration of the Kosovo and other Balkan economies. [95851]

  Mr. Caborn
  On the initiative of the Secretary of State, a joint Government/private sector Taskforce was set up by British Trade International—the recently established joint DTI/FCO trade promotion organisation—to co-ordinate and promote the UK's response to the reconstruction opportunities arising in Kosovo. Its prime objective is to ensure that UK companies are well placed to play a role in the rebuilding of Kosovo. The Taskforce has achieved much. Arising out of its activities, a consortium of UK companies has, with financial support from British Trade International, been awarded the concession to manage the power sector over the next seven months; this will help ensure that there is sufficient power to enable the people of Kosovo to get through the forthcoming harsh winter. It was clear from my recent visit to Kosovo that the good will arising out of this contract should help UK companies compete for other business, not only in the power sector but also in other areas of activity.

  British Trade International have seconded an official to the British Office in Pristina to assist UK companies seeking business in Kosovo. In order to keep the business community abreast of developments in Kosovo, the Department has also established a Kosovo website; its address is: www.brittrade.com/kosovo/. This includes information on the activities of the Taskforce and the international funding agencies working there. The well publicised activities of the Taskforce have played a major role in generating UK company interest in Kosovo; nearly 1,000 companies have registered on British Trade International's Kosovo database. British Trade International has been praised widely by the private sector for all its initiatives on Kosovo. Kosovo has been its first test; one which it has come through with flying colours.

  Kosovo is seen as the springboard to the wider South East Europe region (the Balkans) which presents significantly more business opportunities. In due course, the role of the Taskforce is likely to focus on this wider region. Through promotional events such as a seminars support for trade fairs and missions, British Trade International continues to draw the attention of UK companies to commercial opportunities in the other markets of the region.

  Loose from Bulk Goods
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to extend the derogation for loose from bulk goods in imperial measures. [95852]

  Dr. Howells
  On 26 July 1999,Official Report, columns 678-79, I announced the result of our reappraisal of the use of metric units of measurement in the UK and placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House. As that report made clear, we have concluded that there would be no benefit in seeking a postponement of the date (31 December 1999), agreed by the previous administration, after which loose from bulk goods should
  278
  be priced and weighed in grams and kilograms. It will still be possible for retailers to indicate imperial units alongside metric and for consumers to express in imperial units the quantity they wish to buy.

  Global Free Trade
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's policy on encouraging global free trade. [95853]

  Mr. Caborn
  The United Kingdom supports the launch of an ambitious, comprehensive round of negotiations aimed at a substantial package to remove trade barriers and so promote growth in the world economy and jobs for our people. This should go a long way to realising global free trade consistent with the principle of sustainable development.

  Science
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to ensure an increase in the Government's total spending on science. [95854]

  Ms Hewitt
  This Government have shown a clear commitment to science in their spending plans agreed following the Comprehensive Spending Review. In this three-year period, Government will invest over £20 billion in science, engineering and technology. This level of investment is higher in real terms than at any time this decade.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on enforcement of the national minimum wage. [95855]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We are confident we have put in place one of the world's most professional and organised systems of minimum wage enforcement. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) below.

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to prevent employers from ignoring the national minimum wage. [95860]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  National Minimum Wage (NMW) Inspectors have dealt with over 3,000 cases of suspected underpayment of the minimum wage. Every call is followed up, including anonymous calls and third party tip-offs. In addition, Inspectors are now targeting low paying employers based on detailed risk analysis. Changes to the law mean that our Inspectors are now able to use information gathered for income tax, N1 and Working Families Tax Credit purposes.

  The Government recognise that it is vital that employers are aware of their obligations under the law. In January this year the Inland Revenue included information about the NMW in their employer's annual pack, which was sent to all 1.2 million tax-registered employers. In March, once the Regulations had been approved by Parliament, we made detailed guidance available, along with leaflets for employers and employees. So far over

  279
  1 million copies of the guidance and leaflets have been sent out to individuals and organisations, as well as many thousands which have been downloaded from the minimum wage website.

  Around £5 million was spent on advertising the minimum wage in March and April. Independent research shows the campaign met or exceeded the targets set; awareness of the minimum wage following advertising peaked at 95 per cent. among employers.

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the National Minimum Wage. [97578]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the introduction and impact of the national minimum wage. The Commission have undertaken a wide-ranging consultation and fact-finding exercise and have commissioned a series of research projects.

  We have submitted and published our own evidence to the Low Pay Commission.

  International Postal Services
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when(a) he and (b) officials in his Department last met representatives of the Post Office to discuss international postal services. [95856]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet with the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Post Office to discuss a range of issues, including international postal matters. Officials also regularly discuss international postal matters with the Post Office.

  Incubator Companies
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what success he has had in developing incubator companies of clusters. [95857]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department supports the UK Business Incubation Centre (UKBI), which promotes and encourages the uptake of business incubation, spreads best practice and improves networking and coordination between incubators. DTI also supports some sectoral incubation activities, for example through the Biotechnology Mentoring and Incubator Challenge and the Software Business Incubator (a virtual incubator). In addition, the "Reach-Out" fund has invited proposals for enhanced interaction between Higher Education Institutions and business, including support for university-based incubator facilities. Business incubators are often but not exclusively, located within industrial clusters.

  UKBI have commissioned a study, part-funded by my Department, which will help identify where and how incubator support policy has assisted specific firms, such as high-technology businesses We await the result of this study with interest.

  Part-time Work Directive
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the draft regulations and code of practice to implement the directive on part-time work. [95858]
  280
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The draft regulations and Code of Practice will be published in early November. This will launch a consultation process on the Government proposals. We intend to implement the Directive in April next year.

  Energy Markets
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to secure the liberalisation of energy markets in the UK. [95859]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government are currently undertaking a major programme of liberalisation in the energy markets as outlined in the White Paper on energy sources for power generation (Cm 4071) in October 1998. This has included the opening up to competition of the UK gas supply market (completed in May 1998) and the UK electricity supply market (completed in May 1999). Work is also under way in my Department and in the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to liberalise the gas and electricity wholesale trading arrangements and transmission capacity allocation.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implementation of the changes to the regional selective assistance map and associated issues indicated in his July statement; and if the proposed changes have been ratified by the European Commission. [95861]

  Mr. Caborn
  No.

  Intellectual Property
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is introducing to clarify the ownership of intellectual property. [95836]

  Dr. Howells
  In general, intellectual property legislation provides for creators, such as inventors in the case of patents and authors for copyright, to be the first owners of rights.

  Intellectual property may be transferred by assignment or vested by operation of law (as on death or bankruptcy) in the same way as other personal property. It is not for government to become involved in such acquisition, disposal or transfer. However, we shall continue to work to ensure that clarity of ownership of intellectual property in the public sector encourages and simplifies exploitation of research in universities and public sector research establishments.

  BVRAAM UK
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the impact on employment in the UK if the European Meteor team loses their bid in the BVRAAM UK competition. [95456]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile (BVRAAM) competition is being run by the Ministry of Defence, with the Department of Trade and Industry being involved in the consideration of the industrial implications of the procurement. It would be inappropriate to publish material derived from information provided by companies to both MOD and
  281
  DTI as part of a competitive bidding process. Our assessment considers the impact of the competing bids on the development of significant industrial and technological capabilities in the UK. The impact on employment levels in the UK is only one element of this.

  Advertisements
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is regarding EU Directive 97/55/EC on comparative advertisements; and if he will make a statement. [95922]

  Dr. Howells
  Advertising which compares a company's product with those of a competitor has always been accepted in the UK. A system of regulatory and voluntary controls ensures that any comparison is accurate and fair so that consumers are able to judge the relative merits of products. However, it is important that there is a level playing field across Europe for those who wish to advertise by objectively comparing their products with those of a competitor. At present, this does not exist because of different regulations across the EU. The Government therefore welcome the Comparative Advertising Directive which will permit comparative advertising throughout the European Community on an equal basis.

  The Directive is due to be implemented in member states by 23 April 2000. My Department has recently consulted on proposals to implement the Directive in UK law by amending the Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988.

  Pressure Equipment
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if regulations required by EC Council Directive 97/23/EC (O.J. No. L181, 9.7.97, p.1) regarding the harmonisation of laws concerning pressure equipment have been published in each EU country; and if he will list these regulations together with their proposed implementation dates [96453]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999, which implement the Pressure Equipment Directive (97/23/EC), were laid before Parliament on 19 July 1999. The main provisions of the Regulations come into force on 29 November 1999, the date of application of the Directive. This is followed by a transitional period until 29 May 2002, when manufacturers may choose whether to comply with the national legislation in force on 29 November 1999 or with the Pressure Equipment Regulations.

  It is for the European Commission to monitor the transposition of EU Directives across the Community and take appropriate action as necessary. The Commission publishes information on which Directives have been transposed on its CELEX database. This can be accessed on the parliamentary intranet (PDVN) as part of the JUSTIS database which is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arms export licences have been issued for shipments to Sri Lanka since May 1997. [96419]
  282
  Dr. Howells
  For the period 2 May 1997 to 25 February 1999, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 17 March 1999,Official Report, columns 683-84.

  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 26 February and 19 October 1999, 22 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 3 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued for the export to consignees or end-users in Sri Lanka of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, commonly known as the Military List. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings (and OIELs may also cover a range of countries). Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Individual Licences issued between 26 February 1999 and 9 October 1999 for the export to Sri Lanka of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELS issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML1

  2

  0

  ML2

  2

  0

  ML3

  4

  0

  ML4

  4

  0

  ML5

  2

  1

  ML6

  1

  0

  ML7

  2

  0

  ML11

  2

  2

  ML13

  0

  1

  ML14

  0

  1

  ML15

  3

  0

  PL5001

  1

  0

  PL5017

  3

  0

  PL5030

  1

  0

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 307–08.

  In addition, Sri Lanka is a permitted destination on certain Open General Export Licences covering the export of goods on the Military List; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  Export Licensing
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licence applications have been referred to a interdepartmental committee for discussion or advice in each of the last six months; how
  283
  many have been (a) granted and (b) refused; and what have been the (i) average, (ii) shortest and (iii) longest times between referral and decision. [96480]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Extracting all of the information requested would involve disproportionate cost. However, in respect of Iran over the six month period 1 April 1999 to 30 September 1999, 53 export licences have been issued and seven applications refused. All of these have been considered by the relevant interdepartmental committee.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what dates the interdepartmental committee on export licensing will meet within the next month; what is the normal frequency of meetings; and what arrangements are in place to process urgent applications quickly. [96482]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: The next meeting of the relevant interdepartmental committee on export licence applications for Iran is scheduled for 9 November 1999. This committee meets once a month. All applications are dealt with case by case and within a time scale which allows for proper consideration.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in his Department in examining arms export licence applications. [97062]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: Strategic export controls, including for goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 (known as the Military List) are administered by the Export Control Organisation (ECO), part of the DTI's Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate (XNP). Most ECO staff may, for various reasons, be required to examine licence applications for goods on the Military List. The ECO staff complement in 1999–2000 is 135.8 staff; the actual number in post at any one time may vary slightly from this figure.

  Financial Investigations
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what circumstances persons interviewed under section 177 of the Financial Services Act 1986 are instructed not to talk publicly about their evidence, after an investigation has been concluded. [96407]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: Confidentiality requirements placed on witnesses in inspections, above those set out in statute for which there are criminal penalties, are a matter for inspectors. However the Department encourages inspectors to make clear to all witnesses the general and continuing confidentiality of the inspection process.

  Publications (Carriage Charges)
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has to review the carriage charges for newspapers and magazines. [96871]

  Dr. Howells
  Terms and conditions are usually a matter for commercial negotiation between the parties concerned.
  284
  The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering allegations of anti-competitive practices. If anybody has evidence of anti-competitive behaviour concerning carriage charges, they should contact the Director-General.

  European Coal Industry
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures his Department has taken to ensure that EU member states do not engage in measures which distort the European coal industry after 2002. [96888]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Aid paid to coal producers in Europe is governed by the 1993 Coal State Aid Code. This expires along with the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty in 2002. The UK Government will be working with the European Commission and other Member States to ensure that the arrangements after 2002 avoid distortion of the European coal market. In the meantime, we must ensure that aid which is currently approved by the Commission under the existing rules does not distort the market against unsubsidised producers in the ECSC including those in the UK.

  In the case of Spain, we have formally complained to the European Commission about discriminatory application of limits on the sulphur content of coals from different ECSC resources, and have received assurances that UK coal will be treated on the same basis as Spanish coal. This should open the Spanish market to a range of UK coals.

  We have also laid a formal complaint against Spanish state aid for coal, questioning whether the required criteria of ultimate viability has been fulfilled for all those producers receiving operating aid under the ECSC Coal State Aid code. The European Commission have also made clear that a subsidy of one peseta per kilowatt/hour (equivalent to around 35p a gigajoule of coal) available to Spanish power-station operators burning Spanish coal should be equally available in respect of UK coal.

  In the case of Germany, following our complaint to the European Commission on behalf of Celtic Energy Ltd setting out how state aid provided to Sophia Jacoba and Ibbenburen mines led to a distortion in the anthracite market in the ECSC and particularly in the UK, the Commission found there had been abuse of state aid and reached a decision on 29 July 1998 requiring repayment of nearly DM 20 million state aid by the German producers. This decision provides UK producers with an assurance that such unfair practices will not recur and should help to open up continental markets for competitive UK exports of anthracite.

  We made representations to the Commission in March 1998 on the proposed merger of the three remaining German hard coal producers, setting out our view that the privatisation of Saarbergwerke for 1 DM represented significant unauthorised aid for German coal production. We are continuing to urge the Commission to reach a view on how this should be handled.

  We have also responded to the Commission's notifications that it was initiating procedures under the ECSC Treaty in respect of unauthorised aid being provided by France to its coal producers. We have fully endorsed the preliminary conclusions which the

  285
  Commission have reached in their formal notice to the French Government and we believe there is growing evidence that the aid to Charbonnages de France (CdF) is distorting competition in the coal and coal-related sectors.

  We have expressed particular concern over the export of Polish coal to UK market at prices which appear to be below production costs. We have raised this issue both with the Polish Government and with the European Commission who are responsible for ensuring that Poland meets the conditions of its accession arrangements to the EU. We have made clear that we expect Polish coal exported to the British isles to be withdrawn unless its selling price can be shown to cover its appropriately allocated production and transportation costs.

  We will continue to press the European Commission to interpret the Code strictly and, in particular, to ensure that operating aid is paid only to those undertakings which can demonstrate that they can be competitive within a reasonable time period. Undertakings which cannot demonstrate this should be given closure aid only. We support many of the arguments that RJM Mining have made in this respect to the court of First Instance and note that the Court's Judgement of 9 September 1999 that authorisation of operating aid must be subject to the condition that the recipient undertakings have achieved a significant reduction in their production costs.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if persons interviewed by his Department's inspectors in relation to an inquiry into insider dealing are offered transcripts of the meeting to enable them to check for accuracy. [96744]

  Dr. Howells
  While the conduct of inspections is a matter for the inspectors, it is their usual practice to provide a transcript of any formal interview of a witness to that witness for comment.

  World Poverty
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what specific progress he is making in linking his Department's work with the objective of the Department for International Development for relieving world poverty. [96663]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department works closely with the Department for International Development, for example through an Interdepartmental Group on Trade and Development which co-ordinates our efforts to ensure that developing countries benefit more fully from the world trade system. Together, the two Departments have worked successfully to establish an EU approach to a comprehensive new round of negotiations in the WTO which reflects this concern—including a call for duty-free access for essentially all products from the least developed countries by the end of the round.

  In July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced the review of ECGD's Mission and Status, which will take account of the relationship of ECGD's activities with the Government's wider objectives. In this context, I particularly want the review to look at what more ECGD could do to help the Government to achieve their wider sustainable development objectives, as the UK continues to play a
  286
  leading role in assisting the poorest developing countries to emerge from the debt and poverty burdens and return to the international trading community.

  Arthritis Research
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research into children's arthritis the Government fund; and if he will make a statement. [96661]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government fund health and medical research mainly through the Medical Research Council and the Department of Health.

  The Medical Research Council spent about £160k in 1998–99 on projects specifically involved with juvenile arthritis. In addition, the MRC spent £1,128k on arthritis as a whole—much of which will be relevant to the treatment of children with the condition.

  The Department of Health has recently funded projects on juvenile arthritis with a total value of over £500k.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 [Cm 4181], stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94985]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: My Department has set out the key performance targets on which it will be judged in its Public Service Agreement—published in the Government White Paper of December 1998, called "Public Services for the Future: Modernisation, Reform, Accountability" (Cm 4181)—and in its Expenditure Plans Reports. The Output and Performance Analysis published in March this year showed the measures of success it will use.

  A full list of the targets and target dates for Agencies of this and other Government Departments is published annually in the Next Steps Report and these can also be found in each Agency's Annual Report. Targets for the Executive NDPBs are also published annually in the Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies Report. Copies of these documents are in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [96913]

  Dr. Howells
  The method of depreciation of fixed assets used by this Department is to use a calculated rate which will write off the valuation of the asset by equal instalments over its estimated useful life after allowing for any residual value. This method is in accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual which is underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15, "Tangible Fixed Assets", issued by the Accounting Standard Board.

  Members of Parliament (Company Affairs)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many inquiries his Department has undertaken in relation to the company affairs of Members of the House of Commons and House of Lords within the last 10 years; and how many of these have been published. [97100]

  Dr. Howells
  Records are not maintained in a form which could provide the information requested.

  Export Guarantees Advisory Council
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library the minutes of meetings of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council. [97105]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Export Guarantees Advisory Council (EGAC) primarily provides advice on the Export Credits Guarantee Department's country risk assessments and cover policy proposals.

  The minutes of the EGAC are not published because these assessments contain frank analysis of the political and economic prospects of many of our trading partners, disclosure of which could be market sensitive. Public disclosure of the minutes could also inhibit the frank discussion of the risk assessments and thus reduce the quality of independent advice provided by Members.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out the procedures the Export Credit Guarantee Department uses when it appoints members of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council. [97103]

  Mr. Caborn
  Appointments to the Export Guarantees Advisory Council (EGAC) are made in accordance with guidance laid down by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  A panel comprising the ECGD Chief Executive and two Independent Assessors selects a shortlist of candidates to recommend to my hon. Friend the Minster for Trade. Members appointed provide their time on a voluntary basis and would normally expect to serve a term of three years.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when he has asked for advice from the Export Guarantees Advisory Council in respect of matters relating to the operation of the Export Credit Guarantee Department. [97102]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Export Guarantees Advisory Council (EGAC) has met 25 times since 1 May 1997. It meets between 9 and 11 times a year to provide advice to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The EGAC is established pursuant to Section 13 of the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list(a) the instances since 1 May 1997 when members of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council have absented themselves from a meeting because an area in which they have declared an interest is under discussion, (b) the names of the council members concerned and (c) the items under discussion. [97104]
  288
  Mr. Caborn
  Members of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council are obliged to declare any interest which is then noted in the official record of the meeting. They are not required to absent themselves from the meeting when an interest has been declared.

  The Council's main role is to consider ECGD's country risk assessments and recommendations—which determine whether ECGD should be on or off cover for particular markets.

  Since 1 May 1997, Members have declared an interest on the following occasions:

  Declarations of Interest—Export Guarantees Advisory Council

  Meeting

  Name

  Item under discussion

  1998

  March

  Mr. G. Lynch

  Review of Overseas Investment Insurance (OII)

  May

  Mr. D. Harrison

  Turkey

  1999

  May

  Mr. P. Mason

  Zimbabwe

  July

  Ms L. Airey

  Turkey

  Mr. P. Mason

  September

  Mr. D. Harrison

  OII—Cover for Porfolio Loans

  Fixed-Term Contracts
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce regulation of the use of temporary contracts of employment in the private sector utilities. [97210]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to implementing the Fixed-term work Directive by July 2001. The Directive will ensure that fixed-term contracts are not abused, while retaining labour market flexibility.

  Recruitment Industry
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer on 28 October 1999,Official Report, column 935, concerning the calculations of costs arising from changes to the regulations governing care agencies, if he will (a) itemise the reasons his Department does not accept the calculations and (b) publish his own calculations. [97386]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The consultation document published on 31 May contains a regulatory impact assessment of possible cost consequences to those hiring staff through employment bureaux. The figures provided by Mrs. Gifford of Able Community Care contain substantial increases in respect of items, such as basic pay and agency commission, which we do not believe result from the proposals contained in the document.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the result of the Competition Commission's investigations into supermarkets in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [97299]
  289
  Dr. Howells
  The Commission is due to report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by 7 April 2000. If the Commission were to request an extension to the deadline for submitting its report, it would be considered carefully.

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) of 29 October 1999,Official Report, column 1016, on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, if he will list the relevant companies and institutions to which he makes reference in respect of safeguards declarations. [97562]

  Dr. Howells
  In preparing the voluntary declarations to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Safeguards Office of my Department contacted a total of 165 companies and institutions to determine whether they were performing activities which would need to be reported under the protocol additional to the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement following its entry into force. The declarations eventually submitted to the IAEA were based upon information provided by:

  Urenco Ltd.

  AEA Technology plc.

  BNFL

  British Energy

  British Steel Engineering

  British Shielding Windows Ltd.

  IMI Nuclear Components Ltd.

  Health and Safety Executive.

  Car Pricing
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he plans to take to make it easier for British consumers to buy fairly priced cars. [95846]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) at column 275.

  CHP Station (Ansty)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Rolls-Royce Power Ventures Ltd's proposal to build a combined heat and power station at Ansty, near Coventry. [97613]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today granted clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 to Rolls-Royce Power Ventures Ltd.'s notification to build a 49 MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at Rolls-Royce's Ansty works. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).
  290
  Decisions on other applications under consideration will be announced in due course.

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

  Correspondence
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to reply to the communication sent to him by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East on 8 March, and to the reminder sent on 30 June, about unsolicited mail for his constituent Mr. Loveland. [96483]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: My office has received neither of these letters. If the hon. Member would provide me with a copy, I shall ensure he receives an immediate reply.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 29 October; and if he will make a statement. [97106]

  Mr. Straw
  The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) and I represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:

  'A' points
  The Council agreed as an 'A' point, among other things, the annual report for 1997–98 on football hooliganism in European Union member states.

  Open debate on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice
  The Council discussed the outcome of the Tampere European Council. The Commission undertook to present to the December Justice and Home Affairs Council a first draft of the 'scoreboard' (ie progress report) on implementing specific Tampere measures.

  Follow-up to the Tampere European Council
  The Presidency presented a paper they had prepared jointly with the Commission and Council Secretariat on implementation of the results of the Tampere European Council. There was no significant discussion.

  Draft Eurodac Regulation
  The Council noted the Presidency's progress report and encouraged the intensification of efforts to resolve outstanding issues in order to reach agreement at the December Council.

  Draft Mandate for a parallel Dublin Agreement with Iceland and Norway
  At the previous Council meeting on 4 October, the Commission had presented its proposal for a Community agreement to bring Norway and Iceland into the Dublin Convention arrangements. On 29 October, the Council noted that the agreement needed to be concluded quickly and remitted the draft mandate to Coreper to resolve outstanding difficulties.

  Council decision on opening negotiations between Europol and third countries and international organisations
  After discussions, further consideration of the draft instrument was remitted to Coreper.

  Mutual Legal Assistance Convention: Interception Provisions
  The Presidency noted that, while good progress had been made and agreement appeared to be closer, the provisions relating to interception of telecommunications in the draft Convention on

  291
  Mutual Assistance in criminal matters were still subject to some debate. It circulated for consideration a further compromise text. After discussion, the Presidency concluded that the issue should be remitted to Coreper, with a view to ultimate agreement at the December Council.

  Justice and Home Affairs information for National Parliaments
  This item was remitted to the December Council.

  Police Complaints
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the total cost and (b) the cost by force of running police complaints and discipline departments for the last year in which figures are available in each of the 43 police authorities in England and Wales. [97119]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state(a) what categories of complaints and (b) how many complaints were received in each category, by the police complaints and discipline departments for the last year in which figures are available, in each of the 43 police authorities in England and Wales. [97120]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The categories of complaint used by police complaints and discipline departments are as follows:

  Number of complaints recorded during the year, according to category of complaint 1998–99

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  J

  K

  Avon and Somerset

  7

  1

  246

  114

  63

  23

  7

  0

  13

  6

  Bedfordshire

  1

  1

  36

  8

  15

  0

  1

  4

  5

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  0

  95

  29

  23

  4

  16

  0

  14

  5

  Cheshire

  4

  3

  149

  70

  23

  9

  25

  5

  28

  7

  Cleveland

  6

  1

  111

  29

  23

  4

  2

  6

  7

  1

  Cumbria

  2

  1

  56

  63

  13

  4

  12

  1

  10

  1

  Derbyshire

  8

  0

  114

  40

  25

  6

  4

  2

  5

  5

  Devon and Cornwall

  12

  1

  195

  83

  46

  6

  15

  4

  10

  15

  Dorset

  3

  0

  53

  18

  7

  2

  3

  1

  0

  3

  Durham

  4

  0

  79

  9

  6

  1

  5

  0

  1

  1

  Essex

  0

  0

  141

  51

  30

  3

  7

  6

  22

  0

  Gloucestershire

  4

  2

  69

  19

  21

  4

  2

  0

  8

  4

  Greater Manchester

  29

  2

  483

  74

  127

  56

  36

  15

  55

  7

  Hampshire

  1

  2

  209

  60

  36

  7

  7

  1

  13

  4

  Hertfordshire

  4

  0

  89

  39

  16

  10

  6

  1

  6

  3

  Humberside

  7

  0

  125

  34

  17

  9

  6

  4

  11

  8

  Kent

  0

  1

  151

  77

  57

  15

  27

  6

  27

  9

  Lancashire

  15

  3

  223

  98

  72

  7

  27

  1

  26

  9

  Leicestershire

  3

  1

  80

  42

  14

  13

  1

  1

  2

  5

  Lincolnshire

  5

  0

  67

  37

  13

  2

  9

  1

  8

  0

  City of London

  0

  0

  4

  16

  7

  8

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Merseyside

  20

  1

  393

  187

  163

  14

  42

  1

  34

  22

  Metropolitan Police

  49

  19

  1,576

  799

  476

  304

  180

  25

  253

  211

  Norfolk

  0

  2

  78

  37

  19

  4

  8

  3

  12

  11

  Northamptonshire

  2

  0

  78

  37

  6

  6

  4

  2

  7

  0

  Northumbria

  16

  2

  211

  40

  58

  4

  11

  3

  22

  7

  North Yorkshire

  1

  1

  93

  26

  10

  6

  16

  1

  5

  4

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  2

  172

  84

  36

  17

  12

  1

  19

  5

  South Yorkshire

  3

  1

  183

  23

  37

  4

  13

  1

  13

  6

  Staffordshire

  3

  0

  157

  55

  36

  7

  11

  2

  8

  4

  Suffolk

  0

  0

  80

  19

  10

  4

  8

  0

  11

  3

  292
  1. Oppressive Behaviour

  Category A: Serious non-sexual assault

  Category B: Sexual assault

  Category C: Other assault

  Category D: Oppressive conduct/harassment

  Category E: Unlawful arrest etc.

  2. Racial Discrimination

  Category F

  3. Malpractice

  Category G: Perjury/irregularity in evidence

  Category H: Corrupt practice

  Category J: Mishandling of Property

  4. Failures in Duty

  Category K: Breach, Code A

  Category L: Breach, Code B

  Category M: Breach, Code C

  Category N: Breach, Code D

  Category P: Breach, Code E

  Category R: Breach, unspecified or multiple

  Category S: Other neglect of duty

  Category T: Other irregularity in procedure

  5. Incivility

  Category U

  6. Traffic

  Category V

  7. Other

  Category W.

  Information showing the number of complaints received in each category for financial year 1998–99 is given in the table:

  293

  Number of complaints recorded during the year, according to category of complaint 1998–99

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  J

  K

  Surrey

  2

  0

  107

  108

  29

  10

  4

  2

  19

  6

  Sussex

  6

  2

  197

  178

  52

  14

  28

  1

  54

  28

  Thames Valley

  18

  3

  202

  79

  64

  17

  17

  3

  18

  9

  Warwickshire

  0

  1

  60

  31

  8

  5

  5

  0

  5

  1

  West Mercia

  8

  1

  155

  25

  28

  6

  17

  0

  13

  6

  West Midlands

  19

  4

  462

  127

  134

  49

  34

  7

  39

  11

  West Yorkshire

  22

  4

  278

  66

  62

  16

  20

  3

  17

  2

  Wiltshire

  5

  1

  81

  46

  10

  7

  1

  0

  7

  2

  Dyfed-Powys

  1

  1

  23

  39

  15

  5

  9

  0

  2

  4

  Gwent

  13

  2

  179

  111

  28

  2

  10

  0

  9

  2

  North Wales

  2

  4

  102

  45

  18

  2

  7

  4

  8

  4

  South Wales

  16

  1

  224

  74

  19

  13

  16

  5

  29

  1

  England and Wales

  327

  71

  7,866

  3,246

  1,962

  709

  691

  124

  876

  450

  Number of complaints recorded during the year, according to category of complaint 1998–99

  L

  M

  N

  P

  R

  S

  T

  U

  V

  W

  Avon and Somerset

  18

  45

  2

  0

  1

  105

  18

  175

  3

  5

  Bedfordshire

  11

  6

  0

  0

  1

  27

  6

  36

  1

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  28

  0

  0

  9

  59

  18

  76

  5

  13

  Cheshire

  16

  27

  0

  0

  0

  85

  27

  101

  11

  7

  Cleveland

  17

  16

  0

  1

  1

  18

  9

  66

  1

  7

  Cumbria

  13

  11

  1

  0

  0

  24

  6

  56

  11

  4

  Derbyshire

  19

  21

  0

  0

  4

  50

  11

  73

  6

  7

  Devon and Cornwall

  19

  42

  0

  0

  0

  145

  28

  161

  11

  5

  Dorset

  4

  10

  1

  0

  0

  10

  5

  39

  2

  4

  Durham

  3

  2

  0

  0

  1

  21

  3

  35

  1

  9

  Essex

  5

  8

  0

  0

  1

  96

  21

  107

  10

  2

  Gloucestershire

  12

  17

  0

  1

  0

  28

  16

  61

  3

  1

  Greater Manchester

  104

  45

  0

  0

  84

  251

  34

  367

  20

  418

  Hampshire

  13

  39

  2

  0

  5

  75

  21

  128

  19

  12

  Hertfordshire

  23

  28

  0

  0

  3

  68

  21

  57

  7

  35

  Humberside

  13

  23

  1

  0

  0

  46

  19

  91

  2

  9

  Kent

  23

  60

  0

  0

  0

  75

  24

  64

  8

  0

  Lancashire

  36

  51

  1

  2

  1

  88

  8

  142

  17

  23

  Leicestershire

  15

  12

  0

  0

  3

  28

  7

  40

  1

  12

  Lincolnshire

  9

  26

  1

  0

  0

  51

  12

  51

  8

  4

  City of London

  4

  3

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  13

  2

  1

  Merseyside

  26

  73

  0

  0

  0

  141

  24

  233

  11

  44

  Metropolitan Police

  166

  272

  2

  16

  1,094

  101

  1,424

  67

  122

  Norfolk

  15

  11

  1

  1

  0

  59

  14

  41

  9

  2

  Northamptonshire

  6

  13

  0

  0

  0

  26

  16

  43

  5

  5

  Northumbria

  27

  53

  0

  0

  0

  32

  15

  95

  2

  31

  North Yorkshire

  7

  23

  0

  0

  2

  45

  26

  74

  6

  17

  Nottinghamshire

  39

  47

  0

  0

  0

  101

  15

  116

  2

  16

  South Yorkshire

  19

  35

  0

  0

  0

  63

  10

  133

  4

  3

  Staffordshire

  8

  11

  0

  0

  0

  114

  11

  89

  3

  2

  Suffolk

  11

  14

  0

  0

  0

  53

  14

  37

  4

  0

  Surrey

  13

  28

  1

  0

  0

  134

  41

  192

  13

  20

  Sussex

  57

  74

  0

  2

  0

  164

  77

  187

  29

  3

  Thames Valley

  24

  48

  0

  0

  1

  66

  24

  127

  12

  36

  Warwickshire

  5

  16

  1

  0

  0

  19

  1

  28

  4

  16

  West Mercia

  12

  31

  0

  0

  0

  51

  5

  90

  6

  0

  West Midlands

  78

  113

  2

  0

  4

  86

  62

  294

  10

  55

  West Yorkshire

  28

  62

  1

  0

  0

  53

  12

  133

  6

  11

  Wiltshire

  7

  13

  1

  0

  0

  9

  5

  51

  6

  7

  Dyfed-Powys

  11

  15

  0

  0

  0

  13

  6

  35

  0

  1

  Gwent

  18

  18

  0

  0

  6

  28

  21

  44

  7

  7

  North Wales

  15

  11

  1

  0

  0

  50

  2

  74

  9

  8

  South Wales

  18

  24

  0

  0

  1

  104

  12

  181

  12

  2

  England and Wales

  1,002

  1,525

  19

  7

  144

  3,864

  846

  5,564

  376

  986

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of days taken in investigating complaints for each of the police 294
  complaints and discipline departments in each authority in England and Wales for the last year in which figures are available. [97121]
  295
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information is in terms of the average completion times for complaints cases, and is given in the table.

  Average completion times for complaints cases 1998–99

  Police force area

  Days

  Avon and Somerset

  70

  Bedfordshire

  94

  Cambridgeshire

  101

  Cheshire

  137

  Cleveland

  74

  Cumbria

  88

  Derbyshire

  72

  Devon and Cornwall

  87

  Dorset

  77

  Durham

  64

  Essex

  82

  Gloucestershire

  56

  Greater Manchester

  72

  Hampshire

  118

  Hertfordshire

  82

  Humberside

  75

  Kent

  141

  Lancashire

  98

  Leicestershire

  102

  Lincolnshire

  69

  City of London

  69

  Merseyside

  87

  Metropolitan Police

  112

  Norfolk

  109

  Northamptonshire

  149

  Northumbria

  108

  North Yorkshire

  84

  Nottinghamshire

  82

  South Yorkshire

  80

  Staffordshire

  97

  Suffolk

  85

  Surrey

  85

  Police functions: Complaints and discipline

  Forces 1995–96

  Total strength (HMICI)

  Total ACPO strength

  Total Chief Supt. strength

  Total Supt. strength

  Total Chief Inspector strength

  Total Inspector strength

  Total Sergeant strength

  Total Constable strength

  Avon and Somerset

  11

  0

  0

  4

  2

  2

  3

  0

  Bedfordshire

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  5

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  9

  0

  0

  1

  4

  4

  0

  0

  City of London

  3

  0

  0

  1

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Cleveland

  9

  0

  0

  0

  2

  4

  3

  0

  Cumbria

  5

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  Derbyshire

  5

  0

  0

  1

  3

  1

  0

  0

  Devon and Cornwall

  15

  0

  0

  1

  5

  2

  7

  0

  Dorset

  7

  0

  0

  1

  1

  5

  0

  0

  Durham

  7

  0

  0

  2

  1

  4

  0

  0

  Dyfed-Powys

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Essex

  10

  0

  0

  1

  4

  1

  4

  0

  Gloucestershire

  6

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Greater Manchester

  46

  0

  0

  7

  7

  25

  7

  0

  Gwent

  7

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Hampshire

  7

  0

  0

  4

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Hertfordshire

  6

  0

  0

  1

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Humberside

  10

  0

  0

  1

  2

  5

  2

  0

  Kent

  18

  0

  0

  2

  5

  4

  7

  0

  Lancashire

  14

  0

  0

  4

  4

  1

  5

  0

  Leicestershire

  6

  0

  0

  1

  2

  2

  1

  0

  Lincolnshire

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Merseyside

  22

  0

  0

  6

  0

  7

  9

  0

  Metropolitan Police

  199

  0

  0

  11

  41

  17

  121

  0

  Norfolk

  7

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  0

  0

  North Wales

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  North Yorkshire

  7

  0

  0

  1

  2

  3

  1

  0

  Northamptonshire

  5

  0

  0

  2

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Northumbria

  14

  0

  0

  4

  1

  9

  0

  0

  296

  Average completion times for complaints cases 1998–99

  Police force area

  Days

  Sussex

  114

  Thames Valley

  58

  Warwickshire

  93

  West Mercia

  88

  West Midlands

  83

  West Yorkshire

  92

  Wiltshire

  96

  Dyfed-Powys

  66

  Gwent

  148

  North Wales

  132

  South Wales

  124

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers, broken down by rank, were employed in each of the 43 police complaints and discipline departments for the last year in which figures are available; [97122]

  (2) how many whole-time equivalent police officers, broken down by rank, were seconded to each of the 43 police complaints and discipline departments for the last year in which figures are available; [97123]

  (3) how many whole-time equivalent non-police support staff were employed to work in each of the 43 police complaints and discipline departments for the last year in which figures are available. [97124]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Figures on police staffing of complaints and discipline departments for 1995–96, the latest year for which information was collected, are given in the table. Information on secondments to complaints and discipline departments and on employment of non-police staff is not available.
  297

  Police functions: Complaints and discipline

  Forces 1995–96

  Total strength (HMIC1)

  Total ACPO strength

  Total Chief Supt. strength

  Total Supt. strength

  Total Chief Inspector strength

  Total Inspector strength

  Total Sergeant strength

  Total Constable strength

  Nottinghamshire

  8

  0

  0

  3

  2

  3

  0

  0

  South Wales

  18

  0

  0

  2

  8

  8

  0

  0

  South Yorkshire

  17

  0

  0

  4

  1

  8

  0

  40

  Staffordshire

  9

  0

  0

  3

  3

  3

  0

  0

  Suffolk

  6

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  3

  0

  Surrey

  7

  0

  0

  2

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Sussex

  15

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  3

  0

  Thames Valley

  17

  0

  0

  4

  1

  11

  1

  0

  Warwickshire

  2

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  West Mercia

  13

  0

  0

  2

  4

  6

  1

  0

  West Midlands

  26

  0

  0

  6

  1

  19

  0

  0

  West Yorkshire

  27

  0

  0

  5

  0

  18

  2

  2

  Wiltshire

  4

  0

  0

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  England and Wales total

  643

  0

  0

  101

  132

  205

  190

  15

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of hours spent on investigations, broken down by category, by the police complaints and discipline departments in each of the 43 police complaints authorities in England and Wales for the last year for which figures are available. [97125]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not available centrally.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department(a) how many complaints and (b) in what categories, were supervised by the police complaints authority in each of the 43 police authorities in England and Wales for the last year in which figures are available. [97126]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information is readily available only on the number of investigations, by individual force, supervised by the Police Complaints Authority (PCA). This is shown for 1998–99 in the table.

  Police complaints authority supervised investigations April 1998—March 1999

  Force

  Total for year

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  Bedfordshire

  17

  Cambridgeshire

  8

  Cheshire

  8

  City of London

  1

  Cleveland

  13

  Cumbria

  7

  Derbyshire

  10

  Devon and Cornwall

  30

  Dorset

  5

  Durham

  8

  Dyfed-Powys

  8

  Essex

  10

  Gloucestershire

  12

  Greater Manchester

  80

  Gwent

  20

  Hampshire

  16

  Hertfordshire

  8

  Humberside

  19

  Kent

  21

  Lancashire

  25

  Leicestershire

  11

  Lincolnshire

  13

  Merseyside

  60

  Met—Area 1

  31

  Met—Area 2

  35

  298

  Police complaints authority supervised investigations April 1998—March 1999

  Force

  Total for year

  Met—Area 3

  31

  Met—Area 4

  52

  Met—Area 5

  29

  Met—Miscellaneous

  17

  Norfolk

  10

  North Wales

  10

  North Yorkshire

  9

  Northamptonshire

  9

  Northumbria

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  16

  South Wales

  48

  South Yorkshire

  9

  Staffordshire

  5

  Suffolk

  6

  Surrey

  11

  Sussex

  23

  Thames Valley

  35

  Warwickshire

  3

  West Mercia

  10

  West Midlands

  49

  West Yorkshire

  47

  Wiltshire

  6

  Non-Home Office forces

  British Transport

  7

  Ministry of Defence

  2

  Port of Liverpool

  0

  Port of Tilbury

  0

  Royal Parks

  0

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  0

  Total

  953

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the conditions which police forces in England and Wales must fulfil before they can apply to his Crime Fighting Fund for money to recruit additional officers. [97232]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We will be discussing the proposals with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities before formally inviting bids from forces for money from the Crime Fighting Fund. We are currently preparing the bidding guidelines. I will place a copy of the guidelines in the Library when they have been finalised.

  Meat Supplies
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the sourcing of meat and meat products for consumption in his Department's canteen. [96955]

  Mr. Straw
  The sourcing of meat and meat products for consumption in my Department's staff restaurant is a matter for the contractor, Gardner Merchant, to decide.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to require the Prison Service to buy meat exclusively from sources which match British standards of hygiene and animal welfare; and if he will make a statement; [96977]

  (2) what is his policy towards the purchase of French meat and meat products by the Prison Service. [96976]

  Mr. Boateng
  All contracts for the supply of meat to the Prison Service are subject to European Union Supplies Directive 93/36/EEC. The contracts are awarded to the suppliers submitting the most economically advantageous bid. The criteria consider price, quality, delivery and service offered. The European Directive requires that all products are purchased openly and competitively to British and European standards. All Prison Service specifications for meat are written by the British Meat and Livestock commission and any company wishing to supply meat to the Prison Service must adhere to those specifications.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of meat purchased by the Prison Service is reared and produced in the United Kingdom. [96956]

  Mr. Boateng
  The proportion of meat purchased under central contract by the Prison Service by country of origin is given in the table.

  However, this central contract is not mandatory and, as each prison establishment holds its own budget, purchases can be made under local arrangements from other sources. Details of these are not kept centrally. The introduction of mandatory contracts is under consideration.

