Sitting of 26 October 1999

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Tuesday 2 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

    Urban Road Congestion
    Helen Jackson: What plans he has to tackle road congestion in urban areas. [94209]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport", set out a new approach to meeting local transport needs. In that document, we promised, and will deliver, extra money and new powers for local authorities to tackle congestion in their areas.
    Helen Jackson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key factor in reducing urban congestion is giving priority to good quality public transport? Is he prepared to take tough action where necessary if councils go wishy-washy on their commitment to public transport when faced with the tough decisions that are necessary to put that priority into action?
    Mr. Prescott: The House will recall that Sheffield provided an excellent example of an integrated public transport system, but it was broken up by the previous Administration's commitment to privatisation and deregulation. Our local transport plans—we have now received 80 from local authorities and will be making decisions by December—are very much geared to reducing congestion in our cities and improving public transport. That will have to be agreed with the local authorities for them to receive the £700 million that we have put aside for those plans.
    792
    The House will be aware also that the supertram in Sheffield, which ran into difficulties under privatisation and deregulation, was rescued by renegotiation by this Administration and placed in an integrated policy. Use of the supertram has increased by 3 million passengers in two years, and that is a good example of integration in a transport system.
    Mr. Don Foster: Given the importance that the Secretary of State places on public transport to reduce traffic congestion, does he accept that improving public transport requires increased investment? Is he aware that the Library has only today prepared for me new figures showing that, after five years of a Labour Government, to the end of the comprehensive spending review period, total spending on local and public transport is set to fall by 7.5 per cent. in real terms? How will that help to improve public transport?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman makes the mistake of not taking into account the private investment that we are negotiating. Investment, whether public or private, will improve the underground or the channel tunnel rail link. He asked about investment: £7 billion is going into our underground in the public-private partnership and £6 billion is going into the channel tunnel link. That has to be added in to get the total figure, and he should revisit his figures.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Given that Leeds is one of the two cities that will be trialling road-pricing technology, can my right hon. Friend give my constituents an assurance that there will be significant investment in public transport in the city, in particular in the proposed Leeds supertram, before a decision is taken about the introduction of road pricing?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is aware that we consider Leeds to be setting a good example in integrating transport. We have given some extra resources and are considering the extra demands in the local transport plans, but those decisions cannot be made until December.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The only way to tackle the increasingly serious urban congestion in my constituency is to authorise the A3 Hindhead improvement. Can the right hon. Gentleman help me? Although there are so many Transport Ministers, why have we been unable, in 30 months, to secure a visit from a single one of them to see that spot? It is the only single carriageway stretch between the home of Transport Ministers in Scotland and the very popular port of Portsmouth. Does he have a policy prohibiting visits to Conservative constituencies or can he help us to find a date on which a Minister will come to see that stretch of road?
    Mr. Prescott: The important question is why the previous Administration did not meet the right hon. Lady's demands for the road programme. We have stated our road programme and invested in the core route network, and the regional road structure is being determined with the local and regional authorities.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that proposals to reduce the cost of car travel, increase speed limits, get rid of traffic calming and allow continuous left-hand turning at traffic lights in cities would not reduce congestion, but cause chaos on the roads and death?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes. The House has debated the Opposition's proposals on those matters. We believe that we have a much more sensible proposal—the integrated policy identified in the transport White Paper.
    Mr. John Redwood: I welcome and congratulate the new Ministers, and it is a great privilege to have the Minister for Housing and Planning with us—so recently returned from his serious campaign for the London mayoralty and sparing time from the lost cause of helping the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
    Does the Secretary of State realise that he has created standstill Britain? Does he recognise that it was a great Labour lie to say that public transport would be better under Labour? Will he now take up our ideas for a commonsense revolution in transport—something that people outside this House desperately want—so that main roads can be unclogged to reduce danger to children and others prone to accidents? Will he substitute for his disintegrating transport policy our practical proposals for better train and bus services, a Londoners' tube and getting Britain on the move again?
    Mr. Prescott: It is a bit much for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that we somehow moved from a perfect situation to a standstill. We inherited massive costs and congestion in all our transport systems. The previous Government invested £70 billion in the roads programme while undermining public transport, and that simply increased the number of cars per mile from 70 to 100 after 18 years of Tory Government. On any assessment, there needs to be a change in policy. Rural transport investment has now increased, with 1,800 new services. The number of passengers has increased by between 30 and 50 per cent., with more people travelling on the trains and other forms of public transport. That is the first indication in the past two years that we have a better system and that people are beginning to use their cars less and public transport more.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: I am sure that, in drawing up measures to tackle road congestion, my right hon. Friend will also look at a strategy to tackle parking problems in urban areas. In doing so, will he take into account the concern that has been expressed about the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency supplying private wheel clamping companies with the names and addresses of drivers from photographs of registration numbers? Will he assure me that until those companies, some of which adopt dubious tactics, are properly regulated, the DVLA will not continue with such practices?
    Mr. Prescott: I am concerned about that; I shall have it investigated immediately and write to my hon. Friend about it.

    Railtrack (Oxford)
    Dr. Evan Harris: What representations he has received about permitted development rights for Railtrack in Oxford; and if he will make a statement. [94210]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have received representations from more than 300 people concerning Railtrack's permitted development rights in Oxford. The Secretary of State has considered all the representations carefully and informed the parties of his decision not to approve the direction to remove Railtrack's permitted development rights at Hinksey sidings in Oxford.
    Dr. Harris: Does the Minister understand how shocked my constituents in South Hinksey and residents of south Oxford are that he should give the go-ahead for Railtrack to continue with that virtual quarry in green-belt land outside Oxford? In the week after health and safety responsibilities were removed from Railtrack—belatedly but rightly—how can he justify giving Railtrack a blank cheque to use permitted development rights to despoil green-belt areas? Is it not time that permitted development rights inherited from British Rail in the public sector were removed from privatised industries, which are making vast profits at the expense of spending on environmental schemes?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman expresses surprise about the decision, because he knows that we consulted at considerable length. We gave several opportunities for further representations and explored the many legal complexities. He knows that Oxfordshire county council's case that this was a "virtual quarry" did not have legal force. It is because the article 4 direction could not be effective—we had clear legal guidance on that—that we did not approve it. There is no point in approving something that would be ineffective—only Liberal Democrats suggest that.

    Coastal Towns (Regeneration)
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What support he plans to give to the regeneration of coastal towns. [94211]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): We are working with the relevant national, regional and local bodies to identify and address the problems faced by coastal towns. Today, I placed in the Libraries of the House a list of the areas that include coastal towns that received funding under the fifth round of the single regeneration budget, and a list of coastal towns that are included on the proposed European structural funds map. As my hon. Friend knows, it was this Government who included coastal towns for the first time as a specific priority in SRB round 5.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate her on her appointment to the Front Bench.
    People in my constituency are delighted that, this summer, the Government awarded the coastal town of Lowestoft assisted area status and European objective 2

    795
    designation. We are already in receipt of single regeneration budget money, and this new status will give a huge boost to the regeneration projects. Has my hon. Friend noticed that almost all the 20 travel-to-work areas with the highest unemployment in England are coastal towns? In view of that, would she consider including in the forthcoming urban White Paper a special section on coastal towns, so that the problems faced by those communities can be addressed by an overarching Government policy?
    Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I pay tribute to him for what he has done to raise awareness of the needs of coastal towns. The urban and rural White Papers will mark an important step in our commitment to dealing with issues that affect competitiveness and quality of life in towns, cities and rural areas. In developing both those White Papers, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to ensure that different areas have a place in those wider strategies. We recognise that coastal towns have specific needs, which will be addressed in the White Papers.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: I join the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) in welcoming the Minister to her new position. Does she appreciate that, in many coastal towns, considerable investment in coastal defences is required to enable realistic regeneration? Will she join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of the flooding in the past few days, especially in Sussex? Will she give a clear commitment to providing the funding needed by the Environment Agency and others to upgrade and update coastal defences along our coasts?
    Ms Hughes: I am pleased to acknowledge the important work of local authorities in response to the flooding, and I am sure that they will make every effort to meet the needs of their local communities. The hon. Gentleman will know that an element in the standard spending assessment takes care of coastal defences. However, I am well aware of the problems that those communities are facing, and they may want to talk to us about larger measures needed in response.
    In their strategies, regional development agencies and regional bodies will consider the overall need to strengthen defences. It is worth noting that the Tories have set their face against that important regional mechanism for identifying priorities.

    Local Authority Housing
    Mr. Colin Burgon: What plans he has for increasing the involvement of tenants in the management of local authority housing. [94213]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are increasing the opportunities for local authority tenants to be involved in the management of their homes by introducing tenant participation compacts in all councils from April next year. We are also broadening our programme of grants to promote and develop greater participation.
    Mr. Burgon: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that the Government are considering Leeds city council's bid for a public-private partnership housing
    796
    pathfinder scheme, which covers Swarcliffe in my constituency. The involvement of tenants and residents in the drawing up of the community plan has been central, and Whinmoor councillors and I remain committed to further extending local people's involvement as that is crucial to the regeneration of the area. Will the Minister take my remarks as discreet lobbying on this matter on behalf of my Swarcliffe constituents?
    Mr. Raynsford: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's involvement in the preparation of the proposed Leeds private finance initiative pathfinder scheme. He has been diligent in talking to his constituents and ensuring that there is effective communication between them and the city council, so that there will be full participation in the development of the proposals. He must accept, however, that we have to give further consideration to these and other proposals.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: A legitimate concern for tenants in housing management is the length of the housing waiting list and how long it takes tenants and others to be rehoused. Given the Government's complete failure to control economic migrants, it now seems that such migrants will be dispersed around the country. According to an answer given to me yesterday by the Home Office, such dispersal may be compulsory. Will those economic migrants be described as statutorily homeless under the homelessness legislation? What will their status be in relation to those on the housing waiting list and local authority tenants?
    Mr. Raynsford: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to asylum seekers. He will know that the Government have taken steps to try to define proper procedures for dealing humanely and properly with asylum applications, rather than continuing with the chaos that we inherited. He will also know that we inherited a situation in which housing provision had been slashed during the last years of the Conservative Government, leading to a substantial shortfall in the number of homes available for letting. He will know that such a position takes time to put right. We are increasing investment and implementing a range of measures to improve housing prospects, but the damage caused by 18 years of Tory Government is very serious.
    Mr. David Lepper: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the importance of the potential role of housing co-operatives in the management of current local authority housing stock, and in the provision of good, well-managed social housing generally? What discussions is he having with the Housing Corporation on the possible easing of both the administrative and the financial regulations to allow better development of housing co-operatives?
    Mr. Raynsford: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's views on the importance of tenant participation measures, including housing co-operatives. During the past fortnight, I have engaged in discussions with representatives of both the National Housing Federation and the Housing Corporation about how we can extend opportunities for such participation. I visited a particularly impressive tenant co-operative scheme in Birmingham, which was delivering very high standards of housing management and great

    797
    tenant satisfaction. There is no doubt that allowing tenants more opportunities to exercise effective control over their homes is one of the keys to better housing management, and we are keen to promote it.

    New London Road, Chelmsford
    Mr. Simon Burns: How much money his Department is making available to install a bus lane on the New London road in Chelmsford as part of the integrated transport policy. [R][94215]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Chelmsford transport package was accepted for the first time, and by this Government, in 1999–2000, with an allocation of £575,000. It is for Essex county council to decide which scheme to carry out, but positive measures to improve bus services are at the core of the package.
    Mr. Burns: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. The people of Old Moulsham in Chelmsford, however, will not thank him for his Government's largesse in introducing a scheme such as that proposed by the local authority.
    Is the Minister aware that there has, in effect, been a referendum on the matter? In a by-election last month, the Conservatives captured that part of Chelmsford, fighting the by-election on the basis of opposition to the scheme. Given that the opposition is not to encouraging more people to use public transport, but is based on a belief that, in that part of Chelmsford, the scheme will not bring a single person into the public transport system, would it not be common sense for the Government to look again at value for money, and consider whether it is worth spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on a scheme that will not in any way enhance use of public transport?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's congratulations, and I hear what he says about the proposed New London road bus scheme. It is clear, however, that both his own town of Chelmsford and Essex county council have identified improved bus services as the best solution to the problem of the town's rapid growth. My Department is simply responding to local judgment. If he still has problems with the proposal, it is for him to exercise his well-known powers of persuasion with the local transport authorities.

    Regional Bodies
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What estimate he has made of the annual costs of (a) the regional development agencies and (b) English regional assemblies. [94216]
    The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Regional development agencies have more than £800 million to spend each year, which includes £62 million for administration. The costs of the voluntary regional chambers—some of which call
    798
    themselves regional assemblies—are a matter for their members, but we would expect the costs of their role in relation to the RDAs to be modest.
    Mr. Robathan: During the past seven and a half years, not one constituent has expressed any support for the idea of RDAs or regional assemblies. I should be interested to hear whether people flock to the Minister's door to tell her what a good idea they are.
    Will the Minister confirm that 85 per cent. of the budgets to which she referred had already been allocated to projects before the agencies came into being? Will she also confirm that more than £1 million is spent on paying unelected politicians to do a job on those bodies taking up two days a month, and that a great deal of the remaining 15 per cent. of the money is spent on trying to create artificial and manufactured support for bodies for which there is no genuine support?
    Ms Armstrong: This morning, the RDAs presented their regional strategies. Those strategies have been consulted on very widely. Indeed, I am confident that residents in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have been involved in the consultations. Business people have been, too. It may have missed his notice that the chairs of the RDAs are all from the business world and will resent being called amateur politicians by him. He says that there is no support for RDAs. I remind him that they were in our manifesto and that we got rather a lot of support for that manifesto.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will my right hon. Friend look at the funding that is available to the East of England development agency? Will she at the same time try to ensure a fairer allocation of funding than that bequeathed to the east of England by the previous Government?
    Ms Armstrong: As I said, today we received regional strategies from the RDAs. They will identify the way forward in each region to achieve economic prosperity. That will mean that they are able both to increase the opportunities of people in the region and to contribute to the nation's prosperity.
    I know that the eastern region has spent much time and effort consulting widely and that it will be responsible, with other RDAs, for administering SRB 5; we are consulting with them on the future of SRB 6. I hear what my hon. Friend says about funding for her region. All hon. Members consistently press the case for their regions, but it seems that that has gone by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

    Trunk Road Network
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on progress made in improving the trunk road network. [94217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The Government inherited a trunk road system that was in the worst condition of maintenance since records

    799
    first began. That is why we have made maintenance our first priority and provided the Highways Agency with the resources that are necessary to maintain its roads properly.
    We have increased the funding that is available for measures to make better use of existing roads. In place of the unachievable wish list of road schemes that we inherited from the previous Government, we have established a clear timetable for taking forward the targeted programme of improvements, so that all 37 schemes will start within the next seven years. The net result will be a safer trunk road network.
    Mr. Winterton: The Minister will know that his Government have slimmed down the road programme from 140 to 37, but that is not the point that I want to register with him. Does he accept that the opening in the relatively near future of the second runway at Manchester international airport and the holding of the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002 will generate a massive increase in traffic from all areas, particularly the south and east of Greater Manchester?
    Does the Minister therefore accept that the Poynton bypass and Manchester airport link roads are essential to the infrastructure of that important part of the north-west and of Cheshire, and that he must ensure that, when the current study is undertaken, the views that will, I believe, be expressed in support of the roads will be supported and money will be made available? Public transport is not going to be the answer. The Manchester airport link roads will make available—
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Winterton: A line for the Metrolink—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Procedure Committee. He should come to order when I ask him to do so.
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has again demonstrated his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituency, and I certainly understand his concern in the matter. However, when the Government considered as part of the roads review the A555 eastern link road and the A523 Poynton bypass—to which he alluded—we found that the schemes were not sufficiently advanced to be included in the targeted improvements programme. Nevertheless, both schemes will form part of the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, and I hope that he will be somewhat reassured to learn that invitations to tender for the study have now been sent out. It is envisaged that consultants will be appointed shortly, and the study will be completed in spring 2001, at which point we shall give it full consideration.
    Mr. Christopher Leslie: I do not know why Opposition Members are wittering on about the roads programme, because my constituents are delighted that, after 30 years of failure, the A650 Bingley relief road has, at last, been given the go ahead. Will the Minister consider some advanced work schemes, so that we might complete and open the Bingley relief road as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend, too, is always a passionate advocate of his constituency; it has already enjoyed
    800
    considerable success on that matter, on which I congratulate him. The Government shall, of course, consider a raft of road improvements—that is part of the local transport planning process—and we shall certainly eventually examine the Bingley proposals.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: What about the Birmingham northern relief road?
    Madam Speaker: That was a very good question.
    Mr. Hill: It is on its way.
    Madam Speaker: And that was a very good answer.

