Sitting of 24 November 1999

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
WAYS AND MEANS

  SESSIONAL RETURNS
  Ordered,
  That returns be laid before the House for Session 1998–99 of information and statistics relating to—

  (1) Business of the House;

  (2) Closure of Debate, Proposal of Question and Allocation of time (including Programme Motions);

  (3) Sittings of the House;

  (4) Private Bills and Private Business;

  (5) Public Bills;

  (6) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Orders;

  (7) European Legislation, etc;

  (8) Grand Committees;

  (9) Chairmen's Panel; and

  (10) Select Committees—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Cancer Services
    Ms Sally Keeble: What proposals he has for improvement in provision for cancer treatment in the health service in Northern Ireland. [98764]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I am pleased to say that work on the development of five cancer units and regional cancer centres is under way. In addition, the international memorandum of understanding between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the National Cancer Institute in Washington, which was signed in October, will lead to joint research and clinical trials.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What steps is he taking to increase prevention of cancer, particularly given the higher mortality rates for women with cancer in Northern Ireland? In particular, what is he doing to address the needs of such women?
    Mr. Howarth: Significant progress has already been made in meeting the cancer targets for lung cancer in men
    600
    and for breast cancer and cervical cancer that were set out in the Department's regional strategy. For example, the incidence of cervical cancer in women aged over 20 has fallen by 20 per cent. since 1989 and the death rate from breast cancer among women under 70 has fallen by 22 per cent. since 1990. However, we are not complacent. We recognise that more needs to be done and, especially through public health campaigns, we hope to make even better progress in future.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Cancer kills more people in the Province every year than have been killed in the troubles in the past 30 years. We share the Ulster Cancer Foundation's concern that the remit of the national cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, applies only to England and Wales. Will the Minister consider extending that remit to Northern Ireland, or is another appointment planned? How much of the £80 million that has been allocated for cancer prevention will go to the Province?
    Mr. Howarth: There are no plans to appoint a cancer director in Northern Ireland. However, my Department will keep in close touch with initiatives to improve cancer services in England and Wales. We are certainly always willing to learn lessons from experience elsewhere.
    Significant additional resources will be provided next year to implement further the recommendations of the Campbell report. On implementation, we expect the report to reduce the number of deaths by 20 per cent., and the new opportunities fund is providing a further £6.75 million for cancer treatment and services.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We appreciate the developments, but are any plans being made to improve the day-service facilities for chemotherapy and quality testing at Belfast City hospital? Quality testing is required to achieve good outcomes. Will more nurses be trained and recruited for cancer care?
    Mr. Howarth: In respect of the particular hospital that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, he will know that considerable consultation has taken place about hospital services and acute hospital services. Within that, we shall consider how and where services are distributed. The same point applies to testing. Obviously, there are places where that needs to be done. One matter that we are considering is whether we can obtain good and accurate information when review appointments may be carried out in different places and through telemedicine links.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am very supportive of more high-level training for nurses. That applies equally to cancer and other services. Nurses have a bigger role to play, and it is one that we wish to encourage.
    Mr. John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and wish him well in his responsibilities.
    Does the hon. Gentleman stand by the pledge made in a ministerial letter from the Department of Health to Dr. John Chisholm of the British Medical Association, stating that patients will continue to receive the investigations, drugs and treatments that they need?

    601
    If he does, will he take the opportunity to confirm that, wherever a drug is judged to be clinically appropriate, it will invariably be prescribed?
    Mr. Howarth: A great deal of advice is taken about, and given on, prescribing. When certain prescribing is deemed to be appropriate and all the advice suggests that it is an appropriate procedure, the Department of Health in England and Wales, no less than in Northern Ireland, take that advice seriously. The undertaking that the hon. Gentleman seeks is implicit in everything that we do.

    Employment
    Ms Rosie Winterton: If he will make a statement on employment prospects in Northern Ireland. [98765]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John McFall): The Government do not produce employment forecasts for Northern Ireland. However, the economy performed well throughout the 1990s—indeed, better than the majority of other United Kingdom regions. Over the past year, employment increased by 1.2 per cent. and now stands at almost 614,000. Unofficial surveys suggest, on balance, that there will be continuing growth.
    Ms Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the keys to improving employment prospects in Northern Ireland is to secure inward investment? To do that, it is necessary to reassure potential inward investors about the prospects for a peaceful environment. What steps is he taking to give those reassurances to such investors?
    Mr. McFall: I can tell my hon. Friend that, only this morning, I returned from a visit to North America, where I talked to business leaders in Canada and the United States. Yesterday, I had the opportunity in New York to talk to more than 150 top Irish business leaders, who told me that peace and economic stability go hand in hand. They are looking forward to next week with relish, and also to ensuring further investment from the United States. Thirteen new projects from the United States have been secured in the past year, involving more than 2,000 jobs.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Employment prospects at Harland and Wolff depend critically on winning further orders, including those from the Ministry of Defence. Will the Minister confirm that he is in touch with the yard and will do all that he can to assist it in winning further orders, including MOD orders?
    Mr. McFall: Over the past few weeks, I have had numerous meetings with management at the yard, including Fred Olsen and others. We take the matter very seriously. As the hon. Gentleman will know, an agreement was undertaken only last week between Global Marine and Harland and Wolff. Part of that package is money to secure further orders. The Government are committed to employment in Northern Ireland, particularly at Harland and Wolff.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will my hon. Friend support the work of the north-west England and Irish trade group, which brings together the private
    602
    sectors in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and the north-west, working with the north-west development agency and the Bank of England? Is he aware that that group is identifying opportunities for investment and employment in all those areas?
    Mr. McFall: Yes, I am aware of that. It is very important that the east-west relationship is developed—contact between economic development bodies in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is very important. Only two weeks ago, I attended the Five Nations conference in Dublin to consider such issues.

    Terrorist Violence
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on current levels of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland. [98766]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): There is a very real and dangerous threat from dissident loyalist and republican terrorist groups. However, the security situation has been transformed over the past year, with a significant reduction in terrorist-related crimes. That is due in large measure to the efforts of the Garda Siochana and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with the support of the Army. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying fulsome tribute to the RUC, which was awarded the George Cross yesterday. It is a truly deserved honour.
    Mr. Paterson: That statement contrasts with information that I was given this morning by the Northern Ireland human rights bureau, which told me that, since the Good Friday agreement, terrorist organisations have been responsible for 11 murders, 141 shootings, 914 people being driven into exile and the rehousing of 1,634 families. Given that, and the Minister's comment on the RUC, does he agree that it is totally inappropriate to bring about radical changes in the policing of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: I will not trade statistics with the hon. Gentleman. I trust the statistics on terrorist-related crimes that I am able to make available to him and the rest of the House. I suggest that he seeks his advice from myself as Minister, although I will write to him anyway to update him on the statistics.
    The question of the future of policing was implicit in the Good Friday agreement; it was what the parties signed up to. We are, of course, consulting on the way forward.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend accept that no hon. Member—nor anyone whom we represent—is unaffected by terrorism? It has been three and a half years since Manchester suffered the last bombing outrage in Britain. Does he agree that the present climate of peace has not only seen the rebuilding of Manchester city centre, which is to be reopened to the public tonight, but has created the conditions in which investment may be made not just in Britain and Northern Ireland, but throughout Ireland—something good for everyone?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes his points clearly and directly. Terrorist violence has affected not only

    603
    Northern Ireland but too many communities in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is good to see that the city fathers and citizens of Manchester have been able to pick themselves up and move forward. I agree with his sentiments that the best way of consolidating economic development in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a peaceful future for all our citizens.
    Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that the award of the George Cross to the RUC is almost unique, as only one comparable award has been made, and that it is well deserved? Those are the people who, over the past few months, have dealt effectively and efficiently with loyalist terrorism, and we congratulate them—as I am sure that the Minister will. I also congratulate the Garda Siochana on its successes against dissident republican terrorists.
    Did the right hon. Gentleman note yesterday's statement by the Taoiseach, Mr. Ahern, who said that he would pursue within his jurisdiction any terrorists who operate there or seek to operate across the frontier into Northern Ireland—and that, where possible, he would seize their assets and property? Is it not time that our Government considered similar means of ensuring that terrorists are hindered in every possible manner?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is a staunch defender of the RUC, and his knowledge is based on personal experience over the many years that he has been associated with it. Coming from Northern Ireland, he knows only too well the importance of the RUC in maintaining as peaceful an environment as we have been able to achieve over the past 30 years. It has made a magnificent contribution, which is why the George Cross was awarded.
    As for the way forward, of course we note what the Taoiseach said and also the good and close co-operation between the Garda Siochana and the RUC, which is being built on all the time. That is one of the most effective ways in which to deal with terrorism wherever it exists within these islands. As regards the seizure of assets, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the publication of the new Bill that will deal with UK-wide issues of terrorism.
    Caroline Flint: In awarding the George medal to the RUC—[Hon. Members: "George Cross."] Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in awarding the George Cross, we should remember also the civilian employees when, and the families of the officers who have died or been injured? Does he also agree that the RUC has an important role to play in future, with a changing police service and a changing and more peaceful community?
    Mr. Ingram: The very significant award announced yesterday was, of course, for the whole of the RUC family—for the many who have suffered, as well as those who continue to serve and will no doubt do so in the years ahead. Yes, there is a need for a new policing approach in Northern Ireland. That was considered in the Good Friday agreement, and we are thinking about the idea and the possibility of taking it forward. The role of the present officers has been recognised and many of them will continue to give good service to all the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that the full implementation of the Belfast agreement requires an end to violence in all its forms, including paramilitary beatings, shootings and murders? The condemnation of punishment beatings by Sinn Fein in its statement last week was welcome, but will the right hon. Gentleman reiterate that it is now essential that words of condemnation be matched by a complete cessation of those barbaric acts by both sides?
    Mr. Ingram: There can be only one answer to that, and it is yes.

    Peace Process
    Dr. Nick Palmer: If he will make a statement on progress in the peace process. [98767]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mandelson): As I informed the House on Monday, Senator Mitchell has now completed his review of the implementation of the agreement. Following his concluding statement, and those of the political parties and others, I have announced my intention to call a meeting of the Assembly on Monday to nominate Ministers. Parliament will then be invited to approve the legislation necessary for powers to be devolved on Thursday 2 December.
    Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments on progress. We are all aware that there are extreme groups that will attempt to sabotage the process by acts of violence. Does he agree that, regardless of what outrages they commit or seek to commit, he will continue with the process undeterred, and that they are wasting their time?
    Mr. Mandelson: I readily give my hon. Friend that categorical assurance. We shall not allow any threat coming from any quarter to drive out the very real prospect of success that is now before us. It is the prospect that, for the first time in a quarter of a century, Northern Ireland will see its representatives—its politicians—running its local affairs; local people deciding how the local health service will be run; local people deciding the future of education; and local people in charge of the local economy encouraging local jobs. For so long, that has been only the remotest of remote possibilities. However, next week in Northern Ireland, that dream could very well become a reality. Next week, direct rule could end. Nothing should be done by anyone in any quarter to impede that happening.
    Mr. David Trimble: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons remains a priority for the Government, as it does for us, unlike the party led by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), which has declared that it is no longer a priority for it?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome the decision of the Democratic Unionist party to take up its seats in the inclusive Executive, whose formation the hon. Member for North Antrim has foreshadowed? Will he point out to the DUP that that inclusive arrangement—having been approved by the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum and endorsed clearly in the Assembly elections

    605
    last year, with the parties which support the arrangement being returned with an overwhelming majority—cannot be described as undemocratic?
    Mr. Mandelson: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. People in Northern Ireland have shown again and again that they want the Good Friday agreement to be fully implemented. As for others who have done nothing and contributed not a jot to the successful negotiations that the right hon. Gentleman has led, I find it extraordinary that, against that background, and having experienced none of the political pain that the negotiations have generated, they are none the less prepared to take up their seats in the newly formed Executive, as they have announced this week. In spite of themselves, they seem prepared to make the thing work and to give it a go. Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I agree with the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when he stresses the critical importance of decommissioning. I have long argued for a timetable for that.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Unionist politicians and their constituents have already gained a great deal and will obtain a great deal more from the Good Friday agreement? There is comparative peace on the streets, a devolved Assembly is waiting to be set up, and, next week, the Dail will irrevocably amend articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Nationalists in the north now recognise that they must take a leaf out of the Scottish secessionist book by playing the long game. They have everything to gain by going along with the agreement.
    Mr. Mandelson: I share my hon. Friend's views. Every person in each community in Northern Ireland stands to gain from the implementation of the Mitchell deal. What Unionists in Northern Ireland can point to as their achievement is the return of self-government, the repeal of the south's territorial claim on the north, the ending of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, republican acceptance that decommissioning is essential and a start to discussions about how and when that decommissioning can take place. Those are considerable gains for Unionists in Northern Ireland. They have been achieved as a result of the tough and tenacious negotiating skill shown by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I hope that these gains will bear heavily on those who will be voting in the Ulster Unionist council on Saturday.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Secretary of State tell the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that, although he may want to change his words, he will not change mine, and that there is a distinct difference between something being a priority and something being the main priority?
    Will there be a default mechanism if the Sinn Fein-IRA organisation does not fulfil what the Secretary of State believes to be its commitments? He said that, in those circumstances, the institutions set up under the Belfast agreement would be suspended. Will he tell the House whether he is also prepared to suspend the operation of the Patten commission report and the early release of terrorist prisoners?
    Mr. Mandelson: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that it is not only I, on behalf of the British
    606
    Government, who gave that undertaking about the default mechanism: yesterday in the Dail, the Taoiseach added his words to what I said on Monday. He said that any failure to implement the Good Friday agreement would force the Irish and British Governments
    "to step in and assume their responsibilities, including through appropriate suspension arrangements"
    for institutions set up under the agreement.
    The default mechanism could not be clearer, both from me and from the Taoiseach.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: The Secretary of State will be all too aware that policing plays a vital role in the peace process. The Opposition are delighted that the RUC has received the award of a George Cross. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is deserved because of the RUC's courage and even-handed professionalism over the past 30 years of troubles? The RUC has been a thin green line between the Province falling into anarchy and the rule of law.
    Mr. Mandelson: I am keen to echo the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I associate that commendation with the Army and the intelligence services in Northern Ireland which, together with the RUC, have maintained security in the Province.
    When people look back at my record as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I hope that they will acknowledge not only my desire to honour the RUC's sacrifice and courage, but the fact that I have brought about necessary change and reform with the utmost sensitivity. I hope that they will recognise, too, that, through those reforms, we will have made possible acceptance of policing across communities, which has not been possible for the past 30 years.
    Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State will be aware that we support many of the Patten recommendations, but we share the concerns of those who object to changes in the cap badge insignia and the name of the force. Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about changing the cap badge, which is a uniquely cross-tradition insignia? May I also ask him to find a way of compromising on the name of the force? For instance, it could be the RUC Northern Ireland police service.
    Mr. Mandelson: I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am receiving many submissions and undertaking numerous meetings during consultations on the Patten report. As I said, I want people to feel and to acknowledge that, in any changes that we make, we will have decided on them and carried them out with the utmost sensitivity to the very real emotions and feelings of people in both communities in Northern Ireland.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent assessment he has made of the reasons preventing Roman Catholics from joining the RUC. [98768]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): There are many complex reasons preventing greater numbers of Roman Catholics from joining the RUC. Fear of intimidation and loss of

    607
    connection with family and friends are important factors. Lack of identification with the police and lack of active encouragement from community leaders have also been important. The Government's aim remains a police service which is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robathan: We would all like to see a police service represent the community in Northern Ireland. However, is not the Minister's answer slightly disingenuous, when his own Ministry reported in April last year that fear of intimidation among Catholics was the major reason for not joining the RUC, and the Patten commission also said that 70 per cent. of Roman Catholics had said that that was their major reason for not thinking of joining the RUC?
    Therefore, what justification can the Minister find for taking on board the Patten recommendations on changing the name, the cap star and the oath, when those are not the reasons why Catholics are not joining the RUC? Does he understand the real anguish that such changes will cause to members of the RUC, not to mention widows and families who have been bereaved?
    Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear the Government's intentions. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I was disingenuous in my earlier answer—I was simply trying to point out that there were reasons other than the one that he recounted. It behoves the Government to consider all those issues and to try to find answers to them.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [98794] Mr. Phil Willis: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 24 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
    Mr. Willis: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I congratulate the Prime Minister and his wife on the fact that they are expecting their fourth child. [Interruption.] My colleagues will perform in good time. I am sure that the Prime Minister would agree that the finest gift that we could give any child is a quality education, and that that depends on quality teachers who are well motivated and well paid. Therefore, how can the Government break their promise to provide £1 billion for the teacher pay reforms by slicing £430 million off school budgets? Is not that a case of making one teacher's pay rise depend on another teacher losing his or her job?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. I certainly did not intend to start a trend.
    608
    The hon. Gentleman might have acknowledged the fact that, owing to the Government's policy, we have reduced infant class sizes in his constituency. At the beginning of the year, 18 per cent. were in classes of more than 30 and that figure is now 7 per cent. and falling. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the extra £1 billion for performance-related pay will not come at the expense of teachers' jobs or support for schools. Not only next year's settlement but that for the year after that and the year after that are the most generous education settlements over a three-year period that Britain has seen.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Prime Minister agree that the deal struck with the French Government last night brings the lifting of the beef ban ever closer? Is it not only because of our membership of the European Union that we are able to progress this issue? Is it not also the case that, had we followed the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and launched an all-out trade war against France, the only losers would have been British exports and British jobs? Does the issue not demonstrate more clearly than anything that the Leader of the Opposition's judgment on getting the best for Britain in Europe is as flawed as it was when he endorsed Jeffrey Archer as Conservative candidate for mayor of London?
    The Prime Minister: It is not the hopeless misjudgments of the Leader of the Opposition over the Conservative party that should worry people; it is his misjudgment over Bank of England independence, scrapping the working families tax credit and the new deal, which has halved youth unemployment, and starting an illegal trade war with the rest of Europe that would have put thousands of jobs at risk. As Leader of the Opposition he may be a joke, but as Prime Minister he would be a disaster.
    Mr. William Hague: At least my jokes are read out; the Prime Minister's jokes are all in the Cabinet.
    For once, I begin with congratulations—I congratulate the Prime Minister and his wife on their happy family news. In future, when the Prime Minister hears the sound of crying in the next room, it will not be the Chancellor wishing that he had his job.
    The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have stated in the House in the past two weeks that the tax burden is falling. Now that the Office for National Statistics has joined a long list of organisations in showing that the opposite is true, who agrees with the Prime Minister that the tax burden is falling?
    The Prime Minister: First, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. Secondly, the answer is in the figures that we have published, which were, of course, checked by the National Audit Office. The Treasury public borrowing requirement basis shows that, next year, the tax burden is falling. It is true that, in our first two years, we had to sort out the appalling burden of debt that we inherited from the Conservatives. However, the statistics mentioned are not the only ones available. When the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet, the Conservatives published their plans before

    609
    the last election. Those plans suggest that the tax burden would have been greater under the Conservatives than it is under Labour.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister veers between boasting that he has increased taxes and claiming that he is reducing them. No independent organisation agrees with him that taxes are being reduced; every independent organisation says that the tax burden is increasing. Let us consider the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. They take every quarter of 1997 after the last general election. Do they show the burden going down or up? The answer is up. They take every quarter of 1998—does the tax burden go down or up? The answer is up. They examine every quarter of 1999 so far, and again they show the tax burden increasing. They take a forecast for next year—does that show the tax burden going down or up? Yet again, the answer is up. If the right hon. Gentleman believes that taxes are falling, with which of those Office for National Statistics figures does he disagree?
    The Prime Minister: That is simply not right. [Interruption.] The Opposition can have the facts or not, as they wish. It has been shown—and not only on the basis set out in our report—that the tax burden is falling. The only basis on which taxes can be seen to rise is if the working families tax credit is not considered to be a tax cut. If the working families tax credit is considered to be a tax cut—as it is, in exactly the same way as the Conservatives treated mortgage tax relief—the tax burden is falling.
    Mr. Hague: Why does no independent analyst in the world agree with the Prime Minister? Everyone else who considers those figures says that he is increasing taxes. If he will not believe his own Office for National Statistics, what about the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which showed earlier this month that Britain has the fastest-rising tax burden in the advanced industrial world? Is it not time that he stopped saying, "We are cutting taxes", when that is not true?
    The Prime Minister: It is true, for the reasons that I gave. As the income tax cut is introduced next year—the 10p tax rate and the cuts in corporation tax—it is clear, as the figures show, that the tax burden is falling. I repeat that one can only show otherwise by not treating the working families tax credit as a tax cut. It is a tax cut, in exactly the same way as the Conservatives treated mortgage tax relief as a tax cut.
    I have said that, in our first two years, we had to get rid of a £28 billion borrowing requirement and a national debt that had doubled. As a result of sorting out the fiscal position, we have had the most successful set of economic forecasts that this country has seen for years. If we followed the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, we would return to the boom-and-bust economics of years ago—[Interruption.] That is absolutely right. The only alternative would be swingeing cuts in schools, hospitals, police and transport. The past few months have shown that the Labour party is the party of economic competence; the Conservative party would return us to boom and bust.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister becomes less and less coherent on this subject. He says that it is impossible to
    610
    reduce taxation while increasing spending on health and education, but claims to be doing just that at the moment. Can he not understand that the experience of increased taxation is a matter not only of statistics but of the daily experience of people who pay for their petrol and their pensions and have a marriage and a mortgage? The British Chambers of Commerce says that we are more heavily taxed than two years ago. The Confederation of British Industry says that cuts in taxation are trivial by comparison with the increases. The Treasury Committee, which has a Labour majority, says that the tax burden will increase during the current financial year. Why does he not stop saying, "We are cutting taxes," when he is actually increasing them?
    The Prime Minister: That is wrong, for the reason that I have given—the tax burden is falling next year. The country has a simple choice. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he will slash everyone's taxes at the same time as he will increase everyone's spending—what I call "Haguenomics"—that simply will not work. If we did that, we would be back to where the previous Conservative Government put us in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when interest rates—which he has not mentioned—were at 10 per cent. for four years, when thousands of businesses went bankrupt, when we lost more than 1 million manufacturing jobs and when this country ended up having to cut essential public services because we could not pay our way. This Government have got inflation under control and interest rates down. We have managed to put more money into public services and living standards are increasing by more than 3 per cent. this year. That is a record of economic competence, not the Conservative policy of economic ruin.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister talks about what we are trying to do. All we are trying to do is get a truthful answer out of him. Now he says he is cutting taxes, and he says he is right, but he also says that the Office for National Statistics, the OECD, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the House of Commons Library are all wrong. Is it not the case that his willingness to answer questions and face up to the facts is falling, as is the chance of him giving a straight answer, but that the tax burden is definitely rising?
    The Prime Minister: I have already pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman why the figures that he has given me are simply wrong. Next year, the tax burden, as I have said, is falling. The tax burden is not merely falling; we have managed not only to introduce a 10p starting rate of tax, but to put a direct income tax in place next year. As a result of what we have done in running the economy, we are able to get the extra money into the public services that the country needs. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take all that money away, and if he wants to return to saying that all that is reckless and irresponsible, let him get up and say so. I believe that our spending policies are right. They are exactly right—not a penny more, not a penny less.
    Mr. Bernie Grant: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see the recent Channel 4 documentaries on slavery, in which it was stated that one in five white people in Britain have the blood of African

    611
    slaves running through their veins? Similarly, people from the Caribbean have white blood running through their veins. I do not want to worry him, but my mother's maiden name was Blair. Perhaps I should refer to him as my right honourable relative.
    My question relates to the past 1,000 years, 400 of which were taken up by enslavement and 200 by colonisation. There has been no acknowledgement of the contribution made to the wealth of Britain, Europe and America by millions of African people. The Guildhall and other places in London have monuments to the slavers, not the enslaved. Will my right hon. Friend set the historic record straight? Will he apologise to people of African origin, living and dead, for the part that Britain played in the transatlantic slave trade?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to acknowledge the pain and suffering of people who were enslaved in times gone by. I was in Hull recently, in the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister, which was once represented by William Wilberforce. Many radical politicians in this country fought against the slave trade. I should like in particular to acknowledge the massive contribution made by Afro-Caribbean and black people in this country today, and to say how much we value and treasure it. One of the great things that has happened in politics in the past few years is that every political party in this country is now committed to a multiracial, multicultural society. We owe an awful lot to the pain and suffering of those people who went before us.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Which does the Prime Minister consider the voters of London will view as more offensive: the Conservatives' disgraced mayoral candidate or Labour's discredited selection system?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure that they would have anything to say about the Liberal Democrat candidate. The most important thing is that we focus on policy. The Labour party's policy for London is the right policy on transport, law and order, and business and development in the City. Those policies will win the election for Labour.
    Mr. Kennedy: To win an election, a party must have a candidate, and only the Liberal Democrats have a candidate at the moment: an excellent one in Susan Kramer. Let us consider one of Susan Kramer's Liberal Democrat policies for London. Will the Prime Minister back off from his present plans for the future of the tube and embrace our proposals, because they have been assessed by outside bodies and would result in a net cut in the profits that big business would make under the Government's proposals of £150 per Londoner—per voter? Is not that a sensible policy, and why does he not embrace it?
    The Prime Minister: In case the right hon. Gentleman had not noticed—I certainly had—Labour is undergoing a selection process. Let us have this argument about his policies for the tube. His policy is to leave the construction of the tube for the future in exactly the same hands as now. That is the wrong policy for London. Consider the Jubilee line: it has a £1.4 billion overrun and is almost two years late. The public sector should do what
    612
    the public sector does best, which is the running of the underground and responsibility for safety and for the drivers. The construction work should be done on a public-private basis, because that will get the best value for the ratepayer and the taxpayer. If we get the best value, we get the tube completed on time and we get money into the tube. The Liberal Democrat proposals would land the ratepayers and taxpayers of London—and, indeed, elsewhere—with an almighty bill that they could not meet. In other words, it is typical Liberal Democrat policy.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: As we head towards the new millennium, the Prime Minister can be justly proud of the advances that this country has made in cancelling the debts of the poorest countries in the world. However, will he use the last weeks of the millennium to make even further progress and achieve 100 per cent. cancelation of those debts, so that we can celebrate the new millennium by doing something of which we can all be proud?
    The Prime Minister: We have said that we are working towards that; but the contribution to the problem worldwide made by us as a country, and by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development, has been enormous. We as a country can be very proud of what Britain has done and stood up for in the past couple of years. The debts of a large number of countries will now be written off: I think that the total is some $1190 billion, which is a tremendous contribution. Prudent finance is obviously important as well, but we will go as far as we possibly can. We can be proud of the fact that, as a result of an initiative developed by Britain, countries throughout the world will, for the first time, be relieved of an enormous burden of debt.
    Mr. David Rendel: The Prime Minister said in his last manifesto that, as he cut benefits, he would increase spending on education. He just told my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that he considered this year's education settlement to be the best ever. Why, then—according to figures from the House of Commons Library—is the percentage of gross domestic product spent on education during the current Parliament expected to be less than it was in the last Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: That is simply wrong, and I will explain why. [Interruption.] It is wrong, and, if the House will allow me, I will explain exactly why it is wrong.
    At the end of the current Parliament, a higher proportion of national income will be spent on education than at the beginning. That is the pledge that we gave, and it is true. People are able to say that we have broken that pledge only because they are using a figure relating to 1994, when the Conservatives were in government. It is true that the figure was higher in 1994, but, for the following three years, the Conservatives cut it. When we compare the figure that we inherited in 1997 with the figure at the end of this Parliament, the latter figure is higher. What is more, the figure—£19 billion—is infinitely higher than any amount that the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to spend on education.

    613
    Thousands of schools throughout the country are receiving new deal money for school buildings and other purposes. That new deal money came from the windfall tax on utilities' excess profits. It was opposed by the Liberal Democrats, as were the measures relating to class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds.
    In each of those areas, we are spending more than the Liberal Democrats ever asked us to spend. It is simply not right to say that, at the end of the current Parliament, the proportion of national income spent on education will be smaller rather than greater. It will be greater, and it will represent another pledge delivered.
    Ms Oona King: Given that the last time Russia waged war on Chechnya, between 1994 and 1996, 80,000 people died, and given that the Russian Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, has declared that Chechnya must be eliminated, does my right hon. Friend agree that the west should be as proactive as possible? In particular, will he consider the possibility of linking the International Monetary Fund's multi-billion-dollar loan to Russia, which is going through at the moment, with an immediate and verified ceasefire in Chechnya?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that we should do what is possible. I have been in touch with the Russian Prime Minister and the Russian President, and we have made it clear to the Russian Government that, although we recognise the genuine security threat faced by Russia, Russia's response must be proportionate and in accordance with international humanitarian obligations. We are also—both at European Union level and at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe summit—putting pressure on Russia to adopt a more humanitarian position in relation to Chechnya and, in particular, towards the refugees. We keep everything under review in considering what will produce the best results.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Prime Minister explain why, when Germany has gold reserves of 3,400 tonnes, France has gold reserves of 3,000 tonnes and Italy has gold reserves of 2,400 tonnes, and each of those three countries has publicly pledged not to sell any of its official gold over the next five years, he and his Chancellor of the Exchequer have decided to reduce Britain's gold reserves to 300 tonnes? What are the reasons for that decision? The country deserves to be told.
    The Prime Minister: The country has been told. The hon. Gentleman has been told a number of times. The Conservatives just do not like the explanation. First, in relation to the gold reserves, they will be 20 per cent. of our reserves. We have acted on advice throughout. We believe that it is entirely sensible to do what we are doing. We are not the only country round the world that has sold part of our gold reserves. We should have a balanced portfolio.
    I understand most of the obsessions in the Conservative party and we get used to a new one being added from time to time. Quite what the Conservatives' obsession is with the issue of gold reserves, I confess I no longer know. All I can tell them is that there is no great sinister
    614
    agenda here. We are acting on advice. We are doing what we believe to be the best thing for the country. It is what many other countries round the world are also doing.
    Mr. David Kidney: In Staffordshire, parents, pupils, governors and school staff have chosen this week to campaign about ending the unfairnesses in the way in which the Government fund education services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that they have chosen a fitting week to highlight education funding as, yesterday, the Government announced the biggest ever increase in funding for further education and they will soon announce, for the second year running, a huge real-terms increase in schools funding? Does he accept, however, that there is unfinished business in terms of fair funding? Will he promise that, when the working party that is looking into the question reports next year, the recommendations will be made public?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I can certainly say that, as a result of the extra money going into education, there will be a substantial increase—for example, a 6 per cent. increase in Staffordshire. That is on top of moneys that are already additional moneys going in. Also, further education and sixth form colleges are to get an extra £365 million in 2001–02. That will mean that there will be a 16 per cent. real-terms increase over the year 1998–99.
    Of course, there is still an awful lot more that we need to do in our schools, but the one thing no one can doubt is that there is a very clear choice now between this Government, who are putting in more money in real terms over the next three years than any Government have ever put in by way of increases in education spending, and a Conservative party that describes such spending as reckless and irresponsible.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: At that Dispatch Box on 30 June last year, the then Secretary of State for Health gave the Government's guarantee to the people:
    "As now, no one will be denied the drugs that they need. That is a guarantee."—[Official Report, 30 June 1998; Vol. 315, c. 143.]
    I have here a list of my constituents with multiple sclerosis. Their consultant neurologist says that they need to have the drug beta interferon. They have been denied that drug on the ground of cost. Will the Prime Minister now, at that Dispatch Box, authorise the money for those patients in my constituency who need treating with beta interferon, or is that guarantee worthless?
    The Prime Minister: No, it is not. I will take account of the words that the hon. Lady has just spoken in relation to her constituents and look into their cases for her. Let me just tell her in relation to extra spending on the health service—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but Conservative Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that, on the one hand, the spending that the Government have committed is reckless and irresponsible—[Interruption.)
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: They cannot say at one and the same time that the extra spending that we promised was reckless and irresponsible and that they want

    615
    more spending. They cannot in particular give the people—[Interruption.] They talk about guarantees. They are issuing a tax guarantee that they will cut everyone's taxes and they have also said that the extra spending is reckless and irresponsible. At some point, they will have to choose.
    The Government have put more money not only into ordinary health service spending, but into every aspect of the health service. I tell the hon. Lady that, by the end of this Parliament, for the first time, health service spending will be more than 6 per cent. of national income. Spending would have been cut under the previous Government, whom she supported.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will the Prime Minister reaffirm that the British people will make the decision on the future of the pound in a referendum? Is not that policy governed by common sense—unlike the policy of the Conservatives, which makes no sense?
    The Prime Minister: That is absolutely right—the final decision will be taken by the British people in a referendum. Our policy on the euro—to have the test of economic conditions—is the sensible one. The Tory party's euro policy demonstrates its usual misjudgment—rule it out on principle, but only for five years. It is, as one might say, "a nightmare".

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [Sixth DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [17 November],
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.—[Dr. Jack Cunningham.]
  Question again proposed.

  The Economy
  Madam Speaker: There will be a 15-minute limit on the speeches of Back Benchers who are called to speak in the debate. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and, for the purpose of Division at 10 o'clock, that in the name of the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
  3.31 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Address, at the end of the Question to add:
  "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech contains no proposals to reverse the policies that have given Britain a spiralling burden of taxation and a huge rise in burdens on business, that it contains no proposals to reverse the decline in Britain's productivity growth or the recent fall in Britain's international competitiveness, and that it does nothing to ensure that the public accounts are honest and open, nor to prevent the Government from saying one thing and doing another; and call on the Government instead to adopt policies which will engineer a return to the golden economic legacy of enterprise, dynamism and flexibility left by the previous Government."
  I start by declaring my outside interests, which are registered in the—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please? We are starting a most important debate.
  Mr. Maude: To win the previous general election, Labour Members had to put to rest the distrust that people felt for them and that had kept them out of office for 18 years. They conducted a cynical and concerted campaign to allay the mistrust of taxpayers, business, savers and pensioners. They offered clear assurances on tax and regulation, but those assurances have been cynically broken. This Queen's Speech continues the betrayal.
  Before the general election, the Prime Minister made a crucial pledge on tax. Labour knew that soliciting the British public's trust on tax was perhaps the single most important thing that it had to do. Therefore, the Prime Minister declared, hand on heart, that Labour had
  "no plans to increase tax at all".
  The declaration was not even tucked away—there it was, front-page news, in a newspaper of record. It was no accident or slip of tongue. It was never retracted and never
  618
  rebutted, but it was not true. It was the first example of the great Labour lie, and still the Government do it; still they say that tax has fallen when it is rising. We know that tax is up by £40 billion. Now, the Office for National Statistics itself shows that tax has risen in each and every quarter since the Government came to power.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle rose—
  Mr. Barry Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way in a moment.
  There have been no dips and no blips, just a sustained rise in tax throughout the Government's term of office. The ONS, the Library and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—how many more independent authorities have to spell out the truth before the great Labour lie on tax will admit defeat?
  Mr. Jones: To facilitate the debate, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he supports the minimum wage and the working families tax credit? He has never said yes or no, but it is about time that he stopped whingeing and gave us answers.
  Mr. Maude: Three days before the previous general election, Labour refused to say what half its policies were. I shall not announce everything today.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the Chancellor if he will deal with the issues that I am raising on the tax burden. Will he admit that the tax burden is rising? Is he able to cite any independent authority that supports the contention just made by the Prime Minister that the tax burden is falling? If he is able to cite one, he did not share the information with the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Brown: The tax burden is falling, from 37.4 to 36.8 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer our question? Will he support the minimum wage and the working families tax credit? The Conservatives have had 30 months to look at the issue. Can they give us an answer—yes or no?
  Mr. Maude: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman clearly. On the working families tax credit, we would not have abolished family credit and we think that it is wrong to extend means-tested benefits to people paying higher rate tax. The Prime Minister was right when he said at the election that social security bills should be cut, but they have increased by as much as health and education spending put together. As for the minimum wage, we shall want to see the employment effects.
  I invited the Chancellor to say what independent authorities supported his contention, which he merely reasserted today, that taxes are falling. Significantly, he could produce no independent verification, so we shall take that as an admission that what we are saying, together with the OECD, the ONS and the House of Commons Library, is right—taxes are rising.
  Mr. Brown: I said that the tax burden is falling, from 37.4 to 36.8 per cent. Is it not time that we had an answer

  619
  from the Conservatives? Do they support the minimum wage and the working families tax credit? They have had 30 months to think about that. Abolishing the working families tax credit would mean a tax increase of £24 for the average family on it. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer—yes or no?
  Mr. Maude: The Chancellor failed to answer the point. He merely reasserted what the Prime Minister said. He cannot cite any independent authority to support his view. The ONS figures show the position quarter by quarter. The tax burden has risen from 35.6 per cent. when Labour inherited responsibility for the economy from the Conservatives to 37.7 per cent. in the second quarter of 1999. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. The Prime Minister admitted today that the only way in which the Government can massage the tax burden numbers down—still way above what they inherited—is by taking out the figures for the working families tax credit, which the Chancellor knows is in contradiction to accepted international accounting standards.
  Mr. John Bercow: Given his deserved reputation for generosity, will my right hon. Friend award at least one Brownie point to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who said in an interview on "On the Record", of which Labour Members should be constantly reminded, that, although the Government had not increased the top or standard rate of income tax, they had increased a lot of other taxes and that it would have been better to have told people honestly beforehand?
  Mr. Maude: We know now why the Government are so desperate to keep the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) at bay. He refuses to go along with the great Labour lie and insists on telling the truth.
  When the OECD first showed that Britain had the fastest rising tax burden in Europe, the Chancellor described it as totally untrue. He then said that it was not the report that was untrue, but the media's reporting of it. The report says that taxes were higher in 1998 than in 1997. It says that they went up during Labour's first full year. Is the Chancellor still saying that that is totally untrue—yes or no?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman asked me what reports I can quote on taxation. I have a report commissioned by the Leader of the Opposition—the Nott report on the European Union. The shadow Chancellor has asked about the comparison of the British economy with others in Europe. The report says that Britain has a great deal to lose if statutory business tax rates are subject to extensive harmonisation, as our rates are relatively low:
  "Taxes are significantly higher in most EU countries than in the UK".
  Now that I have answered the shadow Chancellor's question, will he answer mine? Will the Conservatives admit that the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal are good for Britain? If they do not, the Conservative party is more extreme than ever.
  Mr. Maude: The fact that the Chancellor relies on a report to show something else illustrates how barren his cupboard is. He cannot dispute the central, crucial point that the tax burden has risen, and will continue to rise. The only way he can massage the figures is by fiddling them.
  Mr. Brown: I have quoted the figures to the shadow Chancellor—37.4 per cent. down to 36.8 per cent. Let me add the figures that the Conservative Government were proposing for these years—1999–2000, 37.2 per cent.; 2000–01, 37.7 per cent.; and 2001–02, 38.1 per cent. The burden is lower than the Conservatives were planning. Will the shadow Chancellor now answer our questions? Does he agree that the minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the new deal are good for Britain?
  Mr. Maude: The best the Chancellor can do is to contend that the tax burden is falling, under his fiddled definitions, from a level to which he himself has raised it. I must remind him that he is the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he has introduced these taxes. They have gone up in Budget after Budget. In every quarter, the tax burden has risen. These are the ONS figures—they show that the tax burden has risen.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maude: I am not giving way for the time being.
  It is in black and white in the report, but the Chancellor insists that black is white—that taxes are down when they are up, that promises have been kept when they have been broken, and that trust has been honoured when it has been betrayed. He goes on about how he is cutting one or two headline tax rates, but people know that what really matters is the tax burden—the total amount of the nation's income taken in tax.
  No one is grateful for getting back the little that the Chancellor is giving with one hand when he is swiping so much more with the other—like a manager boasting about the one goal that his team scored, while omitting to mention the four that they let in. Will he use this opportunity today to get off the treadmill where he has got stuck? Let us call this national tax amnesty day. Why do the Government not just admit the truth?
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maude: I will not give way for the time being.
  Will the Chancellor persist in lecturing businesses about the rate of corporation tax, when the Confederation of British Industry says that the Government have increased tax massively and that the sums they give back are trivial by comparison?
  That is the first, and the worst, broken promise. In opposition, Labour said that it would not increase taxes at all. In government, the tax burden has risen every quarter since Labour came to power. Labour has decided that its only option is to rewrite the truth. There is nothing in the Queen' Speech to salvage Labour's promise on tax. There is nothing to reverse the dead weight of extra regulation that the Government have heaped on business.
  Where was the Bill in the Queen's Speech to set Government Departments targets to cut red tape over the years? There was no sign of it. It was all so different in those trusting times before the election when Labour was courting business with its manifesto promise not to impose burdensome regulation. Labour went through the whole process of courting—the wooing, the dinner dates,

  621
  the flowers, and the promises that it would still respect business in the morning. Now it seems that it was just a one-night stand. Regulation is rising relentlessly.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No.
  We are told that everything will be all right because the Government have declared war on red tape. They might as well say that they are declaring war on themselves. What does the Chancellor say to business men who trusted Labour before the general election and now face extra red tape costing £5 billion a year? Will he say, "Sorry, we can't help it; we're in the grip of some hideous compulsion."? Even the Prime Minister admitted that some of the regulation is "over the top", but who does he think put it there in the first place?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No.
  The Queen's Speech refers to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is a chilling example of regulatory incontinence. It invests oppressive powers in a single, unaccountable, over-mighty institution. That concentration of power in one pair of hands has no place in a free society. There is no split between the chairman and chief executive, no properly independent board and no checks and balances. The Financial Services Authority will act as rule maker, policeman, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner.
  It is hardly surprising that the imminent legislation is frightening a lot of people in the City. They are reluctant to speak out lest they be identified as troublemakers and targeted by the FSA. I have heard senior people in the City speaking in chilling terms about the threats that they fear from the authority and the Bill. The Bill needs further changes to end that fear.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Maude: I will not give way again. I have given way many times and I want to make some progress.
  The Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in Europe. For two and a half years they have chipped away at the very foundations of Britain's competitive advantage with new taxes and more red tape. They thought that everything would be easy with the golden legacy that they inherited. They are like the cocky cyclist who says, "Look, no hands." Because of the strength of the legacy, they thought that a few more regulations here, a bit more tax there and, while they were at it, a few favours thrown in for the trade unions would not matter. For a time it looked all right, but slowly and surely the proof comes through.
  Productivity is another notable absentee from the policy pronouncements in the Queen's Speech. Last year, the Chancellor thought that it was the factor that mattered most. [Interruption.] He said that it was a fundamental
  622
  yardstick of economic performance and that poor productivity condemns a nation to being held back. This year—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be given a proper hearing.
  Mr. Maude: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  This year, the Chancellor promised in his Mais lecture that productivity would be the focus of his pre-Budget report, but he barely mentioned it in his statement. That is hardly surprising, as it has been disclosed that growth in productivity has fallen by two thirds since he took office. In the previous Parliament, it was 2.2 per cent. a year and now it is 0.7 per cent. Is he proud of that? How prudent is it to be presiding over an economy in which the seedcorn is being eaten away by degrading our productivity growth?
  The next part of the great Labour lie is enterprise. Within days of announcing to the CBI tax cuts said to be worth £40 million to entrepreneurs, the Chancellor confirmed his plan to rake in £500 million under his IR35 proposals. It is a bit of a shame that he did not speak first to Mr. Peach from Aberdeen, who wrote to his local Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Peach said—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should listen to this, because I guarantee that in every one of their constituencies there will be hundreds of people who are hit as Mr. Peach has been, and they might to like to know what the effect is.
  Mr. Peach said:
  "I promised to let you know how IR35 would affect me.
  I am pleased to say that it will, in fact, have no effect as I have obtained a contract with a top Internet solutions company in New York, for which I must thank the Government—without IR35 I would never have been looking… Given your Government's professed declarations of support for Information Technology and, in particular, internet technologies, I wonder if my skills are really the sort that you want to drive away from the UK.
  As my family will be emigrating with me, you will lose my wife's taxes as well as my own…last tax year we paid some £26,000 in Corporation Tax, Income Tax and National Insurance…and for the current year… I would estimate a net loss…of £30,000".
  Is the Chancellor proud of that?
  The Paymaster General may come to regret her arrogant assertion that claims of a vast exodus are irresponsible and do not bear a moment's scrutiny. The fact is that the Government are hitting not only their old heartlands but the very people they persuaded to trust them before the election.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
  Mr. Maude: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Persistence pays. I have a constituent called Mr. Peach, who is a good friend of mine, and we have interesting conversations. I am sure that he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the same question that he has been asked by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor several times during this debate—what is the Opposition's position on the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage? Will the right

  623
  hon. Gentleman answer that very important question today so that I can satisfy the interest of my constituent Mr. Peach?
  Mr. Maude: It is very interesting that the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. and hon. Friends, has no answer to the problem of IR35. We said that it would drive people abroad and it is already doing so. The economy, the country and the new technologies will all suffer from that ill-judged measure.
  The Chancellor and his colleagues have made much of the claim that, this year, the economy is likely to have done better than outside forecasters predicted. However, Labour Members omit to mention one simple reason for that—consumer spending this year has been much stronger than predicted. Why? Because saving has halved. Most people want to save, to make themselves independent of the state and build up security for the future. Saving is one of the most prudent actions possible, but it has halved. How prudent does the Chancellor think that is?
  After the raid on pension funds, the abolition of TESSAs and PEPs, the introduction of the ISA—a bewildering financial instrument and a tribute only to the taste for financial complexity of the former Paymaster General—saving has fallen by half since the Chancellor took office. However, the Prime Minister said before the election, in 1996, that the whole of Labour's economic policy was geared to promoting stability, saving and investment. The only thing that he did not say was that the gear would be the reverse gear. The Chancellor should now admit that, judged by the Prime Minister's words before the election, Labour's policy on saving has been a dismal failure. When will the Chancellor admit that his short-term attack on saving will be cripplingly damaging in the long term?
  In the Finance Bill, we can expect some more small-scale measures, some foreshadowed in the pre-Budget report, which claim to help business. Businesses may be grateful for a few crumbs of support that slightly offset the hammering they are getting from rising tax and extra regulation, but they do not want those crumbs. The situation is starting to resemble what people used to say was Labour's approach: "If it moves, tax it; if it still moves, regulate it; and when it stops moving, subsidise it." Businesses do not want the trivial concessions that Labour now offers; they want the Government to stop beating them up.
  The Government propose to bring forward a Bill introducing resource accounting. We support the principle—indeed, it was the Conservatives who decided to introduce it. My concern is not with what the Bill proposes to cover, but with what it fails to cover. It will exclude most of what the Government receive and, crucially, most of what they spend. The Government talk of greater honesty and transparency, but the proposed Bill would give the Treasury carte blanche to include or exclude items from the accounts at whim.
  For example, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Government from reclassifying the working families tax credit as a tax reduction rather than a benefit expenditure, even though that would be a clear breach of international accounting conventions. We support resource accounting, but the Government are giving us creative accounting.
  There is so much scope for fiddling the books that one begins to wonder whether the former Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson),
  624
  is doing some consultancy work for the Chancellor. The Chancellor has been universally condemned for his corruption of the national accounts. Sir Peter Kemp has said that the Chancellor is a statistical heretic. The OECD has said that he violates international accounting rules when presenting his figures.
  We feel the same unease about the proposed Bill on private finance. We strongly support the private finance initiative, but the latest proposal must not allow the Chancellor to remove debt from the Government's balance sheet simply by means of more financial engineering.
  The Government are proposing to introduce a Freedom of Information Bill. That should be about openness and honesty, but the Government still do not provide honest information about people's tax bills. Only one Labour Member is prepared to come clean about tax, and that is the hon. Member for Brent, East. He has stated:
  "We haven't increased the top rate of tax and the standard rate of tax, but we have increased a lot of other taxes…we have done it with all these stealth taxes. I just think it would have been better to have honestly told people beforehand."
  It is no wonder the Government do not want the hon. Gentleman to run for mayor. It is not because he will not sign up to the Labour party manifesto, but because he will not sign up to the great Labour lie—no wonder the Prime Minister says that it would be a disaster for the Labour party if the hon. Gentleman got selected.
  The Queen's Speech is a blueprint for the short term. The Government courted the public's trust before the general election; since then, they have abused it. By their abuse of trust, the Government are undermining their own trustworthiness.
  We heard how 1999 was to be the year of delivery. Perhaps it was: three facts of life under Labour have been delivered, and only one of them is new. Tax went up when a Labour Government were last in charge, and it is going up today. We have always known about Labour's obsession with more regulation and red tape, so it is no surprise that Labour's new regulations already cost the average small business £4,500 a year. Is that making them more competitive? Of course it is not.
  The only new fact of life under Labour is the great Labour lie to sustain the false image that the Government have created. Just last Thursday, the Prime Minister said that
  "if people don't trust us with their money, they won't trust us with anything."
  People do not trust Labour on tax any more, and they are right not to. The Government say one thing and do another. When they are discovered, they deny everything but carry on just as before. The corruption of the truth on tax is the new corruption in British politics.
  3.58 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): We have just heard a rerun of the speech given by the Leader of the Opposition last Wednesday, only without the good jokes. I shall answer, one by one, each of the points made by the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude).
  The shadow Chancellor said that the economy is doing badly. He wants to sustain the argument that he advanced last year about the state of the economy. [Interruption.]

  625
  Apparently, one member of the Opposition Front Bench thinks that the economy is doing well. I am grateful for that acknowledgement, but the Opposition amendment before the House this afternoon does not say that.
  Only one serious report on economic policy has come from the Conservative party in the past two and half years. It was authorised by the leader of the Conservative party to examine the question of Europe, but incidentally it looked also at the British economy. In it, we find answers to most of the questions asked by the shadow Chancellor. The report stated that
  "the economy is doing well… The UK currently has the low inflation stability business has craved for decades."
  Surely that is the first answer to the Conservative party's charge that the Government are anti-business.
  The report also examines the Bank of England. After two and a half years, the Conservative party has not given an answer—
  Mr. Maude: We will give an answer on that long before the election—the Chancellor did not even an answer three days before the election—and our answer will be the result of a great deal of expert and careful consideration; it will not simply be lashed together on Mr. Balls's laptop.
  Mr. Brown: The Conservative party has had two and a half years to think about it, and three former Chancellors have come out in favour of our policy. The Nott committee report says:
  "the Bank of England is handling monetary policy effectively on the whole."
  Why cannot the shadow Chancellor give us an answer today? (Hon Members: "Go on."] We have raised four major policy issues with the shadow Chancellor today. They are neither incidental nor accidental, and cannot be dismissed as unimportant to economic policy. The Bank of England's independence is the foundation of monetary and fiscal policy; the new deal is the foundation of employment policy; the minimum wage is the foundation of our policy to make work pay and the working families tax credit is the foundation of our policy for families. Does the country not now deserve to know whether the Opposition support—in principle, not in detail—the minimum wage, the working families tax credit, Bank of England independence and the new deal? If, after two and a half years, Opposition Members cannot answer those questions, they have absolutely no credibility on the economy.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I am again happy to give way to the shadow Chancellor if he wishes to intervene. If not, what credibility do the Opposition have?
  Mr. Michael Fallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will be happy to give way, and the hon. Gentleman could also answer the fifth question about Conservative policy—the privatisation of parts of the national health service.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are not conducting an auction.
  Mr. Brown: I have said that I will give way, but if the shadow Chancellor will not answer my questions, perhaps someone who aspires to that job will.
  Mr. Fallon: While we are on the subject of credibility, the Chancellor has successively claimed to be the architect of independently set interest rates, the deliverer of low interest rates, and, this morning, the backer of higher interest rates. To which of those three claims should we ascribe greater credibility?
  Mr. Brown: Stability in economic policy—the stability that eluded us for 20 years under the Conservative Government and that led the Nott committee—set up by the leader of the Conservative party—to say:
  "the economy is doing well".
  I think my right hon. and hon. Friend will find particularly interesting the report's comment that
  "a return to 'boom and bust' would undoubtedly threaten prosperity and jobs."
  Even the Conservatives are worried about a return to Tory boom and bust. I am happy to give way to the shadow Chancellor, but if he refuses to answer our questions, I will allow Opposition Back-Bench Members to make their points on his behalf.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to put a question to him? If he is so very convinced of the desirability of an independent Bank of England why, when he set up the new arrangements shortly after the election, did he take care to keep the power to override the Monetary Policy Committee and the Governor of the Bank of England if he thought it necessary in a national crisis?
  Mr. Brown: In almost every arrangement that governs the independence of central banks, an override is allowed for exceptional circumstances. Perhaps the shadow Chancellor can tell us whether the Conservative party wants to keep the Bank of England independent but with no override.
  I have asked five serious questions about the Conservative party's economic policy, and I have quoted the Nott committee's doubts about the shadow Chancellor's policies. As the shadow Chancellor will not answer my questions, I will take an intervention from the junior employment spokesman, who has controversial views.
  Mr. Bercow: Why did the Chancellor pledge in April 1997 that he would not impose burdensome regulations on business because he understood that successful businesses must keep costs down, when he well knew that he intended to impose an additional regulatory cost of £4,500 a year on the average small business?
  Mr. Brown: That is absolutely untrue. We have cut small business tax from 23p in the pound to 20p. It is perhaps a reflection on the Conservatives that their Government did not do so. We have introduced a small

  627
  business tax rate of 10p in the pound, which small business has widely welcomed and which the Conservatives failed to do in 20 years of Government. We have introduced a lower rate of capital gains tax at lop in the pound to encourage business investment, and that has also been welcomed right across industry.
  The only contribution that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has made to economic debates has been to argue that the new deal is a calamity. He wants people to believe that it would be best for Britain if we scrapped the new deal and the working families tax credit. The shadow Chancellor wants us to scrap Bank of England independence. The Conservatives are incapable of answering questions on the economy, and they have no credibility.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Loughton rose—
  Mr. Brown: We still have not heard from the shadow Chancellor. About six Back-Bench Members have posed as the shadow Chancellor by trying to ask me questions, and I shall be happy to give way to more of them.
  Mr. Loughton: Would the Chancellor remind us whose Queen's Speech we are debating? Is it the Government's programme or ours?
  Mr. Brown: The Opposition have tabled an amendment to the Loyal Address, and they are attacking the Government. I have put some questions to the shadow Chancellor but he has remained silent six or seven times. I have asked him to answer questions on five fundamental aspects of Conservative economic policy. The shadow Chancellor cannot answer those questions because he always gets it wrong. He said last year that unemployment would rise, but it has fallen by 120,000. He said that employment would fall, but it is up by more than 200,000. He said that there would be a downturn but there has been 1.75 per cent. growth. [Interruption.] It appears that he wants to go back on what he said then, but he said that our forecasts were fantasy forecasts. A week later he stepped up his rhetoric accusing us of Peter Pan economics and lyrically saying that we used fairytale figures. Those are not the titles of Jeffrey Archer novels.
  Mr. Maude: Does the Chancellor remember that, when he was shadow Chancellor in 1993, at the beginning of the longest sustained period during which unemployment fell, he predicted that unemployment would rise month after month?
  Mr. Brown: I was quoting from the Budget report. The shadow Chancellor said that we had made fantasy forecasts and that we were talking complacent nonsense. He predicted that there would be a gaping hole in the public finances and a downturn made in Downing street. His problem is that he cannot justify the predictions that he made in Parliament.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor has yet to answer my five questions. Can the hon. Member for Buckingham,
  628
  the junior employment spokesman, help us by committing his party either way on continuing with the new deal, the working families tax credit and the minimum wage?
  Mr. Bercow: That was a nice try but the Chancellor must do better than that. Will he answer my question? Is he aware that, since the new deal for young people was introduced, at least 50,000 have left the scheme for what the Government euphemistically describe as destinations unknown?
  Mr. Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman support the new deal and want it to work better, or does he oppose it? Some 500,000 young people and long-term unemployed have gone on to the new deal, and 170,000 of them have got jobs. Does he or does he not support that? Does he now agree that the windfall levy on the utilities was the right thing to impose, or does he not? Why cannot the shadow Chancellor answer one serious question about the fundamentals of his economic policy?
  I studied the Conservative amendment in great detail, and I now have great glee in reading it out. On the day that Conservative party finances are under scrutiny and in the week that Lord Archer is under scrutiny, the Conservative party's amendment has the audacity to call for honesty and openness. Conservative Members accuse other people of saying one thing and doing another, but the amendment was tabled by a party whose ethics and integrity committee has never met. Conservatives probably think that "Ethics" is the name of the county that includes Basildon and their leader's judgment is so bad that the first and last words that he uses about Jeffrey Archer are integrity and probity.
  Let us consider the Conservative party's membership list. We need only begin with the letter A, and Aitken, Archer and Ashcroft—its A-list of candidates. These days, what does one call a Tory candidate whose name starts with the letter A? The accused.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall take one more intervention, but I shall offer it to the shadow Chancellor, so that he can answer the questions about the Bank of England, the minimum wage, the new deal and the working families tax credit. He can tell us what his policy is. If I cannot persuade him to intervene, I shall take an intervention from what I suppose is a surrogate for him. Will the shadow Chancellor answer those questions now, or is the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) going to reply? No, so I shall have to give way to the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell).
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Although some of us have been here long enough to recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is relatively inexperienced in the affairs of the House, when a Chancellor does not want to defend his measures, it is one of the oldest tricks in the parliamentary book for him to ask a series of questions of the Opposition and to talk about everything else except what was in his Budget statement.
  Mr. Brown: I have asked five fundamental questions of economic policy. I have asked a question about the Bank of England, which the Opposition cannot answer; a question about the future of the minimum wage on

  629
  which 2 million people depend, and their fears have not been allayed; a question about the working families tax credit on which 2 million people and 3 million children depend, and the Opposition cannot allay people's fears; and they cannot allay the fears of people who are on the new deal, which was paid for by the windfall utilities tax. However, they neither support the new deal nor did they support the introduction of the utilities tax.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I have said that I want to make progress. I shall outline the measures that are in the Queen's Speech.
  Our domestic policy is built on five foundations—stability, employment and no return to the unemployment that we saw under the Conservatives, help and not harm for working families, investing billions more in the public services rather than privatising parts of them and support for engagement in Europe against isolation in Europe. We have made the Bank of England independent—
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The Chancellor has wasted 15 minutes.
  Mr. Brown: I have not wasted 15 minutes. We have discovered from the Conservative party that it has no answers questions of economic policy. I do not think that anybody listening to this debate will be in any doubt that, after two and a half years in which Conservative Members have been talking to themselves, issuing press releases, and when they now think of themselves as dissidents who are being persecuted, they have been unable to answer any serious questions of economic policy.
  Mr. Jack rose—
  Mr. Brown: I have been very generous in giving way. However, each time that I seek to give way to those on the Conservative Front Bench, they refuse to intervene. They then ask me to give my full speech, and that is what I propose to do. We made the Bank of England—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not presiding over Opposition Question Time. I invite the Chancellor to follow his better instincts and to progress with his speech.
  Mr. Brown: I hope that you are enjoying the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  We made the Bank of England independent, and we ensured that interest rate decisions are taken in the long-term interests of the economy, and not for short-term political considerations. We now have a sound and credible platform of stability, low inflation, and low long-term interest rates. Growth is forecast this year to be 1¾ per cent.—stronger than expected at the time of the Budget—and next year to be between 2½ and 3 per cent. Opposition Members would have been proud of such a record had they achieved it.
  Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way once more, because the right hon. Gentleman is a former Conservative Treasury
  630
  Minister. If the shadow Chancellor cannot answer any questions about Conservative policy, I will assume that the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) wants to do so.
  Mr. Jack: Following your advice to the Chancellor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to ask him a fundamental question. In response to the points made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor about tax levels, the Chancellor quoted certain figures from table B7 on page 150 of the pre-Budget report, which shows tax as a percentage of gross domestic product. Will he confirm that that table shows that, in the current financial year, net taxes and social security contributions total 37 per cent. of the gross domestic product, and that, by the next election, that figure will have risen to 37.2 per cent? The bottom of that table also shows rising Government receipts as a percentage of GDP. That table conclusively shows that taxes are rising.
  Mr. Brown: I have the table in front of me, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at it carefully. Table B10 shows—
  Mr. Jack: B7.
  Mr. Brown: The table on net taxes and social security contributions is table B10. That shows that, for the 1998–1999 outturn, the figure was 37.4 per cent., and that the 1999–2000 estimate of 37 per cent—
  Mr. Jack: I referred to table B7.
  Mr. Brown: The table entitled
  "Net taxes and social security contributions"—
  I do my homework, even if the Opposition do not—shows figures of 37.4, 37 and 36.8 per cent. The corollary—what the Conservatives would have done—is 37.2 per cent., rising to 37.7 and 38.1 per cent. That is the true position of what would have happened under a Conservative Government.
  It is easy to see why that is so. We have cut corporation tax and income tax, and we have created a lop starting rate of tax and set a 10p rate for capital gains tax.
  Mr. Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor to choose to answer a completely different question from that honourably posed by another hon. Member?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience to realise that those are matters for debate and not for the Chair.
  Mr. Brown: I repeat that the table in the pre-Budget report on net taxes and social security contributions shows—[Interruption.] It is not what the Opposition want to hear, but these are the facts that are stated in the document. They do not want to believe them because the share of tax next year will go down—and that is the truth. The reason is that the basic rate of income tax has been cut, a 10p tax rate has been set up, capital gains tax is falling to a 10p long-term rate, business tax has fallen—and is falling—from 33p to 30p and small business tax has fallen from 23p to 20p. Those are Labour tax cuts.

  631
  The Conservatives pushed tax up to the highest burden in history. Under the Conservatives, there was the fastest rise in taxes. They misled the people in 1992 when they said that they would not impose VAT on fuel, but then did so ruthlessly, punishing pensioners.
  We have locked in not only action against inflation through the Bank of England—[Interruption.] If hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench want to explain Conservative party policy, they may ask me to give way so that they may offer some answers instead of talking from a sedentary position as though they have something to say, although they have no policy to announce.
  We have locked in fiscal tightening; we will not relax our discipline. Having moved from the ad hoc piecemeal approach in the old Conservative annual spending rounds, we have a three-year, long-term system of public expenditure planning, to which the 13 interdepartmental reviews that we have announced today will contribute.
  The reviews, which will take place during the comprehensive spending review process, will cover the rural and countryside programme, young people at risk, crime reduction, support for older people, an interdepartmental review on drugs, Government intervention in deprived areas, science and research, welfare to work and its relationship to the new project, the criminal justice system, sure start, and two foreign policy issues—conflict prevention, and nuclear safety in the new Soviet Union. There will also be a major interdepartmental review of local government finance.
  Mr. Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there was a disruption in the Strangers Gallery earlier, and the pensioners who were shouting into the Chamber threw down some blue leaflets because they wanted to ask him a particular question—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is only this Chamber; we cannot speak of places outside it.
  Mr. Davey: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman think that a 73p a week increase in the basic pension gives senior citizens their promised rightful share in our nation's growing prosperity?
  Mr. Brown: Why does the Liberal party not recognise the three measures that we have introduced, the first of which was the £100 winter allowance for every pensioner household—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the Liberal party supports that. Why does it not recognise what we have done for pensioners aged over 75, with the free colour television licence? The week before the pre-Budget report the Liberals said that they did not support that idea any more—[Interruption.] Oh, apparently now they do. They issued a statement saying that they would not support the idea of free television licences; now they—[Interruption.] Do they support them or not?
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Chancellor knows that we consistently argued for free television licences for pensioners over 75, but said that free television licences for all pensioners would be too costly. There has been no change in our policy. If the right hon. Gentleman is looking in his notes for a quotation
  632
  from a newspaper arguing exactly that point, I think that he will find that that is what we said. Will he now answer the real question, which is about the basic state pension and pensioners' concern that they are getting only a 73p increase, although his reserves from social security underspend mean that he could well afford to give them much more?
  Mr. Brown: I have looked at the billions of pounds worth of Liberal spending commitments, and the week before the pre-Budget report the Liberals withdrew their support for the free colour television licence, which we have now introduced. Why do they not also support the minimum income guarantee that we have agreed for between 1.5 million and 2 million pensioners? As a result of that, and all the other changes that we have made, the poorest pensioner, the pensioner aged over 75 or 80, is receiving £15 a week more than when we came to power, and the poorest couple aged over 80 is receiving £20 a week more.
  The Liberals have to grow up in relation to public spending. They support public spending on everything as each cause becomes fashionable, yet they tell people in other parts of the country that they support toughness and rigour in public spending. They say that they support tax rises to spend on this and that, yet they tell people in Tory areas that they are against tax rises. They must sort out their position on public spending. On the main issues of health, education and pensions, we have done more than any Liberal ever dreamed of doing.
  We have announced the new interdepartmental reviews of the spending round, which is part of our policy for fiscal and monetary stability, the foundation of which is the independence of the Bank of England. That is the first divide between ourselves and our opponents. We support the independence of the Bank of England, and monetary and fiscal stability under the clear rules that we have drawn up; we have had no answers from the Opposition.
  The second difference is that we support constructive action in Europe, whereas the Conservatives are unprepared to do so; indeed, they would leave us isolated. The shadow Chancellor is only one step away from saying that he would never in any circumstances support the single currency for Britain—which puts him at odds with the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, his neighbour on the Front Bench, who is very keen on it, and regards as unacceptable the rejection of a single currency in principle.
  The third area of division between us is employment policy. We have cut youth and long-term unemployment by half since we came into office, employment is up by more than 700,000 and there are more people in work now than at any time in our history. Unemployment is at its lowest for 20 years. I believe that one contributing factor to that is the existence of the new deal. I would like to think that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House would support the new deal as being effective and for delivering the results.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Chancellor willing to say something about the astonishingly sharp fall in the value of the euro since its launch, from 71p to its lowest ever value, recorded

  633
  yesterday, of 63.3p? Is this something that the Government anticipated or did it take them by surprise? Is it something that we should worry about?
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has enough experience of the House to know that no Finance Minister has been prepared to make running commentaries on exchange rates. However, in the past year, growth in America was making the greatest contribution to the development of the world economy while Europe and Japan were not making the contribution that we wanted of them. The contribution from Europe is starting to increase this year as growth in Europe picks up. Like me, I think that the hon. Gentleman would want to welcome the fact that we have balanced economic growth worldwide, where Europe, Asia—including Japan—and America make their full contributions.
  To be able to influence the policy of the European Union on the single market and other issues, we must take a constructive attitude to Europe and not remain isolationist in the way that the Conservative party now wants to do.
  The three dividing lines between ourselves and the Opposition are first, our support for stability and their reversion to boom and bust; secondly, our support for the new deal and their rejection of it; thirdly, our support for a constructive attitude in the European Union. Unfortunately, the Conservative party is isolationist.
  The fourth area of division is on public services. We have invested £40 billion in education and health cumulatively over the coming three years. We have built 1,600 extra classrooms and provided for 4,500 more teachers. By next year, all five, six and seven-year-olds will be in classes of 30 or fewer. We have doubled capital expenditure on schools. We are on track to meet our promises on waiting lists, and we are determined in future to finance the health and education services in a way that did not happen under the previous Government.
  The Conservative party cannot escape the fact that, over the past year, it said that our spending plans were a "reckless spending spree". It said that spending was going through the roof year after year. At the Conservative party conference, the shadow Chancellor said that we had lost control in the biggest spending spree for a generation. On the "Today" programme, the right hon. Gentleman said that it was madness to embark on the public spending programme. The Conservative party also said that we had entered into extremely irresponsible and reckless commitments to which the country should not be committed. The shadow Chancellor has said that total spending is at a reckless level. Even this August, the shadow spokesman for the environment said that Labour's big mistake was to announce huge increases in public spending and said that the Opposition recommended reducing future spending plans. The shadow Chancellor was at it only a few days ago to the Financial Times when he said that Labour threatened yet another spending spree.
  Let the Conservatives explain to the public how they will cut public spending without affecting the resources that are available to health and education. Let them explain to the country how they will meet their tax guarantee and maintain the levels of public services that
  634
  people want to see. I think that Conservative Back Benchers will be surprised to know that, in the Hayek memorial lecture that the shadow Chancellor gave when he was out of the Government in 1995, he asked whether it was possible to change things. Then, he was criticising the Conservative Government for spending too much and for introducing too much regulation. He asked whether it was within the realm of practical politics to reduce the share of national income taken and spent by the state from the then current 41 per cent. share to, say, 25 per cent. He said that he supposed that, if his case for its overwhelming importance was accepted, then the question answered itself. He said that it had to be made possible and that politics was the art of making possible what one believed to be right. He argued that there could not be soft options; it required much more toughness.
  Let us consider that 25 per cent. figure in public spending. Bizarre as it sounds, it would require a cut in public spending of £144 billion. As the Conservatives now favour 25 per cent. public spending, I shall take the House through the implications of that.
  Spending on defence and foreign affairs accounts for about 3 per cent.; agriculture about 1 per cent.; and law and order about 2 per cent., which the Opposition want raised. Spending on transport and the environment together account for about 6 per cent.; and interest payments are about 4 per cent. Three per cent. is spent on pensioners—we had a debate last year, when the shadow Chancellor insisted that he did not want to abolish, cut or means-test the basic state pension, so we assume that he would pay that money out. Spending on disability and on education bring the total to 30 per cent., even before we have discussed the NHS.
  What is the Conservative attitude to the public services? How would the shadow Chancellor get to 25 per cent? He may want to intervene now and give us more details of the Conservative economic policy. As he knows, I have been prepared to deal with interventions, and I will give way to him. In his 1995 lecture, ominously entitled "One Nation Revisited", he said:
  "What I am arguing for is a strategic long-term shift in direction that takes us gradually away from compulsory collective state provision to private voluntary collective provision."
  Is that not what the Opposition health spokesman is telling people round the country? He is going around saying that non-urgent operations should be moved out of the NHS. He has been saying that he is about to unveil a plan for private medical insurance so that people can take up such insurance, or perhaps they will be forced to do so. The shadow Home Secretary has been going around saying that she wants charges in the NHS.
  When the Conservatives published their plans for a common-sense revolution, I noticed that they never committed themselves to maintaining the levels of expenditure. I noticed that they said that public spending would be cut and that, in that document, they gave no commitment whatever in relation to the overall level of spending in the national health service.
  Is it not the case that behind the shadow Chancellor's designs in relation to public spending is the aim that he set out so clearly? He can correct it now. If he did not say that public spending should be reduced to 25 per cent.