  Country of origin of meat purchased under central contract by the Prison Service

  Meat type

  Country of origin

  Percentage

  Pork

  English

  100

  Bacon—middle, collars and Gammons—Streaky

  Irish

  90

  Dutch

  10

  Beef—Dices and Minces

  English

  100

  Beef—Joints

  Irish

  87

  Zimbabwean

  13

  Lamb

  New Zealand

  100

  Chicken

  English

  100

  Offal

  English

  100

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if French meat and meat products are used in food sold in his Department' s canteen; and if he will make it his policy to stop further purchases of French meat and meat products. [96978]
  300
  Mr. Straw
  The staff restaurant at the Home Office, Queen Anne's Gate and the Prison Service restaurant at Abell House are both run under contract by Gardner Merchant. I understand from Gardner Merchant that neither French meat nor meat products are used in food sold in these staff restaurants.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average costs to a voluntary organisation of access to the Criminal Records Bureau; and if he will make a statement. [96449]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  When the Criminal Records Bureau comes into operation, it will be expected to recover its costs through charges for the certificates that it will issue, on application, to individuals. It will be for a voluntary organisation to decide the circumstances in which individuals should apply for a certificate, the type of certificate, and whether to reimburse the cost. Until the Bureau's operating costs have been determined, it will not be possible to fix the charges for certificates, but the cost of certificates has been previously estimated at between £5 and £10, depending upon the type of certificate. We have made clear our intention to keep the cost as low as possible.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were prosecuted for smuggling tobacco or alcohol into the United Kingdom in 1997 to 1999. [96868]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database combines sections 50(2)(3), 68(2) and 170(1)(2) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 "Fraudulent evasion of duty etc other than drugs". However, the type of goods involved (eg tobacco, spirits, beers, wines, oils, guns) are not identified separately.

  Trespassers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been convicted of offences under section 61 and section 77 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994 in each year since the implementation of the Act. [96665]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted at all courts for offences under sections 61 and 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, England and Wales, 1995–981

  Offence description

  1995

  1996

  1997

  19981

  S61

  Power to remove trespassers from land

  3

  —

  6

  —

  S77

  Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land

  31

  2

  4

  3

  1 Provisional

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what legal duty exists for the police to take into account social factors in exercising their power under Section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1994. [96664]
  301
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There is no statutory requirement on the police to take account of social factors in the exercise of their powers to direct trespassers to leave land under section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. However, a recent court ruling indicated that the police should take into account factors of "common humanity" in reaching their decisions (Rv. West London Magistrates Court ex parte Small, Queen's Bench Division CO/3428/98).

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis had operational responsibility for the presence of police officers AB592 Belgravia and CD439 Scotland Yard on Friday 22 October in Cambridge. [96655]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Commissioner tells me that, at the request of Cambridgeshire Constabulary, two Metropolitan police officers were deployed in Cambridge on 22 October to provide advice and assistance on the policing of the visit of the Chinese delegation. The Commissioner retained responsibility for these officers on that date.

  Disqualified Drivers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for each year since 1991 what percentage of disqualifications for(a) causing death by dangerous driving and (b) dangerous driving has been accompanied by (i) an ordinary length retest and (ii) an extended retest. [96638]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information relates to the percentage of disqualifications for offences of causing death by dangerous driving (including causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs, causing death by aggravated vehicle taking and causing bodily harm by furious driving) and dangerous driving, which resulted in a requirement to undertake a driving test in England and Wales and is given in the table:

  Percentage of disqualifications for causing death by dangerous driving etc. and dangerous driving that resulted in a driving test requirement, England and Wales

  Percentage

  Year

  Causing death by dangerous driving etc.

  Dangerous driving

  1991

  3

  1

  1992

  4

  4

  1993

  17

  28

  1994

  35

  37

  1995

  23

  40

  1996

  4

  44

  1997

  34

  65

  No information is available centrally on the distinction between re-tests and extended re-tests. Information for 1998 is not yet available.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the latest year for which data are available how many driving disqualifications have been imposed; and how many people have been convicted of driving while disqualified. [96634]
  302
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  161,267 disqualifications were imposed for motoring offences in England and Wales during 1997, and in addition, 31,120 persons were disqualified under the penalty points system.

  During the same period, there were 42,452 convictions for driving while disqualified.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he had made of the number of people who drive while disqualified. [96635]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is calculated from the figures of disqualifications imposed each year that some 370,000 drivers may be disqualified in England and Wales at any one time. A study conducted in 1991 showed that some 27 per cent. of drivers admitted to driving while disqualified, so on that basis, over 90,000 drivers may be driving while disqualified.

  Cleveland Police
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 April,Official Report 1999, column 77, on the Cleveland Police, when he expects to be able to publish the legal costs of Cleveland Police in respect of the libel case relating to sexual harassment against three Cleveland police officers; and if he will make a statement. [96396]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Negotiations are still ongoing, however, Cleveland Police is insured against legal costs. This insurance has an excess of £100,000. Therefore, the legal costs of Cleveland Police will be anything up to £100,000. Any remaining costs would be a matter for the insurance company.

  Holocaust Memorial Day
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department's consultation on a Holocaust Memorial Day is taking place in Scotland. [96622]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Yes. The Government are consulting a wide range of individuals and organisations throughout the United Kingdom about this proposal.

  Criminal Intelligence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Government's policy on articles 15 to 20 of the Convention for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, pertaining to the interception of telecommunications, with special reference to (i) assessed costs, (ii) burden of costs, (iii) monitoring of interceptions and (iv) requirement for warrant. [96582]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government provided information on the requirement for a warrant and the burden of costs under the draft European Union Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters in the reply given to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 26 May 1999,Official Report, columns 148–49, by the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). We do not anticipate significant extra costs arising out of these provisions. The cost of transmitting the intercept product in response to requests falls to the requesting Member State.
  303
  The interception provisions in the draft Convention remain under Parliamentary scrutiny.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on Article 14 of the Convention for Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, with special reference to (i) legal immunity for the foreign investigator, (ii) powers to be granted, (iii) monitoring of such activity by the Home Department and (iv) loan of resources from national agencies. [96583]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Article 14 of the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters allows member states, on request, to agree to assist one another by taking part in covert investigations. Any decisions on immunity or powers for foreign investigators will be the responsibility of the authorities in the United Kingdom when the initial decision is taken to agree to a covert investigation. Any decisions will be made with due regard for the existing law and procedures in the United Kingdom. There are no plans for foreign investigators in the United Kingdom to be granted either immunity or police powers.

  Oversight of covert investigations and the loan of resources from national agencies are operational matters for the police and other investigating agencies themselves.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to prevent the use of the Electoral Register by commercial organisations for sending unwanted direct sales marketing to registered electors. [97149]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Working Party on Electoral Procedures, in its report published on 19 October 1999, recommended that each individual registered elector should have the option of deciding whether the details that they have provided should be included in the commercially available register by using an opt out box on the registration form. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has indicated that he will seek the earliest opportunity for legislation on the Working Party's proposals, but I cannot anticipate whether a Bill containing provisions about this particular matter will be included in the Queen's Speech for the next session.

HEALTH

  Primary Care Professionals
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to enhance the role of pharmacists and other primary care professionals; and, if so, how. [94633]

  Mr. Hutton
  We plan shortly to publish a strategy on community pharmacy which will deal explicitly with the broader role that pharmacists can play in improving health and health care. We intend that, with appropriate training, optometrists should develop their role beyond sight testing to work with general practitioners and ophthalmologists in treating patients with eye diseases.
  304
  The steps we are taking elsewhere in primary care will develop services through walk-in centres, personal medical services pilots and the introduction of primary care groups, which will provide a wider range of opportunities for primary care professionals to expand their roles to improve services for patients. Nurses in particular will benefit from these changes and will be further supported by the roll-out of our programme to enable all nurses with district nursing or health visiting qualification who wish to be able to prescribe drugs and appliances for their patients in their own right.

  Drugs
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are being taken to ensure that the NHS is able to purchase drugs at the cheapest possible rate. [95163]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have a number of measures in place to help ensure that the National Health Service purchases medicines on reasonable terms.

  The Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) secures the provision of branded medicines at fair prices to the NHS that also reflect the cost of researching and developing these medicines. We have recently negotiated a new PPRS which came into effect on 1 October. This includes a reduction of 4.5 per cent. in list prices of branded medicines, which will save the NHS over £150 million a year.

  Prices for generic medicines, which are outside the PPRS, are determined by competition in the market. In the past this market has delivered generic medicines at reasonable prices and ensured continuity of supply. Prices, however, have risen sharply this year owning at least in part to supply problems. We are concerned that the scale of the rises may be unjustified and are examining every possible option to see how a more normal market situation can be restored.

  Hospitals buy many medicines by competitive tender, often pooling their purchasing power through the NHS Supplies Authority and may utilise formularies to make choices between medicines of similar properties but differing prices.

  The arrangements for reimbursing community pharmacies and dispensing doctors for the cost of the medicines they supply contain incentives which encourage them to shop around for the lowest prices, while ensuring that much of the discount which they receive is clawed back. In 1998–99 a total of £400 million was saved in this way.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by the NHS on items in part IXB of the Drug Tariff in each year from 1988–89 to 1998–99, with such breakdown of the figures for each year to types of item as is available. [96079]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The information available is shown in the table.

  Total expenditure by the National Health Service on items in part IXB of the Drug Tariff is not available. The table shows the net ingredient cost of items in part IXB of the Drug Tariff that were dispensed in the community in England. Information on similar items dispensed in hospitals is not available.
  305
  The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of an appliance and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  The net ingredient cost of incontinence appliances listed in part IXB of the Drug Tariff and dispensed in the community in England, 1988–98

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Incontinence appliances

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Anal plugs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  37.6

  Catheter valves

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11.0

  96.0

  168.4

  Drainable dribbling appliances

  7.5

  17.6

  8.7

  17.2

  16.8

  10.1

  7.4

  7.3

  7.1

  5.0

  5.0

  Incontinence belts

  3.1

  3.1

  —

  4.6

  6.0

  8.1

  9.8

  9.5

  8.6

  7.9

  1.5

  Incontinence sheaths

  3,476.2

  3,404.7

  3,749.9

  5,683.5

  6,506.6

  7,316.2

  7,803.6

  7,891.7

  8,310.5

  8,692.3

  8,990.2

  Incontinence sheath fixing strips and adhesives

  131.7

  162.2

  157.0

  238.2

  255.4

  275.9

  298.2

  317.3

  329.0

  312.2

  296.0

  Leg bags

  7,209.3

  6,774.9

  7,665.6

  9,746.3

  10,840.4

  11,842.1

  12,647.6

  13,371.4

  13,684.0

  13,850.9

  14,280.6

  Night drainage bags

  2,671.6

  2,936.7

  3,716.6

  4,195.9

  4,661.4

  5,056.4

  5,338.8

  5,575.1

  5,765.9

  5,839.1

  5,962.6

  Suspensory systems

  200.3

  61.4

  175.6

  144.6

  149.4

  136.0

  139.0

  143.6

  141.2

  130.9

  116.8

  Tubing and accessories

  146.4

  105.8

  97.9

  174.1

  203.3

  179.8

  199.7

  238.8

  278.2

  364.5

  490.8

  Urinal systems

  362.7

  236.5

  213.5

  523.1

  511.2

  490.9

  526.0

  501.6

  492.0

  454.1

  421.8

  Total

  14,208.7

  13,703.1

  15,784.9

  20,727.4

  23,150.5

  25,314.7

  26,970.1

  28,056.3

  29,027.6

  29,752.9

  30,771.4

  Notes:

  1. The data up to 1990 are not strictly consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1988–90 are based on fees and on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures for 1991 onwards are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were waiting for kidney transplants on 1 January, or other relevant count dates, in each of the last 20 years. [95642]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Year

  Transplants

  1980

  1,189

  1981

  1,461

  1982

  1,836

  1983

  2,237

  1984

  2,432

  1985

  2,486

  1986

  2,883

  1987

  3,151

  1988

  3,277

  1989

  3,431

  1990

  3,416

  1991

  3,611

  1992

  3,920

  1993

  4,287

  1994

  4,629

  1995

  4,798

  1996

  5,047

  1997

  5,373

  1998

  5,595

  1999

  5,690

  Residential Care
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the reasons for the delay in making the consultation document, "Fit for the Future: National Required Standards for Residential and Nursing Homes",
  306
  Detailed information by individual item can be found in the publication "Prescription Cost Analysis: England", copies of which are in the Library.

  available to those working in the residential care sector; and if he plans to make an extension to the consultation period. [96447]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Fit for the Future" was issued to a wide range of organisations and individuals, including all the major provider organisations, for consultation nationally on 8 September. Owing to a very high demand for the report, there were initial difficulties in providing printed copies to people who subsequently requested them. However, "Fit for the Future" is immediately accessible on the internet at:http://www.doh.gov.uk/pub/docs/doh/fitfuture.pdf

  We have no plans to extend the formal consultation period. However, the development of National Required Standards will not be completed overnight and comments received on "Fit for the Future" within a reasonable length of time after 3 December will be considered.

  Nut Sensitivity
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received from groups concerned about anaphylaxis and the difficulties faced by sufferers in everyday life; [96437]

  (2) what representations he has received from leisure providers concerning the use of their facilities, and participation in activities, by sufferers from anaphylaxis. [96441]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the former Minister for Public health met with representatives of the Anaphylaxis Campaign in July 1998 to discuss their concerns about allergy services in the National Health Service and the difficulties faced by sufferers and their families. The Anaphylaxis Campaign has since been involved in further discussions with officials about allergy
  307
  services. We have received no representations from leisure providers concerning the use of their facilities by sufferers of anaphylaxis.

  Podiatric Services
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those NHS trusts which provide dedicated podiatric surgical services; and if he will make a statement on their contribution to the NHS. [96205]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 28 October 1999]: We do not hold information on which National Health Service trusts provide dedicated podiatric surgical services. Surgical podiatry has developed as a specialty within the professional practice of podiatry. It plays a useful role in the overall provision of orthopaedic care in the community.

  Local Pharmacies
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to support local pharmacies. [96647]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government support all pharmacies in England by ensuring they are paid fair and appropriate remuneration for the services they provide on behalf of the National Health Service.

  Elderly People (Long-term Care)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provisions his Department is making to meet the recommendations of the royal commission on long-term care for the elderly; [96750]

  (2) what action he has taken with regard to Sir Stewart Sutherland's report on the loss of funds for the elderly in long-term care. [96747]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 752.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people are living in long-term care; what proportion are responsible for paying the full or part cost of their care; and what is the average annual cost of looking after a person in long-term care. [96861]

  Mr. Hutton
  At 31 March 1997 there were 209,000 permanent residents in residential homes catering primarily for elderly people and elderly mentally ill people, and 154,166 people aged 65 and over in nursing homes. Permanent and temporary residents cannot be separately identified.

  Information on the numbers of elderly people paying the full or part cost of their residential or nursing home care is not collected centrally. However, a 1996 personal Social Services Research Unit survey found that around 25 per cent. of elderly nursing home residents and around 30 per cent. of elderly residential care home residents are wholly privately funded. Other residential care and nursing home residents contribute towards the cost of their care, with the exception of National Health Service supported nursing home residents; however, any social security benefits they receive may be reduced.
  308
  Gross annual expenditure on residential or nursing care in homes for older people was £13,700 per supported resident in 1997–98.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage local authorities to place elderly patients who are awaiting discharge from hospital in private nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [96758]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on 29 October 1999,Official Report, column 1027.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to reduce the regulatory framework for private nursing homes for the elderly. [96756]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our plans for reforming the regulatory arrangements for care homes and other social services are set out in our White Paper, "Modernising Social Services", published last year. The new arrangements are about improving regulation and reducing bureaucracy.

  We will replace the current system, where over 100 health authorities register and inspect nursing homes, each applying locally developed standards, with an independent inspection and registration system applying clear, coherent and consistent National Required Standards to nursing homes across the whole country.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Government intend to take to support the private sector in the provision of homes for the elderly. [96755]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are undertaking a number of measures to improve the commissioning of social services, including from the independent sector. These include the development of better ways to help local authorities to identify what interventions are most effective in replacing good practice and securing sustainable improvements in the efficiency, quality and range of service commissioning for older people; and the use of Best Value service reviews, Joint Reviews with the Audit Commission and Social Services Inspectorate inspections to ensure that best practice is being implemented.

  The Government's Small Business Service will be looking at how the needs of small businesses can be met at a national, regional and local level.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence he has assessed since May 1997 concerning the extra resources required to meet the general practice medical needs of people aged 85 years and over. [96326]

  Mr. Hutton
  Resources relating to patients aged 85 years and over are not examined separately. Resources to General Medical practices are increased, by way of the Standard Capitation fee, for patients aged 75 years and over. Additionally, the 1998 Doctors and Dentists Review Body recommended that an additional £60 million be allocated for the enhancement of general practitioners' net
  309
  remuneration, particularly targeted on mental health and care of the elderly. The profession and the Department agreed that £5 million be distributed through local development schemes to this end.

  Nursing and Care Homes
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Centre for Policy on Ageing in respect of nursing and care homes. [96975]

  Mr. Hutton
  We published the Centre for Policy on Ageing's proposals on National Required Standards for residential and nursing homes for older people in our consultation document, "Fit for the Future" issued on 8 September. The consultation document was sent to a wide range of organisations and individuals. We will carefully consider all the comments we receive before finalising any regulatory standards and the timetable for implementing them.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the effects on the number of pensioners receiving income support of an increase of 75p in the basic state pension coupled with an increase of £3 in the income support level, together with similar proportionate increases in the rates for older pensioners and married persons. [96023]

  Mr. Rooker
  We estimate that 30,000 pensioners would become newly entitled to the minimum income guarantee if benefit rates were amended in this way.

  Notes:

  1. "Pensioners" refers to single people aged 60 or over or couples or partners where one is 60 or over.

  2. All estimates are derived from the 1999–2000 PSM model based on the 1996–67 FRS uprated to 1999–2000 prices with IS administrative adjustments.

  3. Figures exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  4. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000 cases.

  The inter-ministerial group for older people

  Member

  Jeff Rooker MP (Chair)

  Minister of State, Department of Social Security

  Right hon. Paul Boateng MP

  Minister of State, Home Office

  David Hanson MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Wales

  Keith Hill MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Margaret Hodge MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Education and Employment

  Alan Howarth MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Culture, Media and Sport

  George Howarth MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Trade and Industry

  John Hutton MP

  Minister of State, Department of Health

  Right hon. Baroness Jay of Paddington

  Minister for Women

  Melanie Johnson MP

  Economic Secretary, to the Treasury

  Jane Kennedy MP

  Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department

  Peter Kilfoyle MP

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, for Defence

  Right hon. Ian McCartney MP

  Minister of State, Cabinet Office

  Nick Raynsford MP

  Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Brian Wilson MP

  Minister of State, Scotland Office

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what undertakings were given by the Building Societies Association with regard to their policy on repossessions in return for the agreement of Her Majesty's Government in 1991 to pay income support for mortgage interest direct to lenders. [96757]

  Mr. Bayley
  A statement was made to the House of Commons on 19 December 1991 by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that in response to DSS making payments direct to the lender, lenders have confirmed that they will not take possession in cases where mortgage interest payments are covered by Income Support.

  Income Support
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will review the rates of(a) earnings disregard for Income Support and (b) earnings disregard for Housing Benefit. [96899]

  Mr. Bayley
  We review the rates of earnings disregards in all the income-related benefits (including Income Support and Housing Benefit) as part of the annual uprating process.

  We believe that work is the best form of welfare, but that support should be there for those people who cannot work. The disregards are designed to achieve a balance between providing an encouragement to part-time work without creating disincentives to full-time work and independence. The Welfare to Work objectives are to create the right conditions for everyone of working age, who is able to work, to move into full-time paid work; supported as appropriate by Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, and the new Working Families and Disabled Persons Tax Credits.

  Older People
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the current full membership by(a) ministerial title and (b) minister's name of the inter-ministerial group for older people. [96511]

  Mr. Rooker
  The existing membership of the inter-ministerial group for older people is as follows:
  311
  The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive also have responsibilities for policies that affect older people. The inter-ministerial group is therefore working closely with Jane Hutt and Iain Gray, both of whom have attended meetings.

CABINET OFFICE

  Rural Audit
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish the Performance and Innovation Unit's rural audit. [95463]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a project considering objectives for rural economies by the Performance and Innovation Unit on 10 December 1998,Official Report, column 278. The Unit expects to publish the report later this year.

  Regulatory Impact Assessments
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list those regulatory impact assessments published during the last six months. [97599]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government are committed to ensuring that regulations are necessary, give effective protection, balance cost and risk, are fair and command public confidence. In accordance with this, we require Departments to produce and publish Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for all regulatory proposals likely to have an impact on business.

  I have presented to Parliament today a Command Paper listing 90 RIAs published between 1 January and 30 June 1999. Copies of those listed have been placed in the Libraries of the House. Please note that this Command Paper entitled "Regulatory Impact Assessments" has replaced the previous series entitled "Compliance Cost Assessments". This is the eleventh such Command Paper.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what steps she is taking to ensure the commercial viability of millennium projects. [96659]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will reply to my hon. Friend in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

TREASURY

  Baby Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the numbers of(a) babies born under (i) 2,500g and (ii) 3,000g by maternal age and (b) babies born by maternal age in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [95534]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  312
  Letter from Dr. Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 4 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question (Order paper 147, page 3299):
  What were the number of:

  (a) babies born under

  (i) 2500gms

  (ii) 3000gms

  by maternal age, and

  (b) babies born by maternal age in each of the last three years for which figures are available.

  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of babies (live and stillbirths) (a) born (i) under 2,500 grams (ii) under 3,000 grams by maternal age and (b) total births by maternal age, England and Wales 1996, 19971 and 19982

  Year

  Maternal age

  Total births less than 2,500 grams

  Total births less than 3,000 grams

  Total births with a stated birthweight

  1996

  All ages

  49,588

  159,084

  651,428

  less than 20

  4,275

  13,655

  44,883

  20–24

  10,455

  35,197

  126.137

  25–29

  15,011

  49,805

  211,630

  30–34

  13,035

  40,702

  186,848

  35–39

  5,655

  16,503

  69,732

  40+

  1,157

  3,222

  12,198

  1997 (revised)1

  All ages

  50,122

  159,116

  645,341

  less than 20

  4,448

  14,076

  46,603

  20–24

  10,047

  33,577

  119,059

  25–29

  14,861

  48,548

  203,426

  30–34

  13,284

  41,562

  188,044

  35–39

  6,165

  17,906

  75,189

  40+

  1,317

  3,447

  13,020

  1998 (provisional)2

  All ages

  49,873

  157,131

  638,445

  less than 20

  4,643

  14,413

  48,519

  20–24

  9,919

  32,488

  113,996

  25–29

  14,363

  46,606

  193,860

  30–34

  13,257

  41,581

  189,183

  35–39

  6,388

  18,473

  79,232

  40+

  1,393

  3,570

  13,655

  1 Figures for 1997 have been revised from those published in DH3 No.30 1997 Mortality statistics—Childhood, infant and perinatal. See Population Trends No.97 page 3 for further explanation. In 1997 there were 1,193 births without a stated birthweight.

  2 The 1998 figures presented relate to our database as at 9 June 1999. Therefore those figures may differ slight from those published elsewhere. In 1998 there were 894 births without a stated birthweight.

  Source:

  Series DH3 No.29 1996 Mortality statistics—Childhood, infant and perinatal. In 1996 there were 1,600 births without a stated birthweight.

  Charitable Donations
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total amount given to charitable organisations in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the total amount of tax relief for charitable donations in that year. [96864]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Annual estimates for total donations to charities are not available centrally. The Charities Aid Foundation estimates overall income donated by individuals to be around £5 billion to £6 billion per year. In addition to this, charities also benefit from donations by companies and other organisations.
  313
  The cost of tax relief on donations to charities under the tax-effective methods of giving, namely Deeds of Covenant, Gift Aid, Millennium Gift Aid and Payroll Giving, in 1998–99 was about £725 million.

  National Statistics
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will break down the numbers of people in work as a proportion of those over the state retirement age for each of the last 20 years. [96765]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 4 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions for time series of the numbers of people of working age and numbers of people in employment as a proportion of the population over working age.
  The data requested is shown in the table attached using estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). The LFS has been used because it can provide estimates of both overall populations and employment. For the periods shown there does not appear to be any trend in the first series and the second tends to have followed the economic cycle. The Labour Force Survey was conducted biannually in the United Kingdom between spring 1979 and spring 1983 and therefore estimates for 1980 and 1982 are not available.
  The LFS is a household survey and therefore people in communal establishments will generally be excluded. Around one in 20 people over the state retirement age are in such establishments compared with around one in 100 for those of working age. Consequently the ratio of the population of working age to that over retirement age would have been a little less if people in such establishments were included. Similar considerations apply to the other series.

  Population of working age, and people of working age in employment as a proportion of the population over state retirement age

  UK, Spring quarters 1979–99, not seasonally adjusted

  Year

  Population of working age as a proportion of the population over state retirement age

  People of working age in employment as a proportion of the population over state retirement age

  1979

  3.50

  2.56

  1981

  3.44

  2.41

  1983

  3.46

  2.33

  1984

  3.49

  2.38

  1985

  3.47

  2.40

  1986

  3.47

  2.41

  1987

  3.47

  2.43

  1988

  3.47

  2.51

  1989

  3.47

  2.57

  1990

  3.47

  2.59

  1991

  3.47

  2.53

  1992

  3.47

  2.47

  1993

  3.47

  2.44

  1994

  3.48

  2.45

  1995

  3.48

  2.48

  1996

  3.49

  2.50

  1997

  3.49

  2.53

  1998

  3.49

  2.55

  1999

  3.50

  2.57

  Source:

  ONS, Labour Force Survey
  314
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the numbers and percentage of workers in firms employing(a) below 10 workers, (b) from 10 to 50 workers, (c) from 50 to 100 workers and (d) over 100 workers, over the latest period for which he has data. [96235]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 29 October 1999]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 2 November 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on the numbers and percentage of workers in firms employed in different size bands.
  The information requested is available from the Annual Employment Survey (AES) at September 1997 (latest available date) for the size bands shown.

  Employee jobs' at September 1997, Great Britain

  Size band

  Thousand

  Percentage

  1–10

  4,528

  20

  11–49

  5,787

  26

  50–99

  2,695

  12

  100 and over

  9,523

  42

  1 Figures exclude Agriculture as the way that information is supplied would distort the size band analysis

  Performance Targets
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all performance targets set for his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, other than those listed in Public Service Agreements 1999–2002 (Cm 4181), stating in each case(a) the target to be reached and (b) the date by which it was to be reached. [94977]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The Chancellor's Departments have set out the key performance targets on which they will be judged in their Public Service Agreements (Cm 4181), and the measures of success they will use in the Output and Performance Analysis published by the Treasury on 31 March 1999.

  These high level targets are supported at operational level by objectives and targets to ensure delivery by individual units.

  Euro
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for Buckingham of 27 October 1999,Official Report, column 895, if he will list which organisations appear in which working party of the outline National Changeover Plan; and if he will make a statement on the activities and conclusions to date of each working group. [97567]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury published the "Third report on euro preparations" on 1 November. Copies of the report are available in the Library of the House.

  Financial Exclusion
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to ensure that banks address issues of financial exclusion arising from branch closures. [97128]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Banks are being encouraged to develop appropriate products and delivery channels to suit the needs and circumstances of financially excluded people.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to ensure that banks in England and Wales and Northern Ireland follow the lead of Scottish banks in offering basic bank accounts within minimal legal requirements to any customers who need and seek one. [97127]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A number of banks already offer these accounts to customers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and others are planning to do so next year. The Treasury will continue to monitor such developments.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will start rating the banks using post code information currently available on the basis of the extent to which they are providing credit and banking services to every part of the country. [97113]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans to introduce such a scheme.

  Gold Reserves
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the gold reserves of(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Germany. [97152]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government have placed considerable importance on making the best use of public assets, including financial assets such as the foreign currency and gold reserves. We considered that with almost half of the United Kingdom's $14 billion of net foreign currency and gold reserves held in gold, it was too big an exposure to one asset. Therefore, we announced on 7 May a technical restructuring of the reserves aimed

  Key stage 1 classrooms provided under the class sizes initiative by local education authority and type of school

  KSI classrooms provided by type of school

  Local education authority

  County/Community

  Voluntary controlled

  Voluntary aided

  GM/Foundation

  Total

  Barking and Dagenham

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Barnet

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Barnsley

  4

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Bath and North East Somerset

  3

  2

  —

  —

  5

  Bedfordshire

  21

  2

  1

  —

  24

  Bexley

  6

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Birmingham

  3

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Blackburn

  4

  2

  4

  —

  10

  Blackpool

  8

  —

  2

  —

  10

  Bolton

  5

  1

  6

  1

  13

  Bournemouth

  5

  —

  4

  —

  9

  Bracknell Forest

  3

  2

  2

  —

  7

  Bradford

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Brent

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Brighton and Hove

  7

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Bristol

  5

  —

  1

  —

  6

  Bromley

  12

  —

  —

  —

  12

  Buckinghamshire

  6

  10

  5

  —

  21

  316
  at achieving a better balance in the portfolio by diversifying more widely. This will leave the reserves and the United Kingdom as a whole in a sounder financial position in the future.

  We have made no assessment of the adequacy of the German gold reserves.

  Tax Returns
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations his Department has had with(a) the Treasury and (b) software providers regarding the availability of software packages to accommodate carry-forward and carry-back for the purpose of completing tax returns. [96894]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department works closely with the Inland Revenue and the Treasury in taking forward the proposals in Stakeholder Pension Consultation Brief 6, including the proposal to remove the carry forward and carry back facility. The Department has not had separate discussions with software providers on this issue. However, software providers have had the opportunity to respond to the public consultation and we are now considering all the responses.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his letter of 27 October to the hon. Member for Hertsmere on infant class sizes, if he will give a breakdown of the 1,600 new classrooms to which he refers(a) by type of school and (b) by local education authority. [96918]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To date, over 1,700 extra classrooms have been provided through the class sizes initiative. These are detailed by both local education authority and type of school in the following table. Sufficient funding has been earmarked to allow at least 800 further classrooms to be built by September 2001, when statutory limits on infant class sizes are introduced.
  317

  Key stage 1 classrooms provided under the class sizes initiative by local education authority and type of school

  KSI classrooms provided by type of school

  Local education authority

  County/Community

  Voluntary controlled

  Voluntary aided

  GM/Foundation

  Total

  Bury

  9

  3

  7

  4

  23

  Calderdale

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  14

  4

  3

  —

  21

  Camden

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Cheshire

  20

  —

  5

  1

  26

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Cornwall

  9

  —

  4

  —

  13

  Coventry

  4

  —

  3

  —

  7

  Croydon

  3

  —

  —

  1

  4

  Cumbria

  6

  2

  8

  4

  20

  Darlington

  3

  1

  4

  —

  8

  Derby

  14

  —

  2

  —

  16

  Derbyshire

  35

  10

  5

  1

  51

  Devon

  13

  1

  3

  —

  17

  Doncaster

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Dorset

  2

  5

  6

  —

  13

  Dudley

  9

  —

  2

  —

  11

  Durham

  8

  —

  2

  —

  10

  Ealing

  9

  —

  —

  —

  9

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  7

  7

  1

  —

  15

  East Sussex

  9

  3

  —

  —

  12

  Enfield

  6

  —

  5

  —

  11

  Essex

  10

  4

  7

  5

  26

  Gateshead

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Gloucestershire

  4

  2

  3

  3

  12

  Greenwich

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hackney

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Halton

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hampshire

  14

  2

  4

  1

  21

  Haringey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hartlepool

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  Havering

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Herefordshire

  9

  —

  —

  —

  9

  Hertfordshire

  7

  4

  2

  1

  14

  Hillingdon

  24

  —

  4

  —

  28

  Hounslow

  4

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Isle of Wight

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Isles of Scilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Islington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Kent

  12

  2

  9

  —

  22

  Kingston upon Hull

  6

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Kingston upon Thames

  12

  —

  14

  —

  26

  Kirklees

  13

  2

  2

  —

  17

  Knowsley

  6

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Lambeth

  3

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Lancashire

  47

  1

  42

  1

  91

  Leeds

  10

  2

  —

  —

  12

  Leicester City

  10

  1

  4

  —

  15

  Leicestershire

  12

  4

  —

  —

  16

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Lincolnshire

  6

  6

  1

  —

  13

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  3

  —

  4

  Luton

  9

  —

  2

  —

  11

  Manchester

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Medway Towns

  6

  —

  1

  —

  7

  Merton

  18

  —

  9

  —

  27

  Middlesbrough

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Milton Keynes

  4

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  6

  —

  3

  —

  9

  Newham

  12

  1

  1

  —

  14

  Norfolk

  18

  1

  1

  —

  20

  North East Lincolnshire

  8

  2

  —

  —

  10

  North Lincolnshire

  5

  1

  1

  —

  7

  North Somerset

  4

  —

  —

  —

  4

  North Tyneside

  9

  —

  1

  —

  10

  North Yorkshire

  18

  5

  3

  —

  26

  Northamptonshire

  13

  1

  1

  1

  16

  Northumberland

  8

  —

  5

  —

  13

  Nottingham City

  7

  —

  2

  —

  9

  318 319

  Key stage 1 classrooms provided under the class sizes initiative by local education authority and type of school

  KSI classrooms provided by type of school

  Local education authority

  County/Community

  Voluntary controlled

  Voluntary aided

  GM/Foundation

  Total

  Nottinghamshire

  37

  4

  5

  —

  46

  Oldham

  13

  2

  14

  —

  29

  Oxfordshire

  12

  8

  9

  —

  29

  Peterborough

  5

  —

  1

  1

  7

  Plymouth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Poole

  7

  —

  2

  —

  9

  Portsmouth

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Reading

  2

  —

  3

  —

  5

  Redbridge

  10

  —

  1

  —

  11

  Redcar and Cleveland

  7

  —

  1

  —

  8

  Richmond upon Thames

  14

  —

  5

  —

  19

  Rochdale

  5

  4

  6

  6

  21

  Rotherham

  7

  —

  7

  —

  14

  Rutland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Salford

  4

  1

  1

  —

  6

  Sandwell

  14

  3

  2

  —

  19

  Sefton

  8

  2

  3

  —

  13

  Sheffield

  2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Shropshire

  6

  3

  —

  —

  10

  Slough

  8

  —

  —

  —

  8

  Solihull

  14

  1

  20

  —

  35

  Somerset

  9

  6

  2

  —

  17

  South Gloucestershire

  17

  5

  1

  —

  23

  South Tyneside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Southampton

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Southend on Sea

  5

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Southwark

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  St. Helens

  8

  —

  3

  —

  11

  Staffordshire

  11

  —

  1

  —

  13

  Stockport

  14

  5

  4

  —

  23

  Stockton on Tees

  5

  1

  1

  —

  7

  Stoke on Trent

  15

  —

  6

  —

  21

  Suffolk

  8

  —

  3

  —

  11

  Sunderland

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Surrey

  6

  —

  6

  —

  12

  Sutton

  7

  —

  2

  —

  10

  Swindon

  7

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Tameside

  4

  —

  4

  —

  9

  Telford and Wrekin

  2

  —

  2

  —

  5

  Thurrock

  5

  —

  —

  1

  6

  Torbay

  6

  —

  3

  —

  9

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Trafford

  6

  7

  —

  13

  Wakefield

  12

  —

  4

  —

  17

  Walsall

  7

  3

  2

  1

  13

  Waltham Forest

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Wandsworth

  4

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Warrington

  7

  —

  8

  —

  15

  Warwickshire

  4

  —

  3

  2

  9

  West Berkshire

  3

  2

  4

  1

  10

  West Sussex

  9

  6

  4

  —

  19

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Wigan

  6

  —

  21

  —

  27

  Wiltshire

  12

  —

  7

  4

  23

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  2

  —

  2

  —

  4

  Wirral

  12

  1

  4

  —

  17

  Wokingham

  8

  2

  3

  —

  13

  Wolverhampton

  15

  —

  3

  —

  18

  Worcestershire

  7

  3

  4

  —

  14

  York, City of

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Total

  1,075

  166

  434

  44

  1,718

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his letter of 27 October to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, what estimate he has made of the number of pupils(a) at Key Stage 2 in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools who will be in classes of over 30 pupils in September 2001. [96919]
  320
  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have made no such estimates. However, the most recent figures show that the proportion of Key Stage 2 children in classes over 30 fell by 1 per cent. between January 1998 and January 1999. This contrasts with an annual rise every year from January 1996 to January 1998. There was also a year-on-year increase in primary class sizes from 1988 to 1998 as a result of the
  321
  budgets of the previous administration. The average number of pupils in Key Stage 2 classes in January 1999 was 28.4. The average number of pupils in secondary classes in January 1999 was 21.9.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his letter of 27 October to the hon. Member for Hertsmere on infant class sizes, how many new classrooms have been provided in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each year for the last 10 years and how many it is planned to provide in each year that has so far been planned for. [96917]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Funding has so far been allocated in support of the Key Stage 1 Class Size Initiative to enable Local Education Authorities to provide over 1,600 more classrooms. Information more generally is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his letter of 27 October to the hon. Member for Hertsmere on infant class sizes, (1) how many secondary school pupils were in classes of over 30 in(a) January 1998, (b) January 1999 and (c) September 1999; [96772]

  (2) how many pupils aged 8, 9 and 10 years were in classes of over 30 in (a) January 1998, (b) January 1999 and (c) September 1999; [96773]

  (3) how many children in nursery classes were in classes of over 30 in (a) January 1998, (b) January 1999 and (c) September 1999. [96887]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the following tables.

  Number of pupils in classes of over 30 pupils taught by one teacher

  January 1999

  September 19991

  January 1998

  Nursery Classes2

  47,227

  4—

  47,579

  Key Stage 1

  356,586

  181,000

  485,311

  Key Stage 23

  835,257

  4—

  832,668

  Total Primary

  1,278,607

  4—

  1,411,366

  1 This figure includes an estimate of the number of pupils entering later in the autumn term under staggered entry arrangements and for pupils from missing schools

  2 Nursery classes normally include at least one extra adult in the classroom

  3 The proportion of pupils in KS2 classes over 30 fell from 40 per cent. to 39 per cent. between January 1998 and January 1999

  4 Not applicable

  January 1999

  January 1998

  Total Primary

  1,278,607

  1,411,366

  Total Secondary

  312,974

  282,633

  Total Primary and Secondary

  1,591,581

  1,693,999

  Higher Education
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many students are currently enrolled on taught postgraduate courses in higher education institutions in(a) Derry, (b) Belfast, (c) Edinburgh, (d) Glasgow, (e) Manchester and (f) Birmingham; [97049]
  322
  (2) what proportions of UK students registered for taught postgraduate courses in computing science in the several higher education institutions located in (a) Derry, (b) Belfast, (c) Edinburgh, (d) Glasgow, (e) Manchester and (f) Birmingham, are paying their own fees. [97050]

  Mr. Wicks
  The numbers of students enrolled on taught postgraduate courses in institutions in the cities listed are given in the table:

  Students enrolled on taught postgraduate courses in HE institutions 1998–99

  City

  Number

  Londonderry

  727

  Belfast1

  5,217

  Edinburgh

  7,558

  Glasgow

  10,240

  Manchester

  11,522

  Birmingham

  8,205

  The numbers of UK-domiciled students enrolled on taught postgraduate courses in computing science in institutions in the cities listed, and the proportions of these paying their own fees, are given in the table:

  City

  UK-domiciled students enrolled on taught postgraduate courses in computing science2 in higher education institutions 1998–99

  Percentage of students paying their own fees3

  Londonderry

  195

  71

  Belfast1

  500

  61

  Edinburgh

  367

  15

  Glasgow

  264

  19

  Manchester

  317

  27

  Birmingham

  175

  54

  1 Including the University of Ulster at Jordanstown

  2 Excludes students on PGCE courses, who, irrespective of their specialism, can only be identified as "teacher training" students

  3 Excludes students for whom all or any part of their fees are paid from another public or private source, eg their employers

  Policy on higher education in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Policy on higher education in Scotland is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the Government's latest estimate of the proportion of young people in England entering higher education at the beginning of the academic year 1999–2000 from(a) semi-skilled and (b) unskilled family backgrounds and (c) from disadvantaged localities; and what were the comparable figures for each of the last three years. [97153]

  Mr. Wicks
  The available data on students accepted for entry through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) to higher education in the United Kingdom are given in the table. Information on participation rates of young people from disadvantaged localities is not held centrally.
  323

  Accepted young1 home domiciled applicants to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses United Kingdom

  Percentage

  Year of entry

  Proportion from social class2

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  IIIM—Skilled manual

  16.4

  16.7

  16.9

  16.9

  IV—Partly skilled

  7.5

  7.6

  7.6

  8.7

  V—Unskilled

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  2.1

  1 Aged under 21.

  2 The classification system used to assign social class to undergraduates is that used in the National Census—the Standard Occupational Classification published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3 Accepted applicants as at November 1999.

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what methods of depreciation his Department will apply in the current financial year to fixed assets in the preparation of departmental resource accounting balance sheets. [97043]

  Mr. Wills
  All fixed assets are depreciated on a straight line basis to zero. Exceptions are land, which is not depreciated, and cars, which retain a 20 per cent. residual value. Depreciation methods are in accordance with the Treasury's Resource Accounting Manual. The requirements in the Manual regarding those methods will be underpinned by Financial Reporting Standard 15 'Tangible Fixed Assets' issued by the Accounting Standards Board. Details of the period over which assets are depreciated are as follows:

  Asset type

  Depreciation policy

  Buildings

  Up to 50 years

  Land

  No depreciation

  Furniture

  7-10 years

  Fittings

  10 years

  Office machinery

  3–10 years

  Cars

  5 years with residual value of 20 per cent.

  Vans

  8 years

  Telecoms

  8–10 years

  Computers-mainframe

  7 years

  Computers-non mainframe

  3 years

  Computer-software

  5 years

  Education Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects the processing of initial payments of education maintenance allowances under the pilot scheme to have been completed. [97035]

  Mr. Wicks
  All 15 pilot areas will have made payments of Education Maintenance Allowances (EMAs) by Friday 5 November 1999.