    Air Traffic Control
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to ensure that air traffic control can cope with the forecast increase in flights into and from the United Kingdom. [94218]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): The Government are committed to providing the United Kingdom with a safe, modern and efficient air traffic control system for the future. Through our innovative public-private partnership proposals, the Government will introduce a strategic partner to National Air Traffic Services to secure essential core capital investment, which will be about £1 billion in the next 10 years and will be used to maintain existing safety and efficiency levels against predicted traffic increases.
    Mr. Prentice: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box; he is an inspired choice. However, he will know that in 1997, the Department forecast that, between now and 2015, aeroplane traffic in and out of the United Kingdom will grow by 4.5 per cent. annually. Given such a momentous increase in air traffic, is it not dicing with death to privatise air traffic control? Have not air traffic controllers repudiated privatisation, as has the airline industry? So far as I can gather, Labour party members also have repudiated privatisation—or did we get it wrong in 1996, when we told the Conservatives that our air was not for sale?
    Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I only hope that I continue to justify his confidence. He was quite right to say that there will be a large increase in air traffic, making it all the more essential that we raise the £1 billion necessary to invest in state of the art technology. His fears about safety are completely unfounded. We are not proposing to put safety in the private sector: safety will remain with the public sector. The one thing that we shall do—it will enhance safety, rather than undermine it—is to separate regulation from operations, as that is not the case now.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I add my congratulations to the Minister on his new position? I also congratulate the Government on their plans to proceed with the public-private partnership for NATS. Following his holding reply to my question last week, when might the Minister be minded to reply to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional

    801
    Affairs report on aviation safety? Does the Minister agree that the air safety framework that he has described to the House provides a model that could be followed by the railway sector?
    Mr. Mullin: The reply to the Select Committee will be coming shortly.
    Mr. George Stevenson: May I too welcome my hon. Friend to his position? I recognise entirely the need for investment—there is no question about that—but will he recall the Select Committee's recommendations, which showed concern about the Government's proposals for NATS? The report suggested alternatives which would not only produce the required investment, but would follow proven track records from other parts of the world.
    Mr. Mullin: We take what the Select Committee says extremely seriously, and that is why we adopted its proposals on separating safety regulation from operations. We have looked at the other models available, and we are satisfied that the public-private partnership as proposed is the best one. It will give access to the capital that we need, and access to some badly needed private sector project management skills. That is not a small consideration. Finally, it will generate some proceeds which can be invested in other transport projects.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: We too welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position, and we are delighted to be reminded by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) that, before the election, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) proudly declared that our air was not for sale. Although Labour told the country one thing before the election, once in power it does another thing, announcing in July this year that our air will indeed be for sale.
    Now that the right hon. Member for Oxford, East is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, will the Government confirm today that it is still their intention to privatise National Air Traffic Services? Is it still the intention of the Labour Government that foreign interests and foreign Governments will be able to buy powerful stakes in Britain's airways, with the purchase of a minority of shares?
    Mr. Mullin: No consideration has yet been given to the likely bidders, which will be considered carefully when the bids come in. We are not proposing privatisation of the sort that we saw under the Conservative Government, in which the main public assets were simply looted. We are proposing a genuine partnership that will give us the best of what the private and public sectors have to offer.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench? But those who have watched the world cup will realise when someone has been given a suicide pass, as seems to have been given to my hon. Friend with the air traffic control remit. He spoke earlier about private sector project management. Does he share the concern of some who have quizzed those in the private sector who are involved in designing the new system, as there seem to be problems in specifications from the private sector? Is there not
    802
    concern that the second-line safety—that is, the Prestwick second control centre—now seems to be up for grabs, and may be written out of the system? Can we have an assurance that there will still be a two-centre control system for air traffic control, including Prestwick in Scotland?
    Mr. Mullin: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There will be two centres, one of which will be at Prestwick.

    London Underground
    Mr. John Wilkinson: When he expects Transport for London to assume responsibility for the underground. [94219]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Transport for London will be established in July 2000 under the control of the mayor. It will assume responsibility for the underground following implementation of the public-private partnership.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not Labour keener on having a crony as its candidate for mayor than on implementing its manifesto promise to have Transport for London operational, including the London underground operating under a public-private partnership? The Government should admit that they have failed Londoners, who had an appalling summer of chaos. The taxpayer is having to pick up the tab to the tune of £500 million of unanticipated Treasury expenditure as a result of that catastrophic failure.
    Mr. Prescott: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, as he failed in his bid to be the Tory candidate for mayor. The London transport system will be improved by our £7 billion investment, not in a public-private partnership in the sense that he refers to, but in a publicly owned, publicly accountable facility. The assets will be developed and improved by private capital, but they will all be returned to the public sector. For the first time, London's transport system will have desperately needed sustained planning and resource investment.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week I was on a Central line train that was held up because somebody was taken ill on the train behind us? It was decided to hold up the trains in front to pace the rate at which they went through stations. Is it not absurd that people are held up in hot, sweltering, overcrowded conditions because of such incidents? Is it not time that we had democratic accountability for London transport and the underground system; and is it not good news that the Labour Government are bringing about such accountability by establishing a mayor and elected authority for London?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are returning London transport and accountability to Londoners after consultation and a referendum, even though the Tories took accountability off Londoners with no consultation.
    Mr. John Randall: Will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in pressing for the Central line to be

    803
    extended as far as Uxbridge? That could be done at relatively little cost and would be a great benefit to many in west London—not to mention the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes).
    Mr. Prescott: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is a lot easier said than done. That was one of the first projects that I looked at when I came to office. I was advised against investing in it and concentrated instead on the main project of finding £7 billion to re-equip our London underground system.
    Mr. John Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend still intend to hand over responsibility for the sub-surface tube lines to Railtrack? If so, why?
    Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that Railtrack can make a bid for the sub-surface lines so that we can achieve the integration that we want. We have to wait until the spring to see whether we can reach an agreement, but the intention is to integrate the national rail service with the underground. That integration is part of the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I fought on. We intend to implement that policy.

    Drivers (Drug Tests)
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on drug-testing for drivers. [94221]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): It is already an offence to drive while unfit through medicinal or illicit drugs, but the problem for the police is to recognise that a driver is drug-impaired. We are working with the police and the Home Office on the development of techniques and screening devices so that the law can be enforced effectively.
    Mrs. Winterton: The Minister will be aware of the growing number of fatal accidents blamed on drivers who have taken a cocktail of hard drugs. Does he believe that the police should be given the same powers to tackle drug driving as they have to deal with drink driving? Does he further believe that it is a matter of urgency that a drugsalyser test should be developed to act as a deterrent for those who might be tempted to drive while under the influence of drugs?
    Mr. Mullin: The hon. Lady makes an important point. There has been a large increase in the number of fatalities caused by people who have taken illicit—or in some cases medicinal—drugs. The problem is that we have to develop the technology to enable the misuse of drugs to be detected. The technology thus far is not sufficiently reliable. Work is under way and we are hopeful that the technology will be better in the fairly near future. We shall not shrink from legislating at that point, but we must develop the technology first.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: This is a difficult area, is it not? For example, will we prosecute drivers taking prescription drugs that affect the central nervous system? Bearing in mind the fact that cannabis can be detected in the body for up to 30 days after
    804
    someone has smoked a spliff, will the charge against a person who has smoked only one spliff be possession, or driving under the influence?
    Mr. Mullin: My hon. Friend is more conversant with the terminology than I am, but he is right, in that there are one or two other serious difficulties as well as the problems with the technology. The offence will have to be driving while impaired through drugs, and we shall have to be able to demonstrate that before a court of law. There are a couple of complex issues; one is the technology, and my hon. Friend has mentioned the other—but we are on the case.

    Rail Freight
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What recent discussions he has had with Railtrack on the movement of freight by rail. [94222]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Following the tragic accident at Ladbroke Grove, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and my noble Friend the Minister for Transport have had several discussions with Railtrack, and in this context have also met the freight operators EWS and Freightliner. Previously, on 14 September, the Minister for Transport had a meeting with the chief executive of Railtrack, at which rail freight was briefly discussed.
    Dr. Naysmith: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench—a much merited promotion—and thank him for the information that he has given. Does he agree that, given the increase in rail traffic, especially rail freight, railway land should be retained for railway development? What are the Government doing to promote that idea?
    Mr. Hill: I am overwhelmed by the accolade bestowed on me by my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with the thrust of his remarks. That is why our new draft PPG13, published on 18 October, draws particular attention to the need to protect sites and routes that could be critical in developing infrastructure, so as to widen choices both for passengers and those who dispatch freight. It is also why we have required the shadow Strategic Rail Authority, in managing the British Rail property portfolio, to give priority to transport users.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I add my congratulations to the Minister on his well deserved elevation to the Front Bench. Will he carefully consider the security aspects of the misuse of freight facilities elsewhere in Europe? He may be aware that when the all-party rail freight group, led by Lord Berkeley, visited freight facilities in northern Italy, members of the group from all parties were shocked at the lack of security. He will certainly know that there is grave concern about the misuse of—welcome—freight facilities for the purpose of illegal immigration. Will he carefully consider the report produced by his noble Friend on the rail freight group visit?
    Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, and I undertake not only to make my own inquiries into the matter, but to write to him with full details of our arrangements in connection with it.
    Gillian Merron: May I advise the Minister that plans to increase the amount of rail freight travelling through Lincoln's already busy high street is causing considerable concern about how that can best be managed under existing arrangements, because new arrangements need to be made? Can he assist my constituents by looking into a practical solution, so that a useful way forward can be found?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an issue extremely pertinent to her constituency, but heretofore unfamiliar to me. The question she asks is important in the light of the Government's clear commitment to, and outstanding record of, developing rail freight facilities. Opposition Members have been very friendly to me so far, so I do not want to create too much hurt and pain on the Opposition Benches, but I must point out that in 1995–96, under the previous Administration, the total spend on rail freight facilities and rail freight grants was £4 million. In the past two years, under the Labour Government, it has been £29 million and we expect it to increase. Indeed, in recent weeks, the two largest ever rail freight facility grants have been given out by this Government.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Would the Minister agree that in some areas it is lack of track capacity that is the single biggest factor inhibiting the growth of rail freight, such as on the Nith valley line which takes coal from the Ayrshire coalfield to the English power stations? What pressure will he apply to Railtrack to invest in such facilities?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and he is right. That is why we have made the development of a rail freight strategy a major priority for the Strategic Rail Authority.
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: Would my hon. Friend agree that the success of the Government's proposals for freight and for increased passenger use of the railways may lead to a problem in the medium term in allocating freight slots, especially near my constituency between Southampton north and south, and on the east and west lines from London to the west country? Can he give me an assurance that he is actively encouraging Railtrack to develop new rail facilities for freight, including track and new junctions?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and drawing our attention specifically to the situation in his locality. He is right. In the past two years, we have seen a 14 per cent. growth in freight tonne/kilometres on our railways, which is a terrific success. However, success does bring its problems and it will be a major responsibility of the Strategic Rail Authority to examine the issues of track capacity and rail freight facilities for the future.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join those who have welcomed the Minister to the Front Bench. Does he
    806
    agree that the problem of increasing freight and passengers on the railways is one of capacity and the need to manage safety? I welcome the decision that the Government made in the summer approving the installation as quickly as possible of the train protection warning system, and the outcome of yesterday's safety summit. However, given that collisions such as the one at Southall would not be prevented by the TPWS, what did the Government do when they were first notified about the 25 per cent. increase in serious signals-passed-at-danger incidents in August, which was a dramatic deterioration in safety on the railway by any standards?
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. He raises an important issue, but the answer is that the Government had instituted an inquiry into the increase in signals passed at danger—or SPADs—12 months before the Ladbroke Grove disaster. It is on the basis of the findings of that report that the Government are now engaged in urgent action to address the issue of rail safety.

    Private Rentals
    Mr. Graham Stringer: What plans he has to improve the workings of the private rental sector of the housing market. [94223]
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We have a number of initiatives already in hand. We are committed to mandatory licensing of houses in multiple occupation. We are reviewing fitness standards and piloting a voluntary rent deposit dispute resolution scheme. In addition, we support the national approved letting scheme for letting agents. We will set out our full conclusions on the future of the private rented sector in our forthcoming housing Green Paper.
    Mr. Stringer: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware that in my constituency and many other northern cities the market in houses on terraced streets built before the first world war is in disarray? Disreputable private landlords are bringing in anti-social, sometimes criminal, tenants on the back of housing benefit and driving decent people out. That has led to whole rows of terraced houses standing empty. Does he agree that one of the answers to that problem is to regulate private landlords?
    Mr. Raynsford: I agree that there is a problem in several cities with abandonment of properties; it has been possible for certain elements to buy cheaply properties that are then unscrupulously exploited, as are the tenants who occupy them. That is why the Government commissioned a specific report from policy action team 7 to look into the social exclusion agenda and problems of unpopular housing. That report, which we warmly welcomed a few weeks ago, set out a number of interesting conclusions about action that can be taken.
    I do not believe that a registration scheme for all private sector housing would necessarily achieve my hon. Friend's objectives. Manchester, which is his council, tried to introduce an accreditation scheme for rented housing, but it did not prove entirely successful. There are serious problems in securing the adherence of landlords to letting and, indeed, in identifying all the landlords in existence,

    807
    which make it difficult for bureaucratic schemes of that nature to achieve their purpose. It is right to focus on properties with the highest risk, and we see HMOs as being in that category, which is why we are proceeding with our licensing scheme for multi-occupied houses.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Would the Minister confirm that in the past 10 years the number of households renting from private landlords has increased by perhaps 25 per cent.—an increase from roughly 1.75 million to well over 2 million? Does he agree that that has come about by relaxing regulations that control private landlords where that could be done sensibly? The one thing that would reverse that trend would be the imposition of excessive and unnecessary regulation now.
    Mr. Raynsford: I agree that we do not want unnecessary and excessive regulation. There should be controls to deal with properties that are in the worst condition, where people's lives are put at risk by unscrupulous landlords. That is why we are licensing multi-occupied houses. We also want to encourage reputable landlords to come into the market—we have said so repeatedly and we will continue to do so. The overall pattern is one in which the private rented sector has stabilised. The number of lettings in the sector is not increasing and is below the 1979 level. We are however keen to see an improvement in the responsible side of the market, while we bear down on the more disreputable parts of it.
    Ms Margaret Moran: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the housing benefit going to private sector landlords has tripled since 1989–90 while lettings have increased by only 11 per cent. in the same period. Given the amount of public sector investment going to private landlords, does he agree that it is essential that we get value for money by tackling the enormous amounts of disrepair in the sector, so that private tenants can enjoy decent quality accommodation in return for the housing benefit investment that the Government are giving private landlords?
    Mr. Raynsford: I agree with my hon. Friend that tackling the problems of disrepair is important. That is why we are reviewing fitness standards, as I said. I also agree that we need to ensure value for money. That will be a fundamental issue to be tackled in our forthcoming housing Green Paper.

    New Forest
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement regarding his plans for national park status for the New Forest. [94224]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime
    808
    Minister announced on 29 September that he has asked the Countryside Agency to consider designating the New Forest as a national park. The agency will work closely with my Department, local authorities, the members of the New Forest committee and a whole range of local and national interests in reviewing the options.
    Mr. Swayne: The Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State's announcement was greeted with disappointment and dismay by the New Forest committee, the verderers, the commoners, the district council and the county councillors. Why did the Minister reject the clearly expressed preference of what was then the Countryside Commission, now the agency?
    Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend's announcement has been widely welcomed, including by local interests. The former Countryside Commission recommended tailor-made legislation, that is true. There is a serious drawback, however, which is the lack of parliamentary time. Primary legislation would be required and there is a lack of early parliamentary time. The previous Government repeatedly promised to introduce legislation, but they never did; we are doing so and we believe that there is scope for a national park authority to do an excellent job for the New Forest, just as the park authorities are doing for many other parts of the country.
    Mr. Damian Green: It is clear, from the Minister's reply, that his assurance yesterday to the Countryside Alliance that he was in listening mode did not apply to people living near the New Forest. Will he confirm that he will need to repeal three Acts of Parliament before a national park can have full management powers? Will he say when those Acts will be repealed? Without that commitment, the House will think, rightly, that the announcement is merely another press release with no substance—another great Labour lie.
    Mr. Meacher: There has been enormous discussion of this matter. It was discussed for many years under the previous Government, but the problem was that that they did not act. We are very conscious of the desire of the great majority of local interests for action on this issue. The powers of the Forestry Commission and the verderers will not be affected by the creation of a national park, and the primary New Forest legislation already in place will not be affected. However, because we are listening to what is being said, we have asked the Countryside Agency to examine how the views of the Forestry Commission, English Nature and the verderers can be reflected in national park structures, especially in terms of membership structures and the creation of committees.
    We are listening and we shall continue to do so. There will not be a national park until this matter has been considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If objections are raised, it is for him to decide whether to call a public inquiry.

Points of Order
Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to raise a point that I put to you privately. It concerns an article that appears in The Guardian today under the name of Michael White, from which I shall quote two extracts. It begins:
"MPs are canvassing for a new speaker of the Commons to succeed Betty Boothroyd amid frustration among ministers at her determination to resist what she sees as the government's encroachment on the rights of Parliament."
It goes on to state that
"it is widely understood that many ministers will be glad to see the back of their assertive … colleague, hoping to replace her with a more emollient opposition MP."
I am not concerned with the source of the leak. It is an assumption of Governments that all Ministers and their press officers speak with the authority of the Prime Minister. Nor am I concerned with your position, Madam Speaker, because you were elected unanimously by the House, and I know of no Speaker who has enjoyed so much support. However, I am concerned with the implication that the ability to appoint the Speaker of the House of Commons lies within the patronage of the Prime Minister, when in reality that power belongs to the House.
A sort of parallel might be drawn with the events of 4 January 1642, when Charles I tried to arrest the five Members. Today, the spin doctors in the Press Gallery are trying to remove the Speaker, but the same principle is at stake. It is very important that hon. Members should defend the House, because the legislature is not a quango of the Executive.
I very much hope, Madam Speaker, that you will use your discretion to find an opportunity to allow the role of the Executive vis-à-vis the House of Commons to be properly debated. I do not ask for a considered judgment now, but I feel very strongly that, unless it asserts itself, the House will virtually disappear as a factor in our political society.
Madam Speaker: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the House. However, he will know—probably rather better than I—that, when the time comes, the House asserts its independence in electing its Speaker. I have great faith that it will do that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I recall the circumstances surrounding the election of your predecessor, Lord Weatherill. Is there not something to be said for the House of Commons having a Speaker whom the Prime Minister of the day does not want?
Madam Speaker: As Eric Morecambe used to say, "There's no answer to that."
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During Question Time, you rightly rebuked me mildly for not resuming my seat. May I apologise unreservedly, but also offer the explanation that my eyes were firmly focused on the Government Front Bench and the Minister and that my hearing was impaired by the noise from the Labour Benches? I am sorry that I did not resume my seat more quickly.
Madam Speaker: Questions are sometimes rather longer than I want them to be.

BILL PRESENTED
ORGANIC FOOD AND FARMING TARGETS
Joan Ruddock, supported by Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Colin Breed, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Jane Griffiths, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mrs. Diana Organ, Mr. John Randall, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mrs. Betty Williams, presented a Bill to make provision regarding the setting and achievement of targets for organic farming and food consumption; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 5 November 1999, and to be printed [Bill 153].