  635
  and that that is the measure by which he will be judged on his toughness, I am happy for the record to be corrected so that there is no doubt about it.
  Mr. Maude: This is a pathetic abuse of one of the most serious parliamentary occasions of the year. If the Chancellor wants to have it confirmed that I believe that we should resume the steady, very gradual downward path over time of the share of the nation's income taken by the state, yes, I confirm that. That is what we achieved over time when we were in power, and I believe that we should resume it.
  That illustrates a stark difference between us. The Chancellor used to speak about how important it was to restrain the size of the state. What he has shown by what he does, rather than what he says, is that the share of the nation's income taken in tax and spent by the state is rising inexorably year after year.
  Mr. Brown: This has been one of the most illuminating debates that we have had. We have a shadow Chancellor who refuses to tell us what he would do about the Bank of England, the minimum wage, the working families tax credit or the new deal. Now we have a shadow Chancellor who does not deny his statement on the record in 1995 that he wants to reduce public spending as a share of national income to 25 per cent. I notice that he did not deny what the health spokesman was saying around the country about private medical insurance, non-urgent operation outside the NHS and more charges in the NHS. Does he want to deny that now?
  Mr. Garnier: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak in the debate, now that the Chancellor has resumed his seat.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Order. Once I am on my feet, the hon. and learned Gentleman must resume his seat. It is becoming unclear, even to the Chair, whether the Chancellor has finished his remarks. If he is giving way, he must indicate, if only for my guidance, to whom he is giving way.
  Mr. Brown: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been happy to give way many times during the debate. I volunteered to give way to the shadow Chancellor.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, even for the Chancellor, to make a second speech without first seeking the leave of the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not need such a contribution in the present situation.
  Mr. Brown: Today's debate has been revealing. We now know that the shadow Chancellor does not deny his long-term plan to reduce the share of national income taken by the state to 25 per cent. We now know also that he is not prepared to repudiate the shadow Health Secretary on privatisation in the NHS. He has created another dividing line between us for the coming campaigns in Britain.
  636
  We are the party of stability. The Opposition, because they will not make the difficult—
  Mr. Garnier rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall not give way. You, have urged me to press on Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have offered to give way to the shadow Chancellor on many occasions.
  These are the dividing lines. First, Labour offers and achieves stability, while the Opposition offer only a return to stop-go. Secondly, Labour's commitment to the new deal will yield 170,000 job opportunities in the long term to young unemployed people. We shall continue to expand the new deal, while, as must be clear from today, the Opposition are determined abolish it. Thirdly, we are committed to the working families tax credit, from which 1.5 million people are benefiting. Furthermore, 1 million people have telephoned to inquire about taking it up. That shows that many of them are considering taking jobs and getting back into work, while the Opposition are determined to impose an average tax rise of £24 a week on those who would lose the working families tax credit. Finally, we are committed to Britain's public services, while people are now in no doubt that the Conservative party is the party of privatisation.
  The debate on the Queen's speech has revealed the Conservative party in its true colours. It is the party of the few; Labour is the party of the many.
  4.36 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I congratulate the Chancellor. He is overseeing a good position in Britain's macro-economy, on which he deserves congratulation. The Conservative party's amendment is bizarre in not recognising that in any form. The way in which the amendment is written makes one think that Conservative Members have not noticed the last couple of years and are attempting a criticism of their own record.
  The Chancellor should recognise that that achievement has been built upon three foundations. The first is the golden rule, a sensible approach to public spending and balancing the economy, for which we argued before the general election. The second is independence for the Bank of England, for which we argued and which the Chancellor opposed before the general election. The third important element is the success of the American economy, the present growth within the other European countries and the quite remarkable bounce back of the Asian economies and the signs of growth in Japan. That has provided a good basis for the Government's management of the British economy. Nevertheless, the Chancellor has made important and right decisions, which we welcome.
  However, there are real issues of concern within the economy and I want to touch on five—the complication of the tax regime; the difficulties of exporters hit by the high pound, who are well represented in my constituency; public spending, which I believe is set to follow a boom and bust pattern—just as the Chancellor attempts to avoid it in the wider economy he makes that very mistake in his handling of public spending; the environment; and preparation for the euro.
  I do not want to say too much about the complication of the tax regime, simply that the increasing plethora of levels of personal taxation—the introduction of small

  637
  schemes which the Chancellor says back entrepreneurs but which newspapers aimed at those very entrepreneurs, such as the Financial Times and The Economist, say overcomplicate the tax regime and are of no real benefit to entrepreneurs but are a real disbenefit to a simple, clear tax regime within which people can operate—is perhaps the Chancellor's single worst legacy as a detail manager within the Treasury. That is the opposite of the approach taken by Lord Lawson who, in some respects, the Chancellor criticises but who, in other respects, he admires. One thing which deserves admiration is the way in which complications in the tax regime were dealt with then. Perhaps it took money from accountants, but it helped small businesses, for which complication is not a benefit. Even if there are tax allowances, chasing them wastes time and energy in companies that cannot afford much outside expertise. They certainly cannot afford to use managers' precious time in chasing a few tax allowances.
  Mr. Fallon: To which tax breaks does the hon. Gentleman have the greatest objection?
  Mr. Taylor: One example is the complication of the capital gains tax regime. We argued that it would not help, and that it was not only over-complicated but that it tied people in unnecessarily for too long. The Chancellor acknowledged that in the pre-Budget report. [Interruption.] I could give many examples, but I do not want to delay our proceedings because I have greater points to make on other subjects, and I do not want to take up Back Benchers' time. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) wants to take part in the debate later.
  I want to consider exporters and the strong pound. Does the Chancellor have a policy on exchange rates? What does he consider to be an appropriate exchange rate? Does he recognise the genuine difficulties that are caused by the Monetary Policy Committee's concerns about the housing boom in the south-east, which is leading to an increase in interest rates that is inappropriate for conditions in much of the economy elsewhere? It is important to know whether the Chancellor has a policy on those linked issues. Higher interest rates help to keep the pound high; keeping the pound high contributes to hitting manufacturing industry in the most depressed parts of the country. In my constituency, there are price-sensitive exporters in heavy engineering and especially in the china clay industry. Therefore, I know how direct the knock-on effect of the high exchange rate is on job losses, which have been continuing and will go on, according to their management, if the pound stays so high. There are other examples of that around the country.
  There are various answers to the questions that I asked. Perhaps the Chancellor believes that differences between various parts of the country do not matter. Perhaps he believes that the current rate of the pound is appropriate, and that any pain in manufacturing is okay because there will be gain later. Both those answers would be wrong. It would also be wrong to ignore the serious effects of the house price boom in the south-east. It not only prices out of housing many people who live and work here and are not on high incomes, but stacks up problems in the economy through increases in interest rates. It also creates
  638
  pressure for 1.1 million homes in the countryside in the south-east, while homes empty in many towns and cities in the north. By changing the tax regime to equalise VAT between new build and renovation and improvement of existing building—perhaps also considering a tax on greenfield sites to help to improve brownfield land so that it is more affordable and there is greater interest in building on it—we can begin to tackle some of the housing problems. However, the Chancellor appears to pretend that they do not exist.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the great difficulties of the Governor of the Bank of England and his board in co-ordinating the effects of interest rates on different parts of the economy, for example house building and industry. I ask him in all sincerity, how do he and his colleagues believe that it will possible to co-ordinate the impact of a single interest rate in Europe? Surely the problems that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned would be infinitely worse if we had a single interest rate in the European Union.
  Mr. Taylor: There are two parts to the answer. First, the effects could be addressed through fiscal policy. Secondly—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who studies these matters carefully, knows—there are fewer differences between European Union countries than between different regions of the United Kingdom.
  Any debate on the economy should consider not only how much tax we raise and the state of the economy, but how public money is spent. The Government put a lot of emphasis on their prudence in planning for stable debt and increased spending on public services, but I watched the tax debate between those on the two Front Benches with some amusement because the simple fact is that the tax rate has risen over the 1990s, under both the Conservative party and Labour. The economy has also grown, not spectacularly—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: In a moment.
  The economy has grown not spectacularly, but steadily. Public spending, however, has been restrained and we see continued deterioration in key areas of public service. Where has the money gone? Essentially, in the past two years, it has gone on building up massive Government surpluses—on their figures, one of £33.5 billion before the next general election—but the true amount is disguised in reserves. For example, there have been increases in planned reserves for social security, even though there has been consistent underspending on benefits, and that has helped secretly to boost the Government's coffers.
  The Chancellor has chosen what he calls prudent growth forecasts—I believe that he is right—but if the Treasury papers arguing that the sustainable growth rate is now 2.5 per cent. and not 2.25 per cent. are correct, he has even more in his war chest to spend. He might intend to spend those surpluses before the next general election. If so, he is leaving it so late that there will have been a

  639
  bust in public services in the early years of this Parliament to fund a boom at the end. That is no more right for public service spending than for managing the economy.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: In a moment.
  The Chancellor may not want a boom for the next general election, and one can understand why. After all, the 2005 general election may—he hopes—be rather more important for him personally and it might be better to offer a boom then, although that is not what his Back Benchers want as the next general election will be tight for some of them.
  Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: In a moment; I want to proceed on that point.
  Perhaps the Chancellor does not believe any of that. Perhaps he simply believes that it is the object of a Chancellor to bring as much money into the Exchequer as possible and to spend as little as possible. It is hard to believe that he thinks that storing up such surpluses would make sense in the long run, let alone be electorally viable, but if he does not, our argument is that steady, sustained growth in public spending would be sensible and that the present plans do not deliver the manifesto commitments on which he was elected. I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman has moved on.
  Mr. Taylor: Then I shall give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).
  Mr. Leslie: It seems that I am second choice. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Liberal policy is still to extend the personal tax allowance to about £10,000? If so—and if he wants more public spending, too—will cutting the national debt be the source of his income or does he intend to put up taxes? If so, which taxes?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will find that our policy has been spelled out in some detail. We have consistently published our proposals, which were to combine the abolition of some of the existing tax allowances with an increase to 50 per cent. in top-rate tax for those earning more than £100,000 a year and the gradual introduction of a carbon tax. That would allow such a process to take place. Incidentally, taxing pollution rather than people would help to tackle some of our environmental problems too. As the Government's energy levy is introduced, my own view is that we shall have to consider the policy position in the light of the current circumstances. We shall again publish our costed proposals for the next general election.
  The Chancellor likes to attack Liberal Democrat economic policies and spending proposals, but I remind him that we have set out our costed proposals in detail at each general election, which is clearly more than he has been able to do. In 1987, our costed proposals contrasted with a Labour party manifesto—he was in the team—that
  640
  was clearly unbelievable and unaffordable. Labour was unelectable. In 1992, the Labour party learned some lessons from that and presented a costed manifesto. The costings were so high that the party remained unelectable, and it was not elected. The Chancellor was a key part of that team.
  By 1997, the Labour party had flipped the other way, and did not cost its manifesto. That is obvious in policy after policy.
  Mr. Clive Betts (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): We were electable.
  Mr. Taylor: Labour may have been electable but its policies were undeliverable. The Government now face problems with class sizes and waiting lists. They told us that a reduction in class sizes for five to seven-year-olds would be funded by the abolition of the assisted places scheme. The figures tell their own story. It cost many times that amount to get to where we are. Far worse than the financial costs—we are not unsympathetic about the extra spending—is the fact that the Government were not willing to provide money in the early part of this Parliament to fund the reduction properly, so that it has been bought at the expense of children over eight. Parents who had six-year-old children at the time of the last general election and who voted to get their children's class sizes reduced, because they saw the teachers struggling and were concerned for their children's future, now have eight-year-olds in record class sizes. They have paid in this way for that policy because the Government were not willing to provide the money when it was needed.
  We should consider the Government's education spending record in this Parliament. It was interesting to hear what the Prime Minister had to say during parliamentary questions about where they will end up, but they should have started with those increases to make that policy happen, and to prevent class sizes from rising. Labour Members know that full well, because, when they visit schools, they hear that story. Incidentally, they cannot recruit sufficient teachers, which says something about what is happening on wages.
  On health, the right hon. Gentleman fought the general election on a pledge to reduce waiting lists. The Government have not been able to achieve that, and now we are told that they have dropped that policy. The pledge to cut waiting lists is out of the window, because they are not prepared to provide the funds to make it happen. Waiting lists for out-patients—the people waiting to get on the waiting list—are at record levels. The Government have not even reached their targets on the in-patient lists, and 89,000 operations have been cancelled on the day of the operation. Meanwhile, there is a crisis in nursing such that the Royal College of Nursing's predictions of difficulties in nurse recruitment have been exceeded. The problem is even worse than the RCN dared predict.
  On pensions, social security and the disabled, the Prime Minister defends the cuts in benefit for people with disabilities in the future on the ground that the manifesto said that the Government would review welfare policies. I do not believe that anyone who voted for the Labour Government did so because they believed that Labour intended to cut benefits for people with disability—benefits that those people have paid for through national insurance contributions. If that happened in the private

  641
  pensions sector, the case would be taken to court. In this case, there is nothing people can do but protest from the Gallery.
  Worst of all, the Chancellor pretends that he cannot afford to do better. On the day that he announced tax breaks for millionaire entrepreneurs, he pushed through on a Whip cuts for people with disabilities. On the day that he announced a 73p increase in the basic pension, he revealed that he is tucking away thousands of millions in surpluses on social security. No doubt he will tell pensioners later that they will get an increase—perhaps just before the next general election—but that does not help to pay their bills now.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: The Liberal Democrat spokesman should tell the full story, which is that £1 billion is being spent on the disabled this Parliament, £6 billion extra on children, and £3 billion extra on pensioners. That is what the Government have been able to do.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about health and education, and referred to manifesto pledges. His manifesto promised a 1p in the pound rise in tax to spend on education, which is less than £2 billion a year. We are spending more than £6 billion a year extra on education. He promised £700 million for health, and we are spending something in the order of £7 billion extra a year. Instead of pretending that he can add up when he patently cannot, he should admit that we are spending more on the disabled, pensioners and children, and that we are providing more resources and doing things in the health service that he can only dream about.
  Mr. Taylor: The Chancellor is wrong, and I am glad that he has given me a chance to nail him. It is clear that our education pledge promised an immediate increase equivalent to a penny on income tax, and that that related to current spending. We would be spending, in real terms, an extra £2 billion a year in every year of this Parliament. According to their plans, the Government will be spending around half that amount by the end of the current Parliament—and that does not allow for the fact that we have never suggested that we would not spend more on the basis of growth, as all Governments do. What we said was that we would spend on the basis of a static budget, making no assumptions about growth, and that the expenditure was guaranteed.
  The fact is that schools would be better off under our proposed measures than under the Chancellor's. First the Chancellor tries to ignore issues of inflation, secondly he tries to ignore the fact that there was growth planned anyway, and thirdly he tries to pretend that lumping together current and capital expenditure will make a difference to teachers in the classroom, and to books, equipment and class sizes. None of that is true.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should tell the full truth to the House of Commons. The Liberal Democrats opposed the new deal; they opposed the windfall levy; they opposed the additional capital expenditure of more than £1 billion on schools that has now raised £2 billion through public-private partnerships. As well as spending nearly £20 billion extra on education, we have managed
  642
  to put more money into schools through the new deal. Let the hon. Gentleman be honest with the House: he opposed that.
  Mr. Taylor: The Chancellor is wrong. We did not oppose the new deal, although we did argue that the windfall tax was not the right way in which to fund those measures. [Interruption.] We shall have plenty of time to return to the issue, and I shall enjoy doing so, but let us now consider the future. I raised the subject of the comprehensive spending review at Treasury Question Time. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not present now, said—echoing, I suspect, the views of many Labour Back Benchers—that the new comprehensive spending review, which will double up on the third year of the current spending plans, 2001–02, would provide an opportunity for increased public expenditure, reflecting the very good economic circumstances on which I congratulated the Chancellor earlier.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, however, has said more than once that there is no possibility of changing the third year of the present plans, and that they are set in stone. Will the Chancellor now tell us whether, when the new plans for 2001–02 are announced next year, the existing plans will prove to be set in stone, or whether people can hope for increased public spending on education, health and the police—just in time, coincidentally, for the general election? I do not detract from that; I simply want to know whether the Chancellor will answer that fundamental question. If people are to submit to the review on a coherent basis and argue the case—Labour Back Benchers, or Liberal Democrats—we need to know whether the plans for 2001–02 are set in stone.
  The Chancellor does not want to answer that question, which makes us wonder whether there is not, after all, a secret war chest. The Chancellor says that he is prudent, that there is no war chest, that there is no money to spend. I am sure that Labour Back Benchers are horrified to learn that there is nothing to come for schools, hospitals and the police in time for their leaflets—but there he is, the prudent Chancellor. Or is he not replying because he plans to release the money not now, when it is needed by children in schools, but in time for the general election? Those are bust-boom economics.
  Let me turn to an issue on which we may be able to agree. I am glad that the Government are at last dealing with the issue of environmental taxation. They are finally getting something right in regard to the environment.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Taylor: I am very aware of the time, and I must make haste. The hon. Gentleman refused an opportunity to intervene earlier.
  On environmental taxation, the Government have started to move in the right direction. They have accepted that the energy levy as originally designed was a complete disaster for both the environment and industry. It was introduced in one lump, giving industry no time to make the capital investment to adjust. It should have been introduced gradually over time, so that industry could respond.
  The levy was not even good for the environment because it taxed all energy sources, whether they were environmentally beneficial or not. That is the difference

  643
  between our policy of the carbon tax and the Government policy of snatching money from industry without giving it any chance to get it back, not worrying whether it was environmental.
  The Chancellor has improved the policy by attempting to make it relate to those industries that pollute, but he has failed to do it well. For example, hydro and industrial combined heat and power schemes will still be taxed. The process through which he is doing it—he has ruled out a carbon tax—simply does not work well. On the other side, he is having to let some industry off.
  Mr. Leslie: I ask a genuine question. Can the hon. Gentleman elaborate on what he means by "carbon tax"? Is he talking about fuel duty, or a levy on energy consumers? What sort of carbon tax is he talking about? It will have to be fairly considerable to cover the £20 billion cost of his £10,000 tax allowance.
  Mr. Taylor: I do not want to delay the House at length. I would be happy to show the hon. Gentleman not only our workings, but those of the Institute for Public Policy and Research and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, all of which show how such schemes would work. I suspect that he would have some support for the IPPR.
  The carbon tax would be levied at source on the carbon content of the fuel—that is the point of the tax. It would be introduced gradually, so that it gradually increases the income to the Exchequer and stabilises energy prices, which are falling. Incidentally, if the hon. Gentleman is worried about road fuels, they would be exempted because, unlike other energy sources, they are already extremely heavily taxed.
  I ask the Chancellor another question that he can perhaps help to answer. He has said that the road fuel duty escalator will no longer be in place and that road fuel duty increases above inflation will be used to pay for public transport. I notice that, in the transport press and motoring journals, the policy is presented as the end of the fuel duty escalator, but that, to environment groups, it is presented as the way in which the Government will fund public transport. I ask a simple question. Is it the end of the increases, or the way to fund public transport? It cannot be both, yet the Chancellor seems to take credit for both.
  Mr. Loughton: On the subject of escalators, it is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's last point whether he agrees with the policy that was initiated by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) at the time of the Budget—that the Liberal Democrats favoured an energy tax escalator.
  Mr. Taylor: I have just described the carbon tax. I cannot elaborate further on that now, but, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to see the policies that we have presented on the matter—I said that it would be gradually introduced—he can see the material. A carbon tax has been looked at not only by ourselves, but by the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the IPPR, so, wherever people are on the political range, in that material, they should have something to read that they find interesting and informative.
  I finish with a final question. It is a simple one; I do not know why the Chancellor has felt unable to get up to answer my previous questions. He was critical of the Conservative Front-Bench team for not responding to his
  644
  questions. I am not sure why he has found it difficult to respond to many of ours. I will give him a simple one, to which he must know the answer.
  The Chancellor will know that Liberal Democrats believe that we should move towards euro entry. We believe that it is important to establish a target range for the exchange rate—to have some sense of where we want to go in at. That fundamental issue is not in his criteria, surprisingly, but he has set a number of other criteria, many of which are important.
  The question is simple. Does the Chancellor see himself as actively working to meet those criteria and to achieve euro entry, or as simply a spectator at the match, watching it go past, but not making any active efforts towards the euro? Does he want to join it, actively seeking to do so and creating the conditions for it, or is it simply a spectator sport, not mattering either way?
  My questions are the questions that the Chancellor should have answered. They are important. It is noticeable that on none of them has he been willing to stand up.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the 15-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) made a lengthy attack on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was also attacked by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). My right hon. Friend, however, has had only two and a half years in his position, and it has not been an easy time. Right from the outset, he said that his task was to produce stability and, to the surprise and admiration of those who follow such matters, he has achieved it. He should be congratulated on that.
  I should like to speak briefly about the Monetary Policy Committee membership. I am pleased that the four outside, independent committee members will be given greater facilities to make their contribution. Each of the four will now have two economists—which is really quite generous, and will be very much welcomed, as they have an important contribution to make. I should have liked, however, for the committee to be rather more broadly based, and I wish that there were more visible signs of input from other parts of Britain, based on the needs of Britain outside the south-east. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is right to have encouraged good and open argument, including from those who make the case for manufacturing industry in the regions. However, the argument—which is not between the regions, but between the south-east and the rest of Britain—should be rather more broadly based.
  The Monetary Policy Committee has to deal with inflation, one important element of which is the large increase in house prices. Today, there was disturbing news about yet further increases in house prices. There is a very strong differential effect between house price rises in the south-east and those elsewhere. House price inflation is a fundamental part of inflation generally, although that has not always been sufficiently appreciated—particularly in the 1980s, when the Government thought that inflation was under control and ignored the importance of rising house prices.

  645
  I am worried that interest rates are being set to suit inflation in the south-east. Housing costs in the south-east are increasing greatly, unlike those in other parts of the country. The economy, however, is being run on the basis of events in the south-east.
  The average house price in the south is more than £100,000. In my constituency—which is not as depressed as many of my colleagues' constituencies—one can buy an excellent house for less than half that price, and page after page in local newspapers describes such properties. My constituents are having to bear many of the consequences of high interest rates, for which the responsibility lies elsewhere.
  My main concern—I am not sure that the Monetary Policy Committee has sufficiently dealt with it—is the forces of competition. When the committee decides to increase interest rates, is it fully taking into account changes in competition in the United Kingdom? The Government have done much to encourage competition—full marks to them for that—but does competition affect prices and inflation? I suspect that it does.
  Car prices are very much affected by competition. The internet's effect on inflation is only small, but it will become much greater. Supermarkets such as Wal-Mart—the new company from America—also will have their effect on competition. What effect will they have on prices in the near future—a matter on which the Monetary Policy Committee has to comment?
  Overseas competition, too, will have an effect on inflation. So many British producers are very conscious of competition from overseas. With a high exchange rate, that competition is even more serious. We need to widen and maintain the debate. The European central bank also needs to take those matters into account.
  In his statement on 9 November, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about hypothecation. That was very important, because it was the first comment that we have had on the subject. He said:
  "the extra revenues from a 5 per cent. real terms rise in cigarette duties would go straight to additional investment in the national health service, worth £300 million a year—that is £300 million extra for hospitals and health care which could start next April."—[Official Report, 9 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 891.]
  That is the first statement in favour of hypothecation since the road fund duties in the 1920s.
  I have always agreed with the Treasury line on hypothecation. To earmark expenditure is to lose the ability to decide on priorities. In addition, the amount of tax collected may not accord with future expenditure plans. However, there is one case, which I have been pursuing for some years, for earmarking some money from taxation for particular purposes: when the demand is high and ever-increasing, the case for the services concerned is strongly urged and acceptable to all, and the cost is increasing indefinitely. The national health service meets all those requirements. As people's wants are satisfied, they turn ever more to their needs for medical care. The need and the cost are increasing, and will inevitably continue to do so.
  In his foray into hypothecation, my right hon. Friend was right to select the national health service for what I hope will be the commencement of the process. The expenditure satisfies the conditions that would justify its
  646
  introduction. It is clear that the cost of the health service will rise ever faster than the rate of inflation or growth in the economy because the population is ageing. As other wants are met, health needs become an area of increasing expenditure. The time is coming when either we shall have to turn more to private medicine, which I do not favour, or we shall need a special national health service tax.
  Anyone who has been in the Treasury has a visceral feeling about that idea. The road fund licence still casts its shadow 70 years later. One important weakness of hypothecation is that it does not take account of changes in priorities, as I said. However, the demand will continue indefinitely and we need to consider introducing a separate national health service tax. The issue needs to be sensibly explored. Proposals for such expenditure on the national health service in the Budget, if properly managed, could gain widespread support in a way that taxation changes generally do not.
  I should also like to talk about our entry into the euro zone. There was always a case for not wishing the European Community to come into being or, more realistically, for opposing any extension of its activities. However, having opposed and having discovered that the Community was going to develop anyway without our presence, it was unwise to deny ourselves the opportunity to get involved actively and wholeheartedly. I am increasingly worried about the delay in accepting the euro. On 1 January 2002, just two years from now, the euro will be introduced in the European Community in notes and coins. That is important, because it is what will make the fundamental change. It is possible that Sweden, Denmark and, just conceivably from what I read in today's Financial Times, Greece may have entered by then. We could be the only members of the European Community outside the euro. Further economic and monetary changes will follow and we shall be excluded from them. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement to the House on 27 October 1997:
  "The decision on a single currency is probably the most important question that this country is likely to face in our generation."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 583.]
  The Chancellor set out five economic tests to be met before we joined the currency: whether there can be sustainable convergence between Britain and the economies of single currency countries; whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change; the effect on investment; the impact on our financial services generally; and whether it is good for employment. Some have queried the difficulty in deciding whether a clear and unambiguous case can be made for some of those. Can any precision be applied to the tests?
  We have not had an assessment of how, in the two years following the statement, the tests are being met. Are we nearer to meeting them? If so, which ones? How have we moved in relation to the tests? Will there be a future assessment of how we are meeting the tests?
  In today's edition of the Financial Times, the Foreign Secretary gave a stark warning about the potential dangers of staying outside the euro zone, and added that, by the end of next year, Britain could be the only EU member state without a firm date for joining the European single currency. Whatever happens following the introduction of notes and coin on 1 January 2002, it will mark a fundamental change in the perception of the currency and the closer economic integration of the Community.

  647
  We know that a number of manufacturers are querying the role of Britain as an offshore island and are considering that their future investment may be necessary in the euro zone. I am fearful of the cost to our country if we do not enter the euro zone before the common currency becomes an everyday currency. A decision to join after then could cause further problems for the Community and for ourselves, and the resolution of those problems could exact a considerable price economically and politically.
  The failure to enter the euro zone could be the culmination of the greatest mistake in the post-war years. Many would consider this to be the final chapter, following our failure to take the leadership in Europe at the end of the war, which was ours for the asking; our failure in 1950–51 to lead Europe into the lion and Coal Community; our failure at Messina; our failure to join the Community in the 1950s; and our failure to play a constructive part in the growth of the Community. The Conservatives now look for a final opt-out from the euro. If we stay out now, our dismal record will be complete, consistent and wrong.
  I do not want that failure to come at the end of a sad 100 years—including two world wars for this country—which had started with so many of the glories of the previous century. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has achieved so much in running the economy sensibly and well. We must look to the question of the euro, which must remain at centre stage.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: In view of the time limitation, I must be selective, and I will concentrate on three areas—agriculture, transport and pensions. I am aware that there have been debates earlier on those matters, but all the points that I wish to make are Treasury points. It is right to raise them today, and I hope to get a response to them.
  I want to declare an interest, in that I am a non-executive director of companies involved in all three of those matters. These are included in the Register of Members' Interests. I say this in a positive way, as it gives me a detailed insight into the issues—especially pensions.

  On agriculture, I wish to refer to the pesticides tax. On 9 November, I asked the Chancellor whether he would make a commitment not to proceed with the tax. He did not answer. He turned to one of his colleagues, seeking an answer—but he did not get it there. He did not answer any questions today. His speech was one of the emptiest that I have ever heard from a Chancellor; it was contemptuous of the House.
  I hope that I will get an answer today. After failing to get one from the Chancellor, I read the pre-Budget report, which says:
  "The Government believes that a tax or charge could be a useful tool, in conjunction with other measures, in addressing the environmental impact of pesticides."
  It goes on to say that the Government will have further discussions with the industry. It is questionable whether a pesticides tax is the best of way of dealing with pesticides
  648
  issues in agriculture and the environment. All my farmers tell me that to impose such a tax now would be a further threat to an already heavily beleaguered industry.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Why is it beleaguered?
  Mr. MacGregor: For many reasons that I do not want to go into now, as I am talking about the pesticides tax. I urge the Government to make a commitment not to proceed with the tax and to lift the threat.
  The pig and poultry sectors are in difficulties and the pig sector is going through an exceptional crisis. I cannot remember such a situation in the industry, which is used to pig cycles. As a result of the events of the past 18 months, many people will come out of pig production because they are incurring great capital losses and, in some cases, facing bankruptcy.
  This is an exceptional period, and, although I have always been resistant to substantial subsidies for such industries, it is important for the Government to see what they can do, as we face the threat of the pig industry diminishing seriously. I urge the Chancellor to meet the costs of the additional measures that are being imposed on our pig farmers, but not on those in the rest of the European Union or elsewhere. We impose higher standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety, with a cost amounting to 5.7p per kg. I understand that the Agriculture Commissioner has said that he has no objection to such state aid in the present circumstances. Some such action is required if the pig industry is to survive.
  We have had many discussions about labelling in the past 18 months. If I understand it aright, the agreement that is about to be reached with the French at last—after missing all the deadlines—contains a provision, on which the French have insisted, that British beef be labelled British. If that can be imposed on us, I see no reason at all why the same should not apply to products from other European Union countries and from Thailand and Brazil. We have urged that for a long time.
  I want to follow up a point about the road fuel duty escalator made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I think that it should be scrapped. We are committed to that, and I very much regret the fact that the Chancellor is not. The Deputy Prime Minister last week described the hypothecation or ring-fencing of any duties coming from above-inflation elements in the escalator as "a radical departure". It is not a radical departure: in May 1993, when I produced a document recommending motorway charging, we made it clear that direct charges for road use could provide additional sources of finance for improving the road network.
  I could not have made that commitment without the agreement of the then Chancellor. It was the best way of persuading people to incur the charges. We were already committed to hypothecation, but we were talking about motorway tolling—there is still a good case for that when we can get the technology right—whereas the Government are talking about congestion charging, the dangers and difficulties of which make it a political minefield into which they will regret going. I am not at all surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister now says that, it will not be implemented before 2005. I believe that it is a mistake to embark on it, and we must consider the details extremely carefully.

  649
  I understand from the tax documents that we have that, if the Chancellor decided to increase fuel duty by 2 per cent. above inflation, for example, that would yield about £230 million. That could easily be balanced by reductions in the general transport programme. I suspect that the Chancellor will do that, because he has so savagely cut the transport programme already. The danger, therefore, is that he will introduce a further increase in fuel duty that will clobber rural motorists, but claim that he is helping the motorist by hypothecating that amount of money to the road programme. That is nonsense, because even if he reverted to the full 6 per cent. of last year, it would not compensate for the cuts already suffered. I hope that the Chancellor will not make a virtue out of the so-called radical departure of hypothecation.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) rightly castigated the Chancellor on his record on pensions and savings. The decrease in the savings ratio from 10.6 per cent. when we left office to 5 per cent. now is deeply worrying, but it is not surprising. My right hon. Friend listed some of the reasons, of which the most obvious—to us, if not yet to the public at large—is the removal of £5 billion a year from pension funds through the advance corporation tax changes, which will have an increasingly adverse effect on pensions. Another factor is that ISAs are a poor substitute for PEPs and TESSAs. The dithering over what to do with pensions and long-term savings has left everyone in a state of limbo while the Government make up their mind.
  The danger of the stakeholding pension scheme is that it will turn out to be the biggest pension mis-selling of all, because those with incomes between £9,000 and £15,000 would do better not to enter the stakeholder scheme, but to wait and claim the minimum income guarantee—under current Government arrangements—which will rise much faster than the basic state pension. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) drew attention to that point in an extremely good speech.
  The Government constantly denounce the pensions industry, but they will need to depend on it to ensure the delivery of their objectives. I was interested to note that the new director general of the Association of British Insurers, Mary Francis, who is a distinguished former Treasury civil servant, warned recently about the signals that the Government were sending to the consumer. She said:
  "the government, which advocates the Third Way—that new partnership between private and public sectors, in which those that can should provide for their own needs without relying on the state—is simultaneously telling people they cannot trust the private sector.
  Where does that leave the employee thinking about a personal or a stakeholder pension?"
  The Government run grave risks to grab a cheap headline or make a cheap point.
  The result of the past two years of this Government is that many people who should be saving for pensions at a much younger age have been encouraged to put off that decision until tomorrow. Meanwhile, while the Government dither, a new threat develops, which could have more serious negative consequences than any positive effects from the stakeholder scheme. That threat
  650
  has not been discussed in the House yet, but my knowledge of the pension industry has led me to believe that it is one of the most serious threats we face on policy grounds. Two of the great virtues of UK pension schemes—as compared with those of other countries and as they have developed over the past 40 years—are the strong growth in defined benefit occupational pension schemes, which is one of the reasons why pensioners retiring in the past seven or eight years have been so much better off, and the heavy investment of those schemes in equities. Both those virtues are now at serious risk.
  I can elaborate only a few of the reasons, which include the costs to employers of defined benefit schemes compared with defined contribution money purchase schemes; the requirements of the minimum funding requirement, which encourage employers to abandon defined benefit schemes because they carry so many risks; the heavy regulation that employers face, which encourage them and the pension industry to play safe by investing much more in gilts; the low inflation era and the actuarial response to it; and a new Accounting Standards Board financial reporting exposure draft—known as FRED20. I just want to say a word or two about FRED20, and to draw the Government's attention to the dangers of going down that route.
  Although FRED20 is the international standard, pension development in this country has followed a different course, which has been much to our benefit. Given that FRED20 will have a considerable impact on big companies' balance sheets and, because of its volatility, sometimes on their profit and loss accounts as well, it is likely that it will accelerate the trend towards money purchase schemes, as those big companies look to get out of defined benefit schemes. It will thus encourage people to move into corporate bonds and gilts—the latter of which are in short supply for the very good and laudable reason that the Government have cut back on borrowing—but that will drive down the overall yield for pension funds. For policy reasons, therefore, we are about to enter a regime in which much of what the Government want to do for pensions—and of what I want to see done for pensioners—will be undermined.
  In conclusion, I urge the Government to do the following things. First, they should consider introducing compulsion into the stakeholder pension scheme, which will not work without it. I say that very reluctantly, as I have always opposed compulsion in regard to pensions. It is certainly important that the Government address the problem of mis-selling. They have been warned about it, and the Opposition will return to the matter if mis-selling is proved to have taken place.
  Secondly, the Government should examine FRED20 very thoroughly, as it is about more than accountancy standards. It has big policy implications for the United Kingdom, and we should consider seriously whether it is right for us.
  Thirdly, the Government should reconsider the tax regime for pensions and long-term savings. One compliment that I will pay the Government is that the brief produced, after much consultation, on the tax regime for stakeholder pensions was very good. We can build on that to develop a much more lasting and efficient tax regime for long-term savings than the Government are proposing. Finally, I urge the Government to look again at the minimum funding requirement and all the regulations being imposed on the pensions industry.

  651
  Unless the Government take those steps, they will not fulfil the objectives for pensions and long-term savings that they have set and which the previous Conservative Government were achieving.
  5.32 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The Government's economic strategy is set out clearly and succinctly in the Gracious Speech and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor repeated some of it this afternoon. The central objectives are high and stable levels of economic growth and employment and prudent management of the public finances in accordance with the codes and rules of fiscal stability. Moreover, as we have heard, monetary policy—that is, interest rates—is controlled by the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee.
  That pious and godly couple, Mr. Stability and Miss Prudence, are still our role models. They would never be tempted to stray from the paths of righteousness and grace, but, if they ever were so tempted, rigorous rules are in place to ensure that they did not do so.
  I was intrigued by the phrase
  "high and stable levels of economic growth and employment".
  I thought that I would delve deeper into the sacred texts to find its antecedents. I began with the Mais lecture given by the Chancellor a few months ago—the occasion when Chancellors can show their intellectual prowess to the bovver boys in the City. In that lecture, the Chancellor reaffirmed his commitment to the splendid goal of high and stable levels of growth and employment. I have no trouble with that objective, which the Chancellor pointed out was first set in 1944. Most hon. Members probably know that, but I was surprised to learn it.
  My right hon. Friend went on to say that, in what he described as the "famous" 1944 White Paper, full employment was defined as high and stable levels of employment. Off I went to the Library to find the famous 1944 White Paper, but life is never easy. Apparently, two relevant White Papers were published in 1944. Perhaps both were famous, but which was the more famous is a subjective decision. The first, published in June by the coalition Government, was called "Full Employment". I am sorry that not many Liberal Democrats are in the Chamber, because five months later—a bit late; he had tried to get it out sooner—came Mr. Beveridge's White Paper, if it can be described as such. It was entitled, rather pompously, "Full Employment in a Free Society".
  The Chancellor, very wisely, was referring to the coalition Government's White Paper, which described full employment as "high levels of employment"—a clever description, because it does not require the use of percentages. Mr. Beveridge, who was more certain, and perhaps more bold, described full employment as occurring when unemployment stands at 3 per cent. Indeed, Mr. Beveridge made some great claims for his version of full employment. He claimed that it was consistent with socialism, capitalism and some strange dogma, or theory, which he described as a liberal-collectivist via media. What on earth that means, I do not know. No doubt there is another sermon in it somewhere. However, when I saw it I thought, "Eureka! I have found the antecedents of the third way." [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is pleased about that.
  652
  The Chancellor was not tempted to follow Mr. Beveridge, but stuck to "high employment" as his definition. His lecture also came close to extolling the 20 years following the 1944 White Paper as a golden age of low unemployment and low inflation. He also praised other aspects of the 1944 White Paper. He praised the call for greater productivity—well, nothing changes. He praised the call for work over idleness—again, nothing changes. He called, as the 1944 White Paper did, for a responsible attitude towards wage bargaining. Some of us, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) might shudder at that phrase, with its echo of an incomes policy, but perhaps the world has changed since then.
  However, the Chancellor did not touch on the fiscal and monetary policies that underpinned the 1944 White Paper. Despite the fact that the policies set out in the 1944 White Paper and the Chancellor's current policies aim for high employment and stable growth, the Chancellor has a different fiscal and monetary policy. The White Paper referred to the need for total expenditure to be used to maintain full employment as well as improve public services.
  Those who drafted the White Paper would have given short shrift to all the codes and rules of fiscal stability—the so-called, rather pompous, golden rule, and the absurdly named growth and stability pact. All the attempts to entrench those rules into a kind of economic constitution and to put it beyond a nasty and irresponsible democracy would not have appealed to the people who drafted the White Paper.
  The same applies to monetary policy. The people who drafted the White Paper would have had no truck with monetary committees of central banks determining interest rates. In fact, they lived through an era in which central bankers entirely failed to deal with economic traumas. There seems to be a paradox. On one hand, we have the goal of high and stable growth, and on the other, we have monetary and fiscal policies that seem entirely different.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne said that the Chancellor had done well and that the goals of high and stable growth and employment had gradually been achieved. I agree with that. If growth is high and unemployment and inflation are low, surpluses will be created, even at present taxation levels. There will inevitably be more money in the Exchequer, but I worry that the Chancellor has hemmed himself in with his rules of fiscal stability. I fear that he will feel unable to use the surpluses to benefit the public services. He may feel trapped and unable to break the rules that he has placed upon himself, but our public services need a lot of money.
  It is not the Government's fault that our health service can no longer be described, perhaps with slight exaggeration, as the best in the world. Our health service no longer competes with the best standards of care in other European countries. Nor does our education system, despite the assistance that the Government have given. Far more money is required, especially for the centres of excellence that would enable us to compete in a global economy with the Harvards, Stanfords, Cal-Techs and MITs. Whether we call those centres of excellence or of elitism, we must compete with them in a global economy. We are not putting enough money into that.

  653
  There is great pressure on pensions, not only to restore the link between pensions and earnings but to raise the basic pension. Perhaps those who have not put savings aside and who can pass the means test will have their pensions increased, but those who have saved, but not much, find themselves on the same basic pension as those who have not. We are in danger of creating a two-tier system in which those who have not saved get a bit more, but those who have saved a little fall behind. That causes resentment among my constituents.
  Substantial sums are required for the care of the elderly. Carmarthenshire social services department is under great pressure to provide residential care. In many cases, elderly people remain in beds in acute hospitals until someone dies or a room otherwise becomes available in a private residential home. The social services department simply does not have enough money to put all the elderly into residential homes. That puts considerable pressure on the health service.
  Our transport infrastructure needs enormous sums of Government money if we are to put it right and to compete. I am not being profligate or trying to waste money, but there is a great need for money. Surpluses—some exist already and more will arise—should be used to improve the public services.
  I fear that that pious and godly couple—Mr. Stability and Miss Prudence—are still around and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will listen to them a bit too much. I fear that he will be trapped by the wonderful rules—they are marvelous—of fiscal stability. Although they work wonders, they do not enable a Chancellor to use the surpluses, which were perhaps created by adherence to those rules, for the benefit of public expenditure. It would be ironic if my right hon. Friend, who has done so well in his stewardship of the economy, were to create surpluses that he could not spend because he must adhere to the rules that he himself created.
  5.45 pm
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I had wanted to raise three brief points in the debate, but, having heard some of the speeches, I must point out to the Government that there are two sides to every argument.
  Although my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) always makes wonderful speeches, I was horrified to hear him talk about the need to solve the problems of agriculture, and pig farmers in particular, by providing more subsidies. I have been through a bit of a nightmare over the European Union, and it horrifies me to hear from those who landed us in the common agricultural policy, which is the greatest protection racket ever devised by man. It wastes more money than any other public policy I can think of. I am sure that that money could solve all the problems of Carmarthenshire and of the elderly and the disabled, yet those who landed us in that nightmare say that the answer is more subsidies.
  The Government should consider the money that the European Union spends on agriculture. It is at its highest level ever. We must add to that the money spent by Great Britain—about £5 billion last year—and all that spent by other national Governments throughout Europe. The result is a nightmare—the massive over-production of food that we do not know what to do with.
  654
  For example, demand for meat on the continent is falling by about 2 per cent. a year, and in Britain it is falling by 1 per cent. a year. Having created that shambles that we cannot get out of, we are told that the answer is simply to provide more subsidies. At some stage, the European Union or the Government will have to face up to the fact that we have created a monster in the CAP. Unfortunately, we know it cannot be reformed because of the way the EU works, but the last thing in the world that we want to do is to try to solve the problem by spending more money.
  I ask people to think of the money that is spent on destroying food. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk would love to come with me to one of the great occasions where we spend vast amounts of taxpayers' money destroying food. Last year, more than 1 million tonnes of food were destroyed. I am sure that lovely cauliflowers are grown in Norfolk but, last year, 170,000 tonnes of them had to be destroyed to help agriculture.
  What has probably upset me even more than my right hon. Friend's speech was to learn—I remind him that this is no laughing matter—that the National Farmers Union, the great guardian of farmers, had been to local superstores, including the Asda superstore, to tell them that they had to stop selling New Zealand lamb because it is being over-produced. When one thinks of how New Zealand has helped us whenever we have been in trouble and asked nothing for itself even though it is at the other end of the world, it is insulting that superstores are caving into such demands.
  I do not make my remarks as someone who represents a constituency with no farmers; I have plenty of them there.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: The hon. Gentleman will not have many left.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want sedentary interventions.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are many farms in my constituency. However, it would be sickening to do what most Liberal Democrats would do, which is to pretend to farmers that one can solve their problems by providing them with even more subsidies. That would land them in an ever greater mess. The Liberal Democrats—and, indeed, the Conservatives—who supported the European Union and the CAP as a means of solving the problems of agriculture should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. We have spent a fortune and ruined agriculture as a consequence. We have created a vast over-supply that we do not know what to do with, and public expenditure is higher than ever. The idea that providing more subsidies will solve the problem is an insult not only to taxpayers but to agriculture, which we all care about.
  Mr. MacGregor: I did not want to interrupt my hon. Friend because of the limits on time. However, he will know that I am deeply critical of the CAP and fought very hard to get changes made to it. Will he also accept that I was talking about temporary aid to an industry that has costs imposed on it in the United Kingdom that all our competitors do not have?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: It is wonderful to hear my right hon. Friend saying that he is critical of the CAP. That is

  655
  a fat lot of good. Having voted for all the treaties and the money, we are stuck with it. It is all very well saying that we want to reform the CAP—I hear this from farmers themselves—but it cannot be changed. People should realise that there is no way in which the CAP will be reformed; the countries of Europe will never sit in a corner and say that they would like to change it. If we pretend that we will solve the problems with subsidies, we are insulting the farmers and the taxpayer.
  I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is clever, a senior member of his party and, unlike most of my hon. Friends and myself, very wise—one can tell just by looking at him—say that we should join the single currency earlier than proposed. I ask him honestly whether he has ever found a single currency that has worked. All of them have ended up causing mass unemployment, misery and distress. There have been 11 previous examples in the world, including two in Europe—the Scandinavian and the Latin currency unions. The tragedy is that every one collapsed. A single currency cannot work unless, as in the United States, there is one Government, one Treasury and a feeling of nationhood.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked nonsense about the horror of the Bank of England bothering more about property prices in the south than industry in the north. If that is a problem, what the blazes will it be like in a united Europe?
  I had the pleasure of seeing that nice Mr. Duisenberg—I have seen him twice now—just a few weeks ago. He was saying that the single currency was a terrible problem for him. He said, "What can I do? I have people in Ireland and Spain asking me please to calm things down, but people in Germany and Italy wanting me to boost proceedings." That simply cannot work.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne talked of the need for us all to join the single currency. What has happened to the two countries that said no? I was present for the referendums; the people of Norway and Switzerland displayed a courage that we and other countries did not. Posters, paid for by the right hon. Gentleman's fat, rich friends, said that the countries must join or jobs and trade would be destroyed. Norway and Switzerland have the lowest rates of unemployment in Europe, while countries such as Germany, Italy and France are suffering economic nightmares.
  When I was over in Germany seeing the Central Bank, I heard business men saying, "We have a rubbish Government." I said that I was very sorry about that, but they replied, "The Opposition are rubbish as well." They said that the parties were not being kind to business, but that once they had the single currency their problems would disappear.
  I saw people who represent the French equivalent of the CBI—one of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench was there, too. They were delightful people; they drank a great deal. They told me, "We have a mad Government." I said, "I am terribly sorry; it's not my fault." They explained that their Government were introducing a 35-hour week, which will destroy jobs, but that, once there is a single currency, such action will not be allowed. I am afraid that people are kidding themselves, in a mad way, that the single currency will work.
  656
  The best guidance of all is in a wonderful speech by Mr. Duisenberg, who is such a nice, courteous man. He said:
  "The process of monetary union goes hand in hand, must go hand in hand, with political integration and ultimately political union. EMU is, and always was meant to be, a stepping stone on the way to a united Europe."
  Mr. Sheldon: I did not like to intervene, given the shortage of time, but the hon. Gentleman has referred to me so frequently that I must do so. Can he devise a system whereby a single currency, to which all the countries of Europe are committing themselves, would collapse or be allowed to collapse? If he cannot, what are we doing out of it?
  Sir Teddy Taylor: If the single currency is to collapse, it would not be a very good thing to join it. I am not trying to be clever. I have studied all previous single currencies, and the same things have always happened. One area does very well, one does very badly, and people march on the streets and become agitated. Let us remember that there is no democracy or mechanism by which we may express views through elections because, as we know, the "democratic" institutions in Europe are basically irrelevant. What can one do? The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is just silly, but let us consider what the markets say.
  The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne may have been present when we were told on one occasion that the euro would go like a rocket. Yesterday, it was at an all-time low against the pound, having fallen from a value of 71p to 63p, which is a substantial drop. Although that may change, let us consider long-term interest rates. What about things called 20-year bonds, by which clever people with money, unlike myself, indicate what they think will happen? Why are the 20-year British interest rates far lower than those in Germany or France? The simple reason is that people on the money markets have confidence in a British currency, but not in the European one.
  I am not merely getting my views across; I am genuinely concerned about what will happen to people, jobs and prosperity in Europe. It will not be nice for us. Before the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne becomes too optimistic and too sure about the single currency, he should ask himself why such a currency has never worked and whether it is possible to harmonise the economies of Europe.
  Owing, as I am sure my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench would say, to the achievements of the previous Conservative Government, or, as Labour Members would say, to the great achievements of the Labour Government, our taxes are much lower in Britain—about 36 per cent. of gross national product, in comparison with the European average of 44 per cent. How the blazes will we harmonise economies? Inevitably, some areas will prosper, some will suffer and the poor bank in the middle will not know what to do. The single currency cannot work. It has never worked before, and an awful lot of people will suffer as a consequence of it.
  I had not meant to talk about such things, but they must be said. I hope that the Government will appreciate that there are two points of view. I have seen Government after Government of different parties say that they are not doing well in Europe, but that if they show good will and

  657
  take a further step, somehow things will improve. Every further step has failed to help anyone, including farmers, who are ruined despite massive expenditure.
  Will the Treasury think carefully about the considerable cost of all the massive quangos that it is setting up? I am thinking of three, but will mention just one: the Financial Services Authority. It strikes me as an enormous organisation, which has massive power. It is making life impossible for people in the private sector. I have been in touch with its chairman about individual cases. The expenditure involved in continuing to send stuff in the post worries me. I am sure that other hon. Members receive it, too; I keep wondering why.
  Yesterday, the great organisation sent the following fascinating information:
  "A recent survey showed 500,000 households have endowment mortgages which would not pay for their homes."
  That is a clear statement. On the same day, I received wonderful information in a very reliable magazine that is published by the insurance industry. It said:
  "We have no record of any Low Cost or Full endowment failing to achieve its objectives over the short or long term. Indeed the longer the term the better the prospects. There are dozens of case studies that show multiples of two…why the media hysteria? What is the PIA concerned about Endowments for?"
  The basic argument is that the FSA has obliged companies to present policies on a 6 per cent. Yield—the yield is usually 12 or 14 per cent.
  Such events have caused a great deal of alarm among some of my constituents. They have come to my surgeries to tell me that they have such endowment mortgages and that the news is terrible. It worries me that supposedly reputable organisations, which are sited in huge offices, employ a multitude of staff and spend a fortune, make statements that cannot be true. Either it is true that 500,000 people are in a mess, or nobody is in a mess. Issuing such statements is not sensible. I would like to think that such organisations were more sensible.
  The report of the Primarolo group on the code of conduct on business taxes, which operates strongly in Europe, worries me a great deal. I serve on the Treasury Committee, which is basically a waste of time—all those who are involved in it know that to be so. We ask many questions and talk about many things, but say nothing at all. However, we are producing a detailed report on the code of conduct in Europe.
  We asked the Paymaster General for a copy of the report but were told that it was terribly secret and that no one was allowed to see it. I then simply phoned a bloke in Stroud, who then rang the European Commission, and we received a copy the next day. What worries me is that that sort of thing is happening all the time.
  The final report has just been issued and will be considered by the Council on 29 November. I have a copy of it in my hand, yet we are told that we cannot have it because it is secret. I feel that something very nasty is happening, because the report states clearly and precisely that although the Government accept that
  "these territories have tax autonomy, the United Kingdom has undertaken to make the code of conduct principles apply there."
  There have been many recommendations for the Channel Islands, and the people there are worried. There have also been recommendations for Gibraltar and the Isle
  658
  of Man. Why on earth can we not get the information, when it is readily available to anyone who telephones the Commission and asks for it?
  More important, the Channel Islands are not represented in this place. What can we say to the people there, who had the clearest assurances in the protocol to the treaty of Rome that the islands were excluded from the European Economic Community and did not have to pay charges and taxes decided by anyone else? The Government have apparently decided to make the principles apply in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
  What powers does the Minister think that she has? The treaty of Rome exempts the Channel Islands from the European Union and the imposition of taxes. The provision is clear and precise—it is in the treaty in black and white—yet the Minister says, "I'm going to force these changes on the islands."
  If we cannot get the report until it is all agreed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  6.1 pm
  Ms Harriet Harman: In this debate on the economy, I want to highlight the fact that the success of our economy depends to a great extent on the skills, creativity and capacity of our people. That is something which, over the years, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has addressed—indeed, he addressed it this afternoon when he talked about the working families tax credit, the minimum wage and, above all, the new deal.
  Whereas our economy used to depend on land and then on machinery, it now depends on what, in economic debates, we have come to call human capital. Therefore the family, where that human capital is nurtured, is critical to the economy. The issues that I want to raise tonight—the questions of work and the family—lie at the interface between economic and social policy.
  The Government are determined to deliver a stable and growing economy. They want to support families, they want to tackle the problems of workless households, they want to tackle social exclusion, they are pledged to end child poverty, and they want equality of opportunity for women. The question of how families balance their work and their home commitments is central to delivering on all those issues.
  There have been huge changes, both in the family and in the workplace. One of the most stunning changes is in the way children are being brought up. My generation were brought up by mothers who, for the most part, stayed at home when we were young. If our mothers did return to work, it was when the youngest child had started school. That has changed: mothers are redefining motherhood to be about providing for their children as well as caring for them. Now, most children are being brought up in families where both parents work, or by a working lone mother.
  We know that the economy needs those women's work. We also know that the income coming into the household depends, to a great extent, on women's work. However, we should be concerned about the effect on children when they swap a mother who stays at home for one who goes out to work as well. That is why, through the Smith

  659
  Institute, I commissioned Heather Joshi to carry out longitudinal research into the effect on children of their mothers working when they were young.
  The findings show the importance of giving mothers more choice about when and how they return to work after having a baby. No research should tell a mother what to do, but those research findings, which echo United States research, should inform our public policy. Following publication of the research, my postbag showed that real choice is what women want more than anything, especially when their babies are under 12 months old.
  That is why I very much welcome the Chancellor's statement in paragraph 5.27 of the pre-Budget report:
  "The Government will also examine whether the Working Families' Tax Credit or other measures can give additional help to the mother who wishes to stay at home in the first months after her child is born."
  That is also why I call on the Government today to establish a new deal for families. The Government have already laid the foundations for such a move. The minimum wage and the working families tax credit are not just economic policy, they are family policy.
  Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to what the right hon. Lady is saying about the working families tax credit. Does she regard it as satisfactory that, because of the tapering of the child care element, in some cases people face a marginal tax rate as high as 46 per cent?
  Ms Harman: For parents in my constituency, the working families tax credit, which is just being introduced, will make a huge difference to low-income families who are in work but have not been well-off. Even more importantly, for many families it will make work pay. Not only will there be more income going into the household, we will not have the problem of children being brought up in households where no one is working—where they see a life of dependence on benefits and never understand the world of work. That is the principal objective of the working families tax credit, and one that I am certain it will meet. We are only just bringing the measure in, and of course it will be under constant review, but both the principle and the practice are important. It is disappointing, although predictable, that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will not say whether they would abolish it.
  The minimum wage and the working families tax credit are, as I have said, not just economic policy. The reason they are also family policy is because they mean that fathers and mothers will not have to work all hours just to make ends meet. The Chancellor has ensured the investment of hundreds of millions of pounds in the national child care strategy. The right to parental leave will, for the first time, give parents the right to take time off work when their children are ill.
  The foundations have already been laid and the process of change is under way, but that needs to continue on the basis of partnership. There must be partnership between different Departments, especially between, on the one hand, the economic Departments—the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry—and on the other, the so-called social policy Departments—the Home Office, the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment.
  We need that partnership between Departments, but we also need a partnership between Government and business, especially small business. A minority of
  660
  businesses remains opposed to any legislative change on principle, but I recognise that many businesses that are not opposed to the change in principle are none the less wary about their ability to cope with the pace of change. They already feel that they are coping with a lot because of the working time regulations, the introduction of working families tax credit, and the parental leave regulations. Government must play a role in ensuring that patterns of work change to recognise that women have family as well as work responsibilities. However, they must make those changes in a way that makes it as easy as possible for business, especially small business, to adapt.
  We should learn from our experience of what works, such as the successful introduction of the minimum wage. Unfortunately, that is yet another issue on which we have heard no views this afternoon from those on the Opposition Front Bench. However, I believe that the minimum wage has been introduced successfully. As shadow employment spokesperson in opposition, when I took over responsibility for that portfolio I was faced by business wanting no legal minimum wage and by trade unions wanting a minimum wage at what I believed was an unrealistic rate. By establishing the policy of the Low Pay Commission, I made it clear that our objective involved business and unions working in partnership to agree on how that objective should be put into practice.
  We should do the same with the new deal for families. We should make clear our objectives and our determination to make changes, but, as with the other new deals, involve business and unions in partnership to deliver the changes in the workplace that families need. A new deal for families could consider what can best be done by example, good practice and persuasion; what will need to be done by legislating for minimum standards; where Government financial support is necessary for employees or employers; and how we can use the partnership funds under the Employment Relations Act 1999 to pioneer new family friendly working.
  A strong partnership could set a radical modern agenda to establish a workplace and a work force fit for the next century. I shall identify some areas where I think that a new deal for families could deliver change. No one really thinks that a woman should have to return to work when their baby is only 18 weeks old, yet financial support to replace a mother's earnings lasts for only 18 weeks. That limit was set in 1953 and it needs to be updated. I think that we should extend it for the first 12 months of a baby's life, at the very least for low-income families.
  No one would argue that a woman should have to return to work when her baby is only six months old. However, maternity leave lasts for only six months. We should extend that, too, to 12 months. No one would argue either that nothing changes when a woman has a child, yet a woman has to return to her full-time job as though nothing has happened, when for her the whole world has changed. I think that the mother should have the right to return to work part-time if she wants to, as the Employment Committee recommended in its important report on part-time working.
  No one would argue that the new right to parental leave should be only for the better off. I think that we should pay parental leave, which would implement a recommendation of the important report of the Select Committee on Social Security on parental leave. We should do that at least for low-income families.

  661
  We are putting millions of pounds into our radical reform programme for welfare to work, our hospitals and our schools, and that is right. However, it is time that we had substantial investment and radical reform of our maternity provision. I am talking not about public services, but about mothers who are part of the labour market but still the centre of their families. The work force has changed, our economy has changed and it is time that our maternity provision was changed too.
  I propose that the new rights to parental leave and any further changes that we make should be carefully and independently monitored to ensure that we understand how they are helping families to cope with their work and home responsibilities. We should also understand how business is coping with the changes. It is not good government to legislate, even with the best of intentions, and then walk away and leave everyone else to get on with it. The Family and Parenting Institute, to be launched next week, could play a key role in this.
  I argue for a new deal for families that works across both economic and social policy and in partnership with business and unions. It could modernise public policy to ensure that both our economy and our children thrive.
  6.12 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: It is a sad but well-known fact that, when anyone becomes a Member of Parliament, he or she loses one ability and gains another. First, they lose the ability to say, "Sorry, I made a mistake. I apologise." Secondly, they try to grab any form of advantage and claim credit for it, even though they have little or no ownership of it.
  The examples are numerous. The classic one is when Lord Lawson as Chancellor of the Exchequer had the economy literally in his hands. He pumped money into it and the public went on a spending spree as if there were no tomorrow. They were aided and abetted by the banks and building societies, which gave mortgages of 100 per cent. or even 110 or 120 per cent. We know what happened. The tales of woe were legion and we had negative equity.
  I followed with interest what the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) said about interest rates and the effect that they are having on house purchases. In London, prices are going through the roof. I read in this evening's newspaper that they have increased by more than 30 per cent. this year.
  That is one side of the coin. The right hon. Gentleman did not speak of the other, which is the effect that interest rates have vis-a-vis overseas competition and what that is doing to our exporters and our manufacturers. This is a problem that the Chancellor has to face, and I have some sympathy for him. However, when Lord Lawson was doing what he was doing and when the results became clear, I think that a few sorrys should have been expressed, just as they should have been when we ceased shadowing the deutschmark.
  I have no objection to shadowing the deutschmark provided that we have the same productivity and efficiencies as Germany. However we were not in that position then and the results were inevitable. It was clear that it would all end in tears, and it did. I am a little worried that the same will happen tomorrow.
  662
  Following those setbacks, it was to the considerable credit of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) that they formulated and followed sensible policies to address them. My right hon. and learned Friend controlled public expenditure rigorously and controlled interest rates, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley launched an annual White Paper on competition and competitiveness. He addressed the issue and showed just how far we were behind some other countries, notably Germany and the United States. He also tackled our rates of efficiency and productivity and, as a result, they started to increase and we began to record some significant improvements.
  We left a golden legacy to the Labour Government in May 1997. The success of the economy since then owes a great deal to the work of my two right hon. Friends. The Government too often forget that the economic strategy of the Conservative Government has underlain the low inflation and falling unemployment that we have enjoyed over the past two and a half years.
  The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer both claim credit for the present state of the economy. Of course, there is an element of schizophrenia involved. On the one hand, it is said that the Government have followed Conservative spending policies—that is cited almost as a mantra when there are any complaints about whether enough money is going into one sector or another. On the other, the Government claim credit for a huge and novel economic success.
  I know that the Government have been very good at introducing stealth taxes. I shall not go through the figures again and again—
  Mr. Fallon: Why not?
  Mr. Page: I shall not do so because they have been put on to the record and, to answer my hon. Friend, because I have only five more minutes to complete my speech.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Page: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because of that shortage of time—it is moving against us.
  The stealth tax figures have been endorsed by the Library and by the British Chambers of Commerce. We can see the regulatory burdens that are being imposed on small businesses.
  I am worried that a rich legacy is in danger of being squandered. The excessively high rate for sterling via-a-vis our overseas competition means that our foreign competitors inside and outside the European Union are finding it easier to sell to us while our exporters are finding it harder to sell to them. I shall not read out the entire press release from the EEF/Robson Rhodes third quarter Business Trends Survey report, but the headline is, "Pound still too strong for exports". A number of people are saying that as well as myself. Countries such as Germany are able to secure productivity gains without suffering adverse effects on their currencies.
  With our exchange rates, we know that our markets are more open to other countries' exporters without us enjoying that comparable benefit. Of course, that is not true for all EU countries. Some of them are not

  663
  experiencing productivity gains, and that will build up huge tensions within the euro zone. That problem will have to be resolved in some way or another. That being so, I think that it is exceedingly wise to resist the blandishments to go rushing in at this stage. Let us stand back and wait to see how the tensions will be released. We should certainly spend some time looking at our own economic cycle before even considering getting involved in the euro.
  I do not think that the Government have been able to tackle the significant and difficult problems that we have had with our service and manufacturing sectors. There are DM3 and 10 pfennigs, or nearly 10 pfennigs, to the pound. It was a figure way over that which turfed us out of the exchange rate mechanism. It is not surprising that, over the past 12 months, we have seen the loss of 157,000 manufacturing jobs. No productivity gain and no improved cost controls in manufacturing can compensate for that loss. I well remember the Labour party criticising the Conservative Government in the early 1980s over manufacturing losses. A few "sorrys" from Labour Members are due now to those who have lost their jobs in manufacturing. Certain hon. Members, on the Government Benches in particular, know what is going on in their constituencies and are desperately worried about how to make some form of recompense or offer alternative employment to those who have lost their jobs.
  The managing director of Nissan UK was quoted in The Sunday Times as saying:
  "The UK is uncompetitive at these"—
  current—
  "exchange rates."
  It is difficult to believe that our present position is sustainable. I hope that it is, but I worry that it is not. Exporters are bearing losses and holding down overseas prices, using hedging techniques to hold on to markets, as well as shedding employees. That process cannot go on indefinitely. Some adjustment is necessary, and I suspect that it may be earlier, rather than later.
  It is not just manufacturing industry that is facing problems. We must consider what is happening to small firms. As a former Minister with responsibility for small businesses, I know how important they are to the economy. We have witnessed the failure of the much-vaunted statutory right on late payment. It does not seem to have done the trick, although I would love it to solve the problems. We did not believe that it would be practical and sadly, that seems to be the case.
  Small businesses have learned from the experience of extra regulation, compulsory union recognition and all the other burdens imposed on them. The Forum of Private Business estimates that, on average, an extra £4,500 is needed each year to meet the cost of red tape.
  I was glad to learn that the Government will introduce a Bill to enable the Post Office to improve its services and to compete more effectively, both domestically and overseas. Post Office reform will help to build a "knowledge-based economy", harnessing new technology, according to the Prime Minister a week ago.
  I fully support a more competitive Post Office, but it cannot be a truly competitive player domestically until it, too, faces free competition in its protected UK market, and until its accounts are subject to independent regulation, so profits from its monopoly sector may
  664
  continue to be seen to cross-subsidise competitive activities against its private sector rivals. That cannot be fair.
  The Post Office should be set free to compete internationally. I do not believe that what the Government propose will let the Post Office be a world player. It will not be enough to allow the Post Office to invest or to borrow up to £75 million a year at commercial rates to make financial purchases. Last year, buying the third largest parcel carrier in Germany cost between £200 million and £300 million. We know that the Post Office cannot buy a significant player on the continent or in the United States with an annual sum of £75 million.
  I welcome the announcement in the press release that
  "the Government further pledged that it will approve commercially robust proposals from The Post Office for larger investments in projects within the scope of The Post Office's strategic plan."
  Part of me welcomes that, but it also sends a shudder down my spine. We are back to politicians trying to second-guess how an industry should be run. We must not forget that, in the early 1980s, the nationalised industries had their hand in the taxpayer's pocket for £50 million every week. When those industries were privatised and went out into the free market, they paid into the Exchequer £50 million every week. I do not believe that the Government breathing down the neck of the Post Office is the way forward.
  The Post Office has been a political football for years. It is time to set it free in the same way as BT. For example, we must consider how the Post Office can compete against Bundespost, which is buying up company after company while under Government protection, so that, when it is privatised, it will be a global player.
  When we privatised BT, we stole a march on the German telecom business. The Germans have made up their minds that they will not allow the same thing to happen to their postal service and, unless we get our Post Office geared up and in a powerful enough position to have relationships with overseas countries and companies, we will be in trouble.
  In an Adjournment debate on the subject, the then Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) rightly teased me about the amount of money that the Government took from the Post Office just before the last election. That was a temporary measure, and on the assumption that we would be successful, we intended to return to the question of Post Office privatisation after the election.
  I sincerely hope that the Government will have second thoughts on support for the Post Office, and that they will cut the umbilical cord and set it free commercially in the market. The Government's approach shows that they are not learning lessons from the past. They believe that with a few slick phrases and a word in the ear of media editors, everything will be all right—a bit of spin will do the job of government and keep the public quiet. From the point of view of small firms and manufacturing, I wonder whether that will be the case.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Last year at this time, during a similar debate on the Queen's Speech, some of us spoke against the backdrop of the

  665
  global economic crisis. It was a deeply worrying time. The integrated nature of a modern global economy meant that the shocks in Russia and Asia had a real impact, especially in terms of investment and jobs, on us, too, in the United Kingdom.
  Since the height of the financial instability in September 1998, the Government and many other Governments throughout the world have taken decisive action by putting in place new long-term disciplines—indeed, a new financial architecture—to promote greater economic stability throughout the world.
  Significant progress has been made. Reform, based on transparency and accountability, has begun to restore confidence in the stability of the global economy that was lost over the past couple of years. Growth prospects across the world, based on sound foundations, are now substantially better than they appeared even a few months ago.
  Only last week, China agreed to a package of trade liberalisation measures that will provide even greater trade opportunities to the west. The opening up of the world's largest potential market is, of course, welcome, but those opportunities should not be reserved solely for the west and the other countries in the developed world. Those opportunities should be available to all, particularly those in the developing world, many of whom feel left behind in the rapid development of the global economy.
  Plainly, past policies on trade and investment have been accompanied by increasing disparities between rich and poor, both between and within countries. True, there has been a huge growth in global wealth and consumption, which we welcome, but that does not tell us the full story. Many within developed countries have bathed in the fruits of the new global economy, but millions upon millions of people today live in avoidable poverty, in part because of their inability to develop their economies. That remains a major international challenge, and a challenge to us all. We simply cannot continue to live with a situation where, globally, 20 per cent. of the world's people in the highest income countries account for a massive 86 per cent. of total private consumption expenditure, and the poorest 20 per cent., a minuscule 1.3 per cent.
  The facts are simply devastating and I am glad that they are being addressed in the Queen's Speech as well as in the Government's approach to the global economy. That is necessary. The least developed countries have seen their share of exports decline to a tiny 0.4 per cent. during the past 20 years, while, on the other hand, the United States and the European Union, containing roughly the same number of people, account for nearly 50 per cent. of the world's exports. We cannot, in all conscience, allow that trend to continue unchallenged, and I am glad that the Government see the need to respond. That is why I am genuinely delighted that the Chancellor in particular has acted on those appalling statistics. The debt relief measures initiated by the Government have, for me, been the highlight of their term so far, and they deserve to be warmly congratulated.
  I am sure that the Chancellor would agree that there is no room for complacency. In the New Statesman recently, I wrote:
  "Fundamental to the whole package are the contributions of the USA…the Republican dominated House of Representatives may not agree to President Clinton's request for funds for debt relief."
  666
  Sadly, since I wrote that article, we heard only last week that that is precisely what has happened. I know that the House, and particularly the Chancellor—I am glad to praise him in his presence, as I did in his absence—will agree that the Government should continue to work with the United States and President Clinton to resolve this unfortunate impasse. Progress is being made, and the Chancellor will know that he has the support of the House in his efforts to obtain relief for the debt crisis which he has so courageously addressed since taking office.
  Trade, in tandem with debt relief, can be a powerful tool in combating poverty and aiding development in the poorest countries, because investment in the developing world is crucial in promoting the economic growth that is needed to eliminate that unacceptable poverty. Until the world trade playing field is levelled out for the benefit of developing countries, I fear that spectacular achievements on debt relief will simply be tarnished. For that to take place, developed countries must also understand the practical problems that developing countries face. I strongly believe that it is up to the developed world to take a lead in improving market access for those developing countries. Consistent with that, I am pleased that the EU has proposed committing more resources to improve the market access for developing countries to take advantage of trade opportunities and participate fully in the world economy. That is as it should be.
  As the House will know, one of the main problems in the past has been that policy making has been fragmented, and organisations such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, have often operated with separate agendas. Some of us have long argued that the international bodies responsible for global financial supervision should work together more effectively.
  We all look forward to next week's WTO ministerial meeting in Seattle, and the Government have our support when pressing for a new initiative led by the World bank and the WTO, involving the IMF, to ensure more and more effective trade-related assistance to developing countries, and to improve coherence in global economic policy making.
  The closer relationship between those bodies in responding to the needs of the poorest and most vulnerable is a hugely important development in its own right, and provides a strengthened opportunity to make a real impact on complete poverty eradication. The Seattle ministerial conference presents a key opportunity for our Government—one which I believe that they will grasp—to take a lead in shaping trade regulations to the benefit of the many in the third world. Ministers' decisions will have significant implications for poor people whose lives are increasingly affected by multilateral trade rules and commitments. It is therefore vital that, among the many areas of debate, there is a real and proper focus on the relationship between trade and development.
  I passionately believe that the trend towards rising inequality and marginalisation of the world's poorest people and countries from the benefits of international trade must simply be reversed. I believe, too, that the real challenge for the WTO is to design international trade rules so that they contribute to sustainable development and generate benefits for the world's poor. Therefore, I particularly welcome the call made by my right

  667
  hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for the forthcoming negotiations to have that development focus, especially when we consider that developing countries account for four fifths of WTO members.
  Many poor countries feel that the Uruguay round—the previous big trade round—has brought them few economic benefits and has left them struggling to catch up with the developing world. It is there that we must be seen to be offering hope, inspiration and a practical response to the demands that exist. Economic liberalisation can have a positive impact on economic growth, but where it is carried out too quickly, or without a proper understanding of economies, the results can be negative—the opposite of our worthy intentions.
  As many now acknowledge, a sound global economy depends crucially on social systems that build social cohesion, alleviating poverty among the most vulnerable. We must implement reforms to ensure that the benefits and opportunities of the global economy can be shared by all. In setting their global priorities, Her Majesty's Government have made a most admirable beginning.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: It is now 25 years since I was first elected to the House, although I immediately acknowledge that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members, have had a much more distinguished and continuous service to the House. It is tempting to look back to see how little seems to have changed. In 1974, the Conservative party was spectacularly split over Europe, so nothing has changed there. The larger group was then sane, but the lunatics have taken over the asylum, as I think that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) would now acknowledge. Similarly, the term "sleaze" had not been invented 25 years ago, but there was a feeling that the Tories had gone stale in office. We all know what happens to a product that goes stale—it starts to smell unpleasantly. Although the sleaze was not of Archer, Hamilton or Ashcroft proportions, it was nevertheless serious.
  Equally, the new Labour Government of 1974 were quickly perceived to have run out of steam. They were so desperate to win power that they invested little time or imagination in working out what they wanted to do with it. That applied especially to economic policy and is thus relevant to the debate. The Wilson Government were widely perceived to be more interested in managing the economy better than their predecessors than in managing it differently, or in creating radical economic reform, much to the consternation of many of its active members in the country. I suspect that that is also a general feeling today. The Wilson Government failed to pursue the redistributive fiscal policy that had been promised in the election campaign.
  I remember the queues of pig farmers who came to my advice surgery in 1974 and were constantly on the phone complaining about the mess left by the outgoing Tory Government. I also remember that a certain Mr. Jeffrey Archer left this place under a cloud. It may seem as if nothing much has changed in 25 years.
  Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: No. There is limited time and I want to make progress towards the substance of the debate.
  668
  There are important differences between the Labour Government of 1974 and the current Government. The Government should claim without apology that their cross-party consultation on constitutional reform has been a success. I regret that such consultation has not extended to other policy matters.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned economic policy; he should stick to that tonight. If he considers other subjects, I shall have to call him to order.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful for that guidance. Other hon. Members have related subjects such as support for single mothers, agriculture, and trade—about which the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) spoke—to the economy. I propose to do that as well.
  Liberal Democrat Members were pleased when the Government poached our policy on the independence of the Bank of England. The Chancellor opposed that central economic policy when in opposition, yet it was taken up as part of the new Government's policy. We do not mind our clothes being stolen in that way. However, the Government's timidity in some parts of their economic policy has returned to haunt them. That is evident in their attitude to the role of the privatised utilities in the national economy.
  In the last Parliament, my predecessor as transport spokesman and I tried to persuade Labour party spokesmen that, if the Conservatives insisted on privatising Railtrack, it was vital, for economic as well as other reasons, that the Labour party should be committed to buying back a controlling interest of 51 per cent., with no profit and a bond scheme. If that had happened, Railtrack would probably not have been sold and the crazy profiteering that we have witnessed would not have happened. We argued on grounds of safety, investment and economic co-ordination. Unfortunately, the Labour party was so scared of the nationalisation tag that it did not respond, and the Government did not put in place the broad-based economic strategy that they should have devised. In the aftermath of Paddington, the Deputy Prime Minister is probably not the only member of the Labour party who regrets not having the courage of our convictions.
  There were signs early in the Parliament that Ministers were listening. Some would complain that they listened to the wrong people—middle England tax cutters rather than the old, the disabled and the excluded. However, despite their large majority, they at least pretended that they were not omniscient as well as omnipotent. We may worry that they took the wrong message from their listening, but at least they seemed to be trying to identify new, important priorities in economic policy and to leave the insulated bunker of their Tory predecessors. It was unfortunate that, during their first two years in office, they failed to break out of the spending straitjacket that they inherited in the Treasury cupboard.
  We are now halfway through the Parliament. In its early stages, there was a real attempt to introduce a different sort of government, especially in economic policy. The Prime Minister seemed genuinely to favour a pluralist approach rather the sterile, "my party, right or wrong" attitude of the past. There has been an interesting consensus in the Chamber this evening on the role of the

  669
  World Trade Organisation and our objectives for the Seattle talks next week, and on the importance of the euro, to which the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred earlier. I welcome that. It is important that we can agree on objectives and major policy issues across the Chamber. That is what Parliament should be about. Sadly, there are signs that we may slip back to the aggressive, confrontational, Punch and Judy politics to which we became accustomed in the previous 25 years.
  Parts of the legislative programme seem designed more to appeal to the Labour party's vested interests than to modernise our economy and communities for the 21st century. I do not apologise for referring to the deepening crisis in the countryside, mentioned by the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). It is important that every part of the economy—urban and rural—fulfils its potential. It is depressing that the only measures that will affect the countryside are irrelevant to the deep-seated crisis that the whole rural economy suffers. The measures on the right to roam, the pesticide tax and foxhunting are not vital. Anyone who knows what goes on in the countryside must recognise that. Those issues are not central to addressing the calamity that has befallen employment and businesses in the countryside.
  One of the few brighter spots in the continuing decline of the rural economy is the belated recognition that it is an essential, integral part of the national economy. The contribution of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, and his exchanges with the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend; East (Sir T. Tayler); referred to that. The previous Government failed to respond to our forecast that some parts of agriculture could not survive if the playing field remained so uneven, and our competitors on the continent and elsewhere continued to have such a huge advantage in balance of trade. That applies especially to pork and pigmeat products. I gave that warning in the last Parliament and Conservative Ministers ignored it. Imports of pigmeat products are now at record levels. The Meat and Livestock Commission recently announced an increase of 40 per cent. in ham imports in the first six months of this year. As everyone knows, overseas suppliers do not insist on the same public health and animal welfare standards as Britain. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk was right to identify that major crisis in the economy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is considering agricultural matters when our debate is on the economy. He must confine his speech to the economy.
  Mr. Tyler: I acknowledge what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the right hon. Member for South Norfolk talked about agriculture as an issue that affects the economy. I am sure that you agree that the rural economy is an important component of the national economy. If farmers in my constituency and in that of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I came to the Chair not long ago. I cannot be held responsible for the words of hon. Members when I was not in the Chair. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that
  670
  he can mention in passing that agriculture has an effect on our economy, but that he cannot go into detail about animal welfare and farmers' problems, serious as they are.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that, with equal liberal latitude, you will recognise that there have been interventions in my speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not refer to my interventions because there is no injury time for those.
  Mr. Tyler: I do not know how to react to that one, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I want to emphasise that massive and devastating effects on the balance of trade resulting from a big increase in food imports to this country have major economic implications, and anybody who has watched what has been happening to the food industry and agricultural production must recognise that that is a real threat. The balance of trade and the balance of payments are important to the future health of our economy, but I do not want to labour the point.
  I want to emphasise the importance of the immediate economic effect of those trends on local economies in sensitive parts of the country. Unfortunately, such areas—Northern Ireland, rural Scotland outside the central belt, the Pennines and mid-west of England and my own county of Cornwall and the south-west, for example—tend to have high unemployment and do not have wide opportunities for economic diversification. Those businesses that are supplying and supplied by agriculture and horticulture are still suffering the after-effects of the BSE crisis, which has also had a major effect on the health of the national economy.
  Areas that have already been identified as being in need of economic support—they have objective 1 or objective 2 status under the new European Union structural funds—will need to know soon whether the Government are able to ensure matching funding so that they can take up that support. Without that guarantee, the new programme could fail as badly as the old objective 5b process has under the present regime.
  If our national economy is to operate at its optimum level of activity and sustained growth, each sector and each geographical area must be enabled to perform to its full potential. Keeping the lid on the inflationary pressures in the south-east—hon. Members may have seen the report in tonight's Evening Standard that house prices in London are going through the roof—simply cannot be allowed to divert attention from the real problems of many areas of the country outside London and the south-east. If we have a macro-economic policy that does not recognise the need for diversification of the economic approach to those issues, some of the more remote parts of Britain will have great difficulty in escaping further recession.
  The list of Bills in the Queen's Speech looks much more like end-of-term tinkering than serious reform. Where have all the radicals gone? Are they clearing the decks? Are we seeing preparatory moves for the general election? If so, that will indeed be a final irony. By behaving like an insulated and insular Government who are not prepared to listen to other parts of the country with other points of view—rather than by being pluralist—and by not being prepared to cross the party divide to seek

  671
  consensus, the Government will start to look like the old-style party cliques that they thought they had left behind. That, indeed, could lose them power at the general election.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Doug Henderson: I may not endear myself to my hon. Friends, but I have to confess to feeling a trifle sorry for the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who, for the second time in a couple of weeks, presented the case for Conservative economic policy. He knew that he was batting on an appalling wicket and, when I looked at the expressions on the faces of the Conservative Members sitting behind him, I was not sure that they were confident that he would produce a terribly good innings even on a good wicket.
  The appalling wicket that the right hon. Gentleman has inherited was laid out by the Conservative party, which seems to be remote, out of touch, lacking in economic direction and withdrawn into itself. It must be painful for the more sensitive members of the Conservative party to be told time and again by business men and women who perhaps do not like what the Government are doing that they like even less what is being said by those at the Conservatives' end of the political spectrum. I find that extremely strange. The Conservative party is more remote from business than at any other time in my political life.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is batting on a good wicket and he is largely responsible for its preparation. He is on a strong wicket in respect of tackling inflation and building output, and that strong wicket has allowed other Ministers to undertake essential spending on health and education, which are crucial to any sense of social justice in this country. Without social justice, we can never expect to command the full support of the people. That strong wicket has also brought down unemployment to the levels of 20 years ago.
  It is not in my character to spend my allocated time eulogising my right hon. Friend, and I do not propose to do that, but I want to place on record that I think that he has been sound, innovative and prudent in running our economy. The difficulty is that economic activity is not spread evenly. That problem is not new—it has existed for perhaps 70 years and more—and there have been endless Government and independent inquiries into the regional issue over a long period. Many Government measures, initiated by both principal parties in the House and sometimes supported by the other parties, followed those inquiries, but, despite all the concern about regional policy and the measures taken on it, we have not done enough.
  There is still a major regional economic problem, and I believe that we have to tackle it if we are to achieve economic efficiency and social justice—we cannot achieve them nationally without dealing with the different parts of the economy. My own Front Benchers have been innovative in looking at many of the other problems that we face in society—those of the family, young people and how to build enterprise—but I hope that they will turn their attention to the regional problem. No area has more experience of it than my own, the north-east of England. Despite all the good economic indicators, there are still indicators that I want to see reversed. We have not been getting the benefit of the changes in the economy.
  672
  I do not claim to have all the answers in respect of tackling some of those problems, but I do claim to have experience of talking to people in the north-east of England, whatever capacity they fill in life. They tell me what they think should be considered as we try to tackle the regional problem, and I think that we need new thinking and new ideas. I have never been one of those who says that the Government can solve all the problems in society because I do not believe that that is the case, but they have to do certain things if they are to lay a foundation for change.
  In my view, the Government have to continue to make every effort, through their various agencies and the regional development agency One North East, to try to get a share of the mobile investment that may be available. We all recognise what has to be done to attract that investment: we must be able to say to investors that we have people with the right skills, a regulatory regime that is attractive to them and the right sites in which to invest. Probably the best site for economic development in the north-east is in my constituency. I do not say that out of any narrow interest, because Great North park is an area with enormous potential and One North East has recognised that by giving development priority to it.
  The area's development priority has also been recognised by the business and trade union communities in the north-east and, coming on to joined-up government, I hope that the Government will recognise it as well when the planning application goes before the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Without an innovative approach to such development, we cannot tackle regional problems. We need more of the traditional methods of tackling regional economic disparity.
  We should come up with new ideas. If we are to change our capital gains structure, the Treasury should consider a regional differential and a different shape for the taper to encourage the development of businesses that create employment in certain regions. My business friends in the north-east believe that that should be a priority.
  We should review the Barnett formula on the allocation of public expenditure. It was set some time ago, and it has been reviewed from time to time. As we reach the millennium, we are moving into a new era of political and economic development. The formula should be revisited, and we should consider whether the case for each area of the country that was made 30 years ago still stands. If not, how should we respond to that?
  We should consider the relocation of Government institutions. The private sector in the north-east of England strongly believes that, if only that region had a stronger public sector—as do counties such as Hampshire and Wiltshire through Ministry of Defence investment in one form or another—and had the same economic background, private businesses would thrive to a greater extent on the back of that.
  It is wrong that only 1 per cent. of Ministry of Defence employment is in the northern region, despite the fact that 12 per cent. of the British Army is recruited from there. That does not help anyone. When the Treasury reviews the public partnership rules, it should consider applying regional criteria. I am not picking out the MOD for special mention, as this probably applies to all Departments where there is southernism, as they say in Newcastle. When Departments consider relocating various parts of their operation, whether to a site in Hampshire or

  673
  Wiltshire or to a third site, more attention should be given to the third site. That makes economic sense, and would spread economic activity and release sites in the southern part of the country for the essential house building that must occur if, in the next 25 years, everyone who needs a home is to be able to buy or rent one. Much Government property in the south could be released for house building, without spoiling any of the greenbelt. Colleagues often raise that matter with me when dealing with a regional issue.
  As I said, the Government cannot do everything. People should do as much as they can for themselves. Communities in the regions of Britain that are suffering should try to do more for themselves. We must all do more about basic economic standards. In the northern region, fewer people attain qualifications than in any other part of the country. That problem must be addressed. It is part of the same story as the literacy and numeracy measures that Departments are taking. There should be greater liaison with regional institutions, and the regions should give a greater push to tackle this terrible problem.
  An attempt must be made to build a small business community, because that is what will produce the industries of tomorrow. The small businesses of today should become the big businesses of tomorrow. The truth of the matter is that people in the north-east of England are not taking the initiative to create a cluster of small businesses in the knowledge industries of tomorrow. The Government can help us with education and training, but we must take those initiatives. That view is strongly held by large sections of the community in the north-east.
  Universities and colleges have not done enough. They want to keep their traditional campuses, whether it is a greenfield campus with a wire round it or a city centre campus. Universities and colleges should integrate with business developments throughout the country, not just in the north-east. If that link is established with young people of 19, 20 or 21 with lots of energy, it will be carried forward to a later stage in their lives when they are ready to take part in the establishment of small businesses.
  We should stop the extension of universities and colleges in inner urban areas in the north-east or, for that matter, in other parts of the country. They should be in business parks and on other sites. That is the example from California and elsewhere. There have been some good examples in Sweden, where such developments have helped to build new economic communities in old areas that had been written off.
  Much can be done. The Government should have some fresh thinking and fresh ideas. I do not particularly want committees to be set up to investigate these matters but, if that is what is required, let us have them. We need to consider how we can tackle many of the issues that have been with us for 70 or 80 years or longer and that we have tried to tackle. The regional policy initiatives that we have taken have prevented things from getting worse, and have often been helpful, but that is not enough. We need more if we are to have a sustained balance in our economic activity.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He has always been a strong advocate
  674
  for the north-east, and I am delighted to hear him issue a challenge to his own Government of the kind that he used to issue to the Conservative Government when he was in opposition.
  I do not share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the Queen's Speech. It left me unmoved, and it left my constituents unmoved, because there was nothing in it to bring forward the financing of the replacement for the ageing Pembury and inadequate Kent and Sussex hospitals. The new single-site hospital that we have long been promised in west Kent has been delayed for another year. There was nothing in it to provide additional funding for police numbers in Kent, which have been cut under the Government, or to assist us to bear the burden of asylum seeking in Kent, which falls on my county more than on any other and is now a serious drain on the resources of the police and social services.
  Instead, the Queen's Speech was packed with fussy Bills that will do little to stimulate our economy or to improve competitiveness. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman said, the Government do not understand business. I shall give some examples from the Queen's Speech on the economic side. The great glory of internet trading was not a Department of Trade and Industry scheme: it was not DTI legislation or an Act of this Parliament. How do the Government propose to regulate it? The Electronic Communications Bill contains 17 pages of heavy-handed legislation. Even the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has described it as unnecessary and irrelevant. It should have had a lighter touch, but the Government have overcooked it.
  The deregulation Bill is extraordinary. It is a deregulation Bill to provide less regulation. We have not seen it yet. We have had deregulation speeches, but we have not seen the Bill. We have not had any deregulation from the Government. In 1995–96, which was the last full Session of the Conservative Government, 39 deregulation orders were laid before the House. In the Session just concluded, only four deregulation orders were laid before the House. The Government talk about deregulation, but they do not propose deregulation measures.
  There will be a Bill to introduce Partnerships UK, the new state investment bank. The Government assured me in a written answer on 16 July that there were no plans for a state investment bank. Now they are publishing a Bill, and Partnerships UK will be given the power to invest, to have grants from the Exchequer and to make selected investments. If it looks like a bank and behaves like a bank, it probably is a bank. We know what happened to the great National Enterprise Board. It was supposed to pick winners but, if anything, it picked losers.
  There is nothing in the Queen's Speech for small businesses, except the new small business service that is being established this year. Just as business links had been established, were up and running and understood by the small business community, they are being torn up and we will have a new small business service. That is not what small businesses want. Small businesses in my constituency complain about taxes and red tape. They do not want more Government offices; it is the little things that bother them—the charges for various inspections, the level of business rents and, above all, the burden of regulation.