  Of the 15 pilot EMA areas, 10 had made payments by the end of September. All young people who were paid late, but were due an EMA when term started in September, received arrears of their EMA with their first payment.
  324
  Over 13,000 young people had applied for an EMA by 1 October 1999. EMA payments of over £185,000 had been made by 1 October.

  EMAs are an important and exciting new initiative, and early indications are that they are already making a real difference to young people in the pilot areas.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to local authorities, training and enterprise councils and colleges of further education concerning the membership and responsibilities of the proposed learning and skills councils. [96710]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: The "Learning to Succeed" White Paper set out that employers will be the single largest group on the Council. On 28 October, the Secretary of State announced that at least 40 per cent. of people on the Boards of the new Learning and Skills Councils, together with the national Chair and majority of local Chairs, will be people with significant business experience. It is expected that Board members will be drawn from a wide range of bodies that have an interest in education and training. We want to attract the best individuals available and we will be looking for people from a variety of backgrounds to represent individual and community interests.

  In December we will be publishing a document setting out the Government's plans for implementing the proposals in the White Paper. The document will outline how the new structures will work and set out the next steps for implementation.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans he has to make the Integrated Youth Service areas coterminous with local education authority, regional development agency or sub-regional local learning and skills/small business service boundaries; and if he will make a statement; [97057]

  (2) what plans he has to make careers and guidance areas coterminous with the sub-regional local learning and skills councils/small business service boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [97058]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 2 November 1999]: The "Learning to Succeed" White Paper and the Social Exclusion Unit's report "Bridging the Gap" announced the creation of a new youth support service which will provide guidance and support for all young people aged 13-19, building on what is currently provided by the Careers Service, parts of the Youth Service and other organisations.

  We have been consulting on the functions and local delivery arrangements for the new service. A further announcement on the Youth Support Service, including the local boundaries, will be made later in the year.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he has issued to local authorities, training and enterprise councils and colleges of further education concerning the division of
  325
  responsibilities between the proposed local learning and skills councils and (a) local lifelong learning partnerships and (b) the National Learning and Skill Council. [96777]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 3 November 1999]: We issue regular updates to all our partners on the implementation of our proposals, in "Learning to Succeed", to establish a Learning and Skills Council with both a national and local presence. The Local Councils will be accountable to the National Council for the implementation of national frameworks and policies in their areas. The Local Councils will be accountable to their local communities for meeting local needs, through mechanisms such as public meetings, dissemination of information on the LSC's activities, and effective feedback and complaints mechanisms.

  In September, a joint letter was sent from the Department for Education and Employment and its main national partners to all TECs, local education authorities, further education colleges and other local partners summarising the responsibilities of Learning Partnerships in the new post-16 arrangements. Learning Partnerships will continue to be voluntary groupings of post-16 learning providers and users with a local focus. They will be responsible for ensuring that provision is responsive to local community needs. The work of the Learning and Skills Council will need to be informed by an understanding of local labour market needs—Lifelong Learning Partnerships are perfectly placed to provide that.

  In December we intend to publish a document outlining how the new structures will work and setting out the next steps for implementation. We also plan to issue more detailed guidance to Learning Partnerships in December on their role, responsibilities and relationship with Local Learning and Skills Councils.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines he has issued to the training and enterprise councils in respect of(a) redundancy payments and (b) incentive payments to staff pending the establishment of learning and skills councils. [96718]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 3 November 1999]: Government Offices are currently discussing with TECs their proposals to retain key staff during the transition period to the new Learning and Skills Council and packages for staff in the event that redundancies should be necessary. Those discussions have been based on initial guidance we have provided to Government Offices. We are in the process of finalising the guidance in the light of those discussions and will be issuing it to TECs shortly. I will provide my hon. Friend with a copy of that final guidance as soon as it is issued and I will also place copies in the Libraries of the House.

  Citizenship Curriculum
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will include in the new citizenship curriculum provision for the study of aspects of global citizenship, in particular sustainable development; [96461]
  326
  (2) what measures he is taking to ensure that guidance notes on the citizenship curriculum give attention to global citizenship. [96462]

  Jacqui Smith
  The framework for education for citizenship will include the study of the world as a global community. We will issue guidance, to include global citizenship and sustainable development, which will be available to schools in the new year.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations he has received about the quality of service experienced by clients of the Student Loans Company; [96595]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the performances of the Student Loans Company in relation to the (a) processing of applications and (b) answering of telephone inquiries. [96596]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Student Loans Company (SLC) has played a major part in the successful introduction of the new student support arrangements. To date in academic year 1999–2000, it has made 494,000 student loans. This is around 150,000 more than at the same time in 1998–99. 325,000 telephone inquiries have been answered on the SLC's student support helpline since the start of academic year 1999–2000.

  The Department has received 90 complaints from students about the service provided by the SLC on loans for academic year 1999–2000. These represent a very small proportion—some 0.02 per cent.—of the 494,000 loans made. While there have been a very small number of concerns, students have benefited this year from our commitment to get loans to students at the start of term.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were in receipt of an assisted place; and what was the total cost in England and Wales in each year since 1992. [96860]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table and is in respect of children in England. The cost in 1998–99 was £22 million less than planned expenditure under the previous administration. That saving was used to provide extra teachers to reduce class sizes. Figures for Wales are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Assisted places scheme: England

  Academic year

  Number of assisted pupils

  Total cost in financial year (£ million)

  1992–93

  28,674

  192.9

  1993–94

  29,291

  92.3

  1994–95

  29,743

  101.5

  1995–96

  29,917

  104.8

  1996–97

  33,144

  117.5

  1997–98

  36,458

  134.4

  1998–99

  29,795

  125.6

  1 Includes £4.9 million brought forward from financial year 1993–94

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the current amounts available for expenditure on education by each of the(a) shire counties and (b) unitary authorities as a percentage of total spending; and indicate what each such authority would have to spend to bring it up to the spending level of the highest-spending shire county. [95221]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information given in the table shows, for 1999–2000, for each shire and unitary local authority in England, (i) the percentage of each authority's total spending which was allocated to education, and (ii) the extra sum each would have to allocate in order to spend as much per pupil as Slough.

  Net expenditure—1999–2000

  Education expenditure as percentage of total spending

  Extra spending required for education expenditure to meet £3,325 per pupil (£000)

  Slough

  47.47

  0

  Bristol

  40.88

  1,359

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  37.00

  2,395

  Reading

  39.91

  2,787

  Brighton and Hove

  31.65

  5,816

  Bournemouth

  37.66

  5,501

  Blackburn with Darwen

  48.15

  6,619

  East Sussex

  55.89

  17,302

  Rutland

  52.41

  1,289

  Bath and North East Somerset

  50.81

  7,411

  Cambridgeshire

  61.53

  23,062

  Kent

  61.31

  65,652

  Portsmouth

  40.12

  8,617

  Southampton

  41.91

  10,227

  Leicester City

  45.23

  16,657

  Halton

  46.62

  7,464

  North Lincolnshire

  49.62

  8,945

  Luton

  46.85

  10,896

  Isle of Wight

  39.97

  7,529

  Peterborough

  49.85

  11,750

  Southend-on-Sea

  40.98

  10,637

  Essex

  59.77

  82,116

  Torbay

  38.66

  7,999

  Wokingham

  54.74

  10,052

  Nottingham City

  38.44

  18,082

  Buckinghamshire

  63.73

  32,094

  Derby City

  46.36

  16,189

  North East Lincolnshire

  48.19

  12,293

  Surrey

  57.24

  60,553

  Bracknell Forest

  50.61

  6,998

  Thurrock

  49.71

  9,807

  Plymouth

  46.22

  18,607

  North Somerset

  48.30

  12,423

  Milton Keynes

  50.08

  15,927

  West Sussex

  58.08

  49,453

  Shropshire

  60.02

  18,964

  Lancashire

  59.21

  86.537

  Stoke-on-Trent

  46.99

  19,614

  South Gloucestershire

  54.20

  19,937

  North Yorkshire

  62.57

  45,516

  Leicestershire

  63.14

  48,861

  Durham

  57.20

  42,174

  Oxfordshire

  58.44

  44,184

  Medway Towns

  48.83

  23,829

  Blackpool

  34.92

  10,876

  Hull

  40.79

  23,485

  Nottinghamshire

  60.49

  66,130

  Suffolk

  60.50

  54,548

  Cheshire

  59.33

  58,833

  Staffordshire

  63.66

  73.665

  Somerset

  59.74

  38,703

  Devon

  54.71

  52,882

  328

  Net expenditure—1999–2000

  Education expenditure as percentage of total spending

  Extra spending required for education expenditure to meet £3,325 per pupil (£000)

  Hertfordshire

  61.70

  95,160

  West Berkshire

  46.10

  13,600

  East Riding

  47.93

  28,168

  Warwickshire

  60.09

  43,313

  Dorset

  56.49

  31,090

  Cumbria

  58.37

  45,667

  Redcar and Cleveland

  47.29

  15,689

  Bedfordshire

  59.91

  37,593

  Hampshire

  59.62

  104,840

  Lincolnshire

  59.90

  59,294

  Middlesbrough

  43.49

  15,682

  Cornwall

  57.82

  44,710

  Telford and Wrekin

  43.11

  15,817

  Stockton on Tees

  48.54

  20,464

  Wiltshire

  59.96

  39,457

  Hartlepool

  43.41

  10,830

  Poole

  46.29

  12,595

  Norfolk

  55.96

  71,169

  York

  47.53

  15,893

  Herefordshire

  43.68

  15,455

  Gloucestershire

  59.55

  54,947

  Northamptonshire

  62.08

  67,279

  Northumberland

  56.01

  34,072

  Darlington

  44.80

  10,655

  Warrington

  51.75

  22,296

  Derbyshire

  58.17

  80,694

  Worcestershire

  60.38

  59,631

  Swindon

  50.97

  21,664

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on prospects for the dairy industry. [95837]

  Ms Quin
  The UK dairy industry has faced a particularly difficult two years and this situation will not easily or quickly be reversed. But recent assistance from the Government in the form of a waiver of cattle passport charges, together with an ending to the uncertainty regarding Milk Marque, will go some way to helping the sector stabilise.

  Grassland
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to comply with the EU Directive on EIA agricultural land use changes to prevent further losses of grassland in Devon. [96876]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) on 2 November 1999,Official Report, column 157.

  Lamb
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he plans to take to improve the export market for lamb. [95758]
  329
  Ms Quin
  Exports of sheepmeat remain close to historic levels. My fellow Ministers and I and overseas posts will ensure that we give British lamb a high profile wherever possible, but the promotion of exports is principally a matter for the industry itself.

  Storm Damage (Sussex Coast)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the costs of the damage caused by the recent storm on the West Sussex coast. [96328]

  Mr. Morley
  Information about such costs is not collected centrally. Local authorities have statutory powers to deal with emergencies and are expected to budget accordingly. They may apply for additional financial assistance where there is a case for doing so under existing rules. Where capital works for flood and coastal defences are justified, government grant will be considered against normal criteria.

  Rural Development Regulation
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to increase funding in respect of Rural Development Regulation. [96928]

  Mr. Morley
  Options for funding the Rural Development Regulation are still being considered. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he has given the Forestry Commission on maintaining public access after the sale of Forestry Commission land; and if he will make a statement. [96960]

  Mr. Morley
  We stopped large-scale sales of forest land managed by the Forestry Commission when we took up office in 1997. The Commission is, however, still able to sell relatively small and isolated blocks of forest land which do not make a significant contribution to its objectives and are surplus to requirements. Forest land which is important for public access will not be sold unless the Commission has secured a public access agreement with the local authority, which is binding on all subsequent owners of the land.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which areas are eligible for grants for conversion to organic farming. [96703]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 1 November 1999]: Under the Statutory Instrument which was laid on 3 November 1999, aid under the Organic Farming Scheme will be available to farmers throughout England.

  Pig Farmers
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to alleviate the difficulties facing pig farmers. [96681]

  Ms Quin
  We are fully aware of the crisis facing the pig sector. We have made an additional £6 million in marketing and promotion aid available and it is our intention that this sector will benefit significantly from this money. I hope that this financial support will strengthen the sector's competitive position in the future and lead to better returns for pig producers.

  Furthermore, my right hon. Friend the Minister has recently written to MPs and local authorities to emphasise the importance of sourcing pigmeat products to British standards. He has also made a formal request to the EU Commission to reopen the private storage aid scheme. We are tackling misleading labelling and are consulting on revised guidelines to Trading Standards Authorities. Ministers are committed to better auditing of claims on welfare and other standards of imported products. We will have meetings with retailers to insist that they reaffirm their commitments of last year on sourcing pigmeat to British standards. Similar meetings will take place with leading caterers. We will also be asking the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) to consider whether the current ban on the use of porcine meat and bonemeal (MBM) is still justified.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Pastoral Measure 1983
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, when it is proposed to review the Pastoral Measure 1983;and if he will make a statement. [96633]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  A motion from the Wakefield Diocesan Synod seeking a review of the redundancy provisions of the Pastoral Measure is likely to be debated by the General Synod next year.

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

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Personal Statement
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, during exchanges on Thursday 28th October at cols. 380 to 382 of Hansard I mentioned the additional resources which the Government were making available to the police service. In doing so, I regret that inadvertently I gave some incorrect figures. Instead of referring to the Government increasing police spending by £7 billion, I should of course have said that we were increasing spending to £7 billion this year. In fact, this year police revenue expenditure is expected to be over £7.4 billion. I wish to apologise to the House for that inadvertent mistake.

Digital Television
3.7 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should add that I own only an analogue television set and do not subscribe to any subscription channels.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to encourage the take-up of digital television by those who do not wish to subscribe to subscription channels.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord makes a general declaration of interest in local government terms which is not required to be followed by other noble Lords. We want to encourage the take-up of digital television by everyone, not just those who are willing and able to pay for subscription services. Our announcement setting out clear criteria for turning off the analogue signal should help drive forward the availability and affordability of digital receiving equipment. We shall review with the broadcasting industry ways of ensuring that consumers are fully informed of the benefits of digital television, know how to get the services they want and are reassured about the conditions to be met in advance of switch-over.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, given that National Economic Research Associates (NERA) estimate that the annual value of the spectrum locked up in analogue is worth of the order of £200 million a year, does the Minister agree that it is important to give every
982
encouragement to those who are least well off in society so that the take-up of digital sets is such that analogue switch-off is brought forward as far as possible? Does the noble Lord agree that failure to do so means that the income that the Government might derive from that spectrum will be deferred and, once deferred, will be wasted for ever?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree it is important to bring forward analogue switch-off as far as possible, and we have set the criteria for that to be achieved. It is then for both the broadcasting industry and consumers to help to achieve the criteria we have laid down. I believe that it is premature to talk about any help for those in need. Let us see what business progress is made on switch-over.
Viscount Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the affordability of the new technology to which he referred relies to a great extent on the cost of the hardware, which is the television set? Does he agree that particularly in relation to local radio rather than television these sets are very expensive? Is it not the case that unless manufacturers make this equipment in larger runs the price will not come down very quickly? Does the Minister also agree that the idea of a supplementary licence fee for receiving digital is a further inhibiting factor in that area?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Viscount's comment about the affordability of sets is certainly true. It is only when there is large-scale production that prices will come down. The industry has itself recognised that that is the case and is confident that it will be possible to achieve that. As to the second question, the Gavyn Davies Committee, which recommended a small supplementary licence fee of £1.99 a month for access to digital, did a great deal of research which convinced it that that would not have a serious delaying effect on the introduction of digital. The Government have still to reach a conclusion on the matter but they will do so as soon as possible.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Channel 3 cannot be received on satellite television? That is not made known to consumers and, I believe, should be. It would be good if that channel could be received. Can the Government do anything to influence the position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not, strictly, the responsibility of government. The Office of Fair Trading is investigating the issue. However, in the end it is a matter for broadcasters to sort out among themselves.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the manufacturers' trade association. Does the Minister agree that if we are to get the benefit of the research, development and manufacturing capacity in this country, there must be interoperability between the various sets? Does he also agree that at the

983
moment the danger lies in trying to create what the Secretary of State has termed "walled gardens"—that is, sets that can receive only one service—and missing that great opportunity? Should the Government not be leading a drive for free-to-air digital awareness? We are very pleased that the Secretary of State has called a meeting of the industry to try to break the deadlock.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, is volunteering to answer those questions which I have properly referred to the broadcasting industry as its responsibility rather than the Government's. I hope that he will be on his feet as often as seems appropriate to achieve that. The Government are disappointed that interoperability has not been achieved. It was planned for May last year and still has not been achieved. We shall continue to use what influence we have to try to secure that.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am not a chairman of any manufacturing industry association? Is he further aware that I am merely the humble holder of a television set who wonders whether all this new technology will produce a better quality of programme? Some of the rubbish we see on television today is unacceptable.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I cannot promise that there will be an improvement in the quality of the programmes. There will certainly be an improvement in the quality of the picture, substantially more choice and quality advantages in the availability of interactivity between the customer and the broadcaster, as he is still called, and in Internet access. But, ultimately, all of us as users of television must fight for higher quality.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the Government's target for analogue switch-over is between 2006 and 2010. Does the Minister agree that to succeed in achieving that switch-over at the beginning as opposed to the end of the period will net the Government some £800 million? Does he also agree that it is appropriate to do something positive to bring forward the take-up of digital receiving equipment by those who are least well off in society?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord asked that question earlier and I cannot improve on my answer. Strictly speaking, the Government did not announce a period between 2006 and 2010; we announced the criterion on which the decision on analogue switch-over would be taken. We said that the criterion would be that 99.4 per cent of those who now have access to analogue television would have access
984
to digital television at the time of switch-over. It is likely that that will be between 2006 and 2010 and it is certainly desirable from all points of view, not least those to which the noble Lord referred, that it should be as early as possible.

EU Accession Negotiations
3.15 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Lord Wallace of Saltaire asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the proposal for a timetable for the completion of the European Union accession negotiations currently under way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to be a strong supporter of European Union enlargement and wants accession to take place as soon as possible. The Government fully support the European Commission's recent proposal to complete the necessary institutional reforms for enlargement from 2002. We expect the Helsinki European Council to confirm this. Negotiations with the applicants are progressing well. With further progress in negotiations, we should be in a better position to set a timetable for completion that is both ambitious and attainable.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. She and other noble Lords will be aware that it is 10 years since the end of the Cold War and since the successor regimes expressed their commitment to joining the EU. Some of our fellow governments in the EU are talking of the need for another five years, some seven years and some more before those regimes join. We are all aware of the Prime Minister's commitment, made in his Achen speech, to the "urgency" for enlargement and his statement that we have a moral duty to assist in this. Therefore, is it not time for the British Government to insist that at Helsinki there should be drawn up a definite timetable for negotiations and for the first new members to join?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that Her Majesty's Government have been in the forefront in encouraging enlargement. The United Kingdom presidency in 1998 played a leading role in getting the accession process started. While we are encouraged that so many countries want to join the table, each applicant should join as and when ready. We are encouraging all participants to use due diligence and speed.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, does the Minister agree that granting a timetable would involve granting lengthy transition periods to the applicant accession countries in order for them to deal with their social and economic problems?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is right. As regards a number of those countries, 18 of the chapters have already been opened. Another 13 remain to be completed and there are some challenges ahead. We are working closely with all the applicant countries to ensure that they are able to do that as quickly as possible—but when they are ready.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether, as regards timetables, any precedent was established in previous accessions? What reason would there be for departing from any such precedent now?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, on each occasion, the timetables have been reflective of the needs of the country involved. Some countries are in an advantageous position and once the chapters are open can have them closed relatively quickly. Other countries are more challenged in relation to meeting the criteria for enlargement.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the criteria for enlargement depend entirely on the abolition or total reform of the common agricultural policy? What is the Government's position on that point?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree. I do of course understand that agriculture has presented complex challenges in all enlargements to date. For this enlargement in the Agenda 2000 settlement, we ringfenced money—there is 12.5 billion euros for agricultural payments to new members—and substantially increased pre-accession aid to over 500 million euros per year for agricultural reform, as well as introducing some reforms of the common agricultural policy.
We all know that this is a challenge, which is being addressed with vigour. We have in place, in the form of both Mr Prodi and Mr Kinnock, significant campaigners in relation to the reform process.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when asked whether a further intergovernmental conference would be needed to announce the necessary reforms to the treaty as indicated in Agenda 2000, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as the Minister responsible, told the House that he did not believe, whatever was said in Agenda 2000, that we should require a full-blown IGC to put right the failure to take new decisions on re-weighting on the size of the commission?
Can the Minister reconcile that statement with the Government's U-turn, by which they now consider that it is indeed necessary to hold a further IGC to resolve those issues?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that there has been a U-turn. The Government have been clear as to their expectations and the IGC currently envisaged is appropriate and timely.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I welcome the earliest possible extension of membership of the European Union, and I acknowledge that there must be an IGC to examine institutional changes; but can my noble friend give me and the House an assurance that the Government have made it perfectly clear to the Commission and to others that in that IGC we shall not accept the removal of the unanimity rule on tax changes, and that we shall insist on maintaining that present status?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can. I believe that it would be safer if I were to write to my noble friend.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that it is of fundamental importance to have a stable and secure Europe, and that those nations which border the Russian Federation should be admitted to the European Union as quickly as possible for the sake of the stability of central and eastern Europe? Does she not further agree that, in particular, the smaller nations such as Latvia and Lithuania should be given every encouragement to begin negotiations as soon as possible? May we therefore have a timetable?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is certainly important that enlargement continues, as the noble Earl said, in order to bring greater security in Europe. As I said earlier, much is dependent on the readiness of each country. Your Lordships will know that this Government are encouraging and pursuing that end as effectively as anyone could.

LRT: Fare Evasion Procedures
3.23 p.m.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the recent prosecutions against Sister Virtus Okwaraoha and Philip Bussy, they will encourage London Regional Transport to review their procedures for bringing prosecutions for fare evasion against London bus passengers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, those are operational matters for London Regional Transport. I understand that London Transport Buses reviews its procedures regularly and has recently introduced a more rigorous monitoring of reported ticket irregularities and cases which may result in legal action.
I understand also that the London Regional Passengers Committee is in discussion with London Transport on those matters, and I should be happy to consider any proposals which may emerge from that dialogue.
The Earl of Clancarty: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Bearing in mind London

987
Transport Buses' statement with regard to Sister Virtus:
"We do not question the Sister's honesty",
does the Minister not accept that it is wholly wrong and unjust to prosecute and criminalise someone who, it is clearly acknowledged by the accuser, had no intention of committing a crime? Will the Minister confirm that future prosecutions will be limited to cases where there is real suspicion of fraud, rather than unnecessarily dragging through the courts people whose only crime is that they have been tripped up by the system?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of aspects of that particular case are wanting. However, in general, the policy of London Transport with regard to both buses and Tubes is to prosecute only where it believes that there was intent. That is certainly the procedure which it will adopt in future.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I took through a Private Bill on this issue some years ago, I am particularly keen to ask a question.
Is it not a fact that the losses due to fare evasion have grown constantly? Is it not also a fact that the proportion that people have to pay in relation to when the penalty was first introduced is now so much less in relation to a ticket that there is a much greater incentive for people to try to evade the correct payment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise the noble Baroness's experience in the genesis of this scheme. It is true that the proportions have closed somewhat. The payment of a £10 penalty is nevertheless substantially greater than that for a £1.10 or £1.40 ticket. It is also the case that the amount of revenue estimated by London Transport to be lost has grown over that period, which indicates that it has a serious problem, which is being addressed not only through the improvement of this system, but also, in the case of the Tube, by introducing automatic gating on all its stations.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare an interest. I am a fare-paying passenger when I am able to do so. Is the Minister aware that numerous passengers, of whom I am one, have found it increasingly difficult to persuade conductors to accept our money, and that that difficulty is particularly acute among conductors who have been told that their services are shortly to be dispensed with? Will the Minister guarantee that such negligence of the conductor will not be taken for malice in the passenger?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is already part of the new procedure in relation to appeals that, if the noble Earl is unfortunate enough to be pursued with a penalty fare in those circumstances, having offered to or being unable to pay one's fare is a sufficient defence. I am
988
unable to comment on the particular circumstances and on the particular bus on which the noble Earl found himself.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will the Minister say whether he considers the intentional act of fare evasion to be the same as fraud?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of noble and learned Lords have told me that it is. It is certainly intent to defraud, and in my mind that amounts to fraud in a real sense. Therefore, I believe that these systems for protecting revenue are absolutely valid.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the official within London Regional Transport who decided to bring this case displayed a serious lack of judgment? Can the Minister say whether that official is still employed by London Regional Transport, or has he been sent to the equivalent of Outer Siberia—whatever that is in LRT?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, those are inevitably not matters for Ministers. Clearly London Transport recognised that there were problems in this case, but it would not be sensible for me to comment further.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that London Regional Transport in fact employs its own private police force? Surely the manner in which that private police force conducts itself is to some degree a matter of concern to the Government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in that context I am not entirely clear what the noble Lord means by "a private police force". There is enforcement of fares, which is obviously separate from the British Transport Police who operate on the Underground. We are trying to ensure that passengers on London Transport pay the correct fare. The system of penalty fares therefore enables us, in most cases, to ensure that the revenue is protected without recourse to the courts and therefore criminality. However, where intent is involved, it may be appropriate to use the more traditional procedures, and sometimes misjudgments may be made in those cases. In general, however, I should defend that system.

French Beef Imports
3.30 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they believe imported French beef to be more wholesome than British beef on the bone.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the clear advice given to Ministers is that there are no public health grounds for preventing the import of

989
beef from France. As regards British beef on the bone, the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Donaldson, has concluded that the risk from the retail sale of beef on the bone is now so low as to be unquantifiable. The Government have made clear their view that it would be preferable to go forward to amend the current beef bone regulations on a UK basis.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does it go far enough? On the one hand, we have French beef that is fed on materials which are unmentionable in this august Chamber. On the other hand, we have the best beef in the world. As the noble Baroness has said, British beef on the bone has been cleared by the Chief Medical Officer, but it is still an illegal substance. Why do the Government not take the opportunity to give British farming a boost by now lifting the ban on British beef on the bone?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, when I answered a Question in your Lordships' House two weeks ago, I believe I made clear that the Government do wish to lift the beef on the bone ban as soon as the medical advice throughout the United Kingdom allows it to do so. We believe that it is in the interests of the industry and of consumers to take this forward on a UK basis. At the moment, before giving advice to their legislatures, the chief medical officers for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would prefer to await the further epidemiological evidence from the Oxford group which is expected this month. I made that clear the other day. In view of other issues within Europe, I do not believe it is sensible to suggest that we should ban illegally the import of beef from France when there is no scientific advice to suggest that it is unsafe.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the noble Baroness explain why it is that, prior to the beef ban, nearly 80 per cent of the beef imports by France from this country were of old culled cows, some of which were imported with brains? Will the Minister ask the French to explain why they have such a low level of CJD? Will she also ask them to look on the Internet at the reports of the BSE inquiry, where it appears that the science indicates that it may not be beef at all that has been causing the spongiform encephalopathies?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that the French and UK Governments monitor very carefully what the noble Countess says on these issues and will take account of the points that she has made today. I do not believe that I should answer from this Dispatch Box for the import policies of the French Government before the ban.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is it not the case that the only power which the Government have to ban the sale of this otherwise legal product is on public health grounds? If that is the case, and the Government have already decided that in England this is perfectly safe,
990
what justification in law is there for continuing the ban merely on the grounds that some other jurisdictions have not yet reached the same conclusion?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I explained the other day, the view of Her Majesty's Government is that on this as on many other issues of food safety, it would be sensible to wait a few weeks to see whether it is possible to find a consensus between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I believe it is in the interests of the British beef industry that we should take a coherent view across the United Kingdom on this important issue, rather than drive a wedge between different parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, will the Minister explain why there is any need for restaurants and shops to import French beef at all when there is plenty of excellent British beef to go round for everybody?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point. I believe that we in this House are all interested in promoting British products, particularly meat products whose level of safety and quality, in our opinion, is the highest in the world. Indeed, that is the argument which we adopt also in relation to exports.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, is it not a little unfair for Northern Ireland to be bracketed with Scotland and Wales where there is devolution, while in Northern Ireland there is not?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the reason why I put the three together was that the chief medical officers of all three would prefer to see the advice from the Oxford epidemiological unit as to the incidence of BSE. Professor Donaldson had an estimate of that incidence, and it was on that that he based his own advice before suggesting to Chief Ministers that the ban should be lifted.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that an effigy of a French farmer will probably be burnt in Kent on Guy Fawkes' night tomorrow? Does that not mean that the escalation of the feelings of farmers in this country is reaching the point at which the Government should be giving them some help and consideration?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I believe that the escalation of feeling has been extremely unhelpful in a great number of areas. However, the Government are trying to take an approach that is rational, sensible and reasoned on both the issues of the current disputes with France in terms of their imports under the date-based export scheme and in other areas. Yesterday, Commissioner Byrne praised the "intelligent,

991
reasonable and rational approach" that the British Government had taken on these issues. I wish I could say exactly the same of some of the British media.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, will the Minister say what stage has been reached with the BSE inquiry and when we are likely to see the outcome of it?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I believe the House will be aware, the Phillips Inquiry has taken longer than was originally intended. I understand that the current position is that it will now report by 31st March 2000.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, will the Minister not accept those judgments which have been made on scientific advice that our British beef is quite safe to eat? At present, the Government have not sought to act independently as regards England, as was mentioned two weeks ago when this issue was raised in the House. But will the Minister not accept that the fact that the Government are not pushing forward with that adds to the frustration of our farmers who wish to see their beef exported, and urgently?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that frustration. Beef on the bone would not be exported because the date-based export scheme deals only with deboned beef, as she well knows, and very specific categories of beef. I understand the frustration and the wish to make progress on this matter. One has to balance that frustration against the possible adverse consequences of taking a different approach in different parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have made it clear that they believe it is worth waiting a few weeks to see whether it is possible to reach a concerted view on this issue.

Business of the House
3.38 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief Business Statement regarding Prorogation. The progress of business next week will, as always, depend on the receipt of messages from another place. If business on all Bills is concluded on Wednesday, the House will sit at 11.15 a.m. on Thursday to prorogue. If, however, business on all Bills is not concluded on Wednesday, the House will sit at 3 p.m. on Thursday in order to conclude the business and will then sit at 11 a.m. on Friday to prorogue. In either event, Prorogation will be followed by a reception in the Royal Gallery to mark the end of this Session. No formal invitations will be issued for the reception. All those who plan to be here for Prorogation will be welcome to attend.

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill
3.39 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their Message of yesterday.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Kent County Council Bill [H.L.]
  Medway Council Bill [H.L.]

    City of Newcastle upon Tyne Bill [H.L.]
    The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
    Moved, That the promoters of each Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on Tuesday 9th November and that all fees due on or before that day have been paid;
    That such Bill be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than 12 noon on the second sitting day in the next Session with a declaration annexed, signed by the agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
    That the proceedings on such Bill in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma in regard to every stage through which the Bill has passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
    That the Private Business Standing Orders apply to such Bill in the next Session only in regard to any stage through which the Bill has not passed during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons desiring their agreement thereto.

Mental Health (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

993
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Monetary Policy Committee: Select Committee Report
3.40 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
It is with a certain amount of pride and a great deal of pleasure that I introduce today's debate. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in saying how delighted we are that no fewer than four new colleagues will make their maiden speeches today. We look forward with great interest to hearing what they have to say.
At the outset, I thank our clerk, David Batt, without whose administrative skills little would have been accomplished and certainly the report would not have been published on the due date. Our thanks are also extended to our special adviser, Professor Wickens of York University. Having been one of the first, if not the first, economist to advise a parliamentary committee, I am aware of how difficult and frustrating such a task can be. Perhaps I can use a form of words that is often placed in the first footnote of an academic article: we are indebted to Professor Wickens for removing so many mistakes from our report, but he is not responsible for those that remain.
I shall make three general propositions. First, the committee was determined to avoid party political matters in all its deliberations and in its conclusions. We succeeded in that aim and I have no intention of making any party points today at all. I hope other noble Lords will follow my example.
Secondly, although the membership of your Lordships' committee, as one journalist put it, is exceedingly high-powered and knowledgeable on matters of economics, finance and industry, we did not allow our personal views to come between us and the witnesses. Our recommendations followed from what we heard, not from what we had decided beforehand.
Thirdly, although I have remarked only half jokingly that your Lordships' committee could run monetary policy at least as well as the Monetary Policy Committee, we were at pains not to second-guess those who have responsibility for such matters. At no time did we comment on any individual decision and I do not propose to do so today, tempting though it may be to tell your Lordships what I think of the recent increase in the rate of interest that has just been announced.
I am convinced that we have succeeded in our remit and have met the standards that we set ourselves. More to the point, we have met the standards that your Lordships have set for other committees. That is most important, as the committee was a new departure for the House of Lords. I am convinced that the experiment was necessary so that this House can make a full contribution to the scrutiny of economic policy
994
in its new form. If your Lordships accept the view that we have been successful, at the beginning of the new Session noble Lords can place the committee on a permanent basis. Let me add with my usual modesty that I put in no claim for myself or my colleagues in regard to membership of the committee.
Our purpose was strategic. It was to take an overall view of the policy-making process, interpret what was happening and subject it to critical scrutiny. Monetary policy now has a statutory basis which in British terms is somewhat unusual. As the aims of policy and, to some extent, the means were set out in an Act of Parliament, we have been concerned with textual exegesis.
Not surprisingly, the remit of the Monetary Policy Committee has been interpreted in more than one way. We have noted that our witnesses have not been in full agreement as to what the remit is, let alone what it should be. I admit that I was more confused at the end of our inquiry about what the expression "subject to that" meant than I was at the beginning. I am coming to the conclusion that Section 11(b) of the Act is meaningless. That will need further investigation and explanation in the future.
Similarly, as the dynamics of the economy are such that monetary policy works with a complicated set of time-lags, present events are relevant only in so far as they are good indicators for the future. A simple example is that one does not control today's housing boom by tightening policy today. It is a commonplace of the theory of economic policy that if a boom were about to end anyway, tightening policy now would exacerbate the downturn rather than mitigate it. Policy making that ignores the dynamics can destabilise the economy. That is hard for the public to understand.
Therefore, I agree with the Bank of England that if low inflation is the remit—my purpose today is not to argue about that—we cannot relax if the current rate of inflation is at the right level. We must always look at where we are going and not where we are. The MPC keeps on telling us that, but a careful scrutiny of its minutes plus the evidence of its activism suggests that it sometimes forgets its own avowed doctrine. Even an unreconstructed Keynesian like myself cannot help but raise an eyebrow at the frequency of interest rate changes.
The committee has seen its task as one of critical interpretation. We say in terms, and I repeat in terms, that we support giving operational independence to the Bank of England for monetary policy and that the policy so far has been a success. That was agreed on a non-party basis. It is hoped that such a view is more widely accepted across the political parties. If it is of any help, I see the new approach as evolutionary and not a radical break from the past.
The committee also says that such a new departure inevitably implies that all relevant bodies learn from experience and adjust what they do from time to time. It would be a disaster for our country if, in due course, necessary changes were not made to monetary policy institutions and techniques on the grounds that that would imply that the original set-up was imperfect. By

995
the nature of things, human institutions are imperfect and need adjusting from time to time. If it turns out that economic experience leads to the conclusion that the remit needs changing, let it be done without concern for the Treasury's amour propre. Equally, if the mode of operation of the MPC needs to be changed, it must be changed without concern for the feelings of the powers that be. I hasten to add that it is not my view that such changes are needed immediately. I simply make a general point on the rational approach to economic policy.
I must now emphasise one or two technical points arising from the report. The committee was concerned about the level of inflation, and it hopes that priority will be given to further examination of that topic. It is especially alive to the difficulties that arise if the inflation index to be aimed at differs from that which is used for index linking in a wide range of contracts.
Secondly, the exchange rate remains a difficult problem. It is part of the transmission mechanism and cannot be ignored. However, the economics and econometrics of the exchange rate are fraught with difficulty. We seem to be told that the exchange rate is inevitably unpredictable, but we are also told that there is such a thing as the correct rate for the pound. That too is a subject to which we must return.
Thirdly, we must look more carefully at the real side of the economy and its connection with inflation. On the one hand, the employment consequences of policy are worthy of further scrutiny, especially the question of the restoration of full employment. On the other hand, there is the problem of the underlying or sustainable growth rate of the economy.
I was intrigued to read in a newspaper the other day that it may be that the underlying rate of growth of the economy has risen from 2.2 per cent to something nearer 3 per cent. I would dearly like to believe that. However, with my usual pessimism, I must note that we have regularly experienced such false dawns for the past four decades. If, however, the Treasury has some new hard evidence on that, the sooner we hear it the better.

More generally, important though that is, I do not believe that hitting our inflation objective will automatically lead to full employment and maximum real growth. It may be a necessary precursor, but a precursor to what? Improving the way in which markets work, including labour markets, is a help, but there remains a gap which fiscal policy should fill.
I do not insult your Lordships. I take it for granted that all noble Lords have read every part of the report and every page of the evidence and, therefore, do not require me to summarise it today. Nonetheless, I need to make a couple of remarks on topics that we touched upon but need to examine more deeply in the future.
Macro-economic policy varies in its impact on different sectors and regions of the economy. There is the obvious problem of the tradable goods sector hit by a high exchange rate, but not all firms within it suffer in the same way. It also should not be forgotten that the service sector can suffer too, if not directly,
996
then indirectly because of the adverse effects on its manufacturing customers. I believe that the manufacturing service distinction is a good deal more difficult to make than is sometimes thought by other people. There is the equally serious problem that controlling the boom in the south may make it harder for other regions to experience boom conditions at all. I remain unrepentant in my view that the membership of the MPC is far too biased in a southerly direction.
There is also the rather technical question of the nature of policy itself. The Bank intervenes via short term interest rates. I am not at all clear quite what role the money supply in any form plays. It is, therefore, very difficult to compare our policy making with that of the European Central Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank also seems to operate in much wider terms and with regard to a broader range of financial assets. A new inquiry must take account in particular of the United States experience.
A topic which it is now possible to explore concerns precisely what causes members of the MPC to differ in their votes for or against a particular policy initiative. I have no interest in the analysis ad hominem, only in the general nature of the differences. In particular, we need to know whether differences in voting arise because of different assessments of likely future developments of inflation, different attitudes to risks with regard to deviations from the set target due to unpredictable shocks, or different assessments of the way in which policy works, i.e. the transmission mechanism. Of course, what should not occur at all is that the members should differ because one or other of them wishes to reduce the emphasis placed on the inflation target itself. Any member of the MPC who did that would be breaking the law and infringing an Act of Parliament—one of the stranger consequences, for an economist, of this whole matter having a statutory basis.
This takes us on to another difficult policy question. Economic theory tells us that, in a dynamic world, policy itself must be dynamic. By that I mean that the correct decision is to be formulated in dynamic terms. In ordinary language, it means that the Monetary Policy Committee must have in mind a time path for interest rates and not merely a level for any one month. As I understand it, it has set its heart against doing much, if anything, more than announcing its monthly decision, as it has done today. This is presumably connected with the effects that saying more may have on the stability of financial markets. I believe that the MPC needs to be very carefully scrutinised in these respects. In particular, it is my belief that, since most financial markets are largely a means and the real economy is the end which determines human wellbeing, the uncertainty surrounding the path of interest rates cannot be ignored.
Finally, we refer in our report to the need for the Bank to monitor how the MPC works and, more generally, for the Treasury to monitor how macroeconomic policy works overall. We stress that all such monitoring must be placed in the public domain. We would press the authorities most strongly in that regard. In this connection, I was interested to read the

997
Treasury's latest effort, The New Monetary Policy Framework. This document too is worthy of tough, critical scrutiny. However, the chief task confronting your Lordships in the next couple of years is to concentrate on how policy evolves and, reverting to our central philosophy, to advise on how we learn from experience.
I end as I began. Without boasting, I believe that we did a good job and did not let your Lordships down. The job is inevitably incomplete. I believe that we can continue to make a contribution in the future. For the moment, however, I commend this report to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House take note of the report of the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England (HL Paper 96).—(Lord Peston.)
3.55 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to congratulate all the members of the Select Committee, especially their chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on producing an impeccable and timely report. The standard of the report comes as no surprise, considering what an exceedingly distinguished economist Lord Peston is. It would be a shame to let this moment pass without also thanking in particular my noble friends Lord Poole and Lord Weir, whose expertise may be lost to this House as a result of the reforms. How sad that would be.
The Select Committee system is one of the most respected aspects of our parliamentary procedures. Readers of this report will quickly see why that is so. The noble Lord, Lord Desai said last night that Select Committee reports were indeed educational documents and should be distributed widely to schools and universities. Having read this report, I concur.
I am looking forward greatly to this debate, not only because so many of the country's most distinguished economic experts are in your Lordships' House to debate it, but also, as the noble Lord said, because we shall have the pleasure of four maiden speeches.
The Bank of England was once likened to,
"a giant iron flywheel set in motion years ago that it would take a determined madman years to stop".
The question posed by this report concerns what effect the new MPC system will have on that great wheel.
It is widely agreed that, so far, the MPC has done well to sustain inflation at the optimum rate. However, there are very difficult explanations as to why this is so. First, some say that the wheel was made of pure gold when the MPC took over. I refer, of course, to the golden economic legacy of the previous administration.
Proponents of this view point to the fact that between 1993 and 1997 inflation was less than 4 per cent, the longest period of low inflation for 50 years. Roger Bootle, for example, said that the closeness of
998
the inflation rate to target in the first period of the MPC was,
"a tribute to the previous regime of decision-making"
by the Conservative government. Others, however, say that the MPC's apparent success is pure luck. This was the version provided by Professor Goodhart in his IEA lecture entitled, "Luck for the MPC".
So is it luck, or is it the miraculous workings of "the new paradigm", in which technological changes are reducing business costs to the point where old-style inflation no longer exists? Or is it because the MPC has been, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston said, "activist" and has, since it was set up, made 14 changes to interest rates—15 including today's—compared to four times in the same period for the US Federal Reserve and only twice for the ECB and its predecessor central banks?
Behind all these different versions of events lies a nagging question: what is the true legitimacy of the MPC? This question, like all questions of legitimacy, is related to the circumstances of birth. During the debates in your Lordships' House about the reform of this House, the Government consistently relied for the legitimacy of its proposals on its firm manifesto commitment. But what is the status of a Government action for which there is no manifesto commitment? What then? The fact is that the Government suddenly announced their intention to make the Bank of England independent and to form the MPC on 6th May 1997, five days after being elected on 1st May. This haste, this lack of prior consultation, this manifesto silence, must raise concerns about the independence and accountability of the MPC.
Of whom is the MPC independent? To whom is the MPC accountable? Presumably the MPC is intended to be independent of the executive. But it seems from the report that the only person to whom it is accountable is the Chancellor.
How can the MPC be independent of the person to whom it is accountable? Is not that why my right honourable friend the Shadow Chancellor suggested that the legitimacy of the MPC might be improved if it were accountable to Parliament? He takes the view that we currently have the worst of both worlds—a halfway house which is neither independent enough of the executive nor accountable enough to Parliament.
The Labour Party said that its objective with the MPC was that,
"Decision making on monetary policy is more effective, open, accountable and free from short-term manipulation".
But let us consider for a moment the method of selection of MPC members—to which I know my noble friend Lady O'Cathain will return in a moment in more detail—to see how well it fits with that aim. Currently, the Chancellor has the right to hire seven of the nine members. Does he also have the right to fire them? In a way he does because, as their term of office is for only three years, reappointment requires the Chancellor's support. We should remember that members of the Bundesbank serve for eight years, and of the Federal Reserve for 15 years. As the report says,

999
the members of the MPC are the only members of any central bank that serve a shorter term than the government of the country.
It is worth recalling that in his submission on the reform of this House my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern took the view that 15 years was an appropriate period of appointment to overcome the potential for political pressure and ensure true independence. But instead, as the Select Committee said,
"we have no knowledge of the field that was considered before the latest appointment was made, and we even have difficulty elucidating the procedure that was followed".
Then there is the related issue of the composition of the MPC mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. At the moment MPC members are renowned economists and experts in their field, but some would like to see a more representative group of people, perhaps including some with experience in manufacturing. The Select Committee raised exactly that concern over what it said was,
"the limited range of experience of the present MPC, both the academics and the Bank's members".
But whoever are the members of the MPC, a key point will always be the objectives they are set. In his now famous letter to the Bank Governor, Eddie George, the Chancellor outlined his objectives for the MPC. That letter has now achieved iconic status and is on display in a glass case in the Bank's museum. The Bank of England Act followed later. But is it not slightly baffling that if we look at the contents of the glass case and compare it with the Act, we find that the wording of the two documents is subtly different? That was referred to in the report.
Between 6th May 1997 and 1st June 1998 when the Bank of England Act came into force, a change was made. The Chancellor's letter says:
"The monetary policy objective of the Bank of England will be to deliver price stability (as defined by the Government's economic policy) and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment".
But when the objective was then formalised by the passage of the Bank of England Act, Section 11 of the Act read as follows:
"In relation to monetary policy, the objectives of the Bank of England shall be—

(a) to maintain price stability, and

(b) subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government, including its objectives for growth and employment".