Civil Registration (Access to Records)
3.35 pm
Mr. Keith Darvill: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to access to registers of births, marriages and deaths; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of the Bill is to provide improved public access to records of civil registration—those of births, marriages and deaths. The Bill will give clarity to sections of the Marriage Act 1949 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which prevent information from being obtained unless certificates are purchased. The proposals, which have widespread support both in and outside the House, attempt to address defects in the arrangements as well as clarifying the law.
The 1949 and 1953 Acts do not prohibit access to records. They authorise the issue of certified copies of birth, marriage and death certificates. However, those seeking information may look only at the index of records. To receive the information that they require, they must pay the unnecessary and exorbitant sum of £6.50 for a certificate, which, in many cases, the researcher does not need. Many of those researching information about ancestors in order to prepare a family tree or family history find the fee for certificates and the inability to browse erect unnecessary and expensive barriers.
The Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages has long recognised that the present arrangements are unnecessarily restrictive. Demands by members of the public to remedy the difficulties are growing. Many hon. Members will have received representations from constituents who read Family Tree Magazine, or who are members of the Society of Genealogists or one of the many family history societies around the country.
My Bill will provide a right to browse records, reducing the frustration of genealogists and other researchers who can obtain information only through certified copies of entries, and must purchase them without knowing what information they contain. Nor can copies be returned for a refund if they are of no use. The main aim of the Bill is to eliminate the need for researchers to conduct a search through the speculative purchase of certificates and to replace it with a right to examine records so that they may select information of interest to them.
The proposal relates to older records. The Bill will contain a provision opening historic records—those of 75 years or older—to public view. The 1990 White Paper "Registration: Proposal for Change" specified that period, considering it to be a reasonable compromise. That period also gained the greatest measure of support—almost half—among those who responded to the consultation paper to the Green Paper that preceded that document.
For recent records, the existing system will remain. Members of the public may still obtain information through the purchase of copies of specified items. This important distinction between recent and historic records will be drawn because of concern that the right to look up events—especially births—in public indexes, and to
812
purchase copies of the records, offers scope for certificates to be used too readily for the creation of false identities for purposes of personation and fraud.
Those who have campaigned for a change in the law recognise that a balance must be struck between facilitating worthwhile research into family histories—an interest that grows every year—and the need to reduce the possibility of abuse. With that balance in mind, it is right to provide access to information but alternative arrangements for the purchase of certificates of recent events, which provides an approach for the prevention of personation and fraud.
I recognise that the previous Government intended to remedy the defects in the system, but they never found the parliamentary time to fulfil their good intentions. I am also heartened that this Government intend to make change and modernise the arrangements. "Supporting Families", the consultation document published last year, proposed that there should be a review of the civil registration system in England and Wales. The then Economic Secretary acknowledged that the Victorian legislation on which the civil registration service is based places too many restrictions on the type and extent of service and hinders the use of modern technology to meet the needs of a changing society.
I understand that the aim of the review was to consider the existing operational framework of civil registration and to set out options for its future development, including access to registration records. The final phase of the review has been completed, with the publication on 8 September of a public consultation document "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service".
Chapter 4 of the consultation paper is devoted to improving service delivery through better access to records. It acknowledges that the present paper-based system cannot be sustained and suggests that technology holds the key to solving problems of storage, retention and retrieval of future records. I welcome the recognition that technology will play an important role in access, and that is why my Bill will provide for computer-based records to be retained and allow access to records by way of information communication technology.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to move this motion under Standing Order 23 and I trust that the House is persuaded of the need for change in this area of the law, a change that will benefit a large number of people throughout England and Wales and many who live in other parts of the world whose ancestors were born and lived in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Darvill, Mrs. Eileen Gordon, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Clive Efford, Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, Mr. David Lidington and Mr. Bob Russell.

CIVIL REGISTRATION (ACCESS TO RECORDS)
Mr. Keith Darvill accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to access to registers of births, marriages and deaths; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 November, and to be printed [Bill 154].
Opposition Day

  Home Office Issues
  Madam Speaker: I have had to impose a 10-minute limit on speeches for Back Benchers throughout debates on the next two motions.
  I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.42 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the Government's incompetent handling and mismanagement of Home Office issues in general; further notes that the number of police officers in England and Wales has fallen by more than 1,000 since the General Election; further notes that the Home Secretary's recent announcement on police recruits will mean another fall in the number of police officers in England and Wales; further notes the chaos caused by the Government in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the record numbers of asylum-seekers, many of them bogus, now arriving in the United Kingdom; further notes the recent revelations arising from the Mitrokhin Archive; and calls on the Government to increase police numbers, to improve the working of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, to reduce the numbers of bogus asylum-seekers arriving in the United Kingdom and to ensure that those who betray the United Kingdom to foreign powers are pursued with the utmost vigour.
  The motion in the name of the Opposition calls to the attention of the House and that of a wider audience the long series of mismanagements, incompetence, inaccurate statistics and general mess over which the Home Secretary has presided since he took office in 1997. I have been extremely kind to the right hon. Gentleman in selecting only a few of the things that have gone wrong on which to make comment. There may be more on a later day, but today I simply wish to address four issues. The first is police numbers.
  The Home Secretary made a very interesting statement in his Labour party conference speech, which he has since defended on the ground of technical accuracy. There is, of course, an enormous difference between technical accuracy and a picture that would be recognised by the outside world. When he had finished telling us that he was going to supply the money for "more" recruits, or an "additional" or an "extra"—whichever version one wants to take—5,000 police recruits, there was an assumption not only on the part of the press, media and public, but even the Police Federation, which after all understands these things, that that meant that he was pledging an extra 5,000 police officers.
  I am sure that if those same bodies had decided that he was pledging 5,000 fewer police officers, the Home Secretary would have rushed to put them right. He would have rushed to say that they had got it all wrong, and that what he really meant was that there would be only 5,000 extra recruits. However, because they put a rather optimistic interpretation on what he said, he kept strangely silent—until today, when he gave an extremely fascinating explanation to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It was not only fascinating to listen to, but to watch, because the Home Secretary set out to rival Houdini.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that, after all, he had got it completely wrong, and that, when he talked about 11,000 police recruits, he really meant that police forces
  814
  were planning to recruit not 11,000, but 15,000. Oddly enough, his representations to his own Treasury Ministers referred to 11,000—I do not know whether they will now ask for the money back, on the ground that they were misled. The Home Secretary and all independent bodies have said consistently that the recruiting plans actually meant 11,000 officers. Today, he said that that was all a mistake, and he blamed his officials for giving him the wrong information.
  In the House, we cannot identify officials—but I am inclined to ask who they were. Were they, perhaps, the same officials who clean forgot to renew the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Acts? Were they the same officials who wrongly briefed the Home Secretary on his own Home Office figures when he gave a press conference on asylum? Were they the same officials who caused him, quite mistakenly, to give the Welsh Assembly powers over Welsh criminals? Were they the same officials who caused him to publish the names and addresses of witnesses in the Macpherson report? We do not know, but what we do know is that every time something goes wrong, this Home Secretary, who in his first speech to the House made a virtue of the fact that he would take responsibility for everything that happened in the Home Office, has, since then, quite consistently blamed his officials for every error that he has come up with.
  However, for the sake of argument, let us accept that the figure of 15,000 is right. Will the Home Secretary now set out simply and clearly, and in terms that admit of no misinterpretation, whether his revised figures, given to the Select Committee today mean a net addition to the police force, in the lifetime of the Labour Government, of 5,000 officers? Do they, or do they not? Do they mean a net addition of 5,000 officers, even before 2003? I am being kind to him. Do they, or do they not? Do they even mean that, when the Government leave office, there will be more police officers than there are at present, or will there be extra or additional officers to those who are there at present? Alternatively, will the numbers be the same, or will they be fewer? Can the Home Secretary confirm that, according to the statement that he submitted to the Select Committee, the statisticians say that the new recruiting figures—on which he now relies to extricate himself from the hole that he dug for himself—
  "can only be based on fairly crude projections"
  and that they do not represent "sophisticated modelling".
  The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled, so I will help him. Will he confirm that that was part of the statement on figures that he submitted today? In case he wants to come up with some technical argument about whether that formed the statement or the appendix, will he just tell us whether those words are true—are they crude projections? If there are to be more police officers by the time the Government leave office, how many more will there be? Will he take May 1997 as his baseline of comparison?
  A generous observer of today's Select Committee hearing would have concluded that the Home Secretary was mired in muddle, but a more cynical observer would have noted that he was becoming enmeshed in a web of deceit. We might also ask the Prime Minister whether he wishes to come to the House and correct his statement that the right hon. Gentleman had painted an accurate picture in referring to 5,000 extra officers. I think that it is time for a retraction and probably an apology.

  815
  Before I leave the issue of police numbers, I must raise an associated question that will impact on recruiting. The 22 October issue of "Public Finance" reveals the cost of the new radio system that the police are obliged to implement; they have no choice in the matter. In case the Home Secretary is suffering from any confusion, it is called the public safety radiocommunications project. The publication cites the total cost of that project as £1.5 billion. Is that figure accurate? If it is, how far does the Home Secretary think that the mere £50 million that he announced in his conference speech will go towards funding that project?
  If the police have to implement the radiocommunications project and must find the funding shortfall between £1.5 billion and £50 million, can the Home Secretary seriously tell the House that recruitment will not suffer? Does he accept the comments made to me by a chief constable and an assistant chief constable that, in light of the requirement to implement the new system, recruitment must suffer?
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: On the subject of police expenditure, I am curious to know whether the right hon. Lady agrees with the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who criticised the Government's spending plans for policing—and everything else—as "reckless". Does the right hon. Lady agree with that assessment?
  Miss Widdecombe: We have said consistently—as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor—that it is somewhat surprising that the Government should trumpet a 3 per cent. increase in police funding while demanding efficiency savings of 2 per cent., which means that some police forces are managing on a funding increase of less than 0.5 per cent.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We cannot have evasion on an issue that is absolutely central to the Opposition's credibility. Will the right hon. Lady now answer the question? The shadow Chancellor has criticised the Government's spending increases, including our £1.24 billion increase, as "reckless". Does the right hon. Lady share that view?
  Miss Widdecombe: I will answer that question directly. However, I observe in passing that for the Home Secretary to accuse anyone on either side of the House of evasion is somewhat rich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall come to the point that the Home Secretary raised. He asked about the shadow Chancellor's attitude to police spending. My right hon. Friend has promised me that, when we return to Government, we will reverse the decline in police numbers. We will do that without smoke and mirrors, without blaming officials and without hiding behind chief constables. We will reverse the decline—that pledge from the future Chancellor of the Exchequer is absolutely specific. [Interruption.] I understand the agitation that is apparent on the Government Benches: it stems from embarrassment. They are the Government who came to office promising to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. They have delivered that
  816
  promise by reducing police numbers by more than 1,000 since 1997. The Home Secretary is not tough on crime; he is tough on the fighters of crime.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady has made what may or may not be an important statement. Can she give a clear answer to this question: if she has authority to say that the Tories would reverse the decline in police numbers were they returned to office, what number of police are they committed to and what figure has the shadow Chancellor committed to pay for them?
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman says that my statement might or might not be important—how typical of the Liberals. Let us assume that it is important and I shall answer him directly: the commitment is that whatever overall number of police—no recruits, no this and that—remain to us when the Government leave office, we will make that up to the number that there were when we left office. That could hardly be clearer.
  Returning to the radio project, I was asking the Home Secretary for his estimate of the cost. He tried to distract me from that point, but I will not be distracted. Is the project compulsory? How much will he give police forces? [Interruption.] We are back on the radio project; the right hon. Gentleman did not hear. Will he give police forces the sum of the cost? If not, does he accept that making up the shortfall must have an impact on recruitment? When I asked him the other day why he had not answered some of my questions, he said that I asked them too quickly. I do not intend to weary the House by repeating them, but I shall give them to him in writing during the succeeding debate so that he may be in no doubt at all about what I have asked him and so that we might get proper answers.
  Before dealing with the other issues that we want to discuss, I have to comment on an aspect of policing that has caused widespread concern throughout the country and across the political spectrum: the scenes that we witnessed of policing during the visit of the President of China. The last time we witnessed such scenes was 1978, when Ceausescu visited this country. I have not seen such scenes since and, according to my research, there have not been any.
  Were any suggestions—I shall not even call them instructions—made, either by the Home Office or the Foreign Office, in respect of keeping the Tibetan flag out of the sight of the Chinese President, or any other matters relating to the policing of demonstrations during the President's visit? As we have joined-up government, I am sure that the Home Secretary can answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) tabled such questions for answer yesterday. He received a denial from the right hon. Gentleman that his Department was involved in contacts with the police, but when I walked into the Chamber we had yet to receive any answer from the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Perhaps I can help my right hon. Friend. This morning, the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that he could not say whether his Department's officials had been involved, but he was kind enough to tell us that it was his view that there had been contacts between Foreign Office officials, Chinese embassy staff and the Metropolitan police. Is not

  817
  it rather curious that the Department for which he is responsible should not have had any involvement, although the Foreign Office did?
  Miss Widdecombe: "Curious" is just too kind a word.
  What we need from the right hon. Gentleman is a clear, unequivocal statement on whether the Government were involved in suggesting the nature of the policing which shocked the nation during the Chinese President's visit. I attach no blame whatever to the police, who have told me that many of their officers felt resentment at being required to police a demonstration in that way. Ordinary police officers are decent people, who want to uphold democracy and spend their time fighting crime, not suppressing peaceful demonstrations.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Home Secretary may be able to help us even more than we have just been given to understand. Does my right hon. Friend recall a statement in The Sunday Times, in which a senior member of the Metropolitan police was quoted as saying:
  "If the minutes of meetings between police and Foreign Office officials are made public, the Government is going to have egg on its face."
  Can my right hon. Friend see any reason why the Home Secretary should not put this matter to rest now by publishing the minutes of those meetings?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am happy to second the call for the Home Secretary to do so.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I should like to make some progress. I understand that Madam Speaker wants Back Benchers to have due time to speak in this debate.
  I now come to the asylum issue. In this area, probably more than in any other, the Home Secretary is directly responsible for the shambles that has resulted. When he is challenged, he makes two excuses: first, that he inherited a deepening problem from us; and secondly, that it is all to do with international upheavals. On inheriting the problem from us, let us ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with the Government's figures—that in 1995 there were 43,965 asylum applications, and in 1996 there were 29,640. That fall was due to our asylum and immigration legislation and the fact that we were willing to take tough measures, on which he accused us of playing the race card—a shameful accusation. Does he now agree that, according to his own figures, he inherited a falling number of asylum applications?
  What did the Home Secretary do then? I pay tribute to him for being consistent. Before he took office, he said that when Labour came to power it would abolish the list of safe countries of origin, and it did. That list enabled us to fast track unfounded asylum applications. He said that he would not implement our measures against illegal working, and he kept that up for two years before admitting, very quietly, that he was wrong.
  Mr. Straw: The white list has not yet been replaced, but it will be replaced by a more effective procedure under the Asylum and Immigration Bill. Meanwhile, the list has
  818
  remained in place. If the right hon. Lady now objects to our replacing it, why was it that, in Standing Committee and on the Floor of the House on proceedings of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, no Opposition Member spoke against our proposal to remove the white list—still less moved an amendment or voted against it?
  Miss Widdecombe: More smoke and more mirrors. The position is straightforward. We introduced and put into statute what the Home Secretary misnames "the white list"—we never called it that. It was a list of safe countries of origin. He said that he would not implement it, and he made that statement not only in opposition but as soon as he came to office, thereby sending out a clear signal that he would not operate the list of safe countries of origin. That sent a signal to people coming from those countries that their applications would not be fast tracked and that they could once again play the system. It is as simple as that. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot understand that, it perhaps explains why the asylum system has been in such an unholy mess.
  At the same time as the Home Secretary announced that he would not implement measures against illegal working and the list of safe countries of origin, he reversed several high profile deportation decisions that we had taken, proclaimed an amnesty for 20,000 applicants and removed the primary purpose rule elsewhere in the immigration system. The sum of those actions was to send out a clear message to the rest of the world that Britain was once again a soft touch on asylum. The right hon. Gentleman then turned round and tried to blame the record rises that he inflicted on this country on an Administration that had actually brought about a fall. Why cannot he admit responsibility, or will he now tell us that officials were to blame?
  Mr. Straw: If the right hon. Lady wants to refer to soft touches, will she explain why she authorised members of the other place to vote in favour of amendment No. 118 to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which would have the explicit effect of restoring social security cash benefits to those from whom she withdrew them in 1996, the cost of which in a full year would be £500 million?
  Miss Widdecombe: Amendment No. 118 was moved by the Bishop of Southwark—on this occasion I pay tribute to him, although I do not always do so—and was supported by us, by the Liberal Democrats and by some of the Home Secretary's colleagues in the upper House. We were trying to assist the right hon. Gentleman, because he said that he would not implement the voucher system until he had the asylum system under control, and that he would turn round applications within six months. We decided to hold him to that promise. We are still in favour of the voucher system, but only when he has established the underlying systems that will make it work. It is as simple as that.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: I did not get any enlightenment from the hon. Gentleman the last time I gave way to him, so he can sit down now.
  Does the Home Secretary admit that the backlog on asylum applications is now 90,000, which is almost double the figure we left him? That is due to his policies.