  675
  Let me give three examples. First, small businesses are often hit not by the main effect of the regulation that we pass in the House, but by the side effects. Secondly, they are sometimes hit by the interaction between one regulation and another: for instance, the holiday arrangements under the working-time directive clash with the arrangements for the national minimum wage. Thirdly, there is the cumulative weight of all the new burdens.
  As the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) tried to remind us, each of those burdens is perfectly defensible on its own terms. Who is against paternity leave, and the various other rights involved? They are all highly desirable in themselves, but they are all expensive, and they will all have to be paid for. It is the weight of those burdens, when combined, that sinks our small businesses. Suddenly, one day, the little corner shop is not there any more.
  Ministers and bureaucrats have no understanding of the pressures on small businesses, and no such understanding is reflected anywhere in the Queen's Speech. There is no understanding of the difficulties involved in taking on the very first employee in a business that employs only three or four people, coping with the problem of an employee who is unexpectedly pregnant, dealing with redundancy or preparing for the first VAT inspection. Those are the factors that bear down on small business, but nothing in the Queen's Speech brings any comfort to small business men in my constituency.
  I must tell the Government that, during the first half of the current Parliament—now concluded—they have implemented all their policies in a relatively benign economic environment. They inherited a sound economy from us, and they have been governing in a relatively benign climate ever since. They have set up a new monetary policy framework, but I am not yet convinced that it is the right framework. Even in good times, it has proved to be a peculiarly fussy arrangement. My hon. Friends may care to note that, in the two and a half years since the establishment of the Monetary Policy Committee, it has changed rates 14 times. In the same period, the Federal Reserve has changed rates only six times. I suspect that the Monetary Policy Committee meets too often and that its fingers are too itchy, and I am not at all sure that its relationship with the Treasury is as clear as it should be.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fallon: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. Time is short.
  The Chancellor boasts that he set up an independent operation. He also boasts to the House that we had low interest rates throughout last year. Today, The Daily Telegraph quotes him as backing high interest rates. The Chancellor set up an independent system, but he claims credit when interest rates are low, and now he will claim credit when they have gone up again. I suspect that such a quasi-independent monetary framework spells trouble for him.
  Let me now deal with fiscal matters. The tax burden continues to rise. It rose during the last years of our Government—there was a recession, and unemployment costs had to be met—but it should be falling, not rising, during a time of growth. This afternoon, the Chancellor
  676
  refused to answer a question about the overall weight of the tax burden, but we will keep asking that question until we are given an answer.
  As the tax burden continues to rise, overall spending programmes continue to increase. The pre-Budget report gives the game away. I see no mention in the report of any serious receipts from asset sales. What happened to the great doomsday register? The Government were going to add it all up, and see what they could sell. They have even removed the line about privatisation receipts: if hon. Members look at table B15, they will see that it is not in the report. The Government's privatisation programme, and all the profits that they were going to scoop up from asset sales, have been delayed. Everything has become confused.
  We are promised 27, 28 or 30 Bills in the current Session. A Liberal Democrat described the programme as rather fussy, although I cannot remember his exact words. Certainly a busy Session lies ahead, but it is a fatal flaw in Government to confuse busyness with effectiveness. This is the last Queen's Speech of the century, and of the millennium; but we cannot say of it that it is really anything new. If anything, it is the last old Labour Government Queen's Speech, promising more legislation, more fussiness, more regulation and more taxation. Yet again, this is a tax-and-take programme from a tax-and-take Government.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: As will be clear from my accent, I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), will be concentrating on the north-east of England.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) spoke of the north-south divide. I was down there only the other week, because my daughter moved there some years ago: she was one of those who migrated from the north-east in an attempt to find happier grounds, and I am pleased to say that she succeeded. A few weeks ago, my wife and I helped her to move house. The house cost her £160,000; in my time, it would have cost £50,000 on a good day.
  That sums up the challenge that the Government face in regard to house prices. When we were down there, one gentleman told us that he had already made £30,000 on a house that he had bought two years ago. Inflation is really kicking in, and the fact that interest rates have risen affects the whole picture. That is the shame of the matter: in regions such as mine, the north-east, house prices have not risen enough to enable people to reap the benefits of interest rate rises—although, as we read in today's Evening Standard, there has been a 30 per cent. price increase in London.
  I do not know what the answer is. Could regional interest rates be introduced? I very much doubt it, but at least we could talk about it. The north-east did not cause the problem; why should we have to pay for it? As the south-east created the inflation problem, with all the house-buying and gazumping, perhaps it should have to pay. That may not be a very good argument, but it is the only argument that I can produce at the moment.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned the Barnett formula, which was devised 20 years ago by a Treasury Minister who is now in the other place for poor old Scotland and poor old Wales.

  677
  At that time—it was in Harold Wilson's day—Scotland was experiencing a poor economic cycle. As for the north-east of England, in those days we had 40 pits, we had shipyards building ships, and we had steelworks in Consett and in various other places. We were enjoying an economic upturn, while Scotland and Wales were at rock bottom.
  The Government were a bit afraid of the Scottish national party at the time, as it was making some headway, so they devised the Barnett formula to deal with the arguments in favour of independence for Scotland. It applied the formula to Wales as well. It got them out of the mire, and we have had it ever since. Unfortunately, during the intervening period, the north-east of England has lost all its mines except one, which is teetering on the brink, as well as its shipyards—although I understand that we may start building ships on the Tyne again. I look forward to an announcement to that effect. I know that some roll-on roll-off ships are planned, and I anticipate a subsidy for shipbuilding on the Tyne and the Tees. I understand that it could create 1,000 jobs per ship on the Tyne.
  Scotland got the formula. It was good for Scotland and it should be good for us. We in the north-east ask Ministers not to do away with the formula in Scotland and in Wales, but to devise it for us. If it was good enough for Scotland when it was on its knees—we supported introducing the formula there—it is good enough for the north-east of England. We are on our knees at the moment.
  It is estimated that, without the Barnett formula, the north-east is missing out to the tune of £2 billion a year. That is a lot of money for the north-east of England. If we can get an extra £2 billion a year in the north-east economy, we will do wonders.
  The only pit in the area is Ellington colliery. About 400 men work there. We are not sure what will happen to it. A guy from Italy with various connections to some dubious people wants to buy it. I do not know why. He says that he wants to take the coal to Yugoslavia and the middle east. He can get coal cheaper on the spot market. He can go to Poland to get coal cheaper, so we do not know why he wants to buy the pit and take British coal all around the world. We will have to wait and see. He is in for buying the pit, which could save jobs and save the lads.
  Talking of the lads who work at the pit, all they want is a job. They do not care who owns the colliery. The Government say that they will not step in to help the pit; they will not subsidise it. The lads are not bothered if the guy from Italy is a bit of a gangster, or whatever, as long as their jobs are safe.
  It is estimated that, if the colliery closes, the plans fall through and the 400 jobs are lost, £40 million will be taken out of the south-east Northumberland economy. That is a lot of money to take out of the economy. Redundancy money is not the same as it was a few years back. It is a private industry now, so only a pittance is paid.
  Another argument involves the standard spending assessment for the north-east of England. Local government receives subsidies from the Treasury. I praise the Newcastle newspaper that has, for a long time, been
  678
  running a campaign on the Barnett formula and SSAs. The headline "North losing millions to the south" sums it up. It says that councils in the north are losing up to 1.4 billion in SSAs. Those were set under the Tory Government. Unfortunately, when they came to power, my Government said that that they would keep the SSAs for the next three years. We have tried to change them, but obviously the Government will stand fast to Tory programmes. Conservative Members have not lost everything yet: we are still on one of their programmes, which disadvantages north-east councils and advantages those in London and elsewhere in the south.
  I should like to give a few figures to back the case up. It is important that figures are given. Ministers might want to challenge them. Perhaps they have some figures of their own that they want to put forward in a reasonable way.
  I give the figures for public spending per head of population. In Northern Ireland, it is £133; in Scotland, it is £120; in Wales, it is £114; in London, it is £108; in the north-east of England, it is £98. We can see that the regional money to the areas for development—inward investment—is still low; we are still down.
  Of course, we have to remember that Wales and Scotland have the Barnett formula—the only two areas to have it. I do not know what Cornwall thinks. I have seen the figures for Cornwall, but I am sure that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) can argue his case himself. If we had Barnett, we would be up with Scotland and Wales. That is where we want to be—up with Scotland and Wales, with the same money and help.
  Regional selective assistance is given. Scotland receives £152 million. Again, the figure is adjusted because of Barnett. Wales receives £106 million. The north-east receives £41 million. When those figures are bandied about and we see the state of north-east England, we will realise that there is a gross miscarriage of justice. Employment is not increasing there. It might be increasing in other parts of the country. The Government come to the Dispatch Box and sing their praises, but it cannot sing the praises of the north-east—not on the new deal.
  The new deal is a good idea. It gets people into work, but there is not always work at the end of it. However, at least it gives a start and assists the areas that need help.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned education, which is very important. We cannot educate our kids. We are going into a new era. Heavy industries, as we know them, are dying; we recognise that in the north-east of England. We have lost them all. Obviously, we look to diversify, but I give more Barnett figures. Let us look at those figures: Education spend per head of population in inner London is £1,527; in Wales, it is £1,021; in Scotland, it is £1,388; in north-east England, it is £966. That is the education grant that we get because, again, we are not part of the Barnett formula. We see what Barnett has done in the past 20 years. It has given great advantages to Wales and to Scotland, while other regions have not received the same amounts and have fallen behind. We have fallen behind on that level.
  This afternoon, late on, a Liberal Democrat gave me some more figures, which I appreciated. I got them in the Tea Room. They are very interesting. In 1999–2000, Northumberland received £2,240 per primary school pupil from the Government. Kensington and Chelsea got £3,315. Northumberland got £2,879 per secondary

  679
  school pupil. Kensington and Chelsea got £4,130, so we can see an enormous difference, even in education. That is only one example, but we looked at different places in London and elsewhere and they all received more; spending in Kensington and Chelsea was the furthest ahead. Northumberland is well behind Hertfordshire, according to the figures on spending per pupil. Again, in education, the north-east is losing out.
  If anyone has been to Northumberland, they will know that it is a beautiful county. There are wonderful places to see. It is a great place for making films now; it is the Hollywood of Britain. Many films are being made there. It has some lovely places, but, again, it does not get much for tourism. Wales receives £6.40 per head of the population for tourism. Scotland gets £5. The poor north-east of England gets 8p—we are doing well again.
  In every comparison of spending, the north-east does badly. I do not know about the other English regions. I am not here to argue their case; I am sure that they can do that themselves. I am here to argue the case for my area and the people there. We have lost their traditional industries, as Scotland and Wales did. Now we are on the same road. We want the help of Scottish and Welsh Members to ensure that we have the same standards.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: In a changing world, one is sometimes reassured to see things not changing. The Gracious Speech and the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement show that two things have not changed. The first is the Treasury's refusal to admit that it has increased taxes, or to say that it will undo the damaging effects caused by its tax increases. The second is the omission in the Gracious Speech of a proposal to deal with the problems experienced by small businesses, particularly by small businesses in market towns, such as Stowmarket and Bury St. Edmunds in my constituency.
  A change has occurred in the way in which the public and the press perceive the Chancellor's economic management, particularly his taxation policy. Most recently, that changing perception was demonstrated in an Office for National Statistics publication—it was subsequently endorsed by the Library—which said that, in the financial year 1996–97, the national tax burden was 35.7 per cent. of gross domestic product, and that, for the current year, the burden is forecast to be 37.7 per cent. Those figures are pretty much incontrovertible—unless, of course, one is a Treasury Minister.
  There has been a spate of criticism of the Chancellor's twisting of the facts on the tax burden and tax increases. It is interesting that, on the Government's presentation of economic statistics, Bob Worcester of MORI—who is by no means a Conservative-leaning commentator—recently said:
  "It is not being clear, it is not being precise… They are putting spin on the statistics and that spin is an affront to the British public… These things ought to be crisp and clear and absolutely straightforward".
  My hon. Friends, like me, represent many hard-working couples who want only to keep more of what they earn, to spend or save as they wish. Average hard-working couples in my constituency know that, annually, they are £223 worse off because the Chancellor abolished mortgage interest relief at source, and £285 worse off
  680
  because he abolished the married couple's allowance. My constituents also know that, on Automobile Association figures, if they drive the average annual mileage of 8,000 miles in an average-size car, they are likely to pay a minimum of £165 more each year because of the Chancellor's unnecessary fuel tax increases. Those tax duties are all the more punishing for motorists in rural constituencies, such as mine, for whom a car is a necessity and not a luxury. Under this Government, middle-income earners on just over £27,000 a year will pay more direct tax in national insurance contributions.
  Those are the facts on taxation. I do not expect the Treasury to reverse any of its taxation policies, but I have some modest hope that Ministers will listen to what small retailers in small market towns, such as Bury St. Edmunds and Stowmarket, are pleading and demanding. They are being hit by the small business rate burden more than by anything else.
  I should like to share some statistics that the Department of the Environment provided in its document, "The Impact of Rates on Businesses", which was produced near the end of the previous Government's time in office. The statistics show that a small business—typically, a small retail shop in a small market town—with a turnover of up to £50,000 will have to pay a business rate equivalent to 7.7 per cent. of turnover; to 13.7 per cent. of overheads; and to a staggering 35.9 per cent. of profits. It is an extremely heavy burden on small businesses.
  The burden for businesses with a turnover of £500,000 to just under £2 millio—typical of big superstores on the edge of large market towns—is much less. As a share of turnover for those businesses, business rates amount to 4.1 per cent. of turnover; to 3.7 per cent. of overheads; and to a relatively trifling 15.9 per cent. of profits.
  Even Labour Members will agree that the statistics show that there is a disproportionately heavy burden on small retail traders and that the time has come for the Government to consider practical measures to alleviate that burden. The Government talk about fairness—but let us have some fairness, and let the small businesses in my constituency see some of it.
  I should like briefly to outline an idea that Treasury Ministers should consider, which first appeared in the much-maligned 1997 Conservative party manifesto. Although Conservative Members are accustomed to having many of our better ideas swiped by Labour Members, I shall not object if they swipe this one: that the poundage should be increased for all businesses subject to the uniform business rate regime. The Treasury can do that, as it sets the poundage. Implementing the idea would raise extra revenue, which could then be used by the Treasury to grant a tax-free exemption for all businesses in the low rateable value bands—which would automatically receive a tax-free slice similar to the personal allowance in the personal income tax regime. Implementing the idea would provide a windfall gain for the small retailers in my constituency who are going to the wall.
  In Bury St. Edmunds, we have a distinguished retail street—Abbeygate street—that, for many years, but less so today, was known as the Bond street of Suffolk. Now, shops on Abbeygate are closing specifically because of high business rates, and cheap and cheerful shops are

  681
  moving into premises vacated by very well-established retailers who had to close. In Churchgate street, an old established bakery had to close because of business rates.
  The situation simply cannot continue. Truthfully, honestly and genuinely, I urge Ministers to reconsider creating a regime to provide tax-free slices, free from the uniform business rate, to lower rateable value properties. It would not be difficult to create such an exemption—which would also ensure that the big, out-of-town supermarkets paid their fair whack.
  The Queen's Speech is disappointing in its failure to address those issues. My disappointment is shared by Mr. Stan Mendham, chief executive of the Forum of Private Business, who is respected on both sides of the House. He said:
  "Those business owners looking forward to the future have little to cheer, as business rates…have not been tackled".
  The Gracious Speech contains some measures attempting to play to the small business lobby, but they offer only warm words. On that matter, I agree with the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which helpfully drew attention to what it believes are gimmicky measures, such as the proposed R and D tax credit. We do not yet know much about the credit, but it will probably carry a £150 million cost and will certainly not assist small businesses in my constituency.
  The better capital allowances for small and medium-sized enterprises, which over the past two years have amounted to about £175 million, are small potatoes compared with the problems facing British industry. The IFS concludes:
  "it was very unclear whether the plethora of measures targeted at small companies will have any significant impact on the aggregate investment and productivity gaps that the government has highlighted."
  I am also disappointed by the all-employee share scheme, which builds on the approved profit-sharing and save-as-you-earn schemes. We all know, as the IFS has emphasised, that the new scheme is built for listed companies. For those who work in a corner shop, the public sector, a small partnership or a small business or family firm, the hype about employee share ownership is irrelevant.
  There is nothing on tax for small businesses in the Gracious Speech. There is nothing to cheer the part of middle Britain that I am proud to represent in Bury St. Edmunds. Let us hope that, in due course, we shall have a Government with the wisdom to match deeds with words. My final plea is for the Treasury to consider small business rate reform.
  7.41 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate, because the economy is of central importance to my constituents. I, too, represent middle England. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that those whom Labour persuaded to vote for us last time would be the worst affected by the economic measures in the Queen's Speech. There are many of them in my constituency. I recognise in the Queen's Speech a continuation of the economic policies that have greatly benefited my constituents. I find it difficult to recognise in the
  682
  doomsday scenarios that we have heard from the Conservatives the lives of my constituents and the way in which they have improved under this Labour Government.
  Of all the areas in which my constituents have benefited under this Government, the economic improvements have been the most marked and the ones that have given me the most pleasure. My constituents do not have the salary levels that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) mentioned.
  Mr. Ruffley: I was merely observing that those earning £27,000 a year are by no stretch of the imagination rich, but they are hit by the increase in national insurance contributions levied by the Chancellor.
  Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman was talking about average earnings of that amount. My constituents are on about £10,000 less than that. For people on such wages, the Government's control of inflation and prices has been of great benefit. The high levels of employment that the Government have brought about have also been very important. Northampton now has about 2.5 per cent. unemployment.
  Many households in my constituency need one and a half incomes, because pay levels are not high. The fact that we have such a thriving economy that households can have one and a half stable jobs has meant that they are able to keep up their mortgage repayments and are benefiting from more secure home ownership. The Government have also recognised that, to deal with the economy properly, they have to deal with certain supply side factors, including tackling the skills gap. School achievement levels have not been good in my constituency. The Government's measures to deal with that problem will be of profound benefit to local industry.
  I am firmly convinced that the main reason why the Conservatives lost my seat at the election was their mismanagement of the economy. Conservative Members have spoken frequently about the golden legacy, but it was not evident in my constituency. As mortgage rates soared, people lost their jobs. That unemployment may not have been permanent—Northampton, North is not one of the great inner-city areas—but it was bad enough for a lot of people to default on their mortgages and lose their homes. There was a profound lack of confidence in the record of the previous Government. Some of the alleged failures of this Government, such as the decline in the savings rate in our first year, are signs of the feel-good factor that was created when Labour came to power.
  The Conservatives also pour scorn on the regulation of financial services, but for my constituents, who rely mainly on private provision or self-provision, that regulation will be very important and welcome. When I started running advice surgeries after I was elected, I was shocked by the number of people who complained about the mis-selling of a range of financial services. I look forward to the regulations being tightened.
  The measures to support enterprise are also important. We have heard a lot about big business. The changes for small businesses that have already been put in place and those that are to come, particularly the new small business services, will be important for a significant section of my constituency and will be welcomed by them.
  Perhaps the most important changes are those to support families. We have heard the Conservatives talk about what hard-working families want. For the most part,

  683
  they have got what they want in my constituency because the Government have provided many benefits and made many tax changes to support them. There are many working women with children in my constituency. I carried out a family survey that showed that combining work and home was one of the key pressures on the families of middle England. The changes in the Queen's Speech continue the Government's existing policies. Those changes are important and will be telling at the next election.
  The measures on the state second pension and the carers pension will be particularly important, because they will ensure that the vast number of women in my constituency who work part-time will be able to make provision for their retirement independently of their husbands or partners. They will be able to have a more secure retirement than many women currently have. The carers pension will be crucial and will be of enormous help in underpinning family life, because it will make it possible for women who give up work to look after children or disabled relatives to have their contributions for their state second pension paid. That is one of the Government's many measures to benefit families.
  The changes to the Child Support Agency will also have an enormous impact on the quality of many families' lives, because they will ensure that children get more money and that bureaucracy is removed. That will also help to end some of the friction that we all know that the CSA currently produces in many homes throughout the country. In addition, the changes to holiday rights and parental leave will help to ease many day-to-day pressures.
  The new deal for lone parents—allied to the working families tax credit—is often associated with inner-city areas with high unemployment, but it is of profound benefit also to middle England. There has been much emphasis on how the new deal has benefited young people. However, my constituency is not packed with unemployed young people. It does have a large number of lone parents who, through the Tory years, were forced to stay at home and live on benefits. They bitterly resented that. The introduction of the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit has been a liberation for them.
  In my constituency, I have talked to women who are £60 and £65 a week better off and who are able to go out to work for the first time in many years. It is not just that they are financially better off, but that their children will grow up in a home where someone goes out to work. That is important in terms of what happens to those children.
  When my constituents contemplate the prospect of another Conservative Government, the choices for them are stark, and a number of themes have been summed up in the Gracious Speech and the pre-Budget statement. Those women who are now £60 and £65 a week better off would lose that money. They would lose their jobs also, because they would lose their ability to pay for child care. They would have to go home and live on benefits again. My constituents and I do not think that that is good management of the economy.
  The Conservative party is not in favour of the independent setting of interest rates so, presumably, my constituents would see interest rates again tied to political convenience. There would be a repetition of the jiggery-pokery with interest rates. We saw what happened last time—people ended up losing their homes because
  684
  they defaulted on their mortgages. Before the election, the then shadow Housing Minister came to my constituency, and we looked at rows of boarded-up houses. This was not empty council housing, but private housing where people had had to lock the door and walk away because they were no longer able to pay for it.
  Many people who now have a chance to work would not have that chance under a Tory Government, and would be on benefits. In particular, pensioners would be infinitely worse off and would not have the many benefits that were set out in the Gracious Speech. They would not have the £100 payment for fuel, the state second pension, the carers pension or the stakeholder pension. They would not have the lower tax rate on interest-free savings, or the much higher pensioners' tax thresholds.
  It is easy to talk about global figures and macro-statistics when we talk about the management of the economy. However, we should look at the impact on the lives of people in middle England. I have no doubt that the Gracious Speech will play an important part in ensuring that they understand that the Government are on their side, and will provide them with a sound, stable and secure future for themselves and their families.
  7.54 pm
  Mr. Tim Loughton: It is difficult to address the economy within the debates on Queen's Speech, given that there was so little about the economy in the speech—apart from the Financial Services and Markets Bill, of which we have spoken many times before. Those of us on the Committee seem to have been dealing with it since the Ark, and the leviathan nature of the organisation remains, despite our best endeavours to trim its powers. The only other measures affecting the Treasury are resource accounting and private finance initiative banking, and we will deal with the Second Reading of those Bills in a little while.
  The Queen's Speech contained familiar phrases about managing public finances prudently, monetary policy making, interest rates and inflation—words which, in a political sense, did not trip easily from the lips of Her Majesty. I am happy to admit that, on the face of it, our economy appears to be in a relatively sound state. However, it certainly merits closer attention in an international context than the Chancellor is prepared to give it, despite his constant entreaties to look to the examples of Europe or America.
  For example, the best forecast of gross domestic product growth, even from the Treasury, for this year is 1.7 per cent., compared with 3.8 per cent. for the US, 2.1 per cent. for the EU and 2.6 per cent. for the whole of the OECD. We are rather near the bottom. For two years' time, the growth forecast for this country is 2.3 per cent.—beaten by France at 2.9 per cent., the United States and the EU, at 2.8 per cent., and again by the OECD at 2.6 per cent. Despite the great growth miracle that is apparently going on in this country, in an international context it is not that exciting.
  On the current account balances as a percentage of GDP, we will be suffering deficits for the next two or three years of around 1.5 per cent. at a time when France is experiencing a surplus of 2.4 per cent. The EU average will be 0.3 or 0.4 per cent. It is even better in the rest of the OECD. The current account balance is not looking so healthy in an international context.

  685
  Short-term interest rates will remain higher here than in the United States, and much higher than in the EU as a whole. Things are not looking quite so good in an international context as the Chancellor would have us believe.
  Productivity has been referred to as the acid test of economic success by the Chancellor. It was growing at 2.2 per cent. at the time of the election, but the figure is 0.7 per cent. after two years of Labour rule. One test of productivity is GDP per capita. Taking the base of 100 for the UK, the figure for the United States is 137. We are well below the rest of the EU in terms of productivity.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends have mentioned the tax burden many times. It is interesting that the Chancellor is happy to quote selectively from reports but, when it comes to a fairly definitive report from the OECD on the tax burden, he refuses to believe it. The figures, supported by the House of Commons Library, show that the tax burden in this country has risen from 35.4 per cent. at the last election to 37.6 per cent. Direct payments to the Exchequer have risen from £270 billion to £333 billion a year. I do not know how the Chancellor is able to wriggle out of these facts.
  In Germany, the tax take is lower, and it is just 29.7 per cent. in the US. The tax burden is falling in the rest of Europe, but it is rising here. We know the reason for that—the stealth taxes that the Chancellor has dishonestly taken out of people's back pockets.
  My major theme has been taken up by Labour Members, particularly those representing constituencies in the north-east of England. I want to counterbalance that, speaking as someone representing a south-east constituency. I am concerned about the divergence in economic performances within the UK. That is a worsening trend.
  Unemployment in the north-east is at 9.7 per cent and rose by 1.3 per cent. last year. In Wales, it is 7.3 per cent, but in my area—the south-east—it is 3.8 per cent. and falling. Those are enormous divergences. In the north-east, gross domestic product per head is £9,500; in Wales, £9,400; and in my region, £13,500. We have also heard examples of extreme divergences in house prices.
  Not surprisingly, there is mass migration from the north to the south—not only the daughter of the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) has moved. The population of Wirral and Manchester has fallen by 9 per cent. over the past seven years; north-east Lincolnshire is losing 1,000 people a year; and the population of the home counties and central London is rising commensurately.
  The Government's solution is to take councils such as West Sussex to court to force massive housing development on largely greenfield, rural counties. They fail to condemn the Crow report, which would impose 1.1 million extra homes on the south-east by 2016. We are witnessing a catastrophic and fundamental shift in the regional economic fortunes of the United Kingdom.
  I have various quotations on the subject. One is:
  "There's no doubt there's going to be a brain drain."
  Another says:
  "It means some of the new investment that might have been spread around the country will not take place."
  686
  A third says:
  "You would have the north-south divide back again and it would devastate the north of England."
  Those comments are all by Labour leaders of northern metropolitan boroughs. I wholeheartedly agree with them.
  Concentrating economic development in the south-east will act as a magnet for more population migration from the north, more inward investment that would have gone to areas with greater need and more concreting over of largely rural south-east areas, leaving vast swathes of brownfield sites in the north undeveloped.
  Ms Keeble: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the north-south divide, but does he not accept that the Government set up the regional development agencies to deal with the problems in the teeth of opposition from the Conservative party?
  Mr. Loughton: Yes, indeed. The problems have been accentuated and the RDAs have failed, inevitably, to deal with them, simply because the south-east, by its very nature, will always command a premium because of its proximity to the continent and the financial markets in London.
  Amazingly, there is blatant discrimination against the north of England. The people of the south-east do not want it to become one of the top 10 regions of Europe if it is at the cost of turning the garden of England into a patio. Many people in the south-east would prefer it to be equal 20th with all the other regions of Europe.
  The Government have done more than any other to destabilise the United Kingdom constitutionally and are now guilty of accelerating its economic fragmentation. There is increasingly no such thing as a single, homogeneous state of Britain.
  The damage is being accentuated by the energy tax, for example. Large industrial concerns, especially in northern urban areas, are being penalised to the benefit of service industries in the south. Even after the partial climb-down in the pre-Budget statement, it will still prove lethal for the chemical, steel and paper industries among others. It has no regard for companies that have invested in energy efficiency and there is still no emissions trading policy, which is an essential part of an integrated energy policy. All the Kyoto targets could be achieved by converting more coal-fired power stations to gas.
  There is an enormous extra burden of red tape on industry, with 2,700 extra regulations, costing £10,000 a year extra for medium-sized businesses and £1,700 for companies with fewer than 10 employees. There is an annual bill of £500 million for firms to administer three new Government measures on PAYE, national insurance and statutory sick and maternity pay.
  The Government have slashed the savings ratio. The problem is most severe among lower-income families in the north. Individual savings accounts have signally failed to attract a single one of the 6 million new investors we were promised. The new schemes for wider share ownership, which are welcome as far as they go, are surely a tacit admission that ISAs have failed to attract new investors.
  Many problems are being stored up for the future. The tax system has become hopelessly complicated. Many of the tax advantages, such as the 10 per cent. starting rate

  687
  for tax on savings, will go unclaimed because of the complexities involved. One tax adviser said:
  "The average person in the street would find it almost impossible to understand our tax system and recognise whether they are entitled to any tax rebates… The people who are most likely to suffer are those who can least afford it."
  That has all apparently been in the service of building up a war chest, which has been made up of stealth taxes taken dishonestly from everyone's back pocket and which should be given back, not used as an election bribe.
  The tax burden is up and the tax system has been drastically complicated. Businesses and individual taxpayers are all feeling the effects, mostly imposed by stealth. The savings ratio has crashed despite warm words about encouraging greater pension provision and savings for later in life. We are storing up trouble for the future.
  All the trends fly in the face of what is happening in the rest of the OECD countries, especially in Europe, whose growth and productivity are outpacing ours. Most alarmingly, the greatest ever divisions are emerging between the regions. After a frenzy of splitting up the United Kingdom through constitutional iconoclasm, it is a great irony that the Government, who have their greatest concentrations of seats in the north of England and in Scotland and Wales, are promoting a severe form of economic apartheid that is causing the greatest pain in those parts of our still, nominally at least, United Kingdom.
  There is nothing in the Queen's Speech to reverse that worrying trend.
  8.7 pm
  Kali Mountford: It is common to start a speech by saying that we have had a wide-ranging debate, but that is true today. We have heard comments about pigs; witnessed an internecine battle about Europe; visited and revisited housing; talked about deregulation; and been told about the north-south divide.
  It is worth taking a moment to consider the Conservative amendment, and in particular its last sentence. The Conservative party would have us
  "engineer a return to the golden economic legacy of enterprise, dynamism and flexibility left by the previous Government".
  Let us consider the credibility of that formulation and ask, if the economy is successful, who is to share in that success and whether we are being fair.
  The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) refused to take interventions from Labour Back Benchers, which is regrettable in any event. He refused to give way on IR35, which Conservative Members love so much that they cannot resist mentioning it in the debate again and again. Who is really affected by IR35: the poorest people in our society; the unemployed; those struggling to make a living? No, not at all.
  Conservative Members talk of enterprise measures when what they are really talking about is tax avoidance. On IR35, they refuse to answer the simple questions about whether one pays tax through PAYE or as a self-employed taxpayer or whether one avoids it.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Why does the hon. Lady think it reasonable for a self-employed computer
  688
  contractor, who has happily been working three-week contracts, suddenly to have to regard himself as employed because he gets a six-month contract?
  Kali Mountford: If the hon. Gentleman considered the measures properly, he would find that genuine entrepreneurship is rewarded, not discouraged, by IR35. All the cases that I have considered in detail and all the fears engendered by the Conservatives, who have made people scared that they would be much worse off, happen not to be true. If people have long-term contracts with a firm, it is correct to admit that they are employed and they should pay tax accordingly.
  The Queen's Speech advocated investigating benefit fraud more closely and introducing measures to discourage it. How can it be right to say to someone on income support that benefit fraud is wrong and take measures to combat it, but to say to someone on a more than adequate income that it is acceptable for them to avoid paying their proper taxes? After all, tax avoidances means less money for the rest of the economy and, therefore, for all the measures necessary to help people who are much worse off.
  It is wrong to avoid paying tax and it is certainly wrong to describe attempts to prevent that as an attack on enterprise. When it comes to enterprise, we should ask how we should reward it. Do we do it in an ad hoc manner, so that, if someone has the wit to employ the right accountant, he can avoid tax? Or should we ask how we can best encourage enterprise in the economy? The measures in the Queen's Speech will do much to address the latter question.
  We should nurture the enterprise culture in schools. We have had some discussion tonight about generating the right skills for the economy, but enterprise is never talked about in schools. We should fund schools to encourage young people—especially girls, so that they can start to do something about the pay gap between men and women—to think about enterprise and how they can make an economic contribution. Another measure should be introduced to make available a sum of money in the early days of a new enterprise to provide support. That would be an excellent way in which to encourage enterprise properly, instead of in some strange, ad hoc fashion.
  How can we share economic success fairly? I am grateful to those Conservative Members who have recognised that we are economically successful, but such success must be sustained and enable people to make long-term judgments. The Opposition's amendment is self-congratulatory, although one Opposition Member at least acknowledged that their time in office saw two recessions and our withdrawal from the ERM. To listen to most Tories, one would think that we lived through the most successful economic period in history before the general election in 1997, but that simply is not the case. People felt insecure and could not make plans for the future. Many hon. Members have mentioned the housing market, but that, too, was affected by people's inability to plan for the future. We now have a period of sustained and sustainable economic growth, stability, low interest rates and low inflation. We will experience fluctuations, but the current economic stability has to be good for the generation of jobs and the sharing of our success among a wider range of people.
  The Labour Government have made a point of sharing success with more people including, for example, lone parents. Indeed, we have a convert to that approach in the

  689
  hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I recently asked him about his ideas for lone parents and he proudly gave me a copy of his speech on them, which makes interesting reading. He accepts, at last, that young women benefit from being in a family which has one or more members in work, even in a single parent family. Encouraging a culture of work and ensuring that work pays enough to be worth while is beneficial to everyone.
  It is right that people should be able to share in economic success whatever the size, shape or condition of their families, but the worrying aspect of the Conservatives' proposals is the suggestion of the removal of choice. It has been suggested that the Opposition are schizophrenic in their attitude to this debate, and that is true of their attitude to making work pay and caring for the family. They have gone on about MIRAS, the married couple's allowance and how to keep families together, but they propose a measure that would force women, when their children are 11 years old, to claim jobseeker's allowance and according to which they would have their benefit taken away if they did not get a job within 13 weeks. That is way too much stick and no carrot.
  The Opposition's amendment contains nothing about how to help people into work or the barriers to work. One of the major barriers for women who do not have a partner—and those who do—is the lack of quality, affordable child care that is supported by the Government, but Conservative Members refuse to recognise that. They have not caught up with the reality of making work pay so that it genuinely benefits families. The Opposition's schizophrenia will continue until they realise that they cannot encourage mothers into work by force. The one thing that Conservatives should have learned from the old YTS and YOP schemes is that people forced into a scheme do not fare well and look to leave it quickly. Work must pay, which is why I welcome the tax credits imaginatively introduced by the Government—which are not the ad hoc tax credits that people affected by IR35 awarded themselves.
  Mr. Stephen Day: Speak for your constituents.
  Kali Mountford: I am. My constituency has low unemployment and many families with young children. Despite the image of "Last of the Summer Wine", it is a young constituency and the regional development agencies—about which the Opposition do not appear to have heard—are making the sorts of changes that will encourage enterprise. The RDAs are introducing corridors for new technologies to encourage growth. However, unemployment in my constituency is already low, and people who previously did not have opportunities have them now. The jobs that people get are real, with real career prospects. Women no longer simply run a shuttle backwards and forwards, or work in the typing pool, or answer telephones. They can now look to the future, so that their families' prosperity can grow.
  The schizophrenic approach of the Conservative party would condemn women to lives on benefits, without a choice of well-paid employment, until their children were 11. However, when the children reached 11, women would be told that they had to go to work, regardless of the type of employment available, or of the skills that the women were supposed to have been able to acquire.
  690
  The Government support families and take account of people's skills and enterprise. The Conservative party does none of those things, and the amendment is therefore absolute nonsense.
  8.21 pm
  Mr. Edward Davey: Many hon. Members—especially Conservative Members, but also a few Liberal Democrats—have said that the Queen's Speech was rather timid and cautious. They are right, but one element of the speech is historic in the economic benefits that it will bring. That element is the Government Resources and Accounts Bill.
  That Bill is one of the most important measures to be introduced in this Parliament. It represents the most major reform of public finances since the time of Gladstone. Given that Gladstone was a Liberal, the House will not be surprised to hear that Liberal Democrat Members will support the Bill on Second Reading, which takes place soon.
  Mr. Letwin: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual courtesy. Will he explain why the Bill should represent the most important reform since Gladstone, when the resource accounting system that it proposes will create a public sector balance sheet that omits hospitals, schools and most other major public assets?
  Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman ought to examine how local authorities and the NHS deal with capital assets, as such organisations are already moving towards using similar procedures in their balance sheets. I am looking forward to the debate on the Bill even more than before. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand public accounts, he should not be a member of the Opposition Front-Bench economy team.
  Mr. Letwin: I am doubly grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is completely right: I have not understood the public accounts, and I wonder whether any living human being could. The Government Resources and Accounts Bill will not bring any greater clarity to those accounts, which would now defeat any mortal.
  Mr. Davey: I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am surprised at his intervention, as I was about to say that the Bill, and the processes in the Department and in Whitehall leading up to its publication, show the House at its best. The proposals on which the Bill is based were put forward by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Chancellor in the previous Conservative Government. They have been studied by the Public Accounts Committee, by the Select Committee on the Treasury and by the Select Committee on Procedure. As a former member of the Procedure Committee, I am now, as a current member of the Select Committee on the Treasury, looking forward to scrutinising the Bill.
  Until the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) decided to intervene, I had thought that the Bill had the general support of the House.
  Mr. Letwin: I am triply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I absolutely agree with him that the motive behind the

  691
  Bill is marvellous. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced resource accounting, we were all four-square behind it. We had no objection to it whatsoever. However, is not the Bill about the emptiest version of resource accounting that any Government could have conceived of?
  Mr. Davey: I advise the hon. Gentleman to stop digging. The Bill will replace the Acts of 1861 and 1921 that brought in appropriation accounting. The Bill will provide the legislative procedures to ensure that the House will be able to hold the Government to account on resource estimates.
  I shall scrutinise the Bill to make certain that it does its job properly, but I am very surprised at the Conservatives' apparent opposition to it, especially as the earlier remarks of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) seemed to contain some support for it. Sadly, however, he went on to be grudging about the Bill and to make some unsubstantiated allegations that it was to do with creative accounting. That appeared to relate to the amendment, which states that the Gracious Speech
  "does nothing to ensure that the public accounts are honest and open".
  For all its other failings, the Queen's Speech contains proposals for a Bill to deal with the public accounts that will ensure that Parliament has the information that it has lacked for decades. The Conservative amendment is therefore especially inappropriate.
  I shall dwell for a couple of minutes on the benefits that the Bill will bring. We applaud the Government on its introduction. The Bill will improve the way in which Whitehall and Government Departments account for capital spending. In the past, there has been a bias against capital spending in the public expenditure survey rounds.
  The Bill will mean that Ministers and public sector managers have better information. That will improve the decisions that they make, and ensure that the bias against capital spending no longer exists. As a result, our capital assets, which play a key role in underpinning the strength of our economy, will be properly maintained and will receive proper investment. The capital wealth of our nation must not be forgotten when scarce resources are allocated.
  The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) mentioned the national assets register, which is connected with resource accounting and budgeting. The Government have not taken the opportunity provided by the register to try to allocate our capital resources more effectively before the Bill is introduced. They could have disposed of more assets and reinvested the proceeds into our public sector stock. It is a shame that they have not done so.
  A second major advantage of resource accounting and budgeting is that it will link the spending authorised by the House to objectives, outcomes and outputs. That is a major and highly welcome change, at the cutting edge of the reform of public sector finances. The question is one of sensible, rather than dishonest, accounting processes.
  Most importantly, the Bill will improve the House's ability to hold the Executive to account. For a long time, the House has lacked the information necessary to scrutinise departmental budgets. The Bill will provide four additional schedules of information, so that the House will be able to inspect a proper balance sheet, and a proper statement of profit and loss.
  692
  Conservative Members shake their heads and deny that that is so, but that is not good enough. If they had introduced the same proposals on a fast track when they were in power, we would by now be able to have decent debates about the public accounts. I am sure that a close inspection of the accounts of the Tory Government would have revealed not only dishonest, but some incredibly creative, accounting practices.
  I said in my opening remarks that this was a timid Queen's Speech, particularly with regard to spending and aspects of public service reform and investment, apart from the accounting side. The Government have a huge majority; they have a huge lead in the opinion polls; they have a massive amount of money in the Exchequer, and they have huge surpluses. Yet, with all their political, economic and financial strength, they are still extremely cautious. They have not provided a vision for investing in our public services.
  The Chancellor seems to take great pride in prudence, but it is not a big step from Miss Prudence to Scrooge. The sort of prudence that leaves our public sector under-invested is actually financial irresponsibility, which stores up social, environmental and political costs for the future.
  Previous Labour Chancellors have frequently not had enough money in the coffers. In the 1970s, for example, Lord Healey had to ask the International Monetary Fund for help in sorting out the Government's finances. Some Chancellors have looked desperately for ways in which to cut public expenditure. The Government have £9.5 billion in surpluses in this financial year; they will have £11 billion in the next financial year and £13 billion in the financial year after that. On current figures, there is clearly enough money in the kitty, and that does not even take into account the huge contingency reserves that are, quite rightly, included in the accounts.
  Various City commentators believe that the current surpluses are based on very cautious projections of growth. The chief economist of CCF-Charterhouse, Richard Jeffrey, was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
  "Undoubtedly for political reasons, the probable budget surpluses over the next 2 years have been underestimated by at least £5 billion a year".
  If we had proper forecasts based on realistic forecasts of growth, the surpluses would be even larger.
  The Chancellor has a huge war chest at his disposal. The question is, when should he spend some of it? Should it be in this financial year or in the next financial year, or should he leave it until the Budget before the general election? Thinking about timing makes me think about the needs that I see across the country, in the capital and in my constituency. Many people believe that Kingston, the London borough that I represent, is very affluent. While some areas may be, it is not homogenously affluent—we have pockets of severe deprivation. More importantly, from the Government's perspective, Kingston's hospitals, schools and police force are in great need.
  London's housing price boom, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, presents real problems for people working in the public services in the capital, because it is pricing them out of working in the public sector. They have been expensively trained to work in the public sector; they have been to university,

  693
  gaining detailed qualifications at the taxpayers' expense over a number of years, but they can no longer afford to work in the public services, particularly in London.
  The chief executive of Kingston hospital was having such problems recruiting nurses that he had to spend a special team to the Philippines to recruit nurses there. The Government say that they are against recruiting nurses from abroad, but if they do not tackle the problems of public sector pay in London and in my constituency, the chief executive of Kingston hospital will have to repeat that process to plug the gaps in his nursing staff.
  The nurses from the Philippines are well qualified; they have been integrated into Kingston hospital, and are very caring, but they are on two-year contracts and will, at the end of their term, return to the Philippines, to be replaced by other recruits from the Philippines or from somewhere else. That is not a sustainable way to run a health service.
  When I knock on doors in my constituency, I meet ladies and gentleman who were trained to work as nurses—indeed, as senior nurses. They would like to work in the health service, but can earn more working in offices and supermarkets. That is ludicrous.
  Under the previous Government, the number of police officers in Kingston was reduced by more than 40 and, under this Government, it has been reduced by more than 20. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is having real problems recruiting officers. He says that the youngest constables have to survive on housing benefit because of the high rents and house prices in London. That is not sustainable.
  High rents and house prices also cause problems for pensioners. In my constituency, pensioners face an increase in their council tax bills of £90 this year because of the Tory council. That wipes out their pension increases, but the Government have offered them 73p a week and told them to be grateful for it. That is ludicrous. It is no wonder we had an interruption earlier today. When the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions outlines the local government grant settlement tomorrow, I hope that he will take account of difficulties in the London boroughs where people face high costs and where it is difficult to recruit teachers. I hope that the grant settlement will allow the Metropolitan police service enough money to recruit officers and to pay them the wages that they need simply to survive in the capital.
  The Queen's Speech lacked the vision required for a modern, high-quality public service. It lacked the vision required if we are to have the best education for our children and the best schools in the world. It failed to ensure that the United Kingdom would be prepared to take its proper place as an outward-looking economy at the heart of Europe. That is why the Liberal Democrats will vote against it.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) must have heard a different Queen's Speech from the rest of us. Now that we have heard Liberal Democrat economic policy, there may be some consensus across the House. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was bad that Government finances had gone into surplus, and that all the money—
  694
  some sort of war chest—should instantly be spent. In fact, however, we can start to repay some of the national debt and to reduce the £26 billion consumed annually by debt service payments. That money can be used for investment, which is precisely the Government's strategy.
  The recklessness and irresponsibility of the Liberal Democrats has already been demonstrated from their Front Bench by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). He told us his plans for a carbon tax, which would somehow offset the Liberal Democrat pledge to raise the personal income tax allowance to around £10,000. They want to spend more and more, but to cut the tax burden, too. How will they do that? And what on earth would the carbon tax mean? Would it be added to fuel duty? What sort of carbon are they talking about? [Interruption.] Clearly, the Liberals cannot take the heat as some of them are leaving the kitchen.
  Mr. Davey: Does the hon. Gentleman know that carbon is an element and that there is only one sort?
  Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to be pedantic, he might explain which form of carbon he would tax. Will it relate to fuel duty, or to diesel? Will it affect electricity? Will it be across the board? People deserve to know what the Liberal Democrats mean to do.
  Mr. Letwin: I thought at first that the hon. Gentleman was merely having fun, but as he is serious, let me explain the difference between the carbon tax and an energy tax. The former, although we do not propose it, is at least rational in that it taxes those whose emissions are environmentally dangerous, while the Government's proposed energy tax specifically fails to do so.
  Mr.Leslie: Carbon dioxide and hot air may both fall under a tax, which would obviously mean a heavy levy on the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It is interesting that the two parties have teamed up and that the Tories see the merit in Liberal policies.
  It is a curious anomaly that the Conservatives have moved an amendment to the motion but that their Back Benches have remained empty throughout the evening. Tonight was their golden opportunity to criticise the Government and to set out the future of the nation as they see it. They have miserably failed to take that opportunity. At the 1997 election, the Tories tried to propagate through their "demon eyes" campaign the scare tactic that Labour should not be allowed to blow it. Not only has Labour not blown it, we have improved matters. We have shown convincingly that stability and confidence can be put in place by a sensible left-of-centre Government. I am proud of our stewardship, which has dispelled the myth that Labour Governments are imprudent and incautious.
  It was interesting to read today the comments of the International Monetary Fund on how well the economy is performing. There is clearly a consensus internationally on how the Government and the Chancellor are managing the economy. I am pleased that we have been able to put firm foundations in place for the future.
  I come to the progress of our monetary policy. The Monetary Policy Committee and the independence of the Bank of England have enabled us to create a safer and more transparent way of setting interest rates that is free from the political dogma and the whims of the partisan

  695
  Conservative party. In October 1998, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor, said:
  "We would not have given up control of interest rates in the first place."
  Therefore, we can all assume that, should the prospect of the Conservatives returning to government ever materialise—on the form that has been apparent this week, that is a distant prospect—they would reverse the Bank of England's independence. In the absence of any other policy from them, we wait to hear whether that is so. We need to contrast the stability that has been set in train by this Government and the stop-go economics that the Conservatives would restart.
  Fiscal policy is the other side of the equation, so we must also examine the Chancellor's policies not just for expenditure, but for taxation and public borrowing. As I said earlier, an enormous amount is wasted each year—£26 billion—to finance past borrowing. We should try to reclaim that money by beginning to pay off the national debt. That is the sensible way of managing our budget.
  The "Haguenomics" theories of the Conservatives have created a credibility gap. Somehow, they believe that they can have a golden rule on borrowing, which will create a balanced budget—they have taken a copy of the Gramm-Rudman amendment from the United States—along with a tax guarantee stating that the proportion of the gross national product going on public expenditure should constantly decrease. What on earth will they cut to achieve that?
  We have heard this afternoon that the shadow Chancellor once said that he wanted public expenditure to be reduced to about 25 per cent. of gross national product. That presages a variety of worries for many people—and not only in health and education, but in other policy areas.
  Mr. Letwin: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect from his school days the power of compound arithmetic? Does he accept that, if public spending grew by one percentage point less than gross domestic product each year for 15 years, we would achieve exactly that result?
  Mr. Leslie: I shall not talk about my school days, because they are obviously very distant. However, what is the effect of a downturn on public expenditure? If a downturn ever occurred, the shadow Chancellor's pledge would mean that he would be forced to scale back on public expenditure much more harshly than would otherwise be the case. In a downturn, expenditure would be needed on the jobseeker's allowance and other welfare payments—unless, of course, the Conservatives plan to cut the jobseeker's allowance. We have to consider the possibility that they would slash such benefits. We have heard that the working families tax credit would go over the edge, but we should ask about other things, too.
  The Conservatives say that we are being reckless and irresponsible on social security spending. Are they referring to the £100 winter allowance for pensioners? I assume that they are. What about the significant increases in child benefit? Such payments come under social security expenditure. Are those the areas of expenditure that Conservatives think should be cut? Do they think that such priorities should not be funded? Many people would like to know. I would be happy to give way
  696
  for a Conservative Member to make a commitment on such matters. I do not think that they will; that is the problem with the Conservatives these days.
  If I were not a Labour Member, I would start to feel sorry for the Conservatives. They have a long way to go. I do not know how old I will be by the time that there is another Conservative Administration. I could well be in my fifties or sixties; I might even qualify for a free television licence as an over-75-year-old. I suspect that the shadow Chancellor would not be in post for very much longer, in the unlikely eventuality of Michael Portillo winning the Kensington and Chelsea by-election. It will be interesting to see how swiftly he progresses to the Front Bench and exactly whose job he will take. There will probably be much nervousness on the Conservative Front Bench. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) will not be laughing on behalf of the leader of his party.
  We must scrutinise exactly what the Conservatives threaten and what risks they would create in many other areas, too. The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who is admittedly on the extreme edge of the Conservative party—his comment is none the less a hint for the future—talked of ridiculous farming subsidies.
  Mr. Loughton: It might be useful to the House if the hon. Gentleman remembered that we are debating his Government's Queen's Speech and not the Conservative party's.
  Mr. Leslie: I am addressing the Opposition amendment. I am trying my best to draw dividing lines between Government policy and what the Opposition oppose and propose.
  Farming subsidies are very important. When, for some reason, I was watching "Dimbleby" one Sunday about two weeks ago, I noticed that the shadow Chancellor said:
  "Investment in industry is something Governments should not be doing anyway."
  We must presume that that refers to farming subsidies and all sorts of arrangements that support industry.
  Kali Mountford: Research and development?
  Mr. Leslie: As my hon. Friend suggests, that could include research and development.
  Had the Government not created today's financial climate, we would not be able to afford some of the major capital investment and infrastructure improvements that are coming on line, not only in my constituency but elsewhere. Those are the issues about which people are concerned.
  Let us consider Conservative attacks on the burdens on business and regulation. When one asks what they are, one is of course told of the working families tax credit and the minimum wage—and even the Financial Services Authority, which has been criticised in this debate. It will be interesting to see what position Conservative Members take on that. We need to know the areas in which the Conservatives are proposing to scrap, keep or amend policies. Answers and further explanations are required.
  In my constituency, only 1,500 people are out of work and claiming benefit. The figure has reduced significantly since the election. The savings of my constituents,

  697
  especially pensioners, are a lot safer thanks to continually low inflation. Economic growth is gradually and steadily benefiting many people and prosperity is increasing. That is in enormous contrast to where we would be under the Conservatives, who have lurched to the right. They would create risks, particularly threatening vital public services—should they ever get their hands on power again.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: Following the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), I wonder whether his mother knows that he is up this late. I am sure that the Government Whips do, because it is they who have enabled him to read out that fascinating speech. There are some speeches that those in the Whips Office do not need to read in Hansard the next day because they have read them beforehand.
  However, there are other speeches that those in the Government either will have listened to, or will read tomorrow, with interest, and they were made by two Labour Members from the north-east—the hon. Members for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). From those two we heard the voice of sceptical Labour, uncontrollable Labour—a voice that the Government should listen to as they continue their Teflon march to the end of the debate on the Queen's Speech.
  I usually approach economic debates with considerable diffidence, especially in the presence of people such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who has spent both his academic and his professional life studying economics in some depth. However, today I have been emboldened by the performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I use the word "performance" because, if he fails to impress the Prime Minister as a leading politician in the Labour Government, the right hon. Gentleman has a good career ahead of him on the stage—but I am not sure from which end of the pantomime cow his speech came.
  That speech was a classic of its sort, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will repent it before long, because it failed to address any of the points made either by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor or in any of the interventions. Worse than that, the Chancellor must have been suffering from some form of physical, if not mental, exhaustion, because he kept having to sit down, perhaps to have a little rest, from time to time. I was sufficiently puzzled to think that he had given up speaking, and I began to address the House myself—but the right hon. Gentleman recovered himself and managed to complete his speech, such as it was. I then had to wait from about 3.30 until now to make my short contribution.
  I shall concentrate particularly on the part of my right hon. Friend's amendment to the Loyal Address that mentions the
  "huge rise in burdens on business"
  and the absence of
  "proposals to reverse the decline in Britain's productivity growth".
  I regret the fact that, despite his sometimes amusing performance, the Chancellor failed to deal with those criticisms and let down his office, if not himself. In his jokey performance, we saw a man more impressed by
  698
  gimmicks and theatricality than by substance. He is a man of huge intellectual ability and political success, but he disappointed us all this afternoon. In particular, he disappointed his two hon. Friends from the north-east, whom I mentioned earlier.
  Over the past few months, in the pre-Budget statement and in the right hon. Gentleman's speech today, as well as in what his supporters have said, we have heard a series of gimmicky statements that reflect the gimmicky business tax reductions that the Government have been pleased to shower upon us.
  Those tax reductions are reduced to total insignificance in comparison with the £30 billion-worth of tax increases on business that the Government have already announced. Although I say that they have "announced" those increases, they have not, of course, stood up in the House of Commons and said up front, "Here we are, business community, here's £30 billion in increased charges that you will have to pay." No, they sneaked the increases in through the back door.
  Ms Ruth Kelly: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I would love to, but unfortunately, owing to the 15-minute deadline—
  Mr. Leslie: Injury time?
  Mr. Garnier: I do not wish to be injured by the hon. Lady. However, there is a 15-minute limit; she undoubtedly has ready a speech that the Whips passed to her earlier, and I know that she will read it out most capably in due course. If she would like to respond to what I have to say during her 15 minutes, I am sure that the House would be pleased. It is—[Interruption.] No doubt the Leader of the House, who is chattering from a sedentary position, will give the hon. Lady full praise—
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I would be happy to intervene, but I understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not giving way.
  Mr. Garnier: If the right hon. Lady would have the courtesy to listen to the end of my sentence, she would perhaps understand that she leapt to her very dainty feet rather too early. I invite her to resume her seat. She will have an opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government to the criticisms made of their economic policies by my right hon. Friends the Members for Horsham (Mr. Maude) and for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young). I suggest that she has a difficult task ahead of her. None the less, that is what she is paid for.
  I draw to the attention of the House the Government's failure to understand the difficulties in which they have placed the business community, and especially the small business community, which is in trouble. I cite the example of my constituency which, like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), is based upon an ancient market town with a population of between 20,000 and 25,000. It is the hub of a rural and agricultural hinterland and, in the town and in some of the villages and other larger communities, including the area

  699
  called Oadby and Wigston, are to be found small family businesses. I suggest that none of them will have a turnover of much more than £500,000.
  We do not have the big industries that are prevalent in the north-east, such as coal, steel or shipbuilding, which the hon. Members for Blyth Valley and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North were keen to tell us about. As I say, there are small family businesses that are reeling under the imposition of regulations and business burdens that have been placed upon their shoulders by the Government. That is in addition to the interest rate rises and exchange rate problems with which they have to deal.
  Light engineers, shoe manufacturers and the firms that make parts that go into shoes and the products that form parts of other products, such as clothing, are—I have conducted a survey to establish this—suffering from an excess of regulation and interfering fussiness from the Government, which inhibits them from getting on with what they want to do, which is to expand, to employ more people, to export outside the United Kingdom and to export within the east midlands and the greater United Kingdom. Nothing that the Government are doing is assisting them.
  I complain also about the Government's failure to do anything positive to support the business culture. They only listen to their own rhetoric. They are slack on innovation and they are failing to introduce procedures and a culture that will allow small start-up industries, especially in information technology. We have had exchanges about IR35, and I regret that interventions from Labour Members have been deeply unconvincing. We have heard nothing intelligent from the Government that would produce a climate of innovation. We shall be the poorer for that, and our constituents and their businesses will be the worse. In other countries, especially the United States, the culture of innovation and the culture that allows people to spend huge sums on research and development are not encouraged by the Government.
  Kali Mountford: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: I have already expressed regret that I could not give way to the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). I repeat my regrets to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), who had 15 minutes earlier to educate us.
  In respect of training and education, the promotion of young and new businesses, and the promotion of enterprise zones in the sense mentioned by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, the Government have produced a catalogue of failure. Businesses need to be left alone to trade, to employ and to earn the money out of which the Government can take their due tithe in taxes. What is not needed is Mr. Whitehall sitting on the shoulder of the small company, telling it how to behave or what to do all the time. Small firms are desperate for the Government to get off their back.
  I am acutely worried that, for all the Chancellor's talk about enterprise, he believes that he is cleverer and wiser than the market, and that that entitles him to intervene and interfere to a large extent to produce his desired micro-income. His so-called cleverness leads to damaging results for my constituents, for their small businesses,
  700
  and for the economy of the country as a whole. While the Chancellor fiddles with the tax system, making it increasingly complex and difficult to understand, he has nerve to come to the Treasury Dispatch Box and announce that he is the friend of the business world.
  The Queen's Speech contains an extraordinary paragraph, which states:
  "As part of my Government's drive to address inappropriate and over-complex regulation, legislation will be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens."
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mentioned the figures, which speak loudly for themselves of the huge increase in regulations and secondary legislation that bear down on the ability of our constituents to earn a living and benefit the country.
  I do not know what measures the Government propose to introduce to
  "increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens",
  but if the Government's current performance is anything to go by, that paragraph of the Gracious Speech is just part of the great Labour lie. It is high time that the public were treated—
  Mrs. Beckett: Speaking of lines handed out by the Whips Office.
  Mr. Garnier: I have a copy of the Queen's Speech, which was written by the right hon. Lady's Government. I dare say that there may be the odd copy of it in the Government Whips Office, and the occasional Labour Member may have the independence of mind to disagree with the hot air and guff that Her Majesty was required to read out on behalf of her Government.
  The paragraph that I quoted sows the seeds of despair in me and in all those who wish the Government well in so far as they are the Government of our country, but who are desperately concerned that the Government's proposals are calculated to cause increased damage to our economy, and particularly to those parts of the economy in which small businesses try to earn a living.
  9.3 pm
  Ms Ruth Kelly: It is my privilege to speak in the debate on the Queen's Speech relating to the economy. I welcome the Gracious Speech, in particular the commitment to enterprise and fairness, high levels of economic growth and employment. The Government's central objective is to deliver high and stable levels of economic growth and of employment.
  The Government have a clear strategy. The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) accused the Government of not having a clear vision. Of all Governments since the second world war, this is the Government with the clearest vision of how they will take the economy forward. They have a clear strategy to help people back into work, with a new deal tailored to help individuals with particular difficulties, and to make work pay, with the introduction of the minimum wage, cuts in income tax and the introduction of the working families tax credit. Central to all of that is the prudent management of the public finances, to ensure that there is no return to the days of boom and bust that we experienced under the Tories.

  701
  The Gracious Speech entrenches economic stability as the platform for growth and employment. The economy's success has indeed been remarkable. I took the precaution of reading some comments on my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's latest pre-Budget statement, all of which were favourable. One eminent commentator, Martin Wolf, who can hardly be described as a keen Labour supporter, referring to economic stability, said:
  "Mr. Brown can now treat this not just as an aim but as an achievement…Despite the global turbulence of the past few years, the performance of the economy, the public finances and the monetary policy committee he established in the Bank of England has been outstanding. The reason the UK has experienced only a modest slowdown in growth rather than another full-blown recession is the outstanding control over inflation".
  He went on to say that the most important factor was the independence of the Bank of England—a clear strategic success in policy making.
  The success in controlling inflation can be seen not only in the headline inflation rate, but in people's expectations for inflation over the coming years. For the past two years—almost since the general election—inflation expectations have been within 2 or 3 per cent. a year, well within what one would expect the margin of error to be. The differential between UK and German long-term interest rates is also at a historically low level and, as set out in the Gracious Speech, long-term interest rates are at their lowest level for almost 30 years.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) referred to the composition of the Monetary Policy Committee, but I disagree with him that its make-up is a problem. It is necessary to have the best possible expertise on that committee, with the highest quality of debate and the widest information available to the members of that committee, and that is what we have at the moment. The standard of debate in that committee has leapt since the days before the Bank's independence, and that is reflected in its success.
  It is the role of the Bank's court to ensure that regional information is fully incorporated into the analysis of the members of the MPC. From my experience, the Bank is open to regional information and takes considerable care in incorporating different views from around the country. It has a network of bank agents, which it has developed considerably during the past two years, whose specific role is to listen to businesses and economic actors, and to ensure that their expectations of price changes and their behavioural changes are incorporated into the Bank's forecast and analysis of information.
  The other major strategic policy success has been the fiscal rules—the golden rule, which is complete common sense, that one should spend no more in any given year on current outgoings than one receives in current income, and the second rule that borrowing for investment should be kept at a reasonably credible and stable level during the economic cycle.
  The current budget is now forecast to be in surplus to the tune of £9.5 billion this year, up from the £2 billion forecast at the time of the last Budget, and to remain at about 1 per cent. of GDP until 2003–04.
  Perhaps the most remarkable fact about last year, however, is that the economy has continued to grow, despite all the dire forecasts of recession and the
  702
  Opposition's scaremongering. I look back now with incredulity to predictions made by the shadow Chancellor who, in August 1998, said, "The outlook is bleak"; in September 1998,
  "what I do know is that the downturn will turn out to be longer and deeper than it need have been";
  and in October of the same year in his conference speech:
  "This is a downturn made in Downing Street."
  I wonder whether he regrets those words now. Perhaps, at the time, he was genuinely trying to make political capital in the only way he knew how—by talking down the economy. Last year, he accused the Chancellor of fantasy forecasting and Peter Pan economics—now we know which party lives in never-never land.
  The Conservative party could not accept Bank of England independence and the tough new fiscal rules. It could not accept that those policies would create the economic stability that now exists. We still do not know whether it would keep or abolish Bank of England independence, the tough new fiscal rules, the minimum wage or the working families tax credit. From time to time, we are accused of introducing stealth taxes to rectify the macro-economic disaster that the Tories bequeathed us, but the Conservatives have stealth policies.
  Kali Mountford: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way before she moves on from stability. I am conscious of the fact that she is an expert on the economy. If we change the policies that she described, especially that of keeping to the golden rules, does she believe that we will return to the so-called dynamism that existed under the previous Government, with its attendant job losses in steel, coal and textiles in my constituency; or does she, like me, advocate stability that encourages long-term investment?
  Ms Kelly: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If we abolished Bank of England independence and the tough new fiscal rules, we would return to the boom-and-bust policies of 18 years of Tory rule. No one in this country wants that. The Chancellor knows exactly where he is heading, not only through his prudent economic stewardship but through the Government's remarkable economic ambitions for this country and its people.
  I shall respond in my own speech to the charges of increased taxation that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made although he did not allow me to answer through intervention on his speech. I compared the figures for taxation under the Government with the Conservative Government's plans. As anyone can verify, the burden of taxation is less under this Government than it would be under Conservative plans.
  Mr. Page: So we are responsible?
  Ms Kelly: Yes.
  Ms Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that the average household will be £380 a year better off as a result of the last Budget and that the direct tax rate for a typical family is at its lowest for 25 years?
  Ms Kelly: That is an excellent point, which I shall develop later. First, I want to consider the Chancellor's

  703
  ambition of increasing productivity. He supports raising productivity to give everyone the opportunity to work and to ensure fairness. Productivity must be increased to create fairness and to promote enterprise.
  Between 1950 and 1996, productivity growth in Britain was only 2.6 per cent. a year compared with 3.7 per cent. in France and 3.9 per cent. in Germany. If we can increase productivity, we can bridge the gap with our competitors, create high employment and raise living standards. One method of achieving that is to increase employability and skills.
  I especially welcome the new deal for the over-25s, which ensures that everyone who is out of work receives active, tailored advice to gain the skills and experience that they need to get back to work. Such support chimes in completely with the modern, dynamic labour market, which is being transformed by information technology. In that market, people change jobs more often and skills are at a premium.
  A year ago, I made a rather forlorn trip to a factory in my constituency to visit the managing director of Horwich Sewing, who had told me that his company had found it impossible to continue in the constituency. It was to move to eastern Europe because he did not see a future in the sewing industry in my part of the world. The visit was pretty depressing and there was nothing that I could do to change his mind, but the story soon reversed.
  Recently, I accompanied my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness on a visit to a brand new factory located on the same site in my constituency. It, too, is a textile factory, but it is not a low-skill operation—it is high tech and high skill and relies on new polymer technology. Within three years, it had transformed its turnover from slightly more than £1 million to £12.5 million, which is more than a tenfold increase; but the success of the company is not only about technology—it is about people. Its culture is people centred and all its staff are members of the company so they share in its risks, rewards, hopes and fears. We have to replicate that success right across the country. We have to turn Britain into an entrepreneurial society, unleashing creativity and enabling people to take their destinies into their own hands.
  A recent survey in Lloyd's "Economic Bulletin" showed that only one in 30 people in Britain want to start their own business compared with one in 12 in the United States. We have to change that. We have to reach into the poorest communities to tap the potential of all our people and offer them opportunities that, until now, have been the preserve of the few rather than the many. The economic future of our country demands an investment in its people, their skills and their ideas. That is the only way that we can hope to compete in a globalised economy and it is also a demand of social justice. That is why I welcome the commitment to turn Britain into a dynamic, knowledge-based economy. I welcome in particular the new scholarships for dynamic business men and women in the poorest and most deprived neighbourhoods in our country, which will offer them the opportunity to learn new skills; the lessons in entrepreneurship in schools; and the new regional venture capital funds.
  Many hon. Members have mentioned the divide between the different regions in this country. My constituents will not become better off through poor macro-economic management, however. They will be
  704
  helped only if we can unleash entrepreneurial activity and their entrepreneurial potential, and give them the opportunities that they deserve.
  One of the most important economic ambitions set out by the Chancellor is the end to child poverty. By next April, child benefit for the first child will be £15 and, for the typical family, child benefit and the children's tax credit will be £23. With tax cuts, the tax burden for the average family will be cut to its lowest level for 25 years. That is an honourable ambition in the best tradition of the Labour party. Enterprise and fairness to families and children must go hand in hand; if they do not, our whole society will suffer. We have made a start by moving towards enterprise and fairness. The Government have rejected the boom and bust of the Conservative party, taken the politics out of setting interest rates by giving independence to the Bank of England, cut the deficit and put the public finances back into good shape. We are taking strides towards a full-employment economy, making work pay and investing in our people and their ideas. I welcome the Gracious Speech most wholeheartedly.
  9.19 pm
  Sir George Young: Let me begin by saying a word or two about the high-quality debate that we have had. I shall then put it in the broader context of the debates that we have had over the past week.
  Not even his most ardent supporter could assert that the Chancellor's speech was one of his finest. He seemed to be in a particularly bad mood this afternoon, but he gave my party advance notice of the line of attack that the Labour party will deploy against us at the next election. It struck me as rather implausible, but we are grateful for the notice of where Labour will be coming from. Like the Prime Minister at Question Time, he was struggling to deny that taxes are rising under the Labour Government.
  The Chancellor was followed by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor), who identified some rather worrying factors in the economy that the Chancellor had overlooked, such as the high pound and its impact on exports and manufacturing industry, higher house prices, which have been in the news today, and the north-south divide, which was a theme running through the debate. Along with other Liberal Democrat Members, he developed the war chest theory of politics. That is obviously a convenient theory for the Liberal Democrats, because they can feel free to spend it. They contrasted the sums that they alleged were accruing in the war chest with the problems of delivery that confront the Government on health and education.
  We listened with respect, as we always do, to the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who made a similar speech to the one that he made in the same debate last year. He continues to be worried about the high interest rates set by the Monetary Policy Committee, and their impact on employment in his constituency. He made an interesting comment about hypothecation. That issue is worth a serious debate on its own. If hypothecation is to re-enter the public accounts, we should have a debate along the lines suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. What are the ground rules? How do we deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)?

  705
  What would the baseline have been before the hypothecated stream of revenue came in? The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne was right to put down a marker about hypothecation, and we should look into that issue again on a different occasion. He made, as he always does, an eloquent case for immediate entry into EMU.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk asked for a Government statement on a pesticide tax. That is of concern to farmers, and would have a serious impact on agriculture. He asked for a clear answer, and I hope that he will receive one when the Leader of the House winds up the debate.
  My right hon. Friend rightly said that the pig industry was on its knees, and made the case for some short-term, targeted assistance to help with the welfare and other costs borne by farmers in this country but not by some of our competitors. He raised a serious issue about savings, which also needs a debate on its own. He drew attention to the worrying decline in the propensity to save, and identified some of the reasons for that, such as the change from PEPs and TESSAs to ISAs and some of the Government statements that may have undermined confidence in the pensions industry. He introduced the House to Mr. FRED20—an important character who is doing some seriously damaging work in the City of London.
  I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). I congratulate him on the research that he has undertaken to identify the origins of the third way. He went all the way back to 1944. He made an old Labour speech, and it was none the worse for that. He was concerned that the Chancellor would be trapped by his own rules and prevented from doing the things that his party wants to see done. He outlined some of the problems of delivery that a number of hon. Members have mentioned during the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) reminded us of the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk in getting an opt-out. He made a trenchant speech about the common agricultural policy, and about the Financial Services Authority and some of the risks of tax harmonisation.
  I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who referred to the research that she had commissioned on the impact on children of young mothers returning to work. She identified that what they really wanted was choice. She went on to say that the other side of the coin of choice for the mother was a regulatory burden on businesses. She made the case for assisting businesses with some of the additional burdens that have been placed on them. She asked for a new deal for families, which sounded to me like a new headache for the Chief Secretary, as it had one or two pound signs attached to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) spoke about the importance of productivity. That issue was not mentioned much during the debate, except by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly), but it is clearly an important factor. My hon. Friend also spoke about the Post Office. I am sure that he will want to serve on the Standing Committee considering that Bill. It would be a tragedy if his great knowledge of the Post Office was denied to the Committee.
  706
  The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) spoke about the importance of assisting the third world. It was right that there was at least one speech in this debate on the economy that focused on assistance to the third world. It was a good speech on the same theme as his contribution in the Queen's Speech debate last year, but it was particularly timely as we move towards the WTO meeting in Seattle shortly.

  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) asked where all the radicals had gone, and said that parts of the Queen's Speech appeal to Labour's vested interests without facing up to some of the real issues confronting the countryside. The decline of the rural economy is not addressed by attacking those who hunt foxes.
  We enjoyed what I believe was the first post-ministerial speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). He wrongly accused my party of being remote from business, and was full of praise for the Chancellor; but he also spoke of the need to tackle the regional imbalance, and identified specific problems in the north-east. In that regard, he was echoed by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), who made what I considered to be a rather effective speech—a blend of humour and statistics. He illustrated the north-south divide by telling us about his daughter, who has just bought a house in the south-east. He advocated regional interest rates, but then modestly asserted that they would not work. He said—I wrote it down at the time—that in his constituency people were on their knees, and that contrasted with the rosy picture of the national economy painted by the Chancellor.
  The hon. Gentleman also asserted that his constituency was losing revenue support grant to the south. I found that deeply worrying, because I happen to represent a southern constituency. We have lost revenue support grant, but we were told that that was because it was going to the north. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should form a joint deputation to the Treasury to find out exactly where the money has gone. Perhaps it has gone to the midlands.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) said that tax was going up. He identified, and quantified, the impact of the stealth taxes; he then made some helpful suggestions about business rates. He made the point that they had a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses, and generously proffered an item that was in our last manifesto—now, sadly, surplus to requirements—that would redistribute the burden, moving it from small businesses to those best able to pay the extra costs.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) made a speech which will, I am sure, be well received in her constituency, and also in the Whips Office. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) spoke of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and also put the British economy in a broader international context. He pointed out that, in such a context, our growth rates are not that hot, and that growth in productivity is slowing down; he also made the point about the north-south divide.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir George Young: With respect, I must point out that the hon. Gentleman has not been present for the bulk of the debate, unlike a number of other hon. Members.

  707
  The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) made a brave speech in defence of IR35. I suspect that, as I speak, her speech is whistling around the internet, and that, when she reads her mail tomorrow, she may find that highly literate people have taken exception to some of what she said. She also criticised what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) had said about single mothers, asserting that it was all sticks and no carrots. She should be cautious: that sounds to me like exactly the sort of policy that her Government may shortly introduce.
  Until that point, no one had really focused on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, but then the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) asserted—I wrote this down as well—that it was the most important measure to come before the House in the current Parliament. I am sure that it will be useful in reforming the national accounts and helping us to make sensible decisions about priorities, but I must say that I do not expect it to live up to the star billing that the hon. Gentleman gave it.

  The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie)—a patient man, who sat through virtually all the debate—tried to paint my party as an extremist party. That, I think, lacked credibility.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) had tried to make his speech earlier. Fortunately for the House, he then had four hours in which to polish the speech, which focused on the regulatory burden imposed on firms in his constituency.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly) began with some remarks about the clearest vision of any Administration. She is too nice and too clever to be deceived by her own oratory. We all know that there is no clear vision at all; it is all done by focus groups, and it changes from week to week.
  It now seems much longer than a week ago that the debate on the Loyal Address was launched from Cumbria. Since then, there have been 127 speeches from Members, including two high-quality maiden speeches—I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) last week.
  If one analysed the speeches of Labour Members, however, loyalty would not be the adjective that sprang to mind. In what is probably the last full Queen's Speech of the Parliament, the Government must have hoped that Members would queue up to pronounce their full support for the programme. On the first day, 12 Labour Members spoke and five expressed concern about the proposals in the Queen's Speech. Over the week, three major Bills attracted significant dissent from Labour Back Benchers. The Minister who used to have Cabinet responsibility for the Freedom of Information Bill, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), was one of many who criticised that proposed Bill, saying:
  "We are not there yet."—[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 40.]
  The Minister who had Cabinet responsibility for National Air Traffic Services, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang), disagrees with the Government about the proposed privatisation. He said:
  "I have no doubt that many Labour Members are still trying to persuade Ministers not to privatise Britain's air traffic control."
  708
  On the same say, the hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) expressed similar doubts. The Chairman of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), also attacked the NATS proposals and said:
  "It is not sensible to hand over air traffic control to a private company whatever its nationality".—[Official Report, 18 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 151, 165.]
  Yesterday, the proposals on trial by jury were questioned by many Labour Members, having originally been opposed by the Home Secretary himself. On the first day of the debate on the Loyal Address, the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) went so far as to say:
  "We are going to restrict the right to trial, and that is a matter that should cause concern to any person with libertarian feelings."—[Official Report, 17 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 90.]
  He went on to oppose the withdrawal of benefits from offenders who breach community service orders.
  I suspect that those doubts resemble an iceberg. For every two Labour Members who voice their doubts in public, another seven share them in private. Therefore, the Government's legislative programme will not be the unifying, inclusive one that they wanted. It will be contentious and divisive.
  In her article in this week's edition of The House Magazine, entitled "A better Britain for all", the Leader of the House found space for many of the smaller Bills in the programme. The bigger ones were less lucky. The mode of trial Bill got but 12 words. Astonishingly, nowhere in the entire article is there any reference to the Freedom of Information Bill, one of the flagships, or to the proposals for NATS. The business manager in her may wish that those Bills were not proceeding, but they are.
  The language of the Queen's Speech is perhaps more partisan than it has been. It resembles last year's in one respect: "modern" or "modernise", which appeared 12 times in last year's Queen's Speech, appear 10 times this year, although the institutions covered by the Governments' enthusiasm for reform has widened to include the United Nations.
  The Queen's Speech is different from all earlier ones in two respects. First, it is the first Queen's Speech whose Bills will be scrutinised by the transitional House of Lords. Secondly, it is the first Queen's Speech since devolution. It is worth spending a moment reflecting on those two points, which have not been commented on before.
  Reading The House Magazine for 27 September—the editor is just behind me—I read that Baroness Jay said that the interim House of Lords
  "will be more legitimate, because its members have earned their places, and therefore more effective in playing its part in our bicameral institution."
  In The Parliamentary Monitor of November this year, she wrote that the House
  "will be able to speak with more authority…a decision by the House not to support a proposal from the Government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account."
  Can the Leader of the House therefore confirm that she expects more amendments from the other place and that it will be more difficult simply to disregard them?