So while the letter makes clear that the meaning of the term "price stability" will be defined by the Government, the Act is silent on who will do the defining.
That opens up two levels of potential difficulty. First, over the correct definition of price stability; secondly, over any possible conflict between the Bank's two objectives. As the CBI said in its submission to the Select Committee,
"it is not possible to achieve two targets with one instrument".
And as the report states,
"It is a matter of elementary logic that except in rather special cases the number of achievable targets is limited by the number of instruments".
1000
Perhaps we have seen some of these difficulties at work in the public disagreements among MPC members about, if your Lordships will allow me a corruption of Comrade Lenin, "who controls the research controls the facts, and who controls the facts controls the policy".
While we are looking at the words in detail, perhaps I can draw your Lordships' attention to another document. I remind your Lordships of the exact words of the Chancellor's letter. It says,
"The … policy objective of the Bank will be to deliver price stability … and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy".
The document I hold in my hand says,
"The primary objective of the Bank shall be to maintain price stability. Without prejudice to the objective of price stability it shall support the general economic policies of the Community".
The words are strikingly similar, but the document in my hand is the Maastricht Treaty dated 7th February 1992, which I seem to remember the Labour Party opposed.
My final point concerns the issue of co-ordination between monetary and fiscal policy. The Chancellor knows what he is planning to do from one day to the next, but to what extent is the MPC informed of this? The events of last summer led many to conclude that there is a lack of communication between the Government and the MPC. As paragraph 32 of the minutes of the MPC's meeting of July 1998 stated,
"The case for a reduction in rates became less clear in the light of the Government's recent announcements on fiscal strategy which raised new doubts about the medium term inflation outlook".
But how does the MPC know what the fiscal stance of the Government is? Do the members read the Prime Minister's speeches? Do they study the body language of the Treasury official who sits in on their meetings? If they read the Prime Minister's speeches, they would be reassured that the Government have no plans to increase tax at all. Yet, as we know, the Government are increasing tax. The tax burden is rising from 35.4 per cent to 37.6 per cent during the lifetime of this Parliament. According to the OECD today, taxes are rising faster here than anywhere else in Europe.
We all know that the Government's policy is to take full advantage of the present complicated tax structure and the astonishing plethora of tax credits, allowances, exemptions, reliefs, deductions, disregards and indexations, alteration of which allows such scope for hidden tax increases, which the Shadow Chancellor famously dubbed "stealth taxes". Is that not how the Government achieved the feat of increasing tax without ever announcing a tax increase?
As the minutes of the MPC's meeting in July last year clearly stated,
"The case for a reduction in rates became less clear in the light of the Government's recent announcements on fiscal strategy, which raised new doubts about the medium term inflation outlook".
It was precisely that practice of the Government which led the Treasury Select Committee in another place to ask the Government to display greater transparency in

1001
their tax policies. That was why the Director General of the CBI described,
"the corporation tax changes which were very carefully [portrayed] as a reduction in tax rates but were actually a tax increase, exploiting the fact that the number of people in the world who understood dividend tax credits is remarkably few, which allows the Chancellor to increase taxes whilst appearing to cut them".
The concern is that the Government have woven such a tangled web in their tax policies that the MPC itself might get caught up in it.
The decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee probably have a more direct effect on people's lives than those of any other body in the country. They affect everyone with a home loan, everyone with a credit card, every saver and every business in Britain. This superb report raises some fundamental issues, a few of which I touched on today, and I look forward greatly to noble Lords' contributions to this crucial debate.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to have participated in the work of the Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who so effectively introduced our debate on the report, and I listened with great interest to the searching questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi.
The role of the Bank of England in securing price stability has been a matter of interest to me personally for many years. Over the past decade I have asked a number of Questions on the subject. In particular, in an Unstarred Question on 16th December 1992 at col. 626 of Hansard, I asked Her Majesty's Government whether they considered,
"that additional responsibility should be given to the Bank of England to assist in securing long-term price stability".
I proposed then that a Select Committee should be set up to analyse past trends on prices and inflation, to review what was being done in other countries to contain inflation and to make recommendations. I regret to say that this was turned down by the then government, who took the view that, "We have the right policies and we have no plans to abandon our traditions".
I was therefore very pleased when the present Government decided shortly after the general election in May 1997 that the Bank of England should be given operational responsibility to deliver price stability, as defined by the Government's economic policy. This was subsequently formalised in the Bank of England Act 1998.
I believe that that period of over two years which has elapsed since then has justified the Government in giving the Bank operational independence in this matter. There is widespread agreement, endorsed by the Select Committee, that the Monetary Policy Committee has generally performed its task successfully. In recent weeks there has been some criticism, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that the committee has, perhaps, changed interest rates too frequently. It has done so more than a dozen times—indeed, well over a dozen times after
1002
today's increase—since it was established. In the same period, the Federal Reserve in the United States only made four changes, and the Bundesbank, followed by the European Central Bank, only made three changes. It may be that in the future the MPC will make less frequent changes in interest rates. However, having said that, there is no doubt that what it has done has kept inflation very much in line with the Government's policy of 2.5 per cent.
What is remarkable about the operations of the MPC is the unique degree of transparency which is practised. The publication of the minutes of meetings a fortnight after they are held is an exceptional achievement. Like many noble Lords, I have served on the boards of various companies. I cannot recall a single case where we have received the internal minutes within a fortnight, let alone had them published within a fortnight. So I think that this is exceptional. The transparency adopted by the MPC exceeds that practised by the ECB and the Federal Reserve.
I believe that the operations of the MPC so far, particularly the transparent way in which they are undertaken, has led to perhaps its biggest achievement, which is to reduce inflationary expectations. One of the major factors leading to the big increases in inflation in recent years was the expectation on the part of enterprises, trade unions and the general public that inflation would continue to rise at a high level. I personally suffered from this while I was chairman of the National Coal Board. We had to negotiate with the unions and, whatever we said, they denied it, and replied, "Inflation is going up at this rate and we have got to have at least that, plus". That was the framework within which we operated at the time. However, the situation is quite changed. Inflationary expectations are now very much in line with the Government's low inflation objective. This is undoubtedly something quite exceptional in our recent economic history.
Another aspect which impressed me during the course of the Select Committee's inquiry was the detailed analysis of economic and financial developments conducted by the MPC, both at national and regional level. In my opinion, this has meant that increasingly over the period the decisions the committee reached on the level of interest rates have been informed by a wide-ranging analysis of trends throughout the country, while also taking into account international developments.
In my view, the general conclusion is that the MPC represents a success story. However, we must bear in mind that this is being done at a time when low inflation has been achieved throughout the developed world. What is also uncertain is how this system would operate in the light of major external supply shocks. There was much discussion in the Select Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my other colleagues will recall, about this; for example, in paragraphs 1.43 and 6.12. I believe that the conclusion reached was that we could probably cope better with external shocks with the present system in operation than without it. That may be so. When we interviewed the governor of the Banque de France I specifically asked him if he

1003
thought we were now better equipped to deal with shocks, such as the oil crisis in the 1970s. He said that he thought,
"we would certainly have the right response".
That is how he felt about the matter. But, of course, we do not know. Time will tell—if and when we have the next major supply shock.
Another issue which took up much of our time was the relationship between monetary and fiscal policy. By its very nature, the fixing of interest rates has to be done on a national basis and cannot take account of regional variations. So the question was: could this be corrected by fiscal policy? Generally speaking, the Government's approach to fiscal policy is that it should set a long-term framework and, therefore, specific short-term interventions would be minimised. None the less, there could clearly be a need for such interventions when major sectoral or regional imbalances occur.
We had much discussion about the composition of the MPC and the respective roles of the external and internal members; indeed, both the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, referred to this. I was a little surprised to learn that the external Members were generally full time on the job, while the internal members, who had their Bank of England responsibility in addition, were therefore part time. This is a complete reversal of the position on the normal board of a company. As the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said, in recent days there is reported to have been lively discussion within the MPC about the facilities which should be made available to the external members. It would be of interest if the Minister, when responding, could let us know where matters stand in that regard. We raised the question of the selection of external members and thought that it ought to be more open than it is. No doubt this also will be mentioned by the Minister.
Finally, there was the question of the relationship with the ECB and the euro. During our visit to Frankfurt, when we spoke to the President of the ECB and his colleagues, it appeared that the procedures which they pursued were similar in many respects to those of the MPC. However, as I mentioned earlier, the degree of transparency was noticeably less, which the President of the ECB explained by stating that he did not consider it desirable that the position taken up by members at any one time should be revealed as this could inhibit subsequent changes of position. I do not believe that our experience has shown that that is necessarily so.
The issue of how, through monetary policy, we should prepare for eventual membership of the euro zone and how we might work towards a greater convergence was not pursued in the time available to the Select Committee. I believe that this could well form the subject of a future inquiry.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Londesborough: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing this report to the House. I am especially grateful for this opportunity to be one of the last ever hereditary Peers to make a maiden speech, just days after taking my seat—or, to put it another way, just days before losing my seat. I believe that, by tradition, one is granted a final wish before facing the firing squad. Mine is to speak on monetary policy before the trigger is pulled. It is actually a subject with which I am well acquainted, as I have spent the past 15 years building a publishing business where exports account for 90 per cent of sales.
I know that I speak for much of business when I say that our current monetary policy is severely restricting this country's ability to compete in the market-place both at home and overseas. We are losing our competitive edge just at the time when global competition is intensifying.
As we know, interest rates, which have gone up again today, remain much higher than in Europe and in America and show little sign of convergence. How much longer can UK business be expected to shoulder steeper borrowing costs than our competitors? But far worse, particularly for exporters, high interest rates have contributed to three years of increasing strength in sterling, both against the deutschmark and latterly the euro and, of course, the US dollar. For business sectors operating on margins of 10 per cent, an overpriced pound has virtually wiped out profits, forcing some to quit foreign markets altogether.
Where we compete against the Asians, the Latin Americans, the east Europeans, sterling has appreciated by as much as 50 per cent. Next time your Lordships pop into Marks and Spencer to purchase your wool-rich socks, might I suggest that you check the label first? I fear that it is more likely to state "Made in Slovakia" than "Made in Britain". Indeed we heard this week that M&S is now "disengaging" from a supply relationship with Daks Simpsons it can no longer afford and outsourcing offshore instead. The net result, I believe, is as many as 800 lost jobs.
I know that the MPC shares employers' concerns over how long one can finance an average wage rise of 5 per cent per annum when factory gate prices are falling and retail prices have barely risen by l per cent. With low unemployment, employers are being forced to offer higher wages to recruit effectively, adding further upward pressure on wages. You can only stretch company finances so far. If your Lordships believe that you are listening to the whinges of yet another businessman crying wolf, you need only to glance at our balance of payments figures to see how these micro-economic difficulties are impacting on the economy at large.
The trade deficit in goods for the first half of this year alone stands at an appalling £14 billion. Our exports of goods were 10 per cent. down on the first half of 1997, in spite of two years of relative economic growth. There has been a fragile recovery in exports in the past couple of months, but I know that I am not alone in believing that this is only a temporary

1005
phenomenon. With our new found appetite for cheaper imports, even the surplus in services is showing signs of peaking. The result is that our current account balance has dived into the red and we have seen £10 billion vanish from our foreign reserves over the past two years.
I am one of a small but, I believe, growing minority who believes that the forces of disinflation are gathering force. Many retailers can grow only by cutting prices in the current climate. With the advent of the Internet and electronic commerce, which brings with it greater price transparency, British goods and services are in danger of losing further market share. It takes only a couple of clicks on the Internet to make an instant price comparison, and in the case of Britain generally an unfavourable one.
Controlling inflation must always remain a priority, but what about the Treasury's key stated aim of "promoting enterprise"? Tax breaks and small business incentives are all very well but they do not begin to address the problem of a very uneven playing field. My question to the Minister is the following: could he inform this House how the Government intend to respond to this threat posed by greater international competition? Are exporters simply expected to adapt through miraculous productivity advances, or can we expect a more balanced macroeconomic environment?
I conclude by urging the MPC to take much greater account of the huge interest and exchange rate burdens currently borne by business and industry. If monetary policy does not address these factors, we shall continue to price ourselves out of the market and ultimately damage growth, investment and jobs. The global economy, I suggest, is changing and I respectfully suggest that inflation is no longer to be regarded as Public Enemy No. 1. I thank your Lordships for your indulgence.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord on an excellent maiden speech. In saying that I know that I speak for many noble Lords in the House. It is good to hear from the coal-face, as it were, what is really happening. There is one way to get interest rates down fairly quickly, but I know that the Front Bench opposite would not necessarily agree with that.
We are told that this is the noble Lord's first and last speech. Therefore I cannot say, as we usually do on these occasions, that we look forward to seeing the noble Lord often in the future. However, we can thank him sincerely for an excellent contribution to our debate. We have heard that he runs what I understand is a small business. He will understand why I very much believe that small is beautiful, both in business and elsewhere! We wish the noble Lord success in his business. That will not just be good for him but also for the country.
The report was clearly summarised by my noble friend Lord Peston, our excellent chairman, who referred to page 53 of the report which contains the
1006
summary of recommendations. I mention the page number just in case some readers have not yet got there. It is first my duty, I believe, to congratulate and support my noble friend Lord Peston in pressing that this Select Committee relating to the control and accountability of the Monetary Policy Committee should be a permanent committee of your Lordships' House. I hope that that proposal will be supported on all sides of the House.
I say with respect to the Treasury Committee in another place that it is, like the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, much more party political and therefore less objective. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, could not help making party political points. As the noble Lord is new to the job I hope that I may tell him that making party political speeches on every occasion—even on non-party political occasions—does not help the party he supports. I repeat that my noble friend Lord Peston called for a permanent committee. I agree with that because as much as I believe that the chairman of the Treasury Committee in another place, Giles Radice, is an excellent chairman—almost, if not quite, as good as ours—he finds it difficult to be objective. If one reads the reports of that committee, one finds that on every occasion vote after vote after vote is taken before a report is agreed. On the other hand, our reports are discussed in depth and in detail and are always agreed unanimously and are therefore more commonsensical—if I may put it that way—and thus more objective. I strongly hope that our Select Committee will operate on a more permanent basis.
I turn to the report itself. We all know the central objective; namely, the objective given to the Monetary Policy Committee to maintain, if it can, a 2.5 per cent level of inflation. I believe that there is some lack of clarity about what consideration the Monetary Policy Committee should give to the Government's economic policy. The Monetary Policy Committee of course considers every aspect of economic policy and every bit of data that is available, although I gather that four independent members of that committee do not receive quite as good data as the executive members. However, that is another matter that we can no doubt deal with later.
Of course one accepts the constant reiteration by both the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England that price stability is necessary for growth and employment to succeed and be sustained. However, there is confusion over the language used constantly and in many different areas about the price stability target and how far that supersedes the Government's own economic policy. I give a few examples. My noble friend Lord Peston referred to Section 11 of the Act and said that it was meaningless. He may be right. The words in that section were mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I refer to the words, "subject to that"; that is to say, subject to the price inflation target, the Monetary Policy Committee should consider the Government's own economic policy.
In paragraph 1.38 of our report we refer to the background notes of the Treasury in 1997. They state that the MPC should consider without prejudice the

1007
objective of price stability and that it should support economic policy. In paragraph 1.40 we quote the Governor of the Bank of England. He said that of course it was "continuously addressing" the problem of price stability and inflation. He went on to say that "through that" it supported growth and demand. The Governor told us that he prefers that particular formulation rather than the one in the Bill.
We are told in the new monetary policy framework document, which was issued recently, that
"price stability is not an end in itself".
That is fairly obvious. But we get many obvious statements in government documents, so we should not be too surprised about that. I notice that it even makes my noble friend who is to reply smile.
It may be meaningless to my noble friend Lord Peston, but the Bill must surely be the main legal instrument of the Monetary Policy Committee. Or is it? I am bound to ask the Minister that question. The Government refused to accept an amendment moved in Committee by myself and my noble friend Lord Peston which sought to delete the words "subject to that". I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has not yet looked at this matter. The amendment was not supported too strongly by the Opposition Front Bench at the time. I am not now asking the Government to clarify the situation in a new Bill—that would be asking far too much in the busy Session to which we can look forward—but I do ask them to take note of Section 12 of the Bank of England Act. It states:
"The Treasury may by notice in writing",
do a variety of things. I know the Minister is very persuasive. Perhaps he could persuade the Chancellor to consider writing a letter to clarify the situation in relation to price stability and the Government's economic policy.
The heart of the Bill concerns the transfer of monetary policy from the Chancellor to the Bank. In practice, while there is no longer a "Ken and Eddie Show", there is a "Gordon and Eddie Show"—but, as we know, that is held in private on a fairly regular basis. I am sure that they discuss all the various aspects of fiscal and monetary policy—including, almost certainly, the question of the exchange rate, to which the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, referred.
Perhaps I may say a brief word about that. No one—not even a body as distinguished as the Monetary Policy Committee or our distinguished committee—could decide the appropriate rate. What is the right rate? I have not heard anyone—especially these days—say what is precisely the right rate to help the businesses referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and others.
Given what we say in paragraph 7.22 of our report, and given that we might join EMU in the next few years, we shall have to consider what should be the right rate. That is obvious. If the Government were to say that it is not a matter of "if" we join the single
1008
currency but a matter of "when"—I mention that for the benefit of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington—
Lord Bruce of Donington: Hear! Hear!
Lord Barnett: —I believe we would see very quickly an impact on the exchange rate. We would start to see the lower interest rates and lower exchange rate referred to by the noble Lord. I hasten to add that that is not the view of the committee; that is my personal view.
Finally, I turn to the decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee on interest rates. We know that it increased them again by a quarter of 1 per cent today. Our chairman said that we do not second-guess the decisions being taken; however, we do consider how and why those decisions are taken. Have the decisions been right so far? Considerable comment has been made about that question—much of it contradictory.
I refer to an article in the Financial Times, which appeared as recently as 29th October. It referred to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. It was not clear in the leader whether it was referring to the views of the national institute or its own views. Let us take it that it was either. The leader started by saying that maybe the lowering and raising of rates was all a waste of time. Given that we are told that it takes two years for changes in interest rates to have an impact, it would seem that we should thank the former Chancellor, Ken Clarke, for some of the inflation levels we have today. I would hasten to do that.
But then we are told in the same leader that the Monetary Policy Committee has presided over the smoothest recovery since the 1960s. It goes on to say that perhaps it was luck as much as good management. Maybe it was luck; few people know how it has happened. However, we are then told at the end of the leader that the steep rise in rates was needed in 1997. I am sure members of the Monetary Policy Committee will be glad to know that they were not totally wasting their time on reducing or increasing interest rates. Were the decisions taken by the Monetary Policy Committee right? We have heard that the Financial Times or the national institute—or both—consider that the recovery has been smooth and that inflation has been around the target set by the Chancellor.
Eddie George was quoted in The Times "City Diary" as saying—and it is worth repeating what he is supposed to have said:
"I sometimes feel that the only people who really don't know what should happen to interest rates are the members of the Monetary Policy Committee".
The writer of that diary went on to say that he thought Eddie George was joking. I am not sure; perhaps he was not joking. It may be true that they do not know what they are doing. Certainly if one reads any set of minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee, one sees words such as "difficult to know what to do", "it is puzzling", "it is a puzzle". So one cannot help feeling that the decisions might have been made by sticking a finger in the air. Certainly the background to the way

1009
in which decisions are made is far from clear. Our committee should look to see whether there is a better way.
Again reading the Financial Times argument about the lack of research facilities for the four independent members, we should examine the way in which the members are chosen—not only the independent members but also the executive members. Are they chosen on a basis of hawks and doves and balance? Is that the way in which they are chosen? It would be interesting to know. I would like very much to know. Whatever happens, I certainly agree that the Chancellor should not intervene in any argument about facilities.
I hope that the argument put by the Deputy Governor— that it is all part of the mandate that the independent members do not get the additional services they need—will not prevail. The matter is far too important for that. I hope that we will not be told by the Minister that the reason for them not getting the extra facilities is lack of resources. That would be quite disgraceful; the issue is so important. If it is a part of the mandate—as we have been told it is—I hope that that mandate will be changed. That cannot require legislation.
I leave it at that. I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will find the report as good as we believe it to be and well worth considering.
4.39 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, on a truly excellent and most interesting maiden speech. I should also like to say what a pleasure it was to serve on the committee, not least because of the admirable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, chaired our proceedings.
The work of the committee was of the greatest interest to me personally, in particular because for 12 years I served as a director of the Bank of England. There is a great difference between the way monetary matters are dealt with today and how they were managed during my time at the Bank. I can clearly recall one of the three splendid Governors under whom I served gloomily remarking, "I am sorry to say that we are having some difficulty with the other end of town". Given the trying economic circumstances prevailing at the time, I more than suspect that the Governor's urbane remark was a euphemism to disguise a difference of opinion of heroic proportions. However, I believe that the new arrangement, and the independence given to the Bank to carry it out, is a real improvement on the old system. It is a great pity, and perhaps a criticism of previous administrations, that something of that kind was not introduced very much earlier.
However, one is also bound to remark how often fashions can change in economic management and how the key issue of the day never seems to be the same for very long. Indeed, former Chancellors are now Members of this House, some of whom in their day awaited the balance of payments figures with dread.
1010
Over some, the exchange rate continually brooded like a malign bird of prey about to strike, while others focused on a speedometer marked with not totally accurate money supply figures as they tried to control the vehicle of our nation's economy. Let us hope that this time we have finally got it right and in particular let us hope that the mechanism that has been put in place will prove sufficiently robust to withstand the external shocks which one day will inevitably test it.
In the time available it will not be possible to touch on many aspects of the report. I shall confine myself to one or two points. First, the well-aired problem that may be called the cobbler's or the shoemaker's dilemma; that is, the almost insoluble difficulty of finding one shoe to fit every size of foot. Even within an individual country, a single monetary policy may be excellent for one part of the economy but is almost certain to be difficult and unsatisfactory for other parts. For example, although there is debate and uncertainty among economists as to the precise relationship between interest rates, monetary policy and the exchange rate of a currency, it is certain that there is a link. Thus, British industry, and in particular exporters, argue that our interest rates today are higher than they should be simply because they make sterling disproportionately strong and they therefore cause considerable difficulty, not only for our manufacturing industry but also for agriculture.
Regardless of whether interest rates alone are the cause, the committee heard striking evidence from witnesses from, for example, British Steel that the current exchange rate was simply making the UK an unsuitable place for that kind of company, with a huge export position, to carry on manufacturing, even when, by the relative standards of the industry such as man hours and energy consumption per tonne, British Steel is extremely efficient in world-class terms.
Surely that is a worrying outcome when so important an industry as steel can barely export anything at all at a profit, as has been the case for prolonged periods in recent times, and when for external reasons over which the industry has absolutely no control, its massive and first-class capital investment produces hardly any economic return at all. The same considerations apply to other sectors of manufacturing industry in the UK.
However, at the same time there is no one in the service, financial or retail sectors who suggests that the exchange rate is at all troublesome. Sympathetic as any of us may be to the difficulties that monetary policy via the exchange rate may cause for basic industries like steel, I have almost as much sympathy for the other side of the question. A proposition that unfortunately all too frequently has been demonstrated in the past is that you do not generate real growth in national wealth by devaluation, whether it occurs by deliberate action or through other circumstances. If our goal is to have a high real wage, high added-value economy—and surely that should be a national aim—that cannot be built on the back of a depreciating currency.
In a sense, the existence of an exchange rate that is awkwardly strong challenges industry to change its course and move towards the more sophisticated

1011
products that define a high added-value economy, rather than continuing to produce the kind of commodity goods that sell strictly on price rather than value and are typical and more suitable for low-wage, developing economies.
To say this may not be at all helpful to those most affected, but my real sympathy for industries which complain about the exchange rate—I have to admit that I myself have done so often in the past—and which complain about interest rates and a monetary policy that is too tight for comfort has to be tempered by those other considerations.
Clearly, for an individual state like the UK it is difficult to set a single monetary policy to suit everyone, even when ironically the goal of that monetary policy is simply to achieve price stability and a proper and low rate of inflation, which is an objective beneficial to, and supported by, everyone in the industrial sector.
What of course follows from the difficulties posed by a single monetary policy for all the different groups in our little island is how much more difficult that same situation must be for a common monetary policy within Europe. For example, today, both in terms of growth and inflation rates, there are very considerable differences between Germany and Ireland.
When such differences widen to an unacceptable degree, then obviously one way in which countries can compensate for that situation is by their national flexibility in fiscal policy. But here is the rub, because quite central to the vision of some important European politicians today is fiscal convergence. If fiscal convergence is achieved to a real degree in Europe, then surely much of that flexibility will be removed and a common monetary policy will become distinctly more difficult to operate without causing considerable problems, many of which will be political in their consequences. I suggest that our Government bear that particular dilemma very much in mind.
Secondly, there appears to be—happily, I would add—absolute agreement that fiscal and monetary policy must march in step and complement each other. That is a commendable idea and it is evident that the Chancellor has rightly emphasised his commitment to that course.
I hope that noble Lords will not feel that I am being awkward or political or doubtful of the Chancellor's sincerity when I say that, from the point of view of industry, the evidence that that desirable partnership is actually working is a little thin. Surely if the exchange rate is causing difficulties for our manufacturers and if monetary policy is a strong factor driving the exchange rate, then it could reasonably be expected that fiscal policy and other policies that have economic and cost consequences for industry would be so designed as to have some compensating effect. But high fuel taxes, proposed energy taxes, expensive changes in pension costs, working time directives and the like are all pulling in precisely the wrong direction. As for the simile of marching in step—I was in the Royal Navy so I never
1012
had to march much and am no expert—is perhaps the right foot of monetary policy not coming down simultaneously with the left foot of fiscal policy? To the listener, that sounds like being in step, but it is not.
As for the current controversy, which is not very helpful to public confidence, regarding the resources made available to the independent members of the Monetary Policy Committee, someone picturesquely remarked to me the other day that it was as if some of the priests in an ancient heathen temple complained that after the animals were sacrificed they could not foretell the future because the other priests would not let them borrow the magnifying glass to have a proper squint at the entrails. I think that a matter like this should have been settled within the Bank of England and that we should not make too much of it.
Finally—here I confess to being just a little political—one thing that it seemed to me was fairly clearly demonstrated to your Lordships' committee was that changes in monetary policy take a couple of years or so to work through in full. Perhaps, therefore, while we can most certainly congratulate the Chancellor on giving independence to the Bank in the way he has done, he in turn might deploy his undoubted and well-known generosity of spirit by thanking his predecessors for bequeathing him for much of his time in office so balmy an economic climate in which to bask.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, one cannot enter your Lordships' House for the first time without being struck by the warmth of the welcome one receives not only from one's own side but from all sides of the House and indeed from the staff. That came as a surprise to me despite the fact that I have worked in the Houses of Parliament for a very long time. It was 1972 when I first started at the other end, working for the late Anthony Crosland MP as his political adviser. I finished only quite recently when I signed off as political editor of the Economist. In my time I have been up in the Galleries and for many arduous hours as a political journalist down in the Bars pursuing my trade. But I have never been in the Chamber before.
In recent years I have been plagued by something of a nightmare. It is that I am chatting away to so many people that I have known in one capacity or another down the years only for one of the larger attendants to materialise behind me, place his hand on my shoulder and march me off to some unnamed fate. So if in the course of my remarks today I cast the odd nervous glance over my shoulder, it is not that I fear that I am being stabbed in the back; it is that which I am remembering.
When the committee so ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Peston was first mooted, it is fair to say that the Treasury viewed it with a certain nervousness. The Treasury feared that it would double-guess the Monetary Policy Committee, which it was admirably well qualified to do. At least three of its members—my noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lords, Lord Burns and Lord Roll—had conducted monetary

1013
policy and they knew a thing or two about it. The Treasury was nervous about double-guessing. But the report before your Lordships' House today admirably dispels all those fears as the Treasury would certainly admit. It really is a most distinguished and lucid piece of economic analysis which will contribute to the debate for many years to come.
I had at first thought to devote my remarks to the subject matter of Chapter 3 and of the learned Appendix 3, which I am sure all your Lordships have mastered, on the relative merits of the retail prices index being measured by the arithmetic mean and by the geometric mean. Indeed, I thought to inject a suggestion of my own—that we should instead use the harmonic mean. However, my noble friend Lord Peston pointed out to me that that was the same as the geometric mean, and so I thought better of it. Instead I shall confine myself to two more general remarks.
The first is perhaps illustrated by the story, with which I am sure your Lordships are familiar, of the man who jumped off the top floor of the National Westminster Bank Tower. I believe his name was Wanless. As he passed the 12th floor at a rate of knots, he was heard to mutter, "Not very much seems to have happened yet". Something of that analogy applies to the work of the Monetary Policy Committee. I do not mean that its work has been easy—far from it. I did not envy the decision it had to make this morning when the indicators from asset prices, particularly in the south-east, seemed to require an increase in the rate of interest, whereas other indicators—perhaps the exchange rate and certainly the employment figures for the north of England—might indicate leaving the rate where it was or even cutting it. I do not say that the decision was easy. But that is as nothing compared with what the MPC will face when, as will inevitably happen—perhaps I may be permitted a bit of Balls here—the economy faces an exogenous shock.
The best example of that in recent years was the oil price hike of the early 1970s when the need to combat inflation suggested that the interest rate should be going up while the need to combat unemployment suggested that the rate should be going down. The authorities were completely flummoxed by that; the government, who I then advised, made a complete hash of it; and it took us some years to dig our way out of the hole and leave the golden legacy we left in 1979. We will only truly see the mettle of the new arrangements when such a shock comes along and the really tough decisions have to be made by the Monetary Policy Committee. So far, so good, but the real test is yet to come.
My second point concerns the euro. I am aware of the convention that a maiden speaker must say nothing controversial. In my case, on the subject of the euro, that is very easy because it is a subject on which I am a convinced "Don't know". What should be non-controversial is that it is inevitable that the euro will have an impact on the conduct of our domestic monetary policy. We will not be able clearly to separate the two. It is noticeable that the Treasury, when it produces its regular monthly monetary bulletins, now calls them euro zone. Certainly, the
1014
main focus of the material in them is on monetary conditions in all the European countries and not just those in our own.
It was a hint of things to come that the two committees should both meet today. They were daring to take their decisions before reading the deliberations of your Lordships' House. But the two committees met today and reached their decisions—both rates going up at the same time. That could be a harbinger of what is to come. I believe that developments in the euro suggest that that may happen rather more rapidly than we have hitherto thought. Perhaps I may give some examples. Among the "ins", the talk now is of cutting the period of dual running of national and euro currencies. Among the "nearly ins", Greece has now wrestled its budget deficit down below the 2 per cent of GDP that seems to make entry possible. It will be knocking at the door very soon. Norway is an "out", and a eurosceptical "out", but now it seems that both the Government of Norway and public opinion in Norway are moving increasingly in favour of entry. We see simultaneously a broadening and a deepening of the euro and its strength. Economists are always wary of trends—which have a nasty way of reversing themselves just when one thinks they are most clearly established. But the present tendency seems to be in that direction. That will have a tremendous impact on this country in terms of the conduct of monetary policy.
If we look ahead, say, five years, it is a moot point as to whether the Governor of the Bank of England would have a greater impact on monetary conditions here if he remained primus inter pares on the Monetary Policy Committee or if he were to become just one member among others on the monetary policy authorities in Europe. I do not know which way matters will go, and I do not say that that will happen. It is a moot point as to which position would give him the greater power over monetary policy.
Enough of gazing at the crystal ball. I feel comforted and am glad at the prospect of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Peston—even though he is prepared to give up the chair; and I am sure that that will be resisted strongly in the light of his first report—being re-formed for years to come to provide us with the kind of excellent report that is before the House today.
5 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it is a singular honour to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on a memorable, stimulating maiden speech. It was most impressive, made as it was without a single note and without hesitation or deviation. Although the noble Lord has only recently joined us, I am sure I am not alone in feeling that I have known him for a very long time through his writing as a serious journalist. He is a serious, challenging and informative journalist, and we have heard a serious, challenging and informative speech. On behalf of the whole House perhaps I may say that we welcome him and look forward to regular serious, challenging and informative contributions from him in the future.

1015
Like other noble Lords, I want to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his chairmanship of the Select Committee. It was a most interesting experience; indeed, it was wonderful to be a member. I hope, as other noble Lords have said, that the Select Committee will continue.
In my contribution, I intend to concentrate on Chapter 7 of the report; namely, the issue of the selection of members of the Monetary Policy Committee. Although the recommendations made in the report concentrate on the appointment of independent members, I want to refer to the overall composition of the Monetary Policy Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, touched on the subject, but I want to deal with it in greater depth.
Section 13 of the Bank of England Act 1998 stipulates that the membership of the Monetary Policy Committee is to consist of the Governor of the Bank of England; his two deputy governors—two members appointed by the Governor, both having executive responsibility within the Bank of England, one for monetary policy analysis and the other for monetary policy operations; plus four members appointed by the Chancellor—the "independent" members.
To offer a personal observation—one which, I confess, I did not make during our deliberations—I believe that, whereas the current membership of the Monetary Policy Committee works well (at least, so I thought until I read the comments in the press at the weekend), it could lead to problems.
When I put my name down for this debate, I did not realise how topical the issue of the structure of the MPC would be when it took place. I am somewhat bemused to see that there appear to be some tensions between the independent members and the members who have dual responsibility; namely, as members of the Monetary Policy Committee and also as full-time employees/executives of the Bank of England. I suppose with hindsight that is not surprising.
I find it "not surprising" because, based on my experience of working at board level in industry and commerce over many years, I know that being an executive or non-executive director of a company is not identical to being a member of the MPC; but the duties, responsibilities and issues addressed at board level do bear some similarity to those addressed by the Monetary Policy Committee each month.
The strategy to achieve the objectives of the body are constantly uppermost in the minds of the directors: the analysis of the external circumstances which have impinged, and are likely to impinge, on the strategy is discussed; documents from the company's economist, finance directorate and operations directorate to support the in-house view are produced and deliberated upon—not unlike what we were told in evidence is the general modus operandi of Monetary Policy Committee meetings. So far so good, but in my experience a board works best when the non-executive directors have a greater number of members on the board than the executive directors.
1016
That view is borne out by experience in the US, where all major corporations have a large majority of non-executive directors as members of the board. That may seem an irrelevant point, but I think not. Faced with a united phalanx of five "insiders", the four "outsiders" (that is, the independent members) could sometimes feel outnumbered, or even—dare I say?—intimidated.
I am sure that that is not necessarily the situation that pertains in the present Monetary Policy Committee. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that membership of all institutions (including, sadly, this House) can and does change fundamentally from time to time. Our report looked not only at the operation of the Monetary Policy Committee since its inception, but made specific recommendations in regard to its future operation. Perhaps that is an issue that should be addressed in the future. As a "kite flyer", should the Monetary Policy Committee have three members of the Bank and five independent members?
That leads me neatly to the specific issue that I want to address; namely, the selection of the independent members. Just to refresh the memories of all noble Lords who, I know, have spent the long, hot summer reading the report, perhaps I may reiterate the relevant recommendations and make some further comments on them.
First, our report states at paragraph 7.13 that,
"The existence of a vacancy should be known. People should be encouraged to apply on their own behalf, or should be able to write in recommendation [of] a candidate whom they fear the Treasury may have missed".
It goes on to state that,
"We are convinced that the Treasury can devise a more open method, enabling good candidates to put their names forward for consideration, and knowledgeable people to make suggestions".
Secrecy in making any appointment is bound to lead to accusations of "cronyism". Whether one likes it or not—and I personally loathe it—the press and other media seem to have a reflex action which activates the baying of that word any time a press notice giving information about another appointment to a review body, a health authority or any other quango is issued. As an aside, I heard on the radio just a few days ago that press notices are now issued by this Government at the rate of one every nine minutes. Fanned by the media, cynicism abounds. I do not believe that cronyism was involved in any of the appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee. But some are not as convinced as I am.
In order to avoid any smidgen of such cynicism, would it not be better to be much open about selection? This is supposed to be an "inclusive" Government. I think it would be to their advantage to avoid the charge of being exclusive in such appointments. And from the point of view of the members, it does not help establish the "independence" of the "independent" members if they are seen to have been appointed in what could be called a cloak and dagger manner.
There is an additional point: the current independent members do seem to be south-east Britain oriented. Is that a good idea? Of course, I recognise