  819
  Does he acknowledge that even without counting the people who come from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, asylum applications are now running at 70,000 a year at least, whereas we left him with a figure of less than 40,000 a year? Does he admit that that is due to his policies? He alone decided not to implement the safe list and procedures against illegal working. He alone decided to grant an amnesty to 20,000 asylum seekers. He alone decided that—not his officials, not the Opposition, not the international community—so let him have the guts to acknowledge it. [Interruption.]
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Is the right hon. Lady giving way?
  Miss Widdecombe: No, I am not.
  Madam Speaker: The right hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way, so hon. Members should not try to intervene.
  Miss Widdecombe: I shall now come to the second last issue on our list of fiascos: the immigration situation. Over the summer, a great deal of attention was paid to the right hon. Gentleman's mismanagement of the passport system.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice. One of my constituents waited eight and a half years for a decision on his asylum status—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. He is trying to make a political argument through the Chair. It is not a point of order.
  Miss Widdecombe: If the hon. Gentleman has a constituent in difficulty, he should approach his own Government. I do not know why he feels that he has to approach you, Madam Speaker.
  As I was saying, over the summer there was considerable concern about the mismanagement of the UK Passport Agency. Huge queues formed, and people trying to get passports were in considerable distress. Will the Home Secretary take this opportunity to assure the House that he will not pass on the costs of that fiasco to British passport holders in increased fees for passports?
  Of course, much of the muddle resulted from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman combined a change in the computer system with a change in the rules governing child passports. One would have thought that he would learn from that, and say, "If new computer systems are being installed, I really should not add anything else." But what did he do? In Croydon, where the Immigration and Nationality Directorate tries manfully to tackle long queues, he added to a new computer system a relocation.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: It was no good last time, so I do not want to listen to the hon. Gentleman this time either.
  820
  Is the Home Secretary aware of the effect of what he did? Applications for visas and applications in respect of immigration have remained unopened since July. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that? Is he aware that in one month—
  Ms Rosie Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot find any reference to this matter in the motion.
  Madam Speaker: The motion refers to Home Office affairs in general.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Home Secretary added to a new computer system in Croydon a complete relocation. As I have said, although the right hon. Gentleman has tried to cover it up, that resulted in—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman will have to hear this, whether he wants to or not. That resulted in mail remaining unopened since July. In one month, only 1,800 out of 52,000 calls were answered by the office in Croydon. Many foreign investors are complaining because they are unable to obtain visas, and many other people have been put through immense distress.
  I have been down to Croydon. I saw what looked like human cattle pens: people crammed in, pressed together, desperately trying to obtain answers to their immigration applications. I talked to some of the people coming out, who told me that this was their third, fourth or fifth visit. That, too, was the Home Secretary's decision. He authorised the relocation, at a time when he knew that a new computer system was being installed.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, if the intervention is about Croydon.
  Mr. Davies: As the right hon. Lady has pointed out, the number of asylum seekers has risen from 30,000 to nearly 80,000. Does she accept that, when the brief for the new computer system in Croydon was given to Siemens, it assumed a maximum of about 50,000? That could not satisfactorily embrace the needs of people—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.
  Mr. Davies: The system did not take account of the crisis in Yugoslavia. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Lady to laugh at the plight of asylum seekers, but it was her Government's fault.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman has just made out a case against the Government and their handling of the problem. Having increased the number of applications, they imposed a relocation on top of that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman had thought through what he said—although I had given him a good deal of time to consider it, because I did not immediately allow him to intervene.

  821
  Finally, let me deal with the issue of the Mitrokhin archive. [Interruption.] I am sorry that Ministers are weary of the Mitrokhin archive. I am sorry that they find the issue of cold war spies so trivial and laughable. Those who suffered from their treachery will not.
  Will the Home Secretary answer two questions that I put to him last week and which he did not answer? As he knew about Melita Norwood in December 1998, and knew that information was coming out and that details would be published, why did he do nothing to inform either Parliament or the Prime Minister? The Home Secretary knows that, when I asked him for a comprehensive list, I meant a list not of every spy going back to the 15th century, but of those likely to be exposed as a result of the Mitrokhin archive. We were getting a-spy-a-day revelations in the press. It would have been more appropriate for the Home Secretary to give the revelations to Parliament. That was the question that I asked. I should like to know what on earth the Home Secretary was doing between December 1998 and September this year in respect of the Mitrokhin archive. Perhaps a few officials kept him in the dark. I do not know; perhaps he will blame them again.
  Can the Home Secretary answer the question that I ended with last week and which I expected him to answer with vehement indignation? Instead, he did not answer it either publicly at the time, or privately since. Will he assure the House that, given the links between the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Stasi and between Labour Ministers and CND, there is no link whatever between any currently serving Minister and anyone who is named in the Mitrokhin archive? It seems such a simple question, yet, apparently, it cannot be answered.
  Before they came to power, the Government promised that they were going to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime. They have reduced police numbers by more than 1,000; encouraged bogus asylum seekers through a long series of measures to soften up the system; failed to handle the issue of asylum seekers who were crowding into Kent, despite continual pleas from Kent, until the issue had flared up in Dover—only then did the Home Secretary act; have added changes in the law to one agency and changes in location to another when they were already hard pressed and could not cope with what they had; and have not keep the House informed of something that would drip through our press over the summer and that concerned issues as serious as treachery.
  I could list a host of other things, as you said, Madam Speaker, that the debate was about Home Office affairs in general. I will resist the temptation, but on future occasions we will return to those matters. On the four issues that we have identified, the Home Secretary should take responsibility and apologise properly.
  4.17 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "applauds the Government for its achievements on Home Office issues; notes that the previous government left the youth justice system in disarray, left chaos in the immigration and asylum system,
  822
  in particular as a result of provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, and that police numbers fell by 1,500 between 1992–93 and 1997–98; further notes the action that the Government has taken in asking the Intelligence and Security Committee to review the handling of the Mitrokhin Archive, including key decisions taken before 1997; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to provide new money to fund the recruitment of 5,000 police officers over and above the number that would otherwise have been recruited, comprehensively to tackle crime and disorder and to develop a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system, through the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will better serve genuine refugees and help reduce the number of abusive claims in the United Kingdom."
  The kindest thing that can be said about the speech of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) is that it was not up to her usual standard. It was a confused diatribe from a party that failed in government and has done no better in opposition, that talked tough on law and order, but presided over a doubling of crime, that promised to increase police numbers, but allowed numbers to fall by 1,500 over five years—
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: Later—sit down. Not even I intervened in the first two sentences of the right hon. Lady's speech, but I will give way later.
  The Conservative party said that it would get a grip on the asylum system, but it left only chaos and confusion. It shouts about immigration control, but ordered a secret amnesty for asylum seekers. Its record in opposition as well as in government is as incredible as it is incoherent.
  Let me deal with each of the points that are raised in the motion. I understand that it is a general omnibus Home Office debate and look forward to any questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends may have about the attitude of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald to fox hunting. I deal first—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) must contain herself. I am sure that she will be allowed to intervene eventually.
  Mr. Straw: I will deal first with the issue of police numbers.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: I give way.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that it is a fact that he inherited 16,000 more police officers than the previous Government were left by Labour? Will he just acknowledge that? Does he agree that, in our last five years in government, we increased the number of police constables by more than 2,000; that he has reduced that number by 922; and that he has presided over an overall decrease in the number of police officers of more than 1,000? Those are the facts, and he cannot deny them. Will he now cease the rhetoric and start apologising?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady had 30 minutes in which to make her speech, but evidently felt that she had not made her points properly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am addressing the issue of police numbers.

  823
  If the right hon. Lady wants to go back, the fastest rate of increase in police numbers occurred between 1974 and 1979, when they increased by 2,000 annually. [Interruption.] I am happy to give the House the facts. Between 1979 and 1991, the numbers increased by 1,000 annually.
  From 1992 to 1997—the period in which the right hon. Lady was an adornment to the previous Government—the previous Administration promised that police numbers would rise by 5,000. That pledge was given by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), and repeated by the right hon. Lady in January 1997. They promised that police numbers would rise, whereas police numbers declined by 1,500 between April 1993 and March 1998, under budgets decided by Conservative Home Secretaries.
  Mr. James Paice: In 1998.
  Mr. Straw: In January 1997, the right hon. Lady announced in the House the police budgets and capping for financial years 1997 and 1998, which began before the general election. The previous Administration decided those budgets.
  I shall tell the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) something else: police numbers did indeed fall by 718 in 1998–99. The only difference between the money that we have spent on police numbers and the money that the previous Administration said that they would spend on police numbers is that, in our Budget, police spending rose by £20 million.
  What is clear beyond peradventure is that, when the previous Prime Minister and the right hon. Lady promised 5,000 officers to the House and to the Conservative party conference, they had neither the money nor the mechanism to deliver on that promise. That is why numbers fell.
  Mr. David Maclean: How does the Home Secretary square that comment with the statement made this year by Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation, who said:
  "The hard fact is, despite Government reassurances that the fight against crime is still a top priority, the police service has witnessed the largest fall in actual police numbers since the crisis days of the mid-1970s"?
  Mr. Straw: Fred Broughton was entirely right, but he was talking about the decline in police numbers that I have just described. Under Tory Budgets, numbers decreased by 1,500. Moreover, they would have decreased much further in 1998–99 had it not been for our additional money.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman after I have developed this point.
  Against the background of falling police numbers, I spoke to my good and close friends in the Treasury—[Interruption.] It is a verity that all Home Secretaries have close and cordial relations with the Treasury. I secured
  824
  £35 million extra, over and above that allocated in the comprehensive spending review for next year, to recruit 5,000 more police officers than planned. That is what I secured from the Treasury, and that is what we shall do. Next year, there will be £35 million in new money, with more to follow in the succeeding two years. There will be new money to recruit more officers, over and above those already planned. The new money was welcomed by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which called it "a significant step forward", and by the Police Superintendents Association, which described it and other announcements we made as a "huge injection of cash".
  As I told the Select Committee this morning, revised estimates now indicate that the baseline for recruits over the next three years is not the 11,000 that I gave at the Labour party conference, but 15,000, with the 5,000 as additional new recruits. Together with the extra £34 million that we are investing in extending the DNA database and the extra £50 million going towards the transformation of police communications, our crime fighting fund represents a huge injection of cash.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way, because his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) was singularly unpersuasive. Is it not a source of concern to the right hon. Gentleman that, so far in 1999, information from 23 of the 43 police authorities in England and Wales reveals that no fewer than 2,324 people have left the police force, and that there has been a reduction in the numbers in Lancashire, incorporating the right hon. Gentleman's own constituency? Does that fact not help to explain why, in the past seven days alone, the chairman of the Police Federation, the vice-chairman of the Police Federation and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner have united in condemnation of his inadequate record?
  Mr. Straw: Given my experience with the 11,000 figure, I hesitate to offer a calculation off the top of my head. However, if there is a loss through retirement and resignation of about 2,400 in half the police forces, that is roughly equivalent to the total wastage and retirements—about 5,000 or 6,000—in previous years. The full and detailed projections were set out in the information that I gave to the Select Committee, which is also in the Library.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Given that the Government were elected on a manifesto promise to put more officers back on the beat, and given that the memorandum that the Home Secretary brought to the Select Committee this morning showed a figure at the date Labour took over of 127,158 officers in England and Wales, is it a commitment of the Government that, by the end of this Administration, there will be more officers in total and more constables in particular?
  Mr. Straw: That point was raised also by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The average wastage in the past three years has been about 17,000, excluding transfers between forces. Our estimate—it is only an estimate, but it has been independently verified—is that the police were planning to recruit 15,000 additional officers before taking any account of the additional new money that we are providing next year and

  825
  for the two years thereafter. Adding the 5,000 to the 15,000 gives 20,000 recruits, if the original baseline estimate of 15,000 is correct over three years.
  If wastage rates stay as they are—and, for the reasons I have explained, no one can be certain of that—there should be a higher number of police officers in post in total at the end of the period of three years than there are at the moment. That is not only my wish, but my hope and my expectation. That is what I want to achieve.
  We said in our manifesto that we wanted an increase in the number of officers released for operational duties, and that is what we are achieving—not least by major efficiency improvements within the police, including the Narey changes which are transforming the way in which the courts operate and the efficiency and speed with which the police can get people into court.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has come to this House to criticise our spending on the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) asked how she squared that with statements made by the shadow Chancellor—and repeated by the Leader of the Opposition—on spending which, even before we announced the £34 million on DNA, the £50 million on the police radio and the £35 million on new recruits, they had damned as reckless.
  We listened as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald sought to evade the answer—not once, not twice, but three times. We were left with a pledge about what the Conservatives might spend if and when they finally came back to power. However, the question was not whether spending at some distant point in the future was reckless. The criticism made by the shadow Chancellor was of our spending now of £1.24 billion on the police.
  Miss Widdecombe: We were talking about welfare spending.
  Mr. Straw: I heard the shadow Chancellor at the time and he did not say that; he was talking about all our spending. The right hon. Lady is proposing substantial increases in spending. Where is she expecting to make cuts? Would she cut the 50 per cent. increase in funding for victim support? Would she cut the £150 million extra that we are spending on closed circuit television? Would she cut our £60 million on burglary prevention or the money that we are investing to help protect the most vulnerable pensioners? Is she intending to cut numbers in prisons? We know for certain that she is not intending to cut the asylum budget, because an amendment for which the Conservatives voted in another place would increase the asylum budget by £500 million in a year.
  Miss Widdecombe: Is the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is asking me—he has not yet shed the habits of Opposition—how I would spend enough money to have the same number of police officers as we left him an admission that he intends to cut those numbers?
  Mr. Straw: Time and again, we have put to the right hon. Lady the inconsistency between what she is saying and what the shadow Chancellor is saying and, time and again, she has refused to answer. I have already answered
  826
  a question about my expectation on police numbers from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes).
  There is a reason why no one can predict with absolute certainty the overall number of police officers in three years: the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. That Act, which we voted against and the Conservatives voted for, was not a Conservative oversight. It was a key part of the programme of a Government of whom the right hon. Lady was a member. It removed the legal power of Ministers to set police force establishments. Bringing forward the measures, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said:
  "In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision … It is not a matter for me."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 113.]
  That ever wonderful source of embarrassing quotations that the Conservative party wishes to forget, the campaign guide—this one is for 1994—says that the Act would remove
  "perverse incentives to recruit police officers instead of civilians".
  It is partly for that reason—the right hon. Lady is looking round as though she had not spotted the Act—that police numbers fell when the previous Administration said that they were going to rise. There was no mechanism to deliver her promise. That is why her promises to restore levels to a certain figure are worth as much as her statements as a Minister.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The House will note the extraordinarily complacent statement in the Government's amendment to today's motion, applauding the Government
  "for its achievements on Home Office issues".
  Will the Home Secretary tell the House and my constituents categorically—not expressing a hope, as he did when answering the question of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—from his consultation with chief constables, when the number of police officers is going to rise, when the asylum situation is going to stabilise, when the backlog of immigration and Nationality Directorate cases in my constituency is going to be sorted out and when the shambles in the Passport Agency is going to be sorted out? When those problems have been solved, he may be applauded for his achievements.
  Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman bears with me he will hear the answers to two of his three questions. I have already answered his question about police numbers. We are putting in new money that the previous Government never provided. We are also setting up a mechanism for the delivery of those numbers. However, without a change to the 1994 Act, which the hon. Gentleman supported, we cannot guarantee police numbers in three years. I have given the House the full figures on our best estimates so far and I have also said that I hope and expect that after those three years, numbers will be above the level when we came to office.
  Mr. Richard Allan: In many previous debates on this subject, the Home Secretary has cited the Police and Magistrates' Court Act and said that he has no power to dictate numbers. That is a safer line

  827
  than the one that he took at the conference; perhaps he should have stuck to it. Will he now tell us whether he intends to amend that Act, and if not, whether he agrees that establishments should be set locally? Is he not concerned that as only three years' funding is given at a time, and police officers' careers are much longer than that, many chief constables will not recruit extra officers when they get the extra money?
  Mr. Straw: We have introduced longer horizons for public spending than the previous Administration did—but with the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have to tell him that no Government could sign up to the proposition that they should give firm levels of funding for more than three years at a time. As for his other points, it is precisely because the 1994 Act removed the Home Secretary's power to set establishment levels that we have established separately, under the Appropriation Acts, a system for ring-fencing the additional money. What I said at the Labour party conference was exactly accurate: that money will be used for new police recruits. We shall also have detailed discussions with chief constables, and do a lot of work with them, to ensure that the additional money is used for additional new recruits whom they would not otherwise have employed.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: How does my right hon. Friend think that the Opposition's pledge to increase numbers squares with their "commonsense revolution", which commits them to reducing taxation year after year, and must therefore mean privatisation or cuts?
  Mr. Straw: The reason why the Conservative party, for all its bluster, remains mired in opposition with far less support than any Opposition since the war, is the incoherence of its position. The Conservatives do not only say one thing and do another; they say one thing, say another, and then say a third thing. People outside listen to what they say, and know that there is no coherence behind their approach.
  Mr. Maclean rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall make some progress, and then I shall give way.
  As she asserted a few minutes ago, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald piloted the Asylum and Immigration Act through the House in 1996. Its effect, despite the words that she used at the time, was to cause chaos and confusion.
  In case hon. Members have forgotten, or did not hear it, I remind the House of what David Mellor said on 29 August about the Conservatives' asylum record:
  "The Conservatives have nothing to be proud of. This asylum crisis has been brewing a long time. When I was in the Cabinet it was raised. Two of us expressed concern, but the rest pooh-poohed it or were indifferent".
  Looking back on the Tory years, it is difficult to select the most incompetent public policy decision, because there are so many to choose from. We saw "The Major Years" last night, and it offered a cornucopia of incompetence which defies belief, and sometimes memory. None the less, I ask my hon. Friends to try to choose the single most incompetent set of policies. There was the poll tax, the Child Support Agency and, sadly, the privatisation of the railways—[Interruption.]
  828
  The Conservatives do not think that the privatisation of the railways, and the way in which it was done, have been a disaster. No wonder they lost office and will stay out of office; they do not understand.
  Let me explain why the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is down among the worst of those policies, with the poll tax and the Child Support Agency. It had as its centrepiece the plan that those who claimed asylum in the United Kingdom—at Dover, Heathrow, or any of our other ports and airports—would continue to be entitled to claim social security cash benefits, whereas the other half of asylum seekers, who applied in-country, would receive nothing.
  We asked at the time what would happen to those people and where they would go, who would be responsible for them, and who would pick up the tab. We kept asking those questions, but we never got a proper answer. The answer, as the constituents of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, and the people of Kent and many London boroughs know to their cost, was that the overwhelming burden of supporting those in-country applicants was transferred to the people and councils of London and Kent. They had not voted for it, nor had they asked for it. It was a present from the Conservative Government.
  Like so much else under the previous Administration, the burden was not imposed as a consequence of any clearly thought-out policy but in the absence of one. The simple truth is that we were left, as David Mellor so generously admitted, with an asylum system in disarray. It is racked with delays, encourages abuse and evasion, and fails the taxpayer and the genuine refugee alike.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1996–97, as a direct consequence of the Conservative legislation, Kent county council incurred costs of £2 million? When it made representations to Kent Members of Parliament, it was told to clear off. They did not lift a finger to help, which is in complete contrast to the assistance that my right hon. Friend has given under the current Administration.
  Mr. Straw: I am, of course, aware of the situation my hon. Friend has described and I pay tribute to the local authorities in Kent, of whatever political persuasion, and their staff for their bearing of that huge burden. However, the responsibility for that burden rests wholly and exclusively on the shoulders of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues, who imposed that burden on local authorities.
  Mr. Charles Wardle: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I have mixed feelings about the 1996 legislation, as I have said before in the House. However, should not he tell the House that in-country applicants for asylum are mostly people who have arrived here as visitors and overstayed? When they had their first conversation at the port of entry with the immigration officer, they made it clear that they had the funds to finance their visit. Therefore, they are in a different category.
  Mr. Straw: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comment, but that is why I hope that he shares my astonishment that amendment No. 118 tabled