  709
  Earlier this month, the Government would have lost on one of Lord Ashley's amendments to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill without a single Conservative vote. The Government simply ignored it, but, if they assert that the new upper House is more legitimate, will they be able to disregard its views in the same cavalier way in the current Session? When the business managers decided to put 28 Bills in the Queen's Speech, had they considered that dimension, as well as the fact that, as I have said, Back-Bench Labour Members will need time to ventilate their own concerns about the programme?
  Last Thursday, at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House if the Government would say which Bills in the Queen's Speech applied only to England and Wales, post-devolution. It was a highly relevant question, as an answer to it would show how the House of Commons has been changed by the Government's constitutional reforms. I hope that, in her reply to this debate, the right hon. Lady will say how many of the 28 Bills—my estimate is 18—do not apply to Scotland, but are effectively domestic Bills for England and Wales. The answer should illuminate the debate about those constitutional reforms—which Labour Members have been anxious to avoid, as they have no answer on the democratic deficit in this Chamber for English Members.
  The Government's measures in the Queen's Speech amount to a hotch-potch of proposals with no discernible theme. They are beads with no string, with a substantial number of beads spilling all over the parliamentary floor. If the Government are able to mismanage a programme comprising 18 Bills, they are certainly able to mismanage a programme with 28 Bills.
  For many of us, the shambles of the fag-end of the previous Session is still fresh in our memory—four guillotines in the last 10 days of the previous Session, and 820 amendments to the Greater London Authority Bill. However, far from learning the lessons of the end of the previous Session, the Government seem determined to repeat and to amplify their mistakes.
  The Times of 18 November states:
  "Government sources voiced confidence that the ambitious programme could be driven through, even though it is far bigger than in the previous two years. It seems certain that Ministers will use new powers to allow some Bills to be carried forward from one session to the next."
  I remind the Leader of the House that that can be done only by agreement. Perhaps she will also explain to the House what is meant by "driven through". Is not the truth that the only way in which the Government will be able to get all those Bills on the statute book is by over-reliance on the guillotine and curtailment of debate, with the consequence that legislation will be as shambolic as the Greater London Authority Bill was?
  What about the clear breach of a manifesto commitment? One might have thought that a programme of 28 Bills in the third Queen's Speech of the Parliament would have had room for the commitment to hold a referendum on electoral reform for the Westminster Parliament. The Government have clearly breached one of their manifesto commitments.
  The Queen's Speech does not help the Government with their problems of delivery. A consistent theme in today's debate, on both sides of the House, has been the gap between rhetoric and reality.
  710
  In North-West Hampshire, we are concerned about the report of the panel on Serplan—the so-called Crow report, which has been mentioned in the debate. Despite the rhetoric on protecting the environment, we are confronted with urban sprawl, linking Basingstoke to Winchester and on to Southampton—is that what Labour means by joined-up government?
  This is meant to be the Government's year of delivery. We all know the syndrome: the goods are promised on a certain day, so one stays at home, waiting for the van to arrive. Nothing happens in the morning, so one rings at midday and is told that the driver is in the middle of his round and will be there shortly. At dusk, one begins to lose hope. When one rings up again, one is told that there has been an unexpected hold-up—which of course is not the company's fault—and that they hope to get there tomorrow. It is the same with the Government and their promises. The goods that were promised are not being delivered, and the customers are becoming impatient.
  As with so much else with the Government, they say one thing but do another. We have the language of devolution, but the reality of central control. The Cabinet Office deregulation Bill is contradicted by the large amounts of red tape contained in other provisions. On the one hand, the Government introduce measures that virtually privatise air traffic control and the Post Office; yet, in the same programme, they seek to re-nationalise a part of Railtrack.
  The Government's programme lacks common sense. Britain needs to give more power to communities and to families—to build a more secure society; to release Britain's potential; to protect Britain's integrity and independence; and to restore faith in politics. It is those priorities, not those of Labour, that are in line with the common-sense priorities of the British people.
  The Queen's Speech is irrelevant to Britain's needs; inconsistent within itself; unpopular with many of the Government's own supporters; and wholly indigestible for Parliament. That is the bad news. The good news is that it is the last full programme from this Labour Government.
  9.39 pm
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): It is customary when winding up on the final day of debate on the Queen's Speech for the Leader of the House to make some reference to House of Commons matters. Like the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Mr. Turner) and for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), who made impressive first contributions. I should also like to highlight an important feature of our programme—this did not come out in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks—that shows how we are modernising and reforming the legislative process.
  Five of the Bills in the speech have been published in draft and undergone some form of pre-legislative scrutiny. We have set the important precedent of carrying over the Financial Services and Markets Bill by agreement. The draft Bill received scrutiny from an ad hoc Joint Committee of Lords and Commons that was chaired by the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Lord Burns, and included distinguished members of both Houses. It is an important, although highly technical and

  711
  complex, measure and there can be no doubt that it has benefited from that practical and worthwhile extension of our methods of handling legislation.
  Our local government legislation was also considered by a Joint Committee. The draft Freedom of Information Bill was examined by the Lords Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Committee, a Lords ad hoc Committee, and separately by the Commons Public Administration Committee, which took evidence from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, among others.
  The limited liability partnership proposals have been examined by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and our proposals for the railways, now subsumed into the transport Bill, were considered at an earlier stage by the Transport Sub-Committee.
  That shows the development of how we are handling the House's work and casts light on the remarks of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire about the scope of our programme. Much of it has already been before the House. I strongly believe that continuing to expand the drafting programme, as we have made it clear that we shall do, is a much more efficient and effective way of preparing legislation and leads to the better use of one of the scarcest resources that we have—Members' time. It should also produce better legislation, as well as encouraging attention to be focused on our core necessities or priorities.
  Today's debate offers a final opportunity to assess the overall shape of the Government's programme for the forthcoming parliamentary year. I assure the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire that it is not the last of this Parliament. It is fitting that we have concentrated on the economy, because the Gracious Speech has to be seen and judged alongside my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's pre-Budget report of two weeks ago.
  We began with a typically ungraceful contribution from the shadow Chancellor. I recognise that he is facing real problems. Apart from the fact that he knows that somebody is after his job, this time last year he prophesied economic doom and gloom. Fortunately for the country, he was wrong. This year, he made the same prophesy. He could see nothing good in the Government's handling of the economy and claimed that the business community felt the same. He spoke about our pre-election consultations, and he claimed to know what resulted from them and that the business community felt betrayed.
  The first request of the business community was stability in economic management, together with increased investment in education and training and in Government support for research and development and a programme of investment in transport infrastructure. The business community recognises, even if the shadow Chancellor does not, that all of that is being delivered, as well as significant cuts in corporation tax, particularly for smaller businesses.
  Unlike the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) welcomed the Government's handling of the public finances. Unfortunately, like his hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) later, he then reverted to type and called for far greater public expenditure without the faintest adequate explanation of how it would be funded.
  712
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) spoke with enthusiasm about the need for Britain soon to join the euro, and was followed smartly by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who disagreed with my right hon. Friend and with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor). The latter referred to many issues, including pesticides, an issue to which the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire also referred.
  Both right hon. Gentlemen said that they were seeking the Government's view. However, it was clear that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk knew the Government's view—indeed, he quoted the Government's observation that the matter was under consideration. He sought not the view of the Government, but a commitment not to pursue the matter. He knew the Government's view—he just wanted it to be different.
  Mr. MacGregor: The point is that Government have simply said that they will have further discussions. Given the desperate state of agriculture, it would be so much better if the Government made their view known now.
  Mrs. Beckett: I recognise that that is the view of the right hon. Gentleman. I simply say that he does know what the Government are saying on this matter, and he knows that it is being considered by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk highlighted the long-term impact of changes in pension provision, and he made a number of points about the contrast between defined benefit and money-purchase schemes. His concern about attitudes to pension provision would be shared by many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman's concerns concentrated entirely on the last two years. He failed utterly to acknowledge that all the changes that he deplored flow directly from the approach and record of the Government in which he served. Nothing in the recent history of this country has done more to undermine sound pensions policy than the pensions mis-selling over which the Conservative party presided.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) spoke of the need—especially among women—to be able to exercise choice, and about how Government policy is promoting such an approach. My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) and for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) talked about the concerns in their areas, and both of them are well aware of how much the Government have done to try to tackle their concerns.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) applauded the goals of high and stable levels of employment, but both expressed some concerns—one about world poverty, and the other about the framework of fiscal and monetary policy. That framework, and its impact, was welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly).
  The shadow Chancellor, the Opposition amendment and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) referred to the Government's "golden legacy—a legacy,

  713
  they said, left by the Conservatives. Surprisingly, they seem to be unaware of a report published this morning by the IMF, which observed of the UK economy that
  "this strong performance is in good part owing to the improved policy framework which has fostered sound monetary and fiscal policies and significant structural reforms."
  The report goes on to speak approvingly of the supply side measures taken by the Government, and of the potential of the new deal and the working families tax credit. Although we were unable to extract anything clear from the shadow Chancellor, we think that the Conservative party continues to oppose those measures.
  The "golden legacy" to which the amendment refers was, of course, fool's gold, shielding the enormous debt built up as a result of the Conservatives' incompetence. As a result of our policies, we have been able to begin to repay the debt that their policies created and, in addition, to set out a huge programme of investment in public services—particularly in our top priorities of health and education. In the pre-Budget statement, taken alongside the Queen's Speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made it clear that he is now bringing forward further measures. Those measures will stimulate further action and support for enterprise. They will not sacrifice fairness, and measures such as the working families tax credit, free television licences for over-75s and the earnings link for the minimum income guarantee for pensioners will actually enhance it. That was recognised in a moving speech about her area by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble).
  A key purpose for the Government is to pursue the twin aims of enterprise and fairness side by side and to make them not separate but joint endeavours. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor identified in his pre-Budget statement and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister highlighted in the opening debate on the Queen's Speech, that is in recognition of the stark reality that, in the next century, those purposes must be inextricably intertwined, because the one cannot succeed without the other.
  Successful pursuit of the knowledge economy requires us to develop and nurture the creativity, skill and talents not only of a lucky few—as Britain, especially under Conservative Governments, has so often done in the past—but of all our citizens. For example, the reshaping of post-16 education, itself long overdue, will make an important contribution to achieving that goal. We have taken a further step in the direction identified and pursued in the first two Queen's Speeches of this Parliament. We must not only invest in education but use that investment specifically to raise standards. That is equally long overdue.
  Comment from Conservative Members, in this as in previous Queen's Speech debates, has typically missed that point altogether. There has been much contradiction in what they have said. They went straight from saying that there was nothing in the speech to bemoaning the fact that it contained too much.
  The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said that the Government had "run out of steam" and the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said respectively that the speech was "thin gruel", that it was "a thin speech" and that there was "nothing new" in our programme.
  714
  Within 24 hours, however, the shadow Leader of the House thought the speech substantial enough to be
  "more than the House is able to chew"—[Official Report, 18 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 118.]
  and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said:
  "In the number of Bills they plan to introduce, the Government appear to have bitten off too much".—[Official Report, 19 November 1999; Vol. 339, c. 281.]
  From the outset, the comments of many Conservative Members have been inconsistent and indeed downright contradictory; so what else is new? Contradictory themes have run throughout their contributions, with calls for mutually incompatible tax cuts and spending increases on specific items in their constituencies.
  There was a further example tonight when the shadow Leader of the House spoke about the attitudes that the transitional House of Lords might take and invited me to speculate on how we might handle such attitudes. During all the days when we discussed House of Lords reform, Conservative Members claimed that there could be no problem for a Labour Government in the transitional House of Lords because it would be packed with "Tony's cronies" and we would have a majority. The shadow Leader of the House betrays the fact that they took their criticisms with as little seriousness as we did—indeed, with as little seriousness as they merited.
  There is still a reality gap between the world as Conservative Members see it and the real world of the British people. We had an insight into the illusions—or perhaps delusions—still afflicting Conservative Members in a throwaway line by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) earlier in these debates. He added a new dimension to the Tory party's continual complaint that everything that the Government do—down to their sheer existence as a Government—is evidence of arrogance. He told us that to claim that Britain as the Tories left it in 1997 had any need to be modernised or reformed was in itself arrogant. That is an extraordinary judgment, and it was clearly not shared by the British people, or they would have seen no need for change.

  I see that the new Tory slogan is that we now need a common-sense revolution. I fear that it would take a revolution to give today's Tory party any common sense. As we have seen in these debates, they still operate by knee-jerk reaction and still oppose unthinkingly whatever the Government suggest that they are going to do. The Tories opposed giving control of interest rates to the Bank of England; cuts in the VAT on fuel; the new deal; the national minimum wage; the working families tax credit; and the extra investment in health and education. Those are things that they are against, but we have tried to discern in these debates what it is that they are for.
  Contributions from Tory Front Benchers have given us a bit of a clue. They are for privatisation of the Post Office; privatisation of the tube; privatisation of the welfare state; and privatisation of health care. What we have heard in these debates is not the common sense of the British people or anybody else: it is Tory party extremism run riot, without justification, restraint or sense—never mind common sense.
  Common sense and, indeed, basic arithmetic are most conspicuously lacking in the Tories' proposals on public expenditure and the economy, where their record exposes their rhetoric. The British people have not forgotten that, in 1992, the Tories promised tax cuts and spending

  715
  increases. Although they got away with it in the election, they were exposed when they could not deliver the reality and, as a result, they will never again be trusted on tax.
  It has been fashionable in these debates, and recently in the media, to bewail what is seen as the lack of a single big idea. I find that odd and ridiculous. This Government have set themselves to achieve the long-sought transformation of our country so as to liberate the talents and support the endeavours of all its citizens, and, in the process, to use the fruits of those endeavours for the good of all. The pursuit of such a purpose demands action on a myriad of fronts. It cannot be pinned down to a single, all-transforming piece of legislation, or the outcome of a single Queen's Speech or even a single Budget. It calls for a series of separate, sometimes even disparate actions, undertaken over time in many different areas, without ever losing sight of that overarching and vital purpose.
  To modernise Britain, as we seek to do, and to foster a vibrant and successful economy is the work, not of years, but of decades. To harness that prosperity to the relief of poverty is a worthy end in itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North pointed out, to harness it to the relief of child poverty is an especially worthy aim, although that will take time to achieve. Importantly, that can also contribute to our achieving our economic goals.
  Our third Queen's Speech shows this Government to be clear about their goals, steadfast in purpose, and resolved on the steady and resolute pursuit of the policies required to reach those goals. I commend it to the House.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 149, Noes 381.

  Division No. 2]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Faber, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fabricant, Michael

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Flight, Howard

  Baldry, Tony

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Beggs, Roy

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bercow, John

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fraser, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gibb, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gill, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gray, James

  Cash, William

  Green, Damian

  Chope, Christopher

  Greenway, John

  Clappison, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Collins, Tim

  Hammond, Philip

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hayes, John

  Cran, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice&Howden)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Day, Stephen

  Horam, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Hunter, Andrew

  716

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Robertson, laurence

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Ruffley, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Key, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames Nicholas

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streetet, Gary

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Loughton, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher&Walton)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Thompson, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Townend John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Trend Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Maples, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Mates, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Whitney Sir Raymond

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Whittingdale John

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Widdecombe Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilkinson John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Willetts, David

  Norman, Archie

  Wilshire, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Winteron, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Woodward Shaun

  Page, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Paice, James

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Paterson, Owen

  Randall, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Keith Simpson and

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Alexander, Douglas

  Breed, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Burden, Richard

  Austin, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Baker, Norman

  Burnett, John

  Ballard, Jackie

  Burstow, Paul

  Barnes, Harry

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bride)

  Beth, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Campbell—Savours,Dale

  Berry, Roger

  Caplin, Ivor

  Best, Harold

  Casale, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Blackman, Liz

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chaytor, David

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Borrow, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clark, Rt Hon David(S Shields)

  717

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Gunnell, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clelland, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hancock, Mike

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hanson, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Colman, Tony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Connarty, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Healey, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Heath, David (Somerton&Frome)

  Cotter, Brian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cox, Tom

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cranston, Ross

  Heppell, John

  Crausby, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hill, Keith

  Cummings, John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hope, Phil

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Darvill, Keith

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hutton, John

  Dawson, Hilton

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Illsley, Eric

  Denham, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jamieson, David

  Doran, Frank

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dowd, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W&Hessle)

  Drew, David

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Fisher, Mark

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Flint, Caroline

  Keen, Alan (Feltham&Heston)

  Flynn, Paul

  Keen, Ann (Brentford&Isleworth)

  Follett, Barbara

  Keetch, Paul

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye&Inverness W)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Foulkes, George

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Khabra, Piara S

  Galloway, George

  Kidney, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Gardiner, Barry

  King, Andy (Rugby&Kenilworth)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Laxton, Bob

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lepper, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Leslie, Christopher

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Levitt, Tom

  Gordon, Mrs. Eileen

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  718

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Linton, Martin

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Livsey, Richard

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Purchase, Ken

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lock, David

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Love, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  McCabe, Steve

  Rapson, Syd

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Raynsford, Nick

  McCafferty, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rendel, David

  Macdonald, Calum

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rogers, Allan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Rooker, Jeff

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Rooney, Terry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rose, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Rowlands, Ted

  MacShane, Denis

  Roy, Frank

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ruane, Chris

  McWalter, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Salter, Martin

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sawford, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Maxton, John

  Shaw Jonathan

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meale, Alan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Merron, Gillian

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll&Bute)

  Singh, Marsha

  Milburn Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe&Lunesdale)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moore, Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morley, Elliot

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

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Snape, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, R Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Spellar, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mullin, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stringer, Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Öpik, Lembit

  Stunell, Andrew

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Sutclifle, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pike,Peter L

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas,Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R(Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Pope, Greg

  Tipping, Paddy

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  719

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Trickett, Jon

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Truswell, Paul

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Willis, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wills, Michael

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Tyler, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Tynan, Bill

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Wood, Mike

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Webb, Steve

  White, Brian

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add,
  "But humbly regret that the Gracious Speech fails to address the urgent need to protect the rights of the individual, reinforce communities and promote enterprise through increased liberalisation, decentralisation and deregulation; call for a reforming agenda including the prevention of discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion, sex and sexual orientation; urge the introduction of measures to increase the accountability of the police, promote crime prevention and victims' rights, rehabilitate offenders in the community, and establish a Royal Commission to examine the misuse of all drugs; call for effective Freedom of Information legislation; regret the continued failure of the Government to provide for referendums on a fair voting system for the House of Commons and the European Single Currency; urge the Government to introduce proportional representation for local elections and to ensure that innovations in local government are transparent and accountable; note the absence of proposals to promote environmental responsibility and efficiency in government, business and private households; urge the Government to replace the Child Support Agency with a unified system of family courts to deal with cases quickly and fairly; believe that good health policy demands that the Government should abolish charges for eye and dental checks and establish a single healthcare regulator; deplore the Government's continued neglect of rural communities and call for effective scrutiny of supermarket profiteering, fundamental reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and the establishment of an Agricultural Ombudsman; and regret that the timidity of the other measures in the Gracious Speech will do little to assist those who are worst off in society."—[Mr. Tyler.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.33 (Calling of amendments at end of debate), That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 44, Noes 340.

  Division No. 3]

  [10.15 pm

  AYES

  Allan, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Baker, Norman

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ballard, Jackie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Beth, Rt Hon A J

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Brake, Tom

  Gorrie, Donald

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hancock, Mike

  Breed, Colin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Harvey, Nick

  Burnett, John

  Heath, David (Somerton&Frome)

  Burstow, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Keetch, Paul

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye&Inverness W)

  Chidgey, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  720

  Livsey, Richard

  Stunell, Andrew

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Mathew (Truro)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll&Bute)

  Tyler, Paul

  Moore, Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Oaten, Mark

  Willis, Phil

  Öpik, Lembit

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sir Robert Smith and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Edward Davey.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cox, Tom

  Ainger, Nick

  Cranston, Ross

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Crausby, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cummings, John

  Ashton, Joe

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Austin, John

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barnes, Harry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bayley, Hugh

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Beard, Nigel

  Darvill, Keith

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Beggs, Roy

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Benton, Joe

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Dawson, Hilton

  Berry, Roger

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Best, Harold

  Denham, John

  Betts, Clive

  Dobbin, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Doran, Frank

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dowd, Jim

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Drew, David

  Borrow, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Edwards, Huw

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Chaytor, David

  Galloway, George

  Clapham, Michael

  Gapes, Mike

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Goggins, Paul

  Clelland, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Colman, Tony

  Grogan, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  721

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McWilliam, John

  Healey, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Meale, Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W&Hessle)

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham&Heston)

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Ann (Brentford&Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pike, Peter L

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pond, Chris

  Kidney, David

  Pope, Greg

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  King, Andy (Rugby&Kenilworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Levitt, Tom

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rapson, Syd

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCabe, Steve

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rogers, Allan

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruane, Chris

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  MacShane, Denis

  Salter, Martin

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McWalter, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  722

  Sawford, Phil

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Thompson, William

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Timms, Stephen

  Sheerrnan, Barry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Todd, Mark

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Trickett, Jon

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Truswell, Paul

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe&Lunesdale)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, John

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wilson, Brian

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wood, Mike

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 185.

  Division No. 4]

  [8.28 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burden, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Burgon, Colin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Beard, Nigel

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Casale, Roger

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Caton, Martin

  Benton, Joe

  Cawsey, Ian

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Berry, Roger

  Chaytor, David

  Best, Harold

  Clapham, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Clelland, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  723

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil

  Corbett, Robin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cummings, John

  Hutton, John

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Curtis——Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Illsley, Eric

  Dalyell, Tam

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W&Hessle)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Drew, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham&Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford&Isleworth)

  Edwards, Huw

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Efford, Clive

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Khabra, Piara S

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kidney, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Andy (Rugby&Kenilworth)

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flynn, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Linton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lock, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Goggins, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gunnell, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWatter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McWilliam, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Healey, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Martlew, Eric

  724

  Maxton, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Meale, Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe&Lunesdale)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moms, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mountford, Kali

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pond, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Truswell, Paul

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Tynan, Bill

  Purchase, Ken

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rammell, Bill

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rapson, Syd

  Watts, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  White, Brian

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wills, Michael

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wilson, Brian

  Rowlands, Ted

  Winnick, David

  Roy, Frank

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wood, Mike

  Ruddock, Joan

  Woolas, Phil

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Baldry, Tony

  Amess, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Bercow, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Baker, Norman

  Body, Sir Richard

  725

  Boswell, Tim

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brady, Graham

  Gorrie, Donald

  Brake, Tom

  Gray, James

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Green, Damian

  Breed, Colin

  Greenway, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hammond, Philip

  Burnett, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Burns, Simon

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Burstow, Paul

  Harvey, Nick

  Butterfill, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Hayes, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Heald, Oliver

  Heath, David (Somerton&Frome)

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chidgey, David

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Collins, Tim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice&Howden)

  Keetch, Paul

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye&Inverness W)

  Day, Stephen

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Key, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Evans, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Faber, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Fallon. Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Flight, Howard

  Lidington, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Livsey, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Loughton, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Luff, Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Gale, Roger

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gill, Christopher

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  726

  Madel, Sir David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malin, Humfrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Stunell, Andrew

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll&Bute)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher&Walton)

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Norman, Archie

  Thompson, William

  Oaten, Mark

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Townend, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tredinnick, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Tyler, Paul

  Paice, James

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Paterson, Owen

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles

  Rendel, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Robertson, Laurence

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Whittingdale, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ruffley, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willetts, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wilshire, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Woodward, Shaun

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

  Yeo, Tim

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Spring, Richard

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  Public Inquiries
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: The purpose of this debate tonight is to highlight a growing problem with regard to the openness, transparency and public accountability of public inquiries, and to seek help and action from Ministers to improve the situation. Given the importance of public inquiries to the people of the Essex, I am particularly pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in their places tonight.
  To understand the problem that is developing at public inquiries, which deal with more and more complex issues, it is necessary to ask what is their exact purpose. Probably the best raison d'être that I have seen in recent times appeared in the comment section of the Essex Chronicle about three weeks ago. It said:
  "Public inquiries should be just that—hearings at which individuals, pressure groups, local authorities and any other interested parties can make their views known on whatever is the subject under review, and understand those of others."
  It went on to say:
  "Central to this democratic right is the ability to have easy access to all evidence being considered—a right which the media, charged with the responsibility of informing a wider public, necessarily shares.
  I hope that the Minister wholeheartedly shares those sentiments, particularly as the Queen's Speech, on which we have just voted, states:
  "My Government will introduce a Bill on Freedom of Information. It will give everyone the right of access to information held across the public sector for the first time."
  I assume that the public sector includes public inquiries, and perhaps the Minister will clarify that when she replies.
  To illustrate the problem of access to information presented to public inquiries, I want to use the example of the current public inquiry on the Essex and Southend waste management plan being held in Christ Church, Chelmsford, although I emphasise that that example is not unique, but graphically illustrates the problems developing at controversial and complex public inquiries.
  I understand that decisions were taken at the pre-inquiry meeting about the day-to-day running of the inquiry.
  Unfortunately, few people knew that the meeting was taking place. Given the massive public interest that the inquiry would generate in Essex because of the controversial nature of its content, I am surprised that the local media were not sent a press release about that meeting. It was advertised by public notices, which in many cases are at best a fairly poor way of drawing attention to issues. I am sure that the Minister, as a member of a Government who rely on spin and news management, will appreciate that it would have been far more satisfactory to have notified people through press releases to the local media.
  I understand that it was agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting that four sets of proofs of evidence would be produced. Three would go to the main interested parties and one would be kept on site in a basement office for
  728
  the press and other interested parties to inspect. A photocopier was also made available for copies to made by anyone who wished to have them. Personally, I believe that these arrangements are totally inadequate. One has to remember that the inquiry is highly controversial and complex. The proofs of evidence run to thousands of pages and, under the existing arrangements, it is not realistic to expect the local media and interested parties to have proper access to the documentation or to be able to photocopy it satisfactorily so that they can follow the proceedings properly.
  Despite requests from Stuart Rawlins, editor of the Essex Chronicle, Kathleen Corby, its chief political and local government reporter, and others for greater and easier access to that information, the arrangements have not been changed to make the proofs of evidence more easily and more readily available. That is grossly unfair and a distortion of the process because it inhibits proper monitoring of the proceedings. As the Essex Chronicle rightly points out:
  "Members of the public, exercising a legitimate right to attend the inquiry, can find themselves listening to witnesses being questioned on evidence which is not readily available."
  That makes a mockery of the process.
  Surely in this day and age, with modern technology and the knowledge that the date of the inquiry was set far in advance, the proofs of evidence could have been photocopied, scanned or posted on the internet so that interested parties and the local press could have studied the evidence—both in advance and during the inquiry—to keep on top of what went on each day and follow precisely the evidence being dealt with and discussed on any day on which the inquiry sat. I do not believe that that is unreasonable.
  Rather interestingly, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has produced a booklet entitled, "Development Plans—What You Need to Know". It is meant to be, and indeed is, a helpful guide for members of the public, local media and interested parties to how a public inquiry should be carried out, what should be expected of the inspector and access to information for members of the public. Paragraph 44, which deals with the role of the inspector, states that he must decide how to conduct the proceedings to ensure that
  "the inquiry is conducted in accordance with well-established principles of impartiality, openness and fairness."
  Paragraph 48 states:
  "Objectors and other interested parties may obtain copies of any such written material which could be relevant to their case from the Programme Officer."
  Technically, because of the way in which the arrangements have been made, objectors to the local waste plan can see the written material—a set of proofs of evidence is kept in a room in the basement of the building in the New London road—but in reality, because of the unsatisfactory process, they are being denied proper and full access to that information. It is not realistic or right for so many objectors and interested parties to have to go to a small room in a basement to look at, or photocopy, such a massive amount of paperwork or to have to try to obtain it from the witnesses themselves. To comply with paragraph 48 of the guidance booklet, complete sets of documents should have been made available to interested parties in advance, given that the date of the inquiry was set reasonably far in advance.

  729
  If hon. Members, Ministers or local councillors were deprived of relevant information so that they could not carry out their duties of implementing or monitoring the implementation of legislation, or if they sought to deprive outside interested parties of access to information on our deliberations and those of local councillors and on draft legislation on regulations, there would be considerable anger. We would rightly find that totally unacceptable. We are not deprived of that information, and neither are members of the public who wish to monitor, comment on or acquaint themselves with our proceedings.
  Similarly, under the procedures in the House, many submissions can be made on significant and controversial private Bills. There is a plethora of information, and copies of submissions are made available in advance and during the hearings that are held in this place, so that objectors and others can fully understand, monitor and follow the proceedings on the legislation. That information is provided and is put in the public domain. I believe that the same should and must apply at public inquiries, especially at highly contentious and controversial inquiries.
  Despite the Minister's written answers to me on this matter on 4 November, I urge her to think again about the immediate issue of the current inquiry in Chelmsford, and ensure that all proofs of evidence are properly produced for interested parties for the remainder of the inquiry. For the future, I urge her to review the procedures and the way in which inspectors determine how they will run inquiries in this area, so that we can prevent the problems that many people experience, including the local media and interested parties who object to the waste management plan. They find it difficult to follow and monitor those proceedings because of the problem of access due to there being only one set of proofs of evidence.
  I hope that, on reflection, the Minister will agree that this is the right way forward. In this day and age, we believe in greater freedom of information, greater access and greater participation. When the inquiry is finally concluded and decisions and recommendations are made, we certainly do not want people to feel that they have not been arrived at transparently and fairly because aggrieved individuals who tried to participate in the process were deprived of information to help them to monitor the course of the inquiry.
  I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that we do not want a belief to be established that much of the administration of public inquiries is arranged for the convenience of bureaucrats and not that of the general public, whose interests they are supposed to be serving. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter, and not only rectify the short-term problem of the current inquiry in Chelmsford but ensure that similar complaints are not made in the future anywhere in the country where a highly controversial and complex public inquiry is held.
  10.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing the debate, and I want to deal as fully as I can with the issues that he
  730
  has raised. As he says, I am aware that the future management of waste in Essex is a hotly contested issue for residents. I understand why that is so. That is demonstrated by the fact that just under 10,000 forms were received by the planning authorities in response to the deposit draft, which amounted to more than 22,000 individual objections to specific policies in the plan. I understand the interest generated by the public inquiry into the objections, and the desire of many interested partners for an opportunity to examine the evidence that is being put before the inspector. As the hon. Gentleman said, the public inquiry opened on 26 October, and has sat for 12 days so far. It will adjourn in 11 days, until 5 January, when the final speeches will be made.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to intervene in the process at any time before the plan is adopted. Obviously, that means that I cannot say anything about the plan itself. The hon. Gentleman has not asked me to do so, but I wanted to put that on the record.
  I want to take up the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the extent to which material submitted in evidence to the public inquiry is being made available. I have heard his points about the situation in Essex, and I have what I consider to be corrections to make. Let me begin, however, by disputing his initial claim that there is growing evidence of problems relating to openness and transparency in the conduct of planning inquiries, and that there is a general problem of access to information. I must tell him, in relation to both the general position and the evidence from the Essex inquiry, that he cannot substantiate his claims. Nevertheless, this is an important issue for Government, and one that we shall examine—but not because there is evidence of problems.
  Apart from the objections to which I have already referred, more than 100 written representations have been submitted to the inspector from members of the public and other interested parties, all of which will be considered in evidence. In addition, the main parties—including the consortium of 10 district councils that are opposed to the plan, the Mid Essex Gravel Company and other large companies involved in the waste disposal industry—have submitted lengthy, fully bound proofs of evidence.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, it was agreed at the pre-inquiry meeting held on 5 July that the lengthier proofs of evidence would not be read out at the inquiry itself. That means that everyone who attended the meeting was party to the agreement. Instead, it was agreed that summary proofs would be read out to facilitate the process of the inquiry. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is standard practice at major public inquiries.
  The summary proofs, the proofs of the waste planning authorities, and the authorities' formal responses to the objections and representations of the main parties add up to a very large volume of paper. I am told that just one set of all that documentation fills three drawers of a filing cabinet. The hon. Gentleman, however, asked for complete sets of documents—the equivalent of three drawers of a filing cabinet—to be made available routinely to anyone on request. There are also various core documents, planning encyclopaedias and sundry other documentation.
  Before I deal with the principle of the matter, let me ask the hon. Gentleman to consider this. Quite simply, the photocopying and distribution of all that material to any

  731
  interested party and the press, as a matter of routine, would be logistically very difficult, and might not be easy to justify in terms of practicality and cost. It is, I think, for that reason that the libraries to which the hon. Gentleman referred are set up at major public inquiries, and are opened to the public some weeks in advance to enable people to gain access to material without necessarily imposing the burden of requiring such large volumes of material to be provided routinely at public expense.
  Mr. Burns: May I first acknowledge that the hon. Members for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) and for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler) are present to listen to what is an important debate?
  Notwithstanding what the Minister has just said, does she not think that it would be sensible at least to advertise where the room is in the building's basement by having a sign? Apparently, at present, there is no sign and no member of the public knows, unless they have been told, that that room exists—they do not know until they ask someone.
  Ms Hughes: I agree in principle that information on both the fact of the library and its whereabouts should be readily available. If it is not, that may explain why the hon. Gentleman has not been to the library to check the facilities and how easy, or difficult it might be to access information there, but I will check on his statement.
  In written questions, the hon. Gentleman requested that the inspector conducting the public inquiry be instructed to make the written submissions to the inquiry available to the press and to interested local parties. I should like to explain what has been done since at the inquiry to facilitate such action.
  A library of inquiry documents was set up at the inquiry venue from 1 September to enable the public and other interested parties to study the proofs of evidence, objections, representations, core documents and so on. Before that, between 5 July and 31 August, the inquiry library was put together at the offices of the county council at county hall. During that period, initial objections and representations to the plan, and much of the supporting documentation, were available for public inspection and photocopying. I understand that little use was made of the photocopying facility during that time, but that the library at the inquiry venue was in considerable use, particularly in the run-up to the start of the inquiry.
  Proofs of evidence were requested by the inspector in two batches. The first, covering the issues in the early days of the inquiry, was to be deposited by the middle of September; the second by 12 October. As I have said, some of the proofs were lengthy and bound, and it was not always possible to make copies at short notice for interested parties who were either unable or unwilling to visit the library. They could visit the library; there was no problem, as I understand it.
  Not only were copies of all the material available for scrutiny at the library, but the county council's press officer contacted all the main newspapers and other media outlets in Essex. The press officer sent copies of the inquiry programme and invited requests for information from the press and media, so that additional copies of documents, or copies of relevant extracts that they requested, could be provided.
  732
  To date, as a result of that exercise, only one such request has been received—from BBC Radio Essex. However, the offer is still open. Furthermore, I understand that the inquiry programme officer has been able to obtain additional copies of proofs that are coming in from various originators and that those copies are being made available routinely each day to the press attending the inquiry, so the hon. Gentleman's claim that the documents are not being made available and that the inspector and programme officer are not going to considerable lengths to accommodate the requests are not true.
  The hon. Gentleman claims that, because of the inadequacies of the photocopying facilities, the local press and interested parties are having difficulty in following the proceedings. I understand that there have been only four requests to the programme officer for bulk photocopying: two from commercial companies, one from Chelmsford borough council and one from the Essex Chronicle. Those requests have been met and no charge was levied for the copies that were produced for the press.
  There have been many requests, mainly from the public, for smaller amounts of copying. Copies of 10 sheets of A4 or fewer are, and have been, provided free. There is a small charge for copies of more than 10 sheets. Since the inquiry, nearly 7,000 copies have been run off on the library machine, the vast majority free of charge.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, criticism of the photocopying arrangements was expressed in an article in the Essex Chronicle. However, that criticism arose after the reporter turned up in the library and demanded instant copies of documents, and that volume of documents could not be provided instantly. Nevertheless, the newspaper went on to use the experience to make various unsubstantiated allegations about general provision by the library service.
  Moreover, to date, there have been no direct complaints from members of the public, either to the programme officer or to the inspector, about the copying facilities or the lack of readily available copies of documents for perusal off the premises.
  Mr. Burns: I should like to remind the Minister that the Essex Chronicle reporter whom she mentioned is a highly respected and professional journalist who believes that it has been difficult not only for her but for some of those attending the inquiry to obtain some proofs of evidence and, therefore, to follow exactly what was going on.
  I was also slightly surprised to hear that there have been no complaints. There may have been no formal complaints from interested parties, but I am aware of people who have complained vigorously about the difficulty in obtaining photocopies necessary to follow the day's proceedings.
  Ms Hughes: I have been fully briefed and believe that the Essex Chronicle has made an issue of the matter, although I do not know whether the issue is based on various experiences or only one experience. However, it is not necessarily valid for the reporter to assume that her feelings on accessibility are shared by many other people. Not only have there been no formal complaints, there have been no direct complaints from members of the public to the programme officer or the inspector about either of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised—copying facilities, and readily available copies to take away.

  733
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a reasonable balance has to be struck. Although it is difficult to understand how there has been an unfair restriction on access to information in this case, I entirely support his general point that the principle of access to information and openness at planning inquiries is extremely important and has to be put into practice effectively.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, planning inquiries are public inquiries, and the public and other interested parties must be able to use them effectively. However, in this case, I believe that the inspector has responded to the requests made to him, and has gone beyond what might normally be expected to facilitate dissemination of information. There is certainly no evidence that other than the correct procedures have been followed.
  The hon. Gentleman made some important general points. Turning from the specific case in Essex to the general position, let me say that the Department's current guidance on arrangements for public inquiries—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—is published in a separate booklet and is readily available. It explains that, although participants and the planning authority are free to develop their case at an inquiry, the inspector will normally ask for proofs of evidence or other written statements to be submitted beforehand. I do not think that such a request is unreasonable.
  If the authority wishes to respond to those objections, it must do so very shortly afterwards and deposit the response in the library. The hon. Gentleman said that people in Essex are unable to keep up with requirements on depositing and responding to objections, and on the general exchange of views. However, the process should be working well. If it is not working well, I should like to have more information about it, as our practice is designed to ensure that it does work well. People have to be able to keep up with developments at an inquiry.
  734
  The code of conduct on development plans also states that it is for the inspector to decide how to conduct the inquiry. It goes on to make it clear that it is the inspector's responsibility to ensure that everyone concerned has access to the relevant information.
  I should like to say something about an important issue for the future that the hon. Gentleman raised. Our current guidance enables inspectors to achieve the openness and transparency that we want, but we have been considering how the process can be made even easier, because we are very concerned to promote openness and transparency. We are going to introduce measures to promote shorter and clearer plans so that they are more easily understood and accessible. We also want better targeted consultation. We will encourage local authorities to announce publicly a clear timetable for an inquiry and they will be accountable for any slippage. There should be negotiations with objectors ahead of the public inquiry and the inspector's report should be publicly available within a set time. We shall also encourage the prompt adoption of plans. All those proposals will be set out in a revised version of planning policy guidance note 12 on development plans, which will be published in the near future.
  Our changes will not curtail the public's right to comment on or object to development plan proposals or to participate fully. They are designed to ensure that inquiries are conducted in a more systematic way so that people's access to information and ability to participate in the process is enhanced.
  The hon. Gentleman made some interesting comments about the potential of information and communication technology to facilitate the availability of information during the course of an inquiry—
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement regarding the Code for Crown Prosecutors. [99859]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Code for Crown Prosecutors is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions as required by section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. It is an important public document. It sets out the fundamental principles to be applied by Crown Prosecutors when deciding whether or not an individual should be prosecuted and, if a prosecution is to follow, what charges should be preferred. By applying the Code casework, decisions can be made fairly, consistently and independently. The current edition of the Code was published in June 1994.

  Sir Iain Glidewell's review of the Crown Prosecution Service recommended an amendment of the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The current edition of the Code at paragraph 6.2 reads in part:
  "In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually take place unless there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which clearly outweigh those tending in favour."

  The Glidewell report concluded that the Code test should be applied in the same way to all cases, whatever their degree of seriousness. The report was concerned that the Code as drafted, if read literally, might incorrectly result in the Code being applied differently to cases which are not so serious. The Glidewell report therefore recommended that the words
  "In cases of any seriousness"
  be removed from the relevant paragraph.

  That recommendation has been accepted. On 26 August, the Crown Prosecution Service issued to CPS staff a notice putting that recommendation into immediate effect.

  The Crown Prosecution Service, with appropriate consultation, is to review the Code for Crown Prosecutors to take account of the Human Rights Act 1998. Formal amendment to the Code, in accordance with the Glidewell recommendation, will be made when the Code is reissued after this review.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Licence Fees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if households comprising pensioners 106W
  aged over 75 years living with adults of below pension age will be eligible for the free television licence announced in the pre-Budget statement. [99396]

  Janet Anderson
  Yes.

  Children's Radio
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for the development of children's radio. [99215]

  Janet Anderson
  Decisions on programme content are for the broadcasters. However, Government policy is to ensure that both public service and independent broadcasters provide a range of high quality radio services which meet consumer needs. Under its Charter and Agreement, the BBC is committed to provide original programmes for children and young people as well as information, education and entertainment programmes which are of interest across the community. Similarly, it is open to independent radio licensees, regulated by the Radio Authority under the Broadcasting Acts, to offer programme formats which address the specific requirements of children and young people.

  Admission Charges
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government's policy is regarding the introduction of admission charges at new national museums and galleries. [99172]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]:Decisions on admission charges at new branches of national museums are principally a matter for the Trustees of the institution concerned. The Government encourage free entry where that is appropriate and affordable.

  National Lottery (Hospices)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which hospices have received National Lottery funding; and how many bids each of them had previously submitted for National Lottery funding. [99382]

  Kate Hoey
  According to the latest information from the distributors, a total of 88 lottery awards have been made to 75 hospices across the United Kingdom. The 75 successful grant recipient organisations submitted a total of 143 applications between them. These grant awards were made by the National Lottery Charities Board and the Arts Council of England. Details of the successful grant recipient organisations are as follows:

  (i) National Lottery Charities Board: 81 awards worth £20,000,893 (see attached details)

  (ii) Arts Council of England

  £

  North Northumberland Day Hospice

  5,000

  Wakefield Hospice

  4,540

  The Princess Alice Hospice

  2,250

  Beaumont House Hospice

  3,000

  St. Cuthbert's Hospice

  4,500

  Woodlands Hospice

  4,600

  Children's Hospice for the Eastern Region

  4,132

  Total

  28,022

  107W
  None of the above seven successful organisations had previously applied for Lottery funding.

  Lottery funding for organisations which support Hospices

  In addition, the Arts Council of Wales (ACW) and the Millennium Commission have each awarded one Lottery grant to organisations which support hospices. The ACW

  Hospices which have received awards and applications they have made

  Name

  Applications

  Awards

  Award (£)

  Accord Hospice

  4

  2

  538,424

  Ardgowan Hospice Limited

  2

  2

  875,947

  Ashgate Hospice

  1

  1

  13,750

  Ayrshire Hospice

  1

  1

  550,000

  Barnsley Hospice Appeal Ltd.

  2

  1

  862,503

  Children's Hospice South West

  2

  1

  127,167

  Demelza House Childrens Hospice

  3

  1

  195,000

  Dove House Hospice

  2

  1

  198,497

  Dr. Kershaw's Hospice

  2

  1

  12,000

  East Kent Hospice Project

  2

  2

  454,000

  Fife Hospice Support Group

  1

  1

  1,500

  Friends of Swailand Hospice

  2

  1

  73,980

  Friends of the Children's Hospice South West

  1

  1

  4,045

  Harrogate District Hospice Limited

  3

  1

  26,250

  Help the Hospices xz

  3

  1

  168,473

  High Peak Hospice Care

  2

  1

  86,458

  Highland Hospice

  2

  2

  391,448

  Hope House Childrens Respite Hospice

  1

  1

  184,183

  Hospice at Home Volunteers

  1

  1

  5,000

  Hospice Care for Burnley and Pendle

  1

  1

  391,363

  Hospice Homecare Support Group, Northallerton and District

  1

  1

  35,285

  Hospice in Rossendale

  3

  1

  69,817

  Hospice in The Weald

  3

  1

  145,000

  Ian Rennie Hospice at Home

  1

  1

  195,555

  Isabel Hospice Limited

  2

  1

  185,000

  Katherine House Hospice

  3

  2

  278,000

  Myton Hamlet Hospice

  3

  1

  291,064

  N.H.C.T.—Developing Hospice Care in Kenya

  1

  1

  65,169

  Nat Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Service

  1

  1

  51,920

  Newry Hospice

  2

  1

  206,922

  North Devon Hospice Care Trust

  3

  3

  616,836

  North Northumberland Day Hospice

  1

  1

  333,240

  Northern Ireland Hospice

  4

  2

  1,434,049

  Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice

  4

  3

  1,073,162

  Queenscourt Hospice

  3

  1

  30,540

  Shropshire and Mid Wales Hospice

  3

  1

  162,000

  St. Ann's Hospice

  1

  1

  441,223

  St. Anne's Hospice

  1

  1

  285,000

  St. Barnabas Hospice Trust

  1

  1

  471,000

  St. Catherine's Hospice

  2

  1

  40,344

  St. Catherines Hospice Lancashire Ltd.

  1

  1

  360,000

  St. Christopher's Hospice

  3

  2

  1,529,106

  St. Clare West Essex Hospice Care Trust

  1

  1

  112,500

  St. Clare's Hospice

  2

  1

  98,694

  St. Cuthberts Hospice

  2

  1

  160,000

  St. Davids Hospice

  2

  1

  250,000

  St. Gemmas Hospice

  1

  1

  1,000,000

  St. Luke's Hospice Plymouth

  3

  1

  223,000

  St. Lukes Hospice (Harrow and Brent) Ltd.

  2

  1

  148,000

  St. Nicholas' Hospice (Suffolk)

  3

  1

  170,000

  St. Oswald's Hospice Ltd.

  3

  1

  193,356

  St. Peter's Hospice Ltd.

  1

  1

  75,000

  St. Vincent's Hospice Ltd.

  3

  2

  650,017

  Strathcarron Hospice

  2

  1

  226,412

  Teesside Hospice Care Foundation

  3

  1

  674,776

  The East Cheshire Hospice

  3

  1

  200,000

  The Hartlepool Hospice Limited

  1

  1

  80,852

  The Pasque Hospice

  3

  2

  713,622

  The Princess Alice Hospice

  3

  2

  162,139

  The South West Hertfordshire Hospice Charitable Trust

  2

  1

  74,474

  Trimar Christian Hospice Trust

  3

  1

  90,000

  Usk House Day Hospice

  2

  1

  86,541

  108W
  awarded a grant worth £5,000 to "Voices for the Hospice", and the Millennium Commission awarded £1,348,708 to "Help the Hospices Millennium Awards" scheme. The latter is a UK-wide scheme which will offer 400 Awards to develop and enhance the skills and abilities of both existing, and new, volunteers involved in any sphere of the Hospice movement.
  109W

  Hospices which have received awards and applications they have made

  Name

  Applications

  Awards

  Award (£)

  Wakefield Hospice

  1

  1

  103,000

  West Norfolk Hospice Ltd.

  1

  1

  106,343

  Weston Hospicecare

  1

  1

  303,808

  Woodlands Hospice Charitable Trust

  2

  1

  167,139

  Totals

  136

  81

  20,000,893

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the proposed date for implementation of Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [98631]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We are fully committed to implementing Section 37 at the earliest opportunity and intend to consult on the provisions by March next year.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to replace the current Code of Practice on Technical Aspects of the Fluoridation of Water Supplies. [98666]

  Mr. Mullin
  None at present. In the White Paper, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", which was published on 6 July, the Government announced that they had commissioned an up-to-date, expert scientific review of the evidence on the fluoridation of water. The Government expect to receive the review report in March, and will not be considering any legislative changes until it is received. It is not proposed to update the Code of Practice ahead of the review report.

  Transport Consultation Documents
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many transport consultation documents have been issued since May 1997; and how many are currently in consultation. [98629]

  Mr. Hill
  We have issued 237 consultation papers with deadlines for responses since May 1997. Sixteen of these remain open.

  Local Authority Planning
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department(a) gives and (b) proposes to give to local authorities on the basis for (i) the use of windfall calculations in residual requirements and (ii) the role of flexibility allowances in the preparation of structure plans. [98581]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The issues are currently dealt with in Annexes B and C of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing, issued in 1992. However, they are under review as part of the revision of PPG3.

  Central Trains
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many complaints have been received each year by the Rail Regulator against Central Trains; and if he will make a statement. [98504]

  Mr. Hill
  The information is not available in the format requested. In 1998–99, the Rail Regulator received 2,321 complaints on a range of issues. However, as the Regulator does not have a formal role in dealing with complaints from rail passengers, complaints are not recorded against individual train operators.

  Highway SSA
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the source is of the traffic figures used in calculating highway standard spending assessment; and what action he takes if they are disputed by the local authority concerned. [98723]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The traffic figures used in calculating the highway maintenance standard spending assessment are those that are provided by Highway Authorities or contractors on behalf of the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions. Highway Authorities may sub-contract the work. The traffic figures proposed for use in the 2000–01 local government finance settlement are based on data relating to 1998 and earlier years. For Cambridgeshire in 1998 and earlier years, the County Council was contracted by the Department to provide the traffic figures.

  All matters where authorities dispute the figures that are proposed for use in the calculation of standard spending assessments are investigated and the findings taken into account when final decisions are taken on the local government settlement. Authorities are advised of the relevant deadlines for making representations and the circumstances in which changes are usually made.

  Air Quality
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning (i) low emission zones and (ii) the National Air Quality Strategy from(a) road haulage organisations, (b) motoring organisations and (c) motor manufacturers; and if he will make a statement. [99107]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: My Department has not received representations on low emission zones, as they are not a Government policy proposal. It is for local authorities, rather than central Government, to decide whether to implement such zones in order to improve local air quality.
  111W
  We have received approximately 80 responses to the consultation draft of the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which we published on 25 August. Most of these were from local authorities, but we did receive a response from The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Limited (SMMT). Copies of the non-confidential responses received will be made available in the libraries of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Department of Environment (Northern Ireland). A list of responses will also be placed in the House Libraries when the final version of the Strategy is published in January next year. A summary of the responses will also be made available in January on the Department's Website. The objectives proposed in the draft Air Quality Strategy have also been discussed at meetings of the Air Quality Forum, at which the AA, SMMT and the Freight Transport Association were present.

  Road transport is one of the major sources of air pollution, especially in our towns and cities. However, we have made clear within the Strategy and in our guidance to local authorities that the relative contribution of transport, and all other sectors, to the achievement of meeting the new air quality objectives has to be cost effective and proportionate.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to introduce legislation to protect SSSIs; what plans he has to legislate for the protection of peat reserves; what plans he has to encourage the commercial production of peat alternatives; and if he will make a statement. [99228]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Countryside Amenity and Conservation Bill will be brought forward in the current session. The legislative proposals to provide better protection for SSSIs will benefit all sites, including those notified for their peatland interests. In addition, the best examples of those peatland sites will be designated under the EU Habitats and Birds Directives and Ramsar Convention, affording them additional protection. We will consider the commercial production of peat alternatives in the light of the findings of the Peat Working Group, which will be publishing its report shortly.

  Leaseholders
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to introduce the system of commonhold for leaseholders in blocks of flats. [99217]

  Mr. Mullin
  As was announced in the Gracious Speech given on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 4–7, the Government will be publishing a draft joint Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session. The Commonhold aspects of the draft Bill are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Diabetics (Driving Licences)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review his policy on denying insulin-dependent diabetic sufferers 112W
  occupational driving licences; and if he will take into account in doing so the current inquiry by the Science and Technology Committee. [99278]

  Mr. Hill
  The driving licence treatment of those with diabetes treated by insulin is based on European legislation—the Second Driving Licence Directive (91/439/EEC). This, and its predecessor Directive (80/1263/EEC), provided for licensing restrictions on those with insulin-treated diabetes, in particular in respect of driving heavier vehicles, based on risks associated with insulin treatment. I cannot anticipate the report of the Science and Technology Committee.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many heavy goods vehicles Vehicle Excise Duty was paid in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99. [99418]

  Mr. Hill
  Only the end of year detailed licensed stock figures are readily available; this is a good approximation to the number of vehicles for which Vehicle Excise Duty was paid in each of the given years. The number of heavy goods vehicles in Great Britain licensed at the end of each year was as follows:

  Number

  1995

  417,900

  1996

  420,600

  1997

  422,400

  1998

  421,200

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received from the Chief Inspector of Railways on the effectiveness of the railway safety regime in place since rail privatisation; and if he will list the relevant papers and place copies in the Library. [99313]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: The Health and Safety Commission, together with the Health and Safety Executive (of which the Railway Inspectorate forms a part) is the sole rail safety regulator and advises my right hon. Friend on rail safety.

  Soon after the election, we made it clear that the HSC should bring forward whatever regulations they considered necessary to improve rail safety. Following public consultation, they recommended regulations to bring forward the elimination of slam-door rolling stock and install train protection systems across the network, which following signature by my right hon. Friend, were laid before Parliament in August this year.

  In October this year the HSC sent my right hon. Friend interim advice on Railtrack's Safety and Standards Directorate.

  Advice on the effectiveness of the railway safety regime is also included in the Chief Inspector of Railways' Annual Report on Railway Safety, and his provisional annual safety statistics.

  All these documents are available in the Library.

  Independent Safety Authority
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has produced of the cost of establishing an independent safety authority covering maritime, rail and aviation sectors of transport; [99618]

  (2) what plans he has to create an independent safety authority to cover road transport. [99619]

  Mr. Hill
  In response to recommendations from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee, the Government are reviewing the principles which should govern how transport safety is regulated and accidents investigated. The review is looking, among other things, at the case for a new safety authority which would embrace all of the transport modes, including roads. If it is decided that there would be benefits, including for safety, in making changes to the present arrangements, the Government will consider the most cost effective way of implementing them.

  Biodiversity Protocol
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he is making to his counterparts in the EU concerning the enforcement of a Biodiversity Protocol to be discussed in Montreal next January. [99495]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK and the EU are considering the concepts discussed at the informal consultations on the Biosafety Protocol held by the President of the Extraordinary Conference of the Parties (Ex-COP), Minister Mayr, in Vienna in September. I have put the UK views to my Ministerial colleagues at meetings of the Environment Council. The Environment Council is next due to discuss the Protocol and agree the framework for the negotiators at its meeting on December 13 and 14. The draft text of the protocol contains an article that the Parties to the Protocol would, at their first meeting, consider and approve cooperative procedures and institutional mechanisms to promote compliance with the provisions of the Protocol, and to address cases of non-compliance.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the provisional local government finance settlement for 2000–2001. [99885]

  Ms Armstrong
  I will make a statement in the House tomorrow announcing the Government's proposals for the local government finance settlement 2000–2001.

  Hammersmith and Fulham Executive Mayor
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he or any of his ministers last met the Executive Mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham; what the date was of that meeting; what was discussed at the meeting; and who else was present at the meeting. [98665]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions met my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Acton and 114W
  Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) and for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 4 November to discuss local government reform, including local government finance and the ongoing review of possible alternatives to Standard Spending Assessments, asylum seekers and homelessness, and how these relate to Hammersmith and Fulham. The Executive Mayor, the First Deputy and the Chief Executive of Hammersmith and Fulham also attended and took part in the discussions.

  I apologise that this information was not included in the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 11 November 1999, Official Report, column 699, in response to a similar question. The hon. Member will now know that I wrote to him on 17 November, as soon as the error became known, with the correct information and placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  National Land Information Service
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made in developing the National Land Information Service. [98746]

  Jane Kennedy
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following a successful pilot of the National Land Information Service in Bristol, the project is now being prepared for full commercial exploitation. As a first step, the Local Government Information House, on behalf of HM Land Registry and the Improvement and Development Agency, is seeking a contractor to deliver services that will provide online access to Land Registry and local authority data. The Lord Chancellor launched the prospectus, calling for responses from organisations interested in supplying the new service, on 8 October 1999. Responses are now being evaluated and potential suppliers shortlisted.

  This is a very exciting project that fully supports the "Modernising government" agenda. When implemented, it will facilitate faster and easier access to land information and make an important contribution to speeding up the house buying and selling process.

DEFENCE

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent in(a) legal fees, (b) travel costs and (c) other expenses in opposing the application at the European Court of Human Rights by former servicemen and servicewomen challenging the ban on homosexuals joining Her Majesty's Forces. [98587]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department has spent £25,000 in legal fees and approximately £1,000 in associated Departmental travel and subsistence costs in contesting the European Court of Human Rights application by homosexual ex-Service personnel.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in respect of how many service personnel the cause of illness sustained during the Gulf War campaign has still not been identified. [98580]

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

  Saffron Sands
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long the troops assigned to the Saffron Sands exercise will be in Jordan; and when they are expected to return. [99415]

  Mr. Spellar
  Exercise Saffron Sands 99 took place in Jordan between 26 September and 31 October 1999. All members of the battalion participating in the exercise were back in Cyprus by 3 November 1999.

  East Timor
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom soldiers are participating in the international peacekeeping force in East Timor. [99301]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 22 November 1999, there were 275 British Service personnel serving with the international peacekeeping force in East Timor (INTERFET), consisting of 262 Army personnel—of which 218 are from 2nd Battalion Royal Gurkha Rifles—12 RAF personnel and one Royal Marine.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Indonesian pilots have been trained in the UK in each of the last five years; and how this training has been funded. [99299]

  Mr. Spellar
  One Indonesian pilot attended a training course at RAF Valley in 1995, funded by the Ministry of Defence. No other training of Indonesian pilots has been carried out or funded by the MOD in the last five years. Training under commercial auspices is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Columbia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military personnel assistance his Department provides to Colombia; and for what purposes. [99430]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: UK military assistance is provided to Colombia to meet specific requests. Examples of training provided over the last ten years include Explosive Ordnance Disposal, search techniques and some assistance to the counter-narcotics authorities. In addition, advisory visits and information exchanges have taken place on operations in urban theatres, counter-guerrilla strategy, and psychiatry. Military assistance offered to the Colombians generally includes human rights elements.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been spent by his Department on 116W
  external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs.[99488]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This information cannot be provided since the Department no longer breaks down its expenditure against these categories.

  Arms Exhibitions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the assurance given by DSEI Ltd. that companies exhibiting at the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition would comply with the Government's policies and UK legislation; and what check was made to see that this was achieved. [99513]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The organisers agreed that all equipment on display at the exhibition (including promotional material) would comply with current HMG policy and that no equipment would be exhibited which the UK would not approve for export. MOD agreed to advise the organisers on the suitability of exhibits.

  UK contractors were bound by the Handbook of Industrial Security and their exhibits were scrutinised by MOD staff for compliance. Overseas exhibitors, although not bound by the Handbook, were subject to spot checks by MOD staff to ensure hardware on display was compliant with Government policies and UK legislation.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks and controls will be established for arms exhibitions held in the UK to ensure that exhibitors and organisers comply with the Landmines Act 1998. [99510]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Currently, there is no specific check for compliance with the Landmines Act 1998. However, anti-personnel landmines would be included as part of the normal spot check by MOD staff of all equipment on display. In addition, HM Customs and Excise routinely check all equipment imported into the country to ensure compliance with UK legislation, including the Landmines Act.

  Participation at any UK defence exhibitions is conditional on compliance with UK law, which includes the Landmines Act.

  Regarding checks of exhibits at UK defence exhibitions, UK contractors are scrutinised for compliance against the Handbook of Industrial Security. Overseas contractors are not bound by the Handbook of Industrial Security but have to comply with the organisers' requirements, which make compliance with UK law mandatory, and are subject to spot checks by MOD staff.

  These procedures will be reviewed for future UK defence exhibitions.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department's police investigation into alleged sales of anti-personnel mines at the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition in Chertsey, Surrey, to be completed. [99512]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Ministry of Defence Police are investigating allegations that a Romanian company advertised the sale of anti-personnel mines at the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition held at
  117W
  Chertsey in September 1999. I understand that the investigations are nearing completion at which point a file will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what checks were made of products for sale at Defence Systems and Equipment International for compliance with the Landmines Act 1998; and who was responsible for carrying out such checks. [99511]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Participation at Defence Systems and Equipment International was conditional on compliance with UK law, including compliance with the Landmines Act 1998.

  In addition to checks by HM Customs&Excise to ensure that no prohibited equipment, including anti-personnel landmines, was imported into the UK, all exhibits at DSEI by UK companies were subject to the provisions of the UK Handbook on Industrial Security and were scrutinised by MOD staff for compliance. Exhibits by overseas companies, although not bound by the provisions of the Handbook, were subject to spot checks by MOD staff to ensure that hardware on display was compliant with Government policies and UK legislation. No anti-personnel landmine equipment was observed.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to amend the Forestry Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000. [99886]

  Mr. Morley
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class X, Vote 3 (Forestry Commission) the Forestry Commission's Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £7,5000,000 from £68,615,000 to £76,115,000. The increase is the net effect of the fall in receipts from sales of timber, offset by savings in expenditure.

  The increase will be a charge on the Departmental Expenditure Limit Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 22 November; and if he will make a statement. [99748]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fisheries Council met in Brussels on 22 November. I led the UK delegation, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive.

  The Council agreed a regulation for financial aid to fisheries under the reformed EU Structural Funds, which provides for seven year funding programmes and sets conditions for payments. Grants for renewal and modernisation of the fleet may be paid only if the member state has met its overall fleet capacity (MAGP IV) limits. Where the relevant segment of the fleet exceeds
  118W
  its capacity target, the member state must withdraw 30 per cent. more vessel capacity than is grant aided. While these new controls are not as rigorous as I would have wished, they are a welcome innovation, establishing the important principle that grant aid should contribute towards improving the balance between fish resources and the capacity of members states' fleets. There will be a review in 2001 providing an opportunity to make any changes necessary as a result of decisions at the expiry of MAGP IV.

  The Council reached a political agreement on a reform of the fisheries marketing regime subject to the opinion of the European Parliament. The new regulation will provide lower tariffs for imports of fish which are important for our processing industry, while recognising the need to protect the interests of our catching industry in the import terms for sensitive species such as herring and cod and more generally by including provision to deal with serious market disturbance. After a transitional period it will reduce the costs of the regime.

  The Council received a presentation on a draft Regulation to establish a Community framework for the collection and management of data needed to conduct the Common Fisheries Policy. This will return to the Council after detailed examination. The Commission reported that on 20 December there would be a meeting with the Moroccan Minister of Fisheries to take forward the EU:Morocco negotiations. There was an initial discussion of means of implementation of the new control arrangements adopted by the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission; arrangements for 2000 will be considered at the next meeting of the Council on 16 and 17 December.

  Beef Ban
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on lifting the French ban on United Kingdom beef imports. [100163]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Discussions between the European Commission, the UK and France, have resulted in a document which will allow the French government to review its decision not to lift the ban on UK beef. This document has been referred to France's food safety advisory body, the AFSSA, by the French government.

  I have placed copies of the document in the Libraries of the House.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate has been made by his Department of the likely value of the hill farm allowance scheme for the South West Region on his present proposals; and how much he estimates the hill livestock compensatory allowances will be in the current year. [98604]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: HLCA payments in MAFF's South West Region (Devon, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly) in the current year (1999) will total around £6.27 million, over 14 per cent. of the total for England. These figures include a proportionate share of the extra £60 million (approximately £15.27 million in England), which we have announced will also be available in the year 2000. The proposals for Hill Farm

  119W
  Allowances which we published on 3 December will help maintain upland rural communities and preserve upland environments through sustainable beef and sheep production. There will be some impact on the amounts individual farmers receive, but the proposals have been designed to allow farmers time to adapt. We have made no estimate of any regional differences in the impact of the proposals.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Drug-related Crime
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the Merseyside Police Authority's budget has been spent on investigating drug-related crime and on preventing drug-related crime in each year since 1995. [99433]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: A breakdown of Merseyside Police expenditure in the form requested is not available.

  Operation Care
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many investigations similar to Operation Care are being undertaken in the United Kingdom. [99431]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: A recent survey of police forces conducted by the Association of Chief Police Officers indicated that 32 forces have carried out investigations into institutional child abuse.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of the individuals convicted as a result of Operation Care, how many have made applications to the Court of Appeal or the Crown Court. [99100]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that there have to date been no appeals against conviction by individuals convicted as a result of Operation Care. There have been three appeals against sentence, of which two were successful and one was unsuccessful.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have brought complaints against more than one person in Operation Care. [98684]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of multiple allegations covered by the Operation Care investigation made by one complainant against a number of persons is not readily available. I will provide further information when it has been collated.

  Victims' Compensation
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will assess the responses to the consultation on the paper, Compensation for Victims of Violent Crime. [98678]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have completed a preliminary analysis of the responses to the consultation exercise, but need to undertake further work before we 120W
  will be in a position to say how we plan to take matters forward. We hope to be able to announce our intentions fairly early in the new year.

  Criminal Injuries
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to review the guidelines for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in the light of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. [98677]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The implications for the Scheme of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights are being considered along with the Government's consideration of the responses to the recent consultation exercise.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will take to ensure guidance is consistent on the treatment of calculation of loss of pension; and if he will make a statement. [98483]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The administration and interpretation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is a matter for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (CICAP). I understand the Authority is drawing up a revised guidance for caseworkers and claims officers about the treatment of loss of pension.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements will be put in place to ensure old Criminal Injuries Compensation Board cases are considered by legally qualified persons after the CICB ceases to exist next year; and if he will make a statement. [98485]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the transitional provisions of the 1996 Scheme, made under powers conferred by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, any 1990 Scheme cases outstanding when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) is wound up (`the transfer date') will be transferred to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) for resolution by legally qualified members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (CICAP) in accordance with the terms of the 1990 Scheme. The transfer date is likely to be 1 April 2000.

  The Panel already contains many legally qualified members who will be able to deal with 1990 Scheme cases. Many of them are also members of the Board. The Panel's strength is likely to be doubled next year when new appointments are made as a result of a major new recruitment exercise set in hand in October. Many of the new appointees will be lawyers. Additionally, a number of Board members, who are not already members of the Panel, are being invited to join the Panel from the transfer date specifically to deal with residual 1990 Scheme cases.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will issue guidance on the justified exceptional risk rule; and if he will make a statement. [98482]
  121W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The administration and interpretation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is a matter for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel (CICAP). Some guidance on the interpretation of the exceptional risk rule is given in the Guide to the Scheme issued by CICA. The Authority will consider whether further guidance would be helpful.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial aid was given by his Department in the last 12 months to organisations that assist victims of domestic violence. [98453]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office has lead responsibility for violence against women, the Government's plans set out in "Living Without Fear" and the co-ordination of policy against domestic violence. But most central Government funding for the victims of domestic violence remains channelled through budgets which reflect the responsibilities of other Departments or local agencies.

  The Home Office is increasing the funding of Victim Support, which supports all victims of crime, including those who have experienced domestic violence, from £12.7 million in 1998 to £19 million by 2001. In addition, at least £6 million is being made available from the Crime Reduction Programme for projects addressing domestic violence, rape and sexual assault.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the training of prison officers in order to combat bullying in young offenders centres. [98674]

  Mr. Boateng
  The initial training course for new prison officers has recently been reviewed, and now includes additional specific training for those who will work with young people. The training covers the Prison Service's anti-bullying policy and the standards expected of prison officers as well as the particular requirements for work with the young.

  The service has also developed an anti-bullying training programme for delivery locally in prison establishments which will be available early in the new year.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the rates of(a) suicide and (b) self-harm for each young offenders' institution in each of the last five years. [98478]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Rates of self-inflicted deaths per 1,000 population

  Young offender institutions

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Aylesbury

  0

  5

  0

  7

  0

  Castington

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Dover

  0

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Feltham

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Glen Parva

  0

  0

  2

  1

  2

  Guys Marsh

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  122W

  Rates of self-inflicted deaths per 1,000 population

  Young offender institutions

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Onley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Portland

  3

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Reading

  0

  0

  0

  0

  14

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  10

  5

  0

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wetherby

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rates of self-harm per 1,000 population

  Young offender institutions

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aylesbury

  140

  96

  79

  106

  226

  Castington

  88

  42

  44

  42

  69

  Deerbolt

  427

  418

  278

  205

  200

  Dover

  62

  27

  30

  33

  23

  Feltham

  129

  639

  284

  327

  330

  Glen Parva

  102

  108

  93

  155

  143

  Guys Marsh

  52

  66

  73

  82

  63

  Hatfield

  16

  0

  25

  7

  13

  Huntercombe

  91

  52

  25

  69

  27

  Onley

  75

  222

  96

  137

  125

  Portland

  98

  59

  61

  30

  60

  Reading

  345

  290

  333

  314

  174

  Stoke Heath

  201

  221

  159

  162

  191

  Swinfen Hall

  33

  44

  168

  64

  31

  Thorn Cross

  11

  54

  13

  4

  0

  Wetherby

  286

  358

  441

  103

  131

  Notes:

  1. Establishments have been listed according to their primary role, thus a number of other prisons that hold young offenders (e.g. male remand centres) are not shown.

  2. Not all self-inflicted deaths conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  3. Incidents do not equate to numbers of prisoners as an individual prisoner may self-harm more than once.

  4. Self-harm data are derived from information provided by establishments to the Prison Service's Directorate of Health Care.

  HMP Woodhill
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the general regime at the high-security disruptive prisoner unit at HMP Woodhill; and whether there are facilities, including treatment facilities, for prisoners detained in that unit who have significant mental health problems. [98449]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are three close supervision centres (CSCs) in Woodhill prison offering restricted, structured and intervention regimes. These provide a co-ordinated range of regimes to manage seriously disruptive prisoners. The regimes aim to facilitate change and encourage improved behaviour.

  Prison doctors are encouraged to identify prisoners who need to be detained for medical treatment for mental disorder and to initiate action to effect their transfer to a suitable facility under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983.

  There are no specific facilities for prisoners at Woodhill who have significant mental health problems. However, there is a CSC support centre at Durham prison for prisoners who may benefit from psychological support with psychiatric advice where appropriate.

  Police Funding
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his reasons were for not changing the formula for police funding relating to sparsity factor.[99055]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The findings of the independent research report on policing sparsely populated rural areas were considered by a Home Office chaired Working Group, which included representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities, in the summer. There was no single view within the Working Group on the conclusions of the report. There was general agreement that a scarcity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula.

  We have also taken into consideration the need for stability in the police funding system to enable police authorities to plan ahead. In the July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch With the People", my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) whilst a fundamental review of the SSA system across local government is conducted. This applies equally to the method of police grant distribution, as a common formula is used for distribution of police grant and SSA.

  In the light of these factors our present intention is that, subject to consultation and parliamentary approval, we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. We do not therefore propose to make any substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year.

  Rural police forces will continue to benefit from the existing 'scarcity' element of the funding formula. This element allocates 0.5 per cent. of the available funding (about £35 million) on a judgmental basis.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the impact of his funding policies on the number of police officers there will be in Gloucestershire in the financial year 2000–01; and how many additional police officers he estimates there will be in Gloucestershire in 2000–01. [99056]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The powers of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to set police establishment levels for each force were removed under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is for the chief officer to determine staffing levels within the overall resources available. We will be announcing shortly the proposed funding allocations for police authorities in England and Wales for 2000–01.

  In addition, the Government are making available additional resources, in a new ring-fenced Crime Fighting Fund, to enable the police to recruit 5,000 more officers, over and above the number that would otherwise have been recruited over the next three years.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his recommendations following the Home Office Working Group report on additional costs associated with the policing of sparsely populated rural areas. [98586]
  124W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The findings of the independent research report on policing sparsely populated rural areas were considered by a Home Office chaired Working Group, which included representatives of the police service, police authorities and local authorities, in the summer. There was no single view within the Working Group on the conclusions of the report. There was general agreement that a sparsity factor had been detected, but less agreement about how to include it appropriately in the police funding formula.

  We have also taken into account the need for stability in the police funding system to enable police authorities to plan ahead. In the July 1998 White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People", my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that we would not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) while a fundamental review of the SSA system across local government is conducted. This applies equally to the method of police grant distribution, as a common formula is used for distribution of police grant and SSA.

  Rural police forces will continue to benefit from the existing 'sparsity' element in the funding formula. This element allocates 0.5 per cent. of the available funding (about £35 million) on a judgmental basis.

  Our present intention is that, subject to consultation and approval by the House, we shall not make any changes to the method of police grant distribution for 2000–01. We do not therefore propose to make any substantive changes to the operation of the police funding formula for next year.

  Handcuffs
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the UK police or prison services use oversize cuffs; and what research and policy guidelines the Police Scientific Development Branch has issued on the standards of handcuffs, oversize cuffs and other restraining equipment. [98540]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: The purchase of handcuffs and other equipment is an operational matter for chief officers of police. I understand that the handcuffs normally in use are rigid speedcuffs, sometimes known as quick-cuffs. The Police Scientific Development Branch has not issued guidelines on standards for handcuffs or other restraining equipment, but guidelines on the use of handcuffs has been issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  I understand that each Prison Service establishment in England and Wales is issued with two sets of oversize cuffs for use as necessary with prisoners with exceptionally large wrists.

  British Summer Time
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the advantages of abandoning British summer time in England and Wales. [98582]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The advantages of maintaining British summer time in the winter in terms of increasing the amount of afternoon daylight would be offset by the equivalent loss of morning daylight, which would have
  125W
  added impact for the northern areas of England as well as for Scotland. The issues remain as set out in a consultation document published by the Home Office in 1989.

  Burglary Prevention
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to make it easier for individuals to use reasonable force to prevent burglars entering their property or removing items from it. [98490]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime. I have no plans to amend that legislation.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Passport Agency concerning changes to the fees it charges to the general public. [99383]

  Mrs. Roche
  Passport fees are reviewed on an annual basis and a number of options regarding fee levels for this year have been submitted for consideration.

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will place in the Library the conclusions of his consideration of the financial implications of the Government's proposals to change the right of defendants to elect trial by jury; [99059]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the net cost savings which will be made if the Government's proposals to limit the right to elect for trial by jury were implemented. [98760]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: It is estimated that around 12,000 fewer defendants will be tried in the Crown Court annually. These defendants would instead be tried in magistrates' courts. We estimate that the savings to the criminal justice system will be £105 million, taking into account the costs of appeals against the magistrates' decision.

  Exclusion Orders
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many exclusion orders have been made under paragraph 320(6) of the Immigration Rules for each nationality, in each of the past five years; and how many people have(a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully contested such exclusion orders. [99411]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of persons excluded in each of the past five years is given in the table. This includes both those refused under paragraph 320(6) of the Immigration Rules and those excluded from the United Kingdom where my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, has reason to believe they intend to travel to this country.

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Canada

  —

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Libya

  3

  —

  5

  4

  4

  Egypt

  —

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Russia

  11

  9

  2

  13

  6

  Iraq

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  126W

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  19991

  Iran

  5

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Algeria

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Former Republic of Yugoslavia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  India

  —

  1

  3

  1

  1

  Pakistan

  2

  5

  4

  2

  —

  Sri Lanka

  —

  —

  2

  —

  3

  Other2

  19

  5

  6

  2

  2

  Total

  40

  22

  33

  25

  26

  11999 to date

  2Includes various other nationalities and those of doubtful nationality

  The law currently in force provides a right of appeal against exclusion decisions in only a limited range of cases, and such appeals are to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. No such appeals have so far been heard.

  There is one recorded challenge of an exclusion decision by judicial review, in the case of the Reverend Moon, which did not quash the decision but found that the Reverend Moon should have been given an opportunity to respond to the reasons for excluding him.

  Police (Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers are stationed for duty in(a) Chelmsford town and (b) West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency; and how many there were in 1996–97; [98518]

  (2) what proposals he has to (a) increase or (b) decrease the number of police officers stationed for duty in (i) Chelmsford town and (ii) West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency. [98519]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: I understand from the chief constable that there are 103 police officers stationed at Chelmsford and Moulsham police stations who are directly involved with the policing of Chelmsford Town. This section is also responsible for the policing of a number of villages around Chelmsford. The chief constable is unable to provide figures for 1996–97 or in respect of the area covered by the West Chelmsford parliamentary constituency.

  The powers of my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary, to set police establishment levels for each force were removed under the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. It is for the chief officer to determine staffing levels and deployment within the overall resources available. We will be announcing shortly the proposed funding allocations for police authorities in England and Wales for 2000–01.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many targets have been agreed between her Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from her own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99471]
  127W
  Clare Short
  My Department has adopted a series of International Development Targets which are set out in the Government's White Paper on International Development. These targets have been drawn from the major UN conferences of the last decade and provide the basis for this Government's results orientated approach to development.

  Working for the achievement of these International Development Targets, which have been endorsed by Governments across the world, bilateral and multilateral development organisations and NGOs, is central to the Department for International Development's work.

  Individual targets have not been agreed with local authorities or other bodies in this country.

  NGOs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the policy of her Department on consulting NGOs when considering giving financial aid and assistance to countries. [98442]

  Clare Short
  Our policies for the reduction of poverty, our principal objective, are set out in the Country Strategy Papers. These papers are produced through a process of consultation which includes local NGOs and UK NGOs as well as the country's government, the research community and the private sector. The papers are available in the Library of the House and are also available to the public in the UK and in the country concerned.

  Angola
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further commitments Her Majesty's Government plans to support rehabilitation and development in Angola; and what is Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to the provision of rehabilitation and development assistance to Angola. [99154]

  Clare Short
  Our major commitment to rehabilitation is the Luanda Urban Poverty Programme, which started earlier this year. We are working through iNGOs to tackle the needs and priorities of the urban poor in Luanda. The political and military situation makes development work impossible. We are therefore focusing on the provision of humanitarian assistance.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the current shortfall for the United Nations 1999 Consolidated inter-Agency Appeal for Angola. [99150]

  Clare Short
  The requirement in the revised United Nations 1999 Consolidated inter-Agency Appeal for Angola stands at $110,840,321. As of October 1999, total funds available amounted to US$82,127,986.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further commitments Her Majesty's Government plans to make to the United Nations 1999 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Angola.[99152]
  128W
  Clare Short
  We are considering our response to the UN's recently published 2000 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Angola.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds or other resources Her Majesty's Government have contributed to emergency assistance outside the United Nations 1999 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Angola. [99151]

  Clare Short
  We have committed £1.8 million through international non-governmental organisations and the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1999 for their work in Angola.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds have been allocated to rehabilitation and development in Angola in each of the last five years, broken down by major programme. [99153]

  Clare Short
  Total UK Bilateral Assistance to Angola in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Expenditure £ million

  Development Humanitarian assistance

  Financial year

  aid

  (non-food)

  (food-aid)

  Total

  1994–95

  0.7

  6.9

  1.3

  8.9

  1995–96

  1.8

  6.6

  4.5

  12.9

  1996–97

  3.9

  2.5

  3.4

  9.8

  1997–98

  3.6

  1.5

  0.0

  5.1

  1998–99

  2.0

  2.5

  0.0

  4.5

  Total 1994–99

  12.0

  20.0

  9.2

  41.2

  The line for development aid includes assistance to the "Health Transition Project", where we provided support in the health sector through international non-governmental organisations (iNGOs) and the World Health Organisation; support to Save the Children Fund for the provision of seeds and tools; community level projects through iNGOs and an English Language Training programme. Earlier this year we started the Luanda Urban Poverty programme in which we are working through iNGOs to tackle the needs and priorities of the urban poor in Luanda.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funds or other resources Her Majesty's Government have(a) pledged and (b) disbursed to the United Nations 1999 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Angola by (i) appealing organisation and (ii) sector; and if she will make a statement. [99149]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has:(a) pledged a total of £2,021,000 to the United Nations 1999 Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Angola, of which; (b) £900,000 has been disbursed.

  In addition we are providing US$6 million (about £3.75 million) for food aid through the World Food Programme.

  We have made contributions to the following organisations.
  129W

  Organizations

  Appeal number

  Pledged (£)

  Disbursed (£)

  Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

  ANG-99–1/N01

  200,000

  200,000

  OCHA Emergency Response Fund (ERF)

  ANG-99–1/N03

  350,000

  350,000

  World Food Programme (WFP)

  ANG-99–1/N05

  200,000

  200,000

  United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

  ANG-99–1/N07

  150,000

  150,000

  OCHA ERF

  ANG-99–1/N03

  1150,000

  WFP

  ANG-99–1/N05

  1150,000

  WFP

  ANG-99–1/N08

  1150,000

  UNICEF

  ANG-99–1/N07

  1200,000

  World Health Organisation (WHO)

  ANG-99–1/N09

  1321,000

  ANG-99–1/N10

  1321,000

  ANG-99–1/N11

  1321,000

  Allocation under discussion with OCHA/humanitarian Assistance Co-ordinating Unit, Angola (UCAH)

  150,000

  Total

  2,021,000

  900,000

  1Awaiting funding agreement to be signed

  The actual and proposed contributions fall under the following sectors (as designated by the United Nations in the 1999 Consolidated Appeal):

  Sector

  Appeal number

  Amount (£)

  Percentage of total proposed contribution

  Co-ordination and Support Services

  ANG-99–1/N01

  1,050,000

  51

  ANG-99–1/N03

  1,050,000

  51

  ANG-99–1/N05

  1,050,000

  51

  Health, Nutrition, Non-Food items, Water and Sanitation

  ANG-99–1/N07

  871,000

  42

  ANG-99–1/N08

  871,000

  42

  ANG-99–1/N09

  871,000

  42

  ANG-99–1/N10

  871,000

  42

  ANG-99–1/N11

  871,000

  42

  To be allocated

  150,000

  7

  Development Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the outcome of the Development Council held in Brussels on 11 November; and if he will make a statement. [98508]

  Clare Short
  Poul Nielson, the Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, addressed the Council for the first time. He set out five priorities for future EC development co-operation: increased focus on the poorest countries; improved effectiveness of EC assistance; greater complementarity with the work of other donors and greater coherence with other EC policies; better linkages between emergency aid, rehabilitation and development; and building greater public support for EC assistance.

  The Council then discussed forestry, climate change and the integration of environmental issues into EC development policies. The UK stressed the need to focus on the International Development Target for the environment and to engage developing countries in the environmental agenda. The UK stated that the poor, who were dependent on environmental resources, should be placed at the centre of the discussion, and that this would help to build developing country support. The Commission said it would provide more environmental training for its staff. The Council adopted a resolution on forestry, conclusions on climate change and a report on environmental integration. The conclusions include a call on the Commission to prepare a strategy to integrate the environment into development co-operation. The Helsinki European Council in December will make an overall assessment of progress in integrating the environment into EC policies, as requested by the Vienna European Council last year.
  130W
  Next, the Council discussed progress in the ACP-EU negotiations on a successor to the current Lomé Convention, which expires on 29 February 2000. Most member states, including the UK, favoured a compromise suggested by the Commission on how to raise the profile of good governance in the new Convention. All member states except Spain supported agreement based on a Presidency non-paper on trade, which would ensure that ACP countries retained, at the very least, their current levels of access to EU markets. This is a key UK concern. The UK stressed the importance of ensuring that the agreement on trade would be granted a WTO waiver. Following a request from the UK, the Commission undertook to bring forward proposals to meet the commitment to improve duty free access for the least developed countries by the end of the next Trade Round. There was a discussion of the ninth European Development Fund (EDF9), which will fund the new Convention. The UK pointed out that evaluations had shown the poor quality of past EDFs, and called for specific proposals for improvement to be brought forward next year. Discussions will continue at a meeting between ACP and EU Ministers on 7–8 December.

  The Council adopted conclusions on East Timor which invited the Commission to respond in an appropriate and timely manner to the United Nations Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for the East Timor crisis; and to present, as soon as possible, a detailed programme of assistance to support the reconstruction of East Timor.

  The Council then discussed the evaluation of EC development programmes. The Commission said that it would soon produce a detailed Action Plan for the implementation of the recommendations of the global

  131W
  evaluation of EC aid and the Council conclusions on evaluation of May 1999. The Commission outlined its plan for improving the effectiveness of EC aid, which included improving and simplifying procedures, and introducing a more rigorous monitoring system. An overall EC development policy statement would be presented to the Council and European Parliament in February 2000. The UK emphasised the importance of this statement, and that it must focus on the International Development Targets, have clear and measurable objectives, follow a wide process of consultation, and address coherence issues and aid untying. The Commission agreed to report in detail on the Action Plan and statement at the next Council in May 2000. Procedural conclusions committing the Council to follow up the evaluation of humanitarian aid were adopted without discussion.