1017
that appointing representational members is absolutely "not on", but I am sure that there is a raft of economists skilled in monetary matters living and working "north of The Wash" (extending the geographic area a few dozen miles north of Watford!). This is a serious point. On several occasions when taking evidence we were struck by the disparity of view concerning the impact of interest rates depending upon the sectoral and geographic base of the witnesses.
I am very aware that the Monetary Policy Committee members are assiduous in trying to obtain up-to-date economic intelligence from sectors and regions. That involves lots of travel, hours of external meetings and masses of data. But if someone on the Monetary Policy Committee had first-hand experience of that disparity between sectors and regions and was based in the regions, it could add in a significant way to the knowledge base on which decisions are taken.
Our second recommendation on the subject of the appointment of the independent members (at paragraph 7.14) states:
"Our view is [that] an appointment period of five years will be efficient enabling new ideas to be brought in regularly without infringing the need for independence".
There is always a difficulty in trying to balance experience and expertise. Sometimes, particularly the older one gets, one thinks that experience is not given the credit which is its due. Certainly, on our committee we gave huge credit to the experience of our most respected member, the nonagenarian noble Lord, Lord Roll. But many people would say that he is exceptional, the exception that proves the rule. Sadly, there are not too many Lord Rolls about the place now. However, even the most experienced noble Lord would agree that a constant infusion of new ideas and creative ways of looking at old problems is an essential ingredient in getting a good picture of the necessity for changes in interest rates—or indeed, no change in interest rates. One can become stale or even bored. The Monetary Policy Committee members are involved in exceedingly detailed analyses of a recurring nature. To go through a copy of the background data that we were given—some 300 charts and tables every month to peruse, analyse and decide upon—is really daunting. Indeed, as one who has done that—and I can see the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nodding in agreement—I know that economic analysis can be pretty turgid sometimes. Although they are all very dedicated people, there must come a time when they realise that a certain monotony pervades their study and would be willing to make way for new blood.
My noble friend Lord Saatchi drew attention to the fact that appointment to the Bundesbank is for a term of eight years and to the US Federal Reserve for 15 years. However, we decided that five years is probably the best length of appointment, both from the point of view of the Monetary Policy Committee as a whole, needing infusion of new blood, and indeed from the point of view of the individual members. Too long an involvement in the rarefied and constrained atmosphere of the Monetary Policy Committee could
1018
militate against them getting another position if they were not academics, or indeed even if they were. The experience gained while working as a member of the Monetary Policy Committee would always have a market value but such a value could reduce over a longer span than five years.
We made a third recommendation: that the renewal of appointments should be rare if not impossible and that appointments should continue to be staggered. This recommendation is both essential, particularly the one about continuing to be staggered, and common sense. Continuity is important and the introduction of new members should be planned in such a way as to ensure that there is never more than one member climbing up the learning curve at the same time. It was inevitable that, at the commencement of the work of the Monetary Policy Committee, each independent member was faced with the problem of how to become effective and efficient as soon as possible. To be as successful as they have been shows what they are made of. However, future appointments, particularly if they are made in the same covert manner, might not be as successful.
While we agreed that renewal should be rare if not impossible, in order to achieve the staggering of appointments, renewal might have to be undertaken in one or two cases. In such a situation, renewal could be made for a year or two at the most to provide a hand-over period to ensure that there would be minimum disruption to the work of the Monetary Policy Committee.
Our fourth recommendation on the issue of appointment derives from the concern that the independents can be full time, and I quote:
"we now accept that some full-time appointments must be made, but we would not care to see all the independent members being full-time".
This is a very difficult one. The very nature of the work of the Monetary Policy Committee would militate against the part-time employment of almost all economists working in industry or commerce. I truly cannot see anything but conflict of interest. It would put the independent part-time member in a most invidious situation. There would scarcely be any situation where a conflict would not arise. I specifically mention industry or commerce because it is from those areas of economic activity that it is so essential that the Monetary Policy Committee should have members with real-time, hands-on experience.
I know that our report suggests that the field of independent members would be:
"academics, employees of some charities and similar bodies'',
but on reflection, I think we are being a little naïve to continue with that. The report also states:
"and businesses, if there are any, where no possible conflict of interest could arise".
I do not believe that there are any. Perhaps this is yet another issue that needs to be addressed by continuing scrutiny of a new permanent Select Committee, the appointment of which is suggested in the preface to the report and which I endorse.
5.13 pm
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I rise with trepidation. There are two reasons for that and both are connected with the fact that I am a practising barrister in my day job. If noble Lords detect some poignancy in the use of the word "day" (having regard to the hours your Lordships have been keeping since I had the privilege of joining this House) you would be right.
The first reason for trepidation is that it might be thought that, as a professional advocate, I would experience no nervousness at standing to speak before your Lordships. That would be wrong. There are many similarities between what I do and your Lordships' proceedings, but there are significant differences. Perhaps the most significant is that I do not rise to argue someone else's case; I do not rise to say on instructions what the answer should be, but to try to express my own opinion. That opportunity is something of a novelty for someone who is normally a paid mouthpiece for others. I hope that it is one that I shall not abuse.
I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Lipsey in thanking so many Members of your Lordships' House for the kindness, welcome, warmth and help that I too have experienced since becoming a Member of your Lordships' House. People said that I would find the House welcoming. I think you have to experience it to realise how true that is. I am so touched, as he is, by the fact that that warmth and friendship is not simply from those on these Benches but from all quarters of the House and, having regard to present events and uncertainties, from all Members of your Lordships' House whatever the route by which they have reached this House, if I can put it that way.
I thank also the officers, staff and attendants for the help they have given me in trying to find my way around. I cannot say that I have yet succeeded, but at least I am beginning to know which parts I do not yet know my way around, if you follow my meaning.
My second reason for trepidation is that I rise on a debate among so many distinguished experts, including economists and others who understand the subject. I come at this as a layman. I hope that it is of some comfort to my noble friend Lord Peston and to those who served with him on the committee that, as a layman, I found the report, to which I would, if it is not presumptuous, pay tribute, readable, interesting and clear. It told me much about the workings of the Monetary Policy Committee and the difficulties, for example, in relation to exchange rate targeting.
In one sense, no apology is needed for daring to speak on this subject before your Lordships because, although the matters covered in the report are technical in many areas, the subject on which they touch is absolutely critical and of the greatest importance to all people in this country. When, days after the election, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the decision to give operational independence to the Bank of England on monetary policy, like many others I felt that it was a bold, decisive and right step. It is encouraging to see that the experts on your Lordships' committee endorse that decision.
1020
The report reminds us that, in the 1970s, inflation ran as high as 27 per cent at some points. That strikes home with me because that was when I was starting off in a career and starting a family, and the difficulties of considering how to plan a future against bust and boom and great uncertainty were considerable. I very much hope that my children, who are beginning to approach the same stage, will be able to make their decisions against a background of stable growth and high employment, which the Chancellor has identified as consequences of the present monetary policy.
The point on which I want to focus and on which perhaps I may have a little to contribute has already been touched on briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and in rather more detail by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. It is the question of the appointment of the independent members of the Monetary Policy Committee. The report is convincing on the undoubted quality and distinction of the present members of the committee. It must also be right, indeed the statute so provides, that the appointments must be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and nothing that I say is intended to undermine those propositions.
There are two points that I want to make and I draw a little on my experience of the law in the context of the appointment of judges, a matter which is controversial and on which I do not intend to embark this afternoon. However, there are some parallels which can be perhaps drawn. One is in relation to the openness of the appointment procedures. The report shows—it was very much part of the Government's policy—that this new development should be open and accountable. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill which became the Bank of England Act, my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey emphasised that point. It would be a great shame if the strong statements which have justifiably been made about accountability and transparency were undermined simply by a lack of understanding of how the appointment process works. I note that at paragraph 7.13 the report, although not in any way doubting the quality of recent appointments, expresses some concern that the appointment process was not understood.
In the evidence, certain of the witnesses, including the noble Lord, Lord Desai, questioned whether advertisements might be used. The same issue arose in the law. In 1995, when I had the privilege of being one of the officers of the Bar, we had to consider, and make recommendations on, the appointment of judges. We found ourselves, a little to our surprise, recommending that even High Court judge appointments should be advertised. We took the view that that did not demean the office; that it was not incompatible with approaching individuals who were known to the Lord Chancellor; and that it certainly did not in any way mean that the noble and learned Lord was not the right person to make the appointment. However, it did mean that the constituency of potential appointees could be wider. It seemed to us that there could be

1021
surprises in that people who might have been thought not to be willing to serve might actually put their names forward.
I come to the second question, on which some time has already been spent, of full-time as against part-time appointments. I note that the committee was surprised at the start of its investigation to discover that some of the independent members were full time. I respectfully suggest that that might have seemed, at the time of the passage of the Bill, to be an improbable result. However, as the report shows, some of the independent members are full time although the Bank of England's own members are part time. In a sense, the "away team" has in some ways become more at home than the "home team".
There is no doubt that considerable time must be spent on the work of the committee and any suggestion that it is a job that can be done by turning up once every three months and giving a bird's eye view of the economy is plainly wrong; but the fact that certain members of the committee are able to fulfil their responsibilities part time indicates that being full time may not be an inevitability.
If I have understood the position, and particularly the evidence of the deputy governor, Mr Mervyn King, at questions 305 to 307, the question that arises is whether measures to avoid conflicts of interest restrict choice. It appears that only an academic post is considered to be compatible with membership of the committee. As the report says, in effect, an external member must either be an academic or a retired person or, if from a business background, must resign and sever his links with his former environment. I am in no position to judge whether others with different skills are right to be appointed to the committee, but I am concerned about whether that apparent rigidity limits the choice available to the Chancellor.
I entirely recognise the commercial sensitivities of such appointments, to which reference has already been made. However, I note that the Gouverneur of the Banque de France, in giving his evidence at question 1391, identified as members of what had been his expert team, chief executive officers in the insurance and banking industries, as well as of small and medium-sized businesses. I wonder what procedures are in place there to avoid the same questions arising.
There may be such procedures. I refer, for example, to the full disclosure of interest which, in the case of agents or judges, may deal with what would otherwise be conflicts of interest. So too, "Chinese walls" can sometimes operate well. One must consider the circumstances, but they are well used by financial institutions in the City of London. Their effectiveness is recognised in the core conduct of business rules, published by the Financial Services Authority. As the Law Commission stated in its 1992 consultation paper on fiduciary duties and regularity rules, they require effective and detailed organisational arrangements, but they can sometimes work. Indeed, your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity in January of this year in Bolkiah v. KPMG held that in principle Chinese walls might even operate in litigation. I am not saying that
1022
I would for a moment know whether such procedures could operate, but the improbable result which your Lordships' committee found might be the result of believing that it is impossible to have such procedures.
In his book The Sign of the Four, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle describes Sherlock Holmes telling Dr Watson, with some exasperation,
"How often have I said to you that, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
In fiction, the author can fix the facts incontestably. That which he wants to be impossible can be impossible. In real life, when something leads to an improbable result, perhaps that leads one to go back and question whether that which was impossible really is impossible in all circumstances. So that the Government have the greatest choice of candidates in the future, I venture to suggest that this is a question that Ministers might revisit.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Burns: My Lords, my first task is a very pleasant one. It is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on a maiden speech of great clarity and insight. I think that I speak on behalf of all noble Lords when I say that we very much enjoyed his transition from paid hack to independent thinker and that we all look forward a great deal to hearing more example of his independent thinking and to having the benefit of his insights on a range of issues. I shall return a little later to some of the points that he mentioned, with which I very largely agree.
It has been a great pleasure to participate in the committee and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for bringing the committee to such a wide measure of agreement. When we started, it looked highly unlikely that we would come to the degree of agreement that we had reached by the end, and it is fair to say that we all learned from each other as we went along. I regard that as being a very important part of serving on such a committee.
I find it useful to separate into two groups the issues that we covered. The first relates to the economics of monetary policy, and the second to the institutional arrangements for delivering that policy. There is now a fairly wide measure of agreement on the economics. In particular, it is generally accepted that the main purpose of monetary policy is to deliver low and stable inflation. Of course, that does not mean that everything is plain sailing. If inflation goes above target for whatever reason—whether world prices or forecasting errors—at some stage there will be difficult issues to address relating to how quickly to bring inflation back to the targets. There are still some very serious analytical issues with which policy-makers will have to deal when there are conflicts of objectives, including the behaviour of unemployment and, as we have heard today, the exchange rate.
Overlaying all of the economic arguments is the ongoing judgment about the trend growth of the economy. Some people still argue that by giving growth a chance, we improve the chance of increasing

1023
the underlying growth rate. Others, as we know, argue that we may now have a new paradigm of global competition and pressure on prices, which is removing some of the difficult choices which were faced previously.
So, there is still plenty to argue about. I do not think that the economics profession is finished on the subject of monetary policy, and I very much doubt whether what we now seem to accept as a general agreement about many of these issues will remain for ever. For the moment, however, there seems to be a fairly broad level of agreement.
There is now also fairly widespread agreement about the institutional arrangements for delivering the economics. The report is very much directed towards the second group of issues, and that is where I should like to focus my remarks.
The report argues that the new arrangements have worked well, and it is right that the successes should be acknowledged. Inflation has been close to the target throughout the period; unemployment has continued to decline to levels not seen for many years; in particular, long-term interest rates and inflationary expectations are very much closer to the target than before. Those are the real achievements of the new system. Speaking from the viewpoint of a traditionally cautious civil servant, there are dangers in making excessive claims about the system. It is still early days. It is difficult to separate out how much of the success is due to the MPC arrangements, how much is due to the earlier framework of inflation targets and the published minutes on inflation—we came to describe them as "The Ken and Eddie Show"—and how much is due simply to favourable world conditions.
I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in his excellent maiden speech, that the real challenge will arise when world inflation picks up. From that point of view we have been going through a remarkably benign period. I do not make these points to belittle the achievements of the new arrangements, but experience suggests that if the contribution of any innovation is over-estimated it leads to greater disappointment when the innovation comes up against tougher circumstances. We can be in no doubt that this regime will face tougher circumstances.
In the same light, we should also look at the committee's recommendations that seek to point out weaknesses in the new arrangements in a number of areas. This is not a matter of questioning the basic idea of independent monetary policy, but trying to ensure that it is more likely to continue to be successful. I should like to raise a number of issues on which the committee touched. First, as to the inflation target, I am broadly happy with the formulation of the objectives of the MPC. The inflation target regime was introduced at the end of 1992. The new arrangements have moved us to a symmetric target which is a distinct improvement, but I caution that we should not go overboard on the success of the inflation targets.
The reason why explicit inflation targets were not adopted earlier was not because no one had thought of them but that when they were looked at they gave rise
1024
to a number of serious concerns, the most important of which was the time lags in the system. When one has very long time lags and it is difficult to predict inflation there is concern about whether, to put a lot of eggs into the basket of inflation targets, will lead one into difficulty at some stage. Over the past seven years inflation has been within a remarkably narrow band. I shall be extremely surprised if it continues to remain in that band. We must get used to disappointments in this area. I worry that people have concluded that somehow, after all the troubles of the past 25 to 30 years, the control of inflation is now very straightforward.
The committee had a lot of fun over the drafting of Section 11 of the Act and the requirement to support the Government's economic policy. The meaning of the words,
"subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government",
came under a good deal of scrutiny. It became clear to some of us that the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, had been engaged in this at an early stage. On one or two occasions I began to wonder whether they were seeking to turn the meaning of the Act into what they wanted in the first place. However, I am sure that that is an ignoble thought. The more I consider the words the more I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that they have considerably less practical significance than appears to be the case. I am content with the general conclusion that inflation should be the overriding factor here.
The committee also spent some time discussing the whole question of the co-ordination of fiscal and monetary policy. At various stages in my past career I have argued that one of the reasons for leaving monetary policy with the Chancellor is that it enables him to look at the subject of fiscal and monetary policy together. A number of questions were raised as to whether the new arrangements would cause difficulty in that area. As we heard more and more evidence and were taken through the process—for example, that fiscal policy was basically an annual process, that monetary policy was an ongoing process and what mattered was that each of the participants had a clear view of what the other was doing when making decisions—the conclusion at which I arrived was that, if the information was available to the policymakers, there should not be a problem on that front. If people want to disagree with a policy choice that is one matter, but I am not sure we received any evidence that the wrong policy had been chosen because the incorrect information was available.
However, when we come to the question of the appointment of members of the MPC I have more concern. I share some of the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain. I strongly support the principle that members should have,
"knowledge or experience which is likely to be relevant to the Committee's functions".
However, I would be concerned if that was interpreted as meaning that only university professors, or potential university professors, should apply. Many of us who have been involved in economics for a long

1025
time know that although knowledge or experience of monetary policy is important it should not be restricted to that. There are other categories of knowledge and experience that can also be helpful in this area and should not be under-estimated.
I also support the committee's recommendation that appointments should be made in a more open fashion. At a minimum we should encourage people who believe that they have the qualifications to put themselves forward for consideration. The process of trawling through "the usual suspects"—of which I have had considerable experience—can easily become blinkered and give the unfortunate impression that choices are made from a very narrow circle. I strongly support the recommendation that external appointments should be for five years and normally not renewable. Often, political influence arises much more through the process of re-appointment than initial appointment.
The response of the Government is that there is no reason why well-performing members should not be re-appointed, but how is that to be judged? I believe that the present three-year term sits very unhappily with a process where it is accepted that the time lags mean that changes in interest rates take two years to have their full effect. Therefore, we shall be judging people's performance on very little data. We know their voting records but do not know the quality of the arguments advanced because that part of it is anonymous. I believe that that is a recipe for suspicion, grievance and the appearance of passing judgment when it is impossible to do that fairly. I strongly believe that if we want members to be independent and avoid the threat of an implicit judgment on their performance we should have the courage to give them sensible terms of appointment and rotate membership.
The report was particularly forward-looking in pointing to the paradox that
"the only full-time members of the MPC are the outsiders".
That seems to lead to some stress, as several noble Lords have said today. We have all read about the supposed arguments that take place within the bank about how far the independent members should have separate access to bank resources. I do not know the details. No doubt with a certain amount of good will a solution can be found. However, we must ask whether there is here a basic flaw. The committee expressed concern that three of the four outside members worked full time in the bank. Why that has arisen is understandable. They are restricted in their other activities if they are to avoid the possibility of conflict of interest, and the frequency of meetings makes it difficult for people to have university jobs outside London. Yet it is evident that to be a. member of the MPC is unlikely to be a full-time job.
I made reference to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and asked how it was possible for him to do a job in two or three days a week which took other people five days a week. To that there is no answer. One asks: how do they fill the rest of their time? Research is one approach but that needs support. That is where the problem appears to arise. Furthermore, the idea of a

1026
group of independent members tucked away together in a bank with an independent research base taking five days to do a two or three-day job does not appear to be the basis for harmonious committee work in the longer term. I suggest that if members are to be truly independent and bring fresh thinking to the deliberations they should have their main base away from the bank, and preferably they should be separate from each other.
One possibility is other suitable part-time appointments within the public sector. Another is the base and research institutes or university departments with their own budgets for research assistants. The intellectual stimulation would then be taken away from the bank and we would avoid the feeling, which is clearly beginning to drift in, that somehow they are full-time and part of the bank, but, when it comes to resources poor relations compared with the executive members.
My final point relates to the conduct of the meetings. I return to a point I made previously, but, unfortunately, I was unable to persuade the committee. It relates to attribution in the minutes. I fully accept that as regards the interchanges during much of the meetings it would be counterproductive to identify who said what. I can see the argument that what matters is the emerging consensus. However, it is curious that when it comes to the summing-up we do not know why individuals were persuaded to move in one direction or another. The independent members appear to have no reservations about talking to the press or giving lectures setting out a framework of their views, but, when it comes to the meeting, all of a sudden they become extraordinarily coy about who said what. Indeed, after tracing some of the speeches one can identify certain speakers with certain paragraphs. Therefore, I hope that in the interests of transparency we shall see some progress on that aspect.
I believe that the new arrangements have settled in well. The committee has been able to point to a number of areas. I hope that your Lordships' House will play an on-going role in monitoring the performance of the committee and will continue to be able to make suggestions.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Woolmer: My Lords, I stand before you to speak for the first time and have three causes for trepidation and one cause for a strong sense of déjà vu. Trepidation because I speak to an outstanding report. Trepidation because I follow three excellent maiden speeches. Trepidation because as a former director of Leeds United, I have to tell your Lordships that the team kicks off in Moscow at six o'clock tonight and, unusually, I shall not be there to watch the game.
I have a sense of déjà vu because 20 years ago the Treasury Select Committee was established in another place and I had the honour to be a founding member. I remember well the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to those debates and I am delighted to see him on the Benches opposite tonight.

1027
Two of the advisers to that Select Committee were Dr Alan Budd and Professor Willem Buiter. He was then called William, but I notice that he is now called Willem. I must ask him when the change took place. Perhaps it was in order to become a member of the committee. Your Lordships will not be surprised to know that the Select Committee, in one of its first investigations, considered monetary control and monetary policy. That is only 20 years ago. Your Lordships might forgive my sense of déjà vu.
While I began life as an economist, in later life I have become more acquainted with business and management. I have the privilege of being the Dean of the Business School at the University of Leeds. As a result, I well understand the concern of those in industry of the impact of monetary policy on their sector. A number of witnesses alluded to the impact of monetary policy differentially upon industry and upon regions. However, if the implication is that monetary policy should be looser and inflation should be higher, I cannot agree. Adding 2, 3 or however many per cent to the inflation rate would not improve the performance of the manufacturing industry; nor would it improve the performance of individual regions with individual problems.
If anything, low and stable inflation enables us to see what the real position is. It enables us to cost the magnitude of doing something about these problems. Casual thinking about inflation is not a substitute for clear analysis and debate about the cause of real differentials in industrial or regional performance.
However, as regards the exchange rate, I sensed less clarity and agreement within your Lordships' committee than in other parts of the report. At one stage, the committee advised us that it is important not to exaggerate the problem of the value of the pound, reminding us that the pound sterling against the deutschmark is still below its level 10 years ago. At other times, it told us that even economists have no idea what determines the exchange rate and that with free markets the exchange rate is always right. Indeed, it advised us that, in any case, the authorities are not able to control the exchange rate. Yet I felt that it had chided the Monetary Policy Committee a little on not taking the exchange rate seriously enough. In the light of the advice of the committee, perhaps it is sensible not to try to do anything about the exchange rate, at least until we move, if at all, towards entry to the European common currency.
Conan Doyle has already been quoted tonight and I felt that at times there was in the report the dog that did not bark. Often, the question is whether the Monetary Policy Committee or anyone else can do a great deal about the exchange rate or even about interest rates. We live in an increasingly interdependent world. We all know that; it is common place to say it. In economic terms, we live extremely close to the European Union and my noble friend Lord Lipsey made some telling points in that regard. Also in economic and capital market terms, we live extremely closely to the United States. The degree of independence of the world economy, and our
1028
connections with Europe, calls into question the extent to which the monetary authorities, certainly in this country, are truly able to exercise much independence in monetary policy not only in relation to the exchange rate but also in relation to interest rates.
The committee explored the benefits of low and predictable inflation. I share the view with most, if not all, in this House that those benefits are considerable indeed. It makes transparent and readily understandable the real costs and benefits of our choices and decisions in the present and over time. But given the importance of confidence and expectations regarding the rate of inflation and of its stability, I should like to see that explored more by the committee, perhaps in its future deliberations.
The frequently voiced concern about allegedly low annuity rates indicates that there remain at least some people in society who do not really believe that the rate of inflation will stay at 2.5 per cent or below. Wage negotiators must still go into talks having to aim at a nominal rate of wage increase, about double that of productivity, in order to ensure that inflation does not erode the otherwise gain they would receive from their increased productivity.
Therefore, inflation and expectations about inflation have not gone away. Perhaps they are only dozing and waiting for other events to happen. How do expectations and confidence regarding the rate of inflation in this country compare with those in other EU countries? How do our wage negotiators and our companies, in their wage negotiations, really see their expectations and how does that compare to elsewhere? How does that impact upon decisions in wage and product markets?
The committee asked the House to consider whether it might be helpful for the committee to be made permanent. For my part, I found its report helpful and a solid basis for taking forward consideration of these matters in future. I hope that the House in due course will feel able to support that suggestion.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Poole: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, on his excellent first contribution to your Lordships' House. I must say that I particularly agreed with his observations, for example, on exchange rate matters. I am sure that with his long experience of local government, the other place, and, indeed, football, he will bring great wisdom and insight to our deliberations in the years to come. We welcome him.
It was a great privilege to serve on the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. It was really splendid from time to time to be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Roll, from whom I certainly learned a great deal, as I believe did my colleagues.
As your Lordships are aware, in our report we concluded that the MPC has played its hand fairly well. However, the truth—as has been remarked upon by a number of previous speakers—is that we do not really know as yet how robust these arrangements will

1029
be, because the system has not been in existence for long enough to be subjected to a sufficiently serious test, with inflation diverging significantly from its targets, really to prove itself.
As the bank says, and others have noted, the lag between monetary policy action and its full effects can easily be two years. In that case it is indeed true that, for the majority of its existence, the apparent success of the MPC in getting inflation down close to its target can, in my view, be more properly attributed to decisions taken by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke when he was Chancellor, than to anything done by the MPC itself.
It pays to look at the numbers. Of the 29 countries in the OECD, only five have an inflation rate over 3 per cent: Mexico, Iceland, Poland, Turkey and Hungary. If those countries are taken out, the OECD average is in fact 2.2 per cent, which is virtually identical to our own rate of inflation as measured by the RPIX, of 2.1 per cent. In other words, one could, if one was being unkind, say that all that has happened is that we have shared in the general international phenomenon of low and comparatively stable inflation rates, and therefore one could reasonably ask whether the MPC has actually achieved anything at all.
Our report states that a 2.5 per cent inflation target is appropriate at the current time. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, will know that I agree with that statement. None the less, it raises some difficult issues, about which, frankly, the Government must be much more honest. The Government repeatedly say that this inflation regime amounts to the maintenance of "price stability", an expression which even appears in the Government's response to our report. In effect, the Chancellor has set the MPC a task not to ensure price stability, but rather, to keep prices rising at not more than 2½ per cent per annum.
If that is price stability, then, like the president of the ECB and one member of the MPC, I am a Dutchman. Over 20 years, inflation of 2½ per cent per annum produces a cumulative increase in price level of 64 per cent. At that rate, the price level will double in about 28 years. I happen to live in Clapham, and from my omnibus—the 137—that hardly looks like price stability. It is just more stable than it used to be.
It seems to me that there are two possible explanations, but only one of them amounts to a reasonable one. One explanation is that the official RPI measure overstates inflation, so that 2.5 per cent is somehow really a number much closer to 1 per cent. In that case, if one is aiming for price stability, accurately measured, then one does indeed need to aim for some small positive inflation number. However, next to no one believes that the RPI overstates inflation by as much as 2½ per cent per annum.
Therefore there is, in my view, a second explanation, which implies that there are good—although perhaps not necessarily compelling—arguments why the authorities should in fact aim for a positive rate of inflation even when it is properly measured. That is of course most easily expressed by the idea that "a little bit of inflation does you good".
1030
As we took evidence, I came to believe that that indeed is the argument implicitly accepted by the Government. In other words, while they talk continually about price stability, the Government are deliberately aiming for inflation, albeit at a low rate. I understand that argument, and I accept that it is probably right at the moment, but somehow it does not sound satisfactory and I have a feeling that there is unfinished business here. At the very least, it is unsatisfactory continually to refer to this regime as one which maintains price stability, because that is grossly misleading. In the end, such misleading use of language can only undermine public confidence.
I believe that that goes to the heart of the matter. It was clear to most, or probably all, of us on the committee, that the old academic certainties which believed that there was a strong causal link between changes in interest rate levels and inflation have now been shown to be, frankly, less than certain. Although the MPC goes to huge lengths to analyse the economic runes, I, at least, am unpersuaded that anything approaching science is really at work. Until the MPC has safely guided us through some unexpected major economic shock without inflation running away, I personally shall believe that its work is more about the psychology of market management than the appliance of science.
If inflationary expectations have been reduced—and they certainly have—it is because interest rate decisions have been taken out of the political arena. That is the MPC's success, and, if I may say so, this Government's. It is now generally believed that inflation is being tackled, with the effect that it indeed is being tackled, with long term inflationary expectations now falling.
If I am right that credibility is at the heart of the matter, the row which has broken out between the independent members of the MPC and senior bank officials over access to the bank's research resources is, in my view, far more dangerous than it looks. All the fuss in the press is a quite unnecessary shame, particularly if it is fed principally by the independent members, as I suspect that it may be. They have done all of us, and the Government, a disservice.
Let us face it: the row is about the current annual budgeting process within the bank. It is about resource allocation. As a matter of fact, the Act clearly states that it is a matter for the court, not the Governor, or the MPC, to decide. This is an internal issue which has been blown up in a way that may undermine the very thing which is making the MPC so successful: the credibility based on its collegiality.
In passing, one cannot help but observe that when the MPC was established, incidentally, the exact status and role of these independent members was unclear. I am led to understand that the Chancellor envisaged that they would indeed, as some have said that they should, retain full-time positions outside the bank—that is, to continue to be real people. In the event, only one, Professor Charles Goodhart, has done that. In practice, the other three have become full-time

1031
members. The irony pointed out by many is that those members are more full time than the bank staff on the committee who have other valuable things to do.
As regards the independent members, it would therefore be a very real shame if, by banging about so publicly, those inside-outsiders were to undermine the very thing that makes the MPC a success. The MPC's role is too valuable to have it frittered away by pointless public wrangling.
I started by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, to this House. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that this is in all probability the last time that I shall have the privilege of speaking here. This afternoon some maiden speakers have said how kind people have been to them as they start here. I, too, should like to say thank you to all my friends and colleagues on all sides.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, it is a mark of interest in this report that it should have attracted no fewer than four distinguished maiden speeches. If it has also attracted the last speech from my noble friend Lord Poole, I for one shall be extremely sorry.
In particular, I take the opportunity to welcome my former colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to the House. I realise that if I were to refer to him as my noble friend, I should cause him some embarrassment. But because he is my friend, I should like to say how much I welcome him and how much, I know, he will add to this House's debates.
The timing of this debate has been made most apposite by the revelation that certain systemic tensions exist between members of the Monetary Policy Committee. Therefore, while I commend this excellent committee and, in particular, its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on its work, I focus my reflections on its recommendations regarding the role of the independent members of the MPC.
Clearly, it has been desirable that independence should have been accompanied by an infusion of excellent independent economic talent into the Bank of England. However, I suspect that the form which the MPC takes may have to evolve; that we have, as with this House, a transitional MPC.
The issue that has burst its way into the public print—if one can so disrespectfully describe the Financial Times—is whether the independent members have sufficient rights to command resources within the Bank, and thus to arm themselves with research. Clearly, some independent members feel that they do not.
The answer that seems to please almost everyone is that the Bank should hire some more economists to support the independent members. The Governor of the Bank has been much criticised for not acting to satisfy them much earlier, rather than leave it to the Court of the Bank—which in truth has been left without much of a role to play in the new world—to see fair play. Hum! I believe that some of the criticism
1032
of the Governor is highly misplaced and that the weakness lies in the design of the MPC with which he was presented.
It is all too easy to throw money at the problem, but I believe that the Court should pause for thought. Of course, it is important that the outside members should feel able to challenge the insiders. But from their voting patterns I can see little evidence that they did not. Of course, the longer they stay on the job and away from other jobs from which they may be debarred, the more they can be expected to run down their outside expertise and to need recharging, like batteries. However, the more the independent members are embedded into the comfort of the Bank with their own research staffs, the more they come to look like "insiders" rather than "outsiders". In an entertaining letter to the Financial Times this week, Peter Oppenheimer warns them against allowing themselves to become a kind of monetary equivalent of the House of Lords. Therefore, I warmly support the recommendation of the Select Committee that appointments should be for no more than five years and non-renewable. I also support the committee's view that the process of appointment should be opened up.
The fundamental problem is that the independent members have a mongrel role; they are cross-bred out of two different ideas of, on the one hand, the non-executive director and, on the other hand, the outside appointment to an executive team. If they are non-executives, it is not clear to me that they require executive back-up. Rather, it might be better to follow corporate governance practice in the private sector—and here I agree with my noble friend Lady O'Cathain—and ensure that they have sufficient weight, not because they lead executive baronies but because they are in a majority on the MPC.
Full-time appointments should be avoided, as they could be—here I beg to differ with my noble friend—if the Bank and Treasury were less anxious about conflicts of interest. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that we are possibly too precious about this.
If, on the other hand, the independent members are in effect full-time executives, the distinction between outsiders and insiders disappears. I note in passing, and with absolutely no disrespect to those concerned, that the outside membership of the MPC would not pass the PIRC test of independence for non-executive directors. However, if they are intended to be insiders, it is then far from clear to me why we need so large an MPC.
Does any organisation work well when nine different executive teams are charged with the same responsibility? I wonder whether the public would not at some future date come to ask whether it was necessary to maintain a whole series of academic baronies in the Bank in order to arrive at a decision whether to move interest rates by, it is hoped, only a quarter or a half percentage point at a time.
It could be argued that economists are such peculiar animals, so diversely opinionated, that one is only likely to receive a sensible answer by averaging a large

1033
number of them. I forget which politician gloomily reflected that from six economists one receives seven conclusions, two of them from Mr Keynes. However, I recall that it was Truman who prayed to the Almighty—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when the noble Baroness says "average" does she mean "a harmonic mean"?
Baroness Hogg: My Lords, I shall not go into the calculations of weighting means, but I believe I could pick out some weights that I should like to attribute. I believe I am right in saying that it was Truman who prayed to the Almighty to give him a one-handed economist.
It is essential that the Bank is infused with contrary opinions and new ideas. That can be achieved by a succession of outside appointments, which the Bank has come to accept. My guess is that sooner or later—assuming, of course, that the Bank remains independent of the European Central Bank—the MPC will have to evolve closer to one of the two pure-bred models I described.
Meanwhile, I make one final point. If the Bank is to turn itself into a substantial academic institution with nine monetary economics departments, it is still not at all clear to me that its numbers need to increase. Even though regulatory responsibilities have passed to the FSA, the Bank seems to have retained a curiously large number of staff in the non-monetary area, right up, if I may say so, to a double helping of deputy governors. If it wants to keep the independent element in the MPC lean and mean, it could perhaps lead by example.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and to his colleagues for producing this important and thought-provoking report. If I may say so, this is the type of thing which our House does particularly well. It brings to important issues of public policy a lucidity and dispassion which are not always the most conspicuous features in the other place. Politicians think politically, and no one can object to that. However, policy is not just about politics; it is about what will work, and that is partly an intellectual question—a question of technique. Nowhere is that more so than in monetary policy.
When I refer to this report as "dispassionate", I do not mean that it is uncontroversial. It shows very clearly that the theory of monetary policy is far from being an exact science. I would put it even more strongly than did the noble Lord, Lord Burns. Here are some of the unsettled questions which seem to emerge from the report. By what channels do changes in interest rates influence the price level—by changing the value of domestic assets or via the exchange rate? Do changes in interest rates have long-term effects on the real economy? What is the appropriate monetary policy target—the inflation rate, the exchange rate or the money supply? What is the right measure of inflation—the retail prices index or something called
1034
the "harmonised index of consumer prices"? Should one's target be a point or a range? What institutional set-up maximises the credibility of monetary policy? Is there a trade-off between independence and transparency? And so the questions go on. They are important questions, and we do not really know what the answers are.
Criticism has been made of our relatively high interest rates and their knock-on effects on the exchange rate. I sympathise with all those who have argued that that puts their businesses in jeopardy. But surely our interest rates reflect the higher perceived risk of inflation in this country. Any new system trying to establish its anti-inflationary credentials is bound to be more cautious to start with than it can be later on. That is an important point.
I shall pluck out three issues. I had intended to say something about the way in which the Monetary Policy Committee was set up, especially in the light of the recent complaint by the four independent members that they had too little influence on the Bank's research. I do not need to add to the excellent Leninist joke of my noble friend Lord Saatchi on that point.
However, reinforcing what others have said, I am pleased to note that the report accepts that the independence of the external members of the MPC needs to be fortified, not only inside the Bank but also against the Chancellor. Three-year renewable appointments at high salaries seems to raise the problem of inconsistent incentives. Therefore, I agree with the committee when it says that the appointments, as well as being staggered, ought to be for five years rather than three and in general should be non-renewable.
A second important issue raised by the report concerns the apparent incoherence of the Chancellor's mandate. His instructions to the Bank are—I quote paragraph 1.6 of the report—
"to maintain price stability",
and,
"subject to that, to support the economic policy of Her Majesty's Government, including its objectives for growth and employment".
What does the phrase "subject to that" mean? Suppose the Government's objectives for growth and employment are inconsistent with the 2.5 per cent inflation target. In theory the Chancellor can simply change the inflation target to accommodate that, but that would endanger the credibility of the Bank as the guardian of sound money.
This discussion demonstrates that there is no guarantee in the Chancellor's system that monetary and fiscal policy will be consistent with each other. Had fiscal policy been tighter in 1997 it is possible that monetary policy could have been looser. That is an example of what can happen when there is a monetary constitution but not a fiscal one to go with it. In place of a fiscal constitution we have the Chancellor's commitment to the golden rule. However, he is at liberty to break that whenever he wants and it is much too vulnerable to creative accounting.

1035
I urge the Government to consider setting up a fiscal policy committee whose job it would be to police the definitions in the public accounts, including what we mean by "capital accounts" and to keep an eye on the Treasury's cyclical forecast. In order to satisfy the criterion of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, of complete impartiality, that committee could also be given the job of costing Opposition spending plans. There will never be a sure-fire way of dealing with what Keynes once called the "wicked Chancellor problem" or even the wicked Shadow Chancellor problem. A fiscal policy committee of the kind that I have suggested would be in line with the present trend to place macroeconomic policies at a further distance from electoral politics.
My final point is more fundamental. We all tacitly accept the assumption that the great reduction in the inflation rate achieved since the 1980s has been due to a more independent monetary policy, a process started by Kenneth Clarke in the previous Government. However, I noticed that Mr Clarke is far from convinced of that himself. In his evidence to the committee he said:
"As a layman, what I think has happened is we have global competition as never before. We have a pace of technological change as never before. The ability to raise productivity in some sectors of the economy is quite immense. The ability to hand on price increases to restore margins is very, very limited, so that one sees around the world prices confined, earnings confined and expectations changing".
That suggests to me that the better conduct of monetary policy has not been the only, and perhaps not even the most important, cause of the long-term fall in the inflation rate. It is now much less costly in terms of short-run output and employment to have a low inflation policy than it used to be in the period from the 1960s through to the 1980s. We have a 2.5 per cent inflation target, not because that has any particular logic or virtue—although economists can always be found to praise the health-giving properties of a little inflation—but because what I may call the natural rate of inflation—the rate at which the forces pushing down the price level and those pushing it up find a certain equilibrium—is lower than it used to be.
What happens if, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and Mr Roger Bootle suggested in their evidence, the natural rate of inflation falls even further and we enter an era of falling prices, as happened in the last quarter of the nineteenth century? All our thinking and policy-making since the war have been geared to the problems of an inflationary economy. We have scarcely begun to think about the consequences of an economy in which prices have a natural tendency to fall. What would be the effect of that on output and employment? What kind of mandate would the Chancellor give to the Bank in those circumstances? Those problems may come upon us sooner than we think. That is a matter for another Select Committee on another occasion.
Meanwhile I repeat my thanks to this Select Committee for packing so much good matter into such a small number of words.
6.16 p.m.
Lord Paul: My Lords, first, I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the Caparo Group, a company engaged in manufacturing.
Today we have heard four excellent maiden speeches. The House is made richer by the arrival of those noble Lords and I look forward to hearing more contributions from them. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, will not contribute in future dates, but perhaps we shall see him in another incarnation.
A decade or so ago, the notion of entrusting central bankers with independent operational responsibility for monetary policy would have been unusual. It is testimony to the exceptional changes that have recently taken place in the world of economics that this idea has increasingly become a global reality. As your Lordships know, we too have lived under this new regime for about two-and-a-half years, yet the very newness of this process raises certain fundamental issues.
The Select Committee on which I had the honour to serve was very much aware that it was sailing in uncharted waters. In many ways, the report before the House today reflects that perception. As an ordinary manufacturer, I found sitting in the company of such eminent colleagues a daunting task. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for his excellent chairmanship which made the work of the committee most enjoyable.
The wisdom of transferring operational responsibility has, I believe, been affirmed by what we have seen of its working. So I would like to pay tribute to the vision of my honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who so courageously decided to initiate and implement this effort. Rare is the politician who seeks to depoliticise history. Few things are for ever, but perhaps the new approach will give us the long-term price stability that is so essential for solid and steady economic growth. Policy independence may well liberate us from those cyclical gyrations that are inspired by the temptations of politics. This is certainly something which we all find desirable.
Your Lordships will have noted that the report of the Select Committee raises certain conceptual concerns. Obviously, the franchising of an initially untested mechanism such as the Monetary Policy Committee provokes questions about public scrutiny and parliamentary accountability. That we have thus far had few serious worries about this is more a tribute to those who serve on the Committee than to the viability of existing procedures. This is why I strongly endorse the sentiments of the Select Committee that this House should consider its reconstitution on a permanent basis. Insulation from political pressures does not mean insulation from scrutiny. Indeed, I feel that ongoing scrutiny can significantly contribute to the workings of the Monetary Policy Committee.
My satisfaction with the overall operations of the MPC is somewhat tempered by its impact on the manufacturing industry of this country. I believe that manufacturing is a fundamental part of the economic

1037
strength of Britain. That is why I am concerned about the consequences for manufacturing of decisions by the Monetary Policy Committee. Interest rates affect exchange rates and exchange rates affect the pricing of our exports. Technological expertise has become so universal, and sufficient productive capacity exists in Europe, that many of our exports today have to compete on price; and exchange rates have been running against us. Many businesses find that this causes them to be seriously disadvantaged in export markets, while domestic markets are eroded by imports cheapened by a favourable exchange rate. I give an example. Even in a small company such as mine, an adverse exchange rate of one pfennig draws £200,000 from the bottom figure.
This has had an unfortunate impact on the manufacturing sector. Recent reports indicate that the number of companies going into receivership in the third quarter of this year was increased by 13 per cent and that manufacturing businesses accounted for more than one-third of this. The Midlands has been worst afflicted, with receivership rising by 57 per cent over the past year. It is difficult to estimate precisely what proportion of this is due to exchange rate disadvantages. However, it was the view of several witnesses who testified before the Select Committee that exchange rate disadvantages contributed significantly to these problems. Having had some experience in this area, I strongly concur.
Your Lordships will also have seen press reports about how exchange fluctuations cause companies to fix their own artificially adjusted rates in their transactions abroad. My noble friend Lord Barnett asked what the rate should be. One of the companies in Europe has already decided that it should be 2.60 to 2.65 when they purchase products from Britain. These are not healthy developments for British business.
I believe that the Monetary Policy Committee needs to examine this situation with some urgency. Macro-economic stability is a worthy objective, but it would be much more useful also to take into account the sectoral impact of policy. If the MPC is unable to find a satisfactory resolution of this, or if its remit does not embrace exchange consequences or sectoral analyses and adjustments, the Government must evolve some other mechanism to deal with it. As our principal competitors and markets function under a common euro rate, British industrialists are heavily penalised. Such penalties will increasingly be reflected in lower profits and declining investment, to our future detriment. Without continuing investment, it will be impossible to support the advances in research and production that are so essential to meet the challenges that today's competition demands. We simply cannot allow this to happen to British manufacturing.
Perhaps I see the Monetary Policy Committee in too large a context. However, I think that we have in the Committee a very valuable economic instrument. I am anxious that it should be used to make the broadest possible positive impact on our economy. However, as it grows into full maturity, it will need to look more closely at the interconnections and relationships that it engenders. As it does so, it will appreciate that the
1038
Monetary Policy Committees have to develop a permanently bifocal vision. They are both independent and organic parts of the body of an economic nation.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, this undoubtedly is an extremely interesting report, put together under the very skilled and experienced chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I read it very carefully and found it to be full of very wise cautions about the spurious precision and alleged magic properties of economic fine tuning. Indeed, that is what I would expect of a committee that was able to draw on the timeless wisdom of my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Roll, from whom I have learnt a very great deal over the years and with whom I have had the privilege to work outside your Lordships' House.
I have listened with interest to the debate arid in particular to the marvellously illuminating speech of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. In the light of the questions that he raised, in the light of the onrush of electronic-commerce, the beginning of that vast area of transformation, and in the light of the total capital markets revolution that is now taking place, transforming the entire workings of financial markets world-wide, I could not help but feel that, to borrow a phrase from the late Anthony Crosland,
"We are in danger of holding this debate in an entirely obsolete intellectual framework".
I should like in a few minutes to share with your Lordships my reasons for reaching that conclusion.
I begin with the simple theory that is set out very clearly in the report behind the MPC and behind the whole attempt by central monetary authorities to control inflation. The theory is simple. It is that raised interest rates in the short term will reduce demand and so drain out inflationary pressures which it is feared will develop in the future. That is what the simple mechanism demands. That is what lies behind the activities of bodies such as the MPC or central monetary short-term economic fine-tuning around the world. However, this report highlights very clearly that, in practice, the transmission mechanism is infinitely more complex. I suspect that it is even more complex—dare I say it—than the report itself suggests, because no more are price levels chiefly determined by demand levels; nor is demand, even if that can be influenced or determined by fine-tuning interest rates. We have to accept that; we heard it in some of the speeches from your Lordships this afternoon.
Other factors which probably lie not only outside economic models, but also outside economics altogether—certainly economic theory—are far more influential in operating on what is likely to be the evolving price level two years on, or whatever the policy goal is. By that I mean of course the amazing advance of competition; transparency throughout the world thanks to the Internet and the rise of e-commerce; the collapsing transaction costs of the kind with which your Lordships are familiar—in the American banks a transaction that once cost 100 dollars now costs one cent, and that is mirrored in