  829
  in the other place by the Opposition—I recommend that he read the amendment because the effect it would have is plain—would restore cash benefits for asylum seekers to those from whom we propose to remove them from 1 April next year, the day on which the new system of support is due to come into force, and would also restore cash benefits to all the in-country applicants the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That is the most astonishing position for the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her right hon. and hon. Friends to take. She has even described amendment No. 118 as sensible.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has also said that amendment No. 118 was tabled to ensure that we honour a commitment not to implement the new system of asylum support until the limits of two months for initial applicants and four months for appeals had been brought into force. However, if she were to read our White Paper, she would see that it made it clear that there was no link whatever between those two proposals. The two plus four system will come into force from April 2001, and we made clear our determination to bring the new asylum support system into force in April 2000.
  I have had many conversations with the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) about the asylum and immigration system, but I can tell him that the proposals in amendment No. 118 to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers for at least a year—which his Front-Bench colleagues support and apparently intend to whip every Conservative Member into the Lobby to support when the Bill returns to this Chamber—would cost £500 million and suck in thousands and thousands of opportunist economic migrants. I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald explains her position to her constituents and the other people of Kent.
  The Conservatives have raised only two issues with any seriousness on the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I have just dealt with their proposals to restore the payment of £500 million to abusive in-country asylum seekers. What was the second? In all the hours and hours of debate on the Bill, what constructive proposals were made by Conservative Members? Did they say that they were going to reinstate the white list? No, they never discussed it. Did they say that they were going to overturn our removal of the primary purpose rule? No, and when they had the opportunity to vote against in June 1997, they did not take it—they allowed it through without a Division or discussion. Did they propose other ways in which they could tighten control? No.
  What makes what the Conservatives are now saying totally hollow is that, of all the issues that they could have selected in Standing Committee, the only one that they chose was to try to undermine the civil penalties on rogue lorry drivers shipping in clandestine immigrants. If the right hon. Lady wants to intervene now, she had better explain why she so pathetically failed to make any proposals to improve immigration controls. The two proposals that she made would undermine those controls.
  Miss Widdecombe: I did not do so because we had instituted a system that resulted in a 40 per cent. fall. Therefore, we had done what was necessary. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to unpick it and we were opposing that unpicking. Yes, we opposed the fining of
  830
  lorry drivers who find clandestine entrants in their loads and report it to the police. They deserve to be commended, not fined.
  Mr. Straw: If they are complicit in having clandestine entrants in the backs of their lorries, they deserve not to be commended, but to be fined. That is exactly what we are proposing. As for the numbers, the previous Administration had to make two attempts at improving immigration control in one Parliament, so the right hon. Lady knows that the numbers of asylum applications rise and fall for reasons that have nothing to do with circumstances in this country.
  There are pull factors and I fully accept that—that is why we are going to overturn the restoration of social security cash benefits to in-country applicants. The right hon. Lady is claiming clairvoyance among her many attributes if she is saying that it was possible to foresee the conflict in the former Republic of Yugoslavia in the past two years.
  Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  The third issue raised by the right hon. Lady is that of Mitrokhin and spies. It was dealt with in great detail in my statement to the House last Thursday. I also gave a full written statement on 13 September, following revelations in the media in the wake of the publication of the Mitrokhin archive. I do not intend to repeat all that I said this time last week, beyond answering the points raised by the right hon. Lady in her speech.
  On the back of newspaper stories that were published in early September, the right hon. Lady appeared on the "Today" programme to issue her instant response to the revelations, saying:
  "If there are more traitors like this one"—
  referring to Mrs. Melita Norwood—
  "living freely without being prosecuted then we should be told. Parliament should be told all of the names and the reasons why they were not brought to justice unless there are clear security reasons not to do so."
  I ask my hon. Friends to weigh the right hon. Lady's words. The reason that she gave for not denouncing people without trial or conviction was not the rule of natural justice or the rule of law in this country, but simply whether there were "security reasons" for not doing so. Today, she asked why I did not inform Parliament when I was first told of the plans to publish the Mitrokhin archive. As I said, I was told that in December 1998.
  The right hon. Lady's implication is that I should have informed Parliament of the plan to publish the book, which was not my responsibility—as she well knows, the decision to publish in that way was initiated by her former right hon. and learned Friend Sir Malcolm Rifkind, then the Foreign Secretary, and it was endorsed by the present Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister. Alternatively, I can only assume that she was asking me to publicise the fact that the Security Service was considering whether to recommend Mrs. Norwood for prosecution, as I was told in December last year.
  I ask right hon. and hon. Members to consider the implications of what the right hon. Lady was inviting me to do. Before the Security Service had decided whether

  831
  someone should be prosecuted, still less before the Attorney-General and the prosecutors could decide, she was inviting me to announce that consideration of prosecution was in train. That would have amounted to the grossest interference by the Secretary of State in the prosecution process, and would have been wholly improper. I am astonished that the right hon. Lady, who dug herself a pit by proposing that we should support trial by denunciation, should keep on digging.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, as these are important issues. He now appears to be presenting a picture that is slightly different from the one presented in earlier statements. He may want to clarify what he has just said, but my understanding is that the decision not to prosecute was made in 1992. That is what he has told us hitherto—that that decision had been taken before he was told about the matter in 1998.
  Again according to what the Home Secretary said, I understand that the decision to review whether there was a case for prosecution was taken after publicity had been given to the matter, and after a taped confession was broadcast in the press and media. That meant that we then had an admission by Mrs. Norwood that could be added to the former evidence, which did not include that admission. Is the Home Secretary saying that he knew in 1998 that there was such an admission by Mrs. Norwood?
  Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
  Miss Widdecombe: The picture is very confused. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but he has contradicted what he said before.
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: She has lost it.
  Miss Widdecombe: I think that it is the Home Secretary who has lost it.
  Mr. Mackinlay: The right hon. Lady is talking about when Malcolm Rifkind was in charge. He ain't on my side.
  Mr. Straw: What I am saying is exactly the same as what I said in the Home Office statement that I issued on 13 September. The right hon. Lady prides herself that she is properly briefed, so I suggest that she read that statement, as it makes matters clear. In that statement, I said that I had been told for the first time about the plans to publish the Mitrokhin archive in December 1998. I also stated that I was told at that time that the Security Service was considering whether Mrs. Norwood should be recommended for prosecution.
  In that statement, I also said that I was told earlier this year that the matter had been referred to the Attorney-General. I said that I was told that the Attorney-General had decided that there was no decision on prosecution for him to take, as he considered that the last date on which it would have been possible to make a proper decision was in 1992–93—when the Security Service decided not to put the relevant papers to the Attorney-General so that he could consider prosecution.
  I repeated all that five days ago. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald knows very well, I also made it clear five days ago that the papers are now
  832
  back with the Law Officers, as a result of the admission apparently made by Mrs. Norwood in the BBC programme. The right hon. Lady has failed again today to justify her appalling statement in mid-September, just as she failed last week. In that statement, she asked that I should denounce people who had been the subject of neither trial nor conviction.
  Vasili Mitrokhin worked for the KGB for more than 30 years, but he was disgusted by what he witnessed. He came to the United Kingdom because he thought that this country was different—that it was based on democracy and the rule of law. It would be a cruel irony indeed if this country were ever to slip into the sort of practices now proposed by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald—practices that Mr. Mitrokhin worked so assiduously to expose.
  I turn now to the matter of CND. I am appalled that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has resorted to simple, straightforward smears of that organisation. We became all too used to such smears when the Conservative party was in government. Conservative Members had an appalling record in previous years, but I thought that they had learned something at least about the need to raise the standards of debate in public life.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but it will be for the last time.
  Dr. Lewis: It has now been revealed beyond all doubt that the Stasi penetrated CND. Will the Home Secretary therefore take this opportunity to confirm that it is legitimate for a security service in a democracy to monitor penetration of so-called peace movements by communist, fascist or other agencies or movements that are allied to any dictatorship with which that service is confronted? Will he say once and for all whether MI5 was right or wrong to monitor communist infiltration of the so-called peace movement in the 1980s? Does he recognise that that penetration was exposed not by Mitrokhin, but in the files of the Stasi, with a quality of information that led to successful prosecutions in Germany and the United States of America? Why is nothing being done about the matter here?
  Mr. Straw: The position regarding the Security Service and subversion is set out in "MI5: The Security Service", a perfectly public booklet. It is currently in its third edition, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has read the second and first editions as well as the third. It states:
  "It has often been alleged that in the past the Service systematically investigated trade unions and various pressure groups such as the National Union of Mineworkers and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament."
  It goes on to say that that allegation was not true. It adds:
  "To fulfil its function of protecting national security, the Service therefore investigated individual members of bona fide organisations when there were grounds to believe that their actions were intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means."
  If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I sign up to that proposition without knowing anything of what happened under the previous Administration, I do sign up to it. I hope that that helps him.

  833
  I was referring to the fact that the Conservative party is in Opposition now. I spent 18 years in Opposition, 17 of them on the Opposition Front Bench. I commend that period to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues. I guess that I know more than most about what is required of a shadow Minister. To make a name in Opposition, one must be ever ready to give a comment or instant quotation. I commend the right hon. Lady for being the most accessible member of the shadow Cabinet. She is ever available to the press with a string of adjectives about the Government's latest iniquity, no matter what the issue may be. There is no question of her going ex-directory.
  Just in case the right hon. Lady's phone is engaged when reporters call, however, they can visit her very own website. It is called—and this is absolutely true—the "Widdy Web". When I was told that, I thought that it was a spoof. I thought that Millbank was up to something that I would never have approved, or that some rogue member of the Security Service was doing some private enterprise. So I had the site checked out, and it is entirely authentic, accurate and authorised.
  We have no screen on the Front Bench, so I can offer hon. Members only a preview of the site. On page 1, it offers photographs of Ann at conference, Ann at a fringe meeting, Ann after the fringe meeting, Ann during her speech, the conclusion of Ann's speech and Ann signing copies of her new book. It goes on. Indeed, it goes on and on and on.
  In her eagerness to please the press, the right hon. Lady forgets the No. 1 rule of rapid response—think before you speak. I have three examples of where she has forgotten that rule. First, just two weeks ago, she described British plans to allow thousands of refugees across Europe to settle in the United Kingdom as "serious" and "perverse". It was indeed a dreadful idea. The only problem was that there are, there were, there never have been any such plans.
  Then, she was at it again last Wednesday in The Independent, criticising what she thought were Government plans to allow remand prisoners the vote. Well, it was a terrible idea. The only problem with the proposal and with her criticism is that the proposal to allow remand prisoners the vote was backed fully by the Conservative party and its representatives on the all-party working party on electoral procedures. They signed up to the proposal.
  Then—this is dear to my heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker—last Friday, she even popped up as the champion of freedom of information. She criticised me—the champion of freedom of information, as everyone knows—for flawed plans. Yet that is the same Conservative party of BSE and arms to Iraq; the Conservative party which at the last election said that there was
  "no need for a Freedom of Information Act",
  which it said was of interest only—I have warmed to this idea, by the way—to
  "inquisitive, left-wing busy-bodies"—[Interruption.]
  In opposition, one can only, sadly, be judged by what one says. In government, we are rightly judged both by what we say and by what we do. It is an eternal verity of government—but especially of life in the Home Office—
  834
  that, to say the least, not everything works out as intended all the time. It has not under this Government and it did not under the previous one. I am always ready to take advice, but the last person from whom I intend to take advice—
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Straw: I am coming to the end of my remarks, so I will not give way. I take advice about taxis from the hon. Gentleman, but not about anything else.
  The last person from whom I intend to take advice about the conduct of my office is the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, whose record as a Home Office Minister was—I put this delicately—scarcely written up as distinguished. It is as if she and her colleagues at central office now want to airbrush out of history her record and that of the last Conservative Government. It is no wonder that a former Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer said on television last night of the Conservative party:
  "it is a party beyond hope".
  By contrast with the Conservative party, this new Labour Government deliver on their promises. [Laughter.] Oh yes. We are on track to deliver our pledge to speed up youth justice. Recorded crime is down. There is new money for the police and we are giving increased powers to them. We are introducing overdue reforms to make our immigration system fairer, faster and firmer. That is the difference between new Labour and a very old, marginalised and divided Conservative party. While they shout, we deliver. I commend the amendment.
  5.4 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We as a party and I personally welcome this debate on home affairs early after the summer recess. I welcome the opportunity that has been given us by the Conservative Opposition to take stock on the eve of the two-and-a-half year anniversary of Labour's taking over the Administration. My hon. Friends and I have tabled an amendment.
  Whatever debates we may have, and we shall have many about police numbers, immigration and asylum, prisons and the rest, we have sought to flag up in our amendment the fact that the Home Secretary as custodian of these matters and the Government of whom he is a member have one overriding duty, which is to balance the obligation to sustain a society of good law and order with the defence and support at all stages of the liberties of the individual. Whether one is talking about prisoners or asylum seekers, the civil liberties of all people on these shores are important. My first point relates to this; it is not included specifically in the motion, but the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) alluded to it.
  Last week, in the view of many hon. Members and many of our constituents, the way in which the perfectly proper law and order duty of the police was fulfilled in relation to the state visit of the President of China trespassed on the wrong side of the line of defending people's civil liberties—wherever the instructions came from, if there were any, and wherever the discussions took place, because we know that there were some. It is wholly understandable and acceptable that people should be prevented from scaling barriers, running in front of state

  835
  carriages and so on. However, it is not acceptable that people should not be allowed to stand, to shout and hold flags along the route of, and in sight of, a visiting Head of State.
  It is not the job of the Home Office, nor of any police officer, to spare the Labour Government or other Governments embarrassment. It is their job to ensure that law and order are protected, but that people of all views can express their views. It was sad for many of us, who remember with vivid accuracy those horrible pictures of the events in Tiananmen square, that there are now on file pictures showing what looks like a repression of civil liberties in this country, which is meant to be the mother of democracies.
  Whatever I do as the successor to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in the post of Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, I shall, above all, try to ensure that the civil liberties of all our peoples are upheld, and shall hold the Government to account in that regard.
  The Tory Government were not a model Administration in their tenure of the Home Office. Under the Tories, police numbers were not a great success. Asylum and immigration policy was not one of their golden successes. Accountability for the Prison Service was not a glorious moment in the career of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The Tories did not flag up as one of their great triumphs their record of compliance with the European convention on human rights. Given the number of Tory failings, there is something unlikely in the attack being made today from their Benches.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): That is a bit of an understatement.
  Mr. Hughes: I am trying to be gentle at the beginning of my remarks.
  One of the biggest failings related to the subject on which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald chose to attack the Government first—police numbers. In 1992, it was neither the Liberal Democrats nor Labour who said that there would be 1,000 more police officers, yet, in the following year, there were fewer officers. In 1995, it was neither our party nor the Labour party, which pledged—in the words of the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—5,000 more police officers, yet by the end of the Tory Administration, there were fewer officers.
  The truth is that, during the Tory Administration of 1992 to 1997, as the promises went up, police numbers went down. [Interruption.] The Conservatives deny that, but it is a fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not."] Whatever figures one takes between 1992 and 1997, although there are disputes as to the figures—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Happily, today, some figures were produced for the Select Committee, although they go back only three years. Under the most common figures, between 1992 and 1997, neither pledge—of 5,000 or of 1,000 more officers—was fulfilled. At most, there were about 100 more officers. That was not what the electorate were told; the Tory party did not deliver.
  Miss Widdecombe: According to those figures, is it not true that we left 16,000 more police officers than we inherited, and, that during the last five years of our
  836
  Government, the number of constables—actual policemen on the beat—rose by more than 2,000? Will the hon. Gentleman admit that?
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady is right to say that, when the Tories left office in 1997, the number of police officers in England and Wales was considerably higher than when they took office in 1979; they had had 18 years in office, so we should hope that the numbers were up. It is also true that, at the end of that period, there was an increase in the number of constables, for which people had argued. I am trying to make the point that, if the right hon. Lady sets out to attack the Labour Government for failing to honour their promises—which I too am perfectly happy to do—she should remember that her Government also failed to honour their promises on police numbers.
  I remember the 1997 debate in this place when the then Government spokesman, who is now First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, complained that, while capital investment and council tax had increased, police numbers had decreased. Within a week or two, the Labour party had promised in its manifesto to provide more officers on the beat. I recall that the theme music for the Labour election campaign was "Things can only get better". Yet we are having this debate today because, disappointingly, many things in the Home Office appear to have got worse.
  The past two and a half years of Labour Government have not been an unmitigated success. The Home Secretary pleaded guilty to things not always going as he expected, but even he could not have predicted the catalogue of mistakes and/or disasters that that two and a half years have brought. Resources may have been won for the police, but there are no extra officers on the beat. I do not recall the Home Office's management of the evidence before the Lawrence inquiry as being a particularly golden moment, and it is a tragedy that the matter was not handled better.
  According to Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons, prison conditions are not improving generally and prison overcrowding is not lessening. Asylum and immigration applications—and I deal with as many as any other hon. Member—are being dealt with less and less effectively despite the good work of many civil servants. People seeking passport applications had a summer to remember and, as the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, legislation on terrorism had to be amended, and the prosecution processes for spies are clearly not working.
  I have one comment for the Home Secretary about the events of the past month. We could take issue with the words that he used to describe the number of new police recruits and with the misinformation—or misapprehension—in his conference speech that was not corrected. The Home Secretary said at the end of September that there would be a baseline figure of 11,000 recruits. He then revealed last Thursday in an answer to me that that 11,000 baseline figure was subject to revision and announced this morning that it will be 15,000. That suggests, if not malice or ill will, at least an inadequate degree of competence—which is not what the public expect of the Home Office.
  I am the chairman of governors at a primary school in my constituency where five, six and seven-year-old pupils must attend numeracy hours. I think we should send the