  The Council discussed operational co-ordination, complementarity and coherence. Most member states had agreed that co-ordination between their overseas offices and EC delegations had improved. Luxembourg called for the Commission to set up a system in co-operation with member states to deter NGOs from illegally seeking double funding. The Commission replied that it was for national authorities to deal with such cases of fraud; a further layer of bureaucracy was not the answer. The Development Council agreed that its decisions on policy coherence were not being implemented by other Councils. The Commission agreed to produce a list of policies which would benefit from greater coherence for other Council formations to consider.

  Under Other Business, the Commission agreed to examine a French request to resume broader financial support for Burundi. The UK presented a case for more aid to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries, and urged member states to send strong delegations to the OECD meeting in Paris on 18–19 November. At lunch Belgium called for support to improve the capacity of developing countries to engage with the WTO. The UK, with support from several other member states, then spoke on the importance of improving the poverty focus of EC development assistance, which was worse than that of all other significant donors. The UK urged the Commission to produce a paper on how it would increase the proportion of spending on low income countries. The Commission said that poverty focus was difficult to achieve, but that it would produce a paper by next Spring. Finally, the Commission called for suggestions for discussion at the EU-Africa summit in April.

  Hurricane Floyd
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the(a) loss of life and (b) estimated value of the damage caused by Hurricane Floyd; and which islands were particularly affected. [99204]

  Clare Short
  One person in Bahamas was reported to have died as a result of Hurricane Floyd. The Government of Bahamas estimate of the value of the damage caused by the hurricane is $400 million. The most seriously affected islands in the Bahamas were Eleuthra, Abaco, Cat Island, San Salvador and Grand Bahama.
  132W
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance was(a) sought from and (b) given by her Department to the Bahamas as a result of Hurricane Floyd. [99203]

  Clare Short
  Following Hurricane Floyd, my Department received appeals for funds to assist the Bahamas from the Bahamian Red Cross and the Bahamian National Disaster Relief Fund. £15,625 ($25,000) was donated to each appeal.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been spent by her Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) her Department's programme provision and (ii) her Department's running costs. [99482]

  Clare Short
  The amounts spent on external consultants and advisers in the last three financial years are as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  1.79

  1998–99

  1.83

  1999–2000 (to date)

  0.81

  All these sums have been funded from the Department's Running Costs Provision.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development with the Governments of which countries she has discussed the issue of child labour during the last 12 months. [98441]

  Clare Short
  My Department is actively involved in tackling the issue of child labour with a number of countries. We have recently agreed projects with the Government's of India and Bangladesh. We are also supporting the work of the International Labour Organisation's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) and have recently agreed funding for a project based in Thailand which will combat trafficking of children in the Mekong sub-region covering part of Cambodia, China, Laos, and Vietnam. We are also supporting projects in Brazil, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan, Nepal and Indonesia where we are working in collaboration with government and non-governmental organisations.

  We are also addressing the problem of child labour through our basic education projects and our support to socially responsible business such as the Ethical Trading Initiative.

  Mozambique
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she is giving to Mozambique to tackle the problem of HIV/AIDS. [98612]

  Clare Short
  My Department for International Development (DFID) provided technical help for preparation of Mozambique' s HIV/AIDS Strategic Plan, and plans to assist in its implementation. We support the
  133W
  social marketing of condoms throughout Mozambique, targeting high risk groups. We are promoting AIDS awareness in the private sector, and through civil society.

  HIV/AIDS issues are being mainstreamed throughout the programme. HIV prevention and impact mitigation is being incorporated in workplans in DFID supported projects such as feeder roads. We are assisting the private sector to better understand and respond to the economic impact of HIV/AIDS.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Safeway
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will support a reference to the Competition Commission in respect of the policy of Safeway to require a £20,000 contribution per product line from suppliers in return for guaranteed shelf space. [99323]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission is already investigating the supply of groceries from supermarkets. The Commission's terms of reference would allow them to investigate relationships between supermarkets and their suppliers. The exact scope of investigations is a matter for the Commission.

  The nature of the relationship between the supermarkets and their suppliers was flagged up as an area of concern by the Director General of Fair Trading in his press notice announcing the reference.

  Pirate Radio Stations
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pirate radio stations have been prosecuted in each of the last three years. [99831]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is the people involved with the pirate radio stations who are prosecuted as the stations themselves are not an identifiable body. Details of prosecutions in the past three years are as follows:

  Year

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  1997

  41

  41

  1998

  53

  53

  19991

  39

  39

  1To 30 September 1999

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average fine imposed on pirate radio stations where a conviction has been obtained in relation to illegal broadcasting in each of the last three years. [99832]

  Ms Hewitt
  The average fine imposed on individuals convicted of offences relating to pirate radio broadcasting in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Average fine £

  1997

  272

  1998

  452

  19991

  248

  1To 30 September 1999

  134W
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how equipment confiscated from pirate radio stations following convictions in relation to illegal broadcasting is dealt with. [99833]

  Ms Hewitt
  The vast majority of equipment ordered forfeit by the courts is destroyed to prevent it getting back onto the market.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action is taken against organisations which(a) advertise on and (b) sponsor pirate radio stations. [99834]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is an offence contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to advertise on or sponsor pirate radio stations. If evidence to substantiate such offences can be obtained those involved are prosecuted.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the benefits of(a) paying compensation and (b) giving refunds to community radio stations which are unable to take full advantage of their broadcasting licences because of the actions of pirate radio stations. [99758]

  Ms Hewitt
  With respect to the Wireless Telegraphy Act, the Agency endeavours to ensure interference-free spectrum for use by legitimate broadcasters. The Agency deals with this by taking direct action against pirate radio stations (928 raids nationally last year). This action is entirely funded by the revenue generated by the WT Act Licence.

  The Agency regularly reviews its policies and has considered the issues of compensation and refunds. However, at present, it is felt that direct action is the best way of combating interference and current Agency policy reflects this.

  Export Credits
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what were the amounts of export credits which were paid to UK companies following non-payment of bills in each year since 1979 for which records are available; [98740]

  (2) what were the amounts of export credit guarantees issued in each year since 1979 for which records are available. [98739]

  Mr. Caborn
  Complete records are available from 1986 only. The table sets out for each of the years from 1986 the Sterling equivalent of Guarantees issued and the value of Claims paid in each of these years. Included for information is the value of recoveries and interest received by ECGD.

  The Claims and recoveries will not relate to the Guarantees in that year.

  £ million

  Financial year

  Value of Guarantees issued

  Claims paid

  Recoveries and interest

  1986–87

  2,709.1

  780.3

  394.7

  1987–88

  1,849.4

  987.3

  322.3

  1988–89

  2,255.7

  810.4

  325.7

  1989–90

  2,012.4

  912.9

  379.1

  1990–91

  2,421.3

  967.5

  477.7

  1991–92

  2,739.2

  954.1

  472.9

  135W

  £ million

  Financial year

  Value of Guarantees issued

  Claims paid

  Recoveries and interest

  1992–93

  4,475.2

  734.3

  474.1

  1993–94

  4,268.5

  511.9

  398.9

  1994–95

  3,347.8

  421.3

  341.1

  1995–96

  4,195.8

  294.7

  473.2

  1996–97

  2,629.1

  230.6

  553.2

  1997–98

  3,252.5

  165.7

  486.4

  1998–99

  3,308.5

  145.8

  393.0

  EU Firms
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many firms from EU member states operate in each of the English regions. [98577]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table shows the number of local units owned by EU-owned enterprises in each English region in March 1999. The figures do not represent the number of EU-owned enterprises in England as one enterprise may own several of the local units shown here. Supplying figures for enterprises would show a concentration in London and the South East, where head offices tend to be located.

  Number of EU-owned local units in England—March 1999

  Region

  Number

  North East

  560

  North West

  1,740

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  1,205

  East Midlands

  910

  West Midlands

  1,590

  Eastern

  1,460

  London

  3,050

  South East

  2,605

  South West

  1,090

  Total

  14,205

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Parental Leave
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received relating to paid parental leave. [98668]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department has received representations, both for and against paid parental leave, from a number of individuals and organisations since the Fairness at Work White Paper was published in Summer 1998. We have recently received over 250 letters as part of an NSPCC campaign for paid parental leave.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Maintained Schools
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per pupil in maintained schools in each year for each of the last 20 years. [98630]
  136W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table presents the unit costs per pupil for LEA maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England for the period 1979–80 to 2001–02. The costs are presented both in cash terms and in real terms (i.e. constant 1999–2000 prices). The budgets from 1998–2002 are the responsibility of this administration. Previous budgets had been set, distributed and agreed before May 1997.

  Unit costs (in cash and real terms) per pupil in LEA maintained

  schools in England

  £

  Unit costs (per FTE pupil)

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1979–801

  510

  1,450

  1980–811

  650

  1,550

  1981–821

  740

  1,610

  1982–831

  810

  1,640

  1983–841

  870

  1,690

  1984–851

  925

  1,710

  1985–861

  990

  1,730

  1986–871

  1,110

  1,890

  1987–881

  1,240

  2,000

  1988–891

  1,360

  2,050

  1989–901

  1,490

  2,090

  1990–911

  1,620

  2,120

  1991–921

  1,750

  2,150

  1992–931

  1,860

  2,210

  1993–941

  1,870

  2,170

  1994–951

  1,890

  2,160

  1995–961

  1,190

  2,120

  1996–971

  1,960

  2,110

  1997–982

  1,980

  2,070

  1998–993

  2,050

  2,090

  1999–20013

  2,150

  2,150

  2000–013

  2,270

  2,210

  2001–023

  2,400

  2,290

  1Actual outturn

  2Provisional outturn

  3Projected estimate

  Education Budget (Sefton)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the total education budget of Sefton Metropolitan Borough was spent on administration in each year from 1992 to 1998. [98597]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  For the years from 1992 to 1998, the percentage of the total education budget of Sefton Metropolitan Borough which was spent on administration was as follows:

  Year

  Percentage

  1992–93

  3.7

  1993–94

  4.0

  1994–95

  2.9

  1995–96

  2.8

  1996–97

  2.8

  1997–98

  2.8

  New Deal (Yorkshire)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people in(a) Don Valley, (b) Doncaster and (c) South Yorkshire will benefit from the extended New Deal. [98455]
  137W
  Ms Jowell
  The Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget report that the existing New Deal 25 plus pilots should be extended until March 2001. This will give us a valuable opportunity to learn more lessons to inform the detail of the enhanced New Deal for people aged 25 and over which we intend to introduce in April 2001. There are currently two pilots in South Yorkshire, but we cannot at this stage say how many additional people in those areas will be helped as a result of this extension, because there are a number of detailed issues which we need to explore on a pilot by pilot basis.

  Civil Servants (Darlington)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many civil servants are employed at his Department's offices in Darlington; and how many he expects to be employed there in(a) 2000, (b) 2001 and (c) 2002. [99054]

  Mr. Wills
  The number of civil servants employed by the Department for Education and Employment at its headquarters office in Darlington as at 1 April 1999 was 498. Staffing projections for future years are not available. However, when the Secretary of State spoke to staff in Darlington and Runcorn, in 1997, he indicated, that for the lifetime of this Parliament, there would be a continuing need for both sites.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the education initiatives launched since May 1997 and for each financial year, the amount of departmental expenditure which has been identified as additional to that which would have been incurred as part of normal operational activity. [98835]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: The figures for central government spending on education in England which were published in DfEE's 1999 Departmental Report together with the year on year increases, are in the following table. They do not include Ofsted or local authority expenditure on education.

  Year

  £ million

  1996–97

  11,266

  1997–98

  11,642

  1998–99

  12,054

  1999–2000

  13,474

  2000–01

  15,282

  2001–02

  16,617

  Note:

  1997–98 does not include the £527 million which was transferred from local to central government spending in that year only for nursery vouchers.

  These figures show that, by 2001–02, we will be spending nearly £5.4 billion more from central government resources on education than was spent under the previous administration in 1996–97. This is as a result of the extra £16 billion for total education spending in England over the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02 provided by the Comprehensive Spending Review, and the extra £400 million for England over this period from the Capital Modernisation Fund as announced
  138W
  in the March 1999 Budget. In addition, over £140 million of extra resources have been allocated for capital in English schools as part of the pre-Budget package.

  Details of DfEE initiatives launched since May 1997 can be found in the Department's 1998 and 1999 annual reports (Cm 3910 and Cm 4202), copies of which have been laid in the Library.

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent guidance he has given to education authorities about the extent and nature of support to be given to pupils affected by dyslexia. [99419]

  Jacqui Smith
  Under the Education Act 1996, schools and local education authorities (LEAs) have a duty to identify and make suitable provision for all children with special educational needs, including children with dyslexia. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, which came into effect on 1 September 1994, gives guidance to schools and LEAs on how to meet this duty. Paragraphs 3.60 to 3.63 provide guidance on specific learning difficulties and have particular reference to dyslexia. The Code is currently being revised to update the guidance and provide examples of good practice, with an increased emphasis on early identification and support.

  To assist schools in recognising dyslexia, we have produced simple guidance which provides hints to primary school teachers to help them identify children who may be dyslexic. In addition, the Department has recently provided a grant to help the British Dyslexia Association produce a schools resource pack entitled "Achieving dyslexia friendly schools". Two copies of the pack have been distributed to all local education authorities in England.

  Education Action Zones
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the annual audited accounts of each education action zone in Round 1 were due to be submitted to his Department. [99231]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The accounts are not submitted to the Department. The National Audit Office will lay the 25 sets of accounts before Parliament. The NAO expects to lay the first of these in December.

  Capital Expenditure (Schools)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will state for each financial year to 2001–02, how much of the money announced for capital expenditure on schools(a) amounts to additional spending above the level included in expenditure plans announced before May 1997 and (b) is included in the additional expenditure announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm. 4011). [98644]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: Since May 1997, we have announced for England £1.085 billion for the New Deal for Schools programme; £90 million for class size reduction and heating systems and outside toilet replacements; and an additional £660 million in PH credits. All of those amounts are additional to the £19 billion increase in UK education

  139W
  spending announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). As well as those increases, the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Statement this month announced a further £143 million for PFI credits and New Deal for Schools funding in England.

  The total expenditure on schools buildings in the three year CSR period is £5.5 billion, following the additional funds announced in the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Statement. This breaks down as follows: £1.3 billion in 1999–2000, £1.6 billion in 2000–01 and £1.9 billion in 2001–02, plus an estimate of additional contributions from local education authorities and school governors. In 1996–97, planned central Government expenditure in the main schools capital programme was £661 million (as set out in the Department's Report in March 1996, Cm 3210).

  Capital spend per pupil has increased from £348 in 1994–98 to an estimated £780 in 1998–02.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list separately for each financial year covered by the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm. 4011) for all capital expenditure on schools(a) the amounts to be spent in the form of cash grants to local education authorities and schools, (b) the amounts to be spent in the form of credit approvals and (c) amounts to be spent by other means. [98653]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: In 1999–2000, the Department expects to allocate £454 million in credit approvals out of the £713 million for the main schools capital programme. The remaining £259 million will be given out as grant, including that for Voluntary Aided and Grant Maintained Schools. The main schools capital programme will total £963 million in 2000–01 and £1.3 billion in 2001–02. The proportion of credit approvals for those two years has not yet been finalised. In addition to the main programme, the Department will be providing grant funding of over £200 million in each of the three years for the National Grid for learning, class sizes reduction, Sure Start and specialist schools. The Department will also be providing funding under the New Deal for Schools of £250 million in 1999–2000, £293 million in 2000–01 and £250 million in 2001–02; and PFI credits of £350 million in 1999–2000, £350 million in 2000–01 and £450 million in 2001–02.

  From April 2000, the Department will be providing nearly £200 million each year to schools in the form of formula grant. Schools will also have the opportunity to bid for £30 million of seed challenge funding for innovative investment programmes.

  We expect the Department's funding to be enhanced by partnership contributions from local education authorities and school governors of £800 million over the CSR period.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funds allocated from the windfall tax levy to the New Deal for Schools were counted as part of the additional expenditure on education announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm. 4011). [99424]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: None. The £1.085 billion for the New Deal for Schools announced in July 1997 is additional to the £19 billion
  140W
  increase in UK education spending announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. A further £43 million for the New Deal for Schools was announced by the Chancellor in the Pre-Budget statement on 9 November, together with the extension of the PH credits by £100 million.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding was and will be(a) provided and (b) planned by his Department as revenue support to local education authorities in England to meet private sector annual charges for private finance initiative projects in each financial year from 1997–98 to 2001–02; what percentage of the total cost to local education authorities of these projects this represents; and which of these amounts were counted as part of the additional money announced as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (Cm. 4011). [99423]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 23 November 1999]: We will be providing PFI credits to local education authorities totalling £130 million in 1998–99, £350 million in 1999–2000, £350 million in 2000–01 and £450 million in 2001–02. The amount of PH credits allocated to an individual project determines the revenue support grant which will begin to be paid to the authority once payments to the contractor commence. The percentage of the total cost to the authority represented by the grant will vary from one project to another and no figures are available.

  Within these total allocations, £660 million, £220 million in each of the years 1999–2000, 2000–01 and 2001–02, was announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review. That addition to previous provision was not part of the overall increase of £19 billion in UK education spending announced in the Review.

  A further £100 million of PFI credits for 2001–02 was announced by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget statement on 9 November—again this is within the total figures above.

  Gifted Children
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his initiatives to develop the potential of above-average ability children, with particular reference to Sefton. [98602]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government are encouraging all schools to meet the needs of able pupils by adopting strategies such as setting, target-grouping, fast-tracking and accelerated learning. The initial phase of our national strategy to improve the education of gifted and talented children is concentrated mainly in areas targeted by the Excellence in Cities initiative. Some aspects of the gifted and talented strand of Excellence in Cities, notably world class tests and guidance on the literacy and numeracy strategies, have a national focus. We expect all areas to benefit eventually from the innovation and good practice emerging from the target cities. All local education authorities, including Sefton, can use Standards Fund grants to address the needs of able pupils where the definitions of eligible expenditure allow. We will announce further national initiatives shortly.

HEALTH

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has in place to contain a potential outbreak of a lethal infectious disease as a result of pig-to-human transplants; [99324]

  (2) what recent assessment he has made of the scale of the risks and hazards posed by pig-to-human transplants. [99325]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are advised on all issues relating to animal-to-human transplants by the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA). Evidence about the safety of xenotransplantation is kept under constant review by the UKXIRA. Safety remains of paramount importance. Any clinical trial in xenotransplantation involving humans will be allowed to take place only when we are fully satisfied that the risk associated with the particular procedure involved is acceptable.

  The precautions to be adopted by applicants for minimising the risk of infectious disease transmission will be a key factor in deciding whether or not to approve clinical trials. In this respect, the UKXIRA has issued two draft documents for widespread consultation. "Guidance notes on Biosecurity considerations in relation to xenotransplantation" sets out best practice for the processes and procedures to be employed in facilities where source animals are raised and kept. The "Report of the Infection Surveillance Steering Group" describes a framework for monitoring the health of xenotransplant recipients and in particular surveilling them for any signs of zoonotic infection that might be the direct result of the xenotransplant. This includes a possible mechanism for responding to suspected infection incidents. The UKXIRA would expect any applicant seeking permission to undertake a clinical trial involving a xenotransplantation procedure to have due regard to the recommendations of these documents.

  Both documents are available on the UKXIRA website, www.doh.gov.uk/ukxira.htm.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the annual report of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [99983]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has published its eighth Annual Report today. The Report has been laid before the House in accordance with the requirements of section 7(3) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  ME/CFS
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department provides to social service departments on parental consent to the removal of young people from their home for treatment for ME/CFS. [99454]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department provides no guidance to social service departments on the issue of parental consent to the removal of children and young people from their 142W
  homes for treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis. However, guidance: "Working Together under the Children Act 1989—a guide to inter-agency co-operation for the protection of children from abuse" (1991) is expected to be followed by social service departments in considering whether their powers to remove children under the Act (Section 44 Emergency Protection Orders) should be exercised.

  Secure Accommodation (Children)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the role of local authority social services departments in inspecting the conditions under which children are kept on remand in secure accommodation; [98676]

  (2) who is responsible for producing and monitoring care plans for children remanded into secure accommodation. [98675]

  Mr. Hutton
  The role of the local authority in inspecting children's homes, including those providing secure accommodation, is set out in the Children Act 1989 and the Children's Homes Regulations 1991. These provide the framework for standards used in the inspections. Children's homes, including those providing secure accommodation, are subject to two inspections a year, one of which will be an unannounced visit. The inspections are carried out by the local authority inspection unit.

  The Local Authority in the child's own home area has responsibility for producing and monitoring care plans for each child in secure accommodation.]

  Foreign Patients
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many citizens from countries outside the EU received treatment from the NHS in the most recent year for which the information is available; how much that treatment cost the NHS; and how much foreign patients' Governments reimbursed the UK for their treatment; [98501]

  (2) how many citizens of each EU member state received treatment from the NHS in the most recent year for which the information is available; what was the cost to the NHS of that treatment; and what was the amount reimbursed to each member state for treatment of its citizens in the UK. [98500]

  Ms Stuart
  There is no central record either of the numbers of patients not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom who receive treatment from the National Health Service or of the costs involved.

  Patients not normally resident in the UK can be asked to pay for any non-emergency treatment given by a general practitioner or dentist. Patients requiring hospital treatment other than in an Accident and Emergency department are liable to be charged unless they are exempt from charges by virtue of the National Health Service (Overseas Visitors) Regulations 1989.

  Patients from countries outside the European Economic Area (EEA) are personally liable for charges unless the UK has a reciprocal health agreement with their home state. All the UK's reciprocal agreements with non-EEA

  143W
  countries are on a cost-waiver basis with each of the parties bearing the cost of treating each other's people; no money changes hands between governments.

  Within the EEA, Regulation (EEC) 1408–71 co-ordinates the healthcare schemes of the member states. In principle, each country is responsible for paying for treatment given to its own insured persons in other member states. The UK has bilateral cost reimbursement arrangements with most other EEA states, the terms of which vary from country to country. The table sets out an estimate of the amounts which the UK expects to receive from other EEA countries in respect of treatment provided during 1998–99:

  £000

  Estimated UK claims for inpatient/outpatient treatment

  Estimated UK claims for treating patients referred to the UK for treatment

  Total

  Austria

  213

  8

  222

  Belgium

  1,056

  26

  1,082

  Denmark1

  —

  —

  —

  Finland1

  —

  —

  —

  France

  1,994

  —

  1,994

  Germany2

  2,078

  111

  2,189

  Greece2

  208

  630

  839

  Iceland2

  44

  25

  69

  Ireland

  3,546

  2,958

  6,504

  Italy

  511

  3,094

  3,606

  Liechtenstein

  —

  —

  —

  Luxembourg1

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  524

  11

  535

  Norway1

  —

  —

  —

  Portugal2

  176

  123

  298

  Spain

  830

  68

  898

  Sweden

  568

  55

  623

  All EEA Countries

  11,748

  7,109

  318,859

  1Countries which operate waiver agreement with the United Kingdom

  2Estimates are based on proposed agreement and subject to final agreement by both parties

  3Minor differences due to rounding

  Care Workers
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a national register for(a) care workers and (b) care assistants dealing with the elderly. [98513]

  Mr. Hutton
  We will establish the General Social Care Council by statute. We intend that the Council will be able to register social care staff on the basis of their having successfully completed a period of approved training and other evidence of their fitness to work with the general public.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints his Department has received in the last five years about(a) care workers, (b) care assistants and (c) registered nurses dealing with the elderly. [98472]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department receives a few letters each year complaining about people who care for the elderly. Responsibility for investigating complaints rests with the relevant regulatory authority and complaints received by the Department are referred to them. The Department does not, therefore, maintain a database of complaints.
  144W
  However, the Registration and Inspection Survey for 1996–97 is able to provide some information about the number of complaints about adult residential care for the local authority and independent sector. There were a total of 4,249 complaints—3,133 of these required substantial investigation.

  The United Kingdom Central Council publishes information about complaints about nurses in its annual reports.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) professional care workers, (b) care assistants and (c) registered nurses there are in England who are exclusively occupied with the elderly. [98470]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of care and nursing staff exclusively occupied with the elderly in England is not held centrally. In 1998, the latest year for which information is available, there was a total of 33,000 directly-employed local authority care workers (including care assistants) in England mainly caring for elderly people in residential and day care settings. The whole time equivalent number of staff was 21,400. In addition, the table shows the information available from National Health Service hospital and community health services.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): All acute, elderly and general care assistants and qualified nurses, in England as at 30 September 1998

  Whole time equivalent staff

  Number of staff

  Health care assistants

  11,890

  14,020

  Support worker

  11,760

  16,810

  Total Qualified Nursing staff

  131,270

  161,980

  Manager

  2,320

  2,440

  Registered Sick children's nurse

  460

  600

  Other 1st level

  113,980

  139,070

  Other 2nd level

  14,510

  19,870

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mortality Rates
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the mortality rates for each category of operations at each NHS hospital in the latest year for which figures are available. [98498]

  Mr. Denham
  Earlier this year the Department published a range of clinical indicators including hospital death rates, with the aim of allowing National Health Service organisations to explore their position relative to other similar organisations and investigate differences.

  Recommendations for potential future indicators have been made in a recent series of commissioned Health Outcome Indicator reports, including some further mortality indicators. The Public Health Development Unit of the NHS Executive is now discussing these recommendations with policy colleagues, and hopes to publish further operation specific indicators in the next publication, due in spring/summer 2000.
  145W
  Subject to consultation and approval these operation specific indicators may include further mortality rate indicators, than those already published in June 1999. However this may not be possible until the 2000–01 publication.

  Copies of the clinical indicators are available in the Library and on the internet.

  Mixed Sex Wards
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many psychiatric units in the Greater London area have mixed sex wards. [98452]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information is not available in the format requested because data are collected by health authorities.

  The results of the latest monitoring report (as at September 1998) on our commitment to working towards the elimination of mixed sex accommodation indicate that the following percentages of health authorities in the London region expect to have achieved our objective of providing safe facilities for the mentally ill by these dates:

  60 per cent. of health authorities by the end of 1999;

  73 per cent. of health authorities by the end of 2000;

  100 per cent. of health authorities by the end of 2002.

  Care Costs
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cumulative annual savings in publicly provided formal care if morbidity rates are reduced by(a) 0.25 per cent. per annum, (b) 0.5 per cent. per annum, (c) 0.75 per cent. per annum and (d) 1 per cent. per annum by (i) 2005, (ii) 2010, (iii) 2021 and (iv) 2031. [98509]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not make estimates of savings that may arise if morbidity rates decline. The Department commissioned the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU) at the London School of Economics to conduct a study of future demand for long-term care for elderly people. The research team has made projections of expenditure on long-term care for elderly people under different assumptions about future trends in dependency. These can be found in the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care and in a report by the PSSRU on Demand for Long-Term Care, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Insulin (Drivers)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what evidence the Government have based their conclusion that drivers using insulin are less safe than others. [98828]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: I have been asked to reply.

  The driving licence treatment of those with diabetes treated by insulin is based primarily on European legislation—the Second Driving Licence Directive (91/439/EEC). This provided for licensing restrictions on those with insulin-treated diabetes, in particular in respect of driving heavier vehicles, based on risks associated with insulin treatment. This can lead to a hypoglycaemic attack which in turn can lead to loss of consciousness without warning. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  146W
  receive information from the police and other sources each month, about, on average, 10 collapses at the wheel attributable to a hypoglycaemic attack. The Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving have indicated that the risk of loss of consciousness without warning in any one individual cannot be predicted. They have therefore consistently advised against granting licences to drive the largest vehicles to insulin-treated diabetics. There has been a bar on granting licences to drive large lorries and buses since 1991; this bar was extended to small lorries and minibuses in 1997 on implementation of the Second Driving Licence Directive, as a result of aligning the licensing of such vehicles with the requirements of the Directive.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Child Abduction
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the most recent meeting of the Parent/Carer Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group took place; and what subjects were discussed. [98730]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Parent/Carer Child Abduction Coordinating Group met on 19 October 1999. Subjects discussed were: embarkation control; endorsement of passports; child abduction prevention packs; and legal aid.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the consideration being given to the Parent/Carer Child Abduction Co-ordinating Group to the question of what information should be included on children's passports. [98731]

  Jane Kennedy
  No. The endorsement of passports is receiving consideration by the Parent/Carer Child Abduction Coordinating Group. The Group will provide advice to the relevant Ministers on the subject as and when appropriate.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many targets have been agreed between the Lord Chancellor's Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from the Lord Chancellor's Department's own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99477]

  Mr. Lock
  (i) None (ii) Six targets have been set for Magistrates' Court Committees for the 1999–2000 financial year and further targets will be set for 2000–01. The Law Society and the Legal Services Ombudsman have one and two targets respectively.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been spent by the Lord Chancellor's Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) the Lord Chancellor's Department's running costs. [99487]
  147W
  Mr. Lock
  Expenditure for the Department for the financial years April 1997 to March 1999 is as follows, inclusive of current spend:To the end of October 1999: £9,579,287.
  £129,974 of this has been provided from programmed provision and the remainder from running costs.

  Grandparental Contact
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available(a) in what percentage of cases where a grandparent was given leave to apply for a contact order in relation to a grandchild a contact order has been granted by the courts and (b) in what percentage of such cases the grandparent's application was opposed by the child's parent. [98479]

  Jane Kennedy
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  General Commissioners of Taxation
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what period his committee on appointments of General Commissioners of Taxation in the London area has been without a chairman. [98615]

  Mr. Lock
  There are 16 Advisory Committees on appointments of General Commissioners of Income Tax in the Greater London area. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is currently considering the most appropriate structure for Advisory Committees in Greater London area, given that there are few appointments made every year. Three committees are currently without Chairmen. The Acton and Kensington Advisory Committee has been without a chairman since 1997; the Westminster and Southwark Committee since December 1998; and Inner Temple since February 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Indonesia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek to extend the EU arms embargo and suspension of military assistance to Indonesia beyond January 2000. [99499]

  Mr. Battle
  The EU embargo will remain in force until 17 January 2000. It would then require unanimous EU Member State agreement to be extended. We are maintaining a close watch on the situation in Indonesia and East Timor so that a judgment can be made on whether any further action would be appropriate.

  East Timor
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the UN Commission of Inquiry into human rights violation in East Timor to begin its work. [99500]

  Mr. Battle
  The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations endorsed the setting up of the UN Commission of Inquiry into violations of international 148W
  humanitarian and human rights law in East Timor on 15 November. The Commission began work shortly after that date.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government concerning the return of East Timorese, at present in West Timor, to their own country. [99498]

  Mr. Battle
  We have consistently pressed the Indonesian Government on the importance of assisting in the swift passage of displaced East Timorese back to their homes. Our Ambassador in Indonesia visited West Timor from 1–4 November and pressed senior local political leaders to act more decisively to enable refugee returns. We understand that the TNI and INTERFET are no co-operating more closely. To date, over 92,000 refugees have returned from West Timor and elsewhere in Indonesia.

  Arms Exhibitions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from(a) the Secretary General of the UN and (b) states which have signed the Ottawa Convention, in relation to the alleged sales of anti-personnel mines at the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition in Chertsey, Surrey. [99508]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given on 3 November 1999,Official Report, columns 213–14, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces.

  Tharcissi Muvunyi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Rwandan Government concerning Lt. Colonel Tharcissi Muvunyi. [99496]

  Mr. Hain
  President Bizimungu raised Muvunyi with the then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), during his visit to Rwanda in February. Muvunyi was raised again this month by the Rwandan Ambassador during a meeting with FCO officials. We encouraged the Rwandans to pass any information they had on Muvynyi, and other genocide suspects, to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda so that they may judge whether or not there are grounds for prosecution.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to investigate the case of Lt. Colonel Tharcissi Muvunyi. [99497]

  Mr. Hain
  It is the responsibility of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to investigate the allegations of genocide which have been made against Lt. Colonel Muvunyi. We are working closely with the Tribunal on this.

  Bahrain
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of 6 ML1 SIELS and 1 ML1 OIEL exported to Bahrain this year. [99505]
  149W
  Mr. Hain
  All export licence applications for Bahrain for ML1 equipment this year have been for private/recreational use by the ruling family or for national defence by the Bahrain Defence Force who are not involved in internal security.

  All export licences for Bahrain are considered against the established criteria, including whether there is a clearly identifiable risk of the equipment being used for external aggression or internal repression, in which case it will be refused.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry concerning a British company's involvement in the supply of equipment and training to the Sudanese for the extraction of oil in southern Sudan. [99501]

  Mr. Hain
  Officials in British Trade International and the FCO keep in regular touch on the Sudan. British companies, along with many others from other European and other countries, have supplied equipment to the oil industry.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry concerning export licences to Sudan. [99504]

  Mr. Hain
  Any export licence applications received by the DTI concerning the Sudan are circulated to the FCO for advice. A full scope EU arms embargo is in force and is likely to remain as long as the civil war continues.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made recently to(a) the EU and (b) the UN concerning the effect of the oil fields in southern Sudan on the continuing civil war there; [99502]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the EU and IGAD concerning the role of oil in the war in the Sudan. [99503]

  Mr. Hain
  We keep in regular contact with the EU, the UN, and other colleagues on the situation in the Sudan; including on the impact of oil which has recently started to be exported. We are making the case strongly, including in Khartoum, that revenues should be used for development projects and that there should be transparency in accounting for the expenditure. We note that certain public assurances have been given to that effect, and look to the Government to implement them.

  We expect the EU arms embargo to remain as long as war in the Sudan continues.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many targets have been agreed between his Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from his own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99479]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department has not agreed any targets with either local authorities or other bodies apart from the Department's own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs. [99489]

  Mr. Hain
  During the period 1 May 1997 to 31 October 1999, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spent £46.1 million on external consultancy and advice, relating principally to technical expertise for major capital projects, in particular major information technology and estates development at home and overseas. Identifying expenditure on consultancy and advice funded from programme provision which is not held centrally could be achieved only at disproportionate cost.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the changes to the EU oil embargo against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [99984]

  Mr. Hain
  On 15 November, the Council of the European Union adopted EC Regulation 2421/1999 which amends EC Regulation 2111/1999 prohibiting the sale and supply of petroleum and petroleum products to certain parts of the FRY.

  The Regulation provides for member states to authorise the sale, supply or export of such goods provided that they take place within the framework of the Energy for Democracy initiative to provide certain Serbian municipalities with energy and that conclusive evidence has been presented to member states' authorities that the end-users or final destinations are the municipalities listed in an annex to the Regulation.

  The Regulation entered into force on 16 November 1999 and is directly applicable in the UK. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Supply, Sale and Export of Petroleum and Petroleum Products) (Penalties and Licences) (No. 3) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2821) came into force on 14 October 1999 and provides for licensing and enforcement, including penalties.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letter of 15 September from the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland to the Home Secretary and transferred to his Department on 22 September for the visa application for Amra Jabeen. [99229]

  Mr. Vaz
  Our High Commission in Islamabad has provided a report and I will be replying shortly to the hon. and learned Member's letter. I apologise for the delay in responding.

  Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of correspondence addressed to the Migration and Visa Correspondence Unit is responded to within the 20 working days target set by the Department. [99230]
  151W
  Mr. Vaz
  From 1 January to 31 October 1999, 64 per cent. of correspondence handled by the Visa Correspondence Unit was responded to within 20 working days.

  Entry Clearance
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for entry clearance to enter the UK under the terms of the EC Association Agreements were made at British embassies in(a) Bratislava, (b) Bucharest,(c) Prague, (d) Sofia and (e) Warsaw, in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and how many were issued and how many refused in each of these years. [99286]

  Mr. Vaz
  The following visa applications were submitted under the terms of the EC Association Agreements to British Embassies in Bratislava, Bucharest, Prague, Sofia and Warsaw between 1997–99:

  Post

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Bratislava

  1997

  0

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  0

  0

  19991

  2

  0

  0

  Bucharest

  1997

  2

  1

  1

  1998

  3

  2

  0

  19991

  0

  0

  0

  Prague2

  1997

  1

  2

  0

  1998

  5

  0

  2

  19991

  2

  1

  0

  Sofia2

  1997

  1

  1

  1

  1998

  4

  4

  1

  19991

  16

  8

  0

  Warsaw

  1997

  4

  1

  0

  1998

  5

  7

  0

  19991

  2

  0

  0

  1To 20 November

  2Separate statistics not held; represents best estimate

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Sierra Leone. [98742]

  Mr. Hain
  The overall security situation in Sierra Leone remains volatile. We remain concerned over the violations of the Lomé Peace Agreement and the ceasefire, and the consequent humanitarian impact on the people of Sierra Leone.

  We call on all parties to implement the Lomé Peace Agreement immediately and in full. The parties must now live up to their commitment to lay down their arms and
  152W
  enter the Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration camps. This is vital if all people in Sierra Leone are at last to live in peace and security.

  We are working closely with the United Nations to ensure the early deployment of a robust United Nations peacekeeping operation. This will help create a climate of confidence for the parties to implement the Lomé Peace Agreement.

  UNITA
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action Her Majesty's Government have taken to expel the chief UNITA representative in the United Kingdom to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1127 (1997); [99160]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the current whereabouts of the chief UNITA representative in the United Kingdom. [99161]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Mr. Kandeya was instructed to leave the United Kingdom following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1127. His application for leave to remain in the United Kingdom was refused on 13 October 1998. On the same day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department also informed Mr. Kandeya of his decision to make a deportation order against him. Mr. Kandeya's appeals against both decisions remain outstanding. We have recently had unconfirmed reports that Mr. Kandeya has left the United Kingdom. Should these be confirmed his application for leave to remain will lapse and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will write to the independent appellate authorities to seek a ruling that his appeal to them has been abandoned.

TREASURY

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps in his next Budget to reduce the VAT rate payable on energy-saving materials; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on this. [99545]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This Government have already reduced to 5 per cent.—the lowest level allowed under EC law—the VAT rate applicable to grant-funded installation of energy saving materials in the homes of the less well off. EC VAT law does not allow the UK to apply a reduced VAT rate to sales of energy saving materials for DIY installation.

  Stamp Duty Revenue
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what forecasts his Department has made of stamp duty revenue from securities in the years ending(a) April 2000, (b) April 2001 and (c) April 2002. [R][99182]
  153W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: The information is as follows.

  Net receipts from stamp duty (including stamp duty reserve tax) on transactions of shares and other securities

  £ billion

  1999–2000 (Estimate)

  3.0

  2000–01 (Projection)

  3.0

  Pensions
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the survivor benefits under public service pensions schemes to persons other than widows, widowers or children. [99390]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As set out in December 1998 in the Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare: Partnership in Pensions" (Cm 4179), the Government are prepared to consider how practicable arrangements could be devised for a statutory pension scheme to extend survivor pensions to unmarried partners of scheme members, if the general membership of the scheme sought that change and if scheme members were prepared to meet the costs of it. There is no central policy on whether such a change should be made by any public service scheme. It is a matter for the Department responsible for each public service pension scheme, in the light of the wishes of the membership of each scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the administrators of the Management Systems Development Limited pension scheme applied to his Department for the calculation of the guaranteed minimum pensions of the members of the scheme; in respect of how many members of the scheme the calculations have been completed; how many calculations are not yet completed; and by what date he expects the task to be completed. [99457]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Finalised guaranteed minimum pension calculations for all former members of the Management Systems Development Limited pension scheme were completed by August 1997. The scheme's case was finally concluded in August 1999.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications for the calculation of guaranteed minimum pensions are awaiting decision by his Department; how many of these have been outstanding for more than(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years and (d) over four years; and if he will make a statement. [99459]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None of the 7,615 applications for Guaranteed Minimum Pension calculations presently awaiting decision are over one year old.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of pension schemes in administration have had their guaranteed minimum pensions calculated by his Department in the last six months; and in respect of how many such members calculations have not yet been made. [99458]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  74,591 Guaranteed Minimum Pension calculations have been processed in the last six months and 7,615 are presently awaiting formal action.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the capital gains tax payable when companies formed by residents of blocks of flats extend the leases of those residents who are the shareholders of the company. [99216]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Inland Revenue Extra Statutory Concession D39 allows relief from capital gains tax in this sort of situation. Inland Revenue Tax Bulletin 41, published in June this year, provides details.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average spending on child care per week being claimed via the working families tax credit. [98670]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average child care cost per week for recipients of the Working Families Tax Credit claiming child care costs up to the end of October is provisionally estimated to be £45 per week.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) inquiries have been received by the Working Families Tax Credit Inquiry Line and (b) successful claims for working families tax credit have been made by residents of (i) Brighton Pavilion constituency and (ii) Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority area. [98826]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The response line for the Working Families Tax Credit and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit had handled 750,000 inquiries up to the 18 November. Reliable estimates for the numbers in receipt of the Working Families Tax Credit in Brighton Pavilion and Brighton and Hove Unitary Authority are not yet available.

  Construction Industry Scheme
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the Contractors Helpline for the construction industry scheme. [98624]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The contractors' helpline was set up to provide a single point of contact for any contractor who needed more information about the scheme. In response to a very high level of inquiries, the Revenue have now substantially increased the capacity of the helpline to take 25 calls simultaneously. The vast majority of calls are now being answered promptly.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish definitive and complete rules for the transitional arrangements involved with the new construction industry scheme rules. [98623]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Transitional arrangements included measures for both subcontractors and contractors and were agreed in order to provide a breathing space for the industry at the start of the scheme.

  The arrangements for subcontractors were announced in an Inland Revenue Press issued on 7 July. The arrangements for contractors were announced in a Press Release on 15 July. Further information about the arrangements was included in a Press Release issued on 30 July.
  155W
  The Inland Revenue also issued a letter to every known contractor to tell them about the arrangements. Those contractors who applied for a transitional dispensation were given the additional information that they needed to operate the dispensation rules correctly when the dispensation was granted.

  All transitional arrangements ended on 5 November 1999. There are no plans to issue further information to the public on these arrangements now that they have come to an end.

  Welfare Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost and number of beneficiaries of reintroducing the dependent relative's tax allowance. [98460]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The dependent relative allowance was abolished in 1988. In 1987–88 there were around 320,000 benefiting from it at a cost to the Exchequer of £10 million.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Private Finance Initiative contracts have been agreed in each year since its inception; how much was spent on such contracts in each of these years; what is the latest estimate of expenditure under the Private Finance Initiative in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [99639]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury is currently updating the information sought as part of its normal bi-yearly reporting of information on PFI contracts. I expect this information to be published in the first half of December.

  Anti-personnel Mines Sales
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to HM Customs and Excise regarding alleged sales of anti-personnel mines at the Defence Systems and Equipment International exhibition in Chertsey, Surrey; and if he will make a statement. [99509]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Commissioners of Customs and Excise are responsible for investigating breaches of the Landmines Act 1998 which involve the movement, or the proposed or attempted movement, into or out of any country of objects prohibited by the Act. It is not the normal practice of the Commissioners to disclose publicly information provided to them in connection with their enforcement and investigation responsibilities.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the costs of introducing the free television licence for those persons aged over 75 years in each of the next 10 years. [98510]

  Janet Anderson
  I have been asked to reply.
  156W
  The estimated cost of the concession in the first full year is around £290 million. Costs in future years will depend on the number of households with a person aged 75 years or over and the level of the television licence fee, which is not fixed for the next ten years.

  Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department's programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs. [99491]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 10 November 1999,Official Report, columns 647–48. No expenditure has been incurred on external consultants and advisers from programme provision since May 1997.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the change in the figures for carbon emission savings from fuel duties, set out in the pre-Budget report, relies on (i) reduced mileage travelled by vehicles and (ii) reduced emissions resulting from technological improvements in car engines. [99187]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 22 November 1999]: The Pre-Budget Report set out that the fuel duty escalator from 1996 to 1999 is estimated to produce carbon savings of 1 to 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by 2010.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Northern Ireland Assembly
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what arrangements are being made for the provision of the finances of the proposed devolved Assembly for Northern Ireland. [98769]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The funding arrangements for devolved administrations are set out in "Funding the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly—A Statement of Funding Policy" published by HM Treasury on 31 March 1999. Provision for the cost of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the local Departments will be found from within the resources transferred on devolution.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the decommissioning of illegal terrorist weapons in Northern Ireland. [98770]

  Mr. Ingram
  Following the completion of the Mitchell review, the basis now exists for devolution to occur, for the institutions to be established, and for decommissioning to take place as soon as possible. We intend that on 2 December devolution will take effect, the Executive will meet and then the paramilitary groups will appoint their authorised representatives, all on the same day, in that order.

  High-technology Manufacturing
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he is taking to promote the introduction of high-technology manufacturing in Northern Ireland. [98771]

  Mr. McFall
  The Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland (IDB), the agency charged with attracting inward investment, continues its aggressive marketing and sales campaigns world-wide with particular emphasis on high-technology sectors such as telecommunications, electronics and E-commerce. They are following up on last year's successful promotional tour in North America, a year in which I am delighted to say they achieved a record number of new investments. The Industrial Development Board is also working actively with local companies to encourage high added value investments and sustainable employment in these sectors.

  Employment
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of prospects for employment in Northern Ireland. [98773]

  Mr. McFall
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).

  Ms Blears
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he is proposing to increase the prospects for employment of young people. [98786]

  Mr. McFall
  The Training and Employment Agency has introduced a number of measures to increase the prospects for employment of young people namely, New Deal, Graduate Development Programme and other management development programmes. In addition Government have given a guarantee of training places to all young people under 18 in Northern Ireland. This is delivered through Jobskills and the Modern Apprenticeship Programme.

  Punishment Beatings
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many punishment beatings have taken place in each month since the Good Friday agreement. [98774]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the Good Friday agreement on 10 April 1998 until 21 November 1999 there have been a total of 345 attacks: 114 shootings and 231 assaults. Of the 114 shootings, 68 have been attributed to Loyalist and 46 to Republican groups. Of the 231 assaults, 148 have been attributed to Loyalist and 83 to Republican groups. I have arranged for a copy of the monthly figures to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the establishment of an anti-intimidation unit relating to punishment beatings and threats. [98776]

  Mr. Ingram
  The establishment of such a unit has so far been raised only by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and by my right hon.158W
  Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I shall be writing to my right hon. and hon. Friends with a detailed response on this issue shortly.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on political development in Northern Ireland. [98775]

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further action he is taking to encourage the peace process in Northern Ireland. [98779]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the timetable for progress in(a) decommissioning of weapons and (b) bringing devolved Government into operation in Northern Ireland. [98780]

  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards establishing a devolved Government in Northern Ireland according to the terms of the Good Friday agreement. [98781]

  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. [98791]

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Mitchell review. [98792]

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of the peace process. [98793]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I refer my hon. Friends, the hon. Members and the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) on 24 November 1999,Official Report, column 604.

  Civic Forum
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on the establishment of a civic forum in Northern Ireland. [98777]

  Mr. Mandelson
  On 16 February 1999 the Assembly agreed a report from the First and Deputy First Ministers (designate) which included arrangements for a consultative Civic Forum. The report identified the sectoral interests which should be represented and guidelines which should be adhered to by nominating bodies. Work is ongoing to ensure the establishment of the Civic Forum within six months of devolution.

  Pensioners
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report statement of 9 November 1999,Official Report, columns 883–906, on the living standards of pensioners in Northern Ireland. [98778]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Pensioners in Northern Ireland are benefiting fully from the Government's strategy to provide effective help for today's pensioners. The extension of the 10p income tax rate to savings, free TV licences for older pensioners together with the other
  159W
  measures already announced, including the £100 Winter Fuel Payment and extra targeted support for poorer pensioners through the Minimum Income Guarantee, reinforce the Government's commitment to pensioners throughout the United Kingdom.

  EU Structural Funds
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultation he is having in Northern Ireland on future EU structural funding. [98782]

  Mr. Ingram
  Consultation in relation to the EU structural funds within Northern Ireland is being taken forward by the Interim EU Programmes' Development Committee which is made up of representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly Parties, local government and the economic and social partners.

  Small Business
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report statement of 9 November 1999,Official Report, columns 883–906, on small businesses in Northern Ireland. [98783]

  Mr. McFall
  It is clearly too early to make any specific judgment in relation to the pre-Budget report's impact on small businesses in Northern Ireland. However, there are many aspects of the strategy which are aligned to the work of the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), the agency responsible for small business development in Northern Ireland.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role played by RUC officers overseas. [98784]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC have seven officers serving with the United Nations International Police Task Force in Bosnia where they are monitoring the performance of the Bosnian police service. 60 RUC officers have recently taken up positions with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo where they are undertaking an executive policing role pending a new Kosovan police service being trained and ready to take over law enforcement there.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement committing the Government to the retention of the name and badge insignia of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [98785]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are currently consulting on the proposals of the Independent Commission on Policing as required by the Belfast Agreement. An announcement on the way forward will follow completion of the consultation process.

  Devolution
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many Ministers there will be in the devolved Northern Ireland Administration; and what the total bill will be for salaries. [98787]
  160W
  Mr. Mandelson
  Ten in addition to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Costs in a full financial year are estimated at £1 million.

  Maternity Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in improving maternity provision in Northern Ireland. [98788]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Over the past 12 months maternity provision has been examined throughout Northern Ireland. As a result of risk assessment exercises one unit has closed temporarily and remedial action to improve safety is under way in others. In central Belfast a decision aimed at unifying and improving maternity services will be made soon.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on midwifery services in Northern Ireland. [98772]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are encouraging Boards and Trusts to implement models of midwifery-led care which offer women greater choice. Progress is being made in this area and midwifery-led care is now available in a number of hospitals.

  Paramilitary Crime
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the number of paramilitary crimes committed in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast Agreement. [98790]

  Mr. Ingram
  From the signing of the Belfast Agreement on 10 April 1998 there have been a total of 47 deaths, 258 shootings and 178 bombings. These figures do not cover crimes such as armed robbery, drugs, counterfeiting, racketeering, extortion and smuggling in which paramilitary groups also engage.

  In addition, there have been a total of 345 paramilitary style attacks.

  Scottish Universities (Student Funding)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the financing of students domiciled in Northern Ireland studying at Scottish universities. [99437]

  Mr. McFall
  Such students are currently subject to the same arrangements as all Northern Ireland domiciled students who are attending universities in the United Kingdom. I am awaiting the Report of the review on fees for students in the final honours year of first degree courses at Scottish universities being carried out by an independent committee, chaired by Sir George Quigley.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been spent by his Department on external consultants and advisers since May 1997 funded from (i) his Department' s programme provision and (ii) his Department's running costs. [99494]
  161W
  Mr. Ingram
  The expenditure on external consultants and advisers by Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office is not held in the format requested but is held under 11 specific categories. The breakdown of expenditure in the 1997–98 and 1998–99 financial years, in these categories is as follows:

  Categories

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1. Competition and Purchasing

  1,119,223

  800,845

  2. Finance and Accountancy

  880,169

  1,522,867

  3. Information and Control Systems

  1,591,326

  1,560,416

  4. Management (Efficiency)

  1,247,524

  791,705

  5. Management (Organisation and Planning)

  244,236

  570,911

  6. Management (Personnel)

  507,037

  467,306

  7. Marketing

  729,411

  907,320

  8. Production Management

  62,209

  43,185

  9. Research

  990,544

  1,866,529

  10. Specific issues (Energy, Environment, Location/Relocation, Next Steps/GRI PFI Surveying/Valuing)

  3,021,983

  1,945,572

  11. Capital Works Consultants

  44,161

  1,080

  NIO1

  472,000

  813,000

  Total

  10,909,823

  11,290,736

  1The NIO do not provide a breakdown of their figures, and a System update since last PQ increased 1997–98 year by £54,339

CABINET OFFICE

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the rules are governing the taking and keeping of minutes of meetings between Ministers and people outside the Government. [99507]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  It is for individual Ministers to determine their own arrangements.

  Target Setting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many targets have been agreed between her Department and (i) local authorities and (ii) other bodies apart from her own agencies and non-departmental bodies since May 1997. [99470]

  Mr. Stringer
  My Department has not set any targets directly to local authorities. Following the publication of the anti-drugs PSA, the UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator published his first annual report and plan which set out 43 targets for the Government to meet in relation to drugs activities and these are included in the relevant organisations' plans.
  162W
  Targets resulting from the reports published by the Social Exclusion Unit are included within the relevant departments' PSAs; for example the Department of Health for the reduction in the rates of under 18 conceptions by one half by 2010.

  My Department has also set seven targets in relation to commitments made in the Modernising Government White Paper—for example, that 50 per cent. of the dealings are capable of electronic delivery by 2005 and 100 per cent. by 2008 (building on the target set in 1997 by the Prime Minister that 25 per cent. of Government dealings should be dealt with in this way by 2002). Other targets include tackling the under-representation of women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, and people with disabilities within the Senior Civil Service; on the acquisition of Investors in People status by other departments, and of National Vocational Council qualifications by individual civil servants.

PRIME MINISTER

  Performance and Innovation Unit
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Prime Minister what additional projects are planned for the Performance and Innovation Unit; and if he will make a statement. [99743]

  The Prime Minister
  Further to the work I announced in my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, column 630, I have now asked the Performance and Innovation Unit to undertake the following project:

  Strategic Options for the Electronic Delivery of Government Services
  In the light of developments in technology, to take a strategic view of which public services should be delivered by electronic means and look at the options for securing delivery of these services, including the respective roles of the public and private sectors.

  My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Employment is the Sponsor Minister.

  The aim is to have completed the study by next summer.

  Royal Audience
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times he has met Her Majesty the Queen for his regular weekly audience in each quarter since May 1997. [98557]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 October 1999]: With the exception of those occasions when Her Majesty has not been in London or I have been abroad or in Northern Ireland, I have been received in audience on the usual weekly basis since May 1997.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Lord Balniel
The Right Honourable Robert Alexander Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, having been created Baron Balniel, of Crawford and Balcarres and Pitcorthie in the County of Fife, for life, took the oath.

European Union: Enlargement
Lord Blakerasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many more countries they wish to see joining the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, six countries are in negotiations to join the European Union. We expect the Helsinki European Council to invite a further six countries to start negotiations and to confirm Turkey's status as a candidate for EU membership. We fully support the moves towards closer integration with Europe that the EU is making with a number of other European countries. Membership of the European Union is open to all European countries which meet the EU's criteria for membership.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Signor Prodi has recently publicly stated that he favours an extension of the membership to 27 members within the next two years? Will she also confirm that Signor Prodi has proposed, as have the three wise men advising him, that, in anticipation of the expansion, the conduct of proceedings should be changed by a major expansion of majority voting? Would not the future of the Union—which I warmly support—be more fruitful and less rancorous if there were not constant pressures to reduce the powers of member states in important and sensitive areas?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, although mention may have been made of 27 members, the current position is that successful enlargement of the European Union remains a central objective. Accession is now a definite prospect for 10 Central and Eastern European applicants, together with Malta and Cyprus. Of course it is a hope and an aspiration, but all countries which are capable of meeting the acquis should seek to join. That would increase stability and security in Europe. We are moving, carefully arid prudently, to
444
make sure that the reforms of the structure are appropriate to meet those needs. We hope to be able to do that by 2002.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the European stability pact, in effect, offers the long-term prospect of membership to Macedonia, Albania and the other countries of the former Yugoslavia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that that pact assists those countries and helps them to be ready for consideration. Ofcourse, there is no guarantee for any country—the criteria which applies to one will apply to all—but it is certainly a very important step forward along what we hope will be the most appropriate road.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the changes in the structure which will be needed. Does she agree that the changes to meet enlargement—which I strongly support—should include an increase in qualified majority voting? Otherwise, a tiny state would be able to veto very important matters. Clearly, that would not be in anyone's interests.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, clearly an extension of qualified voting may well be necessary in order to stop one small state acting to the detriment of others, as the noble Lord rightly identified. We are looking very carefully at that matter. Her Majesty's Government would wish it to be extended only to where it would be in Britain's interests to do so.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Government look with favour on an application from the Ukraine, at least in the long term? Is not that country equally as suitable as Turkey as an applicant? Would that not give great encouragement to democrats within the Ukraine?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have been very clear that Britain is not excluding or including any country. The acquis remains. Countries wishing to join will have to meet the criteria. It is not appropriate at this point to consider any one particular country outside of those currently being considered. Once the position changes, we will respond accordingly.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although it would be splendid if the Community were to be enlarged, it has already 15 countries with 11 different languages and at least half a dozen different kinds of legal systems. If six more countries were to join, would it not be necessary to abandon harmonisation, which has become almost impossible already; to amend the Treaty of Rome, in order that we do not have federalism in the background; and to abandon the common currency?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says in relation to those matters. We do not wholeheartedly agree. Challenges are present for all of us in European Union enlargement. However, there are also enormous advantages in relation to peace,

445
security and trade. If the enlargement takes place, we will have one of the largest trade areas in the world. That must be of great benefit to Great Britain.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if the Government persist in offering membership to countries which are considered by a larger country to be part of that country, they are in for permanent trouble?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not propose to offer membership to countries which are part of another country. That is an error into which we have no intention of falling.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, does the Minister agree with President Clinton, who last week said that the vision of a Europe that is undivided, democratic and at peace for the first time in its history will never be complete unless and until it embraces Turkey? Does the Minister further agree with President Clinton that European integration should move further and faster and that that integration should include Turkey?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to say that in 1997 the Luxembourg European Council said that Turkey was eligible for European Union accession. Like all candidates, Turkey must meet the EU's political and economic criteria before it can join the EU. It must also meet the political criteria before any accession negotiations can start. Turkey does not yet meet those political criteria. However, there are hopes and aspirations in relation to Turkey and it is hoped that Turkey will do that which is necessary to make her able to join this family.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what would be the Government's attitude to applications for accession from countries further afield, and in particular from Georgia or Armenia?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I have already said, Her Majesty's Government do not specify which countries will join, nor do they impose a limit. The criteria remain; it will be the criteria which judge which countries join and when.

Scottish Legislation and the House of Lords
2.44 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to allow the House of Lords to participate in the passage of Scottish legislation.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to amend the Scotland Act to allow the House of Lords to participate in the passage of Scottish legislation.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Does she understand that my Question arises out of recent comments made by her political colleague, the First Minister in Scotland, who mentioned the possibility that part of the legislative function of the Scottish Parliament might be shared with your Lordships' House? Does she agree that that unfortunate comment raised a distinct impression that the First Minister and his colleagues do not feel that the devolution settlement is working satisfactorily? Will she say to her colleagues in Scotland that they should welcome rather than criticise the very effective work that is being done by the cross-party committees in the Scottish Parliament?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: No, my Lords, I will do none of those things. Nor do I accept the premise on which the Question was based. I read the published text of the John Mackintosh memorial lecture, which is the speech referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I did not rely only on the tabloid headlines. Having said that unicameral systems are always open to criticism, the First Minister made quite clear that in his personal view an effective committee system is the best option. He actually said:
"I believe an effective committee system is the best way of examining legislation and testing the Executive's actions".
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the Scotland Bill went through this House, it was understood that a unicameral parliament would take Bills in various stages, including pre-legislative scrutiny? Is she aware that on 8th September, in closing the loophole which made possible the imprisonment of Mr Noel Ruddle and in legislating in a matter which had quite a delicate bearing on the human rights of this individual, the Parliament passed the Bill in two days without pre-legislative scrutiny—very swiftly, much to the consternation of several Members of the Scots Parliament, including an experienced legislator, Mr Dennis Canavan?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am more than aware of all the arguments in this House over long, long hours during the passage of the Scotland Bill Among other things, they included the question of how a unicameral Parliament would cope. I know there are Members on the Benches opposite who are also only too familiar with that and with all the arguments. With regard to the second part of the noble Baroness's intervention, that is entirely a matter within the competence of the Scottish Parliament and I have no comment to make.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, far be it from me to interfere in matters north of the Border. The last time I did that, in the House of Commons, I was rather embarrassed, as a matter of fact. That was a long time ago. However, if unicameralism is respectable in Scotland and in a Scottish Parliament, why is it not

447
respectable at Westminster, and why has the Royal Commission not been asked to consider unicameralism for the United Kingdom Parliament?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the pros and cons of unicameral systems have been rehearsed in this House many times, not least during the passage of the Scotland Bill. I really do not believe that we should be reploughing that furrow now in Oral Questions. I should be delighted to do so but I do not believe the House has the time.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I know that the House always enjoys hearing from the noble Baroness and we know that the Government are, after all, masters of the soundbite. With her considerable parliamentary attainments, I am sure that it might be possible for the noble Baroness to favour us with a soundbite as to why Scotland and its Parliament are happy to have a single chamber and this Parliament is not.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not indulge in soundbites.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I do not read tabloids? I take my text today from the Scotsman, which, as the noble Baroness rightly said, reported Mr Donald Dewar as saying:
"Unicameral government—the absence of a revising chamber—will always be open to criticism".
But will the noble Baroness cast her eye down to the next paragraph? Mr Dewar went on:
"Some will argue that reform of the House of Lords gives an opportunity to bind Scotland to the UK by giving the second chamber the power to review Scottish legislation. It could be done by using the peers' equivalent of the Scottish grand committee".
That was done in the light of Mr Dewar's clear dissatisfaction with the way in which the pre-legislative committees have worked. Was the First Minister simply off message that day when he delivered the lecture?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, if the noble Lord is going in for the business of selective quotations, he could have continued himself down that paragraph where the position is made very clear. Mr Dewar stated:
"While some would no doubt put that case"—
the case the noble Lord is making—
"one of the reasons I have concentrated on the committee system"—
this was in the middle of a very long lecture—
"is that I believe that an effective committee system is the best way of examining legislation and testing the Executive's actions".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say with what logic one can have a single chamber government for Scotland and a bicameral government for England when they are both part of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I really do wish that noble Lords who are raising this question now would take the time to read Hansard if they did not take the time to come into the Chamber for the proceedings on the Scotland Bill when all these arguments were put forward. We were discussing a parliament for Scotland in a new system and we all decided that the best system in that context was a unicameral parliament. It was decided then after long discussions. Any noble Lord who wishes can find all of those lengthy discussions in Hansard.

Veterinary Research
2.52p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovilasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that research into veterinary matters is adequately co-ordinated.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, in 2000–01 the Government will spend in excess of £42 million on veterinary research. The research is fully co-ordinated across government departments and research councils and the appropriate structures are in place to ensure that it is effective. The Government recognise the importance of co-ordination and continue to encourage the development of appropriate mechanisms. Where necessary, we have created high level committees to oversee research of national importance.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that quite astonishing reply which could only have emanated from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Will she follow me in two very simple propositions: first, that veterinary research and animal health are important: and, secondly, that funds for research are not overflowing? It therefore follows that those funds should be spent as well as possible. Is it really the fact that the best we can do is to produce a combination between the ministry, whose defects are already well known, a body known as the BBSRC to its friends—I shall not tire your Lordships with its full title—and the Higher Education Funding Council? Those bodies have their own axes to grind. Far from co-operating or being co-ordinated together, they produce fragmentation to the extent that research is separated from disease and disease is separated entirely from teaching and training.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is wishing for a simpler world than that which actually exists. I certainly agree with him that veterinary research is important. My department, much maligned as it is, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, has increased spending on veterinary research by nearly £10 million since 1996. However, we are not the only funders of such research. The Government as a whole, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Sainsbury would point out, have increased their funding by

449
£1 billion in terms of strengthening the science base overall which flows into matters of veterinary medicine. Research is carried out at the universities. There are links with the veterinary schools—MAFF has recognised that by having three fellowships at veterinary colleges which it supports. On matters like spongiform encephalopathies, which are enormously complicated, we have to look to other funders of research such as the Wellcome Institute. It is a complex situation. I do not believe that it can all be done by one set of funders in one place. That is why it is important to try to co-ordinate. I would not dream for a moment of saying that everything is done perfectly, but I do not believe that a simple magic wand can be waved. We can look to improve the co-ordination that currently goes on.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a year ago the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons set up a committee of inquiry into co-ordinating veterinary research, a committee which I had the privilege to chair, and that as a result there has been a welcome measure of collaboration between the Ministry of Agriculture, the BBSRC, the MRC, the Wellcome Trust and others? I understand that Professor Brian Fender, the chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England, is leading with the co-ordinating group which is trying to implement this much needed co-ordination. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that group is making any progress.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that comment reflects the importance of bringing together those who have an interest in this area in order to try to take forward research on a co-ordinated basis. It is very much mirrored in human medical research, where it is necessary that we bring together the charities, the professional organisations and government as a funder. The work that is done at the Royal Veterinary College has been extremely valuable. We can continue to build on that.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as Chairman of the Council of the Royal Veterinary College. Is the Minister aware that it is generally thought in certain quarters that are interested in this matter that the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Selborne did an extremely useful job? Is she further aware that there is great disappointment that much of what he recommended has not yet been properly implemented; in particular, that research into these increasingly important diseases not only for animal but human health is being fragmented? Does she accept that a co-ordinating committee is not enough and that we look to the Government to institute proper peer review of research rather than merely co-ordination through a government department?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, external peer review certainly takes place before the Government sponsor research. That is important in order to ensure that
450
research supported by government is both valid and value for money. I take very seriously the noble Viscount's comments in this area and will look carefully to see whether recommendations have been made in this field on which we need to make further progress.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further following her replies to my noble friends. We on these Benches are concerned that the money available for research is well directed and that there should not be delay and fragmentation. Can the Minister set out the timetable and say when we might be likely to receive a response to the question raised by noble friend Lord Selborne?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the House should not believe that there is necessarily fragmentation. Different people feel that the way in which the research is co-ordinated could be improved. The research supported by my department directly underpins our aims, objectives and policies. That is the area in which we can direct. Government can act only as a co-ordinator when we are talking about areas where research is being done by other bodies. However, if there are areas where we have not made sufficient progress I shall look carefully at the recommendations that have been made and see whether we can take that forward.

Internet Trading
2.59 p.m.
The Earl of Courtownasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to establish safety and security regimes for purchasing via the Internet.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government are working with the Alliance for Electronic Business and the Consumers' Association, in consultation with the OFT, to develop a new body called Trust UK to accredit e-commerce codes and a "hallmark" that accredited codes may use on their websites. Trust UK will be operational by early next year.
The Electronic Communications Bill, which was introduced in another place on 18th November, includes measures to recognise explicitly electronic signatures in law and remove other legal barriers to doing business electronically. The Bill's promotion of high quality cryptography services will allow people to have more confidence about who they are dealing with on the Internet and to protect the confidentiality of data; for example, payment details. The Government welcome the proposals by the Alliance for Electronic Business to meet the objectives of Part I of the Bill and ensure appropriate standards for such services through accreditation under its T-scheme.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the special "Money Programme" report over the weekend concerning Internet fraud. The programme implied that public confidence in e-commerce will not be achieved until the issue of fraud has been properly addressed. Can the noble Lord explain why the Electronic Communications Bill legislates for registration of cryptography service providers, while the Government continue to maintain that the industry should regulate itself in the area of cryptology? However, there is nothing on the face of the Bill that addresses the issue of Internet fraud.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, existing consumer legislation applies online just as it does offline. However, we are checking the existing legislation to ensure that this principle applies across the board. I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate that we have had to work hard to achieve the kind of Bill that is needed. It will apply a light-touch regulatory system, for which this House constantly presses, but at the same time it will give consumers confidence. The measures that I have outlined, which will result both from the existing consumer legislation and the new Bill we have introduced, will cover this area.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, while I appreciate that there is a need for a form of legislation to protect the consumer for electronic commerce, does the Minister agree that the Government should be promoting the Internet as a servant of the consumer rather than as a monster from which the consumer should be protected?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I believe that everyone would agree that this Government are hugely enthusiastic proponents of e-commerce in all its forms and its promotion is absolutely central to government policy. However, we must provide a minimal amount of necessary regulation to give consumers confidence. If we do not do that the possibility of fraud will be considerable, as was shown on the "Money Programme". That in itself will damage the growth of e-commerce.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the vast majority of sites offering goods and services on the Internet originate in the United States? For that reason, can the Government suggest to the European Union that discussions should be opened with the United States so that a harmonised regime of regulation can be adopted on both sides of the Atlantic? Does the Minister further agree that the best and wisest choice for consumers is to buy only from reputable organisations such as Amazon or Dell?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in these circumstances the question of confidence in organisations is clearly extremely important. However, once we have put in place the "hallmark" system, that will go a long way to
452
giving people confidence that the codes of conduct of organisations are in line with best practice. In regard to discussions with the Americans, I believe that the first step should be to make clear the European position. Once that has been done, negotiations with the US could be opened.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the Minister recall that on the last occasion we discussed these issues I suggested that this is not only a matter for Europe, but that this is a worldwide matter? I believe that the programme shown last Sunday made it abundantly clear just how worldwide it is. We might—and I emphasise the word "might"—be able to put secure systems into place in Europe, but they will not be of much value for Internet trading that will take place all around the world, including the United States and the Far East. Can the Government ensure that we consider this matter from a worldwide point of view? That is exactly what Internet trading and Internet commerce will bring about.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have pointed out, consumer legislation is already in place. Here we are considering two matters that relate closely to the situation in this country. Other countries also have consumer laws and those must be taken into account in international trading.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I say a few words about the business this afternoon before the debate begins. We have a very long speakers' list with around 40 contributors. The debate is not time limited, and we may therefore find ourselves sitting until rather late this evening when I believe that certain events might take place. Because of that, the usual channels have suggested that it may be for the convenience of all if some informal guidelines are suggested as to the length of speeches.
It has been suggested that Front Bench speeches be kept to around 15 minutes and those from the Back Benches to eight or nine minutes each. These guidelines are of course purely voluntary. However, if noble Lords confine themselves to the suggested times, I am sure that they will find their restraint appreciated on all sides of the House. Of course, if noble Lords have prepared speeches that take less than eight minutes, I am sure that the House will understand if they do not wish to put themselves to the inconvenience of extending them at such short notice.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, although I am reluctant to delay the start of the debate, I should like to raise a matter. It is directly related to the point the Government Chief Whip has raised about the length of the debate and who is to take part in it.

453
When the noble Baroness the Leader of the House spoke last Wednesday, she warned the House that her noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath would intervene during the debate. That was understood and was in itself an unusual course. However, now that we have been given the list of speakers for today we find that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has been grouped at the end of the debate with the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. In effect, we now have two Ministers winding up the debate.
It was unusual enough to anticipate an intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I say that without prejudice to the pleasure we always have in listening to what he has to say. The matter provokes two questions. If the Government feel that it is necessary not only for the Leader of the House but also another Front Bench Minister to reply to the debate, why does that not happen on other occasions? Noble Lords will have forgotten that at the beginning of the debate I attempted, from these Benches, to give an overall comment on the gracious Speech. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House gives an overall comment from the Government's point of view. So, logically, there should have been another speech from this Front Bench today, and indeed from the Conservative Front Bench, relating only to the business of the day. The conclusion to be drawn is that we should not only have two speakers today or indeed two speakers every day. If we discuss three subjects, then we should have three speakers from the Front Bench. I do not believe that Ministers could argue that they were entitled to three without the Conservative Party being entitled to three and we on the Liberal Democrat Benches having three. That would not be appreciated by Back Benchers.
This may not be a precedent and I do not wish to labour the point too much, but what is proposed today has not occurred within recent memory. I suggest, for the convenience of the House and to cause no further delay, that the whole structure of the Queen's Speech is examined by the Procedure Committee to ensure that Back Benchers have their fair share of the debate. The discussions are far more focused than they have been in the past. With the greatest respect, I believe it to be an anomaly that on a very busy day when Back Benchers are being asked to limit their contributions to under 10 minutes there should be two speakers from the Government Front Bench.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord says. But these are rather unusual circumstances. Conservative Members have made much of the fact that this is the first time in 50 years that the Conservative Opposition have proposed an amendment. So it is certainly unusual under a Labour Government.
I thought it right to provide a health Minister to deal with health issues, which are so important. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will speak after every other speaker except the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. If they raise health issues, my noble friend will undertake to write to them
454
and place a copy of the replies in the Library. In the unusual circumstances of the Opposition amendment, my noble friend the Leader of the House will wind up the whole debate, with particular reference to the amendment.
I agree that it would be a good idea for the Procedure Committee to examine the rather unusual structure for our debates on the Queen's Speech. However, I am surprised to receive a criticism from the Liberal Democrat Benches regarding the fact that there is more than one Front Bench speaker after sitting through many hours of debate during which up to three Liberal Democrat Front Bench Members have spoken on many items of business. The Liberal Democrats' argument seems to betray a certain lack of colour co-ordination between the pot and the kettle!
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise to the House for prolonging this discussion. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip, who is always enormously helpful and charming in the House, can explain what precedent there is in our procedure for this remarkable state of affairs.
I remember an amendment being tabled to the humble Address in the glorious days when the noble Lord's party sat on this side of the House. I seem to remember his noble friend Lord Richard making very effective use of that device. There was no attempt, either by myself or by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in any way to "double pack" the reply from either Front Bench. The House may disagree, but we seem perfectly well up to doing it on our own, and a single Front Bench speaker would be enough. This is an odd departure—unless the noble Lord can find another precedent to dredge up from the past to compare with this one.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I said, there is no precedent. This is the first time we have done it. I thought it would be helpful to the House if the extremely important subject of the health service was dealt with by a health Minister. My noble friend will reply to all the questions that may be raised about health and will write to noble Lords on any questions to which he cannot reply today. In the particular circumstances of the Opposition amendment, I thought that this was the best way to deal with the matter. The House may not agree, but it was an honest attempt to provide an answer. There is no precedent. I thought it a good idea.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, be allowed four minutes, eight minutes or 15 minutes?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a Front Bench speaker from the Dispatch Box, my noble friend will have 15 minutes.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may put the record straight. It is perfectly well precedented for an amendment to be tabled to the Motion on the Queen's Speech. Noble Lords opposite did that many times

455
when they were in Opposition. I am simply following a recent precedent. The last occasion was the debate on the Queen's Speech in 1996. It is longer since the Conservative Opposition did so, and I explained the reasons in my speech. But what is totally unprecedented is the extraordinary jumble that we shall have at the end of today's debate. We accepted the arrangement on the understanding that it was the result of a request made by the Leader of the House, for reasons best known to the Government.
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, although I am not sure that this is a matter for the Procedure Committee. However, if my noble friend Lord Cranborne and the noble Lord, Lord Richard, were able happily to deal with a similar situation in 1996, I am not sure why the same could not have been done today.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I said, it was an honest attempt to provide an answer to a particular problem. I note that of the last three speakers, two will be from the Opposition Front Bench. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who will in a sense be winding up in relation to his amendment. I presume that he will to some extent be replying to the speech of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall make a very brief intervention at the end of the debate. I shall be surprised if I speak for more than two minutes.

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 so as to enable the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to investigate complaints received directly from members of the public. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
3.16 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Baroness Pitkeathley—namely, That an humble Address be presented 10 Her Majesty as follows—
"Most Gracious Sovereign— We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to
456
thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament",
and on the amendment moved by the Lord Strathclyde, at the end of the Address to insert,
but regret the failure of Your Majesty's Government to reduce the burden of taxation and regulation and deplore the incoherence and the lack of vision of the measures proposed by Your Majesty's Government for the coming Session of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Home Office is introducing nine Bills in this legislative Session, almost one-third of the Government's overall programme. As has been well trailed, in my comments I shall cover the range of Home Office legislation, and later the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will set out the legislative programme for the Department of Health.
A large number of noble Lords will be speaking in this debate, many for the first time. I look forward to listening to their important and valuable contributions. No doubt they, and other speakers, will raise interesting, difficult and awkward questions. I shall endeavour to respond to those in writing should they so wish and will place copies of my replies in the Library.
The measures that we are introducing in this Session deal with real issues of concern to the people of this country tackling crime, combating drugs, dealing with discrimination and reforming our democracy. They will build on the changes that we have already made to modernise our public institutions and help build a society based on both rights and responsibilities.
Some of the measures are controversial—change often requires tough and difficult decisions. And I am sure that your Lordships will want to subject each Bill to your usual rigorous scrutiny and debate. One thing is for sure, however: the likelihood that your Lordships will be seeing much more of me over the next few months at the Dispatch Box.
I shall deal with each measure in turn. Since the election, we have been laying the foundations of what is nothing less than a crusade against crime. As a result of the Crime and Disorder Act, there are now 375 local crime reduction partnerships up and running across the country; a major reform of the youth justice system is under way; and new powers are in place for the police and local authorities to tackle the problems faced by our communities.
We are also investing £400 million in tried and tested schemes to reduce crime: CCTV schemes, anti-burglary projects and targeted policing initiatives. Money is also to be spent on reducing drugs misuse and ensuring that those arrested by the police are offered effective treatment to get them to kick their habit. We know that much property crime is driven by drugs. In some cities, research shows that almost half of those arrested by the police have used heroin or cocaine at some point in the recent past.