1039
transaction costs across the whole of industry and commerce; and the huge shift of costs on to consumers themselves with the odd paradox that it is consumers who not only pay, but feel more in control and enjoy paying in order to get more direct access to capital markets or, in the case of voters, to policy or, in the case of consumers, to the producers.
It is interesting that the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit says in its e-commerce report—an interesting document—that communications technology over the past three years not only contributed 35 per cent of total growth, but also had a significant downward pressure on inflation. It is an anti-inflationary force which lies far outside anything to do with jiggling around with interest rates or peering two years ahead and trying to hit targets. So the Select Committee is totally right to question the great over-simplicity of this relationship and the doctrines and views that lie behind it. That is my first point. But I would go a little further.
My second point is: does the Monetary Policy Committee (this applies to any central monetary authority) really know what the true price inflation rate is? A guess two years ahead is a matter of opinion. Does it really know it now? In Section 3 of this excellent report it is pointed out, as others have, that inflation can be altered at a stroke just by adopting a different index. Even then, those indices may be extremely unreliable because there is great difficulty in getting hold of quality improvements, discounts, sales and all the other realities of the price level. So the question of what inflation is now is really a matter of art and dart-throwing rather than any accurate assessment.
Thirdly, can the MPC, or a similar body, really measure the demand, internal or external, or the output capacity that exists in a knowledge-based economy? I do not believe it can. The output of an economy nowadays is the output of a process; not a fixed system. It is a process of a massive accumulation of intellectual capital and in that atmosphere the output gap, by which the MPC lays considerable store, so it says, is simply an unknowable quantity. There is no static and fixed ceiling to the capacity of an economy like ours. Any short-term pretence to regulate the economy in the belief that one knows what the capacity is, what the demand is and what the gap between them is—all of which are unknowable quantities—is likely to lead not to more stabilisation but to more instability.
Fourthly, does the MPC know what the level of productivity is? In America many economists are now conceding that they have no idea how to measure productivity now that the main economic resource is no longer labour, land or capital, but intellectual capital and knowledge. If all the gains of technology do not show up in output measurement because they are embodied in better quality, larger variety, greater user-friendliness and that sort of thing, then how can one know, from looking at the conventional measures of productivity, what is really happening in the corporate sector?
1040
Fifthly, does the MPC have any more idea than the rest of us about the level of employment? The work pattern, as we know, is dissolving. It is not the old measure that our forebears thought they could make of the labour market. It is dissolving into a swirling blur of full and part-time work and self-employment, and the nature of work itself is changing. That is why concepts like NAIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) are now completely meaningless and do not help at all in guiding economic policy.
Sixthly, can the MPC separate manufacturing and services? We go on about the manufacturing sector, but this kind of "sector approach" is completely out of date. Certainly in the financial sector there is no hope of disentangling manufacturing, which is riddled with services, from services which are interwoven with manufacturing. The whole thing is also permeated by information technology which is neither a service nor a manufacture and has no economic categorisation at all. That is not just opinion. We know what happened when the poor Office for National Statistics got into a muddle over this. It did not know what the service industry was. Then, when it felt it did, it tried to measure earnings in it but unfortunately the wrong people replied to its questionnaire and it could not get hold of the bonuses and so forth. It then came out with some figures which completely misled the distinguished MPC, which consequently raised interest rates. Afterwards it admitted it would not have done so if it had known the truth.
Seventhly, even if the MPC could measure the real economy, which I do not believe it can, and the current level of demand, which I doubt, one has to ask the question which is again raised in this report: can it really fine-tune the real economy via short-term interest rates? I doubt that very much indeed. That is partly because it is all a very crude and indirect mechanism; partly because the whole myriad pattern of borrowing and lending rates today and the new financial markets in which we operate, reflecting the needs of millions of participants, are vastly varied, and changing official short-term rates may only affect the shortest of short terms at the very beginning of the term structure and the yield curve, but not beyond that point. Again, that is a point made very well in the report.
So, in our revolutionised capital markets, I feel that one can almost validly assert that command of the whole interest rate structure is actually impossible and attempts to fine-tune it from the short end are completely impossible. One hears people like Alan Greenspan, who is a wise man, admit that central monetary authorities can only have an oversight. They cannot control.
Eighthly, can the MPC operate on the money supply? No, because smart cards and non-bank credit sources are now making the monetary economy decreasingly controllable. There are people in your Lordships' House who doubted whether the supply of money or the quantity of money was ever a realistic concept anyway. I agree with them and so do many professorial experts outside this House. Even if they could control the supply of money or even if interest

1041
rate rises could be achieved, which would actually change the whole pattern of interest rates, would it have the effects attributed to it? It may be that the results are perverse, not the automatic transmission as listed in your Lordships' report. It is quite possible that if interest rates are raised, house prices will rise. The latest interest rate is said to have been partly influenced by the belief that there is a house price bubble. If interest rates are raised, the net effect would be to increase the bubble because it would increase mortgage fund availability.
Above all, of course, the whole business of the transmission depends, as again this excellent report makes clear, on whether or not people believe that these endless little changes will be long or short lasting. By definition, as they are so frequent, most people take not the slightest notice. They are very short-lasting. It is believed they will be changed again. That is what paragraph 4.16 of the report rightly indicates.
I do not dispute that low inflation is desirable or that sound money is, of significant but not of total importance in achieving a low inflation environment; but I question whether we have put this matter in the right perspective. The best recent headline I saw was one from the national institute, which said that the MPC could have left interest rates alone—another noble Lord made this point—and the outcome would have been no different.
That leads me to only one conclusion: that the powers of central bankers, not only the MPC, are nowadays vastly exaggerated. When I was at King's College, Cambridge, 40 years ago, Maynard Keynes' ideas dominated and the Keynesian "demand" fine-tuners were the lords of the earth; now the central banking, monetary fine-tuners are the lords of the earth. They are the high priests of a dying religion, practising arcane rituals while the crowd, which is mainly the bond markets, sway and murmur at every rumour of priestly activity. I suppose the height of mumbo-jumbo is this absurd "Taylor rule" about neutral interest rates, with which I shall not bore your Lordships now. It is the ultimate nonsense in over-scientific economic manipulation.
Montague Norman—who is not everyone's friend—when asked his reasons for an interest rate change by some cheeky journalist, said:
"I don't have reasons: I have feelings".
Feelings would be a much better guide to the limited role that all this interest rate manipulation can play than the attempt to produce these arcane and unreliable reasons.
With the exception of the Austrian school of economists, which I greatly admire, the truth is that modern economists are really artists pretending to be scientists. Like the rest of us, they are amateurs pretending to be professionals. I strongly believe that economic theory today of the modern kind creates a deformity of perception about what is going on in our society and what policy makers should be doing.
1042
Perhaps I may dare to quote Keynes in the presence of my noble friend Lord Skidelsky. He once said:
"Economists are of little use if all they can do is tell us when the storm is passed that the ocean is flat again".
When I hear that the answer to the problems of the present is for the Bank of England to hire 30 more economists, I think "Heaven preserve us"! My noble friend Lady Hogg was quite right to query whether that was the right way forward. We need not more economists but fewer pretensions on the part of our economists, economic advisers, central bankers and political leaders about what they can achieve.
We need a much more humble understanding of the very marginal role which monetary fine tuning, like fiscal fine tuning before it, can play in the evolution of our prosperity and in the driving forward of a modern wealth-creating economy. If that sounds heresy today, I forecast that it will be orthodoxy tomorrow. The sooner we understand, as the Austrian school really did understand, what drives the economic processes of growth and employment, the sooner we can stop wasting our time on the spurious and discredited science of economic management.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I suspect that I am not unique among your Lordships in being quite surprised when, within a matter of seven or eight days after the general election, the Government, through its Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that they were renouncing one of the most important controls to affect the British economy—namely, the determination of the rate of interest— and establishing the Monetary Policy Committee.
I have always been a little suspicious when people talk about becoming "non-party" or "non-political". That always seems to me to indicate that there is some doubt somewhere about one's own cherished political and economic beliefs. That is undoubtedly so because, immediately following the announcement, economists began to take an interest in the whole economy and also to challenge some of the basic assumptions that they had hitherto made. All this is very desirable. If going "non-political"—and I am afraid that that description can never apply to me—produces a tendency to doubt among economists generally, professional economists in particular, so be it.
In fact, I detect a re-examination among economists of all the assumptions on which their publications and their public utterances have been made in the past. That is good. Speaking more philosophically, I think that there is beginning to be—astonishingly enough—an admissibility of a possibility of error. Perish the thought! When people begin to admit the feasibility of error, that is the beginning of wisdom. The Select Committee's report reflects exactly this new and welcome humility among those who are, after all, quite ordinary mortals, despite their economic qualifications.
I should like to pay tribute to the chairmanship of this important Select Committee, whose report and evidence I read from cover to cover. I must

1043
congratulate my noble friend Lord Peston on the extremely penetrative questions that he asked witness after witness—indeed, on occasions, he did so almost to a point where one could sense that he was becoming irritated by some of the replies that he was receiving. This contributes to the fact that as a most eminent economist, and someone for whom I have the utmost personal respect, my noble friend has almost abandoned any idea that he can make future forecasts. The enormity of this position must surely be appreciated. In fact, it permeates the work of the committee.
I should also like to pay tribute to the members of the committee in the questioning of the witnesses. Even in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who, as we know, is one of the mildest mannered of people, there was an occasional note of asperity in his questioning. I have looked through the evidence and have read the report. I repeat: I congratulate both the chairman and the committee on their work.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, admitted this afternoon the extent of the present uncertainties. Practically every part of economic analysis in the noble Lord's mind is now open to question. Of course that should be so. Up until now, economists have based their conclusions largely on the assumption that people behave reasonably. But people do not behave reasonably.
The other reason why there is unease—and this has exhibited itself in the Monetary Policy Committee and the Select Committee—is the tenuous nature of the data upon which those concerned are constrained to work. In determining price stability they have to rely on the RPI and the harmonised index of consumer prices: the first of which operates on the basis of arithmetic means; and the second on the basis of geometric means. Indeed, "means" is the word because they tend to operate on averages. There is no such thing as an average person in the country, except perhaps by accident. The conditions of people vary and the conditions of price vary. They vary not only from town to town but also in terms of time and in terms of coverage, and are very difficult to ascertain.
There was a time—now happily passed—when price data was collected during the spare time of workers in the social security departments. I gather that that practice has now ceased and that there are possibly slightly more authentic means of filling in the forms to send back to headquarters as to how local prices are going. But in point of fact the data, which is at the disposal of the MPC and of the Select Committee, does not rest on a firm basis.
There is a further reason for insecurity in the matter. The effects of actions that are taken in relation to interest rates are known. My noble friend Lord Paul has given some graphic examples of the effects of interest rates on the export industry. We cannot determine effects from data—when it is available and used for that purpose—within a couple of years. That means, in effect, that at this stage we have little idea—the committee of your Lordships' House has little idea of this—of what effect the activities of the Monetary
1044
Policy Committee have had on the economy as that will not emerge until much later. Then it will be possible to make more objective judgments.
One view to which the committee committed itself—I understand that the report was unanimous—is that in the long term inflation and unemployment have but little correlation; at least the committee states that that is now the majority view. However, we simply do not know whether that is the case. The other assumption of ruling economic thought has always been that somehow one can identify the large and powerful interests in the City of London as being identical with those of the country as a whole. If the City and institutions prosper, this is automatically assumed to indicate a national recovery. However, that is far from the case.
As a recent report from one of the prominent statistical institutes indicates, there are 2 million people in the country without any assets at all. There are 12 million people in the country who are at or below the accepted poverty line. However, they are part of the economy. I do not speak in the personal sense but they are a factor to be taken into account. Yet the committee has not had in its possession—or, if it has, it has not seen fit to endorse it—the opinion of the Commons Select Committee on the validity of national statistics.
The statistics that are used for unemployment vary according to convenience. One set of statistics which is related to what is called "the claimant count" comprises a figure of 1,200,000 and the other relates to what is euphemistically described as the "Government's preferred index"; that is, the ILO index, which is another half a million more. If one takes into account the real figure of people available and wanting to work, the figure rises to 4 million.
Is, or is not, the state of unemployment in this country and the state of wealth or poverty in the country as a whole, a factor to be taken into account by the MPC, always subordinate, of course, to price stability, as the Chancellor has made quite clear? These are matters to which the MPC should address itself. These are matters moreover which, in my respectful submission, should in future be considered by the committee of your Lordships' House which, in addition to becoming permanent—which I believe it should be—should be given a far wider remit in considering rather larger areas of the economy than the question of interest rates in the light of what it considers to be prevailing economic trends in the country.
These are matters for your Lordships' consideration. I consider that one of the most compelling reasons for the appointment of your Lordships' committee on a more permanent basis, and for the extension of its remit, is the fact that there is a Treasury representative in every Ministry in the United Kingdom. It is the Treasury that ultimately determines the development of social policy. I think that social policy has a relevance to economic policy. Either people are poor and subject to crime, injury, ill health, lower life expectancy and all the rest of it, or

1045
they can participate more actively in the economy and cause others to consider them rather than considering only those who are rich and powerful and who can contribute to party funds on a substantial scale.
These are the matters which I hope that the committee will be able to address. I hope that it will draw evidence from those in Ministries and from those in the Treasury itself who have representation in individual Ministries, in order to make sure that a sane and reasonable economic and monetary policy is followed in the interests not of one section of the community but of the country as a whole.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Vinson: My Lords, it was indeed a great honour to serve on this committee and to examine what must be one of the most important areas of national policy.
But first I would like to use this opportunity to thank the many witnesses who went out of their way, sometimes at considerable personal inconvenience, in order to give evidence to us. I have little doubt that their evidence will be of great benefit to economic policy-makers.
We have travelled over quite a lot of well trod ground already tonight. However, there is little doubt that the remit of our committee, coupled with time constraints, prevented us from looking in sufficient depth at the possible long-term consequences of the new relationship between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor. Does dual control work? Will it work under adverse conditions? Can the ship of state be satisfactorily steered by two captains?
We did not look in depth to see whether these new arrangements can and will give the appropriate balance between monetary and fiscal policy. We did not examine whether there are alternative arrangements which might help achieve the same goals but with fewer adverse side effects.
Currently all concerned are preening themselves with delight at the apparently successful outcome of the present arrangements, but a number of questions have to be asked. Has their apparent success in controlling inflation been due to the new mechanisms or coincidentally due to these mechanisms operating at a time when we are fortunate to have a particularly benign inflation scenario, helped not least by the dramatic fall in world commodity prices? Coupled with this, of course, has been the exceptional strength of the pound.
This begs the question as to whether the control of inflation, largely through the interest rate mechanism, is the right method, particularly under adverse conditions probably coming soon, when commodity prices start to rise. That was a point well made in the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
So often in the past we have seen governments raise interest rates and all the costs that go with them in order to try to control externalities, but in doing so they have merely exacerbated the very malady they have tried to cure. That point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell.
1046
Interest rates are a very blunt weapon, and it has to be asked: at what cost has inflation currently been controlled? As the noble Lord, Lord Paul, pointed out, manufacturing output has barely grown, our balance of trade has deteriorated and the whole of our export and internationally exposed sectors are having an exceedingly rough time—agriculture in particular. What a paradox, when in practice these very sectors are the least inflationary, and most domestic inflation is generated by the service sector, which largely booms along, thriving on an overvalued pound. Surely there must be a better way of controlling inflation than—to put it crudely—in order to take the heat out of the housing market, we batter the export sector.
Some people may argue that it is desirable to raise the value of the pound in order to control inflation. They have obviously never been in the front line of exporting. Profit margins seldom exceed a few per cent; if the value of currency rises over 10 per cent, as it has done recently, margins disappear. I wonder how many people have suffered the heartbreak of seeing a hard-won export order—won on quality and price—sacrificed by an overvalued pound.
Economic fashions go up and down like hemlines. Currently it may be fashionable to decry the importance of our balance of trade—but at the end of the day we as a trading nation depend on it and we play with its prosperity at our peril. Our economic policy—the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, referred to this—can hardly be described as successful when these factors are considered.
The problem is that economic policy currently treats symptoms not causes. There are a number of reasons why sterling is so strong, many of them complex. One of them is our high relative level of short-term interest rates compared to others due to our perceived higher levels of inflation. Increasingly it appears that the measurement of inflation consistently overstates the situation. It is good to see that our recommendations questioning the authenticity of the RPI figures have already been put into practice. Steering the economic ship of state on faulty dials has happened too often in the past, greatly to the subsequent detriment of the economy.
The perceived rate has great influence on wage negotiations, the source of much inflationary pressure. I hope we can move to the HICUP index, which not only appears to indicate a lower rate of inflation than the RPI but would enable—at a glance—the unsophisticated to compare our rate of inflation with others. Experts may be able to make the mental adjustments between HICUP and RPI, but a wide perception exists that our rate of inflation is substantially higher than elsewhere when, on strictly comparative terms, often it is not. I believe that the perceived rate of inflation has been responsible for keeping our interest rates at a much higher level than they would be and that, as a consequence, sterling is propped up by such rates.
I believe that even HICUP exaggerates inflation. I have a strong suspicion that both indices fail adequately to take into account increases in quality—

1047
again a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Perhaps I may reinforce his point by making another. If over years the standard of living increases by roughly 2.5 per cent per year, then it doubles every 25 years. In order for the standard of living to double, relative prices must effectively halve. It is this element of price reduction and/or quality improvement which I believe is seriously missed in the current calculations of both indices, not least because they are so hard to measure.
This brings me back to the central theme of my argument; namely, that policies often address symptoms, not causes. Interest rates are raised to take the heat out of the housing market. If you ration any commodity, prices rise; and if you ration land, house prices rise. We are effectively trying to use monetary policy to control the effects of land rationing. House prices in any normal market would not rise if demand could be met by supply. By excessively rationing land through the planning system, we introduce a factor into our economic management which makes distortions all along the line, currently greatly to the detriment of the internationally exposed sectors of our economy through which, ultimately, we have to earn our keep as a trading nation.
However, I think I see the glimmerings of a recognition of this problem through the suggestion leaked from the Government last week that VAT should be applied to housing. This is the sort of fiscal measure that should be used instead of raising interest rates.
Much of what I wished to cover has been said already; it would be tedious to repeat it. In conclusion, I believe that there are a number of areas of unfinished business by our committee, not least the current relationship between the application of fiscal and monetary management and whether there are better ways of achieving the desired ends by other means.
It was indeed a signal honour to work with my companions on the committee under the clear eyed leadership of our chairman. But the task is only half fulfilled. Meanwhile, the apparent advantages of the current relationship between the Chancellor and the Bank of England remain unproven. We have yet to see how two captains on the same bridge can cope in a storm.
7.4 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on introducing the debate. I should also like to congratulate him and all the other noble Lords who served on his Select Committee on all their hard work in producing this interesting and useful report.
The Government's decision to give the Bank of England operational independence for monetary policy had not been widely anticipated. The Labour Party's manifesto said that they would reform the Bank of England to ensure that decision making on monetary policy was more effective, open, accountable and free from short-term political
1048
manipulation. On the specific question of independence, they said that they would consider the matter once the Bank had demonstrated a successful track record in its advice and had built public credibility. They considered the matter rather quickly. The right honourable gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced his decision only five days after the election. Therefore there was no time for proper consultation and, as a result, he did not get it quite right.
In principle, independence for the Bank of England was a sensible move. Perhaps one of the reasons why the Government decided to move so fast was that they wanted quickly to establish their credentials with the City and give the impression of pursuing sound economic and monetary policies. Having successfully established their credentials, it was of course easier for them to introduce stealth taxes, such as the unjustified, unwarranted and unfair raid on pension funds, which is already yielding some £5 billion per year to the Chancellor's war chest.
As your Lordships are aware, the Government are developing a reputation for saying one thing and doing another. They said they would reform your Lordships' House to make it more democratic; they said they valued the independent element of the House. Without doing anything to make it democratic, they are decimating its independent element and neutralising the only effective check and balance which has—until now—restrained the power of the Executive in this country.
The Government said that they would reduce taxes, but they have increased them. Worse, even after they have increased taxes, they still pretend that they have reduced them.
I can understand that, if you think that the Bank of England's functions are likely to be subsumed into the European Central Bank in the relatively near future, it may not matter much if the system is less than perfect. But if you believe that the Bank of England will continue to have responsibility for monetary policy in the United Kingdom, then it is essential to get it right. Perhaps it is more than mere coincidence that the Chancellor's letter to the governor in May 1997—which was referred to in the report and by my noble friend Lord Saatchi today—used very similar wording to that used in the Maastricht Treaty.
The decision to include four external or independent members among the nine members of the Monetary Policy Committee was basically a good one. But the fact that they are appointed by the Chancellor and serve for a term of only three years, calls into question the extent to which they can be considered independent. I strongly agree with those noble Lords who have suggested that their term should be at least five years.
I also question the extent to which Article 107 of the Maastricht Treaty—which provides that, inter alia,

"governments of the Member States undertake … not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB

1049
or of the national central banks in the performance of their tasks"—
is consistent either with the Chancellor's letter or, indeed, with the Bank of England Act, both of which require the Monetary Policy Committee to support the Government's economic policy.
The Select Committee's report rightly draws attention to the paradox that the only full-time members of the MPC are the outsiders. Only one of the four external members—Professor Goodhart—has an outside job. He works for the Bank on two days a week. Since the other external members are paid to work for five days a week, why are they not given other jobs to do within the Bank of England?
Alternatively, why do they not take outside positions as has Professor Goodhart? Surely the point of having so-called "external members" is that, in forming their views on how the MPC should pursue its objectives, they should be able to rely on their diverse experience and their knowledge and understanding of the circumstances prevailing in various sectors of the economy. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he thought the membership of the MPC might be biased too much in a southerly direction. I believe geography is perhaps less important than breadth of experience in that regard.
I agree very much with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and my noble friends Lady O'Cathain and Lady Hogg on that point. The four external members of the MPC are either academics or economists, or both. I do not understand why the Chancellor did not choose someone from manufacturing industry or commerce who would have brought valuable experience and a different viewpoint to the MPC's deliberations. While I understand that it would be difficult to be both a member of the MPC and a director of a financial institution, I believe that the conflict of interests for an external member who might also hold a senior position in a non-financial organisation is not so serious and has possibly been exaggerated.
It is regrettable that recently a dispute has arisen between the external and internal members over the inadequate support and restricted access to research and analytical staff provided for the former. Noble Lords will have seen Martin Wolf's excellent article in last Monday's Financial Times in which he quoted from the Chancellor's Mais lecture of 19th October:
"The discretion necessary for effective economic policy is possible only within a framework that commands market credibility and public trust".
Of course with any new system there may be teething problems. Can the Minister explain what action the Government will take to improve the imperfections inherent in a system which was prepared too hastily and without adequate forethought? I hope that he will agree that some action is absolutely necessary in order to restore full confidence in the Bank. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he did not think the system needed changing immediately, but that, if it did need to be changed in the future, changes should be made. Unfortunately it is already clear that something must be done sooner rather than later.
1050
The Bank of England is perhaps not yet quite as independent as the Government say. Seven of the nine members of the MPC are chosen by, or on the advice of, the Chancellor. The MPC is not properly accountable to Parliament in the same way as is the Federal Reserve to Congress in the United States.
We should also question the quality of information made available to the members of the MPC. Co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policy is clearly of the utmost importance, especially since they are now the responsibilities of two different bodies. My noble friend Lord Weir emphasised very clearly the need for such co-ordination. The Select Committee recommended that the Court of Directors should play a stronger role in connection with the quality of data made available to the MPC. However, doubts about the quality of data help to explain the unhappiness of the external members at their lack of involvement in the determination of what material should be prepared, and on what basis. The external members are all experts and can see through the Government's fallacious claims that taxes are going down when they are in fact going up. Against that background, no doubt noble Lords will be looking forward with interest to the publication of the minutes of today's meeting of the MPC, at which the decision was taken to raise interest rates by one-quarter of 1 per cent.
Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend Mr Francis Maude has set up a commission to establish the relationships between Government, Parliament and the MPC. I trust that the commission will also have an opportunity to examine the role of the Bank's Court of Directors, especially as the Bank has lost its regulatory responsibilities to the Financial Services Authority.
I shall not detain your Lordships by repeating any more of the many other excellent points made in the debate by other noble Lords. However, I wish to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough, Lord Lipsey, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Woolmer, on their excellent maiden speeches. I regret that it is unlikely that your Lordships' House will hear again, at least in the short term, from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. His experience and the potential contribution he could make are typical of what has helped to make your Lordships' House independent and highly regarded both at home and abroad.
I apologise if I have disappointed the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Barnett, or other noble Lords in being unable, on this particular occasion, to restrain myself from making some party political points. I much regret that in the future your Lordships' House is likely to become rather more party political than it has been in the past.
I have enjoyed greatly and look forward to hearing the speeches of other noble Lords much better qualified than I to speak on this subject. I much regret that, with your Lordships' leave, I may need to withdraw before the end of the debate to attend the celebration of my brother-in-law's marriage. I offer my sincere apologies to the House if I do leave before the Minister replies. I assure him that I shall read the Official Report assiduously tomorrow morning.

1051
It has been my great privilege to participate in today's debate, and to make what is in all probability my valedictory speech. Once again, I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing this interesting and valuable debate.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Roll of Ipsden: My Lords, if one has been unlucky in the draw and appears at No. 20 in a long debate, it is inevitable that you run the risk that much, if not all, of what you wish to say has already been said by others. I am afraid I must ask your Lordships to accept this state of affairs and to show your customary indulgence to the present speaker.
I begin by adding my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and congratulating him not only on initiating the debate but also on introducing it in a particularly brilliant manner. The noble Lord's speech was both concise and comprehensive, and those are not easy qualities to combine. He referred not only to the positive points listed in the report of the Select Committee but to a whole list of unfinished business and pointed to the fact that the report is only the beginning. I should like to support that view most strongly; both the noble Lord and other speakers—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky—listed a whole series of questions that will require further clarification and inquiry.
As the Monetary Policy Committee develops both in its techniques and understanding, if that is feasible, of the subject matter of monetary policy, and as outside circumstances change, there will be plenty of material for a continuing scrutiny. Towards the end of my remarks I should like to address a related subject which has not been much touched upon so far in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, deserves to be congratulated on another score. I make so bold as to say that of all the subjects in economics, the theory and practice of monetary policy has the longest and most intense history of controversy. I hope that those economists present tonight would agree with me. Certainly the present phase of monetary policy can easily be traced back to over 200 years ago in the 1796 report of the Bullion Committee and the subsequent debates that ended in the suspension of gold payments in the 19th century. Shortly thereafter came the debate between the so-called banking school and the currency school, to which that great administrator, Sir Robert Peel, temporarily put an end with the Bank of England Charter Act 1844. That Act gave the Bank of England a monopoly over note issue, at any rate in England and Wales. But the subject has continued to occupy politicians, public men of all kinds, economists and other academics right through the 19th century and through the present century.
The most recent manifestation of it—a relatively recent manifestation—was the so-called attack of the monetarists on the Keynesians, Keynesianism very often being totally misunderstood and perhaps
1052
sometimes deliberately misinterpreted. Our committee—the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and other members will perhaps agree—was certainly not free from controversy. To have managed out of this to produce a unanimous report which at the same time is not free from fairly acute debate on this or that subject is a remarkable achievement and forms a good basis for future inquiry.
I want to divide what else I have to say into two parts. I want to talk about the work of the Monetary Policy Committee and the Select Committee's report on it within what I might call the present context. I should then like to go on to other wider issues. First, the committee thoroughly approved of the Chancellor's decision, one of his earliest on taking office, to give the Bank of England operational independence. I thoroughly approve of that. Six years ago I had the privilege of chairing a committee of independent experts—former heads of Treasuries, former governors or deputy governors of central banks, both in this country and abroad, lawyers and economists, including Professor Charles Goodhart who is now a member of the Monetary Policy Committee. We came to the unanimous conclusion that this independence should be granted. Obviously, there were some slight differences in techniques, as that was six years ago, but we were all naturally very gratified when one of the first things the Chancellor did was to do precisely what we had recommended.
That decision is still misunderstood outside a relatively narrow circle of people who are preoccupied with these matters. Very often one hears the criticism—how appalling it is that a matter of this importance, which affects the livelihoods and existence of everyone in this country, should have been handed over to an unelected body. That is total nonsense. The Chancellor of the Exchequer still has ultimate responsibility, as do the Government as a whole, to Parliament, to the public and to the electorate for economic management, including monetary management. The operational independence of the Bank of England is strictly circumscribed in the Bank of England Act and in the fact that the Chancellor sets the inflation target. He is very keen, as we all know, on the symmetry of the 2½ per cent—1 per cent up or 1 per cent down—and so on. He appoints the independent members of the committee. So we can take that for granted.
However, there remains the very different question, which has been frequently referred to in this debate, about the famous "subject to". That is terrible drafting. I agree profoundly with those noble Lords, including particularly the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who raised this point many times in the committee, who believe that that is very unfortunate. It quite deliberately sets up the possibility of a conflict between monetary policy and economic management that is generally designed to produce growth and employment. There may be such a conflict, but if there is, that has to be resolved precisely by, in the end, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Deliberately to set this out is to my mind a grave error. In fact many critics of the present situation would argue that it should be

1053
precisely the other way round. It should be that monetary management should be designed to support the broader economic objectives of the Government and only subject to that to aim at price stability. I would not advocate that particularly but that would be to many people a much more sensible way of putting it. So that is another subject which sooner or later will have to be resolved. It may even require a change in legislation as it is enshrined in the Bank of England Act.
Of the many other subjects that have been listed, including by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, himself, and others, I want to refer particularly to the question of the membership of the Monetary Policy Committee. That has often been criticised because it contains too many economists. Indeed, six out of nine are economists—four independent members, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, who is a very distinguished economist, and the chief economist of the Bank itself. Is six out of nine too many? I have no objection to economists as such—some of my best friends are economists—but there is something to this argument. I say that because, unfortunately—I have never quite understood why in all the years I have been thinking about this—economists are more prone than most people to develop a high-tensioned self-consciousness about their views and to indulge in intensive and sometimes very aggressive controversy with each other. I am not saying for a moment that that "proneness" has shown itself in the deliberations of the Monetary Policy Committee but it is inherent somehow or other in economists.
Much has been said about the possible reform of the membership, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady O'Cathain and Lady Hogg, by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in a remarkable maiden speech, and by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I very much agree with what has been said and with what the committee recommended about greater openness of these appointments. Having listened to the debate and having reflected on the deliberations of our committee, it suddenly struck me that, leaving aside the fact that it is a House of Lords committee and therefore consists of Peers, male and female, the committee is a remarkable collection of people of all kinds of provenance and experience—from business, the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and several other noble Lords; the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, with his experience of government; the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and I, economists by origin but with experience in public affairs, and so on.
If it is possible to set up a committee of that kind, which has shown itself capable of thorough, objective and detailed study at a high intellectual level and without any trace of partisanship—certainly nothing very obvious—why cannot that be done for the Monetary Policy Committee itself? Surely it is not necessary to restrict it to the present pattern of five people from the hierarchy of the Bank of England, including two economists, and four outside academic economists. Why does it have to be so? I hope that that
1054
subject will be discussed in future and I hope that the Select Committee will have that as one of its subjects for scrutiny.
Having said that, I should like to come to a wider issue. There is a small cloud on the distant horizon. It was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell—outside the Chamber I would certainly refer to him as my noble friend— in a very remarkable and thoughtful speech. I refer to the changes that are taking place in the financial environment with which the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England and the Select Committee have to deal. It has been known for quite some time that the recourse to direct financing, particularly in the capital market, and the increasingly sophisticated devices of the capital market have bypassed the banking system and have considerably changed the total monetary environment and the ability to control it.
That tendency has been brought to the fore recently, since we prepared our report, by the work of Professor Ben Friedman, of Harvard, whose work was brought to wider notice in one of Sam Brittan's particularly thoughtful articles a short while ago entitled, "The End of Money". I had the opportunity less than two months ago at Harvard to have a long discussion with Professor Friedman. He has drawn attention not only to the points to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred—namely, the growth of credit cards, bank cards, smart cards and so forth—but also to the growth in mergers: the creation of large units with many subsidiaries, which inevitably settle their liabilities among themselves. The increasing integration of the world economy has created a high degree of direct clearing which totally by-passes the banking system. That has led Professor Friedman, perhaps in a moment of exuberance, to speak of the end of monetary policy. Sam Brittan certainly referred in his article to the end of monetary policy, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, hinted at that. However distant that time may be—it may be 10 years or more—if that tendency continues, and there is no reason whatever to think that it will not, the facts, circumstances, institutions, monetary policy, control agency, whatever the institution may be, with which the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England or any other central bank has to deal will change profoundly. That will greatly change the possibility of monetary control and the prospects of its having any effect, which is already under some doubt, as a number of speakers have pointed out.
As I say, that is a distant cloud. But even today we must recognise that monetary management is a many-splendoured thing. What is happening here is very different from what is happening in the United States with the Fed. It is not only the old, somewhat scholastic argument between monetary supply targeting or inflation targeting. There is very little in that any more. If one reads the minutes of the Monetary Policy Committee, one sees that it has increasingly enlarged the scope of the circumstances that it takes into account. That is very much to the committee's credit. But in the United States the oracular pronouncements of Alan Greenspan have an

1055
immediate effect, whichever way it may turn out to be, on stock markets. In the United States, investors and speculators have long since ceased to be interested in income. They are interested only in capital appreciation and in the growth of assets. They are immediately affected, not necessarily by the fact of interest rate changes but by the expectation and the psychology created by them.
I have just returned from a brief visit to Japan. The situation there is totally different. Short-term interest rates practically do not exist. In many respects the system is awash with money. If the Japanese policy were to be applied in our country now, or even in circumstances when the economy was not quite so buoyant as it appears to be now, there would almost immediately be raging inflation. Yet in Japan the old adage applies: "You can take a horse to water, but you cannot necessarily make him drink". That is what is delaying the recovery of the Japanese economy.
I want to indicate, including reference to the more distant possibilities, that it is absolutely essential that this subject should not be regarded as closed; that the MPC should carry on just as it is doing now; and that there should be no further scrutiny, except possibly from time to time by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Treasury and the Civil Service to which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, has referred.
I conclude by strongly supporting the idea that the Select Committee should continue in one form or another, and that it should continue to scrutinise this subject.
7.34 p.m.
Viscount Mackintosh of Halifax: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. At this hour, and after so much has already been said, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long. I join with other noble Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for introducing the debate. I congratulate him and all the members of his committee on producing such an excellent report. It is well-constructed, and it produces a good analysis of the operation of the Monetary Policy Committee. It examines how the committee conducts itself and relationships between the committee and related bodies and addresses the problems faced by the committee.
I should like also to congratulate the four noble Lords who have made their maiden speech this afternoon. They have made a most important contribution to the debate.
I want to focus on one of the first conclusions set out in the report; namely, that,
"The Government was right to give operational independence for monetary policy to the Bank of England".
I have not yet reached that conclusion. I still have an open mind as to whether such a move was right. There is little dispute that a low and stable inflation rate is good for the economy. However, there is less
1056
agreement on how to achieve low inflation. As the report states,
"high and uncertain inflation makes it more difficult for individuals and organisations to make correct economic decisions".
Thus, it is generally harmful to the economy. Low inflation means that investors can plan for the future with confidence.
The report states also that,
"there is little clear economic evidence that mild inflation is very harmful".
But when does mild inflation become high inflation? Whatever the evidence about mild inflation, the economic objective of successive governments has been to achieve low and stable inflation. Establishing the Monetary Policy Committee and giving it operational independence for setting interest rates was carried out with a view to helping achieve low and stable inflation.
However, it is clearly possible to have a successful anti-inflationary policy without the imposition of an independent central bank. Before the last election, the then Chancellor, Ken Clarke, kept inflation below 4 per cent for four years—the longest period of low inflation for nearly 50 years. That was achieved without an independent central bank.
Also, if it is felt that an independent central bank is the right way to control inflation, does the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England as constructed actually fill the role of an independent central bank? As many noble Lords have pointed out, members of the Monetary Policy Committee are mostly appointed by the Government for a very short period. In Germany, Central Bank members are appointed for eight years and Federal Reserve governors in the US are appointed for 15 years. The Monetary Policy Committee members have only a three-year term. Of the nine members of the committee, seven are chosen directly by or on the advice of the Chancellor. Is that really independence? It is certainly very different from what happens in other countries, such as the US. We seem to have moved to a halfway house where a Chancellor can stand back if things go wrong and say that the Monetary Policy Committee has operational independence but can claim credit when things go well because of his influence over the committee. If an independent bank is needed, should it not be truly independent? I agree with several speakers who have advocated a longer period for the members to serve and a move towards greater independence.
If we are to have any form of independent central bank, it is important that it is democratically accountable. Again in comparison with the United States, the Monetary Policy Committee is not as accountable to Parliament as the Federal Reserve is to Congress. The report concludes that the Monetary Policy Committee must make its decision procedure clearer so as to aid public scrutiny; and also that appointments of the independent members must be made in a more open fashion. We may need to go further in attempting to establish greater accountability to Parliament.

1057
That is less of an issue if interest rates are stable or falling, because there is less public interest in how those rates are set. However, in times when interest rates are rising, there will be much more interest in how the level of interest rates are reached and whether the level is appropriate. There will be much greater focus on the Monetary Policy Committee. The level of interest rates has a great impact on the lives of many people and, when interest rates are rising, there needs to be public confidence that the person or organisation which is setting the level of interest rates is properly accounted for.
If one believes in a truly independent central bank, having the Monetary Policy Committee properly accountable to Parliament will be very helpful in protecting it from pressure and intervention from the government of the day.
Since the formation of the Monetary Policy Committee, there has been low and stable inflation in this country. However, we cannot conclude from that that the establishment of this committee was responsible for this favourable situation. What would have happened without the Monetary Policy Committee? The Monetary Policy Committee inherited low and stable inflation from the last government and world inflationary conditions have been low and stable since its inception. There have been no major short term inflationary shocks with which it had to deal. We will not really be able to tell how effective the Monetary Policy Committee is until we have a real inflationary test.
It has often been said that independent central banks in, for example, America and Germany have been responsible for the relatively low inflation in those countries over the long term and therefore cited this as a reason for why we should move to an independent central bank in this country. However, it could be that those countries which have a natural tendency to low inflation as a result of other aspects in their economy are those economies which can accommodate an independent central bank. Countries which have a tendency for higher inflation may find operating with an independent central bank more difficult.
In conclusion, I still have an open mind as to whether it was right to give operational independence for monetary policy to the Bank of England. I believe that we need more time to judge and, in particular, to see how the Monetary Policy Committee operates in periods of inflationary pressure before a definitive conclusion can be reached.
7.43 pm
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I too welcome the committee's report. I support the idea that the committee continues and will suggest an agenda around the measurement of inflation which the noble Lord, Lord Peston, raised as a matter of concern. It was also raised by my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Vinson. While the prospects of the RPIX are central to the Monetary Policy Committee's decision, nevertheless the Office for National Statistics stated in
1058
its evidence to the committee that the retail prices index is more widely needed than just as a measure of inflation, vital as that is.
It is needed:
"for increases to social security benefits and state pensions, for national savings and index linked gilts, for wage bargaining and for price adjusted contracts and the prices charged by utilities,"
and, I would add, the Inland Revenue regime for private sector defined benefit pension schemes.
The retail prices index is therefore of vital interest to everyone in the land. The office also said in evidence:
"No single measure of inflation can meet all users' needs".
I am left wondering exactly what is meant; but what is certain is that we need the retail prices index and its calculation to be a matter of trust and unshakeable public confidence. A single consistent measure which gains continuing public acceptance is highly desirable. Maybe this is what we enjoy now, although the Select Committee has expressed its doubts.
In the pursuit of trust and consistency, there are two quite separate aspects within the retail prices index methodology. The first is process, consisting of the collection of data by accurate sampling and then the statistical approach to that data. These mathematical procedures can be tested by peer group analysis and by comparison with other leading statistical practitioners. The professional areas of judgment are circumscribed by acceptable mathematical limits. Although this issue took up part of the time spent by the committee and the office, it does not need to detain us long.
The second set of issues poses much greater problems of consistency and judgment. To begin with, 4 per cent of the population, those with the highest incomes, are excluded from the sampling, as are those who live mainly on the state pension, although not those who live mainly on state benefits. Here choice is being exercised in the search for typical patterns of expenditure. We are entering the real world but exercising qualitative and not entirely unpolitical judgment. Not a statistician's function I would suggest. Indeed, this is the Chancellor of the Exchequer's province as was stated in response to the Commons Treasury sub-committee which reported on the Office for National Statistics in December last year. Recommendation M of that report stated,
"We recommend that the provision in the framework document for the Chancellor to decide 'the scope and definition of the retail prices index' be deleted."
The Government's response to this recommendation was that,
"the RPI is an indicator of the utmost economic importance which is used for many different purposes. As a reflection of its special importance to the UK economy and in line with long-standing arrangements, the scope and definition of the RPI has remained under the ultimate authority of the Chancellor. Under these arrangements, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is directly accountable to Parliament and the public for any decisions that are taken on the scope and definition of the RPI. The Government intends to continue with these arrangements."