  837
  Secretary of State for Education and Employment down the road to the Home Office; perhaps Treasury officers should also attend in order to help add up the figures. The Government's record on statistics is not a proud one.
  I have some specific questions for the Home Secretary about his speech and what he said this morning on police numbers and funding. I am grateful for the Home Secretary's answer to me about police numbers. I understand what happened under the 1994 legislation: it is not for him to determine the number of officers in each force. The right hon. Gentleman has said for the past five years—and certainly for the past two and a half years while in government—that it is not the Government's responsibility when police numbers decline. So his announcement at the Labour party conference of an increase in police numbers was a bit rich. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways: either he can acquire more money, ring-fence it and provide more police recruits—or he cannot. I understand the difference. However, refusing to take responsibility when police numbers decline and then claiming the glory when they increase is not consistent politics.
  The Home Secretary did not answer my specific question to which the public require an answer. I asked whether there will be more police officers at the end of this Administration than at its beginning. Is that the Government's objective and commitment? Is that their pledge? The Home Secretary said that, over the next three years, he expects and hopes that police numbers will not decrease. I repeat: will there be more or fewer police officers at the end of this Labour Administration? That is a simple question to which I hope we will receive a simple answer—the Minister may reply in his winding-up speech.
  My second question is important. Even though I was not previously doing this job for our party, I listened to the debates, which often concerned not police officers in general, but constables. The public do not want to discuss senior or administrative officers, but they often ask, "Will there be more officers on the beat?" That was the Labour manifesto pledge, so will there be more constables at the end of this Administration's term of office than there were at the beginning?
  My third question is about money. In his Bournemouth speech, the Home Secretary made the announcement, which I welcome, that there would be extra money—a crime reduction fund—and a kick-start cash injection for it of £35 million. How much will that fund receive in total over the next three years? If it costs £25,000 to recruit a police officer—it does, according to a parliamentary answer from the right hon. Gentleman to one of my colleagues last year—by our calculation £35 million for each of the three years will not buy 5,000 extra recruits. The figures do not add up.
  If the Home Secretary says that that is correct, that will be helpful, but in that case the figures will not make sense to us, unless all the crime reduction fund is to be ring-fenced for recruits and will increase in future years in real terms to pay for the extra 5,000 recruits. Perhaps the Minister will give us the answer. If there are to be the 5,000 extra recruits for which forces around the country have asked, which is the plan of the Government, and if
  838
  those forces are to be given £35 million in the first year, they will need considerably more in the following two years.
  The crime reduction fund was not signalled as being entirely dedicated to extra recruits, and in his Bournemouth speech the Home Secretary specifically referred to the other claims to be made on it. One was the DNA database, price tag £34 million; the second was the new police radio station, price tag £50 million. Is it correct, therefore, that there is extra money—the crime-fighting fund—above the comprehensive spending review money and the £400 million made available through the crime reduction programme, not only for police recruitment over three years aiming at 5,000 recruits, but for DNA testing and the new police radio station? It would be helpful to have clarification of that.
  Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman's questions to the Home Secretary, but I hope that he will not exclude consideration of the important category of special constable. Given that there was a fall in their numbers of almost 10 per cent. between March 1998 and March 1999, will he ask the Home Secretary his intentions in that matter? If we listen intently—with beads of sweat on our brow and bated breath—he may tell us the position of the Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Hughes: Let me deal with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I have always been a strong supporter of special constables and, as a London Member of Parliament, I have consistently lobbied both the Home Secretary, as the police authority for London, and successive Conservative Home Secretaries for more special constables. London has had a lower rate than almost any other force in the country, but I believe that special constables play an important role and it is our view that there ought to be more of them in each area of the country. I can simply pass on the hon. Gentleman's question to the Home Secretary, and I am happy to endorse it. We ask that an announcement be made on the level of support for special constables.
  Before I move off police matters, I have a final question on funding: does it come with strings attached? Various publications have suggested that, for the police to get the money from a fund to which they bid, they may be required not only to meet efficiency criteria, but to use certain of the equipment that the Home Office prefers. I have not yet had a chance to go round the country discussing the matter, as I have been in this job for only seven days, but I understand that many police forces are not keen on the equipment and certainly do not want their expenditure to be tied to its use.
  One other policing matter has exercised my colleagues and me over the years. As the Home Secretary knows, one of the biggest expenses for the police budget and the budgets of other emergency services is pensions. That is because, unlike most people in society, people in those services cannot be expected to retire at the age of 60 or 65. Will the Home Secretary at least consider consulting his ministerial colleagues in other Departments on whether the pensions commitments for the emergency services could be taken out of the normal budget allocation? I know that there are implications, but if this Administration could get that sorted it would be a great relief to the police and fire authorities around the country, because their increasing pensions burden has a severe effect on other resources.

  839
  I am conscious that asylum and other immigration matters will be discussed by the House in a few days when Lords amendments come back to this place, but I will say a word or two now. I hope that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald does not believe that the number of people who come to this country as asylum seekers or immigrants is more determined by the policy of the Government of the day than by events abroad. The large number of people who have come to my constituency from Kosovo or the Horn of Africa have come not because they assessed which was the best place in the world to come, but because European Union countries are expected to be sympathetic to people from countries suffering from poverty and civil war, many of whom have been persecuted or raped and have lost family, friends and homes. That is more likely to determine the numbers.
  Of course, there are bogus asylum seekers, but a significant minority of those who apply are accepted on their first application, and a significant number of those whose application is turned down win on appeal. If we ever lose people's right to put their case in an appeal, we shall be in trouble. When will we have the resources, the people and the commitment to catch up and process the cases that are stacking up day after day?
  This very morning, my constituency office had a phone call from a solicitor representing a young Kosovan refugee. He was told that the young man must go from his bed and breakfast in south London to Birmingham to collect his papers, because if they were sent to Croydon they would be lost in the post for six months. The refugee then asked whether he would be paid, because he has no money to go to Birmingham, but there was no guarantee of that. The system makes no sense. Asylum seekers and immigrants, whether they are accepted or not, have civil liberties; and we have a duty to ensure that the people who work hard in our immigration and nationality department have a system that works and ensures that justice is done and is seen to be done.
  May I say a word about spies? I share the Home Secretary's view on the subject of the specific debate. I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, my right hon. and hon. Friends or I are in a position to decide, let alone pronounce, who should be prosecuted for spying against this country.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No.
  We need a process in which Security Service officers do not decide either. They should advise, there should be independent adjudication that is free of them and of Ministers and, ultimately, the Home Secretary should decide.
  This Government were elected to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, a phrase that may come back to haunt them. Their policy is often as much about talking tough on crime and the causes of crime as about delivering.
  I hope that the second half of this Administration will be caricatured as much by—characterised as much by—
  Mr. Mackinlay: Both.
  Mr. Hughes: Indeed, both. I hope that it will be characterised by being tough on incompetence and tough
  840
  on the causes of incompetence. The Home Office has a greater reputation for incompetence than any other Department. As I said a couple of weeks ago when asked to comment on the famous Bournemouth speech, if we cannot trust the Home Secretary or his press releases to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, Home Office Ministers cannot expect the rest of the country to behave differently. If we cannot have confidence in the Home Office to ensure people's civil liberties and to provide the best public services on law and order, we cannot have confidence in the Government.
  I do not think that people have confidence in the Home Office at the moment. Much in the administration of the Home Office is seriously rotten. Our job is co-operatively, constructively and, when necessary, aggressively to hold the Government to account, so that in their second two and a half years—or in as many months as they still have to go—things will get better, instead of promises of improvement followed by things actually getting worse.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Madam Speaker has put a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches from Back Benchers. That applies from now on.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: In view of what you have just said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not give way during my speech.
  I am surprised that the Opposition have drawn the House's attention to the stewardship of cold war spies and the Mitrokhin archive, bearing in mind the fact that this matter relates mostly to their period in office. I regret that I was unable to be in the House last Thursday when the Home Secretary made a statement about the Mitrokhin archive. I was in Russia on parliamentary business, and watched his speech from my hotel bedroom. I was frustrated for two reasons. I have taken a great interest in this matter over the summer, and have corresponded with the Home Secretary.
  First, my constituent, Michael John Smith, was imprisoned for 20 years for selling secrets to the Soviet Union. He claims that there was a miscarriage of justice and entrapment by the security services. He was convicted in part on the evidence of defectors. I have no way of knowing whether he was guilty or innocent, and I shall not detain the House on that: I shall try to probe some of the issues raised by his case in an Adjournment debate. However, it is interesting that if the existence of the Mitrokhin archive had been known to his defence counsel at his trial in 1993 and his appeal in 1995, it might have been relevant to the preparation of his case, especially as he is mentioned several times in Professor Christopher Andrew's book about the Mitrokhin archive. I want to flag up my concern about that.
  My second interest in this matter is a parliamentary one. Parliament does not oversee the security services. The Intelligence and Security Committee is a fine body of hon. Members, but it is not a parliamentary committee. That is an important point: it is not a nuance or a minor detail.
  This whole business has again raised the issue of the need for good freedom of information legislation. As much as I welcome the legislation to be introduced by the Government—it is 300 per cent. better than nothing—it is still inadequate. More importantly—this should interest

  841
  every hon. Member—it is amazing that it is appropriate for Malcolm Rifkind to hand over papers to Professor Christopher Andrew, but not to make them available to Members of Parliament. How can that be justified? I certainly think that those papers should be in the wider public domain.
  I probed the Home Secretary about this matter in correspondence. I asked him why Professor Christopher Andrew has those papers if they are secret. If they are not secret, why cannot we see them? I pressed him on the security classification of the papers. He said that there were of great sensitivity. I replied that I am not aware of the security classification of "great sensitivity." If there is such a classification, we should be told about it. If not, what is the security classification of those papers?
  I have still not had a response to that question, so perhaps the Minister can give me one. We should not be glibly told that we cannot see those papers: some justification should be given. I understand that there are categories of security classification, but the Home Secretary has failed to tell us what category the papers are in.
  The Home Secretary sent me a letter on 15 October, not answering that question but stating:
  "Mr. Mitrokhin came to believe that the covert activities of the KGB should be made public. In 1992, he approached the UK for help in bringing out and publishing his notes."
  That is something of an understatement. I have no way of assessing the courage of Mr. Mitrokhin or other defectors, and I do not want to go into that today. I am not qualified to judge. The Home Secretary has said that they were very courageous, and they probably were. In any case, we all have different views on defectors. However, it should not be suggested that Mr. Mitrokhin put up his hand and said, "I should like to publish my notes." Mr. Mitrokhin came here because he had to get out: things were getting a bit hot for him. That should also be borne in mind in relation to Oleg Gordievsky, who also published some papers.
  Let me repeat that I am not judging those people's courage; nevertheless, they had a vested interest. They were making an appeal to the security services here, and there were rich possibilities. I think that there was a propensity to exaggerate, especially when there was the possibility of a financial return on the publication of their books. We must tread cautiously when examining the contents of the documents. We must consider what the motives for defection were, and what has been published by those people or on their behalf.
  In his letter to me, the Home Secretary said, in effect, "Awfully sorry, Mackinlay, but the ownership of the archive is not with me, but with Mitrokhin." He also said that he had taken legal advice on ownership. I would like to be humble, but I do not accept that advice; and even if I am wrong, I believe that ownership should be with Her Majesty's Government. That takes us back to Malcolm Rifkind's stewardship of the matter. When a person is about to defect, a price is extracted. That person should be told, "What you bring with you in return for safe asylum"—and, no doubt, some remuneration for future life—"is our property." I find it ridiculous that it should now be suggested that the papers are Mitrokhin's property.
  Both Malcolm Rifkind and, to some degree, the present Government are ducking and diving. They are saying, "It is all right for Professor Christopher Andrew to have the
  842
  papers, but it is not all right for Members to have them." They will not tell us the secret classification of the archive. It is all wholly unsatisfactory, and to a large extent an affront to Parliament.
  I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to reply, but I tabled a parliamentary question asking whether comparable conditions had been placed on Gordievsky and Victor Oschenko when they defected, and in relation to the ownership of any material that they might have published. Was Malcolm Rifkind, or any other Conservative Home Secretary, so generous as to abdicate ownership of documents from those defectors on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? It is an important question.
  We know that Malcolm Rifkind imposed some conditions, one of which was wholly unsatisfactory, and was not fulfilled. The Home Secretary referred to it in the House last week, when he told us that Malcolm Rifkind had said that any publication of the papers must not traduce anyone who did not agree to reference being made to them or anyone who had not been convicted. That, however, did not safeguard the reputation of people who are deceased, and have been traduced in the press, with no right of reply, since these matters came to light.
  Malcolm Rifkind's stewardship of the matter was highly selective. It has damaged the reputation of men and women who cannot reply, and other names have been bandied about when there has been no satisfactory way of obtaining a remedy. Those who have been traduced, living or dead, have no access to the papers, just as we in the House have no access to them. It is time the facts were revealed, and time that a much fuller, comprehensive statement was made. I do not accept that this is a matter for the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is not part of the House of Commons.
  Who the heck is Professor Christopher Andrew? I know that he is a distinguished academic who does not just read books—he writes them—but why should he have a superior position over hon. Members and everyone else in the land? It is wholly unsatisfactory.
  Sir Malcolm Rifkind suggests that Professor Christopher Andrew was given the archives, so that he could make a proper historical analysis. That is bunkum. We will get a very partial and selective interpretation, so I hope that the Government will think about the matter again. I hope that they will consider the freedom of information point and generally reflect on the matter much further.
  Since I have taken an interest in the matter, I must tell the House that, for the first time, the lock on my house in Tilbury has been tampered with—it has been damaged—and my dustbin has been pinched. I am sure that it is a coincidence—but if anyone is looking for documents, they will be on the shelf in the living room, between the Edward VIII coronation mug and the Neil Kinnock general election victory mug of 1992.
  5.36 pm
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I hope that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will forgive me if I do not follow him and discuss that aspect of the motion.
  The background to the debate is clear. It started three years or so ago, when the Labour party, which was then in opposition, said that, if elected, it would be tough on

  843
  crime and on the causes of crime. That was never believable with old Labour and events are rapidly proving that it is not believable with new Labour either.
  The outcome of the argy-bargy over numbers between those on the Front Benches was clear. During our time in government, there were, on average, an extra 900 police officers a year. During the present Government's term in office, there has been a decrease of 500 a year.
  I was amazed by the Home Secretary. On 2 May 1997, he and many others were saying, "We are in government now. It is all going to be better. We are going to change and to modernise the country." The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) was right—that was what they said. They have been in government for two years and the Home Secretary stands there today and says, "It has nothing to do with me, guv. I was not even here." The Prime Minister knows that he is Home Secretary. The House knows that he is Home Secretary. I wonder when he will wake up to the fact that he is Home Secretary with powers to make changes for the common and national good, if he deems them necessary.
  Through the comprehensive spending review, we are experiencing the tightest squeeze on police spending in the past 10 years. The record thus far can be easily summed up. Police numbers are going down, while prisoners are being let out earlier than the courts said that they should be and without any court sanction.
  The Home Secretary's much vaunted anti-social behaviour orders are nowhere. Throughout the country, the orders were to be the answer and they are not even off the starting blocks. Labour-controlled Peterborough council tells me that it is worried about the European Court of Human Rights implications of the orders, so it may not take any action until the court has pronounced. The issue is being pushed into the long grass of the Parliament after the Parliament after the next one. Furthermore, I read that the Home Office is being told that crime will rise again next year.
  What is the Government's reaction to all that? Is it to do something? No, it is to talk. That was the background to the Home Secretary's highly disputed speech at his party conference. He promised an extra 5,000 police; he has rolled back from that today. I am not as gentle as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I think that that speech was deliberately designed to mislead. We happen to know that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury warned the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister that they should not go down that road. What was their reaction? They spent hours with special advisers to find a form of words that was technically correct, but designed to mislead. I do not charge the Home Secretary with deliberately using words that were a distortion of the truth. I accuse him of knowing what he was saying, and of working to create an impression. I believe that partly because, as we have learned in the past two years, the essence of new Labour is to say one thing, but to do another.
  Nevertheless, the police understood the situation. I could quote many police officers on it, but I shall quote only one. The chairman of the Metropolitan branch of the Police Federation said that the Home Secretary's speech was
  "a complete betrayal of the people and the police officers of this country".
  844
  As the Home Secretary will know, he was not alone in creating that impression, because the Prime Minister shared his view. However, that was a double-edged endorsement. It was given by a man who says that he loves the pound, but is preparing for a single currency; who says that he will fight Britain's corner in Europe, but hands over ever more control to Brussels; who said that he would not increase taxation if elected, but has so far added £50 billion to the tax bill; and who says that national health service waiting lists are decreasing when they are increasing. The support of that calibre of character simply underlines that the Government are happy to say anything that they need to say to persuade people, rather than to do what the people want them to do.
  The Home Secretary's policy is having predictable consequences. Rural crime, for example, has increased. As the Home Secretary said today, he spent 18 years in opposition. I had the good fortune of spending the first 18 years of my parliamentary career on the Government Benches. In the past two years, one of the things that I have learned about not being a Minister is that one is more likely to turn from the airy-fairy national discussion and concentrate on what is happening to those whom we represent: our constituents. I should therefore like to speak briefly about Cambridgeshire.
  Cambridgeshire has one of the smaller constabularies, which, for operational reasons, is divided into three divisions. I shall tell the Minister about only one of them. It has such a huge funding gap that 15 posts have been frozen. By the end of the financial year, 20 posts in that one division may be frozen. Even if the Home Secretary were telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, Cambridgeshire's share of new officers would not right the wrong of 60 or 70 frozen posts.
  Cambridgeshire police, in my safe constituency and county, face a bill of £900,000 for policing the millennium. Who will pay that bill, Minister? Will you pay it, or will more police posts have to be frozen, so that police officers cannot patrol the Ortons, Fletton and Peterborough, or Yaxley, Ramsey, Bluntisham and Sawtry in my constituency? Do you realise, Minister, that Government policy is adding—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is a long-standing hon. Member, and really should use the correct parliamentary language.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Minister realise that the Government are adding to the police service's load? Last weekend, for example, 32 asylum seekers—most of whom dropped off the back of lorries—entered the one police division that I have been describing. In one case, two officers spent seven hours with seven asylum seekers. That represented a loss of 14 hours policing. Cambridgeshire has no idea how much of officers' time is being spent dealing with such matters.
  If the asylum seekers have identity cards or means of identification and a name and address to go to, the police take the information and let them go, and that is the end of the immigration process. If they do not, the police spend hours with them, trying to identify them and where they are supposed to go to. They then give the asylum seekers a travel pass and a map of the way to Croydon. That is the asylum system that Ministers have defended to this House today.