457
The Crime and Public Protection Bill will therefore extend drug-testing powers to those who commit a high volume of acquisitive crime. Following the success of drugs-testing regimes in prisons, the Bill will also include new powers focused on those serving community sentences. Ensuring more effective community punishment will be a key part of the Bill. It will, therefore, also modernise the Probation Service, ensuring improved enforcement and extending the use of tagging. That is just one part of the modernisation of the criminal justice system as a whole.
The Narey reforms are having a real impact, reducing delays and ensuring that our criminal justice system protects the rights of defendants as well as the rights of victims and the wider community.
A further change proposed by Narey in 1997 was that it should be for magistrates to take the decision as to where triable either way cases should be heard. That followed an earlier recommendation of the 1993 Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. There was unanimous support from the Royal Commission for the changes now being brought forward by the Government, with one critical and important change.
The Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill proposes to implement that change, with an important safeguard. It will give defendants a right of appeal to the Crown Court. I fully understand the concerns that many noble Lords may have on this issue; indeed, my party took a sceptical view at the time that this matter was put to the House by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He said then that the change offered substantial advantages and that it,
"would save the valuable time of all those engaged in the criminal justice process, including witnesses and victims. It would help to ensure that the energies of police officers could be spent protecting the public, rather than going backwards and forwards to magistrates' courts".
He added:
"Justice delayed is justice denied".—[Official Report, 27/2/97; col. 1282.]
Despite my party's previous sceptical view, I believe that the arguments for change are compelling. We are virtually alone in the western world in allowing defendants to choose the venue in which they are tried. North of the Border in Scotland it is the prosecution that decides. We propose that that decision should rest with the magistrates. That view is shared by the party opposite. The Conservative home affairs spokesman, the honourable Member for Ryedale (John Greenway), said in another place
"On either-way trials, if we can trust magistrates to decide guilt or innocence, why cannot we trust magistrates to decide whether cases are sufficiently serious to be tried by a jury in a Crown court?".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/2/97; col. 438.]
Over 90 per cent of all criminal cases are already dealt with in magistrates' courts, including summary offences such as assaulting a police officer and indecent exposure. More serious cases will continue to be sent by magistrates to the Crown Court for jury
458
trial. Current estimates suggest that out of more than 1.8 million defendants who are prosecuted in the courts each year only 18,500 elect jury trial.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. He referred to a Conservative Member of Parliament taking a certain view in the House of Commons. Can he remind the House what Mr Straw said when he commented on exactly the same issue? As I recall, he was passionately opposed to the proposal. Can it be explained to us why he is now passionately in favour of it?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, if noble Lords had followed the debates in the Commons yesterday they would have noted that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was very clear on the matter: he had been persuaded by the arguments. So have we.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Minister has been running an intriguing argument during the past few minutes. He will remember that after proclaiming our previous position we lost a general election. Noble Lords opposite won one on theirs. We have listened very carefully to what has been said of our proposals and have changed our mind. Why have the Government changed theirs?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I believe that I have made the position plain. We believe this proposal to be in the best interests of our criminal justice system. It is a more efficient, effective and speedier way to bring people to justice. I would have thought that noble Lords opposite would have shared that common approach to justice. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, will be familiar with the criminal justice system in Scotland where, effectively, the place to which criminal cases are referred is determined by magistrates' courts.
There is overwhelming evidence that the process has been abused in the past and causes further distress to victims and wasted time and resources to both the police and courts. Research shows that about three in five defendants who elect Crown Court trial against the wishes of magistrates change their plea when the case reaches the higher court. I believe that to be a very important consideration in this matter.
The Government have embarked on major reforms of the way in which this country is governed. The measures that we are introducing will continue that process of modernisation. First, as to party funding, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill follows the recommendations of the Neill Committee and will implement my party's manifesto commitment to ensure that foreign donations to political parties are banned and that large donations are publicly disclosed. The stories over the past few days remind us of exactly why we need to clean up our political system to ensure that the public have confidence in those who represent them. The previous Conservative government fought tooth and nail to prevent the issue of political party funding even being considered by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, never mind

459
legislating on it. They paid the price at the previous election. Despite the rhetoric of the Leader of the Opposition it appears that little has changed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will remind us who set up the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that it was set up by the leader of the party opposite when in government. That is an important and valuable contribution. We are furthering, improving and continuing that work. I am sure that the noble Lord is more than willing to accept that point.
This Bill will at last make the changes needed. There will be spending limits at elections, shareholder approval of company donations and a new electoral commission to regulate the system. We hope that this Bill will be supported, as it ought to be, by all who want to see an end to the previous doubts and suspicions in this area of public policy. When in office the Conservative Party persistently dragged its feet over obvious abuses relating to foreign donations. As a government they persistently refused our suggestion that the Neill Committee should be asked to look into party funding. Now is their chance to draw a line under the past and restore public confidence in their approach.
The Representation of the People Bill will modernise our outdated voting procedures, which have remained largely unchanged since the last century. For too long the electorate has been going to vote at times which are perhaps not convenient and in locations that are unsuitable. There have also been too many barriers put in the way of those who simply want to exercise their democratic right to vote. Therefore, to aid the process of voter registration the Government will provide for a system of rolling registration to replace the current system, which has a single annual qualifying date. The Bill will provide for local authorities to pilot alternative voting arrangements, such as changing the times and days when people can vote. They will also be able to pilot mobile polling, alternatives to traditional polling stations and electronic voting. These schemes will be evaluated and, if successful, could be rolled out nationally.
The Bill also proposes some changes to the election rules to make it easier for the disabled to vote. I am sure that that will be a welcome change for many people. Our modernisation programme will also include the first ever Freedom of Information Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Before he leaves the electoral system, can he give any indication of when those of our colleagues who have been removed from this House will be put on the electoral register and allowed to vote?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I suspect that that opportunity will present itself when the new electoral roll comes into effect.
460
For the first time every citizen of this country will have a statutory right to information held by public authorities. Public services are already more open than they used to be. Departments publish much more information about their processes than in the past. However, the right to know cannot be entirely unfettered. We must govern in the interests of the country, not pressure groups. We believe that we have secured a proper balance.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. On the basis of the right to know, what is the Minister's response to the following? I wrote to the Home Secretary in early August. I wrote a reminder two weeks ago. I am awaiting a reply. What price freedom of information there?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention. I shall inquire of the office of my right honourable friend and ensure that a speedy response is provided.
We have listened to the concerns of the Select Committee appointed to consider the draft Bill and those of other noble Lords. We have made changes to the draft Bill on the basis of those concerns. I am sure that we can look forward to debating this issue further over the next few months.
Changes in governmental structures need to bring about changes in culture too, both within society and in the relationship between communities and public authorities. As part of our response to the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence we undertook to amend the Race Relations Act to extend it to all public services. We shall do so through the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. This will make it unlawful for any specified public authority, including the police, directly to discriminate on racial grounds in carrying out any of its functions. It will also make chief officers of police liable for acts of racial discrimination committed by their police officers. This will remove an anomaly in the law and bring the police's position under the Act into line with employees.
This area of policy is of great importance to the Government and to me personally. It encompasses every piece of work we do and the lives of everyone in this country. In that way it is so much more than an ordinary piece of legislation. It is about the culture of workplaces and the values by which we lead our lives. The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill must be seen in the context of the work that is now being taken forward across society in order to stamp out discrimination and to make equality of opportunity a reality for all. The Government's role is to ensure that the right legislative framework and institutional arrangements are in place in order to achieve this.
We agreed in our response to the Better Regulation Task Force report that there is no need for a major legislative overhaul in this area at this stage. But we believe that action is being taken to tackle discrimination and disadvantage on all fronts.
To complete the legislative programme for home affairs we shall also he modernising anti-terrorist legislation. The Terrorism Bill is intended to deliver

461
modern, permanent, UK-wide legislation which is both effective and proportionate to the threat that the United Kingdom faces, and may face, from all forms of terrorism. It will ensure that individual rights are protected and will be consistent with our international commitments.
There will also be a Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, with which noble Lords will be familiar. It is the same as that rejected by this House last April. There will, as previously, be a free vote in both Houses. I hope that this time the House will support the principle of equality before the law and the protection of children measures contained in the Bill. However, should the other place again support the Bill and this House reject it, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it plain that the Parliament Acts will be used to ensure that the will of the elected House prevails.
Finally, the Government will be introducing an investigatory powers Bill to update the law on the interception of communications.
It is a demanding programme of work but it is also necessary: necessary to ensure that Britain has a modernised system of government fit to face the challenges of the next century; necessary to ensure that our criminal justice system is effective in delivering a safe, secure and just society.
Before I sit down I have one final challenge I wish to issue, in particular to noble Lords opposite. In examining our proposals which, rightly, are extensive, perhaps they can tell us today which measures, powers and duties they would, if they had the opportunity, seek to reverse. Would they roll back the rights of access to information? Would they drop improvements to race relations legislation? Would they deny to homeless people the right to vote? Would they lift the ban on the receipt of foreign political donations, weaken our tough new anti-drug measures, or narrow our anti-terrorism proposals? Finally, do they share our desire to modernise, improve and reform public services? That is the key question. We believe that our programme is necessary to ensure that there is a new, more open, just and tolerant relationship between individuals and the state.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask whether his threat to have resort to the Parliament Acts means that this Government are not ready to entertain any reasonable argument?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, our Government are always happy to entertain reasonable argument.
3.33 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, today, as the Minister said, we shall be concentrating our gaze on health issues and on home affairs. In the process we shall have the pleasure of listening to no fewer than seven distinguished maiden speakers. The gracious Speech
462
brought us, as is customary, a mixed plateful of the reasonably edible and barely digestible. And taken together, it is a giant helping. Whereas the legislative programme emanating from the Department of Health is on the light side, at least in comparison with last year, the same certainly cannot be said for the Home Office programme. Indeed, it is difficult not to be pole-axed by the sheer weight and number of Bills in the gracious Speech that fall under that department's aegis, many of them, I have to say, covering controversial and sensitive policy areas.
I do not intend to dwell too long on the difficulties that we on these Benches face in approaching some of these proposed measures. However, let me point out one very disappointing feature of them. At a time when many areas of the country are witnessing, for the first time in years, a rise in the levels of serious crime, there is practically nothing in the gracious Speech designed either to combat crime or to tackle the causes of offending. The Government's flagship measures to tackle crime, such as local child curfews, and antisocial behaviour orders, have made absolutely no impact whatever.
Instead of fresh ideas on ways to tackle crime, we have, in the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, an attack on one of the fundamental rights of the citizen. That Bill proposes to bring to an end the right of a defendant to elect for trial by a jury in the Crown Court for offences that may currently be tried "either way".
To justify such a measure by the financial savings it will lead to, and by the reduction in inconvenience that it will bring, is to belittle two principles that we have upheld in this country for many years: first, that jury trial offers a better model of justice than any other; and, secondly, that a defendant accused of more than just a trivial offence should be able to choose to be dealt with by a jury.
In February 1997, it was argued in another place:
"Surely cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong, but short-sighted. and likely to prove ineffective".—[Official Report, Commons. 27/2/97: col. 433.]
Those were the words of none other than the present Home Secretary, Mr Straw. I shall find it interesting to see how the right honourable gentleman attempts to resile from that very clear statement of principle uttered less than three years ago.
When a proposal on exactly the same lines was discussed in 1993, a letter appeared in The Times which included these words:
"This would be madness. I hope that Parliament will refuse to countenance legislation of this kind."
Those are the words of none other than our much respected Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I hope that we shall hear from the noble and learned Lord whether he has had cause to revise the views that he articulated so forcefully some six years ago and, if so, why that is.
I give notice to the Government that we shall be opposing this Bill, not just on principle but because we believe that the pragmatic arguments purporting to underpin it are unsound. We shall also be pointing up

463
what we see as serious flaws in the freedom of information Bill, which is so drafted as to make more information secret than is the case at the moment. In the race relations Bill which implements the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry, we shall seek to ensure that nothing in that measure has an adverse impact on the operational effectiveness of the police. While we welcome the long-awaited implementation of the Neill report, one of our aims when that Bill comes before us, will be to ensure that fairness in the conduct of referendums is not compromised by rules that favour one case at the expense of the other.
Let me turn now to the measures announced in the gracious Speech that fall under the wing of the Secretary of Stale for Health. We shall await with interest the arrival of the care standards Bill. At this stage I would only say this: that regulation of healthcare and social services, wherever it is introduced, must have as its aim nothing else but the interests of each individual old person, each and every child in care and each individual patient. It should not be defended as a way of boosting the status of this or that category of service provider. It should focus on outputs not inputs. When we come to debate the regulation of the private healthcare sector, I hope that we shall keep continually in our minds the key, central aim of ensuring minimum standards of clinical care that are on a precisely equal footing with those provided by the NHS.
I welcome in principle the Government's proposal to confer a continuing responsibility on local authorities for the physical and emotional welfare of young people between 16 and 21 who leave the care system. There is an abundance of compelling evidence that young people who, for whatever reason, begin their lives in care find it difficult to adjust to independent adult life. The incidence of unemployment among such individuals and frequently their failure to attain any useful professional qualification are only half the story. Equally worrying is the number of young men and women who fall into a cycle of homelessness, drug taking and crime. It is right in principle for the Government to have recognised that there is a need to place those younger care leavers under the wing of a responsible public authority until they have reached an age where they can find their feet more securely.
If I have a concern about that Bill, it is that many social services authorities are struggling to discharge their existing obligations, never mind any further obligations. What assurances are we ID be given that this additional burden will be properly resourced throughout the country?
However, while the principle of that Bill is not a matter for disagreement, I shall tell your Lordships an interesting fact about it. It is its juxtaposition with another Bill that tries to argue precisely the opposite case. For one group of children within a certain age range, the Government are saying that, by virtue of their age, there is and should be a continuing role for the state to act in loco parentis. But in the same breath, they are seeking to argue that children of precisely the
464
same age need not, and should not, have the protection of the law when it comes to determining the age of homosexual consent.
The Minister may put forward all kinds of arguments in his usual skilful way to try to demonstrate that I am comparing chalk with cheese. However, in my personal and respectful view, the pass has been sold on the question of whether vulnerable young people between the ages of 16 and 18 need and deserve quasi-parental protection conferred on them by Parliament.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. Will he confirm his understanding that if the Government do not amend the age of consent for homosexual young men to 16, this country will be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and by reference in breach of their own Human Rights Act?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am not in a position to confirm that before we have a chance to debate it. As the noble Lord knows, we have debated the issue on a number of occasions and that question remains decidedly open.
The sad thing about the gracious Speech is what is not included in it. Last year, many of us felt that the Health Bill—now the Health Act—represented a giant missed opportunity. It focused far too much on the structures of the NHS and not enough on the big issues that really matter: proper resourcing; improving access to specialist services; transparency in the setting of priorities; workforce planning. Instead, what we were given was a recipe for a gigantic upheaval. I said then that we owed it to all concerned, not least the patient, to try to make the reforms work successfully. But now, nearly eight months on, what do we have?
We have a health service which is reeling under the pressure of forced and rapid change. We have doctors who feel alienated by primary care groups, who feel left out of the decision-making process and who, perhaps most seriously, are having to tolerate cuts in services to patients. In a recent survey conducted by the National Association of Primary Care, 54 per cent of the 408 practices surveyed said that their primary care group was not supporting them and more than half said that they had not been consulted on major decisions affecting their future. Four out of 10 practices reported that they had lost services because of the introduction of primary care groups. Nearly six out of 10 said that they found it more difficult to help patients and that the new systems were more bureaucratic than those they had operated previously. So much for the loudly trumpeted aspiration to level up services, to bring the profession together and to jettison bureaucracy.
For the first time in its history, the NHS finds itself having to cope with cash-limited drugs budgets. This has coincided with a sudden and sharp rise in the cost of generic medicines. The result in some PCGs is budgetary mayhem. Ministers have admitted that the generic drugs crisis will cost the NHS £160 million in this financial year, or £5,200 for every GP. But what is

465
their proposal to remedy this? Nothing! Their message is that health authorities have somehow just got to manage. But in GP surgeries, the squeeze is being felt. Money earmarked for the development of primary care, for premises and for management costs has been siphoned off to fill the gaping holes in the budget. Referrals are being cut. Even that much-raided pot of gold, the NHS Modernisation Fund, is being plundered yet again to pay for the overspends. Ironically, the pain is felt worst in those PCGs which have been most successful in increasing their percentage of generic prescribing—a poor reward for a lot of effort. I fear—and it is not an idle fear—that before the end of this financial year we shall see PCGs having to introduce conscious, deliberate cuts in prescribing levels.
In June last year, the Secretary of State said:
"As now, no one will be denied the drugs they need: that is a guarantee."
Yet today, the Government are simply shrugging their shoulders. The message is the same in hospitals where the Government have refused to countenance any extra money to cope with expected winter pressures or to pay junior doctors a reasonable overtime rate for working over the millennium. The Government say that the Comprehensive Spending Review has already allowed for this. But the unmistakable signs are that many hospitals will be struggling desperately to maintain a satisfactory level of cover this winter.
Then there are the waiting lists. There is ample evidence from around the country that the Government's fixation on bringing down waiting list numbers has distorted clinical priorities. There is a major backlog of complex surgical procedures which have been postponed to rush through a disproportionate number of straightforward procedures. A pernicious system of penalties and incentives is in operation to force hospitals to do this. The sickest patients are waiting longer simply in order to make the headline figures look better.
It is of course, as we have said all along, waiting times, not the numbers on the list, that really matter. The Government are still defending the waiting list initiative, even though they have been told by just about every Royal College, by the BMA, by the RCN, by the King's Fund and others that it is a nonsense. They are even saying, as the Secretary of State said recently, that as in-patient waiting lists come down waiting times will come down, too. That claim is a self-evident non sequitur: the number of people waiting more than a year for an operation has risen since May 1997. But the Secretary of State's claim is doubly wrong when one considers what has happened to referrals. Since Labour came to office, the number of people waiting more than 13 weeks to see a consultant for the first time has risen by 230,000, or nearly 100 per cent. There is only one conclusion to draw from the Government's rhetoric: politics are being put before patients.
The Prime Minister may blame the doctors for being too conservative, but it is not the doctors who have brought about the NHS's current problems. Not only are clinical priorities being distorted by Ministers, but
466
we are seeing money being directed in ways that may not bear any relation to local needs. One health authority chief executive put it like this:
"Some GPs would rather see money spent on five extra health visitors than on treating 50 extra patients who've been waiting 18 months for plastic surgery.".
That puts into a nutshell the kinds of distortion that the Government's policies are leading to: policies that have as their root an almost irresistible urge to interfere with local and clinical autonomy.
It is time that the electorate woke up to the gap that exists between the Government's rhetoric and what people are actually experiencing in their daily lives. In doctors' surgeries, as in hospitals, as in police stations, as in the courts and in the homes of the victims of crime, the credibility gap is becoming a yawning chasm.
3.48 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, first, I am grateful that the Leader of the House is to reply to the debate because in my remarks I intend to go wider than home affairs and health. I do so because I believe that the general issues of the Queen's Speech will be brought together at the end of today's debate.
Secondly, as was said by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we have greatly benefited from some brilliant maiden speeches. They show that the new reformed House, in its deliberations, will bring to bear the kind of wisdom and experience which we remember from the old House at its best. We look forward to hearing from our maiden speakers again in the future.
The Queen's Speech is something of a parson's egg; that is, it is good and bad in parts. I want to refer briefly to some of the good things and some of the bad things and to say that my noble friends will be addressing more precisely specific issues relating to home affairs and health.
First, it is greatly to be welcomed that the Government are committed to removing the barriers to an enterprise society. There are proposals to modernise the laws of bankruptcy, to give greater freedom to investment trustees and to bring in a business services Bill. This Government are bringing in an e-commerce Bill and have done their very best—I congratulate them—to ensure that people from poorer families and young people in the more deprived parts of this country will have access to computers so that they too may be part of the information revolution. However, in their passionate devotion to modernisation, they have only carried their commitment so far. A truly e-state or e-country—that is, one that understands and fully appreciates the information technology revolution—must be committed to clear, open freedom of information and must recognise the problems of procuring computer advances in a sensible and co-operative way.
Throughout government, departments are stumbling over difficulties arising from the attempt to adapt themselves to the technological revolution. Had there been much more consultation, had there been a much wider willingness to involve all parties enough in

467
the study of these systems, I believe we would not now be facing the near disasters seen in the Home Office and, to a lesser extent, in the Department of Trade and Industry. For the purpose of this debate, I want to underline that while we welcome the Government's new commitment to discuss laws in draft before they become committed to them—that is extremely sensible and long awaited—there really must be a complementary commitment to freedom of information that recognises the right of every individual citizen to have information of the kind that he or she seeks.
Secondly, I congratulate the Government on the steps they are taking to set up a strategic railways board. However, this country is parlously badly off in respect of public transport. Indeed, the situation in any less patient country would be regarded as a public outrage. There is wide-scale exploitation of the quasi-monopolies represented by the railways and the public utilities. For example, would it not be nice to see payment by performance in those industries rather than payment seized simply as a reward for having very little competition in the areas where they work? We, on these Benches, believe that there must be more and urgent investment in public transport, in railways, in cycleways, and in all the other ways in which people may move about. While we fully accept and support the Government's proposal for road congestion taxation, we believe that it can be introduced in a democracy only when there is adequate public transport to enable alternatives to be used.
Thirdly, I point to the huge challenge that now faces local and regional authorities. I refer, of course, to the Government's plan for a massive expansion of new housing. If that new housing is to be attractive, if it is not to intervene too far in the countryside, which is one of our great inheritances, local government must be allowed to exert initiative and imagination in the ways that the whole issue is handled. I felt a chill go through me on seeing in the gracious Speech reference to yet another reform of local government, for every reform under both governments so far has been one that takes away more discretion and power from local government.
One sees from the amazing renaissance of regional government in countries like France and Spain and the architectural achievements of cities like Barcelona, Grenoble and the area around Munich what can be done by enthusiastic and energetic local government. If there is any single criticism which to me most spells out my concern about this Government, it is the insistence on centralising in the hands of Whitehall and Westminster almost all powers in areas where local government should be free.
We see the same process again as the attempt is made to centralise regional development largely in regional development authorities, which may indeed do a good job but which in no way mobilise and harness the enthusiasm and good work of local people. Sooner or later, we have to look to the resurrection of this country not just around London but in the north of England, in the west of England, in the east of England, throughout this whole country, in order to be
468
able to mobilise the forces that will bring genuine modernisation and a better quality of life in those parts of the country that even today are profoundly neglected.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said that the Government are committed to good public services. The reason we cannot support the amendment today in the name of the noble Lord. Lord Strathclyde—we will be inviting colleagues on these Benches to oppose the amendment—is that the last thing this country needs at the moment is a reduction of taxation.
Taxation has fallen in this country and it may be said properly so, but there comes a point at which the balance between public services and taxation must be struck in a way that recognises the serious impoverishment of many of our public services. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, that I do not believe rhetorical commitments to the public service make up for what one can only be described as the relative decline in areas such as those to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred in respect of health and to which I shall now briefly refer in respect of education.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is trying the patience of the House a little. Education was part of Monday's debate, as was the environment. Today's topic is health. I ask the Leader of the House whether it is reasonable to expect a Minister who speaks for health to speak on all the subjects when there have been previous days for debate on those topics.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I believe the noble Countess, Lady Mar, will find that at the beginning of the speakers' list the major topics of debate are stated. For example, home and health affairs are the topics to be debated today. However, as is always the practice in your Lordships' House and particularly in this five-day debate, it is within perfectly acceptable bounds for speeches to be made on any issue.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I apologise to the House for taking up time.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may say to the noble Countess, whom I greatly respect, that I did of course take advice before deciding to speak on topics other than health and home affairs. I attempted to explain that to the House at the beginning of my remarks today.
I return for a moment to education. The gracious Speech refers directly to education. It is, it says, the Government's first and overwhelming priority. In view of that, it is puzzling that, under this Government, the share of gross domestic product being spent on education has declined and remains below that of the previous Conservative government. It is worth noting that fact because over the past three years in no single year has education expenditure fallen

469
to its current level. It is extremely worrying for those of us who believe that education should be our first priority, not least because this country still suffers economically from a relatively low-skilled labour force and from inadequate investment in vocational and trade education in particular.
However, that is not the end of the story. There is a serious problem of recruitment both in respect of teaching and of nursing—to return to today's chosen debate. There is a current shortage of 15,000 nurses. There is a shortage of teachers in crucial areas such as foreign languages, mathematics and science. To be blunt, we cannot expect to recruit public servants to health and education if we not only underpay them but also consistently undervalue them and spend a great deal of time criticising them despite the gallant efforts that the great majority of them make. It is legitimate to say that poor teachers and inadequate doctors should be assisted to leave the profession. However, that applies to only a small minority. We on these Benches believe it is high time that public service in this country was respected, admired, and, indeed, rewarded along the lines expected in the private sector.
I turn now to international affairs. In his Guildhall speech, the Prime Minister referred to this country being,
"at the pivot of all these interconnecting alliances and groupings."
He referred in that respect to our role in the Commonwealth, in Europe, in NATO and elsewhere. We on these Benches profoundly regret the omission from the Queen's Speech of any reference to testing the opinion of this country on the issue of admission to the European single currency. A report in the Daily Telegraph today suggests that the major car manufacturers, Fiat, Ford and Rover, are seriously considering pulling out of this country and going overseas unless there is a clear commitment to entering the euro.
Yesterday also the Foreign Secretary referred in a speech to the danger of this country steadily losing its influence if it remains half-in and half-outside the European Union. We passionately believe that Britain's influence in the Commonwealth, in the European Community and in NATO is for the good. We therefore deprecate anything that would essentially marginalise our country in the creation and shaping of the world of the 21st century.
I should like to say to the Government how profoundly we welcome the commitment to ratify the International Criminal Court. It is high time we gave a lead in that respect. Those noble Lords who have read the terrifying and blood-curdling account by the United Nations special envoy, Mr David Harland, about the fall of Srebenica—one of the most miserable chapters in the whole history of the interventions of the West in the affairs of the Balkans—will know how desperately that court is needed.
I wish that I could conclude on that note, for we are grateful to the Government for bringing that commitment forward and believe it to be of the greatest possible importance. However, I conclude in
470
a different way. It is extremely sad that that commitment to international justice should ride in harness in the Queen's Speech with a commitment to destroy the foundation of individual liberties which have existed in this country for over 1,000 years. I refer to the right to trial by jury. Trial by jury protects the poor, the minorities in our society and the dissidents. As one empanelled to be a witness in the trial of Mr Clive Pontin, I recognise how juries can reach decisions which ring down the centuries with their commitment to our liberties and how that is not always true of the lower judiciary and the magistrates' courts.
We shall be throwing away a great tradition in our pursuit of modernisation for its own sake if we throw away trial by jury. As one who welcomes some of the things that the Government are doing, I simply beg them to think again on this issue.
4.4 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am aware of the honour of speaking in your Lordships' House for the first time, and of the high standard set by those who have spoken before me for the first time in your Lordships' House during the past few days of this debate. I am grateful for the kindness shown to me since I arrived here in July by your Lordships and by all those who work here. It is difficult to intervene at this stage following such distinguished, telling and wide-ranging contributions. I believe that my best contribution would be to draw to your Lordships' attention some interesting developments in the area of crime and justice of which I have personal knowledge.
I declare an interest in that I am connected in a voluntary capacity with a world-wide organisation called Penal Reform International. It was set up in this country exactly 10 years ago by a group of like-minded people from around the world who wanted to support each other and work across national boundaries to promote new and better ways of dealing with crime and securing access to justice. The very first funds received by the organisation came from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when it was under the distinguished leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell. Much good came of that small, pump-priming grant. Penal Reform International is now working in 50 countries.
Through my connection with that organisation have been privileged to come into contact with many people in different parts of the world who are looking for new and better ways of handling those difficult matters. It is often said that the British criminal justice system is the best in the world. Indeed, that is a widely held view. Even so, it might be possible for us to learn from what is being done in other countries and other jurisdictions.
The introduction of a scheme of community service orders as an alternative to prison in Zimbabwe comes to mind as one example. The scheme is becoming well known around the world. It has a number of interesting features. First, the programme is inspired and shaped by the judges and the magistrates, who

471
have day-to-day involvement in how the programme is managed, and thus they ensure that it meets their sentencing objectives.
Secondly, those who set up the scheme put the highest priority on gaining the confidence of the public in the new sentence. They work hard to show that it benefits the community in the short term, through the value of the work done and the good effect on the criminal, and in the longer term through reducing the damaging effects of imprisonment. I have visited the scheme twice and I am continually impressed by its capacity as an engine for changing public thinking on punishment, retribution and restitution. The project in Zimbabwe has been supported by successive British Governments since 1993, by the Overseas Development Administration, as it was until 1997, and by the Department for International Development since then.
A second example from a very different country may also be of some interest to your Lordships. I refer to a project from a small town in Russia called Ardatov. The church in this small town struck up a relationship with the local juvenile prison where many youngsters aged under 18 are held. The original intention of the people from the church was to go to the prison with the Christian message. However, when they arrived they discovered other basic needs, such as food, medicine and protection from violence. Marty of the young people had no families to bring them things from outside or to see to their welfare. On leaving the prison the young people face a grim future.
The church has now adopted the juvenile prison. With the help of a grant from the Human Rights Fund of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office they have set up a training workshop in the prison to teach the young people motor mechanics and have persuaded the local bus company to take them on as workers when they have been trained. There is perhaps something for us to learn here about the relationship between citizens and the young people whom we choose to exclude from society and lock away.
Finally, I want to draw to the attention of your Lordships an interesting experiment which is under way in Vermont in the United States which I have had the opportunity to study. It may be felt that one does not normally look to the United States for lessons in criminal justice. With its remarkably high prison population and the gross disproportion of people from racial minorities who are incarcerated, the United States might seem to be a model to avoid rather than to copy.
However, in the state of Vermont an entirely new approach to dealing with convicted criminals has been developed. Those found guilty of less serious crimes are dealt with by citizens' reparative boards. The boards are made up of a small number of local people. They can include those nominated by community groups; victims who have had experience of the reparative process, and perhaps ex-offenders who have been through the process themselves. The groups decide on a punishment that involves reparation and aims to integrate the ex-offender back into the community.
472
Surely it is our duty to explore every opportunity and initiative, from whatever source, to ensure that our practices in this country are relevant, effective and just.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, on her excellent maiden speech. I know well her work with NACRO and internationally over many years. I have the highest respect for her judgment and humanity, which she revealed today. This House is indeed fortunate to have the wise counsel and shrewd insights she will present to our debates. I believe that she will help us to find our way through some of the difficult issues of crime and justice that are dealt with in this House.
I should like also to congratulate the Government on the coherence and vision of the legislative programme for this Session. I use those words advisedly. The rather petulant wording of the amendment tabled by the Conservative Front Bench reveals how out of touch they continue to be. It reflects their understandable embarrassment that the Government's programme tackles a range of important issues which the Conservatives simply ignored when in government.
A good example is the reform of the Child Support Agency. Having created this mess—comparable, I suggest, to the poll tax—the problems of the CSA were left to get worse, despite their serious impact on thousands of families. This House recently debated the problems and importance of fathers. However, the failure to tackle the CSA débâcle has made it more and more difficult for non-resident fathers to stay in contact with their children. This Government are not only tackling the problems of the CSA; they are also reforming the Family Court Advisory Service this Session in another piece of legislation which w ill help families and children.
As a former director of social services, I know how incoherent the system of regulating social care has been for well over a decade. This affects millions of people whose elderly or disabled relatives are in residential care or receive domiciliary care. The regulation of children's homes, especially small homes, has been unsatisfactory for years despite numerous inquiries, including one I chaired for the previous government as long ago as 1992. Only now will we be getting the kind of care standards Bill from this Government that is needed. This will set up, at last, fully independent arrangements for regulating residential care and nursing homes for elderly or-disabled people, children's homes, domiciliary care, fostering agencies and other services.
It will also, for the first time, properly regulate private and voluntary hospitals and clinics. In addition it will, at long last, establish a general social care council to oversee the standards and training of the one million-strong social care workforce that looks after so many vulnerable people.
The amendment tabled by the Opposition seems to imply that measures of this kind are somehow to be dismissed as a great regulatory burden; whereas they

473
represent the behaviour of a responsible government trying to protect thousands of vulnerable people in millions of families by ensuring quality of care. Such reform is long overdue.
Another Bill I particularly welcome is the Children (Leaving Care) Bill. I was pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Howe, express his support for this Bill. For far too long young people have come out of the care system ill equipped to cope with the world in which they are required to survive. No wonder they end up homeless, unemployed and disproportionately represented in our prison service. These problems have been known for a long time. It has taken this Government to produce legislation that will provide for all young people leaving care to have a pathway plan mapping their route to independence, covering education, training, career plans and support. A personal adviser will be responsible for keeping in touch with them and overseeing the plan. At last this rather unfashionable group of young people are receiving the attention they deserve.
It was a Labour Home Secretary who took through Parliament the Race Relations Act 1976. This is an area in which the previous government were not too keen to become involved. Indeed, I remind your Lordships' House that they refused to set up an inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. I welcome the decision of the Government to have a race relations amendment Bill this Session which will implement one of the key recommendations of the Macpherson report. The Bill will make it unlawful for public authorities to discriminate in carrying out any of their functions, including law enforcement. In particular, chief constables will be vicariously liable for acts of racial discrimination committed by any of their police officers.
The crime and protection of the public Bill will take forward much-needed reform in the area of probation which, again, was sadly neglected by the previous government. They cut the budgets of the Probation Service and abolished the service's professional qualification. This Government have established the new professional qualification and increased budgets. They have done much to get the Probation Service focused on what is effective in delivering community punishments. I welcome the decision to go further and create a unified Probation Service which will more effectively ensure that the terms of community punishment are complied with and reassure the public that community sentences work.
I should like to make one comment on the Government's intention to re-introduce the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. There would have been no need to take up further time in this House on this issue if the Opposition had not behaved so irresponsibly in July. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that if the United Kingdom Government did not
474
introduce this legislation the UK would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and, by reference, its own Human Rights Act.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in his remarks, but that matter has not been settled in Europe and it is unwise to keep repeating a statement which is not in fact true.
Lord Warner: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, she is wrong. As I understand the position, the case of Euan Sutherland was set aside so that the Government could introduce legislation before it was put to final decision by the courts. There was a clear expectation, on the basis of legal advice given to Ministers—noble Lords shake their heads; but it is a fact and although noble Lords may not like it, it is sometimes necessary to bring out the facts of a case—that the Government would have had a court judgment against them and been forced to legislate. The Government—wisely in my judgment—held fire with that court judgment and have taken action to introduce legislation which will put the matter beyond doubt.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Commission is not the same as the court.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand that the Commission is not the same as the court. But the noble Baroness must understand that the Commission made a recommendation to the court and the Government were advised legally—the noble Baroness shakes her head but these are the facts—that they would lose in the court if the case was put to a final judgment. It is because this Government have regard for the European Convention on Human Rights and do not have the same record as the previous government, which had one of the worst records of European countries for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, that they took this step to put the law in good order to meet the concerns in the Sutherland case.
I should like now to spend a few moments on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. I would be willing to open a book on how often Magna Carta will be mentioned in the debates on this Bill in the coming Session, and be happy to donate the profits to a distressed lawyers' welfare fund if necessary. We can save the detail for the Bill's debates, but it is worth dwelling on two facts.
First, the recommendations of two Royal Commissions to change the right to trial by jury should not be dismissed as lightly as some are already doing. Secondly, those making the more excitable comments being aired on this subject should also bear in mind that the Bill will provide for a right of appeal to the Crown Court against magistrates' decisions to try cases themselves. I suggest that that represents a new dimension on this issue which has not been dealt with very effectively in the media. It suggests that the Home Secretary listened to the many concerns and on that he should be congratulated.

475
Finally, I want to say a few words on the Freedom of Information Bill, the Representation of the People Bill and the political parties Bill. Those Bills all contain measures on which the Opposition could have legislated but chose to ignore when they were in government. For reasons which have become apparent, especially over the past 24 hours, we can all understand why the previous government did not want to deal with putting party funding on a more transparent basis. For reasons that the 1997 election probably revealed, one can see why they did not want to make it easier for people to vote; and for reasons that the Scott report laid bare, I can appreciate why they did not want to make it easier for people to find out what was going on in government by having a statutory-based freedom of information regime. I welcome the Government's decision to press on in those areas.
The Government are to be congratulated on the coherence of their programme. Members of the Opposition seem to find it difficult to discern themes in the programme. As an advocate of lifelong learning I should like to help them.
A noble Lord: My Lords, the time!
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have been interrupted many times. If I had been allowed to complete my speech I would have concluded much more quickly.
Merely in the measures I have already mentioned, there are clear themes of better government, public protection and efficient criminal and social justice for neglected groups. I hope when we come to discuss those Bills in detail, we will be spared some of the time-wasting and hypocrisy from the Opposition Front Benches that we saw in the last Session.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, it is a great honour for me to find myself a Member of this House and I was particularly glad that I was privileged, however briefly, to sit in this House while its heritage, authority and spirit of public service were still enhanced by the contribution of the hereditary Peers, now sadly banished. I should also like to thank the staff of the House for the courteous way in which they welcomed me and helped me to find my way around, along with the many others who have come in in rather large numbers.
To me it is regrettable that the most independent part of this House has been removed without any credible policy for its replacement. Nobody could ever justify the expulsion of the hereditary Peers on the grounds of utility. No senate on earth has ever benefited from such a wealth of experience and dedication at so little cost to the public purse. Their contribution was informed and valuable.
During my earlier incarnation in another place I had the responsibility of steering rather more than a dozen Bills through Parliament. I have to tell your Lordships that this was the place that I and my officials feared. In the other place people stood up and made speeches
476
which were political and not concerned with the contents of the Bill. It was in this place that every government Minister and every parliamentary draftsman knew that any legal anomaly or oversight would be forensically investigated and challenged. On our parliamentary navigational charts, your Lordships' House was marked, "Here be dragons".
I last spoke in Parliament on 10th March 1997. A lot has happened since then: waiting times in the National Health Service have gone up; so have class sizes in schools; police numbers have gone down; the crime rate has gone up; and the beef ban remains in place, even though we surrendered our sovereignty over employment laws and a host of other matters.. The principle of free access to education has been abandoned with the introduction of tuition fees by this Labour Government. The drugs budget, as my noble friend pointed out, in the National Health Service has been cash limited for the first time in its history leading, as it will do, to the rationing of vital treatments. Patients will no longer receive treatment according to clinical need, but according to postcode and the judgments of accountants.
The iron Chancellor appears to be suffering from metal fatigue since, according to the Library in the other place, his increases in tax amount to £40 billion and the OECD claims that the tax burden in this country is rising faster than in any other country in Europe. The Civil Service has been politicised. Half of the information officers in Whitehall, including those who used to serve me in the Scottish Office, have been sacked and the remainder brought under direct political control. The promised bonfire of quangos has fizzled out; they remain in existence filled with Labour placemen, a fate destined soon to overtake this House. Parliament has not been modernised by this Government; it has been marginalised by this Government.
I believe that the tradition in this House is for maiden speeches to be uncontroversial. So your Lordships will understand that I resist drawing any conclusions from those facts. If the rules of the House allowed it, I would sing a few bars of "Things can only get better"; but I gather they do not. Although there are some things in the gracious Speech which I believe to be good, I fear that I can find nothing that will deliver that particular slogan's promise.
At the end of the last Session we were treated to the unedifying spectacle of the remaining 92 hereditary Peers being held hostage lest this House dare exercise its constitutional right to disagree with aspects of the Government's legislation. To its very considerable credit, this House called the Government's bluff and stood up for the disabled.
We seem to be moving rapidly towards a situation where Parliament is under the thumb of the executive. The House of Commons is already controlled by the Government: the Lords will be appointed by them. We are becoming the biggest quango in the land. It is clear that this Government do not like revising Chambers. Why else have they opted for a one-chamber Parliament in Scotland? I fear that we are moving de

477
facto to unicameralism in Westminster as well. I believe that that is the answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, earlier today, which was unanswered by the Government Front Bench.
I believe that the new House must have an elected element. But before the composition is decided, the functions of this place must be defined. There will be difficult issues to be resolved in either a partly-elected or wholly-elected House. In the former we would have two or more classes of Peer. But both must be better than a wholly appointed House.
The Government's plans to reform this House are fatally flawed. They do not know what they want this place to do other than be more acquiescent towards the executive than its predecessor. Hiding behind the fig leaf of a Royal Commission, which they should have set up immediately following the general election—and waited for its conclusions before implementing any legislation—this Queen's Speech contains no mention of the Government's view on the future role of this place. I, too, look forward to seeing the Royal Commission's conclusions. I earnestly hope that when we lift the fig leaf we do not find a fig.
There are some elements in the gracious Speech which I find very difficult to accept, and I find very surprising the reasons why it is difficult for me to accept them. They are difficult to accept because I believe them to be far too Right-Wing and illiberal in their impact. The removal of the right to trial by jury was rightly opposed by the Government in opposition. To describe such a fundamental right enshrined in Magna Carta as "eccentric", which is what the Home Secretary did the other day, shows vividly how little understanding he has of his responsibilities to guard our liberties and the institutions which protect them. The doctrine that the ends justify the means seems to have survived his conversion from his radical Left-Wing days.
I am not a lawyer, but I am sufficiently familiar with the work of Lord Devlin to know that he wrote the authoritative work on trial by jury. Perhaps I may read a quote from that work, which was written in 1956. It begins:
"The first object of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a subject's freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen. So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution, it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives".
Those were the words of Lord Devlin. I hope that the Government will ponder them and think again.
The proposal contained in the gracious Speech to stop the benefits of youngsters who do not comply with community service orders is, to my mind, completely crackpot and lacking in common sense. I fail to see how cutting off their means of support will make it less likely that people will reoffend. Many of these youngsters have got into trouble because they have become involved with drugs; they steal in order to get the money to buy them. If money is taken from them, they will repair the loss by committing burglary,
478
mugging or worse crimes. I expected much more emphasis on rehabilitation from this Government and I feel a real sense of disappointment that an opportunity has been missed.
Your Lordships will have seen the Freedom of Information Bill, which has been published. I took the opportunity to read it. There are no fewer than 13 pages of exemptions under the legislation as regards entitlement to information—indeed, 13 pages of exemptions listing the information that we cannot have. It actually makes more information secret than is the case at present. The information officer, under the Bill, should decide whether information should be disclosed, not the Government. That is what is being proposed by the Labour Party north of the Border in Scotland. How can this matter of principle be different on each side of the Border? How can it be right that there is an independent right of access to public information north of the Border, whereas, south of the Border, the Government will decide whether information should be made available?
I appreciate that time is at a premium. Therefore, in conclusion, perhaps I may add that I believe the only true system of checks and balances, which has always relied upon the goodwill and good sense of all participating parties, has been attacked with the constitutional equivalent of a sledge hammer. Out of the debris we must salvage our bicameral parliamentary democracy. I believe that the role of this House in that task will be crucial.
I respectfully submit that the duty which history and the public interest alike impose upon us is to honour the oath that we took by fearlessly asserting the independence of this House and acting as the vigilant guardians of the rights and liberties of the British people.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, on behalf of your Lordships' House, I have the pleasure of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, on his maiden speech. I think we have a guarantee of vitality and absence of blandness in his future speeches. Speaking for myself, I look forward to the day when he makes a controversial speech. I notice that listed among the noble Lord's recreations are mountaineering and astronomy. On his voyage here there must have been many peaks to be scaled. Perhaps we should all wish him well as he travels per ardua ad astra.
I have an interest to declare. I am chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I hold that office in succession to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. Two other members of the committee are present today; namely, the noble Lords, Lord Shore of Stepney and Lord Goodhart. So, if I speak untimely or unwisely, I shall be corrected by them.
The gracious Speech says:
"A Bill will be introduced to set up an electoral commission to regulate the funding and spending of political parties and organisations".

479
That is the sequel to the report which the committee under my chairmanship produced last October, the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and which was requested by government. Now we have the response produced in July in the form of a White Paper and attached Bill.
Putting it at its briefest, we made some 100 recommendations, the substance of which has been accepted by government. There are points of departure, some minimalist. In some respects, government have improved and tidied up ideas which the committee had. However, there is one major point of difference to which I shall refer later. Time is very short and there will be an opportunity to debate it in much greater detail in due course. We tried to inform ourselves in preparing the report by visiting two European countries—Germany and Sweden—and then Canada, which probably has the purist system of electoral voting. After that we travelled south across the border to Washington where we found a somewhat different scene.
Within this country we had public hearings of evidence in London and very informatively, in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. The result was that we had a great deal of first-hand information about how referendums operate in this country at present. That led to some of our recommendations. Those noble Lords who have read the report will have noted in particular what we had to say about the referendum that took place in Wales.
One of the key proposals of the first report of the Nolan committee—an important and influential report—was the adoption of seven principles of public life. I hope that I may remind your Lordships of three of them; namely, integrity, accountability and openness. In the field we were considering they can be summed up in a single word; namely, transparency. We came to the firm conclusion that what the British public want is openness of information about the sources of the funding of political parties. They want to know who is giving and how much. In particular, our view was that they do not want—and we did not want—money to come from abroad. Political parties should be funded here internally by donations, but not by the state. That was another major conclusion we reached.
There are again some small departures of detail. We made recommendations about the Short money which is used for opposition parties in the House of Commons and, to some extent, here under the title of Cranborne money. We recommended an increase, which has already been taken up. We also recommended some small amounts of money for the research departments of political parties, particularly of parties in opposition, but not only in opposition, to enable them to have more back-up in preparing legislative proposals.
On the transparency point, the key proposal was that donations of £5,000 and above should be disclosed with the name of the donor and full details of the amount. Your Lordships may have noticed that lists of names of people who have given more than
480
£5,000 are now made public but it is not standard practice on all occasions for the details of how much to be disclosed. The Government have accepted the recommendation that that should be made clear.
We formed the view that political parties need money, but not too much of it. In America they seem to have too much and there is an endless struggle to raise money. We were given some astonishing figures with regard to how the money is spent. Up to 80 per cent of it is spent on television advertising in short bursts of not more than 30 seconds; otherwise the viewers become bored. Usually the advertising comprises denigratory comments about a rival candidate and does not promote any particular policy being put forward by the candidate who is paying for the advertising. Therefore it was logical for us to recommend a cap on party expenditure in a general election. We suggested £20 million. The Government are content with that and will, I hope, legislate to that effect. We also thought that a great asset of this country—long may it survive—is the ban on political advertising. I have mentioned America. Here money cannot be spent in that way. That is good as it creates an insatiable demand to raise more money.
I have mentioned referendums. The key, we thought, is to have a level playing field so far as possible. Each side should have some basic funding in order that both sides of an argument can be made public.
I shall not bore your Lordships with other detailed proposals. However, we became aware of the fact that current election law is extraordinarily out of date. In opening the debate the Minister mentioned the relevant Bill on this matter. When we looked at the expenditure that candidates in parliamentary elections have to declare, we found a schedule in the latest Act—which dates from the 1980s or 1990s—copied word for word from an 1883 Act. It is hopelessly out of date. It does not exactly contain references to the stabling of horses and postilions but it refers to telegrams and says nothing about banks of telephone callers trying to drum up votes. It is a completely out-of-touch and out-of-date statute.
A major part of our recommendations concerned the fact that so much needed to be done and so much needed to be put in place that there must be an effective statutory body to oversee the conduct of elections. I refer to the title of the Government's Bill on the setting up of an electoral commission. We are enthusiastic and keen that that should happen. Had time permitted I might have said something about what we said about overseas trusts, but your Lordships might regard that as controversial. I shall move on.
We thought that the effect of our recommendations might well be to discourage some large donors, whether individuals, companies or corporations, who would not want others to know precisely how much they had given to which party, and that therefore there was a possibility of a fall-off in large donations. We also thought that active steps should be taken to encourage small donations. We suggested that tax relief should be given on a gift of up to £500 rather in

481
the same way as such relief is given for charitable donations. We are unhappy—to put it neutrally—that the Government have found themselves unable to adopt that recommendation. Nearly everything else that we recommended seemed to find favour. We hope that the Government will have time to reconsider that or to come up with some other proposal for encouraging small donors to give money.
That is all I have to say to your Lordships. As I said, there will be another opportunity to discuss these matters. I apologise as I shall have to leave your Lordships' House at some point to attend to other obligations.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, it is with timidity and some trepidation that I rise to address your Lordships' House for the first time in a debate which has, predictably, been marked by outstanding contributions. The difficult task that I have is made bearable only by the knowledge that every noble Lord present has faced the same ordeal, and all have clearly survived that! I too have been overwhelmed by the kindness shown to me since I arrived. I wish to put on record my most sincere thanks to everyone, Officers, members of staff and Members of this Chamber for the help and support that I have been given.
I understand that I am expected to be non-controversial. However, in the face of such important and far-reaching legislative proposals that is rather a tall order. My background leads me to take a special interest in policing matters. For the past five years I have chaired a large rural police authority in the most beautiful part of the country. I am talking, of course, about North Yorkshire! I was a member of the authority for some years before I became the chair. I have extended my understanding of police and criminal justice through my participation in the national debate as a deputy chairman of the Association of Police Authorities. I have also been a magistrate for 16 years.
There is much in the legislative programme spread before us that will affect, directly or indirectly, the police and police authorities. Let us not forget that any Bill which creates new offences—I take the countryside Bill as an example-imposes extra tasks on the police who will be charged with enforcing the legislation. Other measures will, apparently—I am conscious that we have to see the small print of the Government's proposals before making too many assumptions—underpin the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act.
The police welcome the recognition, implicit in the partnerships, that the problems facing society are not problems which the police alone can solve. We need partners working together—not operating in individual silos—to co-operate and exchange experience if we are to make a real impact on the fear of crime. It is fear of crime, and of social nuisance, rather than actual crime, which makes so many people's lives a misery.
482
Police authorities throughout England and Wales have worked hard and imaginatively to link up with other statutory agencies, with local government and with the voluntary sector, to form partnerships against crime. I am sure that the proposal in the gracious Speech to rationalise probation areas so that they correspond to police force areas is a practical step which will make these partnerships run even more smoothly and effectively. Genuine partnerships mean that everyone plays a part in reducing crime. I am a little nervous about some aspects of the performance culture in this field. If we really believe—and I do—in the value of partnership working, success must not be measured on police crime data alone.
If I may dare to dip one toe into controversial waters, I must observe that there will also be resourcing implications for the police if some of the Bills which we are considering today become law. Compulsory drug testing and freedom of information will both, in their very different ways, place further strain on our beleaguered budgets. Most of us—especially in the poorly funded forces—are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the resources the police need to continue to perform effectively. In my own force last year we lost 41 officers and we could afford to recruit only two.
Part of the shortfall is linked directly to the huge pension burden which authorities face. All police authorities are passengers on the steamship HMS "Police Pensions". We are all steaming, "Titanic"-like, towards a large iceberg labelled "pension costs". We know that we are on a collision course. We have shouted and gesticulated many times to the bridge, but we are still waiting to know if anyone can hear us. Meanwhile, the ship steams on, gaining speed and maintaining direction.
Finally, perhaps I may touch on the proposal to amend the Race Relations Act and refer to the work that is being done throughout the service to re-examine the way in which we police all the groups in our rich and varied communities. The Association of Police Authorities, like all those involved with policing, took very much to heart the recommendations of the Macpherson report into the death of Stephen Lawrence. Police authorities are not just concerned with the effective use of resources by their constabularies and forces. Of course that is important. Consultation, another police authority duty, is also important. But I, like many of my colleagues, perceive a need to concern myself with the philosophy and style of policing to take us forward into the next century. I am sure that the police will accept our advice about the way in which society is evolving and the importance of treating individuals according to their needs.
But of one thing I am certain—and I am fairly sure that I am being non-controversial when I say it. The police deserve our support. Noble Lords will want to join me in congratulating and celebrating the award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a tangible sign of that support.

483
I am most grateful for the attentive reception of noble Lords. I greatly look forward to taking part in the detailed and informed debate that I am confident will take place as we consider these measures further.
4.53 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have had the good fortune to be a Member of your Lordships' House for many years now, but this is the first occasion on which I have taken part in a debate in which there are no fewer than seven maiden speakers. I start by congratulating very warmly the three maiden speakers whom we have already heard, particularly the noble Baroness. Lady Harris of Richmond. She told me that she is Richmond of Yorkshire, which is the first Richmond in the world—not to be underestimated at all. I thought that she gave us a most valuable speech based on her own experience as Chairman of the North Yorkshire Police Authority and in using her valuable experience she was able to give us an insight into the working of legislation on the ground. We look forward to hearing from her on many occasions in the future.
I would have liked to have touched on many aspects of the gracious Speech, particularly on education and local government. But time does not allow me to do that today and so I shall touch on only one area of social policy, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and the repeal of Clause 28 of the Local Government Act. The gracious Speech refers to one and not to other. None the less, I believe that it is the Government's intention to repeal Clause 28.
In speaking I would like to support the reasoned amendment of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in which he referred to,
"the lack of vision of the measures proposed".".—[Official Report, 18/11/99; col. 38.]
If one looks over Government policy—and many have touched on the enormous developments on the constitution—one of the most concerning facts is their continuing policies to undermine the family, by which I mean the married family. Only last January in their Green Paper the Government said,
"Marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority of the people in Britain".
If that statement means anything it must mean that marriage is the best way of living and certainly the best way of bringing up children. It follows, therefore, that marriage is better than any other alternative. But what in fact do we see the Government's policy to be? We have now once again before us the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill to lower the age for homosexual consent. I agree very much with the point made by my noble friend Lord Howe about the need to protect and support young people.
We have been threatened—I believe that that really is the right verb on this occasion—by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, that the Government will introduce the Parliament Act should they—as they think they might—be thwarted again in this matter. It is quite extraordinary that the Government should make that statement before they have even heard the argument from anybody at all. It is a classic instance of
484
the way in which this Government are down-grading Parliament. After all, this proposal was not in the Labour Party's election manifesto. It was subject to a free vote in both Houses. The vote was lost twice in your Lordships' House yet still the Government persist in showing what they actually think of this House. They do not mind what it thinks; they are determined to get their own way and they are not prepared to listen. It seems to me to "Parliament Act" a Bill on an issue with a free vote—a matter of conscience to many people—makes both a mockery of this important issue and the House of Lords.
So keen are the Government on this measure that they have even overturned the principle of devolution about which we have heard so much and at such length, and are insisting on introducing it in Scotland without regard to what the Scottish Parliament thinks. They are introducing it although they know as well as I do that every opinion poll shows that the overwhelming majority of the population do not want it. The Government want to have it both ways. They want to pose as the party of the family yet they do everything to undermine responsible parents; to say that marriage is best but that every alternative is equally good. They are—if I may so describe it—in a moral paralysis.
There is one person who I regret deeply is not in his place today and that is the late Lord Jakobovits. He was a man of principle and rectitude. How I wish I could hear once again what he would say on this matter.
The repeal of Clause 28 is not mentioned in the gracious Speech. The only place in which I could find it mentioned is on page 96 of the background note to the local government Bill produced by the Press Office of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is not available in the Printed Paper Office. I understand that it simply went to the Lobby—yet another instance of the down-grading of Parliament on a matter on which many people are very concerned. It suggests that the repeal will he tacked on to an immensely complex local government Bill, slipped in at the last minute in the hope, I have no doubt, that it will not be noticed. How ironic—but, in a way, how typical of this Government—that a Bill supposed, with a great fanfare of trumpets, to be about democracy, openness and accountability, allows such an important social change to be announced in this way.
How very dangerous to teach children—even primary school children of the age of seven—about homosexuality, which, apart from anything else, carries serious medical risks, and at the same time not allow them to eat beef on the bone.
What are we to expect in the future? We know what happened in schools before Section 28 was introduced. I have seen much of the material. I find it absolutely deplorable that these kinds of publications should be put in front of children, including primary school children. I have seen the information to be used at key stage one, which, as we all know, is for seven year-olds.

485
As I understand it, the reason for the repeal is that sex education about homosexuality cannot be taught effectively; it is intended to prevent the bullying of homosexuals in schools; and it will allow local authorities to give more money to homosexual groups. Perhaps I may quote two short sentences from the material attached to the Local Government Act 1988, which sets out what local authorities may do.
Lord Warner: My Lords, over a number of years the noble Baroness has expressed a great deal of concern that homosexuality has considerable health hazards. Can she explain to the House how one can help people from the gay community to understand health hazards without making information widely available to them at an early age and through the teenage years?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am only too happy to answer the noble Lord on that point. If I may read from the briefing on the Local Government Act—which I was about to do—as regards Section 28, it states:
"It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality. Such activities will continue to be governed by Section 46 of the Education … Act".
That seems to cover the point.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to consider this very serious point: is it right to put the teaching and proselytising of homosexuality in front of very young children? I do not believe for one moment that responsible parents want that. It would be a deplorable development.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has challenged us to say what we would repeal when we come back to Government. That is the first thing that I would repeal—along with the lowering of the age of consent, should that come to pass. I can assure the noble Lord that this is not an issue that is likely to go away. As far as concerns the giving of money to homosexual organisations, we know that this is done extensively already by health authorities.
This is a very serious matter. I am not alone in this country in thinking that it is deplorable that children—who, after all, are obliged by law to go to school—should be taught about homosexuality as an equally acceptable life style to marriage. It undermines marriage; it undermines responsible good parents. I could say a great deal more.
When the Labour Government came into office, they talked a good deal about "cool Britannia", whatever that may mean. As we approach the millennium, far from cool Britannia, we are in danger of having a society reminiscent of the last days of the Roman empire.
5.5 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, it is with a real sense of privilege that I make the first of what I hope will be many contributions in your Lordships' House. In preparing to enter your Lordships' House,
486
I trawled the Internet—something I enjoy doing enormously—to look for other noble Lords' speeches on similar occasions. I was struck by the number of times that references were made to the kindness shown to newcomers in your Lordships' House. I confess that I thought perhaps that was merely good form. I will admit for the first and probably the final time in your Lordships' House to being completely wrong. I echo those sentiments and I add my heartfelt thanks for the kindness shown to me.
I am pleased that I have the opportunity to speak to your Lordships and the opportunity to be brief. Your Lordships afford me the right to stand here and speak to you without interruption. I will respect the traditions of the House and speak in an uncontroversial manner.
I have spent 20 years of my life in economic and community development, on the fringes of education policy, and advising the Home Office on the relationship between government and the voluntary sector. By any stretch of the imagination, I am an "implementer". Most recently, I have become chairman of a health authority. In that capacity, I shall have much to say in future debates with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
I bring experience rather than expertise to your Lordships' House. It has been my joy, and occasionally my lot, to try to turn the policies, plans and strategies that emanate primarily from another place into practical action on the ground. Those of your Lordships who have also been practitioners will recognise a sense of frustration sometimes in trying to do precisely that and a desire perhaps to see the plans and practices on the ground turned into policies.
I can put it no better than an American president, who said:
"We know what works in practice. The challenge is to make it work in theory".
I do not often have the chance to quote President Reagan in anything that I say but on this occasion I can wholeheartedly support him.
I wish to commend three particular words in the gracious Speech on the subject of the health service. Those words are "10-year programme". As a practitioner, it has been my lot to be blighted by short-termism. We have academic years, calendar years, two-year funding cycles, three-year cycles and four to five-year electoral cycles. All of these mitigate against solving some of the deepest problems that we have, some of which go back to the Industrial Revolution and beyond.
In health in particular we are now looking to tackle some of the preventive issues and at ways in which we can ensure that people do not need the health service in the way that they traditionally have. But as we look at the prevention of heart disease, at teenage pregnancies, at drug abuse and at ensuring there are fewer accidents in the home, we know that we have to take a long-term view. I hope that the House will welcome with me the prospect of thinking in 10-year terms.

487
As we look at solving some of the health issues and at prevention rather than cure, we are also mindful of health inequalities. I am of the view that health inequalities go hand in hand with social and economic inequalities. They are joined-up problems, and joined-up problems need joined-up solutions. But joined-up solutions also need joined-up money.
I have spent 20 years inventing public, private and voluntary sector partnerships. In doing so, we have taken the best from each of the different sectors in our society and put them to work to try to address some of the underlying economic and social issues that our country faces. I think all will agree that some of these partnerships have been hugely successful. I was working on them in the early 1980s, when they were deeply unfashionable.
But we can go further. On Monday, I spent my day with the three party political leaders in Hertfordshire, where I live and where I do my day job as a health authority chairman. We met with the chief executive of the county council, with the director of social services and with colleagues from the health authorities. Our purpose was to look at how we could more successfully integrate the budgets between education, health and social services; to look at things from the perspective of the clients, the people we were trying to serve. We have therefore come up with a solution which looks at the adult population as one group and brings together education, the family and the child into another, focusing on the people rather than on the structures.
In Hertfordshire we know a great deal about working in an integrated way. In the health service we have a nursing home-at-home scheme which allows patients—particularly elderly patients—who need some kind of continuing care to leave hospital when they are ready to do so. They might have gone into residential care for a short time or, worse, they might have stayed in hospital. Instead, they can now go home and be cared for by social care staff and healthcare staff working together. The benefits to the health service of that are obvious. We take people away from beds which we need for other treatments. But, most importantly, the patient is able to do the one thing that all patients want to do, which is to go home.
We also have an assertive outreach programme in Hertford which works for those in our society who suffer from mental illness and whom we need to keep safe and whose communities we need to keep safe. Again, that work is shared by mental health staff and social care staff—again, a good strategy. As my noble friend Lord Bassam said, throughout my county the crime and disorder partnerships bring together many different agencies which work with an integrated approach. I long for pooled budgets, not simply integrated approaches. I hope that your Lordships will support me in wanting that.
If we can take away the ownership of a pot of money and give it for the purpose for which it was created, I believe that we can do even more. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will hear for the first, and probably the last, time from a health authority
488
chairman not a plea for more money but, indeed, a plea that we use the money differently in order to use it more creatively.
I stray on to dangerous ground because I wish also to use the word "modernise". But I wish to use it in the context of a practitioner in the voluntary and public sector where it is a word that we use continuously. It is defined by me as meaning that we make sure that the processes we have—the organisations and institutions which we create—are fit for the purpose for which they are created. In the private sector we commend the modernisation that goes on; we commend the way in which companies learn to compete in a global market, painful though that can be at times. I simply make a plea that in our voluntary organisations, in our schools and in all our institutions, however simple and however grand, we follow that same rule.
As we move through the 28 Bills that will come to this House, I hope above everything that we will make sure that the processes of which those Bills are merely part are always subordinate to the goals and values that we hold.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am delighted to be the first to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, on what I believed to be a very practical, thoughtful and yet challenging speech. Indeed, I should say that it was an inclusive speech, which was refreshing. I have known the noble Baroness for many years, particularly for her work with Business in the Community and the Prince's Trust. She is well known for her great ability to knit together the business sector, voluntary organisations and government. In the cause of tackling social exclusion and community development, with her great knowledge of social issues and her valuable experience in the NHS, I have always taken the precaution of taking her advice. I very much hope that after her excellent speech today the Government will do likewise.
I give a brief word of explanation for my speaking from these Benches. Quite simply, my party thought that this was the best form of retaliation in the light of the decision of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to make a pre-winding up speech on health.
Despite the fact that there is little in the gracious Speech on health and social care, nevertheless the Government have set themselves a formidable agenda of reform. But the jury is out on whether the Government have yet made any noticeable improvements to the health service. Delivery is yet to come. Despite all the Government's talk of modernisation, the public is beginning to be disillusioned. A recent survey showed that 11 per cent more voters than a year ago believe that the NI-ES is getting worse.
Health service managers, too, as shown by a recent survey carried out by the Health Service Journal, are sceptical. Three out of four do not expect to receive what they need to make the Government's programme work. They severely question the Government's

489
priorities, particularly waiting lists. Yet, those are the very people, along with medical staff, that Mr Milburn is telling to speed up the reforms. He certainly needs to start closing the credibility gap, and soon, if the NHS is to improve.
However, on these Benches we welcome in principle the Government's proposals in the gracious Speech to introduce a care standards Bill to regulate residential, children's and nursing homes. We believe, however, that there should be a national regulator for those homes and that home healthcare and day care should be regulated in the same system as the King's Fund has recommended. What do the Government now propose in this respect?
We also welcome the commitment to regulate independent healthcare. However, we believe that there should be a single standard setting body, such as the Commission for Health Improvement for the NHS, and independent healthcare to ensure that standards are the same across both sectors. Will the Government reconsider on this matter?
The key question in this area, however, is when the Government will respond to the Royal Commission. A response is already long overdue. Will they use the care standards Bill to set up a national care commission, as recommended by the Royal Commission? It is also vital that they address the issue of the cost of personal care for those in long-term care. We need to deal with long-term care in a way that combines, in the words of the chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Stewart Sutherland, "decency with self-interest".
On these Benches the logic of the majority report—that personal care should be funded by the state whether a person is within the NHS or in a residential or nursing home— seems to us to be persuasive, especially when the Chancellor can find at the drop of a hat £300 million for free television licences. Will the Government make a decision on this shortly?
On these Benches we also agree with the Royal Commission that it makes sense to place much more emphasis on more care at home so that older people can have as full and independent a life in familiar surroundings for as long as possible. Yet, now we see the very antithesis of joined-up government— the proposal to impose VAT on many home care services. Will the Government review their decision on this?
This leads to the major issue of age discrimination. It is still rife, as the recent Age Concern report, Turning Your Back on Us, has demonstrated. Is it NHS policy across the country to refuse heart transplants for patients over 60? Why is there no breast cancer screening for women over 65? Will the Department of Health carry out a full investigation into the extent of age discrimination, as Age Concern is calling for? On these Benches we pressed for a statutory equal opportunities clause in the Health Bill when it passed through this House. Will the Government now act to insert such a clause?
490
Another area where there is acute concern over discrimination is among those with mental illness. How will the Government respond to the extremely worrying findings of the MIND report, Creating Accepting Communities? At the time, on these Benches we welcomed the Government's initiative in asking Professor Graham Thorneycroft to draw up a new National Service Framework for Mental Health Services. But have the Government considered whether the £700 million extra they have allocated will be enough to comply with the standards set by the framework? Four out of five managers in this area said in a recent survey that they believed that promised resources would not be enough. A recent Sainsbury Centre report says exactly the same.
As regards reform of the Mental Health Act 1983, recent proposals by Professor Ginevra Richardson's committee for the introduction of a new compulsory treatment order are a matter on which we on these Benches have strong reservations.
In the area of mental health, we are also extremely concerned about recent official guidelines on the prescribing of Clozapine, the atypical drug which is so effective in the treatment of schizophrenia. Will the National Institute for Clinical Excellence—NICE—look at the impact of those guidelines as a matter of urgency?
This brings me to the question of the way that NICE will operate and the rationing question. Public concerns about postcode rationing are now overwhelming. Weekly, if not daily, there is a report in the press of a denial of treatment in one area which is available in another. Why is the pattern of the treatments that can be provided on the NHS so different? Aricept, Taxotere, Beta Endorphin and Clozapine are all problem areas. Nothing has improved since last year, with many patients being forced to pay up to £10,000 out of their own pockets for treatments which would be free just a few miles away in a different health authority.
On these Benches we welcomed the creation of NICE, but we are concerned about its current operation. In Committee on the Health Bill, Ministers made it clear that the question of affordability would remain the responsibility of government. Why does NICE's remit now include affordability as a criterion, contrary to those assurances, as mentioned in a speech by the new chairman of NICE? Is NICE now taking political decisions? On another connected matter, what is happening to Greg Dyke's recommendations following his report on the NHS charter and the consultations which followed?
I want to speak on a further four matters which are of great topicality: cancer treatment, midwifery, recruitment and resources. On these Benches we welcome the appointment of Professor Mike Richards as the new "cancer tsar". Clearly, in the first few months of his appointment he will be concentrating on cancer care services, ensuring that we have sufficient oncologists and ensuring that the long overdue Calman Hine reforms are fully implemented. But what new resources will he be given to tackle the issues?

491
At a recent conference, cancer specialists complained bitterly that they had to lie to patients about what treatments are available and compared Britain's cancer care to that in the third world. Already it is clear that hospital budgets for treatment are inadequate to meet the reduction targets of 15 per cent in deaths from cancer by 2010 and clearly inadequate compared to other EU countries. We need more money for treatment and more money to employ additional oncologists.
In terms of specific cancers, what are the Government doing in response to the prostate cancer campaign? It is true that, historically, this cancer has received inadequate attention, yet it is now the most common cancer in men. We have very poor outcomes for prostate cancer patients compared with France, Sweden and Germany. What resources do the Government plan to devote to lighting prostate cancer? It is high time they grasped the nettle.
Will the Government heed the words of Professor Gordon McVie, the director general of the Cancer Research Campaign, who said recently that the NHS cannot keep up with progress in cancer research. Yet that research itself is very haphazard. It relies in the main on charitable funding. It is high time that we had central co-ordination of cancer research. Professor Richards should look urgently at the question of forming a national cancer institute to undertake this task. Will he turn the current Cancer Research Funders' Forum into such an institute?
I could not let pass a topical reference to midwifery services. All of us will want to pass our best wishes to Cherie Blair. I can even recommend an excellent maternity ward and a superb midwifery team across the river at St Thomas', where my son Harry was born two years ago.
We need to recognise that, however good the services are in some hospitals, there are major shortages of midwives throughout the country. There are now 2,500 fewer midwives than there were four years ago. There have been many reports of women being turned away from hospitals such as the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital where they were due to give birth. This has also led to unduly high caesarean rates. As Lesley Page, Professor of Midwifery Practice at Thames Valley University and a member of the English National Board, recently said:
"caesarean rates are becoming astronomical".
How do the Government plan to address that issue?
For a quality NHS so much depends on recruitment and retention of trained medical staff. A quarter of young doctors are leaving the NHS because their hours and pay are unacceptable. The Government have wholly failed to live up to their responsibilities under the working time directive to cut back doctors' hours. Junior doctors have had to rely on the European Parliament to take up their cause. Yet we have a shortage of 4,000 doctors. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has referred to the failure of the NHS to agree special payments for the millennium. That is a disgrace. It has done so in Scotland. It will mean that
492
the junior doctors will not be available. They are at this moment making themselves available for the independent sector.
Senior nurses, similarly, despite the Government's recruitment drive, are still leaving the NHS. We need another 15,000 nurses. Many hospitals in both the private and the independent sector are recruiting heavily from places such as the Philippines. That is not cost-effective, as foreign nurses do not stay long in post and in fact many are returning home for the millennium. We are essentially benefiting at the expense of third world countries which need these nursing skills. The only solution is better pay for nurses. Unless the Government recognise the need at least to give the senior nurses the 11 per cent rise received by junior nurses last year, the problem will continue. As the Royal College of Nursing recently pointed out, a reduction in staff turnover of 1 per cent could save the NHS £15 million. What will the Government do to ensure that more medical staff are retained and recruited?
There are many other issues that I could raise: the Government's inadequate strategy to tackle inequalities in public health; the Freedom of Information Bill, or the "secrecy of information Bill", as it has been called, which promises to bring little improvement in access to NHS information and approval of medicines; the NHS complaints system, which was the subject of a health committee report published this week; and the failure by the Government to give compensation to haemophiliacs infected with Hepatitis C by blood products. But the key area of debate in the coming months leading to the second comprehensive spending review next year must above all be that of resources. In the short term it appears that even before the winter there will be a deficit across the National Health Service this year of at least £300 to £400 million.
At the end of the day the simple conclusion about the NHS must be that more money is needed. It is clear from figures in recent months that the NHS in Britain is underfunded and yet our health is worse than in comparable European countries, as the Office of Health Economics has shown. Death rates from heart disease are more than twice those in comparable European countries; prostate, colon, lung and breast cancer outcomes are all worse than our principal western European neighbours. Total spending in 1998 in the UK was £56 billion, of which £8 billion was spent in the private sector. That represents 6.7 per cent of GDP against an OECD average of 7.7 per cent and an EU average of 7.9 per cent.
This is not a plea for a limitless purse. What we need is an approach centred on the needs of patients which recognises that health expenditure should be treated in many cases as an investment—where it keeps people within the community; keeps them at work; keeps them out of pain; and allows them to stay living independently within their own homes. We believe that is a positive approach to priorities and the use of resources. We now need to hear from health Ministers

493
what approach they will be taking in arguing for more resources under the next comprehensive spending review.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Laird: My Lords, this is the first time that I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House so I stand here today with mixed emotions. As a new boy in this House, I join with my new colleagues in having to rely heavily on the many acts of kindness, thoughtfulness and support that I have received from noble Lords, the staff and the attendants. Their patience and thoughtfulness to a novice Member are a remarkable testimony to the institution that is your Lordships' House.
I arrive here with a record of which I feel I should inform your Lordships. I was a member of three political institutions for successively three years, two years and then 12 months. Each of those was done away with at the stroke of a pen by political diktat. With that track record, it is either an act of considerable faith or extreme folly that I should be appointed to the House at this stage. In any case, let me say that I am very honoured to be a Member of your Lordships' House and I hope that my contributions will be considered to be positive.
I should like to join with noble Lords in offering congratulations to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As noble Lords may know, I am from Belfast. For the past 30 years we have looked to the Royal Ulster Constabulary as a brave and gallant police force to protect the ordinary law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland. It is very fitting that the RUC has received this award from the Queen.
I should like to confine the rest of my remarks to healthcare, an area which, as we all know, has seen considerable changes over the past decades. In the 1980s Her Majesty's Government, with some justification in my view, sought to change the health service from a wasteful system of historic budget to one driven by consumer demand. The friendly but unreal concept of patients and administrators asking only for that which they required and nothing more has been abused over years. It created extreme differences in hospital sizes and services—even in some cases as a result of differing personalities.
Something had to give. The solution of the government of the time was the creation of an internal market and thus the total change of accounting practices. That policy, while it had the right intention, was too difficult to implement in the face of a massive health service bureaucracy.
The current Government's policy, as outlined in the gracious Speech, is for a 10-year programme of modernisation which will provide faster and more convenient services to help improve the health of the country. No one could disagree with that broad-brush approach: faster and more convenient services
494
to help improve the country's health. We need to look at the current policies in more detail. In my view, the replacement of the internal market with commissioning groups representing the needs of local populations provides an opportunity to find an acceptable way forward. However, while that is accompanied by a poor sense of direction, a major problem will still occur. To be fully successful, major policy decisions concerning the future of area hospitals must follow a central strategic plan.
For example, in Northern Ireland there are four area boards in what is a relatively small area. The result is a lack of central planning which could lead to geographical gaps in the provision of hospital services. When a board is only focused on its own area, very strange inequalities can occur. The solution is for the centre to take back some power; namely, that of strategic planning for services. In the particular case of Northern Ireland, many argue that there is really no requirement for as many as four area boards. Perhaps this is a topic that will exercise the minds of the members of a new executive which I hope will be formed soon in my native province. With great respect to Her Majesty's Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office who have exercised decision-making powers in areas like health, I feel that the majority of people in Northern Ireland long for the day when control of many areas of policy is exercised locally. I trust that day will not be too far removed.
Perhaps I may turn my attention to primary healthcare. I should like to make a plea on behalf of general practitioners who, on an increasing scale, are being forced to provide new services backed up by considerable extra paperwork. I find that general practitioners are almost at breaking point. Levels of stress are high and morale is low. In my view, recruitment is now being affected. I ask the Government to consider the plight of primary healthcare professionals over the next few years and to try, where possible, to ease their burden and even to put more funding into this important front line of healthcare.
I also feel that a major and substantial campaign to re-educate the public about its expectations of the health service is vital. For too long local groups have fought to keep local services in local areas without any proper understanding and examination of the viable alternatives. Local services may not necessarily mean better services. In many cases, it is the reverse. However, progress can only be made following a re-education of the public on the main issues. Health is very much one of the topics that requires understanding and support. What you carry in your mind can affect your body.
To sum up, the important point that the Government must address in the next few years is the consideration of hospital and manpower provision at regional level. The larger the unit making the decision, the better the chance of producing a service

495
that is constant throughout the country and to a high standard. I believe that today the public expects an even and fair service throughout all parts of the country.
5.34 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I believe that I am very fortunate to rise immediately after the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It gives me the privilege of congratulating him on a really excellent maiden speech. At the beginning of his remarks the noble Lord said that he had been treated with kindness since he arrived here. I am very glad to hear that and not in the least surprised. I can assure the noble Lord that if he continues to make contributions of the kind that he has made this afternoon he will continue to receive kindness here. The noble Lord spoke with great authority and I congratulate him most warmly.
I found the Queen's Speech to be a great disappointment, for a number of reasons, but I have time only to dwell on one now. To some extent I shall echo the words of my noble friend Lady Young. The Prime Minister clearly gets great joy from his children, and the whole country rejoiced with him and his wife when they learned that the Blair family was about to be extended. However, there is a contradiction between Mr Blair the family man, who knows full well the importance of children being brought up in a stable family by a man and woman bound by their marriage vows to a lasting relationship, and Mr Blair the head of a government that seems bent on undermining the family. The Government's spokesmen often assert that the very word has to be redefined to suit changed social conditions.
I have to say that it is not only the Government that have been redefining the word "family" to mean something quite different from what the majority of people mean by the term. Recently the highest court in the land, the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity, decided that the homosexual partner of a tenant was a member of the tenant's family and could therefore succeed to the tenancy on his friend's death. The judges declared that their decision did not undermine the traditional concept of marriage. I hope that they are right, but I am afraid it is only a question of time before the decision will be cited as a precedent when further attempts are made to equate the rights of a homosexual couple with those of a man and wife.
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss also said that she was not undermining the role of the traditional family when she made her notorious statement backing adoption by homosexual couples. But, if one thinks about it for one moment, clearly she was. She was certainly denying that a child has the right to be brought up in a proper family composed of a man and a woman so that he or she may learn from those traditional role models.
It cannot be denied that the traditional family has become very much weaker in recent years. Nor can it be denied that the social and financial cost of this weakening has been enormous. The catastrophic incidence of family breakdown, one of the highest
496
divorce rates in the western world, and the even more frequent break-up of cohabiting relationships have cost us dearly tax-wise and—far worse—it has meant that more and more children have been deprived of a stable upbringing. Thereafter, many of those children fail at school and at work and drift into crime.
But far from buttressing the family, the Government's response has been on the one hand to attack the family tax-wise, and on the other, to attack traditional family values and traditional morality. In spite of their rebuff in this House last year, we have heard that the Government plan to go ahead with lowering the age of consent, apparently arguing—it was the only argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, this afternoon—that equality is the all-important consideration. Apparently equality is more important than the protection of young people's health, which is far more imperilled by homosexual rather than heterosexual activity. Equality is more important than the protection of young boys from sexual molestation, harassment and seduction, and, I would say, not just from people in authority.
Then there is the so-called Clause 28. It was introduced, I recall, at the demand of parents who were horrified that local government was using their money to teach children that there was no meaningful difference between a family headed by a man and woman and two homosexuals living together.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the activists responsible for causing all the trouble in the 1980s have seen the error of their ways. Since the passage of Clause 28, they have merely found other ways of pursuing the same agenda, as is obvious from the actions of the Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham health authority in funding a guide to the etiquette of "cruising and cottaging". The fact that Section 28 has not been invoked is no possible argument for its repeal. And to assert that you cannot teach the facts of life and tolerance without actually promoting a gay lifestyle is just frivolous.
I simply cannot understand how the Government can countenance young people being taught that it is all right to indulge in homosexual activity, and promiscuous homosexual acts at that—because cottaging and the like seem to be part of the gay propagandist pitch—when they know perfectly well that if that lifestyle is adopted by those children it will mean at the very least an increased chance of HIV infection and a reduction in life expectancy.
I want to say a word or two about constitutional matters. I do not know why Mr Blair is so ashamed of his country's past, but, judging by his remarks at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, he certainly seems to be. When he says, "No one is interested in what we were", he totally fails to understand that what we were has made us what we are. And of course we are what we are not least because, for centuries now. Britain almost alone among the countries of Europe has enjoyed stability and security and escaped tyranny: and for that we have to thank not least the strength of our constitution—the institutions, laws and traditions that bind us together as a nation.