1059
Do I detect a hint of both poacher and gamekeeper?
The very next House of Commons recommendation ended by saying:
"Ensuring that the head"—
of the Office of National Statistics—
"has the required freedom from political interference".
While it would be wrong to claim that the Chancellor sets both the 2.5 per cent inflation target and, to a considerable extent, influences the outcome of the RPIX, it is clear that he has some of the problems identified by your Lordships' committee on his mind. He made reference to issues of scope and definition in his evidence to the committee, a reference which was not followed up at the time.
What are these issues? Academic work principally in the United States has identified a number of issues of which four are of the greatest importance in the rapidly evolving economic and social scene of today. They all influence choice and consumers' behaviour.
The first is product substitution. An example would be switching between gas and electricity and perhaps back again. The second is change of shopping outlet. An example would be moving from a department store to a discounter. The third is quality changes. Are the batteries of today (hearing aid batteries perhaps) easily compared with those of yesterday? The fourth is new goods and services, as with personal computers and internet services. All these will affect accurate real life sampling and the weightings within any index.
A somewhat more detailed comment on clothing, an industry in which I am involved, is relevant. Consumers' spending on clothing as a percentage of their total spending has been falling for some years, thus affecting weightings used in the retail prices index. Clothing prices have been falling in both real and recently in nominal terms with discounters gaining share. The introduction of Lycra, an elastomeric fibre, has brought easier care and sometimes longer life—a quality change. Lifestyle changes are taking the industry rapidly away from formal wear towards a more casual style of dressing with new products.
In response to all this rapid change, we may do well to avoid arguments about whether one index would be better than another or whether one statistical approach is marginally to be preferred to another, and instead to concentrate on the real world of the cost of living as experienced by household managers. The response of the Office for National Statistics, whether in Select Committee or in publications, seems somewhat muted. Perhaps it is all too aware of the limitations imposed on its study on the scope and definition of the retail prices index; yet without professional freedom and independent advice, it must be doubtful whether public confidence will be maintained. There is an available source of independent advice—the RPI advisory committee—but the Government do not seem keen to use it. It is likely that the conclusion reached by your Lordships'
1060
committee points the way forward. In its conclusions, it states:
"The Office for National Statistics needs to play a more active role in dealing with all the problems that have emerged in connection with the measurement of inflation".
The committee, if renewed, may find the Chancellor of the Exchequer barring its way, but I shall wish it every good fortune in its endeavour to cast more light on the index and its calculation.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Peston for his committee's crucial and insightful report. I owe my noble friend a considerable debt because he appointed me to my first academic job more than 25 years ago. He may have regretted it when he discovered that two years in the City did not mean that I knew monetary economics, which he wanted me to teach to his Masters students. It was at the height of the Barber boom and I do not think that my noble friend had a lot of choice about who to appoint. Nonetheless, he may have regretted it. I discovered that my noble friend is a fast teacher, if I may put it that way. Indeed, looking at the minutes of the evidence, it appears that members of his committee may also have discovered that. I learnt quickly many of the elements of macro-economics. Indeed, not only does the report demonstrate my noble friend's insights, but also the possibility of life-long learning.
I remember my noble friend teaching me two big lessons, which I think are relevant to this debate. The first is that the uncertainty about the economy and our understanding of how economies work means that there are strict limits about what macro-economic policy and monetary policy in particular can achieve. One cannot fine-tune economies. The points made on that by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, were well made. We should not overestimate what we can expect from monetary policy.
The second lesson is also worth bearing in mind. It is that there are good, robust monetary and macro-economic policies—and there are bad ones, and we must ensure that the institutions that we put in place are good ones which are robust in the face of this uncertainty. If we doubt that proposition, we need only consider the past history of our economy: three major booms followed by three major recessions, all as a result of the poor conduct of monetary and macroeconomic policy. Indeed, we need only look at Japan, which has suffered the effects of poor policies in the past and, I believe, at the present.
Perhaps I may present the lesson by way of an analogy. In stormy weather, it is certainly not possible to steer a straight and smooth course, but we can clearly distinguish between good and bad helming, particularly in bad weather, and especially if the bad helming leads to the boat going out of control. Let us not expect too much of our monetary institutions, but also let us not underestimate the major contributions that have been made. I believe that the independence

1061
of the Bank is a thoroughly good move that takes us in the direction of robust, sound institutions that will serve the economy well in the future.
I shall not detain your Lordships long with a consideration of the technical criticisms that have been made. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research has been mentioned. It said that the Monetary Policy Committee would have done better to leave interest rates unchanged. I caution that such a conclusion is extremely difficult to draw from the types of analysis carried out on the large macro-econometric models on which some of our policy experts work.
Equally, a report from the London Business School argued that the present arrangements were subject to failures of co-ordination between monetary and fiscal policy. I think that that report was deficient because it did not distinguish between independence of targets and independence of instruments. Some references have been made to that tonight. In particular, I do not think that the co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policy is an issue. There are plenty of mechanisms for ensuring that the monetary authorities are well informed about the Government's fiscal plans to ensure that there is co-ordination in appropriate circumstances.
The key point is that if fiscal policy is inappropriate or wrong-headed, we do not want to have monetary and fiscal policy co-ordinated; precisely the opposite. One thinks of the experience of Germany. On a number of occasions, through its monetary actions the Bundesbank was able to forestall ill considered actions by the government which would otherwise have lead the economy into difficulty. In the early 1980s when President Reagan expanded the federal deficit considerably, would it have been better if Volcker had gone along with that by not raising interest rates? I do not think so. The US economy would have suffered major inflation.
The argument for Bank independence is not the co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policy; it is to ensure that when a Chancellor has wrong-headed policies, the effects are not as damaging. In the past, it has been dangerous when a Chancellor has gone hell for leather for macro-economic expansion. It is rather like a modern-day Mr Toad driving a twin-engine Ferrari with both feet firmly down on both accelerators, the monetary accelerator and the fiscal accelerator. In those circumstances, we want monetary and fiscal policies to pull in different directions. If we had had that in the past, I do not believe that we would have had the volatility that we have had in the British economy.
I should like to touch briefly on the question of the independent members of the Bank, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. The model of the corporate board is the right way to think of the Monetary Policy Committee. In parenthesis, perhaps I may mention that the energy regulator is moving the model of regulation in that area in that direction—to good effect, I think. If one thinks of a corporate board, one should think of the independents as the equivalent of non-executive directors. Therefore, in my view, it is
1062
desirable that their positions should be part-time. The dangers of them being full-time are considerable: they will become incorporated into the Bank; they will not express an independent position or bring with them the breadth of view that a genuinely outside member would have.
I strongly urge against the option of allowing the independent members to start engaging in major research. That is for the simple reason that in my experience the best researchers are zealots who really believe in what they find and who pursue ideas obsessively. Those are all admirable characteristics in researchers, but they do not sit comfortably with the broader perspective that we need for the Monetary Policy Committee which needs to step back, weigh and assess a broad body of analysis and information. That is not always the characteristic of the effective researcher.
There is another danger in having full-time appointments: we would confine selection to the body of academic economists. Of course, as your Lordships will infer, I have nothing against academic economists, but I do not think that we should have only those. One extra difficulty will arise that has not been referred to in the debate so far. If we confine the choice to academic economists, inevitably we shall reproduce on the Monetary Policy Committee the present severe gender imbalance in the economics profession at senior level that is of such concern to the Royal Economic Society and others. It may be dangerous to quote what the French do as an exemplar. However, they are able to bring in experts from industry and commerce.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith in his excellent maiden speech that we are overstating the conflicts of interest in this matter. We should be able to find distinguished individuals who can put aside their business interests in setting interest rates in the national interest and maintain Chinese walls when they go back to their commercial work. That should be feasible, and it is the way forward. It is dangerous to follow the route of full-time appointments. I suspect that the argument about resources flagged up in the press is less an issue of efficiency of resources and more an issue of excess time.
This report is a valuable contribution to the debate. I am sure that many will continue to use it in years to come. Yesterday, it was suggested that perhaps we should devise a way in which the fruits of these reports can find a more popular outlet to inform the public so that they can be debated more widely than at the moment.
I wish the Monetary Policy Committee and your Lordships' committee well. I hope that both will have a long life. However, I should like to see the UK join the euro in a timely way and, if that happens, both committees will lose many of their current functions. I urge your Lordships' House to accept the recommendation that this committee might be established on a semi-permanent basis.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, it is a remarkable privilege to be able to listen to your Lordships today. In these debates I feel that I am a perpetual student. Today, we have 10 eminent professors well briefed in economics and all in agreement, which is extraordinary. There are four visiting professors, or new professors, one of whom is perhaps on a short stay. They have made remarkable contributions which in the past hours have made me think a good deal.
I have read many reports like this one. I believe that I can understand these reports. However, page 57 of this report gave me hiccups. I could not understand the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Since I did not understand even half of them, perhaps some in the outside world would understand none. I then realised that what we had among us was a group of amateur head-hunters who felt that somehow they could select the right people to make monumental decisions far too often and without much basis.
One of my old friends, who was also a head hunter, said that to get something done three types of people were required: a trapper, a skinner and a cook. No individual can be all three; some can be two, but one must always have an economist to do the washing up. The economist thinks he knows what he will have to wash up, but more often than not he gets it wrong.
At the beginning of my remarks I want to go back 50 years, and at the end perhaps I shall go forward 50 years. Just over 50 years ago I had my first lesson in economics without knowing it. I had been given a Welsh pony by my mother which, to the knowledge of everyone but me, had never been broken in. I was told that I had to ride it, come hell or high water. I jumped off and hid round a corner. One day my great uncle Sir Stafford Cripps, who came to stay regularly, asked me, "Do you have a problem, young Malcolm?" I said, "No, uncle Stafford; the horse has a problem". He took me on the leading rein and the pony was calm. He explained to me what he had done. He used to dress up as Father Christmas, sometimes at No. 11 Downing Street, and invite all the family. I was very fond of him. He explained to me that there had been a war and in order to pay for it lots of pounds had to be used, which meant that the pound had to be devalued. That was my first introduction to the importance of the exchange rate.
Later, I found myself working in Germany. I recall that then there were over 11 deutschmarks to the pound, 17 French francs to the pound and 17 Swiss francs to the pound. A great Swiss friend recently celebrated his 40th wedding anniversary. He is married to a lovely girl from Leeds. To digress, it costs more to travel to Leeds to watch a football match and return to London than to travel to the south of France and back. I cannot work that out. I digress again. We have North Sea oil but we have the most expensive petrol in the world with tax and the cheapest without it. It makes me wonder whether there are some tax increases of which I am not aware. My Swiss friend said that when he first married his lovely English bride there were
1064
17 Swiss francs to the pound but after 40 years the pound had been devalued by 90 per cent and his only comfort was that his wife had increased by 40 per cent.
These matters are now past concerns. We do not have to worry about the exchange rate. One wonders why in the past we worried so much about sterling being a reserve currency. Many of us learnt that the last thing in the world we wanted was for the pound to be a reserve currency.
Interesting changes have taken place. I turn to the euro. I am amazed how, in a relatively short period, the euro has managed to develop on the Continent. I chair a very small bank in eastern Europe which does almost everything in euros. In general, we regard one dollar as one euro in round terms. The euro seems to be taking over as somebody else's reserve currency. There is stability in currencies, which means that the exchange rate does not seem to matter any more.
One turns to what might be described as the great decimator. A decimator was someone who took things away from you, but not every tenth like the taxman who took the tithes. I have always regarded someone who takes things away from you as a decimator. There were three types of decimator within the control of government. The worst one, which took away the greatest amount for a long period, was inflation. That now seems to be under control. The second, which effectively destroyed all initiative, was legislation and bureaucracy. One was not allowed to do the things one wanted. The third one was taxation itself. I have worries about the last one. There is no doubt that the level of taxation imposed on our people, whether by stealth or openly, is greater than it should be.
But when the decimator takes things away he creates a bit of deflation. It is not inflationary to take things away from people. Originally, government could tax, spend and legislate. It was possibly privatisation that effectively reduced the ability of government to spend too much. Therefore, we do not have inflation or a problem with exchange rates. However, we have a worry about too much growth in taxation, but in itself that is not a problem.
I do not understand why, when we have a stable situation, interest rates are put up today. We have put them up by 25 points and the European Central Bank has put them up by 50 points. The difference between the two is 150. That does not seem to be related to the differences between the economies, exchange rates or anything else. But in the back of my mind there is a hidden factor that I do not fully understand and believe that I shall never fully understand. It is: where is the money in the world and what is money? I was once told by many friends in eastern Europe that when, I think, Anthony Barber floated our currency the objective was to destroy socialist economies because they depend upon fixed parities. I have heard again and again that that was a clever Conservative plot.
However, the shift in parities between eastern and western Europe is interesting and one may ask why. If one takes all the countries in that quarter of the world, moving on into Asia, and realise that anything with

1065
"AN" in it is Islamic and that two-thirds or three-quarters of the world's oil and mineral resources are there, one realises that there was wealth. Where did it go? Some people have said that it went into a laundry and that it came out into the banking system as laundered money. But it came in and of that there is no doubt. We in the West have large quantities of other people's money and to a large extent it is influenced by the differential in exchange rates.
It is not necessarily hot money, but it is money which moves about. It comes into a bank and is placed on deposit, for example. Against that, a loan is taken out and it is lent back to the countries in eastern Europe at 20 or 25 per cent because no one is interested in investing when there is exchange risk.
I cannot say what will happen next, but having gone back 50 years and said to myself that the exchange rate does not matter any more and that taxation and inflation are reasonably all right, I wonder why we spend our time tinkering around too much with interest rates. I sit down with a paraphrase of the old Heinrich Heine saying that when the world is coming to an end try to become an economist because everything happens 50 years later.
8.11 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, the contributions today from all sides of the House have generally comprised an exceptional combination of quality and, considering the many issues raised by the report, brevity. As the penultimate speaker from the Back Benches, I shall do my best at least to maintain the latter virtue and detain your Lordships, and in particular my noble friend the Minister, for as short a time as possible.
I warmly welcome the report of the Select Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Peston, and, like other noble Lords, believe that it will become both a standard text for his fellow members of the academic community and essential reading for practising businessmen, politicians and people from every walk of life for whom, as my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said in his excellent maiden speech, the achievement of consistent, stable and non-inflationary growth is literally a vital issue.
In mentioning one maiden speaker, it would be invidious not to say that both my other maiden noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, were in no way overshadowed: truly an Amadeus quartet of maiden speakers.
Just as I welcome this report and the debate which it has stimulated, so I warmly welcome the decision of my right honourable friend the Chancellor to grant independence in this respect to the Bank of England and the consequent establishment of the MPC.
I am not sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, introduced a little party political edge to his remarks, because, unlike my noble friend Lord Peston, I am not myself good at remaining unpartisan for very long.
On the other hand, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, felt aggrieved that the Labour Party
1066
manifesto had not been totally explicit about the intention to grant independence to the Bank of England in respect of monetary policy. As the noble Viscount said, what was included flagged the principle as clearly as even the raising of the Governor's eyebrows. I realise, of course, that in the vaults of Smith Square is the video, "Setting Free the Bank"; the party political broadcast that the Conservatives dared not show. I am sure that history might have been quite different.
I believe that our experience during the past two and a half years, with all the caveats of it being early days, is a vindication of the decisive action of my right honourable friend the Chancellor. Of course, thankfully, the new arrangement has not been subjected to any significant supply-side shock. But the economic legacy from the previous government was not by any means as golden as the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and his colleagues have claimed—something which my noble friend Lord Desai cogently expounded in his evidence to the committee.
The MPC can take credit for the soft landing of the economy achieved from the hot-air balloon fuelled by the previous Government's pre-election stoking of demand. Without being complacent about the formidable burden of the high exchange rate faced by all companies competing at home and in export markets with overseas-based rivals, unlike my noble friend Lord Desai, I am not sure that a much better balance of fiscal and monetary policy could have been effected.
A number of noble Lords drew the comparison between the frequency of interest rate changes in the UK during this period and those which applied in the USA and Germany of the euro zone. I do not believe that it is unreasonable to make some allowance for the MPC finding its feet; a newly qualified driver may correct a car's steering more nervously than an old hand, but should quickly learn to chart as steady a path as the road allows.
That goes to the heart of the evolutionary approach which my noble friend Lord Peston has advocated for the MPC and the new system. The balance between independence and accountability, which the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, seemed to regret as an unhappy compromise, in my view is an ideal starting point from which, no doubt, evolution over the next few years will produce worthwhile refinements in areas highlighted by the report and today's debate, such as the geographical and industrial orientation and length of tenure of MPC members. In the words of one of the MPC's independent members, Professor Willem Buiter, when comparing the constitution of the UK's new monetary control system with that of the ECB, we benefit from,
"The British 'common law' genius for pragmatic institutional design and adaptation, and the example of openness and transparency set by the Bank of England since its independence in June 1997".
Professor Buiter's comparison is, in passing, an important issue for anyone like myself who believes that, in principle, the UK's adoption of the euro within the next few years will be in the national interest and

1067
attainable under the criteria set out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor, but that not all the institutions and mechanisms established to date are as well-placed to address the consequences of a single currency as I would like.
Nonetheless, I wondered whether, when the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, among others pointed to the infrequency of interest rate changes for the euro in comparison with the unhelpful frequency of UK interest rate changes, he was struck by the irony of that in the context of his party's hostility to British membership of EMU for, in effect, the foreseeable future.
I should like to end by venturing into what the noble Lord, Lord Roll, correctly identified as dangerous waters, particularly for a very rusty economics student. Like my noble friend Lord Peston, I regard myself as an unreconstructed Keynesian, although I am always wary of describing myself in those terms within earshot of the biographer of the great man, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky.
I do not believe that inflation is either purely or predominantly a monetary phenomenon. I believe that good monetary policy is a necessary but not sufficient condition for non-inflationary growth—a firm but mildly flexible framework within which the real economy can operate.
It is surely indisputable that deregulation, enhanced competition and innovation—in technological and other spheres—have contributed vitally to the creation of a lower inflationary environment world-wide over the past 10 years.
The extraordinary record of the US economy during this period does Alan Greenspan and the Fed great credit; but the US markets risk spooking themselves unnecessarily at the prospect of Dr Greenspan's eventual retirement, if in analysing this success disproportionate weight is given to monetary policy and the contribution of competition and innovation underestimated. The consequences of competition and innovation for many companies are not comfortable, but those influences lie at the heart of sustainable, non-inflationary growth in the economy within a stable monetary framework. I believe that that is the virtuous circle encompassing low inflation, growth and full employment.
For those reasons, which are the essential limitations of monetary policy, I join the noble Lord, Lord Roll—somewhat to my surprise—in favouring clarification of the MPC's remit, which, if anything, narrows its scope, rather than moving towards the dual mandate advocated by Dr Gerard Lyons and others who gave evidence to the committee.
I commend the report to your Lordship's House. I can conclude only by suggesting that if there were any doubts in your Lordships' minds as to whether the Select Committee should be perpetuated, the truly remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Roll, should have dispelled them, as well as providing a compelling argument for its unchanged membership.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, there are three submissions in this report opposed to usury in its old sense of "lending money at no risk". Drawing on those submissions and on other sources—there is a large literature on the subject—perhaps I may paint with a broad brush what is wrong with usury and the banks creating money out of nothing, and what we should do about it.
There is no doubt that banks should not finance business enterprises with loans where they charge interest. Instead, they should enter into partnership agreements, where, as in Islamic banking, the business risk is shared equally between entrepreneurs and financiers.
The use of bank credit consists—as I shall explain in a moment—not only of loans but of the creation of additional money. Money is cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged. Treated in that way as a commodity, money loses its value and stability as a medium of exchange. Money should therefore be a record of transactions for real goods and services. The fact that the medium-of exchange function of money is not adequately met is indicated by the growing emergence of local, LETS, private, Air Miles, and barter trade credit currencies.
How has money been cut loose from the real economy where goods and services are exchanged? The ancestors of the present banking industry in Tudor times were the goldsmiths, who realised that not all the gold plate and bullion deposited with them would be withdrawn at the same time. They therefore invented the audacious and fraudulent trick of issuing promissory notes, which are the origin of our present bank notes, to represent an excess of what they really had.
That policy of lending out more than one has was continued by the banks with their system of fractional reserve, sometimes given as a proportion of 10 to one, but hedge funding is really far higher. We see that at two levels: national and private debt. The mechanism of national debt is quite simple. It involved the assumption of debt by the Government to obtain additional revenue to cover annual shortfall in taxation. Therefore, to pay for the war against Louis XIV, the Bank of England was chartered in 1694 and started out in the business of lending out several times over the money that it held in reserves, all at interest.
Such lending at a prudent rate took a quantum leap with World War I. It was extended further to pay for World War II, and in the United States of America it took an even greater quantum leap to pay for the Vietnam War. Therefore, by 1971, it became unbridgeable, and at a rate of growth beyond control. President Nixon had no choice but to cancel the right of the Government to exchange dollars for gold, which removed the gap altogether.
The level of private debt escalated in a similar fashion. During the 10 years from 1980, consumer debt rose from £11 billion to £43 billion, while mortgage borrowing increased more than five-fold.

1069
What are the bad effects of all this? There is no doubt that usury intensifies business cycles. Bank lending enabled share prices to rise to unsustainable levels in 1929; the Depression followed. Over-availability of credit caused a massive increase in house prices, followed by a dramatic fall in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In recession, interest acts as a fixed cost outside the company's control, unlike share dividends. The higher its debt-equity ratio, the worse are the implications.
The basic cause of inflation, then, must be the banks' use of fractional reserve in lending out more than they have. To reduce inflation, governments put up interest rates, which increases the profits made by the banks and encourages them to lend out more. Meanwhile, the high interest rates lead to a decline of economic activity because they increase production costs.
What is the way to curb the evils of usury which I have just described? The only way in particular to stop inflation is to stop banks from creating credit. The supply of money should be removed from banks and should be assumed by governments, who should issue it on a debt-free basis. Such a view is supported by five disparate quarters: the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in the debate which he introduced to this House in 1985, Disraeli, the Vatican under Pope Pius XI in his Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno in 1931, the Tsars of Russia in the last century, who prevented the setting up of a privately owned central bank, and, above all, Abraham Lincoln, who said that governments should create, issue, and circulate all currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of governments and the buying power of consumers.
By adopting those principles, the taxpayer would be saved immense sums of interest. Lincoln's greenbacks were generally popular, and their existence let the genie out of the bottle with the public becoming accustomed to government-issued, debt-free money. The year after Lincoln's assassination, Congress set to work at the bidding of the European central banking interests to retire the greenbacks from circulation and to ensure the reinstitution of a privately owned central bank under the usurers' control.
During the history of the United States, the money power has gone back and forth between Congress and some privately owned central bank. The American people fought off four privately owned central banks before succumbing to a fifth privately owned central bank, at that time essential, owing to the period of weakness during the Civil War.
The founding fathers of the United States knew the evils of a privately owned central bank. They had seen how the Bank of England ran up the British national debt to such an extent that Parliament was forced to place unfair taxes on the American colonies, leading to their loss following, the American Revolution.
I now conclude. Once the fundamental decision is taken to prevent sterling from being debt-based, the Commonwealth could act as the right monetary union to use sterling debt-free as a genuine alternative to the dollar and the euro.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is a privilege for me to speak in this debate, as it was indeed to serve on the committee. I join other noble Lords in the tributes that they have paid to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for keeping what started off as a relatively unruly crew in extremely good order. The concept of guided democracy may be dead in eastern Europe, but it is not dead in your Lordships' House. We are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for all his efforts on our collective behalf.
I congratulate all the maiden speakers. I was extremely sorry, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, did not dilate on the difference between the arithmetic and geometric mean, not least because it constitutes about half a per cent difference in the rate of inflation. Although we had to grapple with the way in which he reached that conclusion, it was a conclusion with which we all agreed, and it is very significant, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, would agree.
I was also particularly delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, because until this evening, I believed—perhaps incorrectly—that I was the only Leeds United supporter in your Lordships' House. Although consensus was arrived at on many issues in our committee, we were riven regularly on matters concerning football. It is a great relief to me to know that I will have such a heavyweight reinforcement in battles no doubt to come on that front.
I return to the report. I believe that it serves two principal useful functions. First, it describes in great detail, and for the first time, a major institutional and constitutional change within this country. I hope that it is widely disseminated and read. I am not sure that as an institution ourselves we are very good at making the outside world aware of what we do. Given that there is a huge amount of academic and amateur input into this report, I hope that effort will be made to ensure that those who might benefit from reading it have the opportunity to realise both that it exists and then to read it.
I hope that the second benefit of the report is that shining such a strong and detailed spotlight on to the MPC has shown up both its strengths and its weaknesses. I start with the strengths. It is worth repeating that our basic contention was that the Government were right to set up a committee. When measured against its key remit to hit an inflation target, the committee has achieved that with a considerable measure of success. As many noble Lords have said, we all agree that it has done so during a benign period of economic activity. But that is not the fault of the committee, and the truth is that it has achieved its target for the first two years, and for that it is to be congratulated.
Equally, we all accept that there are many influences on inflation other than the interest rate. Arguably, some of them are more important from time to time than the interest rate. However, we would all accept that over the medium to long term, the interest rate is

1071
a crucial contributory determinant of the rate of inflation. In exercising its role, the MPC has performed pretty well.
In my view, rather than in any particular decision that it has made, arguably the key success of the MPC has been in its effect on inflationary expectations. Despite the problems that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, correctly described about measurement, in an imperfect world one wants institutions to bear down on inflation. I believe that by making clear that it would act firmly if it thought that inflation was taking off, the MPC has had a significant impact on inflationary expectations, both in respect of the impact on wage bargaining and more generally. I believe that that is a considerable achievement and one that will serve us well in the medium to longer term.
For a major British institution, the MPC is also an extremely open and transparent body. I also believe that it is independent and accountable. I think that the criticisms by the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, emanate rather more from a political view than from any evidence. Speaking from, I hope, a non-political view, all the evidence is that the independent members behave independently. There is no evidence that they are dancing to the Chancellor's tune. Equally, they have regularly attended our committee and the equivalent committee in another place to account for their actions. I believe that to argue that they are not accountable is, frankly, not borne out by the evidence.
However, we did not conclude that all was perfect. At the macro level, we were concerned with the relationship of monetary and fiscal policy. The noble Lord, Lord Vinson, has touched on that. The Chancellor was keen to reassure us that the mechanisms for co-ordinating the two worked well. But there is no doubt that if the two are partners, the Chancellor is the lead partner. As the noble Lord, Lord Currie, said, it may be a good thing that the Bank can respond to the Chancellor's lead. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the lead is on fiscal policy and the Bank adjusts to that, rather than vice versa.
Secondly, there are measurement issues to which both the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Howell, referred. There are outstanding questions about price indices in particular. We spent some time talking about those and there is more work to be done in that area. Clearly, there are some issues in relation to appointment and composition. Those which particularly concerned us related to the transparency of the appointment system and also the need—as, I believe, the majority of us saw it—to try to attain a greater geographic spread among the members.
The role of the independent members, which has generated so much press interest over the past week or two, was one at which we began to look. However, it did not seem to be quite the issue that it has become. I believe—indeed, I am sure—that we were surprised at our first meeting to discover that at that stage one member, Dr Julius, was a full-time, independent member. With the passage of time, more of them have been working full time. That surprised us.
1072
I believe that the demand for greater resources is also a demand for greater influence. Also, it is a response to the fact that they have more time than, as my mother would say, they know what to do with. I doubt whether that is a positive development. I have considerable sympathy with the powerful speeches made on that subject by, among others, the noble Lords, Lord Burns, Lord Currie, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Roll, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hogg and Lady O'Cathain.
In his evidence to us, the Governor made it clear that choosing an interest rate was more of an art than a science. From all that I have heard in the past year I increasingly agree. I do not believe that beyond a certain point there is any correlation between the volume of research and the quality of the decision making. I cannot get out of my mind the extremely old joke that the definition of an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows everything about nothing. I do not believe that we have reached that point, but ways must be found for the independent members to combine their role in the Bank with a role outside the Bank so that they are in a better position to exercise the art of monetary policy-making, rather than concentrating totally on an inexact science. As a number of noble Lords have said, I believe that if the French Government have been able to do that without the apparent conflicts of interest which have worried us here, that is something that is worth looking at again.
The final problem with which we grappled is the major economic problem which has concerned many of our witnesses and noble Lords this evening, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Paul; namely, the high level of the pound. Again, it was very clear to us that there were many influences on the exchange rate beyond the interest rate. I believe that it is fair to say that we did not have a completely convincing description from anyone who appeared before us as to why the exchange rate moved in quite the way that it did. However, we were agreed that a low level of inflation was an important contribution to sustainable economic growth. We did not want to take a risk with inflation in pursuit of what could be illusory other economic goals, including a lower exchange rate.
Most of us thought that fiscal policy could play a significant role in dealing with the sectoral and geographical difficulties which were described earlier, not least by the noble Viscount, Lord Weir. Personally, I believe that we should argue for a bigger role for fiscal policy in this respect within the UK. Certainly, that is an essential requirement within the euro zone. That point was borne in on us when we visited the Bundesbank on a day which was, incidentally, particularly stressful because of events later in the day on the football pitch which caused a certain amount of stress to a number of noble Lords. When we talked to the Bundesbank about fiscal policy, Dr König, its Chief Economist, stressed the importance of fiscal flexibility at Länder level. Dr Remseperger, a member of the bank's directorate, reinforced this view in respect of the Euro zone. His

1073
view was that it would be necessary to have different tax systems across the euro zone and that it would be a big mistake to harmonise the tax system. That is one piece of evidence which we should have at the front of our minds as we approach the forthcoming debate about possible UK membership of the euro zone.
That brings me to the future. What are the main elephant traps facing the MPC? There are a number of possible external shocks, but by their very nature they are unpredictable. However, there are two more predictable and fundamental challenges for the MPC over the next period. First, the question of joining the EMU. We do not know what the timetable is. However, the likelihood is that there will be a referendum in the next five years. There are a number of issues there—not least the one to which I have already referred, about the optimal or, at least, a sensible exchange rate at which we might join. A number of options were set out in some of the evidence we received, not least from Martin Weale from the national institute. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said earlier, there are ways in which the exchange rate could be affected simply by the policy utterances of the Government. That is a major area and one to which I believe we should return.
In the longer term the wider issues of the demise of money, the end of money and the by-passing of the banking system in making payments were raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howell and Lord Roll. At least the Bank is aware of the problem and, as noble Lords will no doubt have read, a couple of months ago in Wyoming, Mervyn King made a speech on that issue. There is no doubt that the combination of the banking changes and the digital payment systems that were discussed raise a whole raft of new issues about how the money supply is controlled, how taxes are raised and how to measure what is going on. In concluding his lecture, Mervyn King said that societies have managed without central banks in the past and they may well do so in the future.
I commend the report to the House, but I do so with the sure conviction that it chronicles only one episode in a saga which has many twists and turns yet to come. Therefore, I share the view, already widely expressed, that the committee should have a continuing role.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on his chairmanship of the committee and on the committee's production of this excellent report. Your Lordships' House is fortunate to have an economist of such eminence to undertake this important task. Indeed, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was rather overcome by the seriousness of the occasion; because his normal exuberance and striking sense of humour were kept under iron control during his delivery this afternoon. As a self-confessed Keynesian, I thought his self-restraint all the more remarkable.
We have heard four excellent maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, delivered a speech of great sincerity and clarity, reminding us of what it is
1074
like to be at the other end of this exercise—an entrepreneur trying to make money, generate employment and remain solvent.
Having listened to the noble Lord, I believe that he is just the kind of chap we need in your Lordships' House. I shall write a letter to that effect to the Government Chief Whip. I believe that the youth and insight of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, would prove of great value to your Lordships' House in the years to come. I for one am extremely sorry that he will probably no longer be permitted to serve in your Lordships' House.
The easy manner of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, betrayed much familiarity with your Lordships' proceedings, gleaned—as we know—from his experience both as a political adviser and a journalist. Noble Lords will agree that his speech was both engaging and full of interesting insight.
The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, brings to your Lordships' House his reputation as an outstanding advocate. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that he more than lived up to that reputation. The only mistake made by the noble Lord was to say something with which I wholeheartedly agree—that there are important and interesting parallels to make between the appointments of members of the committee and the appointments of members of the judiciary.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, also made a speech of great charm, with a number of important observations about the exchange rate. I hope that he will agree with me that, attractive though it is to watch Leeds United at its best, there is nothing like listening to a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, feels that on this occasion Leeds United were well worth missing.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who said that the story of the development of the relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England over the past 30 years is one of evolution. Your Lordships will have heard the entertaining speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, who served on the Court of the Bank of England for many years. Your Lordships will recall him describing an exchange between the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Governor said something like, "I have been having a spot of bother on the other side of town", which the noble Viscount interpreted as a euphemism for the fact that there had been a heroic row between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England. In those days that was the way in which things were done.
Then we went through the period described by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as the "Ken and Eddie show", and we have now arrived at the new arrangements which were announced by the Government six days after the election. Her Majesty's Opposition, as your Lordships have already heard from my noble friend Lord Saatchi, have a new initiative in this area because my right honourable

1075
friend the Shadow Chancellor has set up his own commission to look at the relationship between the Bank of England and the Treasury.
I am sure that the conclusions of that commission—I cannot anticipate exactly what they will be—will provide a further stage in the evolution of the positions of the Bank and the Treasury. I hope that they will underline the importance of the independence of the Bank from the Treasury—that there should be real independence, not just the appearance of independence.
The economic philosophy that lies behind the Government's initiative is that price stability is an essential precondition for stable growth and full employment. That philosophy is well expressed in a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Bank dated 6th May 1997 which states:
"Price stability is a precondition for high and stable levels of growth and employment, which in turn will help to create the conditions for price stability on a sustainable basis. To that end, the monetary policy objective of the Bank of England will be to deliver price stability … and, without prejudice to this objective, to support the Government's economic policy, including its objectives for growth and employment".
The Opposition Benches wholly endorse that approach to economic policy. Indeed, it reflects an insight that my noble friend Lady Thatcher had about the running of the economy in 1975 when she became Leader of the Opposition. I am delighted to see her views now confirmed by the Government.
The new policy of the Government is now enshrined, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said, in statute. In the great sweep of our history, that is almost unprecedented; but in the context of the activities of Her Majesty's Government, during the last two-and-a-half years, it has become routine. With the Scotland Act, the Wales Act, the Northern Ireland Act and the incorporation of the Convention on Human Rights into our legal framework we have seen the substitution of our unwritten constitution by a series of statutory measures.
In a few years we may find the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, instructed in a case judicially to review the decisions of the monetary committee on the grounds that some level of interest rate that it has chosen is so unreasonable that no reasonable committee could have come to that conclusion. That is the logical outcome of incorporating such matters in a statutory framework.
The principle of the independence of the Bank of England from the Treasury is one that I wholly endorse. If your Lordships look at the most successful post-war economies—the most striking examples must be Japan and the United States—you must inevitably be struck by the fact that there the central banks are independent of the political process. I accept that the causal relationship in these cases is somewhat opaque. However, the coincidence of the phenomena is nevertheless striking.
In any case, it has always seemed to me that the management of money, like the administration of justice, should be kept as far away as possible from the
1076
ballot box. If that is achieved, governments will not be tempted to print money when it becomes politically attractive for them so to do.
I accept entirely, of course, that fiscal matters should be subject to rigorous parliamentary control. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky made an extremely good point when he said that the parliamentary control of fiscal matters in this country is inadequate. He proposed to your Lordships the establishment of a parliamentary committee expressly tasked with trying to unravel the tangled web to which my noble friend Lord Saatchi referred. I hope that one of the developments of today's work will be that your Lordships' House will give this matter further, careful consideration.
The separation of powers between the Bank of England and the Treasury of itself adds nothing to our grasp of the science of monetary control. However, as my noble friend Lord Poole indicated, it has a profound effect on the psychology of markets. Because market operators know that governments can no longer resort to the printing press, they respect the decisions made by an institution which is independent of the political process. It is one way of achieving a certain degree of control over the animal spirits of entrepreneurs and speculators.
But if that independence is to have that beneficial effect, it must be real. The question that we need to ask ourselves is whether or not the arrangements that have been established by the Government since they came into office have created a situation whereby the Bank is genuinely independent of government influence.
I begin by looking at something in the report which puzzled me. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will have an answer to this, or indeed the Minister, when he comes to reply to the debate. In paragraph 2.23 of the report, we find the Chancellor defining the MPC's accountability in his remit for the committee as follows:
"The Monetary Policy Committee is accountable to the Government for the remit set out in this letter".
Then, paragraph 5.3 of the report, which deals with some evidence that was given by Sir Andrew Turnbull, states:
"Explaining the division of responsibilities, Sir Andrew said that 'The objective of the Treasury is to pursue sustainable growth for the economy as a whole.' The Bank has been set 'a specific objective, which is to deliver inflation'. He also claimed a limitation in the Chancellor's responsibilities when he stated that 'Apart from when things go badly wrong, he is not responsible for the level of interest rates that the MPC has chosen'".
If Sir Andrew is right, what meaning can we ascribe to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his letter defining the MPC's accountability? The MPC either is or is not accountable to the Chancellor for its setting of interest rates. If it is accountable, the Chancellor is politically responsible for the decisions of the MPC. The Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot have it both ways.
What are we looking for in a successful relationship between the Treasury and the Bank of England? I suggest that we are looking for two things. On the one hand, we are looking for genuine independence. At the

1077
same time, however, the committee must have legitimacy in the eyes of the nation, because it takes decisions which affect in the most intimate manner the daily lives of our citizens. How do we achieve these objectives?
That has been the stuff of the debate in your Lordships' House this afternoon. The greater the integrity that the committee is seen to have in the eyes of the country, the greater will be its legitimacy. In that regard, I believe that the process of selection is crucial, and I wish to make two remarks about that.
First, any term of years fewer than the life of a government—three or even four years—is too short. I was particularly struck by the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who said that questions of political influence are not in the initial selection of the members of the committee but at the moment of re-selection. The members of the Bundesbank Committee serve for a term of eight years; the members of the Federal Reserve in the United States serve for a term of 14 years. I suggest that one term in the United Kingdom which is at least longer than the electoral term of a government is highly desirable if the members of the MPC are to have real credibility.
I also submit—and here I find myself entirely in tune with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith—that these positions ought to be advertised so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have the widest possible catchment area from which to choose.
In my view, the other ingredient which is central is accountability to Parliament. That is a necessary ingredient if the Bank is to be independent of the Government. If the Bank is to be independent of the Government, it must nevertheless be accountable to Parliament. Here we have to look very carefully at the powers of both the committee in another place and the committee in your Lordships' House. I do not advocate that the committee should have a veto over the appointments of members of the committee. However, I certainly believe that there should be a degree of scrutiny by members of the committee during the appointment process, and that, thereafter, the committee should have powers, similar to those of committees in the United States Senate, to supervise the work of the monetary committee. With all those ingredients, we would have a blend of independence on the one hand and legitimacy on the other which would serve this nation well.
Of course, I accept that in the penetrating speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Roll of Ipsden, and my noble friend Lord Howell there are real question marks over the effectiveness of the short-term interest rates in influencing the supply of money, in particular, and economic activity in general. But that is a limitation which applies to application of monetary policy whether it is entirely in the hands of the Treasury or in the hands of an independent bank. From time to time, no doubt, the committee will falter in exactly the same way as the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have faltered had he kept the position entirely under his own control. But at least I hope your Lordships will agree,
1078
and it is certainly the sense of this debate, that the direction in which the Government are travelling is the right direction; they just need to think more clearly about the arrangements they put in place to guarantee both independence and legitimacy.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorely tempted to stand up and say: "Well done committee; well done Chancellor; well done Monetary Policy Committee. It is all working well. What is the problem?", and then sit down. But my contract of employment, if I had one, would be breached by that. I feel I am obliged to detain your Lordships for some time.
It is a splendid report. We all agree on that. It has been an interesting debate. We will all agree on that. And it had four remarkable maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, described his 15 years setting up a business. I spent 30 years setting up and running my own business and of course I experienced the same problems as he did with a strong pound and high interest rates. But what I found to be the most difficult problem—for me at any rate—was the uncertainty, the variability in interest rates, the variability in exchange rates and the variability in demand in the economy. I hope that the thrust of what I am going to say will be on the side of stability, which is the prime objective of this Government.
My noble friend Lord Lipsey made a speech which was an example to all future maiden speakers. It was seven minutes in length without notes, but also cogent, coherent and without a single hesitation; it was an amazing speech. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith has something to learn yet. He says that he is not under instructions any more. When he gets his pager he will find that he is under instructions and that new Labour has its own ways of ensuring that the message is properly transmitted. But we will let him off for a few days, possibly even until the next Session. And my noble friend Lord Woolmer made valid points about exchange rates and the inability of economists, politicians or the Monetary Policy Committee to control exchange rates, which are in fact controlled by the market and, I was told, are therefore true.
If anybody complains that there is a lack of transparency in the way in which we operate our monetary policy framework, the evidence of this debate, which has been well informed and perceptive in many cases, has shown that we could not have achieved this quality without the degree of transparency on which I shall attempt to enlarge. I shall not go quite as far as at one stage I thought the noble Lord, Lord Roll, was going to go. I thought he was going to argue that the committee was so well qualified that it should take over the functions of the Monetary Policy Committee itself. He stopped just short of that.
In closing this debate I should like briefly to summarise the Government's view of the rationale and benefits of the new monetary policy framework and to respond, as far as I can, to points made in the debate.