  845
  Martin Slade of the Immigration Service Union has said:
  "The point of immigration control is to control immigration. We don't think they're controlling anything."
  Nick Hardwick of the Refugee Council has said:
  "The only crisis is in the Government's asylum system. They should concentrate on sorting out the shambles in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate."
  I want the House to understand that my constituents are suffering because of the incompetence and ineptitude of this Government and of Ministers. It is time for them to stop saying one thing and doing another, and to start doing what they were elected to do. Otherwise, that phrase—which I suspect I coined three years ago—will return to haunt them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I shall confine my remarks to the immigration and asylum part of the motion.
  The events in Kent throughout this summer will be familiar to many hon. Members from newspapers and from television, and the difficulties arising from thousands of people seeking asylum have caused considerable distress throughout the county.
  Kent and the ports play host to every conceivable nationality—indeed, they are welcomed. However, towns such as Dover and Ramsgate are not used to receiving such large influxes of people from foreign lands—whatever their reason for asylum and however barbaric their torture or persecution. Few would disagree that these people deserve our sympathy, our help and our tolerance. However, if we are to retain that tolerance when people seek sanctuary on our shores, it is vital that a proper structure is in place—a structure that does not place unfair burdens on particular communities, as has happened in Kent, and that quickly rejects those applications that are false.
  Parts of Dover and Thanet contain some of the poorest areas within Kent—its objective 2 status renewal is confirmation of that. It does not take a great deal of imagination to work out the consequences of large numbers of asylum seekers entering a community that is not familiar with them and that suffers also from high unemployment. It is an unhealthy blend, and requires careful handling.
  There are two tasks for those in positions of responsibility—to put in place a different structure to resolve the difficulties and the burdens that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has put upon Kent and other port areas, and to reimburse the local authorities—and the Government are carrying out both of them. In the meantime, before we can resolve the matters before us with legislation, those concerned should tread carefully indeed and avoid anything that causes unrest.
  Sadly, the temptation to gain publicity from this situation has proved too much for some of those in positions of responsibility. Instead of seeking solutions, they have sought the camera and fanned the flames of
  846
  unrest. We have seen the consequences of that on the "dross"—a word used by local newspapers. The editor of the Folkestone Herald was warned by Kent police that his editorial in October last year could incite racial violence. It is important for hon. Members to know what local papers have been carrying within Kent at a time of such sensitivity. That editorial last October said:
  "We want to wash dross down the drain.
  Illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, bootleggers and the scum-of-the-earth drug smugglers have targeted our beloved coastline. We are left with the back-draft of a nation's human sewage and no cash to wash it down the drain."
  Those are the views of the local newspaper editor. Hon. Members will understand the atmosphere that has been created in the towns of Dover, Folkestone and Thanet, and throughout Kent.
  The most outrageous aspect of the situation is that some of those scoring points are from the party that brought us the dreadful Immigration and Asylum Act 1996, which forced people to stay in their port of entry and put the costs on the local council. I worked for Kent social services while the legislation was going through the House. The problems have been brewing for years. To deny that events in Europe and the rest of the world had an effect on the number of people coming into this country is to deny reality.
  It is worth noting that, when Kent county council asked for help in 1996–97 because it was incurring a £2 million debt as a direct consequence of the legislation, it was told to stop whingeing and go away. No help was forthcoming from the Kent Conservative Members of Parliament. Why? Because Kent county council was run by a Labour-Liberal administration.
  The world has changed now. We have a Conservative administration in Kent and a Labour Home Secretary. Suddenly, Tory Members of Parliament and the Tories on Kent county council have seen the consequences of the disastrous legislation. It is not quite so marvellous after all. I am pleased to say that, in contrast to the Conservative Government, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his team have not ignored the difficulties. Unlike the Tories, they have not said "Go away, it's not a problem." They have met many of the costs. Instead of ignoring the issue, they have delivered a one-off payment of £670,000 to Kent police. The chairman of the Kent police authority described the granting of 42 extra police officers as generous.
  We are also getting more immigration officers, and the £12 million costs of that were reimbursed to Kent county council. There is a continuing commitment to consider reimbursing the Ashford reception centre and the costs of unaccompanied minors, as well as bringing forward the dispersal programme early before the new legislation comes into force. The Kent Tory administration and Kent Members of Parliament have got what they wanted. The Tories have also got what they wanted: they have been able to play the issue in the media.
  Mr. Allan: We are considering the issues of dispersal in other parts of the country, such as Sheffield, where we may be asked to receive people. We have two primary concerns. The first is that we shall need extra support like that given to Kent, which the hon. Gentleman has described, if we are not to suffer community relations problems. The second is the comments that he has referred

  847
  to, which give the impression that other parts of the country are being asked to take incredibly difficult and dangerous people who are no longer wanted in Dover and Kent. It is counterproductive for people to make such negative comments.
  Mr. Shaw: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I have said before, the dispersal programme is right, but it needs to be carefully managed. It is important that the Home Office works closely with local authorities to ensure that it is successful. It is the right policy. The burden should not fall only on particular communities.
  The Tories in Kent know a good excuse when they see one. Despite the best social services budget in years, with a 6 per cent. increase on the standard spending assessment, they are blaming the cost of dealing with asylum seekers for their decision to put up the cost of old people's meals on wheels. What a cynical attempt to use a problem that they created to cause fear among elderly people. That increase in cost comes to £18,000. At the same time, they are spending £5 million on new computers and a new call centre. We can see where their priorities lie.
  I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the listening ear that he has provided. However, the Government are about more than just listening; they have provided real resources. I have lived in Kent all my life, but never before have I witnessed such scenes of intolerance and violence as I saw in the ports and elsewhere last summer, and I hope that I never see them again. It is our responsibility to do everything that we can to handle the delicate situation. In a letter to the Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who was then responsible for immigration, the Tory leader of Kent county council said that there was a tinderbox atmosphere in the port towns. I agreed with him but, sadly, he felt the need to release the letter to the press. A couple of weeks later, there were attacks in Dover. He added to the problems rather than seeking solutions.
  The performance of the Tories in dealing with the matter has been a disgrace. They passed the 1996 Act and put the burdens on Kent and now they are blaming the Government. We welcome the additional resources and we look forward to the new legislation to lift the burden on areas of Kent.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and I have spoken together about Kent from time to time. We were both brought up in the county, although in different eras, I suspect. I hope that he will bear it in mind that, when there is uncontrolled immigration, the first people who suffer tension and prejudice are not those such as he or I, living in relatively leafy towns and suburbs, but British born and bred ethnic minorities.
  This short debate covers a wide range of Home Office responsibilities, which have in common the indelible mark of the Government's failure to fulfil their promises to the electorate, their failure to make their policies work and their failure to sustain the services and standards that they criticised so stridently when they were in opposition.
  The fall in police numbers and the slump in police morale this year and last year vividly illustrate the deficit between Labour's pre-election boasts and its performance
  848
  in government. Large numbers of police officers are leaving the service and the pattern is the same throughout the country. The Police Federation has been unable to conceal its dismay at the undisguised hostility of the Macpherson report, the shortfall in promised funding, the betrayal of the Blakelock family, the manipulation of recruitment statistics and the creeping disease of political correctness that hampers authority. No wonder that crime is rising under a Government insensitive to victims, muddled about practical crime prevention measures and slow to act on the causes of crime.
  On asylum seekers, the Government are compounding a growing and acute problem. I do not doubt that the Home Office will continue to honour the Geneva convention and will try at the same time to use the fair but effective means at its disposal of ruling out the large number of applicants who do not have a well-founded fear of persecution, but the scale of the influx, genuine or bogus, will not diminish as migration from eastern to western Europe continues unchecked.
  The Government are compounding the problem in three ways. First, as I have said in the House before, the Home Office and the Treasury should recognise that the existence of a long asylum queue, with all the delays that that entails, is the biggest attraction for others to arrive here and join the queue. The several hundred million pounds that Ministers have spoken about will not resolve the problem. To massage numbers from the list by awarding exceptional leave to remain status and through other devices is not the answer. That did not happen in the first half of the previous Parliament, as one Minister wrongly claimed during the summer recess. To process the whole queue fairly but quickly would cost a great deal more in the short run but, once it was done, the repeated annual savings would be much larger than the once-and-for-all processing cost.
  Secondly, the no-doubt-genuine aspirations of the Government's new legislation will soon be undermined if the appeal procedures are not conducted as swiftly in practice as Ministers have claimed theoretically will be the case. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 had provisions for a seven-day determination of manifestly unfounded applications, but that foundered when the Lord Chancellor's Department refused to add enough extra adjudicators to process the appeals within the prescribed timetable. That failure by the Lord Chancellor's Department could have been remedied, but it was overlooked in the second half of the previous Parliament, and has—unwisely, in my view—been disregarded by the present Home Secretary.
  Thirdly, the European Union cross-pillar and comprehensive approach to asylum, to which the Government too readily subscribe, is turning attention away from a basic principle of the Geneva convention that, because of our island geography, is advantageous to the United Kingdom. The convention requires that asylum seekers must apply in the first safe country that they reach—so all the applicants who arrive in the United Kingdom via continental Europe should, by definition, be returned to whichever other convention country they first reached. Even if they have a well-founded fear of persecution, their cases are manifestly unfounded in the United Kingdom, because they should have been considered elsewhere. That is the way to respond fairly and properly to the convention.

  849
  Immigration control is similarly affected, as events in Tampere showed, by the European Commission's plans to absorb more third-pillar interior and justice policies within treaty competence. Rights of appeal to the European Court on immigration cases are the thin end of the wedge.
  A greater threat to the integrity of our controls comes from the Commission's desire that a standard format European visit visa, issued, say, by a Greek entry clearance officer, should have some legitimacy when presented to an immigration officer at a British port of entry.
  As Ministers know, I applauded the Government for having kept our border controls. However, the Commission will not rest until it has found other ways in which to envelop United Kingdom immigration controls within treaty competence. No one should doubt that, with EU enlargement, the already porous external frontiers will grow more porous still, as they extend into central and eastern Europe.
  Finally, there is the Government's handling of the revelations in the Mitrokhin archive. The most disturbing aspect of that bizarre episode is the fact that the Security Service took it upon itself to decide whether the material provided sufficient evidence to mount a prosecution with a realistic chance of success. Surely that was for Ministers, the Law Officers and the Crown Prosecution Service, not the unaccountable Security Service, to decide.
  In a recent letter to the Home Secretary, I said that I believed strongly in our constitutional monarchy and in a framework of authority that promotes the rule of law and safeguards genuine national interests, but that I abhorred the abuse of power. The Security Service is virtually immune from the law, and has no legal status, but it can break and enter, bug and tap telephones under the Royal Prerogative. It communicates as it pleases with a parliamentary Committee that cannot even report to Parliament, and that has to be content with arbitrary deletions from what it is told.
  It is astonishing that the Government, who are allegedly committed to freedom of information and human rights, should fail to impose accountability on the secret service for its high-handed decisions about how to deal with the Mitrokhin archive. In 1988, Sir John Donaldson, then Master of the Rolls, said:
  "It is silly for us to sit here and say that the security service is obliged to follow the letter of the law. It isn't real".
  That still applies today.
  Richard Tomlinson, who helped to bring the Mitrokhin files to the west, is pursued. David Shayler, who has had the temerity to criticise managerial inefficiency in the service, is hounded. However, spies whose persistent treachery has now been exposed by Mitrokhin were to be left alone without reference to the Law Officers or the Crown Prosecution Service.
  The mishandling of the Mitrokhin archive, and the Government's failure to hold the Security Service accountable, are yet another example of the Labour Government's inability to put their promises into practice.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Ian Cawsey: When I returned to the House following the summer recess, one of the first things I noticed was the splendid new green annunciator
  850
  screens that now hang half way across the Chamber on each side. I wondered what they were for, but now I know: they are large enough to cope with the titles of Opposition day motions. The subject of the debate was rather more succinctly expressed by Madam Speaker, who simply introduced it as "general Home Office matters".
  I realised that the Tories could not describe the subject in those words because if they said that the debate was about general Home Office matters, that would put the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), in a difficult position. Because of the actions of the Leader of the Opposition, she is not allowed to speak on all Home Office matters. Now I understand why our debates have such long titles, and why we need such large screens.
  I intend to speak only about police numbers, but first I must say briefly what a delight it is to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). I worked for a short time for a Member of the previous Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman was an immigration Minister. He was an extremely effective and good one, and we always thought that he was fair. All Members should take seriously the comments that he makes on such matters in the House—I am sure that they will.
  I want to speak about police numbers because I am one of the two Members—the other is a Liberal Democrat Member, whose constituency escapes me for the moment—who chaired police authorities before we entered the House.
  Mr. Allan: Somerton and Frome.
  Mr. Cawsey: Yes, I meant the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
  I chaired the Humberside police authority from 1993 to 1997, which was a key time in the history of police authorities. When I first became the chair, our authority was an integral part of local government. Then came the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and I was chair for the transitional period. The authority finally broke into full independence as the 1997 general election approached.
  Listening to some of the comments in the debate, it strikes me that although police authorities, local authorities and police services are well aware of the effect of the changes, and their impact on powers and responsibilities, despite the fact that the Act originated from this building the House seems full of Members who have no understanding, or little understanding, of what has changed. Perhaps they do not want to understand.
  I was not always a complete and utter fan of the 1994 Act when it was first drafted, but, due to many efforts in this House and in the other place, it turned out to be a fairly good and robust piece of legislation. For many years before it was enacted, I, and many other chairs of police authorities, had argued strongly that we wanted greater independence for police authorities and chief constables to decide establishments and police numbers for themselves, taking into account what they believed were the priorities for their areas, and the other things that they could spend money on, such as greater civilianisation, more training or more equipment. We were therefore pleased when the Act was passed. However, it had a knock-on effect, in that the ability of any Home Secretary—it does not matter any more of what political colour—to predict police numbers

  851
  is now not simply limited, but non-existent. Home Secretaries no longer have that power. It would be much better if we at least started from that point, and accepted that fact.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who now speaks for the Liberals on such matters, said that he did not think that the Home Secretary could have it both ways, by saying that he was not responsible when police authorities employed fewer officers, but that he was responsible when numbers went up. On the contrary, not only can my right hon. Friend have it both ways, that is the only way to explain the present position. He has no control over decisions that police authorities and chief constables make about their own establishments. If he wants to increase police numbers, all that he can do is to ring fence a sum of money and say, "I am willing to give you this money only if you spend it for that purpose." Whether we think that that is a good or a bad thing, that is the reality; that is the law.
  I believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that he hoped that we were not going to go back to the time when establishments were all centralised and decided in Westminster and Whitehall. That would be a retrograde step. For instance, in Humberside during my chairmanship we decided to buy a police helicopter. We covered a large rural area as well as the cities of Hull, Scunthorpe and Grimsby, and a helicopter would, in our opinion, be a good way of fighting crime and giving us fast access, especially to the rural parts of the county, in all kinds of circumstances. The helicopter has proved a great success, but let us not kid ourselves—it is extremely expensive to buy and run, and the money that we spend on it has had an impact on the number of officers that we can recruit.
  We acquired the helicopter as part of a deal offered by the previous Government, whereby half the cost would be paid if we made an application. That was a generous offer—we took it and we got our helicopter. However, by doing that and following the policies of the Government of the day, there was an impact on the number of officers that we could recruit.
  The idea that somehow the Home Secretary can be personally responsible for all such decisions is not credible, and it is not true. Furthermore, that would not even be desirable. Having funded the police authorities, we should allow them and their chief constables to write their own policing plans, set their priorities and decide for themselves how many officers, how many civilians, what equipment and what training would be right for their areas.
  Conservative Members have claimed that when they were in power there were more constables. That is true, because within the freedom and flexibility that police authorities now have they have taken a decision to push down the rank structure. There are now many fewer superintendents and more constables. That is right and proper, because more constables can perform more active duties on the beat.
  Civilianisation has also had an impact. Scenes of crime officers used to have to be police officers, but there is no reason why that should be the case, and many forces now have civilian scenes of crime officers and many other jobs have passed to civilians. In the end, whether the Government keep their promises of more officers on the
  852
  beat cannot be judged only by how many police officers there are—the issue is the rank of those officers, what they do and what infrastructure is provided around them.
  Special officers have been mentioned, and it is right to say that they make a tremendous addition to the resources of a local police force. However, I urge caution in judging how well a force is doing on the bare numbers. Specials are volunteers and they work the hours that they wish to work. In other words, a small number of special constables may make a bigger contribution to a police force because they are able to put in more hours. Therefore, I warn the House against some of the simplistic judgments that we have heard today.
  The shadow Home Secretary spoke about reversing the decline and said that however many police officers were left, she would return the numbers to what they were when we came to power. I have mentioned the impotence of Home Secretaries under the legislation, so that promise is not deliverable. Even if the Home Secretary wanted to increase recruitment by a certain amount, he has no control over the decisions that police authorities and chief constables make about replacing officers who leave. Unless that power is re-centralised, the promise is unachievable. It may be that the shadow Home Secretary intended to announce by the back door that she would re-centralise that power, but I hope not because that would be a retrograde step.
  Across the country, local authorities are dealing with community safety and crime reduction with great success on the back of the Morgan report, which was provided for the previous Government but never implemented. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 means that the report is being implemented and partnerships are being formed between the police, local authorities, the business sector and the voluntary sector. That is making a big difference. We need to have proper debates about how to achieve community safety and crime reduction—the real issues—instead of point scoring.
  I have had the great honour of working with hundreds of police officers with Humberside police, and the one thing that really cheeses off police officers is debates like this, in which their work is undervalued and we do not consider what should be done to support them. The solution is not as simple as the numbers: it involves money, resources, priorities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: As always in Home Office debates, I declare an interest as an acting recorder of the Crown court, a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate and a founder and first chairman of the Immigration Advisory Service. I wish to address the issue of asylum and immigration, and in doing so it is important to use language that is not emotive. I shall try to be constructive and courteous while, at the same time, trying to identify the problem that faces the country and the Government.
  The newspapers today contained reports of record numbers of people seeking asylum in this country. Total asylum seeker numbers for 1999 have already exceeded applications for the whole of the previous year. It is anticipated that by the end of this year there may be 70,000 applications for asylum, plus dependants. August and September both had record numbers—more