497
Labour, in its arrogance, has never understood that when we tamper with those institutions, which have stood us in such good stead, we do so at our peril. But tamper Labour has, and the consequences could be dire. Devolution could yet lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Emasculation of the second Chamber could mean, unless we are very careful, its subservience to a Government who have already set out in the most cynical fashion to weaken the authority of the House of Commons.
What Mr Blair revealed above all in his disgraceful "forces of conservatism" speech at the Labour Party Conference was his contempt for history and tradition. Mr Blair simply does not seem to appreciate the importance of pride in one's country and its past. He does not seem to appreciate the importance of children growing up to feel that being born British, not least because of Britain's history, is to win something like the first prize in the lottery of life—because it is that sort of pride, the shared pride of a people, which creates national unity. But Mr Blair, as he seeks to modernise at any price, as he destroys age-old institutions, has imperilled national unity.
Perhaps Mr Blair does not think that it matters. Perhaps in his mind the days of the nation state are over. But I have a dreadful feeling that if there comes a day when, in servile implementation of the wishes of the European Union, England has been divided up into regions which do not reflect any natural community of interest, when there is no focus for national pride in a place like England, that decent emotion of pride in the country will not be transferred to some government in Brussels, but will be replaced by much more nasty loyalties.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I rise to give this maiden speech with some anxiety, inserted as I am between eloquent and experienced Members of your Lordships' House, both controversial and non-controversial. And I am somewhat distracted by the word "maiden", with its connotations of sport and pastoral idyll, both of which seem irrelevant at the moment. One of my children who is involved in the theatre advised me to "just speak up and avoid the furniture". I shall try my best to do both today.
Before I embark on the substance of my speech, which will be concerned with the health of young people, I must express the honour that I feel in joining this House and having the privilege of working in such distinguished company. I pledge myself to contribute whatever experience and enthusiasm I have to that work.
Since my introduction three weeks ago, I have been impressed by the high level of debate and commitment to causes in this Chamber. I have also been relieved to find a sense of good humour and, at times, levity. I should like to thank most sincerely Members on all sides of the House for their friendly and supportive welcome. It has been a warm and most gratifying experience. The staff and officials, too, have been exceptionally supportive.
498
In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend, and mentor, Lady Rendell, for unravelling to me the numerous mysteries of your Lordships' House. This she has done with her customary skill and drama.
I now come to the issue that I wish to discuss today—the health of young people. I refer to health in its broadest sense: physical, emotional and mental health as mutually supportive concepts.
There were references in the gracious Speech to health, children, young people, families, education, welfare and care. I shall attempt in the little time that I have today to synthesise some of those references into a context of concern for young people's health, and to place young people at the centre of systems which touch them. My concern stems from a background which is not a parliamentary one but that of a parent, teacher and health educator both in the UK and in developing countries. I am aware that access to systems of care and support for young people's health is sometimes difficult and limited, both in this country and abroad. Many of us are not as young as we were, but many of us on all sides of the House, I know, share an interest in the welfare of young people from a personal and professional perspective, as is demonstrated in your Lordships' debates, committees and all-party parliamentary groups.
I want to do two things today. The first is to describe some of the issues related to the health of young people, and then speak about some initiatives which I believe will benefit that particular group. Health status begins before birth and changes or modifies throughout life depending on circumstances. Patterns of health behaviour acquired when young may persist, for better or worse, into adult life. It is obvious, too, that the prevention of ill health is better, and less costly, than treatments. A recent report from Barnardo's discusses how the determinants of health interact in a complex way related to factors such as genetics, lifestyle, standards of living and inequality. The aim to abolish child poverty referred to in the gracious Speech should, when achieved, contribute ultimately to improvements in general health.
A report from the Trust for the Study of Adolescence (I declare an interest at a member of its board) makes the point that teenagers are usually seen as the healthiest group in society and that, therefore, less attention is paid to their health than to that of other groups. Yet it is clear from a number of studies that the health of young people requires attention, and that unfavourable influences are mitigating against healthy behaviour.
Death rates among young people aged 15 to 19, especially among young men, are particularly high due to injury, poisoning, suicide and transport accidents. Two girls in every thousand suffer from anorexia. The number of young people seeing their GP for depression and what might be broadly termed mental illness is worrying. Levels of smoking, alcohol consumption and the use of illegal drugs are major areas of concern. Risky sexual behaviour has resulted in high teenage pregnancy rates and increases in sexually transmitted infections such as chlamydia. The

499
All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health and that on AIDS have both produced useful documentation on these areas. Nutritional deficiencies among young people are common due to missed breakfast and what is termed "grazing and snacking" on foods of little nutritional value.
While risky behaviour is increasing, levels of physical exercise are decreasing. One 1997 study showed that sports among young people took up more time than homework or computing, but less time than TV watching. Some young people are particularly vulnerable. For example, 67 per cent of those in care are estimated to have mental health problems and 58 per cent of the homeless require medical attention when they turn up at Centrepoint. I refer also to young people with disabilities and some young people from ethnic groups, particularly where little English is spoken. Other vulnerable young people include those 19 per cent of children who are bullied at school and the 32,000 on child protection registers.
I have described the problems and given some statistics. But we have to use information and statistics to inform action. This is not about telling people what to do but about enabling and encouraging informed choices through public health policies and health promotion strategies at national and local level. New government initiatives seek to tackle these problems. Action to encourage healthy schools has been taken in relation to personal, social and health education in the curriculum and the promotion of healthy diet and exercise. A positive school ethos encouraged by personal, social and health education can have an impact on motivation and academic performance. The school of which I have been a governor for many years has in five years raised levels of academic achievement by over 20 per cent through a deliberate policy to foster young people's good health and levels of self-esteem.
The Health of the Young Nation strategy and the Young People's Health Network managed by the Health Education Authority are examples of positive intervention. The Social Exclusion Unit, the Teenage Pregnancy Unit and the sexual health and HIV strategy groups are working across government departments and consulting widely. A national family and parenting unit as described in today's Guardian has been set up. The fight against drug misuse has been advanced by the appointment of the Drugs Tsar and the encouragement of local drug action strategies. Long-term targets have been set to tackle killer diseases such as coronary heart disease. Initiatives exist to improve mental health and to tackle issues related to health and disability.
Many voluntary agencies work hard to give young people a better deal either through advocacy or service provision, and their role is crucial. Good practice at a community level is being documented—for example, peer support schemes, consultations with young people themselves and innovative approaches in primary healthcare. In Cornwall one GP has set up a unit in school. All these initiatives, strategies and practices are to be welcomed. Much work remains to be done, however, in monitoring their effectiveness
500
and ensuring that co-ordination between the initiatives takes place at national and local level and that good practice is shared.
I thank noble Lords for their attention. I look forward to debates with your Lordships on the health of young people in a variety of fora and to keeping this most important issue high on the political agenda.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, if one was asked to define the phrase embarrus de richesse, it would be to find oneself on a list of speakers in your Lordships' House with a maiden speech both before and after one's contribution. It is a great privilege and pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and to say how much we value her contribution bearing in mind that the health of the young is a particular problem today. The number of unwanted pregnancies among the very young is higher in this country than elsewhere. I have looked at the noble Baroness's entry in Who's Who. I congratulate her on her wide and stimulating interests which will doubtless raise the tone of debates in this House.
I gave an immense sigh of relief when the 28 Bills outlined in the gracious Speech did not include one directed at modernising the Crown Court. To explain myself I must briefly go back in time. Your Lordships may recall that the Crown Court, a superior court of criminal jurisdiction in which major trials take place, was created by statute by the Courts Act 1970 and represented one of the main proposals of the Beeching Commission which sat between 1966 and 1969. Its terms of reference obliged it to inquire into the then existing arrangements for the administration of justice at assizes and quarter sessions outside Greater London.
As was to be expected, the commission cut out the branch lines and concentrated on the main town centres. The Crown Court has thus been in existence for nearly 30 years. It would be surprising if there were not improvements which could and should be made with a view to speeding up the trial process, particularly at a time when such radical proposals are being made in regard to civil jurisdiction. In the days of assizes and quarter sessions the general administration of the courts was substantially in the hands of lawyers: clerks of assize and clerks of the peace. Beeching, however, proposed that the country should be divided into six circuits in each of which there should be an efficient administrative organisation. The administrative officers should exercise,
"firm managerial control over all matters affecting the smooth running of the courts"—
I stress the following words—
"other than those which have a direct bearing upon the discharge of judicial functions".
The commission went on to say that it considered it necessary on constitutional grounds to provide a visible and effective means of safeguarding the position of the judges serving the circuits by assigning to each circuit two senior members of the judiciary

501
with general responsibility for that circuit and a particular responsibility for all matters affecting the judiciary serving there. They were a little like mini-chief justices. Such judges—High Court judges—were known as presiding judges.
The report set out in some detail the main administrative functions of the presiding judge. They included the exercise of a broad measure of supervision over the running of the higher courts in his circuit area and ensuring that the administration service conducted the running of the lists at the different centres in an efficient and orderly way.
In 1976 I became a presiding judge on the Western Circuit. This was some five years after the system had been put into operation. At that stage relations between the administration and the judiciary were not at their best. There were no meetings between the 12 presiding judges as a whole with the six circuit administrators. At that stage there were not even meetings between the presiding judges themselves. In a genial letter of congratulation the late Mr Justice Melford Stevenson, a well known judicial wit, observed that the greatest compliment a presiding judge could hope to get from the administration on completion of his four-year stint was that,
"he didn't cause us too much trouble".
He added he did not think that this was a prize that I was likely to achieve. My fellow presiding judge was Mr Justice Dunn, later Lord Justice Dunn, a former highly successful professional soldier with a flair for management. We managed to persuade the late Lord Justice, Lord Widgery, who was not over interested in administrative matters, to call regular meetings of presiding judges.
Subsequently his successor, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane—I am delighted to see that he is still in the Chamber—quickly appreciated the value of this thin red line and appointed the first senior presiding judge to improve co-ordination. The first such judge was Lord Justice Tasker Watkins, VC. The current one is Lord Justice Igor Judge.
So much for the background. I now invite your Lordships' attention to a glossy consultation document issued only two months ago from the Court Service and entitled Transforming the Crown Court. Its status is of course significantly enhanced by a foreword from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He tells us that the consultation document,
"sets out important and radical new ways of working for the Crown Court. It expresses a vision of where the courts need to be as we enter the next Millennium and contains a range of ideas for achieving that vision …levels of service and support to our customers which rival the best of any modern organisation, whether in the public or private sector".
Some of your Lordships, like myself, may have difficulty with the concept of "customers" in a criminal court.
502
My noble and learned friend, with characteristic wisdom and indeed insight, tells us that some of the proposals may be controversial. Some, he says,
"may come to be seen … not to be the right way forward".
The administrators who produced that document did not see fit to consult the judiciary. It therefore comes as no surprise to find recommended that,
"judges should have planned work which begins at 9am and finishes not before 5pm".
This hoary chestnut was, I believe, last put forward in a consultative document issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1987 entitled Civil Justice Review—general issues. I quote the response of the Court of Appeal to the proposal that daily sittings be extended to six hours:
"This proposal not only runs counter to the wholly laudable idea that more emphasis should be placed on written submissions and on reading out of court but more seriously seems to show complete lack of understanding of the strain imposed on all of those who take part in a complicated trial. It also demonstrates an unawareness of the time at present spent by Judges outside court on reading and preparing reserved judgements as well as on such matters as applications by persons seeking leave to appeal from the Crown Court against convinction or sentence. We have all had the experience of sitting for an extra hour or so on particular occasions in order to complete a trial or to finish with a witness: it is our view that this extra time, though sometimes justified and necessary, is an added strain particularly for witnesses, and that it will do nothing to improve the quality of justice or the efficiency of the courts. It may sometimes be overlooked that the time spent in court during the average week by a High Court Judge is often a source of amazement to judges of other jurisdictions whose sittings are much shorter. It is a matter for regret that this proposal, which predictably attracted widespread public attention, should have been put forward without any prior discussion with the Judges".
In its report dated June 1988 the review body accepted, as did the Beeching Commission, that a five-hour sitting day five days a week should be the normal objective.
Another hardy perennial related to stationing High Court judges permanently out on circuit. It suggested:
"A more efficient system for meeting High Court criminal workload should be introduced. It might be more efficient to replace the itinerant system with one where a dedicated High Court Judge was permanently based in areas where there was sufficient work of the correct quality (perhaps in larger urban areas or on a Circuit basis)".
A similar recommendation was made in the Civil Justice Review to which I have referred.
The Court of Appeal tersely observed in its observations:
"We are strongly opposed to this suggestion which would have the inevitable effect of creating two types of High Court Judge—those who spend much of their time in London who would have the opportunity of doing a wide variety of work including some appellant work and those who live and mainly work on Circuit who would be cut off from the more specialised London work and from the constant exchange of ideas between colleagues which contribute so much to the strength and cohesiveness of the High Court Bench. The presence of 'local' High Court Judges would also interfere with the role of the Presiding Judges of the Circuit and their relationship with the Senior or resident or Circuit Judges who together have made a substantial contribution to the disposal of criminal cases".
In its final report the review body did not raise this subject again.

503
I view it as a matter of some concern that a consultation document put out as expensively as this should not overlook but should suppress—because that is what it comes to—the fact that its proposals have been actively discussed and rejected, and accepted as appropriately rejected.
I have spoken to Lord Justice Rose, Vice President of the Court of Appeal, who is also the chairman of the Criminal Justice Consultative Council. He has kindly sent me a copy of his letter to the Court Service expressing his astonishment that the proposals in relation to the Criminal Justice Consultative Council and its area strategy committee have been made and circulated without any prior reference to him. He sets out in detail his comments on the proposals and concludes with the statement that the proposals in relation to the council and area committees are incompatible with judicial participation in these bodies and would destroy the character and usefulness of the council and committees as painstakingly established in recent years.
Finally, I understand that circuit judges in their responses have been highly critical of many of the proposals although accepting that there is merit in a judicial inquiry into possible ways of improving the Crown Court. I venture to suggest that that is the course which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor should adopt.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, before I was introduced to this House, I was told of the friendship and warmth I would receive when I arrived. In the few weeks I have been here, I now know that those claims were not exaggerated. In making my maiden speech, I should like to take this opportunity to thank Members and staff for the help, advice, and kindness shown to me.
Having lived in the Rhondda Valley all my life, an area well known for its friendship and community spirit, I can compare your Lordships' House with that feeling of community and friendship. Everyone has made me feel at home here in a short period of time. So much so that one member of staff exchanges a few words of Welsh with me every day, and in return I teach him one or two new words of Welsh each week. He greets me with "Bora Da", good morning; or "Prynhawn Da", good afternoon; and this week I have taught him "Noswaith Da", good evening. These gestures of friendship have been so helpful to me, and I thank you all once again.
I wish to concentrate my brief remarks today on the inclusion in the gracious Speech of the Bills to increase greater voter participation in elections, to establish an electoral commission, and to monitor the funding of political parties. I do so having been a full-time organiser for elections at all levels for many years.
The present arrangements for elections mean that electors can vote only on a weekday and only at certain times: 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.—a 15-hour period—or an even shorter period for local government elections from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. —a 13-hour period. Not only do we restrict the period of time, but we also confine voting to a small geographic area; where the elector resides.
504
That may well have suited electors in the past. People often lived and worked in the same area, making it convenient to vote in that area. Today, we live in a different society. People often travel great distances to work. They are not always in their home environment during those hours of polling; or they may arrive home just an hour before close of poll and may decide that there are other things to do, rather than rushing out to vote.
The Government's proposals to allow local authorities to conduct pilot schemes are most welcome. These schemes allow local authorities to experiment with holding elections over a period of more than one day. That is an exciting innovation.
We now live in a 24-hour society. Many superstores stay open 24 hours a day, as do many other businesses. Why not 24-hour voting; or even 48-hour voting over a weekend? The aim should be to make it as easy as possible for people to vote, rather than continue the present restrictive procedures, although I appreciate that Sunday voting is still a controversial issue.
The Bill proposes that there will be the opportunity for voting in places away from the traditional polling stations, perhaps at places that people regularly visit, such as superstores, and leisure centres, or near bus or railway stations. Any new methods that increase voter participation must be welcomed and be seen as an improvement in our democratic procedures.
It is also absolutely clear that action has to be taken to improve the methods of compiling the electoral register. Non-registration is obviously a key factor in people's lack of participation in elections. Consequently, the introduction in the Bill of a "rolling register", to which names can be added during the year, means people will not miss the opportunity to vote in the area in which they live. This should mean greater participation at election time.
Also important is the right of homeless people to register, by a declaration of local connection giving an address for, or nearest to, a place where the person spends a substantial part of his or her time. Similarly, for the first time we will have legislation guaranteeing improved assistance for persons with disabilities. That must be welcomed by all.
The Government's proposal for an electoral commission is long overdue and has been advocated by my party for some considerable time. The electoral commission's role will not be purely one of enforcement. It will have a wide-ranging remit to review electoral law and practice, much of which dates back to the previous century.
It will be required to publish a report on the administration of all major elections, which should bring to light any features of electoral law and practice, including the operation of the new reporting requirements, which seem to deserve further attention. It will also have the crucial educational role in promoting public awareness of, and participation in, the democratic process.

505
That role will include the promotion of public awareness of electoral systems and systems of local and national government and the institutions of the European Union. In promoting this public awareness, the commission would obviously want to relate to the work being done by the Department for Education and Employment with schools in preparing young people for their role and responsibilities as active citizens and equipping them with the knowledge they require in preparing for the time when they, too, become electors.
But, most importantly, it will have a wide-ranging role in the control of party funding and election expenditure. There will have to be a declaration of all income and expenditure, the exclusion of foreign donations and the need for political parties to undertake any necessary inquiries about the bona fides of a donor. Recent reports only reinforce the need for this legislation.
For the first time a national limit was placed on spending by registered political parties. As the Labour Party's senior official in Wales, I was responsible for the election expenses of the list candidates and the expenses for the All-Wales campaign in the Welsh Assembly elections in May. As well as submitting returns for expenditure, all donations and income from all sources had to be declared. I am pleased to say that when I submitted my returns I was well within the limit of the £600,000 allowed.
I believe that having a spending limit for all parties can only be good for democracy. I am pleased to note that all elections will now come under these arrangements. No longer can any party outspend another. It creates a level playing field for all parties, however big or however small.
In conclusion, the measures set out clearly indicate the Government's intention of modernising the voting procedures, clarifying the campaign financing and spending at elections. That will bring about a much healthier approach and allow a greater degree of flexibility on polling day, creating greater voter participation and a healthier democracy for us all.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on her excellent contribution. She makes much sense when she talks about the electoral reforms which are necessary. We look forward to many such contributions from her. The noble Baroness has done much to advance the cause of women in the Welsh Assembly and we will benefit from her knowledge of political parties. I look forward to her contributions on equality issues, particularly when women are so poorly represented in your Lordships' House.
There is another good reason why I am happy to hear her contribution. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General should realise that as regards Wales there is another voice in this House, and that is delightful.
506
As chairman of NACRO, I had the privilege to introduce our annual report on 15th November. I had this to say:
"The links between social exclusion and crime are crystal clear from a glance at the characteristics of people in prison".
Over half the young people in custody have been excluded from school. Two-thirds were unemployed before imprisonment and 40 per cent have been in care. Sixty per cent of prisoners have literacy and numeracy skills at or below the lowest basic skill level. Over 40 per cent have drug problems and the proportion with psychiatric problems ranges between 40 and 75 per cent. For many prisoners from minority ethnic groups, who comprise 18 per cent of the prison population compared with 5.5 per cent of their representation in the community, social disadvantage is compounded and reinforced by racial discrimination.
It is not denied that much of the Home Office's agenda is shaped by legislation on crime and criminality. From this side of the House, we have supported many of the Government's initiatives and equally have condemned those policies which verged on being oppressive. We often led debates and Questions, both in your Lordships' House and externally, about the supposed failure of the criminal law in dealing with problems of crime and disorder. There have also been worrying features of new offences created by previous legislation.
Only the other day, I was talking to a very senior civil servant—no need for a witch hunt, he has now retired—who told me that, when he was at the Home Office, his department tried to take a vigorous and principled view of the creation of new criminal offences—for example, on the ingredients of the offence, statutory defences, the avoidance of strict liability and the maximum penalty.
The proliferation of regulatory offences in the 1970s and onwards and the changed political circumstances of the 1990s have meant that the old standards are no longer applied today. They are probably not even remembered. Of course, these assumptions were never written down in any kind of memorandum or code, but I would advise the Government to revisit this area again to see if principles could be reconstructed from minutes on file before new criminal laws are contemplated.
There is a lack of adequate database as to how many criminal offences have been created in public legislation and also in private Acts. In a reply from the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General when he was the Home Office Minister, I was informed that although the Home Office is responsible for scrutinising proposals for new offences in both public and private legislation, no comprehensive records are kept centrally of all new offences created in public legislation. Are we not entitled to ask why such information is not monitored on a regular basis? Would this not help us to examine the effectiveness of legislation passed by Parliament? Properly monitored information would certainly help us to identify whether claims made, for example, by Justice and the Consumers' Association for a middle system of law based on financial charges and enforcement or

507
reparation orders were more effective than criminal offences and penalties. Could this be the "third way" that we often talk about?
The Government accept that the criminal justice system is a scarce resource and take the view that new offences should be created only when absolutely necessary. Again in a Written Answer from the noble and learned Lord, I am told therefore that the following are taken into account in considering whether new offences should be created: that the behaviour in question is sufficiently serious to warrant intervention by the criminal law; the mischief could be dealt with under existing legislation or using other remedies; the proposed offence is enforceable in practice; the proposed offence is tightly drawn and legally sound; the proposed penalty is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. These are the bases on which the present policies are determined.
If these are objectives set by the Government, then we need to keep an effective record of all new offences and to analyse how effective they have been in meeting the Government's objectives. From what I gather, just taking into account Home Office measures since 1st May 1997, we have created 42 criminal offences and 81 in Private Bills. That is taking a considerable number of offences into account.
The reason why I express my concern is that today we are faced with nine Home Office and Lord Chancellor's Office Bills. The gracious Speech contains some very positive and constructive measures which will improve racial justice, the treatment of offenders and public safety alongside other measures which risk damaging the quality of justice and proving counter-productive in the fight against crime. For example, the modernisation of the welfare system will reinforce people's obligation to society by linking benefit entitlement to compliance with community sentences. Taking away the benefits of people with a recent criminal history will make them more likely to commit crimes, not less. What about the families of offenders? Will they have their benefits taken away? Does this break the European Convention on Human Rights? There are adequate measures for dealing with those who breach community service orders. The courts know how to deal with such offenders. For the Government to further supplement punishment smacks of double jeopardy. We shall certainly seek to amend this legislation at the appropriate time.
The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill is a welcome measure and we await the details of what it will contain. Equality measures deserve strong support from all sides of your Lordships' House. What is known of the Government's intention is that the Bill will extend the Race Relations Act to all public services and, in relation to the police, it will make chief police officers liable for acts of discrimination by police officers. The Bill is driven by the recommendation of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, which showed that the extension of the Race Relations Act to operational policing was long overdue. At present, citizens can seek redress if someone's racist action deprives them of a house or a job, but not if a racist action of a police officer deprives
508
them of access to justice from the legal process. This is both anomalous and unjust and the Government's move to rectify the anomaly will receive our support.
I have a deep concern that we are likely to miss the boat as regards the radical reform of the race relations legislation The last race relations legislation was introduced in 1976, some 24 years ago. The Commission for Racial Equality has expressed serious concern about the Government's proposals. The Race Relations Act places a duty on the CRE to review legislation and make recommendations to the Government. The CRE, for the first time in its history, has a black chairman whose distinguished service we should all acknowledge. Sir Herman Ouseley brought with him vast experience of local government and community service. He should be taken very seriously. Sir Herman has said that he was astonished that the proposals cover only direct discrimination and left out indirect racist actions and behaviour.
This legislation is driven by the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry. It stated that the full force of the Race Relations Act should be fully implemented. The Government's proposals fail completely to address the challenge of institutional racism, which is the central plank of the report. The ethnic minority community will be sadly disappointed. The opportunity presented by the report for radical thinking and root-and-branch action has been totally missed. Significantly, the proposed Bill does not accompany the extension of the Act with an enforceable legal duty on all public bodies to combat racial discrimination and promote racial equality. The CRE had produced three separate reviews of the Race Relations Act. The previous government rejected nearly all the CRE's proposals. The present review was presented to the Home Secretary in April and it took into account legal and political changes such as the growing importance of EC law and the Human Rights Act.
Sir Herman has repeatedly stressed the need for a stronger and much clearer legal framework if we were serious about eradicating racism and discrimination and achieving racial equality. The Government should not be surprised if we continue to harass them to achieve those decent objectives. Our great disappointment is that the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to tackle discrimination on any grounds, be it gender, race, disability, sexual orientation or religion.
There are many matters in the Bill which we certainly appreciate but I do not think this is the place, as time is running out fast, for me to expand on that. However, I started by quoting what I said to the annual meeting of NACRO only two weeks ago and I want to conclude by quoting Helen Edwards, the chief executive of NACRO, when she said,
"Re-engaging people on the margins of society is not easy. Nor is it quick. Programmes and initiatives often struggle to reach and engage the most disaffected and disadvantaged. New intervention—however well researched and skilfully delivered—cannot instantly transform attitudes and behaviours moulded by years of failure. neglect and abuse. For all these reasons new

509
opportunities will take time to materialise for many individuals. Let us ensure that legislation does not push them back into a position they have occupied for most of their lives".
6.29 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, who made a most constructive speech on matters which the Government have failed to address. As a prelude to debating the gracious Speech in a new House shorn of its successory entitlement, is it not appropriate to reassert the preservation of the symbolism of the ceremonial at the opening of Parliament; the trappings of pageantry associated with this place which serve to enhance the status and dignity of the Crown? Is it not further appropriate to canvass in the course of this debate some tentative propositions as to how the new House may discharge its functions—albeit that that is a matter for the ultimate decision of the House, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged in her Written Answer No. 95 on 5th November?
The amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is supported. The all but incredible omissions from the gracious Speech as regards agriculture were pointed out by my noble friend Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and other noble Lords. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser asked about the implementation of the commitment in the gracious Speech,
"to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens".
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, declined to take on board that question nor indeed, to answer it. Others, including my noble friend Lord Howe, have made that point today in the context of the NHS. Those points require to be answered and no doubt shall be answered by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who will have 15 minutes at his disposal in order to do so.
The commitments in the gracious Speech, devoid of proposals for implementation, are incoherent and lacking in vision, as fairly described in the amendment. They are mere broad aspirations of inchoate intent—not even window dressing, for there are no goods in the window. It is proposed to give but two examples. My noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy referred to the commitment to making devolution work and the process of decentralisation. How is that to be implemented? Is it not our obligation, at all events, to keep an ever-watchful guard against disintegration of this devolved Kingdom United at the behest of separatists, federalists or Republicans—notwithstanding the threat to invoke the Parliament Acts with a landslide majority in another place?
How is the reference in the gracious Speech to long-term reform of your Lordships' House to be interpreted? There is no commitment to implement any of the Royal Commission's recommendations; no commitment to implement any substantive redefinition or reform of the powers, functions or composition of either House; no security of tenure for any Member of your Lordships' House. Is it not wholly idle
510
speculation? We put out to sea, decks cleared for action, at the incalculable loss of invaluable expertise to which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred.
The efficacy of any action is dependent upon the endeavours at replacement to which my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie also referred. The revision of extant convention was referred to in the tour d'horizon speech of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The setting up of an adequate independent manning selection process in accordance with the undertaking given by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is for me the sole glimmer of light on our darkest day, with the skill of seamanship at the helm.
I turn now to conventions. As the concept is to achieve parity voting, should we not re-examine the Salisbury convention which was designed—and since implemented ad hoc— only to avoid disparity? As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said on Monday:
"Some of our practices will need to change. A number will fall away because the circumstances that caused them to be accepted no longer exist … In today's circumstances new conventions are required and will have to be developed".— [Official Report, 22/11/99; col. 209]
To have some effective control over abuse and misuse of the executive power, should we not re-examine the convention not to reject and not to divide on secondary legislation? There is no rule of longstanding practice. The last occasion of rejection was on the Rhodesian sanctions order. In the wake of that order, a convention was established, reflected in three paragraphs on page 187 of the Companion, under the heading, "Critical Amendments and Motions", that the House should not divide on secondary legislation. It is suggested that, although caution must be exercised, in appropriate circumstances the right to reject and to divide should be exercised and that, without derogation from page 187 of the Companion, a new form of divisible Motion which calls upon the Government to re-lay the statutory instrument as amended should be introduced in amended form under standing orders. The Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is often misunderstood. Its functions are concerned only with vires, form, and so forth, not with the substance, practical application or consequences of secondary legislation.
I turn now to the selection process. The manner in which the appointments commission is set up and enjoined to discharge its functions is now, as a matter of urgency, of crucial consequence. The severely depleted stock of hereditary expertise on the Select Committees, which maintain also the singular standard of erudition in our debates, must be replaced, a point made—as I said before—by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.
Pending the setting up of the appointments commission, or perhaps thereafter, the co-option of hereditary Peers with relevant expertise to serve as members of Select Committees, with the approval of the Committee of Selection, might be an answer. If so, perhaps some appropriate revision to standing orders, if requisite, could be devised.

511
May this House retain the respect and trust of the people for the old House and remain as guardian of the constitution, protector of minority interests unrecognised by government, and provide an effective curb on executive abuse of power.
There have been many speeches severely critical of the deficiencies in the gracious Speech. I apologise for exceeding the time by one minute, but I conclude that the amendment is well conceived as a timely protest. It is to be commended and supported by your Lordships.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of some of the criminal justice issues outlined in the gracious Speech. The Prime Minister said last week that the Labour Party was despised in the 1980s on issues such as law and order. I was a police officer during those years and can remember that well. For obvious reasons, I was unable to take an active part in politics at that time. However, I can well remember the alienation felt, by ordinary people from a party which appeared to be out of touch with the police, lent succour to the criminal and totally ignored the victim.
I can even remember when some left-wing local authorities refused to allow police officers to enter schools for the purpose of speaking about road safety and crime prevention. As the Prime Minister said, the party was unelectable. If evidence was needed of that fact, 18 years in the wilderness provides proof positive. How times change.
Why do I refer to that historical fact? When I saw the reaction of the various vested interests to the proposals in the Queen's Speech, it took me back to the days when I was a police officer and so saddened by the claptrap I used to hear then. I passionately believe in liberty and freedom: the liberty to walk the street without being attacked; the freedom to enjoy the comfort of your own home without being burgled; and the joy of bringing up a family without worrying about the threat of pornographers or paedophiles.
Perhaps, in the short time available, I can deal with a few areas. First, I refer to the crime and public protection Bill. This Bill will modernise and improve the effectiveness of the Probation Service. Probation is a necessary and useful part of the criminal justice system. But it is there for the purpose of crime prevention and the protection of the public; it is not a criminal welfare service. I am afraid that that is how it is sometimes seen by the great British public.
I have a great deal of respect for probation officers. However, I have to say that during my 35 years as a police officer, I knew one or two who had lost the plot. They had forgotten that their real purpose was the protection of the public. The Bill will improve the effectiveness of community penalties in the interests of everyone, including the criminal, but, most of all, ordinary people.
We all suffer from crime, even police officers. A colleague said to me last week that his wife had her credit card stolen. He told me that he had not reported it to the police because the thief was spending less than she was. That is rat her a novel situation.
512
I argued strongly in my previous life, as President of the Police Superintendents' Association, for legislation to prevent people with a history of sex offending from applying for employment or positions which would bring them into contact with children. I can recall cases of paedophiles masquerading, for example, as music teachers and visiting children in their own homes. Having gained a foothold they abused their positions of trust. Those people are manipulators and schemers. I am therefore delighted to see that the new Bill has a provision to prevent sex offenders from working with children.
The attempts in the Bill to break the link between drugs and crime must be supported by all right-minded people who view drugs misuse as a major menace in society. An extension of mandatory drug testing in the criminal justice system is also to be welcomed.
Another Bill which has excited great interest is the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which removes the right of defendants to elect for Crown Court trial in either way cases. The trade union barons were out in force when it was announced, both from the Bar Council and the Law Society. They condemned the abolition of this so-called "fundamental right" to be tried by a jury. There is no such fundamental right. It was brought in by statute about 150 years ago. What statute can create, it can also amend and abolish.
About 95 per cent of all criminal cases are dealt with in magistrates' courts. No such right applies in Scotland or, indeed, other Commonwealth countries, which in my experience value justice equally. Such a change was recommended by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993 and the review of delay in the criminal justice system in 1997. So it has some powerful recommendations.
I can remember when, some five years ago, I proposed that a paedophile register be set up to monitor offenders in order to protect children. The usual suspects talked about the attack on civil liberties. Even some senior police officers said to me, "You'll never achieve it. It goes too far. You'll never get Parliament to agree that a person, having served his sentence, should report his change of address or change of identity to the police". I am pleased to say that as a result of our efforts we now have a Sex Offenders Act on the statute book providing additional safeguards to our youngsters.
Why do I mention that? There are vested interests in this country that are against change. A modern, vibrant government must continue to improve the provision of an efficient, fair and cost-effective criminal justice system. A jury trial costs on average £13,500 compared to £2,500 in a magistrates' court. The new Bill will reduce Crown Court trials by about 12,000 per year, saving the public purse over £100 million per annum. There we have the rub: public money which would otherwise be lining the pockets of lawyers.
In my judgment the provisions are perfectly reasonable and will close down an abuse whereby defendants have been electing trial simply to cause delay before the day of judgment, then quite often pleading guilty on legal aid at great public expense. I have seen it happen at first hand. It should not be

513
allowed to continue. It brings the criminal justice system into contempt. Justice demands that cases are dealt with quickly, with proper safeguards built in to take account of livelihood and reputation. With the provision of an appeal to the Crown Court, those provisions are eminently sensible and welcomed by the police and magistrates alike.
I have heard it said that the provision to take account of the effect on reputation and livelihood would discriminate against working-class people. It is a gratuitous insult to suggest that middle and upper class citizens somehow have a higher reputation than people in the lower orders. A glance at recent events in the world of political sleaze gives the lie to that suggestion. As I have said, the Bill puts England and Wales on a par with Scotland.
Finally, perhaps I may briefly comment on the future Bill to reform policing in Northern Ireland. We all welcome the progress that is slowly being made in that troubled Province and wish all parties well in their deliberations. I speak with experience when I say that the Province has the most respected police service in the United Kingdom—the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, in her excellent maiden speech in applauding the inspired award of the George Cross by Her Majesty.
I read recently that one in five officers leaving the force on non-medical grounds—I stress "non-medical grounds"—are in need of medical treatment. That such suffering should be heaped upon the fact of 302 officers murdered, 9,000 injured and 540 families intimidated out of their homes should give us all food for thought.
Those injustices did not happen because those police officers were members of a force called the RUC. They could have been called the Irish Metropolitan Police or the Six Counties Constabulary. No; they happened because they were doing a job of work upholding the rule of law on our behalf against those who know no rules.
Chris Patten produced a report containing many good features; the police would not quarrel with that. But what the Patten Commission did not appear to understand was that the force name and badge give officers a necessary sense of identity and comradeship—essential to high morale and providing the fibre to take on, as we know at great cost, the forces of terrorism—in much the same way as a regiment is fiercely proud of its identity, and as I am immensely proud to have been a member of Durham Constabulary.
I only hope that the new Secretary of State—an inspired appointment—has the skill and sensitivity to take those important points on board when, following the consultative process, he finally produces a package for policing Northern Ireland which accommodates the needs of all sides. I wish him well in his historic task.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, in view of the injunction we all received from the Chief Whip at the outset of this debate, I intend to confine my contribution to one topic and to speak very briefly upon it.
The topic I raise is the practical implications for the governance of our country of bringing into force during this parliamentary Session the bulk of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998. Noble Lords are of course familiar with the fact that when any Bill is now introduced by a government Minister, it carries with it an expression of opinion by the Minister that its provisions are compatible with convention rights. Increasingly, as we scrutinise legislation, convention rights issues are at the forefront of our minds. I suspect that that will be particularly so when we come to debate Bills such as the Armed Forces Discipline Bill and many of the nine Home Office Bills mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, today.
It is not the convention rights issues of Bills that I seek to dwell on but the fact that, on 2nd October next year, the Government intend to bring into force the main provisions of the Human Rights Act throughout the United Kingdom. That is an important issue and one that should be before us in our debates throughout the current Session. In seeking to raise this matter, I stress that I do not intend to revisit either the principles that lie behind the Human Rights Act or the many lengthy and interesting debates we had on it when the Bill was before us. I fully accept that the Act is now part of our law. As a practising lawyer, I would be the first to acknowledge that convention rights are already throwing up many interesting legal issues which make life in the courts more challenging, more unpredictable and, I have to confess, more financially rewarding. What concerns me, however, is whether the courts and tribunals of the United Kingdom are so constituted that they will withstand scrutiny against convention rights when the Act is brought into full force.
What prompts me to raise this issue at this time is the recent ruling of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, which brought to a somewhat abrupt halt the use of temporary judges in Scotland. Prior to that case temporary sheriffs sat regularly throughout the sheriff courts in Scotland. They were appointed in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland and held appointment for one year, their appointments normally being renewed automatically. Statutory provision existed for such appointments to be recalled, though it was rarely exercised. Some of those who sought and held appointment as temporary sheriffs saw it as a stepping stone to permanent appointment, whether as a sheriff or as a High Court judge.
The case to which I refer arose out of the summary prosecution of two accused men in Linlithgow sheriff court. Their trial began on 5th May before a temporary sheriff. It could not be completed on the first day of the case and was required to adjourn, due to pressure of court business, to a date in July. By that date the full provisions of the Scotland Act were in force. As your Lordships may be aware, the Scotland Act's provisions

515
include an obligation on all members of the Scottish Executive, including the Lord Advocate—the public prosecutor—to act in accordance with convention rights.
When the case resumed, the issue was raised as to whether or not the temporary sheriff was an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the convention. To cut a long story short, ultimately the High Court of Justiciary ruled that he was not. As a consequence the use of temporary sheriffs in the sheriff courts has come to an end. Some 129 temporary sheriffs lost their positions and in the High Court in Scotland the use of temporary judges has come to an end also.
While the loss of such part-time employment may have been the cause of some inconvenience and a measure of disappointment for the holders of the posts, the much greater concern must be for the effective and efficient administration of justice. As a consequence of the withdrawal of the commissions of temporary sheriffs, certain criminal cases have required to be adjourned. In addition, both civil and criminal cases will be delayed. There is a certain irony in that the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our domestic law is leading to justice being delayed. As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, reminded us earlier, "justice delayed is justice denied".
It is for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament to consider what should happen in Scotland as a consequence of this important case. I wish to make it clear that I do not seek to criticise what happened in Scotland, nor proffer any suggestions as to how the problems that exist might be resolved. That is for others in Scotland to consider. My concern is a wider one. It is that when the provisions of the Human Rights Act are brought into force in October next year, no similar problems should arise. Next week, a Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will be heard concerning the position of assistant recorders and recorders. I look forward with interest to the Answer that will be given to that Question.
However, the problem is much wider than the role of recorders and assistant recorders. Apart from the position of deputy High Court judges, who are widely used in England and Wales, there are many tribunals, with UK-wide jurisdictions, in which part-time members (both lawyers and non-lawyers) play a major role. VAT tribunals, the General Commissioners of Inland Revenue, employment tribunals and tribunals dealing with social security benefits, immigration, criminal injuries and compensation are examples that immediately spring to mind. If it proves impossible for part-time members to continue to sit in such judicial bodies and tribunals, there would be major consequences for the administration of justice and the timeous and effective carrying out of the procedures that exist for determining the civil rights and obligations of members of the public. In many instances, of course, such disputes are between members of the public on the one hand, and the state on the other. Likewise, if the procedures of such tribunals
516
cannot withstand scrutiny against convention rights, then the substantive rights of individual citizens will not receive the recognition and regulation they should.
I trust therefore that the Government will acknowledge that it is essential that your Lordships' House should be kept fully informed over the coming months about the preparations being made for the implementation of the Human Rights Act. This House has a right to be informed of where the problem areas lie and what steps are being taken to deal with them. Those issues are just as important as many of the issues that will arise in the Bills mentioned in the gracious Speech.
I hope that the Government will make such work as they are doing available for public scrutiny by the preparation of reports lodged in the Library of the House and by the giving of detailed Written Answers to questions. If these matters are not debated in Parliament and resolved in this and another place to the satisfaction of the general public, the issues will be left to the courts. That will give the courts a greater role to play in the governance of our country, and some believe that that may weaken the role of your Lordships' House.
7 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, it will not surprise noble Lords that my brief comments today will be related to health. However, before I begin, perhaps I may say a few words in relation to proposed legislation on racial discrimination, which I welcome. I hope that the legislation will be wide enough to include both direct and indirect racism in all of the public services, including the health service. I am sure that the Minister will be relieved to hear that, unlike other noble Lords, I am not going to make any suggestions as t o where to get the best obstetric advice.
Comment was also made about the increasing rate of caesarean sections and how a reduction in that rate will lead to savings. I believe that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives are currently involved in a study to address that issue. I agree though that the wider practice of evidence-based medicine will reduce costs—recently reported Medical Research Council funded trials on neural tube defects, the management of patients with diabetes Type II and criteria for surgery for hip replacement. If adopted, they will all lead to a reduction in costs.
I welcome the Government's intention to bring forward legislation to regulate private healthcare as part of their 10-year programme for the modernisation of the health service. I hope that this and other debates relating to health improvement will also be an opportunity to discuss whether the current structure of our healthcare provides the high quality of healthcare that we all seek.
I welcome the recognition of the need for more effective regulation of the private healthcare sector. I have alluded to this in your Lordships' House on a previous occasion. While much of the care provided in the private sector is of a high calibre, we need to ensure that it meets the same standards of patient care,

517
especially when things go wrong, as demanded in the NHS. Equally, the same mechanism of audit, clinical governance and inspection should apply to the private sector.
The same regulatory mechanism should also apply to the private facilities within the NHS. It will be important to ensure that the regulatory framework includes not just the general provision of care and organisational standards but also specific treatments. How to, and who will, carry out independent external monitoring, whether this be by peer appraisal or audit, will require careful thought, particularly if it involves the hard-pressed workforce in the NHS carrying out such a task. Regulation leading to accreditation should not only apply to private hospitals but to any premises where invasive treatment is carried out.
Finally, as chairman of the Specialist Training Authority of the United Kingdom in Medicine, I hope that the legislation will address the issue of who is allowed to provide medical care in the private sector and what training the doctor has had. Currently, only those doctors who are on the specialist register of the UK are allowed to hold the position of consultant in the NHS. Similar regulation should apply to the independent health sector. In this context, there is an issue of what professional titles a doctor in the private sector can be allowed to use so that the public have confidence that the treatment received is from a fully trained medical specialist. I look forward to the proposals for legislation and taking part in the debate. I hope that the Minister will agree that these are important issues which need to be addressed.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before I begin, perhaps I may point out that the smell of cooking is particularly obvious in the Chamber this evening. I should like to assure noble Lords, and place on the record, that it does not emanate from the House of Lords' kitchen but from the temporary arrangements for the other place which are situated not very far from here.
In the debate on the gracious Speech this time last year, I said that the dental profession had become disillusioned with the Government who had come to power with promises to reduce inequalities in health and to improve access to services. My profession were told that the Labour Government would address the problems of high decay rates in deprived areas and make NHS dentistry available to all patients who wanted it.
In my speech, I chided the Government for not presenting plans for a strategy for NHS dentistry which had been promised in the autumn of 1998. We are now one year further on and the strategy has still not been announced. However, I am happy to say that there have been two statements within the past four months which the profession welcomes. The White Paper Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation announced an expert scientific review of the health benefits and safety of water fluoridation and made it quite clear that, subject to the outcome of the review, it is the Secretary of State's
518
intention to transfer the responsibility for public consultation on fluoridation proposals to local authorities and to change the law to oblige water companies to fluoridate where there is strong local support. My noble friend Lord Baldwin has now taken his seat. He will not agree with me, but fluoridation really does go a long way towards reducing oral health inequalities, where 80 per cent of the disease problems occur in 20 per cent of children—those in socially deprived areas both in inner-cities and rural places—and among minority ethnic communities.
The Minister would become extremely popular if he could confirm that plans for fluoridation are proceeding as announced. He would be even more popular if he could announce a date for the dental strategy, and perhaps achieve cult status if he could confirm that the Government's intention is to make improvements in oral health, as specified in the Adult Dental Health Survey due to be published next month.
Speaking at the Labour Party Conference, the Prime Minister pledged:
"Working with the British Dental Association, everyone within the next two years will be able to once again see an NHS dentist just by phoning NHS Direct".
This pledge has been clarified by the Department of Health, which says that,
"one phone call to NHS Direct will result in the caller being directed to an NHS dentist who is within convenient travelling distance".
It will also direct people on where to find local emergency dental services when they have a problem outside normal surgery hours.
The department has announced a system of "phone and go" schemes across the country which will be set up following the personal dental services projects in Shropshire and Cornwall. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the seven more due to be opened this autumn are on time and that there will be no delay to the further 20 or 25 schemes that have been promised for next year.
There are many in the dental profession who are sceptical about this. The General Dental Practitioners Association has described the new initiatives as,
"no more than window dressing".
It says that,
"unless the Government put their money where their mouth is, the Prime Minister's promise cannot be delivered".
I admire the ability of the Secretary of State, Alan Milburn. When first appointed, he played a pivotal role in the Government's NHS reforms and was responsible for quality issues such as clinical governance and keeping up standards in the medical and dental professions. The Government published proposals to tackle the problem of poorly performing professionals on 12th November. But the Secretary of State must rid himself of the image that he is anti doctors and dentists and commit the department to working and consulting with doctors and dentists, showing mutual respect and a desire to do the best for the public benefit.
On Monday, Mr Milburn announced a first step towards "generic" health workers, who would be paid according to the benefits that they gave patients rather

519
than their job title. Perhaps I could remind the Minister that the dental profession has been working under these arrangements for over 50 years.
The Department of Health is being carefully monitored. It would be a rash Prime Minister and Ministers who, in what will be the run-up to the next general election, made promises to achieve something which they could not keep. They will be held accountable by the media and by Parliament if in two years' time there are still complaints about finding an NHS dentist at the end of 2001.
Last year I touched on the issue of tooth whitening. This is a dental technique which is used as an alternative to more destructive dental treatments and was banned this time last year because of an EU directive which states that bleaching is a cosmetic treatment rather than a medical treatment. What utter nonsense! The decision denies British dentists the legitimacy of significant scientific research on the safety of this concept and the successful, non-eventful clinical usage by millions of people over a decade. The technique has been accepted by the official dental organisations of major countries, including the United States, and it should not be in the domain of governmental agencies to control or dictate scientific or clinical policies beyond their realm of experience and education.
The DTI disagrees and, despite some minor changes, the EU is insisting on restrictions which seem to be enforced in the UK but not elsewhere in Europe. I hope that the Government will urge the DTI to continue to press the Commission for an early solution and an immediate application of any change in EU law.
Staying with Europe, I turn to complementary medicine and remind the House that the primary objective of the status of complementary medicine in Europe is,
"To guarantee patients freedom of access to the treatment of their choice, whilst ensuring safety, and at the same time allowing practitioners freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. However these must be accompanied by effective guarantees to protect patients".
To do this there should be expert representation and appropriate research criteria for the various disciplines and clarification of the definitions associated with those disciplines. But this needs funding. Adequate financial resources must be made available to each branch of complementary medicine for research, which should be carried out in close co-operation with experts in the field.
Those working in the field of complementary medicine need to accept that there are challenges ahead that must be met to provide the public with the necessary assurances: a challenge to provide new evaluation criteria appropriate to the therapy and the products used; a challenge to practitioners to prove their knowledge arid skill and to the manufacturers to provide good quality, safe products; arid a challenge to the legislators and medical profession to widen the conceptual framework within which their scientific theories are constructed.
Despite the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the NHS and similar amounts spent on the development of different drugs, we have not become
520
any more healthy. One in two of all adults takes a synthetic drug of some kind every day. Some 75 per cent. of all visits to general practitioners involve the prescription of a synthetic drug and something like 16 million adults take synthetic drugs on a regular basis. At any one time almost a third of the nation has a long-standing illness. The incidence of heart disease, cancer and respiratory diseases is increasing. I commend the department's determination to treat these diseases as absolute priority.
The benefits of alternative and complementary medicines have been recognised by the public. There is an increasing demand for these treatments in the private sector and calls for wider availability through the NHS. It is up to the Government to respond with a respect for the individual's freedom of choice. I hope that the Government meet this demand with prompt and positive action.
There is also an increasing demand for health food products. The health food sector has an important role to play in helping the Government achieve their ambition of a healthier nation. Through the HFMA and other industry bodies the sector has put proposals for a new "third category" for the regulation of herbal products which allows them access to market in an appropriate legislative environment, classed neither as simply foodstuffs nor as pharmaceutical drugs, but accepting instead their special status and long-standing use.
Herbal remedies are also one of the most popular sectors of the health food trade, but misunderstandings about such products and antagonism towards them from the established orthodox scientific community has led to uncertainty in the regulatory environment. What is needed is a new affordable and achievable framework for herbal products which would allow them to be marketed with adequate information as to their nature and purpose while providing appropriate regulatory controls as to their safety, quality and efficacy.
In conclusion, I return to dentistry and finish with the identical final paragraph to my speech last year as not a lot has changed. I said then:
"The dental profession looks to the Government to translate its ideas into action during this Session of Parliament. Dentists … accept the need for modernisation, but such changes need a proper level of funding".—[Official Report, 2/12/1998; col. 569.]
From this side of the House we shall watch with interest.
7.14 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, I should like to confine my comments on the gracious Speech to the implications of further remands in custody for those who have been mandatorily tested for drugs and found to be positive; those which relate to young people in trouble; and the urgent necessity for this Government actively to develop and expand alternatives to custody, particularly for children and young people but also for adult offenders.
The Government have expressed their intention to reduce crime and to improve public protection, a highly laudable aim particularly as regards drug related

521
offences as such a high proportion of offending is drug related. However, mandatory testing raises some important questions. First, if there is not a clear link between the reasons for the arrest and drug use, it will raise issues of civil liberty. We on these Benches would oppose such measures unless the link is clear. The police have already expressed reservations about the practicalities of mandatory testing because of the time and costs involved, and now it seems that any testing is likely to be left to their discretion. As the issue is so sensitive, this will require the police to be transparently objective and even-handed in how they conduct the tests.
Finally, and importantly, it is likely that the Bill will result in more people being remanded in custody. That is highly undesirable. Our prisons are already unacceptably overcrowded and are themselves drug ridden, so those remanded will go from the frying pan into the fire. Far more effective will be measures to make advice, support and treatment a condition of bail. We would support wholeheartedly any plans to expand, for example, arrest referral schemes.
There continues to be a steady rise in the number of people in custody in this country. In particular there is a quite terrifying escalation in the number of young people being locked up in England and Wales, with the greatest increases among the youngest children. Without dazzling your Lordships with statistics, the population of 15 year-old boys imprisoned between 1993 and 1997 has more than doubled. The figure for 16 year-olds has risen by 130 per cent. The figure for 17 year-olds has risen by 73 per cent. In Scotland, by contrast, where no 15 year-olds are routinely imprisoned, and where the Children's Panel system can keep children out of the criminal justice system until they are 18, the figures have remained virtually static.
Most shocking of all, the Government embarked last year on a strategy in England of locking up 12 to 14 year-old persistent young offenders in a so-called "secure training centre". This was the subject of a most interesting debate in March of this year following a most damning report. The centre is now full again and I have just learnt that two more such centres have since opened in July and September. Such provision is inappropriate, ineffective and deeply shocking.
We now know that in many of our young offender institutions conditions prevail which have been condemned as being "nothing short of disgraceful" and "appalling" by the Chief Inspector of Prisons who asked whether the staff at a particular YOI and at headquarters would be happy for their sons, or the sons of their friends, to be on the receiving end of the treatment and conditions described in his report which, he said, "are unacceptable in a civilised country". This is a serious question. For however much these young people have offended in an unacceptable way—and all offending is unacceptable—we must never forget that these are also young people who require help as well as punishment, however awful their offences. They, like all prisoners, are sent away as a punishment, not for further punishment—something which is often forgotten.
522
Punishment should not only fit the crime, but also the criminal if it is to have a positive outcome. Regimes which intimidate, undermine any sense of self-worth, where bullying is part of the culture and nothing is done to address the offending behaviour of young people, will fail to prevent further offending in the future. The vast majority of young people in custody come from backgrounds which are poor in every sense of the word with, "disproportionate experiences of loss", as one report put it, characterised by instability, violence, abuse, poor education, or lack of it with life prospects which are at best very limited. If they are then put in conditions which neither fit the crime nor them as criminals, is it any wonder that 90 per cent of them re-offend, as they do?
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of Article 37 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states,
"Every child, deprived of his or her liberty, shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes account of the needs of persons of their age".
Ironically, the Government are also proposing to introduce in the Bill measures to further protect the interests of children in care in the community and quite rightly so, but there is no mention of children in custody who equally have rights as children.
So the question is: how are the interests of the public being served? Quite clearly measures which increase the prison population do not lead to a reduction in crime as intended in the Crime and Protection of the Public Bill—quite the reverse.
Putting people into overcrowded prisons in ever larger numbers does nothing to improve the protection of the public since, particularly among children and young offenders, it simply leads to more offending thus threatening public protection still further. All that is achieved is strictly limited protection while the offender is in custody, but he will be released in due course.
I passionately believe that the real way to protect the public is to develop those community penalties which have demonstrated how much more effective they are in terms of reducing re-offending—by up to 50 per cent and more—which cost a fraction of custody and keep the offender in the community thus not fracturing family ties, job and home. It costs the taxpayer £18,500 per annum to imprison a young offender, and a staggering £124,800 per annum in the secure training centres, with resulting 90 per cent to 100 per cent re-offending rates. Logic, reason and humanity, with the incredible disparity in costs and results, speak for themselves.
The Government have talked about being "tough on crime" and that seems to be invariably equated with locking people up. Alternatives are seen by the public, the sentencers, the media and the Home Office as a soft option, an easy way out. Indeed there is some evidence that Home Office Ministers have "talked down" community penalties, presumably because they are not seen to be tough enough. But that is not the case in reality. As well as being unpleasant and often negative, in some crucial ways it is custody which is the soft option since it represents an opting out of responsibility

523
to families and to the community which is so difficult to face up to for so many offenders. Those like myself who argue for the alternatives to custody do so not because we are soft on crime and criminals but because we want to see a system which really does reduce crime and protect the public.
It is most welcome, therefore, that the extension of electronic tagging is being proposed, precisely because having already proved to be a very effective way of releasing short-term prisoners early without risk to the public, it could also potentially increase the numbers of long-term prisoners who can safely be granted parole by providing extra control over their movements.
These arguments do not however detract from the need to remove into custody those violent individuals who are a danger to their families and others in the community. Here prison has an important role. With fewer inmates, prisons could address this task much more effectively. Contrary to popular belief, violent offenders represent a small proportion of the total prison population (under one quarter). We must do what we can to help the prison services in this very difficult task. I know from my work with the Butler Trust what they can achieve in often impossible circumstances.
At present overcrowding, which is a national disgrace, makes it very difficult for custody to achieve anything but retribution. But what purpose does that serve unless accompanied by real deterrence and rehabilitation? Manageable numbers are essential if regimes are to be Unproved and sentences truly effective for those for whom custody is necessary and appropriate.
I welcome anything in the proposed legislation which will really achieve the objectives of crime reduction and public protection. But I urge the Government seriously to consider measures which will actively reduce the unacceptable numbers of people in prison; energetically to promote all possible alternatives to custody particularly where young people are concerned, and to remove from the criminal system children who simply should not be there. Without such initiatives we may succeed in satisfying the public need for retribution but we shall achieve little else.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh: My Lords, a recent study has shown that people are happiest not in their middle years, but in youth and old age. Good health is a notable contributor to contentment and essential if vigour and an enthusiasm for life are to be maintained. Age is no longer a reliable indicator of a man or woman's abilities and aspirations. Today, older people can look forward to many more years of healthy, active life. They have complex needs that the National Health Service must address in partnership with others, particularly with local government. The Government's partnership agenda in the Health Act 1999 ensures that there are no harriers to joint working.
524
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the question of age discrimination in the NHS on this issue. The National Health Service Framework for Older People will be established in April 2000 dedicated to reducing variations in the quality of health care.
Age Concern's report Turning your Back on Us cites examples of ageism in the National Health Service. Old people are told that treatment is unavailable to them because of their age or are given a low priority. Six months ago an Age Concern survey found that one in 20 people over the age of 65 in Britain had been refused treatment by the NHS. Areas of special concern are routine breast screening, cancer and coronary problems where there appears to have been positive discrimination.
The gracious Speech lays emphasis on the Government's aim to promote fairness and enterprise. In 1998 the Department of Health responded to public concern over the poor care of older people in hospital by commissioning the report Not Because They Are Old. The report found serious flaws in the standards of NHS care and instances of variability. The purpose of the National Health Service Framework for Older People is to address ageism and set national standards of care. It will set an agenda for the provision of services for coronary heart disease over the next 10 years which will aim to improve health, reduce inequalities and raise the quality of care, making explicit the need to ensure that services are made available to everyone who can benefit irrespective of their age or where they happen to live. I t is considering areas of care that are of primary importance to older people. These include palliative care, transition from, to and within hospitals, models of assessment and care management, mental health, and physical and psychological injuries as a result of accidents and stroke.
Forty thousand hip operations were undertaken by the NHS last year. Most of them benefited older people, as does cataract surgery. The Government's guidance to the NHS stated:
"Clinical priority must be the main determinant when patients are seen as out-patients or admitted as in-patients".
A friend of mine, now in his late 70s, was advised of his need for a cataract operation in May this year. He was told that he might have several months' waiting time. Being a pessimist, he decided to save the £600 he calculated would be need to have his treatment privately and that to raise that sum would take him four months or until September. This he set about doing. However, to his surprise and gratification, the NHS notified him in August that surgery could take place immediately. A successful operation was carried out at that time—and he kept his £600.
Over the next three years, the Department of Health will be expanding cataract services from the present 170,000 a year to 250,000, restoring eyesight to thousands of older people.

525
Older people must also learn to help themselves. My noble friend Lady Massey, in an excellent maiden speech, mentioned the importance of diet and exercise for young people; these are equally needful in the case of the elderly.
It is important to stress that in recent years the range of treatments available has greatly increased. Older patients can benefit from interventions that only a few years ago would have been regarded as too hazardous. Professionals and managers in the field must take account of the enhanced ability of older people to profit by active treatment. Above all, there must be no more cases such as that quoted by Age Concern, in its Turning Your Back on Us, where a woman of 65, with a possible 20 years of life ahead of her, was refused a heart transplant on account of her age. A positive drive against ageism will end injustice such as this.
I spoke earlier of old age and youth. The happiness a woman may expect to enjoy in her youth is severely impeded if she is a victim of female circumcision. This assault on female children is known and enshrined in the Act of Parliament of 1985 as "Female Circumcision", but those of us who know anything about it prefer to call it by the more accurate name of "Female Genital Mutilation". Circumcision suggests the harmless surgery carried out on Jewish male babies within a few days of birth. "FGM", as I shall refer to it, is not like that.
Here I must declare an interest as patron of the London Black Women's Health Action Project. The practice of FGM is a violation on a woman's profoundest sexual being, a gross mutilation of her genitalia and a deprivation for life of any kind of sexual pleasure or satisfaction in the process of giving birth. Far from being a quaint traditional practice carried out only in isolated areas, FGM is widespread across 30 countries. The World Health Organisation estimates that more than 126 million women have undergone it and a further 2 million undergo it each year. Today there is no practical, ethical or hygienic reason for its continuance; and, with neither the Bible nor the Koran endorsing it, no religious precedent.
Female genital mutilation is a major health hazard. Immediate risks include shock, infection, tetanus, septicaemia and haemorrhage. Most women who have been subjected to Pharaonic circumcision are able to deliver their babies only by Caesarean section. In spite of the protection offered to women by the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, all forms of FGM are carried out in this country. It is also not unusual for parents to take their small daughters home to the country of origin, ostensibly for a "holiday", and there have FGM performed. Sad to say that FGM is usually performed on children between the ages of four and 10.
Parents are unaware of wrongdoing. They believe that they are doing their moral duty and acting in their daughters' best interests. Without circumcision, many believe that their daughters will be unmarriageable or ridiculed and ostracised by the community in which they live.
526
In moving the humble Address in response to the gracious Speech, my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley made the "real world" the theme of her speech. The real world for these young women, particularly those who are the victims of infibulation or Pharaonic circumcision, is a place of pain, unpleasant hygiene procedures, chronic ill-health and often an inability to deliver their children normally. There is also a risk of infertility as a result of pelvic infections.
A surgical reversal of FGM is possible, but it is necessarily limited. However, although most women are willing to undergo this surgery, success depends on the severity of the original mutilation and not all are suitable candidates. Even at its most successful, this surgery cannot restore normal genitalia.
It is essential in a civilised society that the Act of 1985 and the Children Act 1989, which provides legal protection for girls, should be in place, but so far no prosecutions have been brought under the former. It would be encouraging to those who campaign for a more enthusiastic addressing of this problem if prosecutions were to be brought in the coming year. Unfortunately, a conspiracy of silence exists among parents of girls and those health professionals who can be induced to perform FGM.
The Department of Health provides core grant funding of £25,000 for 1999–2000 to FORWARD, a voluntary organisation on this issue, and has provided up to the year 2000 a project grant of£22,000 to produce a health education pack for professionals working in local health, education, social services and police authorities. This is excellent as far as it goes but more needs to be done on the lines of further funding through the ethnic minority access grant scheme. This has so far included the cost of a community training officer to FORWARD whose role is to liaise with ethnic communities to produce health and education literature in relevant languages. It also funds a project by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the London Black Women's Health Action Project to investigate the continuation of FGM among young Somalis in London. The report provides insight into the viewpoint on this subject of young Somalis who may contemplate circumcising their daughters. It appears that about 15,000 girls are at risk of FGM in the United Kingdom.
That is a very large number of vulnerable and largely defenceless victims. If this mutilation took the form of amputation of a hand or a foot, it would be viewed by the majority as an outrage. I believe that it is time for a nation-wide campaign to enlighten those—and they are many—who are ignorant of this procedure, the frequency with which it occurs, and its health and life-damaging results.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, this is a fascinating debate and it is a privilege to be able to take part in it. The sad thing from my point of view—but, doubtless, not from your Lordships'—is that one is simply unable to pick up on the many speeches that have been made and to comment upon the excellent

527
points that they have contained. One thinks of course of the excellent maiden speeches that have been made today. I think in particular of the speech of my noble friend Lord Forsyth and of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone; and I hope that the noble Baroness who has just sat down will forgive me but, for that reason, I am unable to follow her.
I wish to detain your Lordships only briefly, with a thought or two about no more than a couple of the plentiful Home Office Bills that have been either announced or alluded to in the gracious Speech. The first of them I warmly welcome; that is, the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. The second, the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, I just as warmly deplore.
The Crown Prosecution Service has not been alluded to in the debate, but this gives me an opportunity to bang the drum for it. I have always greatly admired the standards of professionalism that in general—obviously not always—the service has attained from a standing start which was made in extremely adverse conditions. I am sorry to say that I feel rather guilty that conditions were as adverse as they were. I was the Solicitor-General at the time it had to be set up about 13 or more years ago. To be frank with your Lordships, I did not have the political clout to get the necessary resources out of the Treasury with which to get it off to a proper start. Accordingly, the Crown Prosecution Service started off with about 25 per cent fewer lawyers than it needed.
That was a misfortune that did not cause undue distress to a number of people with vested interests. People with vested interests were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, in what I thought was a most interesting speech, some of which I agreed with and some of which I disagreed with. At the time of the inception of the Crown Prosecution Service certainly there were present various people who were not at all happy to see it succeed. Therefore, I felt a little responsible and rather guilty about the fact that it rapidly acquired an unfair reputation for inefficiency.
At this stage in my speech, any Crown prosecutor would undoubtedly feel obliged to caution me. So I shall make only on: further point on this subject before passing on to the mode of trial Bill. I wish to welcome the inception on a statutory basis of an inspectorate. I believe that it will be of great help both to the Crown Prosecution Service and to the Attorney-General, who answers for the service in Parliament. It will be of assistance to the service because it will provide reports that are free of any possible allegation of self-serving defensiveness by the professional head of that service. I do not believe that those allegations have ever been justified, but they have been there. An inspectorate will be of value to the Attorney because it will be an entirely independent report on the workings of the service for which he is responsible and for which he is responsible for obtaining the necessary resources from the Treasury. Therefore, I believe that that is a welcome inclusion in the Queen's Speech and in the legislative programme.
528
As to the second Bill, I have no feelings whatever of parenthood and, therefore, no feelings of concomitant guilt for it. Personally I have always resisted attempts to curtail the right to choose trial by jury. I do not feel stung by the assertion that those who feel as I do are motivated by considerations of pecuniary advantage. The reason why I do not feel stung is that I do not have any pecuniary advantage, and I do not believe that most people who have taken the line that I take on the matter, which I propose to mention briefly this evening, are motivated by that at all.
However, I have a considerable interest in fairness and, in particular, in the fairness of the justice system in England and Wales, including perceived fairness. I am well aware that on occasions the interests of fairness can conflict with the interests of Her Majesty's Treasury and of the Executive generally. I believe that this Bill illustrates that conflict. My belief is that the present dispensation about choosing jury trial—I agree that it goes back in statutory form only to 1857—is about right. I believe that it makes for fairness. It is used—some might say that it is resorted to—only in a very small proportion of the possible cases. That is a point that has already been made. But in each of those cases, the case is of particular importance to the accused person against whom, let it not be forgotten, there is a great imbalance of forces. The whole prosecuting arm of the state, with all its experience and expertise, is pitted against him or her.
If it were the case that the whole idea of jury trial was somehow now recognised to be outmoded in modern Britain, that would be one thing. Fortunately, it is not. We are being told that in a number of serious cases the type of trial should no longer be decided by the accused person exercising a right of choice but by the magistrates' court. Summary trial is highly practical and generally extremely fair. I have nothing but admiration for our unique system of lay magistracy, which deals with something in the order of 95 or 97 per cent of all criminal cases. I believe that it is an excellent and certainly a unique system.
However, there are cases in which the very width of the magistrates' experience can, in my belief, give rise to a risk of unfairness. In particular, I would instance shop lifting cases—or they can be perceived to give rise to the risk of unfairness. In a moment I shall venture to give an illustration. It is in order to meet circumstances of that kind that the present right to refuse consent to summary trial should be retained.
I put a scenario to your Lordships in the hope that it will be found to be a valid illustration of the point that I make. Perhaps your Lordships will imagine a young mother with four children. She is much harassed by domestic concerns and has a lot on her plate. She is behind time. She is shopping in a supermarket. She fills her trolley and, extraordinarily, she somehow wheels the trolley past the cash desk without paying. Her head is full of other things. She turns left on the pavement; she crosses one intersection; she crosses another intersection. It is then and only then that, to her horror, she realises what she has done or, more accurately, what

529
she has not done. In a panic she rushes back into the store and says, "I have not paid for these. Please let me pay".
That is one scenario. In the minute or two remaining to me, perhaps I may suggest a variant; that is, that before the young mother has had a chance to pay, she has been tapped on the shoulder by a pursuing store detective. What is she likely to say? "Oh, my goodness! I forgot to pay. Do let me pay. I'll go back and pay". I suggest to your Lordships that, just as certainly, she would be arrested, charged and prosecuted. I hold a very strong belief, as I suspect do most of your Lordships, that she would have a far greater chance of being acquitted, innocent as she is, by a jury than by a magistrates' court, however conscientious the magistrates. If your Lordships believe that that scenario is altogether too far-fetched to have any persuasive value at all, perhaps I may say that that woman does exist; that it happened to her 25 years ago; that she was then my wife, and mercifully she still is.
I have never forgotten that episode as the whole justification for retaining the present right of choice. I hope that it will not be suggested that, if this Bill were enacted, it would all be all right because she would be able to avail herself of the provision in the Bill which says that the court must take account of whether her reputation would be seriously damaged. One is almost bereft of speech when one reads that provision. What kind of fair Britain is it that embodies in statutory form the notion that one person's reputation is more worthy of safeguarding than someone else's? One reads in the same Bill that the court may also take account of a previous conviction. That is wholly repugnant, too.
I know that it can be said that there are occasions when the right of choice has been abused. I know that it has. I know that it can be said that it does not exist in Scotland. Very well. We are talking about proposed changes for the people of England and Wales. For them, the provision will not be tough on crime; it will simply be tough on justice.
7.47 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: Back again to health, my Lords. In addressing the Government's health programme I rise with mixed feelings. That part of me which believes that we suffer from altogether too much legislation is relieved that a Government who are hyperactive in other directions can only state that they will,
"provide faster. more convenient services to help improve the country's health".
This lack of specific reference to legislation, however, hides a number of initiatives, as well as omissions, on which it would be proper to comment. I do so mainly from the angle of those treatments such as osteopathy, acupuncture, medical herbalism, healing, environmental and nutritional medicine, homoeopathy, and many others, known collectively as complementary medicine. In this and in other ways I find myself crossing paths already trodden by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, in his speech earlier.
530
First I should like to give some credit for some of the things that have happened since this time last year. The Health Act has put in place a mechanism for statutory regulation which will be a great deal more manageable for the complementary disciplines than what was there before. The Food Standards Act, while introduced by MAFF, has brought together health and nutrition in a way which has won the approval of many in complementary medicine who believe that nutrition is at the very core of health and disease.
The Department of Health has taken the initiative over herbal medicines, an initiative which is much appreciated by patients, practitioners and manufacturers. Recognising the special circumstances of these medicines which cannot possibly bring in the revenue to fund the kind of clinical trials appropriate for more toxic pharmaceutical products, it is seeking to find a "third way" between full product licensing and food law which might commend itself to our European partners. I do hope the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be able to press on with the good work started by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The Government have also to some extent opened up the procedures for appointment to expert scientific committees, which have always had a bias towards those from a conventional, industry-linked culture. I think we saw some of the drawbacks of this in the Vitamin B fiasco last summer.
Under pressure, the Government have set in train a systematic scientific review of the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, has already mentioned this. Sadly, he and I, in this but in not much else, find ourselves on opposite sides. It is extraordinary to think that it has taken 50 years, after the first enthusiastic fluoridation schemes in America, for a proper, unbiased, independent review to be conducted. It is to the credit of the Government that they have, albeit belatedly, put this in hand. As a member of the review's advisory panel, however, I was amazed to read a report in The Times of 16th November that the Government were going to press ahead with legislation on fluoridation. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can confirm for me that no decisions will be taken until the review panel has reported. To do otherwise would be a nonsense and a waste of public money.
When I reread what I said about complementary medicine on the same occasion a year ago—here again I find myself in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn—I found that most of it is still relevant today. We are talking about therapies which have been used by one in three of the population and by at least that proportion in other countries that have recently been surveyed such as the United States and Australia; therapies increasingly embraced by GPs, and increasingly taught in medical schools. The Parliamentary Group for Alternative and Complementary Medicine, which I chair, is having a presentation on this last topic in a committee room next Tuesday which any of your Lordships would be welcome to attend.

531
I think there are two main reasons for the upsurge in complementary medicine. By and large it works, as surveys of patient satisfaction show. And where side-effects exist, they are of a quite different order from conventional medicines. I will repeat what I quoted last year, from the Journal of the American Medical Association:
"The incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions in US hospitals was found to he extremely high".
And in a later edition it said:
"Each year prescription drugs injure 1.5 million people so severely they require hospitalization and 100,000 die."
In this country adverse reactions are third in the list of causes of death, after heart attacks and strokes. I should remind your Lordships that these are side-effects of normal treatment. Many patients are no longer prepared to submit themselves to the hazards of mainstream medicine, necessary as this often may be.
I spoke last year of the Commonwealth Health Ministers' recommendation that:
"National policies for health need to give greater consideration and recognition to the existence of traditional and complementary medicine and their value to health development and health sector reform".
It is disappointing that the Government have so far set their face against even part-funding the working group based in Oxford which arose from the Barbados meeting. Would it be too much to ask them to think again about this?
There are particular areas—and I have spoken about these before—where complementary medicine has a role to play. We have a new war on cancer. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who I see is not in his place, referred to this. Let us hope it will not be the "qualified failure" of the last one—I take that phrase from an authoritative survey in the New England Journal of Medicine, which I think is a more reliable source than the cancer charities. We have hardly begun to look systematically at the potentially curative role of herbs, nutrition, healing, visualisation and the other approaches chronicled in a US Congress report nine years ago. I agree that delivery in cancer medicine in this country lags badly behind that of other countries, and it is good that the Government are addressing this. But what about prevention? We continue to produce carcinogenic chemicals which find their way via air, food, water or otherwise directly into the environment; but such is the commercial imperative that there is little impetus for funding research into most of them. Experts believe that the majority of cancers are environmentally caused, and thus essentially preventable.
I will pass over the Government's other priority areas and refer just to the antiviral and antimicrobial role of complementary medicine to which attention has been drawn in past debates. I will quote briefly from The Lancet of 7th August:
"Whole-plant extracts may be more beneficial than single compounds … [Two researchers] have used this approach to disable multi-resistant Staphylococcus aureus".
532
This is no small achievement in the present climate of worry about the declining effectiveness of mainstream drugs. Yet who follows this up and conducts the large-scale trials that could take this approach forward? Not the pharmaceutical companies, you may be sure. Who suffers meanwhile? The patients.
There is plenty of evidence for the benefits of complementary therapies. The fact that much of it is anecdotal should not stand in the way of further inquiry, and only the Government can realistically underwrite this. Let me give one final quotation:
"while I must accept that virtually all the clinical evidence presented to us … was anecdotal, nevertheless, we found it convincing".—[Official Report, 3/12/98; col. 691.]
That was my noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant, speaking last December in the debate on the Select Committee report from your Lordships' House on the medical aspects of cannabis; and he was not the only distinguished doctor in that debate to be influenced by anecdote.
It is a little early to say what the impact on complementary medicine will be of two new health bodies. Despite its acronym, NICE may work in an unfriendly way for the less well-researched therapies. To followers of traditional Chinese medicine, on the other hand, the new Commission for Health Improvement provides an altogether better acronym, as CHI describes the vital energy that keeps all bodies in being.
If I spoke of good examples of integrated healthcare, where conventional and non-conventional methods are used side by side for the benefit of the patient, I would go on too long today for your Lordships' patience. The same is true of the influence of primary' care groups—referred to earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—on the use of complementary therapies, where preliminary reports are worrying. A fuller picture of both may emerge in a year's time when, if I am still in your Lordships' House, I may be able to say more.
I want to end with a word about some of those who are no longer in your Lordships' House. The recent cull has gone hard for complementary medicine. In toasting absent friends I want to pay tribute to six who have been staunch and often vocal supporters: the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, from these Benches; from the Conservatives the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, the noble Earls, Lord Clanwilliam and Lord Kitchener, and the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan; and from the Liberal Democrats the noble Lord, Lord McNair. Is it significant, I wonder, that no one from the Government Benches is on record as praising their acupuncturist or reflexologist? The case for complementary medicine will be the poorer without these voices, and I suppose that those of us who are lucky to stay here will, as in other spheres, just have to work harder. If the health of this country means anything, it is a cause worth working for.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the present Government are the first since the Liberal Government elected in December 1910 to have come into office committed to a

533
far-reaching programme of constitutional reform. That programme is not the Government's alone. We Liberal Democrats have supported that programme, certainly in principle though not always in detail. We have more than supported the reform. We are co-authors of it through our membership of the Joint Cabinet Committee. Indeed, we are more than co-authors, because these are issues on which we have been campaigning for years, and we welcome new Labour as converts to the cause of constitutional reform.
Much of the programme has already been achieved, but now is the time to take stock. We are more than half way through the life of the present Parliament. Indeed, the present Session is probably the last full Session we shall have before the next general election. We therefore need to ask ourselves what parts of this programme have been completed, what are incomplete and what have not yet been begun.
It is fair to say that the achievements on constitutional reform of the first Session were remarkable. We had devolution to Scotland and Wales; we have a framework for devolution to Northern Ireland, which we pray will become reality within the next few days; and we passed the Human Rights Act. That Act will have a great and beneficial effect on the rights of the people of the United Kingdom when it comes into force on 2nd October next year. The Human Rights Act leaves one item of unfinished business: that is its failure to establish a human rights commission. Without such a commission, individuals will find it extremely difficult to enforce their rights and indeed to find out whether they have rights that are capable of being enforced.
We regret that on this occasion the Government have not come forward with proposals to set up a human rights commission. The main constitutional business of the last Session was, of course, the House of Lords Act. That is plainly unfinished business and I shall return to the matter shortly.
I shall move on to the programme for the present Session which has been outlined in the gracious Speech. What is that programme in terms of constitutional reform? First and foremost it is, of course, the Freedom of Information Bill. The Bill is not as good as was proposed in the Green Paper of December 1997. On the other hand, it is not as bad as the draft Bill published in May of this year. The Government have listened and they have made some important and significant changes. However, a great deal remains to be done to make the Bill the measure that it ought to be. That is especially true as regards the Government's powers to withhold factual information which is relied upon for the formation of policy and in relation to the powers of the information commissioner.
We also welcome the proposals for controls on party funding and for greater flexibility for the electoral process in terms of the register and the place and time of voting. I do not wish to comment directly on the latest instalment of the Ashcroft saga, but the extent to which both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have been funded by a small number of wealthy
534
individuals is extremely worrying. We believe that it is vital to encourage a much wider participation in politics and that we must attract more donations from ordinary people. For that reason I strongly support the views expressed earlier in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, when he said that he regretted the Government's refusal to increase the value of small donations by allowing them to qualify for tax relief.
However, at least as important as what is in the gracious Speech is what is not in it. That is especially so now because anything not included in this Speech is unlikely to be reached before the election. There is nothing in the gracious Speech about reform of the voting system. I accept that new systems are already in place for the Scottish and Welsh elections, and for the European elections. The top-up system used for the Scottish and Welsh elections seems to have worked well both in being acceptable to voters and in producing a parliament or assembly which is representative of a wider spread of political views than would have been possible under first-past-the-post. For that reason we very much regret that no proposals to put to the people for approval in a referendum a top-up system—as proposed in the report of the Jenkins committee—have been included in the gracious Speech.
Perhaps even more regrettable is the failure to introduce proportional representation for local government elections. Far too many local authorities have been, for far too long, single party states. That applies especially to the Labour strongholds in industrial areas. Like all one-party states, in some of those cases that has led to corruption and contempt for the democratic process. In some places, such as Liverpool, Sheffield and Islington for example, the Liberal Democrats have been able to mount an effective challenge and turn them into two-party states. But there are other areas such as Doncaster which remain single party states, with predictable results, as indeed we have seen.
Finally, I should like to turn to the unfinished constitutional business; that is, the future of your Lordships' House. No Bill is proposed for this Session. I think that that is inevitable. The enactment of stage two will be a matter for the next Parliament rather than this one. That is unavoidable. The Government say that they are looking forward to the recommendations of the Wakeham Royal Commission, as are we all. I believe that a great opportunity is available to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his commission. Opinion on what is the correct role and structure for your Lordships' House in the longer term is fluid and uncertain in all parties. If the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and his colleagues can produce sensible and well-argued proposals, there is a fair chance of adoption by consensus. On this occasion I shall not say what I think those proposals should be. However, I shall say that if those proposals bear much resemblance to the draft of the report leaked to the Sunday Telegraph a few weeks ago, there will be no consensus that will include these Benches.