1079
In particular, I should like to look at why a new policy framework was needed, and question whether the new framework has performed well since its introduction.
A new framework was needed because the old ways of conducting monetary policy were simply not delivering. That can be seen in the UK's inflation and output performance over the past 30 years. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Burns, says—that we might have done some of this earlier had there not been real doubts, not about inflation targets, but about the lags within which they operate. That is of course true. Nevertheless, the fact is that that did not happen and a whole series of different targets, of different criteria, were used over the period of 30 years. I am taking the period of 30 years in order not to be thought to be party political.
In the 1970s, inflation averaged 13 per cent, peaking at almost 27 per cent in 1975. In the 1980s it averaged 7 per cent, while in the early 1990s inflation peaked at over 9 per cent. It was not only high over that period, but it was also very volatile. If I may say so, I was fascinated by the dissertation of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the nature of definitions of inflation. However, I do not have the time to follow him into the detail that, as a statistician, I should like.
As a result, growth in the economy was volatile. Indeed, over the period 1980 to mid-1998 the UK's GDP growth was more volatile than any other G7 country apart from Canada. We feel that that volatility helps to explain why, in terms of GDP per capita, the UK ranks equal lowest in G7 and only ninth in the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Poole, in a generally antagonistic speech, acknowledged that the economy was more stable than it used to be. Coming from him, I take that as a genuine compliment.
After the departure from the ERM in 1992 there was a downward shift in average inflation. The most important factor behind that was the severe recession that had taken place in the early 1990s. It created a large degree of spare capacity in the economy which helped to prevent a build-up of inflationary pressure for several years. By the start of 1997 that situation was corning to an end. The UK was starting to expand at an unsustainable rate and threatening to send inflation up again.
The fall in inflation was also partly the result of some improvements in the monetary policy framework that were introduced around that time. Again I hope I am not being party political about this. In particular, an inflation target was set for the first time while reporting arrangements were improved. But those were piecemeal and were not enough to restore credibility in the Government's ability to maintain low inflation. That was reflected in the fact that inflation expectations were consistently well above the Government's inflation target throughout the period between 1992 and 1997; in other words, there was a large credibility gap between what the Government were genuinely aiming for and what markets were expecting to happen.
1080
So it is a poor record. One of the most important reasons for that is that poor institutional arrangements were in place over that period. There were shortcomings both in the design and the conduct of monetary policy, and that meant that policy-makers frequently made mistakes. As a result, inflation was higher and more volatile than it would otherwise have been. With inflation set to rise again, it was necessary for the Government quickly to put monetary policy on a sound footing, which is what the Chancellor did on 6th May. How did we do this? We did so by introducing a fundamental and radical reform of the monetary policy framework based on a coherent set of principles to deliver low and stable inflation and the platform of economic stability necessary for long-term economic success.
First, the new framework introduced clear and sensible objectives for monetary policy. The framework explicitly aims to achieve low and stable inflation, recognising that this is essential to meet the Government's central economic objective of high and stable levels of growth and employment. There was a great deal of discussion both this afternoon and this evening about this and about the wording of Section 11 of the Bank of England Act 1998. My noble friend Lord Barnett and the noble Lord, Lord Roll, together with others, objected to the phrase "subject to", which appears in that section. Indeed, that was argued at length by my noble friend and by my noble friend Lord Peston during the passage of the Act.
However, I do not find the committee's report quite as antagonistic as the views which were expressed at that time. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, mentioned, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sent a memorandum, which is an interpretation of Section 11 of the Bank of England Act. The important point here is that the committee is charged to aim for the highest level of growth and employment which is consistent with the 2½ per cent target. That is not what the Act says; that is what the Chancellor's memorandum says. The Act does not say that in so many words but, in effect, that it what it means. On that basis, both the committee and the experience of the past 30 months confirm that that is a sound policy. The fact that it is a symmetrical policy on either side of the target means that monetary policy is neither unnecessarily loose nor unnecessarily tight.
In addition to clear objectives, the new framework also set out clear roles and responsibilities. The Government retain overall responsibility for designing the framework, setting the inflation target and monitoring the performance of the Monetary Policy Committee. The committee is responsible for setting interest rates to hit the Government's inflation target. This means that the MPC—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, who found what he thought to be contradictory references in the report—has operational responsibility for interest rates. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not responsible for individual interest rate decisions. It is noticeable that neither he nor any government spokesman has ever commented on individual interest rate decisions.

1081
However, the MPC is directly accountable to the Government for the inflation target that it has been given.
I acknowledge that a very considerable part of the debate today has been about the way in which the MPC operates and the way that its members are chosen. The way in which the committee operates in detail is not a responsibility of this Government, so I shall not comment on that. I am certainly not going to comment on issues like research facilities for non-executive members. That is a matter for them, for the Bank of England and for the Court.
I listened with great care to what was said about the transparency of appointment of the non-executive members; indeed, what the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, called a "cloak and dagger" method of appointment, which I thought was exaggerating the situation just a little. I also listened to what was said about the terms of appointment. Clearly, the Government will read very carefully in Hansard what has been said. I do not want to argue with noble Lords who have strong and very often expert views on the subject. I do not even want to argue with those noble Lords, including some of my noble friends, who talked about the "Southern bias" of the members of the MPC, although I believe that the fundamental criterion should be who is best for the job, wherever he or she comes from.
The clue to all of this must be what my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said; namely, that you must adopt the system of appointment—in particular, by advertisement—which will attract the best candidate. That must be the criterion. There is at least a suggestion that a long period of office might deter some better candidates. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon: we should not be amateur head-hunters. There has been a little too much of that this afternoon. I think that I should be restrained in my comment in that respect.
The new framework incorporates a range of measures designed to ensure that monetary policy is as transparent and as accountable as possible. For example, the minutes of the meetings and the quarterly inflation report provide a comprehensive and open account of the factors behind monetary policy decisions. The framework also makes it clear that the Monetary Policy Committee is responsible for its performance to the Bank's Court of Directors, the Government, Parliament and, ultimately, the public. The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said that it was accountable only to the Chancellor. It is appointed by the Chancellor but that is distinct from its wide range of accountability.
I turn to the new framework's performance. When it was introduced, some people, including Members of this House, were sceptical about whether it would deliver the necessary economic stability. Indeed at all stages between then and now there have been fears expressed in this House, notably from Members of the Opposition Front Bench, that we were heading for disaster and would be in a recession by this time. I remember all that. I could no doubt get out the quotations if I needed them.
1082
Of course after two and a half years with the lags that arise as regards the application and effect of monetary policy, it is not possible to draw firm conclusions about how well the new monetary policy framework has performed, but it is possible to draw some conclusions. We welcome the conclusion of the committee that the Government were right to give operational independence to the Bank of England and place it on a statutory basis. Last month we published a paper entitled The New Monetary Policy Framework, which is available free from the Treasury and which I commend to those of your Lordships who have not seen it. It mentions the benefits of the new framework.
First, how has it performed in relation to the target? Since the introduction of the new framework, inflation has been low, stable and close to target. Between May 1997 and September 1999, RPIX inflation averaged 2.6 per cent, moving in a narrow band between 2.1 per cent and 3.2 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, was right to say that that has happened in other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, was right too to say that it will not always work. But I think that it is a bit much for the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, to say that we would have achieved the same effect by a flat 6 per cent interest rate. Of course it is possible to say that with hindsight. But would the NIESR or the noble Lord, Lord Howell, have been able to say that at any of the intervening periods between then and now?
The MPC has also been able to act in a proactive and forward looking manner. It has been able to act quickly and decisively. It has been able to avoid the need for large changes in interest rates. The maximum was only 7.5 per cent for four months in this cycle, compared with 15 per cent for a year in the previous cycle. My noble friend Lord Peston and others complained about too many changes, but he did so as an unreconstructed Keynesian, of course. We have to listen to his views with that in mind. I do not see what is wrong with a lot of small changes rather than large changes. I think that from the point of view of the economy it is better to do it that way round.
The other point concerns the symmetric nature of the inflation target. When it was introduced, there were some who thought that policy makers could have an incentive to drive inflation as low as possible. The Opposition said that when we considered the Bank of England Bill. But it has not worked that way. The symmetric inflation target has meant that deviations below the target are treated in the same way as deviations above the target. The Governor pointed out that,
"we have made it clear by our actions that we are just as vigorous in relaxing policy when the risks to inflation are on the downside as we are in tightening policy when the risks to inflation are on the upside".
Therefore the MPC has done a good job of supporting the Government's objectives for output and employment. Over the first two and a half years it has had to deal with considerable instability in the global economy. In 1997 many commentators were forecasting a boom, while at this time last year there was much talk of a recession. But the UK economy has

1083
consistently recorded solid growth and rising employment over this period, avoiding the boom and bust pattern of the past to which my noble friend Lord Currie referred.
Not only has the new framework delivered good outcomes over the past two and a half years, it is also clear that the process is working well, which bodes well for future outcomes. The decision to grant operational independence has been commended by many other people, not just your Lordships' committee. This openness and transparency has helped to improve dramatically the credibility of monetary policy by a very straightforward measure. People now have a clearer idea of what policy makers are trying to achieve and what they are doing to meet their objectives. A whole range of survey and financial market data exist which indicate that people are increasingly expecting that price stability will be maintained. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, recognised that point.
Inflation expectations 10 years ahead, as derived from the gilts market, have fallen from more than 4 per cent in April 1997 to just under 2.5 per cent now. We have a long way to go. The general public have not yet been convinced, and we need to convince them. The change in long-term expectations is of enormous importance.
There was a criticism of co-ordination. During the debate we heard from those who thought that there was a lack of co-ordination and from those who thought there should be less co-ordination; that there should be a distinction between the responsibilities of the MPC and the Chancellor. On the whole, the Government take that view. In their evidence to the Committee, both the Chancellor and the Governor gave the clear impression that the separation of powers is working; that there is enough co-ordination—with, for example, the presence of a Treasury representative at the Committee's meetings—to achieve the objective that we all want.
This means that the fiscal policy has been able to support monetary policy while continuing to meet the strict fiscal rules set by the Government. Over the period 1996–1997 to 1998–1999 there was a substantial fiscal tightening of £30 billion pounds. This helped to contain the inflationary pressures which were emerging when the economy was above trend.
The success that the new framework has had to date is very encouraging. However, we are not complacent. As I said, we need to tackle the inflation expectations of the general public, which, in turn, have a significant economic effect. They remain well above the inflation target and the public have still to be convinced that low inflation is here to stay.
I do not underestimate the importance of what was said by many noble Lords about the dangers for industry and commerce of high interest rates and a high pound. It is probably no good my saying again—although I will—that much of the appreciation in sterling occurred under the previous Government before the Monetary Policy Committee came into effect. It is worth repeating what I said about the
1084
speech of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that the important objective is to achieve what we have been achieving; that is, stability. In those circumstances, despite the difficulties that we are having, I believe that we are moving in the right direction.
I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Weir, and my noble friend Lord Paul, that manufacturing is up in the second quarter of this year and in the three months to August, which are the latest figures. Exports are up 5.8 per cent in the past three months. The trend is in the right direction.
I am not capable of following the noble Lord, Lord Roll, to envisage the end of money; I am not even capable of following the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, when he looks 50 years ahead. The noble Lord, Lord Burns said—and he is right—that it is still early days. That was echoed by my noble friend Lord Bruce.
When the noble Lord, Lord Roll, talks about the Bullion Committee at the end of the 18th century, I am reminded of the Oxford fellow who criticised the investment policy of his college by saying that the past 200 years had been wholly exceptional. Let us continue to raise our sights—not to infinity but as far ahead as we can see.
In concluding, I confirm that the Government welcome the report. They believe that this kind of scrutiny is an essential element of the new monetary policy framework and of our policy framework more generally.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven if I do not summarise the debate and respond to all the individual speeches. Of course I could do that, but you can have too much of a good thing.
I shall not rise to all the flies that have been dangled in front of me, but in response to the noble Lords, Lord Roll and Lord Howell, and one or two others who have spoken of fundamental changes in the economic world and who have expressed doubt as to whether the old economic verities still apply, I shall say that one of the reasons that I am one of the few genuine conservatives in the House is that I am not in the least convinced by the latest version of why the whole world has changed. That has been going on throughout my career. However, I welcome the chance to debate the subject in your Lordships' House.
I, too, should like to echo the remarks that have been made on the four maiden speeches today. They all had a quality that I prize above any other when listening to speeches in your Lordships' House; namely, they made me think again about matters on which I thought I had finally made up my mind. As a reflection of my present benign mood, I shall even include in that remark my new noble friend Lord Woolmer. I did not think that I would ever offer a congratulatory remark to a supporter of Leeds United Football Club, let alone a director. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, after having told many

1085
others of his valuable contributions to our committee, that I had no idea he had such a hidden secret. I shall have to reflect on that.
Since the events of last Wednesday night I have been in an extremely black mood. For the past eight days I have wondered why I spend time on economic matters and whether the debate would be worthwhile. However, having listened to every speech, as has my noble friend Lord McIntosh, I must say that this has been a very good debate indeed. There is a tendency in your Lordships' House for noble Lords to declare all such debates to be very good, along with all maiden speeches. However, in this case that is the truth. This has been a remarkably interesting debate and I cannot wait for the next debate on economics. Having said that, once again I thank all noble Lords for having taken part, and I shall now sit down.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tourism
9.27 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they consider should be taken to ensure that the Tourism For All initiative is a success.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, tourism is a growing industry worldwide and this country needs to ensure that it gets its fair share of that market. In general tourists come from the developed world. People in the developed world are living longer because of advances in medicine. Because of that, more potential visitors are likely to be disabled in one way or another. We must cater properly for such disabled people in order to secure our share of this lucrative market. Furthermore, what will be of benefit to tourists will also benefit others.
What are the Government doing to help our tourist industry in this respect? When we have guests, we welcome them into our homes; we do not leave them standing on the doorstep. But what about tourists, who are guests of this country? It is not unusual for wheelchair users to be left waiting on an aircraft long after all the other passengers have disembarked. I suspect that that may also apply to those arriving by rail or sea. What is being done to prevent such inhospitable welcomes?
The Disability Discrimination Act is now in place, but what is being done to ensure that there is proper access for all that tourists need? That means not only physical access to hotels, restaurants and places of interest or amusement, but access to the information that they require. What is being done to provide information in a format suitable for those who are visually impaired and guests with hearing problems and to provide information in a suitable manner for those with mobility problems?
What training is being given to those employed in the tourist industry, in places such as theatres, cinemas, places of historic interest and even the Millennium Dome, in the specific needs of people who will have a wide variety of disabilities? What is being
1086
done to provide uniformity of information to and for tourists so that they know what to expect, what to look for and where to look for it? Lack of uniform information makes independent travel much more difficult. Tourists are travellers and travellers who have a disability have the same desire for independence as everyone else. Independence is important to all.
I wish for a moment to concentrate on those visually impaired people who use a guide dog. Tourism, like business travel, is a two-way road. I understand that under the current proposals to replace quarantine a blind person is inhibited from taking his dog abroad on a business trip or for a weekend as he needs to obtain a veterinary certificate from outside the United Kingdom some 48 hours before returning to this country. Surely it should be possible in such circumstances to obtain the necessary certificate from a vet in this country. Many would place greater trust in such a certificate than one from Europe. I have not given the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, notice of that question. It may be a little wide of this debate. If she wishes to write to me with a response, I shall be very happy.
The other side of the coin is the employment of people with disabilities in all aspects of the tourist industry and the proper training of both disabled and able-bodied workers. What is the position with the Welcome for All training programme produced by the English Tourism Council? When will that be granted the status of a qualification by the Qualifications Curriculum Authority? Do Her Majesty's Government foresee any funds being used to encourage and assist the industry with opening up real and sustainable employment opportunities for people with disabilities? Do the Government envisage taking any steps to ensure distribution and dissemination to the industry of the best practice guide on "accessibility and welcoming" or the funding of it via appropriate routes?
I understand that the take-up by the industry of accessibility standards in abysmally low. What steps are the Government taking to assess why that is the case so that few facilities are inspected or are achieving any kind of acceptable accessibility category? What steps do they intend taking to ensure improvement in the quantity of accessible facilities? Are any steps being taken to ensure that on-going development of these standards is in line with the justifiable expectations of both tourists and those who work in the industry?
In the Armed Forces there is a set procedure for giving orders so that nothing is missed out and so that each speciality knows where to look for instructions. Will the Government consider, in conjunction with the tourist industry and organisations of disabled people, producing a guide on all kinds of accessibility for the industry for both tourists and employees so that it may be used as a checklist to cover most eventualities?
I look forward to the speeches of all who are taking part in this short debate and, in particular, to the response of the noble Baroness the Minister. I should like to thank everyone for participating at such a late hour.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Luke: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Swinfen for giving us the opportunity to talk about this extremely important and interesting subject.
I recently had the opportunity of visiting and experiencing at first hand the work of the Jane Hodge Hotel at Cowbridge, in South Wales. It is one of a small chain of hotels belonging to the John Grooms organisation. John Grooms has been providing wheelchair accessible holidays in the United Kingdom since 1976, when it opened the first fully accessible hotel in England, at Minehead, on the Somerset coast. At that time there was a total absence of wheelchair accessible hotel accommodation. Inspired by the immediate success of the venture at Minehead, John Grooms opened another hotel at Llandudno, and went on to build the Jane Hodge Resort Hotel, which won the first European award for accessibility to be made to a British hotel. It was also the first hotel in the United Kingdom to gain category I status in the national accessibility standards.
The philosophy underlying the creation of the hotel is that disabled people are able, with their family and friends, to experience the facilities offered by a good resort hotel in an environment as good as, and in many cases better than, many major hotel chains. The overall design of the Jane Hodge Resort Hotel, and its ambience, set out to minimise the impact of the comprehensive range of specialist equipment available—from closomats to en suites with wheel-in showers, or overhead hoists, demonstrating how the special needs of a disabled guest can be accommodated without institutionalising either individual rooms or the hotel environment at large.
In addition, the 30 en suite bedrooms include access, if required, to a 24-hour care service also provided by the hotel. That enables guests to access appropriate levels of support, to enjoy their holiday in a stress free environment and to be as independent, or not, as they wish. There is an excellent restaurant, which is open to the general public—and where the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I enjoyed a very good lunch.
On site, also, is a leisure club, which is open to the local community and is most popular with the local special schools and adult training centres. Its facilities include a mullet-gym; a rolling-road; a swimming-pool; a spa bath; a sports hall; and all-weather tennis and basket ball courts. I have to say that my noble friend and I did not try those out. I found that hotel a remarkable example of what can be done given the initiative, drive and determination. I strongly recommend that noble Lords visit it, if they can.
Perhaps I may end with a question to the Government. Does that hotel meet their expectations of what Tourism for all should mean in practical terms?
9.38 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I have spoken in the House on tourism many times during the past five decades. Perhaps I may be forgiven for not declaring my interest. This may well be my swan-song, or my dying swan song; I do not know which.
1088
I listened with great interest to the first two speakers. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, on the steps that must be taken to improve matters. In particular, the debate on the needs of the disabled is timely and ongoing. On a personal note, at Beaulieu for many years we have had special car parks for the disabled, free wheelchairs and toilets with disabled access; we have employed disabled people, and so on. It can be done, certainly on a local scale.
I am sure that all noble Lords support the sentiment that holiday opportunities should be made available to all those who may feel themselves excluded. I particularly include disabled people because of the difficulties they experience as regards accessibility and the other special needs that they have. However, there are millions of people who are not disabled but are socially and economically excluded from the life-enhancing benefits of tourism. Put in simple terms, they just cannot afford to go on holiday.
I am concerned, as I look to the future, that tourism may soon become an opportunity reserved for the fortunate and wealthy rather than for the benefit of all. Mass national tourism started with the railways. It is interesting to note that 80,000 people visited Chatsworth in the 1880s. Then came the cars and so it has continued since then.
Mass international tourism began with the first jumbo jets which took to the air at the end of the 1960s and, 30 years later, many international air routes and aerodromes are at capacity. The world's most popular destinations are often so crowded, even unacceptably crowded, for much of the year and people spoil what they come to see. The natural, built and social environments of host communities are in many cases at breaking point.
The most important point that I want to make tonight is that, at the dawn of the new millennium, international tourism, even from developed countries like the United States, is still in its infancy and is currently only an activity of very few. A very low percentage of Americans have a passport. The proportion of the global population who can travel to the world's most precious and extraordinary places is no more than a tiny minority, the tip of the iceberg on world-wide tourism.
How will this inevitable explosion of demand over the coming years be managed, not only for disabled people but also for ordinary people? It is very unlikely that voluntary systems will emerge which will give equal opportunity to all those who wish to travel on business, with the family or as part of leisure tourism. If economic criteria alone are to determine accessibility, then the world's most precious places will not only become even more overcrowded to the point of irretrievable degradation, but they will become only available to the wealthiest citizens on this planet.
Let us consider Venice as an example, where you have to book a car parking space before you go there; or Yellowstone Park in America where you have to book before you go. We all know that the easiest way to control tourism is by price and that would be an absolute disaster.

1089
The question I ask is how the Government are going to cope with this subject. Certainly we should promote the primacy of Tourism for All as the most essential and basic principle for guiding the management and development of tourism movements, with policies especially designed to bring tourists to their destinations and looking after them when they are there. I would like to see the Government perhaps subsidising off-peak travel, off-season travel, not only with the carriers but also to hotels. There are lots of all-season places which would be delighted to have people who otherwise could not afford to go there, and also especially to welcome the disabled.
The opportunity to travel needs to be available to everyone, for social, business and pleasure purposes, although this opportunity can never be absolutely equal to all, but the life-enhancing benefits of visiting the world's beautiful, interesting and inspiring places must be available for all people for all time. The challenge is contained in Tourism For All. I think it is time that our best futurologists and those interested in tourism should make a deep study of the subject.
9.43 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I would like to take advantage of this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, not only on introducing this subject but also on the amount of work he has done in this area, certainly ever since I have been a Member of the House and I believe for much longer. I hope that this will not be the last time we hear him. Indeed I hope that this is not the last time I am here to hear him.
We on these Benches, even when they are full, agree with the importance of Tourism for All. I am glad to see that the Government also agree with that, as is clear from Tomorrow's Tourism. Indeed, the bodies cheering for this are massive. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be quite enough coming from the Government in terms of money and action.
The tourism industry and the number of groups and people supporting it—they are legion—all agree that more should be done. They all agree that tourism is a growing industry. I believe that one of the research papers that I read said that it was our fifth biggest industry. Some will place it higher and others lower, but it is certainly a very big industry. It is also an industry which has an almost infinite capacity to expand and contract. We do not know where it is going. We do not know about future fashions and trends. However, we do know that tourism or, rather, the leisure industry—I think that that is a better description—is an industry in which people like to have a good time without too much trouble.
Tourism for All is right in saying that attention should be paid to the disabled and those with difficult family circumstances. Those groups need properly trained staff always to be available. Unless there are more initiatives on training, we shall have problems. Such training should be provided by government, or at least backed by government support. When the Government find good outside schemes, perhaps they
1090
could "rubberstamp" them. I know that there are such schemes; I have read descriptions of them. The New Deal seems a wonderful opportunity for training people, often for the first time, in how to help others. Generally, such training should include an awareness of the problems faced by, for example, the disabled, as well as teaching how to deal with such problems. In several debates, I have addressed the subject of how to teach people to give help properly. As a rule, the British do not have a tremendously good reputation for that. I hope that we can try to support and help people in that way. We should try to ensure that a disabled person does not feel patronised when offered help. The Government should be shining a light of excellence in that regard and establishing standards at which we can aim. If we do that, we shall be taking a huge step forward. We must have a uniform standard to which to work.
I turn to the physical environment. Like others, I have referred previously to the eternal bugbear of transport. The RNIB's recent report stated that for many visually impaired people, travel on public transport in this country is virtually a non-starter. Certainly, undertaking an entire, uninterrupted trip under their own steam is a non-starter. As people can usually understand more easily the concept of wheelchair accessibility, it is often pushed to the front of the queue. It is, indeed, very important, but support in the form of clear signing, the use of advanced technology, and the greater provision of sound announcements, are also important. Without such support, some people will not be able to travel and the very concept of tourism fails there. If you cannot get somewhere, it does not matter how wonderful it is.
One of the vital stages in the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act was passed last month. There must be accessibility for people who are disabled. That is a stick that the Government could use; but there is also a huge carrot, which part of the leisure or tourism industry has recognised. I refer to the fact that disabled people have money to spend, as do their friends. They will spend that money somewhere pleasant; somewhere where they can get in and out and where they are made to feel welcome.
I have with me an extract from the Licensee and Morning Advertiser—I apologise for taking time to find it, but my habit of not using notes means that I often have to fumble around. On 28th October, that paper carried a lovely article about a pub in East Bierley in West Yorkshire, which has increased its trade by making the pub a pleasant place. People now go there; they enjoy themselves and they spend money. The Government have been quite good—they could, of course, be a little better—at telling people of the economic advantages of such an approach. If that requires a little pump priming we welcome it.
The Government are making the right noises in supporting private initiatives, but they probably should do more in terms of back up and training. However, they do not have to break new ground. I hope that tonight we shall hear the practical steps that they are taking, for the very simple reason that if this door is not ajar it is certainly not locked.
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lord Swinfen for making it possible to debate the Tourism For All initiative tonight. It has become clear from my noble friend's speech and the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the success of Tourism For All depends not only on the good will of all of us but on action by the Government, the tourism industry and those who are potential travellers and guests. It is also a matter of principle. It is right to ensure that tourism facilities are accessible to all customers and staff irrespective of disability or age, for everybody loses out when disabled people do not have the chance to participate fully in society. As my noble friend Lord Montagu pointed out, Tourism For All embraces the needs of those who are socially excluded as well as those who are physically or mentally challenged. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen observed, it is also a matter of good commonsense.
Businesses must meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act to avoid being taken to court. The second phase of that Act came into operation in the past month. Above all, it is good for business to make tourism accessible to all. If a venue does not make reasonable provision for a disabled customer, it is likely to lose the custom of that person's family and friends.
More than 8 million people in Britain today are recognised as having some form of disability. It is estimated that the market is worth about £3 billion. Figures produced recently by the Joint Disability Charities Research Group show that in 1998 34 per cent of disabled people took no holiday or short break at all. At a time when for most people short breaks are occasions on which they can be with their families, friends and away from an environment in which for the rest of the year they spend far too long, that is a horrifying statistic.
The tourism industry has already taken some innovative measures to make all customers welcome, whatever their individual needs. I congratulate the National Trust's Powered Vehicle Scheme. Last night it won the England for Excellence Award in the Tourism For All category. I also hope that the Minister will join me in paying tribute to initiatives such as the individual programme of the Hoteliers Forum. That forum comprises representatives of many of the largest international hotel groups. It aims to make the hospitality sector a leader in disability equality in the fields of service provision and employment and to understand the customer's special needs from the point of reservation or check-in.
That is very much a mission statement. For people like me in the political world it sounds like good intentions. One always asks: what does it mean in practice? Last summer I had the opportunity to learn what it can mean to the individual. I attended the annual symposium of the Hoteliers Forum and heard the manager of the Renaissance Heathrow Hotel give a memorable example. He explained that athletes attending the World Disabled Water-ski Championships had brought £60,000 of business to his
1092
hotel. The manager who handled the bookings found out that people with severe spinal injuries were unable to sweat and therefore built up a significant concentration of salt, which resulted in high water consumption. He did something about it. The hotel provided the athletes with an extra three litres of bottled drinking water every day and offered fruit juice to provide the additional vitamins required. That is a very thoughtful and simple way to help satisfy customers' needs; and one that may build up customer loyalty in future, which is vital to every service industry.
The Tourism For All Consortium features in the strategy paper Tomorrow's Tourism, which I welcome. However, it is unclear how some of the suggestions and recommendations will be taken forward by the Government. I have some questions based on the recommendations in that strategy paper. First, do the Government intend that the Tourism For All Consortium will be the lead adviser to the Government on issues of disability and tourism? Secondly, how should access to employment in tourism be improved.
New Deal funding for employment of disabled people has finished. But none went to the tourism industry, despite a specific industry-led proposal by the Hoteliers' Forum and the Hospitality Training Foundation. Do the Government foresee any funds going into encouraging and assisting the industry with opening up real sustainable employment opportunities for disabled people?
Thirdly, what future do the Government see for the spreading of the National Accessibility Standards scheme? It is of course vital that customers with special needs know in advance of travelling whether the venue will have the facilities to suit them. My noble friend Lord Luke explained how we visited the Jane Hodge Resort Hotel earlier this year and were impressed by the facilities. We enjoyed the lunch, but did not take advantage of the sporting facilities. But we were most impressed by its brochure and the way in which it clearly and carefully described what was on offer to suit the needs of the individual and of his family and friends.
It is important that grading systems are clear and widely understood. As my noble friend Lord Swinfen pointed out, the take-up of the national standards scheme is abysmally low. Fewer than 2,000 establishments in the whole of the UK have been covered and the categories achieved are low. I echo his concern on that issue.
In addition, will the Government use their influence to encourage local government and local tourism authorities to adopt these standards rather than developing their own?—a practice that can cause confusion to customers. After all, such a move would fit in well with the Government's support for the ETC's unified grading scheme for hotels and guest-houses launched this summer.
Are any steps being taken to ensure that the ongoing development of these standards is in line with growing expectations as consumer demands change; in line

1093
with the Disability Discrimination Act; and in line with the Government's commitment to be the most accessible and welcoming country in Europe?
No doubt the Minister is aware of the "Welcome to Britain" initiative. Would she join me in expressing the hope that this concept, which is currently being developed in conjunction with the BTA, will be up and running next year? "Welcome to Britain" plans to provide accurate information for disabled and third age tourists on all aspects of the UK tourism product in a way that is readily accessible to the potential world-wide market.
Tomorrow's Tourism commits the English Tourism Council,
"to promoting initiatives such as the Tourism For All Consortium, which seeks to train those within the industry and to promote good practice.".
But training is not a direct aim of the consortium. Do the Government expect that funding will be provided to enable the organisation to continue its work?
Finally, I understand that the Tourism Forum will meet next month for the first time in its fully reconstituted form. Can the Minister assure the House that when the Secretary of State takes the chair at that meeting he will put Tourism For All on the agenda and ensure that the issues raised tonight by noble Lords will he addressed?
9.58 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for tabling the Question and giving us the opportunity to discuss these important issues. I join other noble Lords in thanking him for doing so.
Since 1989 and the publication of Mary Baker's report, Tourism For All, the term has become synonymous with improving access to tourism for those with special needs not only in the UK but, as noble Lords mentioned tonight, across Europe. The commitment of the Tourism For All consortium in making mainstream tourism accessible to people with disabilities is inspiring. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who raised this point with me, that as one of the main organisations in this area, the consortium is one of the key government advisers on the issues of disability and tourism.
In Britain we are very fortunate to have such a wealth of attractions to offer people: stunning landscapes, historic houses and castles, churches and ancient monuments, gardens, theme parks, shops and restaurants. No one should be denied the opportunity to enjoy all that is on offer if they want to do so, whether because of disability, deprivation or any other reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, made clear. That is why widening access to tourism—in other words, promoting tourism for all—is a theme running all the way through the Government's tourism strategy for England, Tomorrow's Tourism, launched last February.
Tomorrow's Tourism is a strategy for the millennium. It is long-term and forward looking. Its success depends on the Government working in
1094
partnership with the tourism industry and with regional and local authorities. Tomorrow's Tourism contains recommendations aimed at ensuring that all aspects of the tourism experience are made accessible to everyone. That includes highlighting growing market opportunities, making English tourism the most accessible and welcoming in Europe, and widening access to employment in tourism.
I shall deal with each of these aims in turn, explaining what we hoped to achieve and progress to date, because many noble Lords have mentioned Tomorrow's Tourism, and in doing so. I hope to give some of the answers requested by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other noble Lords.
First, I should like to deal with the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I should say that the wording in Tomorrow's Tourism is perhaps open to misinterpretation with relation to training. It commits the ETC to promoting, not funding, existing initiatives which seek to train those within the tourism industry and to promote good practice. Tomorrow's Tourism refers to the Tourism For All consortium's interest in training. While we want to encourage its interest in training issues, we appreciate that the consortium is not a major training organisation and there is no expectation on our part that the consortium should take on additional duties for which it does not in fact have funding.
I turn now to highlighting growing market opportunities. Holidays for people with disabilities and other special needs are an important, but undeveloped, part of the tourism market. Providing a service that is accessible, which often requires only minor adjustments, will enable holiday providers to tap into a huge potential market, which other noble Lords have mentioned. It is in providers' own interests to explore that potential.
Our tourism strategy points out that in 10 years there will be over a million more people in Britain over the age of 60 than there are today. When people reach retirement age they now tend to have money to spend as well as the time available to spend it. Often, however, by the time people have reached retirement age they are not quite as fit as they would like to be. They would not necessarily consider themselves disabled and would not expect special treatment, but they will have certain requirements to be met. That has been ably pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen.
Some areas of the industry, mainly the operators of large hotel chains and larger attractions, have recognised the business opportunities offered by making their facilities accessible. We still need to reach the smaller businesses which make up the bulk of the industry, particularly within the accommodation sector. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, raised some important points in that regard, and I agree with him that Tourism For All should mean exactly that, We should recognise that lack of resources is a problem, and the industry must provide low-cost packages to meet that important market. But sustainability is

1095
essential to the future of the tourism industry. Otherwise, there will be no such industry. That is really the key to future growth and the way in which it would be possible—and this is the point which the noble Lord made—to manage the increasing demand for everyone.
Thanks to the work of the Hotel and Holiday Consortium, now part of the Tourism for All Consortium, the Holiday Care Service and the national tourist boards, we have a national accessible accommodation scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, pointed out, the take-up of the accessibility scheme is extremely low, but it is growing. The English Tourism Council reported a 6 per cent increase in the number of establishments being inspected. The ETC is currently reviewing how it may encourage greater participation in that scheme. We need to educate the industry as regards the potential business opportunities which being accessible can bring to it.
Secondly, our aim is to make English tourism the most accessible and welcoming in Europe. There are real opportunities for tourism operators to expand their businesses by taking a positive approach to the market which people with disabilities constitute. The key to adopting a positive approach is to combat often prejudiced attitudes to disabled people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked me about what steps are being taken to develop a national campaign to change public attitudes to disability. In June, the Department for Education and Employment launched a national disability awareness campaign. Now the intention is to adapt that campaign and aim it specifically at the tourism industry. A major step in that campaign is a conference planned for December. The event marks the UK's National Information Day for People with Disabilities. It is intended to promote an exchange of information between people with disabilities and people who provide services to the public. The programme for the conference includes a number of workshops, one of which will focus on holiday-taking and disability.
We all agree that positive staff attitudes are critical if people with special needs are to be fully integrated into the mainstream tourism environment. Customer service is all about understanding the needs of the individual customer, whatever those needs may be. The English Tourist Board launched its Welcome All customer care course in 1996. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who raised the whole question of staff training, that it is proving to be extremely popular. Between April and September of this year, more than 700 people have attended the one-day course. The ETC will be introducing an updated version of the Welcome All programme in spring 2000.
The work by the ETC is funded by the Government but training must be provided by employers to ensure that the quality of service is improved and also to ensure profitability.
The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has the potential to make a significant contribution to widening access to tourism opportunities throughout
1096
society in the UK. The first rights under the Act came into force in December 1996, requiring service providers not to discriminate against disabled people by refusing them service, providing them service on worse terms or providing a lower standard of service.
The next stage of rights took effect on 1st October of this year. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Service providers are now required to take reasonable steps to change the way in which they provide their services so as to make them accessible for disabled people.
The final stage of rights will be implemented in 2004. From that date, service providers must tackle physical barriers which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use their service. We are aware and we share some of the concern expressed tonight that knowledge of what the Act means for businesses within the tourism and hospitality sector is still limited. The Department for Education and Employment is running a campaign to raise awareness of the DDA. The "See the Person" campaign promotes the further rights of the DDA. It also advertises the DDA helpline number, which can be contacted on all aspects of the DDA.
On 1st October the Department for Education and Employment published guidance aimed specifically at small and medium-sized businesses on the rights of access to goods and services for disabled people. We will ensure that that document is distributed, via the regional tourist boards, to as many businesses as possible within the sector. We want tourism businesses to be assessing what they need to do now to comply with the Act, and not wait until the last moment.
To coincide with the implementation of the second stage of the DDA, the English Tourism Council have published a document called Welcoming Disabled Travellers, which aims to help accommodation providers get on track with disabled customers. It advises on the implications and potential of making properties suitable for disabled customers, often at low cost. Welcoming Disabled Travellers also seeks to break down misconceptions that may have prevented businesses from catering for disabled customers in the past.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether we envisaged steps to ensure distribution and dissemination of best practice in this area. Specific industry guidance on best practice in providing access for the disabled could very usefully supplement the ETC's guidance. That seems to be an excellent idea, and we shall explore further what help we can provide to promote that. We note the parallel drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, for the kind of check list which the set list of orders used in the Armed Forces provides.
I was interested to hear of the excursion to Wales of the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We are aware of the good work that the Grooms hotels carry out as part of the Tourism for All consortium. Such hotels are models for those who want to identify new markets and to show how to provide for them. The hotel industry in general can

1097
learn much from that excellent example and from the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that I had not heard about before, of a pub which provides good services. It ensures that people know of its existence and it disseminates information about itself.
Finally, on improving access to employment in tourism, extending employment opportunities to disabled people as well as to older people, to women wanting to return to work, to those from lower income groups, and to those from different ethnic backgrounds, enables businesses to recruit from the widest possible range of employees. If businesses make themselves accessible as employers, they will, at the same time, make themselves accessible to a wider pool of customers.
The New Deal for Disabled People aims to provide active help to people with disabilities or long-term health conditions who want to work. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about New Deal funding and the noble Lords, Lord. Addington and Lord Swinfen, about training, some schemes that received funding are providing jobs for disabled people in the tourism and hotel sectors. A London Training and Enterprise Council, SOLOTEC, for example, has joined forces with the New Millennium Experience Company to provide jobs in the Dome for disabled people. At the end of their contracts it is anticipated that many of them will move on to jobs in the tourism industry because of the skills that they will have gained working in the Dome.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, although no further projects will receive funding via the New Deal, Ministers from the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for Social Security are considering what help can be provided nationally, taking account of emerging findings from the schemes and pilots.
I have tried to cover the points raised by noble Lords. I will study the record and supply answers in writing, if appropriate, if I have missed some specific points. I also gratefully accept the request of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to receive a letter on guide dogs and the veterinary certificates necessary to bring them into the country. It is, as he said, a little wide of this particular debate, but I will certainly pursue it with colleagues and write to him about that point.
In conclusion, the Holiday Care Service, the Tourism For All consortium, the Hoteliers' Forum and many others have worked hard to widen access to tourism. I offer them my warm congratulations for everything that they have achieved to date. We all want Tourism For. All to become a reality and we are working towards achieving it. Like many of the action points listed in Tomorrow's Tourism, it cannot be achieved overnight and it will only be achieved by everyone in the industry pulling together. The
1098
unanimity of the House in relation to most issues that have been debated tonight demonstrates that this is something in which we can all play our part.

Alliance and Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) formerly Girobank plc (Transfer) Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following orders:
That the Promoters of the Alliance & Leicester plc (Group Reorganisation) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

United Reformed Church Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following orders:
That the Promoters of the United Reformed Church Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the

1099
Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and shall be ordered to be read the second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read);
That, no Petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited during the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
The Bill was returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments to the words so restored to the Bill; with certain other amendments disagreed to but with amendments in lieu thereof; and with the remaining amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; it was ordered that the Commons amendments and reasons be printed. (HL Bill 99)
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past ten o'clock.

  Former Ministers: Pensions and Benefits
  Former Ministers: Pensions and Benefits
  Correspondence and Written Questions on Scottish Matters
  Correspondence and Written Questions on Scottish Matters
  Crown Immunity
  Crown Immunity
  Letter to Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry
  Letter to Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry
  UK Trade with the EU
  UK Trade with the EU
  Employment Relations Act 1999: Explanatory Notes
  Employment Relations Act 1999: Explanatory Notes
  Hereditary Peers' Staff: Redundancy Provisions
  Hereditary Peers' Staff: Redundancy Provisions
  Hereditary Peers' Effects: Removal
  Hereditary Peers' Effects: Removal
  Magistrates' Courts: Enhanced Security
  Magistrates' Courts: Enhanced Security
  Teachers' Pay: Performance Awards
  Teachers' Pay: Performance Awards
  Hill Farmers' Payments: Consultation Paper
  Hill Farmers' Payments: Consultation Paper
  Special Preferential Sugar Agreement
  Special Preferential Sugar Agreement
  BSE in EU Member States
  BSE in EU Member States
  Imported Venison: Velveting
  Imported Venison: Velveting
  Stonehenge: Visitor Centre
  Stonehenge: Visitor Centre
  Bahrain: UK Military Training
  Bahrain: UK Military Training
  UK Bahrain Defence Committee
  UK Bahrain Defence Committee
  Outer Space: Use of Satellites
  Outer Space: Use of Satellites
  Acrophobia
  Acrophobia
  A.303, Stonehenge
  A.303, Stonehenge
  M.4: Car Occupancy
  M.4: Car Occupancy
  Bus Fare Evasion: Prosecutions
  Bus Fare Evasion: Prosecutions