535
In summary, the extent of constitutional reform that has already been achieved is impressive, but gaps such as the absence of a human rights commission need to be filled. In this Session we shall have a freedom of information Bill and we need to ensure that it is a good one. What has not been and will not be achieved in this Parliament is reform of the voting system and stage two of the reform of your Lordships' House. Both reforms are needed if this ambitious programme of reform is to be completed. Both these issues are matters on which we will campaign as strongly as we know how.
8.5 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I also looked at last year's Official Report and found that during my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech I referred to the use of the words "modern", "modernization" and so forth which occurred 11 times in the gracious Speech. The Government's obsession continues. This year, the same words appear 10 times, and in addition reference is made to a 10-year modernisation plan. The spin doctors have had a field day, whirling themselves into such a crescendo that there is now talk of modernising Europe and even the United Nations. In my book, modernisation means change. I hope that over the past year everyone has learnt at least one lesson. It is that for change to be acceptable it must be change for the better and it must be absolutely clear and transparent what the replacement will be.
I was very distressed to hear of the reintroduction of the Bill to equalise the age of consent. I hope most sincerely that the Government do not see this matter as merely another item in their catalogue of modernisation. It is far too important to be trivialised in that way. I was deeply moved by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell of Babergh, about the horror that some girls have to face. I wish to refer to another horror that some girls may have to face.
One aspect of the Bill gives me particular concern; namely, the effect on girls who have been drawn unwittingly into this debate. It is not understood by the vast majority of people in this country that girls would be affected in any way. In fact, I have not come across even one person who realised that the Bill would legalise the consensual buggery of girls aged between 16 and 18.
I have raised this issue twice during the year. The first time I established that women's organisations had not been consulted on this specific issue, and on the second I was informed that there had been 12 regional meetings of the Women's National Commission and the matter was not raised by anyone. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said that it was made clear in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill that there was a distinction between homosexual acts and buggery. But how many people outside Parliament read the Explanatory Notes? Indeed, who would want to on this highly sensitive subject?
I have carried out some research. I have found that the 15th Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee was presented in April 1984. It reported
536
that most of the committee were of the opinion that girls did not need the protection of the criminal law against anal intercourse once they had reached the age of 16. However, paragraph 6.6 stated:
"Some of our Members, however, consider that girls should he protected by the criminal law up to the age of 18 in relation to anal intercourse. The differing opinions as to whether the age should be 16 or 18 expressed in the comments on our Working Paper are taken by these Members to demonstrate that this is a sensitive issue on which the law would do well not to move too far in advance of public feeling. To introduce an age of consent of 16 would, in the opinion of these Members, be to risk losing public support, which might well be forthcoming if a more modest recommendation for a reduction to 18 were made".
I was unable to find any reference to consideration of the committee's report until the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That Act lowered the age of consent from 21 to 18 for homosexual acts and decriminalised consensual buggery in private of a woman by a man where both parties were 18 or over. Now, here we are again, having pressure put upon us to lower it yet again.
During the passage of the 1994 Act, Tony Blair, who at that time was shadow Home Secretary, said that the debate was not about age but about equality. But how can that be so when male and female bodies are different? Serious study has been undertaken on the risks of anal intercourse. There is increasing vulnerability to HIV and other infections, and consensual intercourse carries particular risks of physical damage to the receptive partner. I shall not go into further details other than to say that no condom provides adequate protection for that type of activity. It grieves me that schoolgirls discuss this unnatural way of life as being acceptable, and I was absolutely astounded when one of your Lordships told me that his 12 year-old granddaughter announced that she had been told that anal sex was safer than vaginal sex as you would not become pregnant that way.
I was reluctant to raise this matter. However, I believe that we have a duty to start a nation-wide debate. I hope that the Women's National Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, will consult on this specific item, and I hope that the media will also debate the issue.
Should the Bill reach the statute book, I wonder whether the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal would include the measure as a triumph in a future edition of the Labour Party propaganda publication, Voices
I referred earlier to spin doctors, those highly paid people who believe that it is their job to deliver messages to the population. What a message an Act of that nature would give to young girls, boys and, yes, even predatory older men. It is saying, "It is up to you how you enjoy sex. Have a go and see which you prefer. Either way is all right by us." It would be a disaster to give such encouragement to young people. I fear that there would be many 16 and 17 year-old girls left too traumatised and physically damaged to make the stable and loving relationships that are the cornerstone of a decent society.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, few would disagree that in terms of its scope and emphasis the gracious Speech was, in most of its parts, indeed historic, the kind of document that was needed to usher us confidently into the 21st century. I wish the Government well in this Session with most of their proposed legislation.
However, I have to admit that, as a British Muslim, I found part of the speech disappointing, for it was a clear case of an opportunity lost in terms of reflecting and acting on the complexities of a modern multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-racial Britain.
I shall concentrate on just three of the 28 proposed new measures: the extension of the Race Relations Act 1976; the prevention of terrorism Bill; and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. The Government's proposals on the Race Relations Act 1976 are not enough. They fail to initiate moves so that the law is reformed so that all sectors of our community are protected. They lack both the courage and the vision that are needed to contribute effectively towards the evolvement of a harmonious society in Britain, a society guided by the principles of fairness, equality and justice; a society the Prime Minister has described as a,
"beacon of multi-culturalism to the world".
The Race Relations Act 1976 is an outdated Act whose shelf-life has long expired. It was good when it was relevant. But it is now obsolete—not because the anti-racist struggle in terms of black and white is resolved but because of the emergence of new, more sinister and complex forms of discrimination. The Government's proposals fail completely to address the challenge of institutional racism which is highlighted in the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The indirect racial discrimination that results from institutional racism will remain immune from legal challenge.
My second concern relates to a missed opportunity; namely, religious discrimination is excluded from the proposals. The Runnymede Trust report, Islamophobia: a challenge for us all, launched in September 1997, highlighted the issue of anti-Muslim discrimination in modern Britain. According to the report, Islamophobia is a,
"real and growing phenomenon—an ugly word for an ugly reality".
Even in this Chamber, I have experienced the re-launch of crusades on occasions: I have heard reference made to "Islamic terrorists". No one describes the IRA as a Christian terrorist organisation, or extremists in the Jewish community as Jewish terrorists, or describes any other group in that way. They are known as "terrorists", and rightly so. This ugly reality has unfortunately been allowed to prosper and flourish, mainly because of our insistence on perceiving society in terms of only black and white. That simplistic approach has had a massive impact on the fortunes of the British Muslim community, which is constituted of over 37 nationalities, including members from the indigenous white community.
During the past two decades or so, British Muslims have not only had to contend with racism and Islamophobia but also insensitive anti-racist strategies
538
to address discrimination which have reduced the Muslims, the largest minority in Britain, to a deprived and disadvantaged community, almost in a state of siege.
The anti-racist solutions provided under the aegis of the Race Relations Act 1976 as it stands now have just not worked for Muslims. All they have done is to disguise the Muslim experience of discrimination. Islamophobia is not only a grotesque reality but a deforming one, providing the oxygen for extremism and marginalisation.
The recognition of Islamophobia and its effects are a matter of grave concern and of vital importance to Muslims. After all, Muslims are—literally—dying because to it. Twelve of the 26 victims of racist murders inside the Metropolitan area since 1991 have been Muslims.
But it should also be of importance to the Government, because if the authorities fail to take action now, it will set in motion consequences which will detrimentally affect not only the Muslims but community relations in general into the next millennium.
I urge Her Majesty's Government to show courage and political will in championing the reforming of the law so that it protects all members of society from discrimination, including faith communities, whether Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Buddhist. Incorporating a law against religious discrimination would modernise our legal system, making it reflective of our society. More importantly, it would make our legal system compatible with other major international agreements such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Declaration on Freedom of Worship.
My second point regarding the gracious Speech relates to the proposed prevention of terrorism Bill which will include conspiracy and incitement clauses with wide-ranging effects. The proposals will include funding and financing of "terrorist organizations".
Early this year, an imam from Oldham was refused a visa to remain in the United Kingdom because it was alleged that he was involved with the recruitment of young people and collecting funds for an organisation that was helping freedom fighters in Indian occupied Kashmir. The case was highly publicised, and during the court case it was alleged by the imam that the Secret Services tried to recruit him to spy on his congregation. When he refused, he was served with a notice to leave the UK. It was the courts that allowed the imam to remain in the United Kingdom.
I condemn terrorism of all kinds perpetrated by an individual, a group or a state. However, my concerns relate to the definition of terrorism. For example, would the former Prime Minister of Israel, Mr Begin, President Mandela, Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus or President Arafat be classed as freedom fighters or terrorists? Would Members of Parliament, including myself, who attend charity dinners for the Kashmiri victims of genocide be classed as conspirators or financiers of the freedom struggle in Kashmir? Would our support for the KLA be classed as incitement to terrorism in Kosovo? Who determines which freedom

539
struggle or right to self-determination campaign we can support? I am very clear about the prevention of terrorism within the United Kingdom or British territories. I support the Government's proposals in relation to that. But what needs to be made clear is how far one can support a genuine freedom struggle like that in East Timor, Tibet and Kashmir.
My last point is concerned with the mode of trial. My concern is that often a great percentage of black people elect jury trial. Under the Government's proposals they would lose out. Have the Government conducted any research or study into the reasons why black people prefer a jury trial rather than magistrates? How will Her Majesty's Government ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done? I shall follow the passage of the legislation with great interest and hope that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that our concerns are considered and examined properly at the drafting stage.
8.21 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I rise to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. As a Kashmiri I realise how strongly he feels about the behaviour of the Indian Government over Kashmir. It was a disgrace. However, I believe that it is also reasonable to say that India and Pakistan have been independent since 15th August 1947 and it is none of our business. I also draw to the noble Lord's attention the wonderful words of Edward Gibbon in describing how the great Charles Martel beat the Muslims outside Poitiers. He said that had victory gone the other way the towers of the Oxford colleges would have re-echoed to the cries of the muezzins. I believe that he wrote that only to irritate the Christian Church and the dons of Oxford, and in both respects he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. We have had three and a half maiden speeches today, and it is not for me to comment on how good they have been. I am sure that they have had all their due compliments.
I have serious doubts about this Government's attachment either to Parliament or to individual liberties. That was perfectly exemplified by the Leader of the House when she said, following the passing of the House of Lords Act, that she was now going to go back to women's issues. For heaven's sake, one asks her to get a sense of proportion. Which is more important? We have been considering the constitution of one of the greatest political institutions that the world has ever seen. That institution has ensured that there are no French hussars in Moscow, no German Waffen SS in Paris, that the world's system of free trade exists and that America has developed in peace and quiet. It is not a bad record for a small island separated from the Continent by what Black Adder refers to as 22 miles of wet blue wobbly stuff.
The Queen's Speech is full of illiberalities. At luncheon today a judge said to me that the duties of Parliament and the powers of government are those that they can do and no more, but that the rights and liberties of an individual are everything that they may do except that which is proscribed by law.
540
At the end of the last Session the Government passed an order in council which allowed the Secretary of State to appoint anybody whom he liked to enter premises without warrant. Was this to do with drugs, murder, arson or paedophilia? No. It was to do with lead pellets in a duck's breast. This is the habit of tyranny. What happened in the last Session was a demonstration of the law of unintended political consequences. My peerage was originally that given to one of my forebears by the great Sir Robert Walpole. For perfectly decent and corrupt reasons it was later uprated by the great William Pitt the younger. Now my peerage, not for any corrupt reason or anything like that, has been confirmed and re-justified by Mr Anthony Blair. Therefore, like your Lordships' House, I have an authority that I did not have in the previous Session.
It follows from that that Salisbury and Addison have gone out of the window. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships' House will, with very great care, consider whether orders in council and delegated legislation are sloppily drafted. I concede that my own side has been just as guilty of this as noble Lords opposite. However, noble Lords opposite claim that they are a better and more efficient government. Therefore, they will do it rather more efficiently and frequently and introduce delegated and regulatory powers of which we have far too many. I sincerely hope that we shall sling them out. It follows from that that if it is known that this House will sling them out, the Government will be much more careful about what they introduce. That will have justified the new peerage given to me by Mr Blair.
Further, it means that if we do not like an Act of Parliament we can say so. The hereditary Peers have now gone. All those hordes of Marquesses and Earls dragged in by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, with his normal skill are not here any more. We have been reformed. I am now elected. I absolutely love it. This is an experience that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, has never had. I accept that the electorate is arcane, even unique. However, this House now has greater legitimacy. I sincerely hope that we shall use it and take great care about rights of entry.
We are all aware that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knows about the right of entry without warrant. He used to do it when he was a young man in Brighton. But we should take seriously our duties as guardians of the liberties of the subject. The more seriously we take them the more seriously will the Government take them. There are enough illiberal measures in this Queen's Speech, from fox hunting to fur farming to the removal of the right of trial by jury to the stopping of individuals and automatic drug testing. It is our new and reformed duty to make it very difficult for these illiberal and anti-libertarian measures to find their way onto the statute book.
8.29 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I must apologise to some of the maiden speakers for having missed their speeches. I had to attend the All-Party

541
Group on Drug Misuse. We had a government Minister attending, and the room was booked in my name. I shall read their speeches.
I quote from the gracious Speech:
"My Government's ten year programme of modernisation for health and social care will provide faster, more convenient services to help improve the country's health".
If someone sustains a spinal injury—it can happen at any time to anyone, such as in the collapse of a rugby scrum, driving one's car, falling from scaffolding, diving into shallow water, or falling downstairs (to give but a few examples)—and if the lesion is complete, he or she would become paralysed from that area downwards, having damaged the spinal cord. He would not feel or move his paralysed parts. The bowels and bladder need specialised care. If there is not a routine of turning, the patient is at risk of pressure sores.
It has been proved time and again that patients who go to a spinal unit within 48 hours have far fewer complications and get back home and to work far more quickly than those who are not transferred to a specialised unit.
The spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital has had its funds hijacked for use in other parts of the hospital, thus damaging some of the rehabilitation facilities. We are not asking for modernisation. We are asking for protection of existing services which have led the world for years in this field of medicine. We do not want to go backwards to the terrible days before the National Health Service.
I hope that the Minister will visit the unit for himself and meet the patients. There is nothing like seeing the real thing. If the King of Spain can visit the 250 bed unit in Spain, as he did a short time ago, surely the Minister here can get out into the real world of specialised medicine and learn for himself about these issues to which I have alerted your Lordships.
Who will monitor the infection control in hospitals and nursing homes? Will it be NICE (the National Institute for Clinical Excellence)? The Government have said that they will provide a faster, more convenient health service. The spread of the so-called superbug, methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), is causing great concern to many people. Patients go into hospital for one procedure and can become more seriously ill or die when infected with MRSA. It is even becoming resistant to Vancomycin. Infections delay healing and hold up discharge of patients, causing hospitals extra work and expense and extra stress and inconvenience to patients.
Unless the Government make the control of infectious diseases a priority, how can they hope to provide a faster service? Is it not time that MRSA became notifiable? Is it also not time that the results of tests for infections of all kinds were produced faster? Many patients in the community become ill and are given an unsuitable antibiotic, thereby increasing the risk of resistance developing. A fast track in testing would give increased efficiency. If the Government
542
really want to provide a faster, more convenient service, they will put those matters high on the health agenda.
With the pressure on hospital beds, mattresses often are not cleaned between patients, and nurses and doctors do not always wash their hands between touching patients. If the bugs win, the Government will not be able to deliver their pledge. Perhaps it would be wise in the next 10 years to plan hospitals with more isolation rooms and more basins in wards and corridors so that staff can wash their hands when moving from place to place.
Last week I met a man who is totally blind, has diabetes and a heart condition which affects his breathing. He lives alone. He told me that the social services had offered to help give him a bath, which he could manage himself, but he could not get the assistance he desperately needed to clean his house. How can the Government pledge a more convenient service if they are so inflexible? Disabled people do not fit into neat official boxes. That blind man could be living among cockroaches and other pests and not know it. I wish the Queen's Speech had included the word "flexibility". If it had I might have thought that the Government were trying to understand and help severely disabled people.
I have been contacted by several agencies providing home care for severely disabled and elderly people, and a consultant in spinal injuries from Scotland, concerning the effect that the regulation of the private recruitment industry will have on home carers. The consultant said that most of his patients with tetraplegia (paralysis from the neck down) are discharged from hospital to home where the vast majority of them lead rewarding and fulfilling lives despite their disabilities. Many patients with very little movement in their arms have returned to work as lawyers, business people, and in many other occupations. This is only possible because they are often attended 24 hours a day by carers who can attend to them. A significant increase in the cost of those carers would mean that many patients would not be able to afford to return home. Instead young, intelligent people would be discharged to nursing homes with no prospect of their integration into society.
If VAT has to be paid on these carers' services, it will mean that the increased cost of care would be a tax from the disabled people which would be a retrograde step for any government to take. The extra costs which will be placed on the agencies will be off-loaded on to the clients. It is no good the Government naively thinking that the agencies will absorb the costs. They should understand the real world and the needs of severely disabled people before it is too late. Many severely disabled people are VAT exempt. If they buy equipment they just sign a form. I cannot believe that that cannot be organised also for their care.
I should like to ask the Government a question relating to people living with HIV/AIDS and their health workers. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and I sat on the panel for the parliamentary

543
hearings of the All-Party Group on AIDS. We heard important evidence about what needs to be done. The report was published in October 1998. The Government also held a strategy conference that month. But what has happened since then? When will the strategy be published?
The previous government took HIV very seriously and put in place funding and a number of good measures. It was a key part of their Health of the Nation strategy. This Government took HIV out of the White Paper, Our Healthier Nation, and promised instead a separate HIV/AIDS strategy. We are still waiting.
There is a worrying misconception that HIV is "going away" or is now curable. Last year there was the highest ever number of new infections in this country. With the rising number of people receiving treatment, paying for those expensive drugs will soon become a problem. If the Government are going to provide a faster, more convenient service to help improve the country's health, they need to put up front the funds to train high quality staff so that they have the experience that is needed, to provide good health facilities and the correct drugs for patients' many different needs. There are many people waiting with high expectations for action rather than just words.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, much of the focus of the debate, including some excellent maiden speeches, has been on the criminal justice system. All I want to say about that system tonight, before I turn to the health issues upon which I really want to speak, is this. The gracious Speech would have been far more impressive if it had focused not on meddling around with the mode of trial system, but rather on changes in the substantive law which have been needed for years. Perhaps I may cite one example and perhaps the Government will explain why they are not acting on it. For years, the Law Commission's recommendations on reform of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 have been gathering dust, despite apparently having the imprimatur of government approval. Why have they not included such measures and other dusty Law Commission Bills in the gracious Speech rather than looking for political issues, for that is what the mode of trial proposals are?
I welcome the attention given in the gracious Speech to health and care standards. I spent 10 years as a lay member of the General Medical Council until earlier this year. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in that capacity I enjoyed a particular form of insight into some of the strengths, and not a few of the weaknesses, of the piecemeal regime that exists to promote and ensure proper standards in the provision of clinical treatment.
For most of my childhood, my father was a general practitioner in a Lancashire cotton town. In the 1950s, like many medical families, we lived in the surgery premises. My father became doctor, confessor and adviser to a large population huddled and crowded into a strong community in terraced streets, then generally described as slums.
544
In those days, primary medical provision was as much a caring service as a curing service. Consultant referrals were made only after deliberation and very rarely on demand. Patients accepted more and demanded less. Today, greater knowledge and information has produced a more demanding public to whom at least in health terms outcome is everything.
As a result, the medical world has changed since the years of my childhood. Many people who have no medical condition whatever, let alone an illness, use clinicians as a resort of choice. Larger people try to be slighter and slighter people try to be larger. Face-lifts are given as birthday presents. Chins and noses are reshaped, often those which need it least. Many are "clients", not "patients", and they expect and are entitled to top quality standards. When they buy a new nose or a new chin, just as when they buy a new car or refrigerator, they are entitled to demand what we recognise as the rights of the consumer.
With these developments have arrived squadrons of sometimes self-appointed experts, presenting their private clinics as the gateway to a new self. In many cases, medically unqualified so-called consultants trade on the medical connotations of that word when in reality they are no more and no less than good sales people. However honest they may be as sales people, often they have neither the ability nor any potential as scrutinizers of the quality of the service they are providing. Most private clinics are very, very good. But, unfortunately, a minority range from the undistinguished to the fraudulent. That minority drags down the reputation of the majority.
In another place on 10th December 1998, Alan Milburn, then Minister of State at the Department of Health, said [col. 693] that the Government want self-regulation to work but that it must become more modern, more open and more accountable. I agree with that and with the Government's view that if self-regulation is to be the bedrock of high clinical standards in future, it cannot operate in isolation. It must form part of an integrated framework of new mechanisms that embrace the clinical professions—all of them—the regulatory machinery, the educational bodies and, of course, the NHS. Providers of private medical facilities and procedures must not be excluded from the regulation and it is to be hoped that there will be room in this Session's legislation to tackle these issues.
The General Medical Council has done much to face up to the future. Its lay membership has increased significantly, though perhaps not yet enough. It has reduced the size of conduct panels so that it can deal with its burgeoning and alarming caseload with greater efficiency. The new procedure of performance review is now functioning to deal with conduct falling short of serious professional misconduct. The need for regular revalidation of a doctor's competence has been accepted, and the GMC is now considering how to administer what will be a huge new responsibility.
However, the role of the GMC in this context is limited to the registration of individual doctors. It is not a licensing body for clinics. It is not a body with

545
powers of inspection. It is necessarily demand-led, empowered to respond only to information placed before it. It is often the whipping boy for much journalistic bile that could be better directed elsewhere.
Like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and, I believe, the General Medical Council, I welcome the Government's recognition of the need for better and more effective regulation of the private and voluntary healthcare sectors. I know that the Minister replying on health tonight has deep knowledge of the healthcare system; he was a distinguished manager in it for a number of years. I hope that with that knowledge, the noble Lord will confirm tonight that the Government's proposals will include an independent, quality regulatory framework that will include all premises providing clinical facilities of whatever kind and that there will be an inspection and licensing system—whether nationally or regionally organised does not matter—to underpin regulation.
In partnership with the mechanisms available through the contracting bodies and ultimately through the profession, such a framework should drive the cowboys out of the market and ensure greater public confidence in the services that they receive. New measures must include a better match between the various players on the complaints field, which is often far from level and allows too many googlies to be bowled at those least able to protect themselves; the consumers.
The private sector should be encouraged in its current efforts to develop an acceptable complaints handling system; but one should not lose sight of the fact that a voluntary system will be insufficient to protect the public from the least scrupulous. And they will be the people who will often abuse terms such as "doctor", "consultant" and "therapy"; terms which perhaps deserve some legislative definition and examination.
I trust that the Government will be prepared to meet some of the cost of a new framework. Of course, the providers themselves can meet much of the cost, especially in the private sector. I suggest that public cost will be offset by savings which stronger regulation would provide in that there would be fewer pieces of negligence and incompetence to pick up if we had a sound regulatory system.
I hope and believe that all genuine and responsible clinicians will welcome firm measures designed to improve public confidence in the important work of their professions and that they will recognise that stronger regulation is essential in this age of wider choice and increasing self-diagnosis.
8.50 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I add my voice in welcoming so many of the positive reforms and innovations in the Queen's Speech. For those of us involved with children's organisations, the reform of the Child Support Agency and the assistance to young
546
people in their transition from public care into independent adulthood are particularly welcome. I am also delighted to see that there will now be proper regulation of children's homes under the care standards Bill. However, I can only express dismay that the Freedom of Information Bill is such an anaemic version of what was originally envisaged.
When the Government were elected, one of the most powerful and vibrant parts of their manifesto was the commitment to constitutional change. That programme of constitutional reform was long overdue and it has been heartening to see so much of the programme take life—the Human Rights Act, devolution, reform of this House. It took vision to embark on such change. However, at the centre of any truly modern democracy must be a bold Freedom of Information Act, not a tepid, timid attempt. Information is crucial to active citizenship and a confident executive, as this executive surely must be, should have no worries about creating truly open government. This Bill regretfully can only receive the comment, "Surely we can do better than this." I therefore urge boldness on the Secretary of State. His original instinct was to be bold and I hope he will be persuaded, in the interests of good governance, to go back to his first thoughts.
I now turn to the heart of my sadness concerning the gracious Speech. I keep thinking there must be some mistake when I hear that a Labour Government are set upon reducing the right to jury trial. Trial by jury is undoubtedly the best way of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused. Like most people who have cause to be in the courts, I am a believer in the jury. The great success of the jury is that it is a display of active citizenship, of drawing the public into the process of deciding the culpability of a fellow citizen. It is therefore more, as Lord Devlin said, than an instrument of justice.
The majority of people who ever participate as jurors will tell you how impressed they have been and the extent to which the people with whom they participated took the role seriously, becoming more than the sum of their parts. Jurors rise invariably to the occasion and command the respect of all who watch them undertake their function. You can be sure, just as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, that if any one of us had the misfortune to be accused or if any one of our children were accused, we would want trial by jury for them if they were saying, "I did not do this." The truth is that we would get it. We noble Peers would get it. We would get our trial by jury. You have to ask yourselves who would not get it. The people the magistrates think are guilty; they will not get jury trial. Surely, you may ask, deciding whether a person is guilty before he has actually had his trial is not what magistrates are supposed to do. And, of course, you would be right.
To change the law so that magistrates or, on appeal, a Crown Court judge can determine whether you should be allowed such a trial will inevitably introduce unfairness, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said. I am afraid that there is already stereotyping and discrimination in our courts, and I

547
say that as a practitioner. Indeed, Home Office studies have shown that there are differentials between sentences passed on black defendants and their white counterparts. They are shown differentials in the granting of bail between different racial groupings. Do we really think, despite all the efforts devoted to training, which are all to a good end, but one still to be reached, that similar differentials will not take place in the granting of jury trial? Do we really not think that perhaps there will be those who get it and those who just will not?
The black community is understandably alarmed; so too are civil liberties organisations. Indeed, anyone who really cares about justice is alarmed. I even hear people say behind their hand how much they regret that the proposal has found its way into the Queen's Speech. It is regrettable that it has been suggested that when lawyers express concern, they only do so out of self-interest. It is a scandalous perception and I can only think that it was said in the heat of press conference rather than with real seriousness because it would be unworthy if that were truly the view of the Secretary of State.
To suggest that we should be going down this road because it is done in Scotland is really sleight of hand. The Scottish legal system, as we all know, is a different legal system and those who make decisions about the form of trial are not lay magistrates. When we have sought to advocate changes such as exist within the Scottish system we have often in the past heard it said to us that it is inappropriate to look to that system when it is so distinct from our own here in England and Wales.
To suggest that large numbers of people elect trial and plead guilty at the door of the Crown Court is not supported by evidence. The number of people electing trial is half that at the time of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993. The reason is that judges are taking into account concern expressed about people delaying and pleading guilty a t the door of the court. Lawyers are advising their clients, "If you are only using this as a delaying tactic, you will lose credit with the court." The effect has been quite remarkable. The research available on who elects trial by jury is 10 years out of date. It covers only convicted defendants and takes no account of those who elect trial and are acquitted. If you were to ask, the Home Office would admit that there are no current statistics on those who elect trial and plead guilty. So where the figures being brought forth in the press come from, one can only guess.
Jury trial is one of the things which make Britain great. It should be a source of pride and it should be protected with urgency and vigilance because it is so precious. All I can say to the Home Secretary is, "Please think again"
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, as part of its legislative programme for the coming year outlined in the gracious Speech, the Government are committed to introducing a Bill to reform the structures of local
548
government, ostensibly to make it more innovative and accountable. I have very real concerns that the measures will succeed only in shifting power into the hands of a few well-paid councillors, and standards of accountability, transparency and service will not improve. Where, before the legislation has been passed, the cabinet system has been introduced, there are already sharp voices being raised by councillors and the public that this has indeed been the effect.
The Bill legitimises a cabinet system, one which is widely used already, but also enables that small number of members to take decisions in secret and to act upon them in secret, something which is explicitly forbidden in the current local government legislation.
I hope to be able to contribute to the debate as the measures come before us, but my reason for mentioning them now is that part of the Government's rationale for the local government organisation and standards Bill was that the changes would generate such public enthusiasm that it would help to counteract the falling percentage of the electorate taking part in, in this case local, elections.
Much the same claim has been made by the Government to justify the changes made to our traditional first-past-the-post electoral system. Elections involving a form of proportional representation for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the European Parliament and, shortly, the Greater London Authority, have replaced our simple and democratic regime of first past the post. To date, claims that proportional representation would increase turnout would not be able to be proved and could not lead us confidently to the conclusion that this major upheaval to overturn our traditional practices will have the desired effect.
The gracious Speech states that the Government will now try again to raise electoral enthusiasm by bringing forward measures to reform the electoral procedures. Pilots—which may be carried out only at elections and may therefore delay somewhat any conclusions that may be drawn from them—will be carried out into voting at supermarkets and other similar venues. They will include changing the day of polling, early voting—I hope not early and often—out-of-area voting, all postal ballots and electronic voting. Of course, we must try such innovations, but with caution. As polling moves away from the local polling station, care must be taken that impersonation, multiple voting and other misuses of the democratic system do not increase and that safeguards are built into those systems to prevent such abuses from occurring.
The one measure which I welcome without reservation is the proposal for a rolling register. While it may not be easy to maintain, an effort to do so is surely desirable where, as in my borough, there is an annual turnover of 33 per cent of the population. Arrangements to enable the homeless, prisoners on remand and those detained long term under the Mental Health Act to participate in elections are also properly democratic. However, those still disenfranchised will include some of your Lordships' colleagues who were somewhat unceremoniously

549
jettisoned from this House so recently. As a result, some 200 former Members of this House are unable to vote in the by-election currently taking place in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea.
Clearly, innovative systems are justified. In Europe the turnout at elections is somewhere in the region of 79 to 80 per cent. However, structures are not necessarily the answer to the problem of low voting numbers—although poor registration does not help. A lack of commitment to take part in the democratic process must lie far deeper than the structural deficiencies. The malaise with and cynicism of government; a disinterest in the effect that government has on people's lives; and the denial of a right and duty to participate are more fundamental than all the superficial efforts now being made.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to probe those problems tonight. However, while I believe the Government to be well-intentioned in the measures that they are taking, I believe also that they must propose measures which more than merely scratch the surface of this problem.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it might be argued that the first element in the gracious Speech upon which I want to touch should have been raised in the mainly agricultural debate two days ago. However, as it involves the creation of yet another new criminal offence, it seemed to me on balance to be a Home Office matter. I trust that the Minister will concur, especially as the issue has scarcely been mentioned so far apart from an extremely brief reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, half an hour ago.
I refer of course to the deplorable proposal to outlaw the hitherto legal practice of fur farming which will throw scores of people out of work and leave the field clear to our competitors in Scandinavia—where, I remind your Lordships, concern for the welfare of animals is generally similar to our own. In yesterday's Daily Telegraph, Mr Elliot Morley, the Minister for Fisheries and the Countryside, who is in charge of the Bill, declared that,
"the keeping and slaughter of animals for their fur can no longer be justified".
without advancing a single logical, rational argument to support that assertion. A vegan could respectably argue that no animal should ever be slaughtered for any purpose, but, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's annual access every August to delicious Tuscan risottos, chargrilled peppers and so on, I do not believe that he is a vegan any more than most of his Cabinet are. Like all previous Governments, they condone the annual slaughter of millions of animals for meat, milk and milk products (at one remove), leather shoes, clothing, handbags, wallets and so on, and cosmetics, soaps and medicines.
With the exception of medicines, all of those could be described as luxuries, in so far as human beings can perfectly well survive without them. In that respect they are on all fours with animal fur. No doubt the "intensive
550
rearing" argument will be trotted out in response, but chickens and turkeys, among others, are also intensively reared. However, we learn from a letter in today's Daily Telegraph from the well-known writer on agricultural matters, Mr Robin Page, that Mr Morley, to whom he spoke, would oppose violently the banning of broiler units because that would cause considerable unemployment in his constituency.
The upshot is that when many votes are at stake, principle flies out of the window, but it is all right to clobber a small group of hard-working individuals who lack electoral clout in order to garner votes from the readers of the more downmarket tabloids, who tend to emote rather than to think. I have heard rumours that the Opposition—if they can still be so described—do not intend to oppose this illiberal measure. I trust that those rumours will turn out to be slanderous.
I turn now to the lowering of the age of male homosexual consent which is returning to haunt us. Leafing through the Official Report of our debate of 11th April this year, I was struck by the way in which some noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Bledisloe and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, argued that lowering the age of consent to 16 was a libertarian imperative. With respect, as someone who has knowledge of these matters, I disagree. Libertarian considerations should be paramount where consenting adults are concerned. I have argued this for 35 years, long before such an advocacy became conventional or even respectable. But most people would agree, including, significantly, a number of responsible adult homosexuals, that where minors are concerned other considerations come into play which may necessitate certain legal restrictions on the under-18s in sexual matters, just as in matters of access to alcohol, tobacco, motor cars, powerful motorcycles and so on.
That is underlined by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was extolled, rightly, in the gracious Speech, a section of which specifically aims to prevent under-18s from sexual exploitation or sexual abuse. In any case, an absolutist libertarian approach would have to entail lowering the age of consent to 12 or 13, among other things. But I do not believe that the Government are motivated by libertarian principles, absolutist or otherwise. Indeed, they are effectively saying to boys aged 15 and three quarters, "No matter how powerful your urges, you have to wait three months in England, Scotland and Wales, or fully 15 months in Northern Ireland, before you can legally satisfy those urges, at least with other people".
No; the Government are inspired, it would seem, by the sacred mantra of sexual equality at all costs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, so powerfully reminded us a little while ago, the trouble is that they are not comparing like with like, at least where intercourse is concerned—the aspect which, legitimately, most concerns parents and grandparents.
It is not the moment at this hour to revisit the statistics or to point out all the grave dangers to young people, psychological or physical, which are involved.

551
Obviously this matter is not going to go away. I would urge a compromise based on the admirable suggestion which emanated from the Bench of Bishops. In this context it is worth reminding your Lordships that despite, I would guess, their broad support for this Government in general, the Bishops voted by a massive majority—75 per cent to 25 per cent—against lowering the age of consent seven-and-a-half months ago, as did the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who is sadly no longer with us, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, who almost certainly represent the majority opinion in the Jewish and Muslim communities respectively.
I do not speak from a doctrinal standpoint. I never have and I never would. Nevertheless, the fact is that nearly all the world's great religions, including Buddhists, as I know from my travels in South-East Asia, are in broad agreement on this matter. That cannot lightly be disregarded. The particular Episcopal contribution I commend—I have raised this before—is the article by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon in the Parliamentary Monitor dated November 1998 in which he urged that anal sex should continue to be illegal for the under-18s even if other genital activity is reluctantly to be permitted. I suggest simplifying and slightly liberalising that proposal by making it illegal for anyone over 18, not just schoolmasters, vicars, scoutmasters, employers and so on, as the Government propose, to have anal intercourse with anyone under 18, be they boys or girls.
In other words, any alleged discrimination would not be against one gender, as we now have to call it, but purely against one dangerous, albeit optional, sexual practice, regardless of the gender of the young victims. Such a compromise would avoid a ping-pong battle between the two Houses of Parliament, with all the attendant bad press publicity for the Government that would result, while surely going far enough to satisfy both new Labour and the European Court.
9.12 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I hesitate to begin my speech as I realise I hat I am being followed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. He has told us in the House Magazine that he is having a personal war against cliché. I hope that my contribution will live up to his high standards and avoid being cliché-ridden.
In the debate on the gracious Speech tonight, perhaps I may concentrate for a few moments on home affairs. In particular, I very much welcome the proposal to introduce the first ever Freedom of Information Act. This Bill is an essential part of the Government's aim to build strong foundations for modern, accessible government administration that responds effectively to its citizens at all levels.
It was a privilege for me to be one of the members of the Select Committee, under the excellent chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, that examined the draft Freedom of Information Bill in June and July of this year. This Bill has had more inspections in its various draft forms over the past few years than Britain's livestock population. While the Select Committee was certainly
552
not without its criticism of aspects of the draft Bill, it also agreed strongly that actually having a Bill in front of us was to be welcomed and was long overdue.
I felt it was uncharacteristically dismissive of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to refer to the Freedom of Information Bill in his opening of the debate today in the way that he did, especially given the fact that the Conservative campaign guide for 1997 stated that there was "no need for a freedom of information Act" and that the only group in Britain who are seriously interested in a freedom of information Act are inquisitive, left-wing busybodies. Many people in this country who would not consider themselves, on reflection, to be busybodies, will welcome the Bill's duty to publish information proactively, as well as the requirement to consider the disclosure of information in the public interest, even where an exemption applies. They will welcome also the establishment of an independent information commissioner and a new information tribunal with wide powers to enforce the rights created.
Even the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which was less than ecstatic about one or two parts of the Bill, pointed out that it covers a large number of public bodies, that the statutory right of access is to be welcomed and that the charging provisions within the Bill are fair. I believe that the Government have been listening to the many voices raised in the continuing debate on openness over the past two years. I welcome the number of changes they have made since we last met as a Select Committee this summer. No doubt in the course of the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House in the coming year, outstanding issues which were reflected in the committee's recommendations will be raised and debated—the most obvious being the powers of the information commissioner in regard to a public interest override. And no doubt there will be heated discussion as to whether or not background information can be distinct and separable from policy advice, and therefore be taken out of the class exemption for policy advice.
But those are the problems of the success of a government determined to drive forward legislation in this important area of citizens' rights and end the culture of secrecy, and a government that will take no lessons from noble Lords opposite who presided over an era of unprecedented government secrecy and neglect of citizens' rights. Who will forget the secrecy surrounding the BSE scandal, the arms for Iraq affair and the continual resistance to opening up party political funding?
In conclusion, I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to the seven maiden speakers on their contributions. They should give us all heart that this House will go from strength to strength through the quality of their advocacy.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am conscious of the hour and the need to be brief. However, I was a little surprised earlier in the day when the Government Chief Whip announced that the noble Lord, Lord

553
Hunt of Kings Heath, would be speaking, as he put it, "after every Back-Bencher". Had the noble Lord spoken after every Back-Bencher we would still be here tomorrow and the noble Lord himself would probably be in need of the health service.
As has been variously mentioned during the debate, the Queen's Speech was notable both for what it includes and for what it excludes. Given that, I should like to put two questions to the Government, one derived from what is in the gracious Speech and the other from what is not. The first question is straightforward. What is the philosophy, the particular world view, that underpins what the Government seek to achieve? On the basis of the measures envisaged in the gracious Speech, there is no apparent philosophy underpinning them at all.
Today we are considering home affairs. During the course of this Session the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will on one or two occasions be donning a liberal hat; on other occasions he will be donning a seemingly illiberal or what might be described as his "Straw" hat. The range of measures promised in the Queen's Speech follows no clear logic or structure. There is no apparent underlying set of beliefs to what we are offered. This point is not specific to the measures embodied in this gracious Speech; it is a criticism that can be levelled at the gracious Speeches of the past two Sessions. It is a criticism that I levelled at the House of Lords Bill in the previous Session. I wanted to know then what intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change motivated the measure. The answer to that question is that there was no coherent intellectual approach: there was not one then and, as far as I can see, there is no such approach motivating the measures that we are debating today. If there is, what is it?
It is clear from what I have just said that we need to know where the Government are coming from. But we also need to know where they are going; that is, in terms of the effects of the measures that they propose. That prompts my second question. What thought have the Government given, or rather what study has been undertaken or commissioned by them, as to the likely consequences of each of these measures?
We need to think through the likely effects of each Bill. All too often, there is a temptation to legislate in haste and repent at leisure. Parliament has variously approved well-meaning measures designed to address perceptible problems but measures that have had less than desirable consequences. Parliament has also approved measures which some of us would regard as less than well meaning and which have not been properly thought through.
We need to ensure that a Bill incorporates the most effective means of addressing a problem and that the provisions of the Bill are not likely to cause problems of their own. We certainly need to ensure that a Bill will not create a situation that is worse than the one it seeks to correct.
The need to think through the likely consequences of a measure applies to all Bills placed before your Lordships' House. It certainly applies in the context of
554
those measures of constitutional significance which fall within the remit of the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than by the passage of the Human Rights Act. We are now in a situation where the appointment of temporary sheriffs in Scotland by the Lord Advocate has been held, in anticipation of the Act taking effect, to be unlawful and where magistrates in Scotland who also serve as councillors have, as a precautionary measure, been suspended from serving on the bench until January.
The Government make much of joined-up government, but what this demonstrates is a lack of joined-up thinking, of not thinking through the consequences of one Bill of constitutional significance for another. Why did not the Government, in drawing up the Scotland Bill, anticipate the consequences of the proposed incorporation of the European convention?
In terms of anticipating the consequences of measures, the experience to date has not been encouraging. The sheer number of Bills included in the Queen's Speech also raises doubts about the extent to which the Government are concerned to think through what they are proposing. Consideration of consequences should precede the introduction of a Bill, not succeed it. I very much welcome the move towards the publication of Bills in draft, but there is still a long way to go before we get the process right. The gracious Speech makes reference to three Bills to be published in draft. That is welcome, but why only three?
I therefore invite the House to shift the focus, or rather the balance, of debate. Of course we must address the problems that motivate the introduction of the Bills. We must satisfy ourselves that there are genuine problems to be addressed. That is necessary, absolutely necessary, but it is not sufficient. We must also satisfy ourselves as to the likely consequences of those Bills. We must satisfy ourselves that the Government have thought through the consequences of those Bills. That may mean looking at the way we consider legislation in Parliament.
The procedures available to this House, and to the other place, are not necessarily well geared to investigating the likely effects of a measure. We need to spend more time seeking advice and data from those bodies that have expertise and experience in the field. The other place has provision for the appointment of Special Standing Committees which can take evidence. Despite the entreaties of successive Procedure Committees and the Modernisation Committee, such committees have not been employed on a regular basis.
We have provision in this House to make use of investigative procedures during the passage of a Bill. I am thinking, in particular, of the provision for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider a Bill. This is not the only procedure available, but I think that it is the most appropriate in this context. This provision has rarely been used and, when it has been, it has usually been for Private Members' Bills. I believe that there is a case for making greater use of Select Committee scrutiny prior to normal consideration in

555
Committee of the Whole House. Such scrutiny will allow the House to explore more fully the likely consequences of a Bill. That would be to the benefit of the House in considering the Bill. It should also be to the benefit of government enabling them to ensure that a Bill is work able and that avoids having unintended consequences.
By publishing some Bills in draft the Government are in effect conceding that measures may be improved by consultation and by discussion with relevant bodies. What I propose is consistent with what the Government have conceded. If the Government are confident that what they are proposing in the gracious Speech is both desirable and workable, they should have no objections to it being subject to proper scrutiny by your Lordships' House.
9.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak tonight about the Department of Health's legislative programme. I start by thanking the House for its tolerance in allowing me to speak tonight.
When the National Health Service was created by the Labour government in 1948 it was the ambition of all those building the new service that Britain should have a system of health and social services that would be the envy of the world. That is why we have embarked upon a 10-year programme of modernising the health and social services. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that that programme of modernisation has already begun to bear fruit.
Many in the Opposition believe this to be impossible. Indeed one had only to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in an uncharacteristic guise as a prophet of doom and gloom when he spoke earlier, to realise that. We on this side of the House are confident about the National Health Service. Since coming to office in May 1997 we have kept our manifesto commitment to abolish the wasteful and divisive internal market and to put an end to the short-termism so appropriately described by my noble friend Lady Ashton. We have replaced it with a system of integrated care based on partnership and driven by performance.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about resources. We have kept our commitment to allocate more resources to the NHS. The NHS will receive continuous, substantial extra funding over the remainder of this Parliament as a result of the comprehensive spending review. We have launched the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS with 37 hospitals under way, or shortly to be under way.
We have tackled the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who I see is not present, by creating a new pay structure for nurses with a top salary of £42,000, and awarded all nurses the biggest real terms pay increase for 10 years, paid in full with no staging. Over 2,000 nurses have returned to the profession as a result of our campaign with another
556
2,000 in training and shortly to return. We have arranged for 1,000 extra training places for doctors to be put in place by the year 2005. We are committed to an increase of 7,000 in the number of doctors.
We have set up NHS Direct, a 24-hour advice line staffed by nurses, to provide the public with immediate advice and help in contacting other services. It has been an enormous success and it is being watched with great interest by other countries. We have taken action to reduce waiting lists from the record number we inherited. The total number on the list is now 73,000 below that which we inherited and we are on course to achieve our target of 100,000 below that inherited. In relation to waiting times I say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that it was the government he served that had an 18-month target. But they failed to deliver it. We have achieved the 18-month target.
We have placed major emphasis on quality, consistency and high standards of patient care. How much I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Patel, on the issue of quality in evidence based medicine. That is why we have established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement. It is why we have established clinical governance at local level.
In a notable, uncontroversial maiden speech, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, spoke about the postcode lottery of care. Where did that come from? It came from the introduction of the internal market. The purpose of establishing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is to ensure that we have cost-effective medical interventions in the future and that there will be much greater consistency throughout the country with those interventions.
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, as regards private sector regulation. We have consulted on that matter and are now considering the responses. We hope to announce the outcome shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, invited me to take on cult status in reassuring the dental profession. I am not sure that I can really ascribe to that. The dental strategy has not yet been published. It is later than we envisaged. That is because the scope of the strategy has widened considerably. If the scientific review of evidence on fluoridation of water confirms benefits to dental health and no risk to overall health, we shall then consider legislative changes to put water companies under an obligation to fluoridate areas where the majority of significant populations are in favour. That should reassure the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin.
I turn to complementary therapies. I welcome the constructive speech of the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin. I am not afraid to acknowledge that I use such medicines. He seemed to be looking for some users on this side of the House. As regards herbal medicines, I assure him that I wish to continue the good work of my noble friend Lady Hayman.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the HIV/AIDS strategy. I can assure her that our strategy on sexual health published in March encompasses that strategy. Working groups are taking

557
forward details of the strategy. The noble Baroness also raised the extremely important issue of hospital-acquired infection. Noble Lords have debated this issue in the past year. It is a matter of great concern. We are discussing with the professional organisations most concerned how to develop a strategy for a much more structured surveillance of hospital-acquired infection.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, accused the Government of being inactive over the rise in the cost of generic drugs. I refute that suggestion. We have moved to make Category D entry more difficult and to allow drugs to come out of the category more quickly than has been the case in the past. We have referred the issue to the Office of Fair Trading. We have announced a fundamental review of the generics supply industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the £700 million over three years in order to help us deliver the safe, sound and supportive mental health services that we need. That has to be taken together with the mainline resources that are already spent in the mental health field. We believe that this will provide the resources to begin implementing the national service framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Laird, spoke of issues in relation to Northern Ireland and particularly about the reorganisation of the acute services. We have enough challenges here without my becoming embroiled in such issues. But I take this opportunity, as a frequent visitor to the Northern Ireland Health Service, to acknowledge the excellence of so much of what is provided there.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lady Rendell raised the issue of healthcare for older people and the suggestion that discrimination is exercised against them. I reiterate that discrimination of any kind has no place within the NHS. We are committed to a fundamental rule that the NHS is there to provide services for everybody irrespective of age, race or gender. Decisions regarding treatment rest with individual doctors in individual cases. Such decisions can be complex in the care of older people. All the clinical factors need to be taken into account, including other physical illnesses and current medication. But the national service framework as regards older people will be able to pick up and address some of those issues.
My noble friend Lady Rendell raised concerns about female genital mutilation. I have a great deal of sympathy with the points she raised. I will be happy to meet with her to see if there is more that we can do.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and other noble Lords, asked about the date of the announcement of our response to the Royal Commission on long-term care. We hope to make an announcement before Christmas. We are giving the Commission's report the very careful attention it undoubtedly deserves. We have begun work in some of the areas highlighted by the report; for instance, improving services for carers.
558
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked about the spinal injuries centre at Stoke Mandeville. She has almost tempted me to visit the centre. I am satisfied that the local trust recognises the importance of the centre. Equally, we should recognise that the trust provides invaluable services to the centre.
The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, spoke about the health of young people and the priority we have to give to that. How much I agree with her. More generally, she was right to focus on public health and Our Healthier Nation strategy.
As far as concerns our 10-year programme to modernise the health services, we are already delivering more and better healthcare. We have set ourselves tough targets to show that this will continue. That is exactly our goal for social care services as well. Those matters will be the focus of our two Bills this Session. The Children (Leaving Care) Bill has been introduced into the House already and the care standards Bill will be published shortly.
The care standards Bill will establish a new independent regulation system to inspect care homes, children's homes and other care services. There will be national standards and tough new powers to protect vulnerable people, including the power to close down a home if it is not up to standard. The Bill will establish a level playing field between the public and private sectors; and it will set up tough new arrangements for inspecting private hospitals and clinics to ensure that people get the protection they deserve. I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile on that. The Bill will establish a general social care council to raise professional and training standards for the million-strong social care work force.
So the Bill will ensure that children in care are protected from abuse and neglect; that elderly and disabled people who rely on care services get decent standards of care and the protection they deserve; and that private hospitals and clinics operate to proper, modern standards of healthcare. The Bill is very important. I have no doubt that we shall debate it at some considerable length and subject it to considerable scrutiny.
But there is also the tragic situation of young people who leave care and are left to make their way in the world, all too often with sad results. There is little doubt that the present system has failed too many young people. Many have ended up unemployed, homeless and socially excluded. Increasing numbers of young people leave care at just 16; one in four of the girls are pregnant; three-quarters have no qualifications; and 50 per cent are unemployed. I agree with and reiterate the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as regards the problems that we have to tackle. The situation is clearly unacceptable. The system needs reform, and this we will do with the Children (Leaving Care) Bill, which was introduced in the House last Thursday.
The Bill will reverse the current trend of children leaving care too early and make sure that they leave care only when they are ready and willing to do so and

559
with proper support. The Bill will give the responsible local authorities a new duty to assess and meet the care and support needs of eligible young people aged 16 and 17, whether they choose to remain in care or not. It will give all eligible young people a pathway plan from their 16th birthday to map their route to independence. It will provide all eligible young people with a young person's adviser, who will keep in touch with them, oversee the pathway plan and ensure that they have the help that they need.
Finally, the Bill will put a duty on local authorities to assist care leavers to benefit from higher education by providing them with accommodation during vacations where needed. They may provide help with the costs of education and training up to the age of 24, whenever the course starts.
In conclusion, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that, just as we are determined to raise standards of social care services, so we are determined to raise standards in the NHS. That is the purpose of the Bills which we put forward today. We are taking ideals from Aneurin Bevan which hold as good today as trey did in 1948. We are taking those ideals and making the NHS fit for the 21st century, raising the quality of our health and social care standards to a e best that the world can offer— supported by all, used by all, fast, accessible, consistent and first-class.
9.40 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it is my honour and duty to wind up the Queen's Speech debate on behalf of these Benches.
I believe that your Lordships would all agree that, not just today but throughout the debate on the gracious Speech, we have had a succession of awesomely effective maiden speeches. It would be invidious to name names in such circumstances. However, I believe that one maiden speech stands out; that is, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. As exclusively predicted by my noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, his application for the leadership of the Conservative Party in this House was delivered on time and on schedule. But I believe that there may have been some mistiming: perhaps he should have waited for the outcome of the Kensington & Chelsea by-election. If the Conservatives were to be successful there, he could have mounted a joint putsch with Mr Michael Portillo. There we would have it: Portillo and Forsyth—the Burke and Hare of British politics—running off with the body of the Conservative Party.
My prime responsibility on these Benches is to speak on Home Office matters, and it is to those that I shall devote my remarks this evening. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, predicted that he will appear regularly at the Dispatch Box during the coming year. I must confess that I am still trying to get the measure of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. Apart from his waistcoats, he is the least flamboyant of the Government Front Bench. I must also confess that I miss his predecessor—now the Attorney-General. The
560
noble and learned Lord always came to the Dispatch Box with an air of wounded self-righteousness. Sometimes it almost qualified him for these Benches.
The difficulty for Home Office Ministers is exemplified by the gracious Speech. Over a quarter of the Bills in the Speech will be the responsibility of the Home Office or the legal departments. In addition, we shall undoubtedly have emergency legislation, responding to some as yet unforeseen crisis within the Home Office ambit. I once described the Home Office as "the Ministry of one darned thing after another". The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, put it better in his memoirs. He said this about the Home Office:
"Its work is concerned with holding the balance between the state and the citizen, between law and justice and liberty and order".
Of Home Secretaries, he had this to say:
"His work is the stuff of newspaper headlines, the human story that will appear on the front pages: drugs, football hooligans, gambling, pornography, prison escapes, demonstrations, police behaviour, the treatment of immigrants. They are not abstract concepts like the Treasury's monetarism, or the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement; but are subjects about which every man knows that the opinion of the Home Secretary is no better than his own".
As I used to write the noble Lord's speeches, thought that he might as well write one of mine!
There is no doubt that those responsibilities for freedom and security often chafe one against another. The good Home Secretary gets the balance right. I have known the present Home Secretary since our student days over 30 years ago and I know that he has many of the personal qualities to become a great Home Secretary. There are, however, genuine doubts about him which I think are reflected in the Bills contained in the gracious Speech. I would not go so far as to say that there is something of the night about Jack Straw; it is more of the twilight zone. The distinguished political commentator, Philip Stephens, of the Financial Times made the point last Friday that too many of the Bills in the gracious Speech,
"spoke to the populist illiberalism which is the Government's leas attractive trait".
The populism came out even earlier than the Queen's Speech when the Home Secretary tried to mislead the Labour Party conference about police numbers. Why Ministers get caught up in the numbers game is always beyond me. Anyone who has been on the doorstep knows that what the public want is more bobbies on the beat. But I suspect that if we put a policeman on every street corner, we would get a demand for two. The truth is that there are police forces where management, not manning, is the problem. Greater mobility and improved technologies may produce more effective policing for each policeman employed. There may even be a case for outsourcing and privatising certain police functions. And yes, there are areas where the case for more policemen is very strong indeed. However, I would have been more impressed with Jack Straw if he had chosen to respond to Sir Paul Condon's warning of the consequences of 2,000 fewer policemen on the streets of London rather than cooking the books about overall police numbers.

561
If fiddling the figures over police numbers shows the populism of the Home Secretary's twilight zone, freedom of information shows his illiberalism. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I was a member of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. I remain optimistic that there are still sufficient people on the Benches opposite, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who know the importance of a truly radical and wide-ranging Freedom of Information Act. We must change the culture of secrecy which pervades British government at all levels. To ensure that, the Bill now before the Commons must be dramatically amended and improved in this House.
Having waited 30 years for a Freedom of Information Act, I would rather throw out a Bill or challenge the Government to invoke the Parliament Act than acquiesce in an ineffective and illiberal measure going on to the statute book.
So I say to the one in four Members of this House who have been sent here by the present Prime Minister, do not just leave it to Jack Ashley or Alf Morris—have the courage of your convictions. Let the Chief Whip know that this Bill will just not do. You will feel a whole lot better for it.
Then, of course, we have the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which will be coming to this House next week. I have to say that when the whole legal profession unites in hostility to an idea my first reaction is that the proposal must have some merit. Yet, as my noble friend Lady Williams made clear, there can be no more deeply embedded right in our national psyche than the right to trial by jury. My honourable friend Mr Simon Hughes has warned in another place that these proposals will face a "battle royal" from the Liberal Democrats.
In contrast, there is good news about the creation of a unified probation service. That will receive our support. The change will put the probation service in a better position to persuade courts and the public that community supervision is rigorous and effective in cutting crime. It will also ensure a clearer voice for the probation service, achieving public understanding of the value of its work.
Most of the other measures contained in the crime and public protection Bill are also welcome. In particular, the proposals to create a new system to prevent unsuitable people from working with children will have the support not only of the organisations working with children but also of those working to rehabilitate sex offenders and divert them from further offending.
As my noble friend Lord Dholakia indicated, the race relations proposals in the gracious Speech will not satisfy many among the ethnic minorities who saw the Lawrence Report as a launch pad for far more radical reforms. We are fortunate in this House in having a number of Members of experience who are well informed about the opinions of the ethnic minorities. We have heard today from both my noble friend Lord
562
Dholakia and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. I hope that we will listen carefully to them again when the legislation comes before us.
The counter-terrorism legislation comes at a time when, it is hoped, one kind of terrorism may be on the wane as the political process takes root in Northern Ireland. However, on these Benches we are determined that permanent legislation is open to the same level of scrutiny as the present temporary legislation. We will keep an eagle eye open for the erosion of any civil liberties masquerading as anti-terrorism measures.
In that context, there is nothing in the gracious Speech about the accountability of the security services. I believe this is a nettle which should be grasped and not simply left to the next cock-up, revelation or defection to produce panic measures. Ministers should risk the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and bring forward well-considered proposals for scrutiny and accountability by Parliament, as recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
I would like to see a properly accountable security service both at home and abroad given a specific mandate to make war on the drug barons. However, I think that such a policy must go hand in hand with a fundamental reappraisal of our drug laws. When my own party conference suggested a Royal Commission to look at the matter a few years ago, we were immediately branded as soft on drugs. When Charles Kennedy renewed that call as one of his first acts as our new party leader, he ran into similar flak. Yet we have to ask ourselves if the tough words on drugs contained in the gracious Speech match up to everyday reality.
Mr John Humphrys, writing in the Sunday Times last Sunday, wrote in a way that suggested that the climate of thinking may be changing. He wrote about the legislation:
"What I do know, as does every other citizen of this country from the prime minister down, is that the present approach is not working. Every single parent I have ever spoken to is terrified of the shady figure lurking in the shadows of the school playground. What I also know is that it must be right to have a sensible debate on the subject and wrong to be scared off by the threat of a newspaper campaign".
Quite so. It really is time the Home Secretary looked beyond the opinion polls and focus groups on this issue.
Likewise, on party funding I remain personally convinced that the measures being proposed will prove inadequate to the task of cutting out the cancer of influence buying from our political system. I believe that only a system of transparent state funding of political parties will do. The present proposals will allow the big two parties to raise £20 million each for the next general election. I do not think that that addresses the problem. That is big money which will not be raised from members' subscriptions and jumble sales. So we will stumble on until the next political scandal hits us or we move towards the American-type dollar democracy referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Neill.

563
There are Bills and parts of Bills in the gracious Speech that we will support. As in the last Session, we will seek for our opposition to be constructive and we will not shirk from supporting the Government when the forces of conservatism and reaction threaten, as they do this evening. That means that we shall vote with the Government. Yet we do have doubts about the populism and illiberalism identified by Philip Stephens. The liberty of individuals, their empowerment via, access to knowledge of the decision-making processes of government, together with the security that comes from the police and legal system, which are instruments of the people's will and not of an authoritarian or overly powerful state, are the benchmarks against which Liberal Democrats will examine the contents of the gracious Speech. And they will determine our support or our opposition to the government measures as they come before us in the year ahead.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may say first to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on the stunning news that his party will vote with the Government: some things never change. I did not actually have to grab my pillbox in order to recover from the shock of that particular news. The shock will come on the day when the Liberal Democrats do not vote with the Government. I sometimes wonder why they do not change places with the Cross-Benchers on the other side of the Chamber so as to be nearer to their friends. Maybe they want to see their faces.
On each day of this debate we have heard a galaxy of maiden speakers. Today was no exception. We heard the noble Baronesses, Lady Stern, Lady Ashton of Upholland, Lady Harris of Richmond, Lady Massey of Darwen, and Lady Gale, and the noble Lord, Lord Laird. In addition, we heard my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who, not surprisingly for me, rather redefined what was meant by a non-controversial maiden speech. After these four days of maiden speakers, the rest of us will have to look to our laurels in the months ahead.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, mentioned the Minister's taste in waistcoats. Indeed, I agree with him—although today's is not quite so dramatic as yesterday's, which I thought rather resembled a tartan. I was not entirely sure whether it was the Bassam tartan or the Brighton tartan. Whichever it was, it was a pretty unconvincing one. I would certainly advise the Minister not to wear it next Tuesday, St Andrew's Day, if he is invited to any Scottish party. The result might be a little like Wembley last week.
It is not only the Minister's waistcoats that are sometimes—as yesterday—a bit of a mish-mash. It is also the programme, not only of the Home Office, but of the whole gracious Speech. In its critique of the gracious Speech, the Economist posed the question:
"Is Tony Blair a pro-enterprise Liberal or an interfering authoritarian?".
Its answer was:
"His new programme presents mixed evidence".
564
Put differently, and in the words of the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, the measures show,
"incoherence and lack of vision".
Interestingly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has not done what I thought he would do; namely, sum up the whole debate, including an attempt to defend the Home Office programme from the pretty impressive onslaught that it has received from many or your Lordships on all sides of the House. I presume that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, will attempt to do that.
In regard to the Home Office programme, we have no problem with the idea of mandatory drug testing and the refusal of bail to those testing positive. My only concern would be to ask whether the resources are available in prisons to cope with the people who will be refused bail. Furthermore, will there be offers of help for them to come off the drugs which are probably the cause of their turning to crime, as many noble Lords suggested during the course of the debate
As regards the removal of the right to a jury trial, surely the reforms introduced by the previous government—which I will call in shorthand our "plea before venue"—should have been allowed to run a good deal longer. My understanding is that they were already proving successful in reducing delays. As a mere layman in these matters, I find it difficult to square the Government's new policy with the words written in The Times when these proposals were first aired in 1993 by none other than my normal sparring partner, now the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who said this about the proposal not to have jury trial:
"This would be madness … I hope Parliament will refuse to countenance legislation of this kind".
That seems to be a licence to those of your Lordships who do not like that particular Bill to know that you have the blessing of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General.
The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, is it or is it not a fact that the proposals at that time to which I took exception allowed for no appeal to the Crown Court about venue?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord had that qualification in his letter. I am not wriggling. I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. As a very clever lawyer, he tells the House that noble Lords' licence to rebel on this Bill has been withdrawn because he has found a way out of it. It seems that it is no longer madness just because there may be an appeal. That is a pretty lean defence. But the noble and learned Lord has had a few lean defences, some of which have probably been quite successful given his experience at the Bar.
I turn to the proposals relating to freedom of information. As the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said, interestingly this proposal may make information more difficult to obtain than at present. Maurice Frankel, director of the Campaign for Freedom of

565
Information, has said that this is not just a major retreat from the Government's own White Paper, but in key areas the Bill is weaker than the openness code introduced by the Conservatives. We shall look carefully and critically at this Bill.
The proposals relating to electoral matters and referendums in particular are an inadequate response to the Neill Committee. It is a totally inadequate response to what the Neill Commission had to say on the conduct of referendums. That is a serious omission that we shall probe. However, one welcome omission from the gracious Speech is that the Government appear to have gone very cold on playing around with the first-past-the-post electoral system which has served us well in this country for so many years.
When the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, summed up the debate before the closing speakers, which seemed a bit unusual, I realised that the Government had learnt from the mistakes of Monday when the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, gave a fairly inadequate reply (to put it at its kindest) to the agricultural debate. My noble friend Lady Byford said of that inadequate reply that it,
"highlights what the farming community feels: that the Government do not understand".—[Official Report, 22/11/99; col. 306.]
The simple fact of the matter is that there is only one issue in the countryside that bothers the Labour Party: to ban foxhunting. I find it hard to reconcile its desire to be fair to minorities with its determination to discriminate against those who do not share its politically correct ideas. I say to the party opposite that tolerance is not just about tolerating those who think and act like you; it is about tolerating those with whom you disagree.
Still on the countryside, the Post Office privatisation Bill is an interesting one. I so describe it because yesterday I received an admission from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville, following an intervention in his speech. He made quite clear that,
"we are not saying that [the privatisation of the Post Office] will never happen".—[Official Report, 23/11/99; col. 329.]
He said it twice to be sure I heard him properly the first time. Noble Lords opposite should not be surprised by it—I do not suppose that that was in the sacred manifesto—because if we look at the transport Bill we see the privatisation of NATS. Leaving aside the fact that it is a fairly cack-handed way to privatise and that the British public will not have the opportunity to own shares in the company, it is worth looking at what the Government said in this House when in opposition. The then Opposition spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis (whom I see in his place), said this about the privatisation of NATS:
"Is it not also bizarre that the Government should even have entertained the idea …?".—[Official Report, 25/5/95: col. 1039.]
566
Three years ago Andrew Smith, speaking in another place, said that,
"our air is not for sale".
I welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, Mr Andrew Smith and lots of others to the idea of privatising NATS. I welcome the fact that we are now promised a Bill. But it is wrong to have a huge transport Bill. I suggest to the Government that they consider having two Bills: one to do all the things that John Prescott wants to do about road and rail and another to deal with air, which is a different form of transport, although that has escaped Two-Jags John. Jaguars are not cheap; and two certainly are not. An issue as important as NATS privatisation deserves a separate Bill. If that Bill were to start in your Lordships' House, I think that we would give it a pretty sympathetic hearing.
I know from experience of the past few days that it is pointless to quote OECD figures or House of Commons figures on the burden of taxation. According to the Government, those are out of date. I am surprised they do not say that they are not modern. That really means that the Government do not like them. I shall not quote those figures. But I shall use some other government figures about specific taxes. I have a Written Answer in another place on 11th November to the Written Question from my honourable friend Mr Tim Boswell about petrol prices throughout the European Union. The United Kingdom's position is quite secure. We are at the top of the list for the price of unleaded petrol per litre. Why are we at the top of the league for the price of unleaded petrol per litre? It is because we are at the top of the league for the tax on petrol per litre. It seems amazing that the Chancellor continues to ratchet that up so that we are at least at the top of that league.
And then there is ACT and pensions. I make no apology for a brief mention of pensions, in which I have had some involvement over the past years. ACT was a £5 billion a year hit on pension funds. Yet pensions are what this gracious Speech tells us the Government are keen on, and they will introduce pension reforms. On the one hand they want more people to have more pensions; and on the other hand, they whack those with pension provision with a £5 billion a year hit. Talk about saying one thing and then doing another, my Lords.
Then we have regulation. The gracious Speech said:
"As part of my Government's drive to address inappropriate over-complex regulation, legislation will be introduced to increase the effectiveness of the power to remove regulatory burdens".
And that from a Government who have introduced over 2,000 rules and regulations on business since the election. They are keen to tell us how business friendly they are. Two thousand times business friendly!
These and all the other burdens placed on business are estimated to cost something like £5 billion a year. Listen to a small business man: Mr Stefano Boni of Boni's ice cream shop in Edinburgh. He said:
"There are so many rules, regulations and controls that it is almost a full-time occupation just trying to keep up with everything.

567
"As the director who has to deal with all this bureaucracy, I estimate I use up an entire working day every week simply filling in forms …
"Increasingly I find myself in the role as a pen-pusher …
"All the time spent on this is time not spent on attending to the real needs of the business".
Of course the Government tell us that they are going to do something. about it. They have set up task forces up and down Whitehall. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, was told that there were 33 task forces in being. That is not strictly true because over the past three years I gather that the figure is about ten times that number, with hundreds of people brought in to sit on these task forces, and all done in secret.
Big companies are at the forefront. One of them has loaned—I think that would be the right word—the noble Lord, Lord Haskins. He leads the Better Regulation Task Force. Some noble Lords with shares in Northern Foods might think that he would be better employed doing his day job rather than going down Whitehall. But down Whitehall he chairs meetings in Conference Room A in the Cabinet Office. Those of us who have been in government, and those of your Lordships now in government, will know that the chairing of Conference Room A committees is normally reserved for Cabinet Ministers.
What about oxen government? When will the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, come to the House and answer questions?
Noble Lords: He is here!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come in a moment to this unusual experience of seeing the noble Lord here. But when will the noble Lord answer questions for his responsibility in the Cabinet Office? That is the question. My goodness—must not his attendance here be a relief to the Chief Whip, who must have wondered whether the noble Lord was ever going to come to vote for the Government!
So the burden of taxation is up; the burden of regulation is up; and the Government's programme lacks coherence and vision—exactly our amendment. I suspect that I shall hear from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that we have no right to propose an amendment to the Queen's Speech. Have the Government no sense of history? As recently as 1996, the then Opposition proposed an amendment and voted on it. Explaining his decision. the noble Lord, Lord Richard, had this to say—and before everyone gets worried, I shall not quote front that stunningly good read which is Lady Richard's diary but from Hansard:
"It is our intention to move a reasoned amendment to the Address which the Huse may feel apposite, given that this is the last gracious Speech of this Government".—[Official Report, 24/10/96; col. 29.]
With apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, perhaps I may suggest why we are doing exactly the same thing tonight. It is our intention to move a reasoned amendment to the Address which the House may feel apposite given that this is the first gracious Speech of this new, more legitimate House.
10.10 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, first, I must apologise for my dismal voice. I can say one thing with confidence about my contribution; it will certainly read better than it will sound. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, finally addressed the Motion on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was equally delighted that the noble Lord was present to hear it. The dog has finally barked. It has been curiously ignored throughout the five days of the debate, but the time has come to take the Motion head on and urge the House to reject it.
Given the amendment's sweeping condemnation of the Government's programme, it is surprising that so few speakers from any place in the House bothered to discuss it. I have to believe that perhaps noble Lords, with their usual political acumen, have followed what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, said at the beginning of the debate; that this is an amendment being pushed from behind. Or perhaps more likely, I suggest, it is being pushed from the other end of the corridor. Is one's suspicion that the amendment was drafted in another place by those who we learn are strong on jokes but weak on judgment?
The amendment apart, the debate has been characterised by its authority and diversity. I have been struck by two general impressions. The first is the problem of the size of the agenda. Reference was made—I thought slightly unfairly—to my noble friend Lady Blackstone. However, what was interesting about the exchanges between my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, at the end of the debate on the third day was that they somewhat unusually agreed on this issue. Both noble Baronesses admirably sought to respond to matters ranging from further education to fur farming and both found difficulty in adequately addressing every policy area covered by the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The issue was raised in different contexts at different times and at the beginning of the day the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, raised the relevant point about the conclusion of today's debate. The problem of the over-rich menu is not new. I am bound to say that this year it reflects the rich programme which the Government are putting forward. However, there are questions about how subject matter is divided between different days of the debate on the Address which could usefully be explored before we begin another Session. I hope that that can be taken forward through the usual channels and I note what noble Lords said today about a possible role in this for the Procedure Committee.
I believe that my second overall impression is shared by everyone who has spoken. It is the outstanding quality of the large number of maiden speakers who have taken the opportunity to enrich our debate. They have covered many interests, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, speaking about the vitality of her arts education, to my noble friend Lord

569
Gavron recounting the lessons of his early loneliness in business. We heard from those with first-hand experience in race relations, of the City of London, of the special difficulties of disabled people and of the special advantages of information technology. I congratulate the seven maiden speakers who have taken part today. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, remarked, this could be a record number. And I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that today all but two have been noble Baronesses.
All the speakers have maintained the exceptionally high quality of previous days. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, who I know has had to leave, in looking forward to the first non-controversial speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth! Very importantly, I think that all the maiden speakers have shown the special combination of expertise and understanding of the real world urged on your Lordships by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley when she moved the Motion on the gracious Speech last Wednesday.
Turning now to the major topics of today's debate on health and home affairs, I think that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has been able to reply very successfully to many of the points made about health policy. I will attempt to respond to some of the general points raised on home affairs. However, I am aware of the time, of the state of my voice and the need, as I said just now, to take the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde's, amendment head on, so I hope noble Lords will understand if, on this occasion, my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton deals with detailed points in writing.
There is clearly a great interest and a variety of strong opinion in your Lordships' House on the mode of trial Bill. I believe it is important that the Bill will be taken first in this House. I am sure it will benefit from the scrutiny of the distinguished lawyers and experts in criminal justice in the House, some of whom, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, we have heard from today. Incidentally, I am sure I can say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that he would have advised his wife to appeal to the Crown Court if he had thought that she was being inappropriately treated by magistrates. That right, as my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General just explained in response to the noble Lord who wound up for the Opposition, will now be open to everyone.
As a non-lawyer, I would simply say to those who have expressed alarm about what they see as a full-frontal assault on all our civil liberties that I have been surprised by the relatively small scale of the changes proposed. As my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton said in introducing the debate, the right to elect a jury trial applies today to only a small number of cases. Over 90 per cent of all criminal cases are already dealt with in the magistrates' courts. Over the years, this number has been increased by reclassifying the number of cases to be heard. I would remind the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that between 1977 and 1979, for example, under a
570
government of which she was a member, the number of cases tried by jury fell by over 10,000 as a result of this process. However, I realise that this important Bill will be introduced to your Lordships' House next week and I am sure that there will be many opportunities for further and more detailed discussion. Like my noble friend Lord Warner, I expect that we will hear Magna Carta prayed in aid many times in the next few months.
I thought today's debate was enhanced by the unique authority of the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, speaking on the political parties' elections and referendums Bill. The noble Lord helpfully reminded the House that the Government have adopted the vast majority of the recommendations in his widely supported report. We did not hear any challenge from the Opposition to his proposals now being incorporated in the Bill on openness about party funding. There was perhaps unsurprising silence too on the questions of overseas donations and trusts.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gale for so clearly setting out her practical experience in Wales of containing election expenses and her support for the changes in the election procedures. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, also made a very interesting contribution basing her remarks on her practical experience of local government in London.
The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, not surprisingly perhaps, attracted vigorous contributions, notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I confirm that the Bill concerns two very important issues: equality before the law and the protection of the most vulnerable, children. The Bill raises issues which are a matter for each person's conscience. It will therefore, as in the last Session, be subject to a free vote. However, this time, as my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton made clear, the Parliament Acts will be used to secure its passage if the other place again votes for the Bill and this House again rejects it. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that this was extraordinary given that the arguments against the Bill had yet to be heard. I suggest respectfully to the noble Baroness that, although I am absolutely sure that her advocacy will be, as it always is, well considered and powerfully presented, I doubt that we shall hear any new arguments when the Bill is again brought forward.
I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The amendment complains that there is no vision in the gracious Speech. Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, insisted that the vision was Marxist, third-way Marxism. That is an intriguing concept. But either way, no vision or Marxist vision, I must insist that both assertions are preposterous.
In reality, the gracious Speech has one central, coherent theme—to build a Britain which is fair and includes enterprise for everyone. All our measures promote sound economics and usher in a new economy based on knowledge and skill. Our programme alleviates poverty and social division, tackles crime, further reforms welfare and takes

571
forward the improvement of essential public services. In other words. it is enterprise and fairness together. At the heart of it all is our unshakeable commitment to economic stability.
Enterprise ccntributes centrally to the platform of economic stability which we need, not just for its own sake but in order to deliver our commitments to modernise schools and hospitals; to tackle crime; and to reform the welfare state. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that we are determined to give public services the investment and status they deserve.
We are determined also to have our vision of fairness completed. I am sure that that must be shared by many of your Lordships. It is a vision of the eradication of child poverty; a vision of full employment; a vision of an end to discrimination of every kind; a vision that gives equal, fair opportunities to all.
Our programme for this Session builds specifically on what we have begun to achieve. It continues those themes. Bills on e-commerce, skills for over-16s, transport, reducing regulation and the Post Office promote enterprise. Bills to protect children and elderly people, to provide decent pensions for all, to improve the ways in which the public is protected from criminals, to give access to the countryside and to remove race discrimination across the public sector guarantee fairness. Much of our legislation addresses both issues. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, may not like that narrative but he cannot complain that it is not coherent.
The noble Lord made it clear that he sees it as his job to scrutinise the Government more closely. I welcome that. I believe that the Government's programme can more than withstand the kind of scrutiny which his party may be able to muster.
On the fourth day of the debate, in the amendment before us and in the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, the Opposition have sought to scrutinise closely the Government's record on tax and regulation. My noble friends Lord Sainsbury of Turville and Lord McIntosh of Haringey robustly rejected those accusations in detail yesterday. This evening I do not intend to replay the disputes as regards the Red Book versus the OECD, the tax burden as a proportion of GDP or price inflation and so on. I simply ask noble Lords opposite, if those obstacles of high taxation and red tape are so threatening and destructive, why is the economy doing so well? Why are so many people better off?
In this month's pre-Budget report, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out the Government's economic strategy. We are taking action to secure a platform of economic stability, low inflation, steady growth and sound public finances. Long-term interest and mortgage rates are at historically low levels. More people—27.5 million—are in work than ever before. The claimant count for unemployment is at its lowest for 19 years.
572
We are making work pay for people who, under the previous government, were caught in a poverty trap. The working families' tax credit means that no family with someone in work will take home less than £200 per week. The national minimum wage has benefited 2 million people—1.2 million of them women.
Two-and-a-half years ago, I also spoke to wind up the debate on the gracious Speech, the first from this Government. Noble Lords on the Benches opposite predicted disaster and failure. Independence for the Bank of England would not work. The national minimum wage would cost a million jobs. The New Deal would fail to provide new jobs. What do we find? Interest rates and inflation are low, the economy is stable, employment is up and unemployment down.
Last Wednesday the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition tried to tease us about the 1997 pledge card. Not only do I always carry my pledge card with me; I have the updated version in my diary which gives us the record of the Government so far and asks the people who receive it to achieve more. On both of them the Prime Minister looks extremely confident and cheerful.
So, I am not afraid to be reminded about our commitments. However, I wonder how comfortable it is for the noble Lord opposite to be reminded about what he and his party said two-and-a-half years ago. How many of the policies that they opposed then do they still oppose? Would they challenge the independence of the Bank of England? Would they repeal the working families' tax credit, the national minimum wage and parental leave? Would they reverse our NHS and education investments? Even more importantly, what would they do instead? We have heard many criticisms from the Benches opposite but few alternatives.
Perhaps I may trespass on the time of the House for two more minutes. Last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, offered advice to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about using his current majority over the Government in this House with care and discretion. Perhaps, with due temerity, I may offer a further piece of advice. Just because you have the ability to do something does not necessarily mean that you should do it. If the noble Lord, as he says he intends to do, presses the amendment to a vote and wins, what does he achieve? The only consequence will be that the Government will send the humble Address to Her Majesty and it will contain a misdirected expression of dissatisfaction. Frankly, what is the purpose of making a political point to a constitutional monarch?
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that he wishes to demonstrate that the transition House has greater legitimacy, but the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition does not intend to disrupt the Government's programme. I am delighted that the noble Earl now agrees with me that this House, without the majority of the hereditary Peers, is more legitimate. What a pity that that was not admitted during all the hours of debate last Session on the House of Lords Act when we were constantly told that this would be a chamber of cronies, a rubber stamp.

573
I really do think that the noble Lord should think carefully about the signals he is sending. The Conservative Party still has a majority over the Government in this House. However, the noble Lord should remember that at the last election the Labour Government received a large parliamentary majority to carry through measures such as those proposed in the gracious Speech. If the noble Lord presses this amendment and wins, he will be saying once again that the unelected Tory Peers still do not accept the election result.
Frankly, I am not surprised that the Benches opposite are against the contents of the gracious Speech. It is not surprising because the party opposite is opposed to the creation of a modern Britain. It is committed to combating change. It is rigorous in being reactionary. It is not surprising either that it says it is against fairness. It has always been a party of privilege. These days, it is not even surprising that it appears to be opposed to certain forms of enterprise—that, I am afraid, picks up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about his ice-cream man—with its government record of boom and bust. It is true, and I recognise the particular anecdote of the ice-cream man, that many business people have rightly abandoned the party opposite in favour of a political party that is creating a stable environment for investment.
The gracious Speech expounds a coherent vision of a prosperous and fair life for Britons in the 21st century; a vision opposed by the Conservatives, who are still a majority in this House but a receding minority in the country at large. I invite the House to accept the Government's vision. I commend the gracious Speech to your Lordships and urge you to reject the amendment.
10.29 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, this debate moved rather more quickly than I originally estimated, so I must apologise for my late arrival. I was present earlier this evening with the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms and the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, who are now standing at the Bar. The difference between me and them is that they had the courage to remain correctly dressed while I had to get changed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should tell the noble Lord that my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself studied the Motion extremely carefully. We expected the speech of the noble Lord and thought it appropriate to attend in fancy dress.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of this side of the House, it is a very real pleasure to see the noble Lord the Chief Whip and the Deputy Chief Whip so dressed.
574
I shall be brief. The Leader of the House said that she would deal with the amendment head on. I wonder whether I was the only one who waited for that moment to come. We heard more questions than answers; we heard a diatribe at the end about the Conservative Party. It is precisely because of the tone of that speech that I tabled the amendment. It is precisely because of that speech that I urge the House to approve it.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, the original Question was that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, since when an amendment has been moved, at the end to insert the words on the Order Paper. The Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; the contrary "Not Content". Clear the Bar.
10.30 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 164; Not-Contents, 168.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Aldington, L.

Dundee, E.

Anelay of St.Johns, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Arran, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Astor, V.

Elles, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Attlee, E.

Elton, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Feldman, L.

Barber, L.

Flather, B.

Bell, L.

Fookes, B.

Belstead, L.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Biffen, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Blackwell, L.

Geddes, L.

Blaker, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Blatch, B.

Glentoran, L.

Boardman, L.

Goschen, V.

Bowness, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hanham, B

Bridgeman, V.

Hanningfield, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Buscombe, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Byford, B.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Caithness, E.

Higgins, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hogg, B.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Howe, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Chadlington, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Chalfont, L.

Jopling, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Keith of Castleacre, L.

Chilver, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Kingsland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kirkham, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Courtown, E.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cox, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Cranborne, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lindsay, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Liverpool, E.

575

Luke, L.

Rawlings, B.

Lyell, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Rees, L.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Marlesford, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Saatchi, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Montrose, D.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Murton of Lindisfarns, L.

Selsdon, L

Naseby, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Norfolk, D.

Shrewsbury, E.

Northbrook, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Stewartby, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tebbit, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Palmer, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Palumbo, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Vinson, L.

Patten, L.

Vivian, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Waddington, L.

Peel, E.

Wakeham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Waldegrave of North Hill, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Plumb, L.

Wilcox, B.

Plummerof St. Marylebone, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Prior, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pym, L.

Wolfson, L.

Quinton, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ahmed, L.

David, B.

Alli, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Amos, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dixon, L.

Avebury, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bach, L.

Dubs, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Elder, L.

Barker, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Ezra, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Blackstone, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Blease, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Borrie, L.

Filkin, L.

Burlison. L.

Gale, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Geraint, L.

Bragg, L.

Gilbert, L.

Brett, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brookman, L.

Goodhart, L

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Goudie, B.

Burlison, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Butler of Brockwell, L.

Grabiner, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hamwee, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L

Hardy of Wath, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harrison, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Haskel, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Haskins, L.

Crawley, B.

Hayman, B.

576

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rennard, L

Hollick, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Richard, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Sawyer, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Sewel, L.

Islwyn, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jacobs, L.

Shepherd, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Simon, V.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stern, B.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Levy, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lipsey, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Tope, L.

Tordoff, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Uddin, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Varley, L.

McNally, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Maddock, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Walpole, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Warner, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Molloy, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Newby, L.

Whitaker, B.

Nicol, B.

Whitty, L.

Orme, L.

Wigoder, L.

Patel, L.

Wilkins, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Winston, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Razzall, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Cartet:My Lords, that is what I call precision whipping!
On Question, Motion agreed to nemine dissentiente; the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
Brought from the Commons; the declaration of the agent having been deposited pursuant to the resolution of 28th October, the Bill was read a first time, read a second time pro forma and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  New Deal: Civil Service Employment
  New Deal: Civil Service Employment
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, South Africa
  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, South Africa
  Weights and Measures: Use of Imperial Units
  Weights and Measures: Use of Imperial Units
  Social Exclusion and Mental Health Problems
  Social Exclusion and Mental Health Problems