  853
  than 7,000—of applications. That creates a tremendous strain on the adjudication and courts service which has to hear the applications.
  The Home Office faces a crisis in the backlog of asylum and immigration cases that still await decision. In March, the backlog stood at 125,000; by June, it had risen to 140,000—today, it is just over 150,000, and by the end of the year, on present trends, it will reach more than 160,000. That is a huge burden on the Home Office and the resources of this country.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to respond to the shameful attack by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on the councillors, editors and people of Kent. Does my hon. Friend agree that Kent needs a reduction in the number of asylum seekers, as was achieved in the last year of the previous Government, and not the enormous increases that he has just described?
  Mr. Malins: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in that area. He has shown great devotion to his duty to his constituents, and he has been in his place throughout the debate today.
  Why is the backlog of asylum and immigration cases so big? It is because decisions are being made at half the rate at which new applications are made. It is no good continuing with a system that makes decisions so slowly. This morning, at the meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, I put some straight questions to the Home Secretary. I said, "Home Secretary, there were 7,300 applications for asylum in September. How soon will their cases be heard? How soon will the results of those cases and any appeals be known? How soon will those who fail in their applications be removed?" The Home Secretary could not answer, and nor could the official who accompanied him.
  That is the scale of the problem that faces the country, and the Home Office is not getting to grips with it. It has let the problem, which it admittedly inherited from the previous Government, get worse and worse. Incidentally, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) for the outstanding work that he did as an immigration Minister in the previous Government.
  The Government are not doing enough and the Home Office is in chaos. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate in Croydon faces impossible queues. Telephones go unanswered and the computer system is in chaos. In my surgeries on Friday nights in Woking—which has a large, settled ethnic community—I see many constituents with ongoing cases who come to me in despair because their correspondence and telephone calls are never dealt with. They tell me, and I tell the House, that the Home Office appears to the communities outside the House to have lost its grip on the problem.
  The Home Office needs to decide asylum and immigration applications quickly. In Croydon, the 28 teams of 16 people each are doing their best to decide the cases, but more money may be necessary and may save time in the long run. More money now may lead us to a system that would be in the better interests of those many genuine cases who are being elbowed aside by those
  854
  who have less claim. Therefore, we should decide cases fast and hear appeals quickly. There is no reason why they should not be heard quickly and why decisions should not be made thereafter. If it is decided that the appeal has failed and someone has to be removed—remove them fast. The slower the system, the worse the problem will get. Nothing that the Home Office said this afternoon or the Home Secretary said this morning gives me any reason to believe that the system will do anything save slow down even more.
  Finally, what of the problem of those tens of thousands of people whose immigration or asylum applications have been lost all the way down the line and who are out there in the community? Many thousands of asylum applicants have lost all contact with the Home Office. That is not good enough. In this modern computerised age, this Home Office ought to be able to get to grips with retrieval. Those people who should not be here should be taken to account and removed. One adjudicator told me recently, "It is ludicrous that I hear appeal after appeal in the certain knowledge that even if the appeal fails all the way up the line, the applicant will go to ground and stay in this country for ever."
  The current situation will not do. The many thousands of people in the ethnic communities in this country recognise that the Government have lost their grip on all matters connected with asylum and immigration. They have come out with a good line, but they have not acted and thought through the problem properly. They may need more money or resources. If the House finds in six months that the list of those waiting for an initial determination in an asylum or other immigration case is getting longer, it will be a clear sign that the Government are continuing to fail.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spelled out why the total number of asylum seekers coming into the country has increased, and why many of them are settling at their ports of entry due to the changes in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I shall concentrate on some of the difficulties that this has caused my constituents.
  Until 1996–97, although about 21 million passengers travelled through Dover every year, very few stayed in the port. Few asylum seekers who passed through settled in Dover because the legislation was very different. At that time, we had an ethnic minority of less than 0.6 per cent., which was one of the smallest in the country.
  In the past few years, as the changes introduced by the Conservatives took effect, asylum seekers have been required to claim in the port of Dover. Therefore, the numbers started to increase. For sensible and practical reasons—practical in the short term—the county council, which is picking up the bill, and Dover district council, which is settling the housing, housed those people in inexpensive accommodation in bed-and-breakfast areas close to the port. Large numbers of asylum seekers were concentrated in one small area of the town—an area that is not prosperous.
  The early settlers who came across in large numbers in 1997 were mostly Slovakian Romany people. The local perception was that they were not fleeing from oppression—certainly not from state oppression or tyranny—and were not genuine claimants.

  855
  Given that background, social tensions started to get worse. They were badly exacerbated by some of the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). The hostile comments in one local newspaper, the Dover Express, and the attacks of editor Nick Hudson on asylum seekers in his editorials raised tension and created an inflammatory atmosphere. He used the terms "human sewage" and "dross" in referring to asylum seekers. He published stories that most respectable newspapers would flush down the sink, puffing them up as story of the week, with headings like, "The good ship DSS Scrounger docks at Dover" and with many pejorative remarks. Those stories almost gave some legitimacy to the feeling of local people that they were being put on and having a hard time, or that they were not being dealt with fairly. His language was really hostile.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford could have told the House that senior members of the Kent police called in that same editor twice because of the language that he was using and the atmosphere that he was creating with his newspaper. The Dover Express is one of a number of local newspapers, but it stands alone in terms of that coverage. It changed its response to asylum seekers only when that editor took control. Many of the reporters have been at the paper a long time and still have the respect of the community, although I know that they have some problems.
  Apart from being called in by the police, the Press Complaints Commission judged that the editor's coverage was likely to incite racial violence. Just this week, local churches in Dover put together a petition, which has been mentioned from the pulpits, entitled, "Christians against the Dover Express". It was handed in to the local paper last week. The police in Kent, the Press Complaints Commission and the local churches all say that that coverage is exacerbating the problems and adding to our difficulties.
  Something else that added to our difficulties was the unwelcome intervention of the shadow Home Secretary in the summer. When we were trying to heal wounds, asylum support groups were coming in, the police were explaining the situation to the community and we were looking for calm, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) came posturing and pirouetting into Pencester gardens, saying all sorts of silly and spurious things—some of her remarks were inflammatory. On numerous occasions, she asked why the Government did not do something and why the Home Secretary had not acted.
  The reality is that most of our problems were due to the large numbers of asylum seekers. What the right hon. Lady should have known—perhaps she did know—was that Kent county council could move asylum seekers who wished to go outside Dover and Kent. What she should have known, but did not tell the newspapers, was that months before the violence in Pencester gardens, the council had encouraged more than 100 asylum seekers to move away voluntarily. The numbers had started to decrease, but that did not suit the right hon. Lady's agenda on that day.
  Today, the situation in Dover is much calmer. The police are taking appropriate action—not merely enforcement but liaison work. They are getting into the community and talking to both sides. A liaison officer is working with Kent county council and Dover district council, and talking to local people, especially in the hot
  856
  spots. Life is returning to normal. The last figures that I have seen show that the number of asylum seekers in the area has dropped from 1,000 or more to less than 600.
  In the remaining time, I must mention the good news stories in Dover—the stories behind all those headlines, which have been blown up and exaggerated by some Conservative Members. Local groups within the churches and voluntary asylum support groups have joined together into a network of asylum support without much outside funding and without any direct advantage to themselves. In a difficult situation, they have been working with asylum seekers and their families, in particular with the children, to give them some sort of welcome and to help integrate them into the community.
  I am convinced that the practical changes in the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which I hope will soon become an Act, will deal with nearly all the problems that I have identified in Dover. The large numbers of asylum seekers can be reduced through sensible and sensitive dispersal, and Dover's attractiveness to asylum seekers can be removed by reducing the cash benefits to sensible support level. I welcome also those other provisions in the Bill that will give further protection to Dover.
  I shall conclude my remarks with the message that there is a mixture of stories to be told about Dover, and that the hostility of one particular newspaper means that it will be very difficult to return matters to the way they were before 1996.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), with whom I share some sense of being in the front line when it comes to constituency asylum problems, and I acknowledge the experience with which he spoke. I shall be brief, in the hope that there will be time for a contribution from at least one other colleague.
  Since the sad death of the late Alan Clark, I have become the only Conservative Member of Parliament in the country with an inner-city constituency. This debate is very germane to my constituency, which has a heavy crime rate because of the number of day visitors. It also has a continuing involvement with asylum seekers, given that 15 per cent. of the households in Westminster are now not on the electoral register.
  I shall begin with a brief word about the police. This is the season in which amenity societies and residents associations in Westminster have their annual or general meetings. A feature of those meetings is the patient replies from the police that there is a limit to what they can achieve, given the fall in police numbers with which they have had to cope.
  I witnessed only one event associated with last week's visit by the Chinese President. That was at Guildhall, where I thought that the City of London police handled the protesters extremely well, and gave them ample opportunity to make their views known to the President of China.
  I wish to concentrate on asylum seekers. I think that it is still reasonable to describe the situation as a shambles. I declare an interest, in that I am a vice-chairman of the all-party refugees group.
  One index of a shambles is that the new Minister of State at the Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), had to be diverted from

  857
  the Financial Services and Markets Bill, an extremely important piece of legislation, to take over responsibility for asylum seekers from the Under-Secretary previously in charge, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien). That decision was made by the Prime Minister: I can tell the House that the Royal Navy manual states, with regard to typhoons, that the first evidence of an approaching typhoon is a general sense on the part of the captain that all is not well.
  A second index of a shambles is that, six months after the Home Secretary's very welcome letter telling colleagues that the very worst was over in the immigration service, lawyers daily release cases into my lap because they cannot get answers, in writing or by telephone, from the Home Office. Frankly, that worries me, because it looks as though a two-tier immigration service may be developing, in which those who can afford lawyers may be able, through Members of Parliament, to secure answers more quickly than other constituents.
  Although I acknowledge that a huge number of the latter are still writing to me too, I have a specific question for the new Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), whom I congratulate on his promotion. When he winds up the debate, will he say whether constituents who write in to the Home Office through Members of Parliament—either directly or through their lawyers—receive quicker responses than those who do not? Ideally, Members of Parliament should intervene in such matters only exceptionally, rather than as a matter of course.
  My question is especially important in the context of travel documents. Constituents' letters about those documents are now invariably accompanied by details of urgent family reasons for travelling. Those reasons include medical treatment, car crashes or even imminent death. The consistency of those rationales suggest that travel document requests are now being taken out of order, and that word has gone out on the grapevine that pressing family reasons are, in the Home Office's eyes, a good each-way bet.
  By and large, and to its credit, the Home Office has not allowed queue-jumping to occur in the naturalisation procedure. Such queue-jumping always disadvantages the rest of the queue. However, I would welcome a statement of policy on travel document practices. It is currently taking the travel document section more than 60 days even to acknowledge an application's arrival. Even then, the accompanying statement that it may take at least six months to resolve the application does not indicate whether the six-month period starts with the date of application or with the acknowledgement of the application. That makes travel planning still more difficult.
  However, what I ask for most of all is a clear statement of the detail of the backlog facing the immigration service. I can see that the service might be crying out for a period of peace and quiet in which staff can get on with sorting out that backlog. It would be much easier for some of us to afford the service that relief and respite if we had a much clearer idea of the present policies, procedures and situation that we could advance to our desperate and bewildered constituents. Home Office officials are personally very courteous to me. I should like to respond to them in kind, if they would give me the tools to do so.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: I begin by welcoming to his new job the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who I assume will be winding up the debate. My colleagues and I are looking forward to debating police matters and other issues with him.
  This debate has again revealed the Home Secretary as a master of equivocation and obfuscation. In one of his least convincing performances, he failed today to answer any of the key questions posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I shall repeat those questions for the benefit of the House.
  Will there be 5,000 more police officers than there are now in 2002, or 2003? If not, will there be more officers than there are now, or fewer? How many more or fewer officers will there be?
  Is it true that the new police radio project will cost £1.5 billion? How will that project be paid for? How much extra are the Home Secretary and his Department giving police authorities? Is the amount merely the £50 million that the Home Secretary announced to the Labour party conference, or will more money be announced later? Will the shortfall have an impact on the ability of police authorities to recruit officers? Police authorities up and down the country say that it will.
  Does the Home Secretary agree that there are significantly more asylum seekers now than when he took office?
  Mr. James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend agree that the shortfall has affected some areas more severely than others? In Barnet and Hertsmere, for example, we have lost 60 of the 285 officers that we had in 1997. That fall of 20 per cent. has left our force hamstrung.
  Mr. Greenway: There will not be time for many interventions, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that one. It illustrates exactly what is happening throughout the country. The cost of paying for the radio project imposed by the Home Office is already impacting badly on police recruitment plans.
  I return now to the question of asylum seekers. Does the Home Secretary agree that there are significantly more of them now than when he took office, and that there is a backlog of 90,000 cases? Is it true that mail at the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office has remained unopened since July? Is it true that only 1,800 of the 52,000 telephone calls made to the department in September were answered?
  Did any Government Department give instructions to the police in connection with the demonstrations during the visit by the President of China? Is the Home Secretary aware of what appeared in last weekend's edition of The Sunday Times? The newspaper alleged that
  "a senior Metropolitan police officer said last week that his colleagues had been instructed by the Foreign Office to adopt a 'zero-tolerance' approach to prevent causing offence during President Jiang's four-day visit. 'If the minutes of meetings between police and Foreign Office officials are made public, the Government is going to have egg on its face,' the officer said."
  Is that true? When will the Government come clean about just what instructions were given?

  859
  The Home Secretary failed to answer any of those important questions. The extent to which he was floundering was made evident when he prayed in aid rail privatisation, the Child Support Agency, BSE, and even the matter of arms to Iraq. He seemed also to suggest that the excellent web site of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was the cause of his embarrassment. While the debate has gone on, we have managed to find the right hon. Gentleman's own web site. Actually, we first found a web site maintained by an unofficial fan club at the university of York. We found the "Jack Straw Fan Club Home Page", which notes, "We love Jack Straw", and adds:
  "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti."
  The official web site of the Home Secretary lists, among other things, the right hon. Gentleman's recreations:
  "walking, music, cooking puddings and supporting Blackburn Rovers."
  That is hardly as good as my right hon. Friend's excellent web site. The right hon. Gentleman will be walking back to the Opposition Benches when he has faced the music at the next election. The proof of his pudding is in the eating; it is going down horribly with the police service, just as Blackburn Rovers went down at the end of last season.
  Try as he may, the Home Secretary cannot camouflage serious crises in the key areas for which he is responsible. Police numbers are falling at an ever faster rate. Asylum seekers are at record numbers. There is a shambles in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, with a record backlog of unsettled cases. We have yet to hear a plausible—let alone a complete—explanation of the right hon. Gentleman's handling of the Mitrokhin spy archive and related matters.
  We have heard today a complete abdication of responsibility for the problems in the right hon. Gentleman's Department. His revised explanations to the Select Committee on Home Affairs of police recruitment plans reveal that he has lost all credibility as regards any information that he gives on police numbers. The power of Opposition day debates is truly amazing. Their effect is astonishing. Some 4,000 more police recruits are planned today than were yesterday. Chief constables and communities up and down the land will be praying for more Tory Opposition days in the months to come when they see police numbers beginning to fall.
  The Home Secretary has never explained how the 11,000 recruits already planned were calculated. Now he tells us the figure was 15,000. What was the original figure on which he based his request for more money? Was it 11,000, or was it 15,000? How can anyone have confidence that he has any idea of the true figure? Chief constables know the figures, and so do police authorities and the Police Federation. The numbers being recruited are being frozen for authorities throughout the country. Numbers are falling as a result. Today's announcement confuses the issue rather than clarifying it. The sudden conjuring up of 4,000 more recruits insults the intelligence of the electorate and the police service.
  We have previously drawn attention to the problems of police recruitment in the police grant debate and July's debate on the police in London. Our concerns were dismissed as alarmist, but we can see now that the Home Secretary was himself alarmed at the trend on police numbers. Behind the scenes, he was asking for more
  860
  money. We welcome that, and we welcome the recognition—at long last—that a serious problem had to be resolved. However, what angers the police and increasingly appals the public is that an initiative intended to shore up police manpower was portrayed as an initiative to recruit 5,000 extra police officers—5,000 more than now.
  That was no unintended or mistaken misinterpretation of the Home Secretary's announcement. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury could see what was up, when he wrote that if the Home Secretary promised 5,000 extra—that is additional—officers, the Chief Secretary would end up having to find the money to pay for them. That is why the Home Secretary was forced to clear his announcement. What is even more telling is the tone of the Chief Secretary's reported remark:
  "I will not countenance a further reserve claim".
  What a telling message that is to the police service. Some £35 million is being provided for police recruitment, and £50 million for radios that cost £1.5 billion. The police can expect no more help. There was absolute silence on the growing crisis of funding police pensions. We must conclude that the crisis will only get worse.
  In recent days, there has been no better example of the effect of all that on policing than the comment of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Sir Paul Condon, who told the Home Secretary last Thursday that he had insufficient manpower even to cover murder inquiries. We have seen a complete abdication of responsibility by the Home Secretary today in his failure to say what he intends to do about these crises.
  The Home Secretary has been caught redhanded, but he is not alone in his conspiracy to hoodwink the voters. The Prime Minister was clearly a willing accomplice. He was offered the chance to protest his innocence at the Dispatch Box last week, but he perpetuated the hoax, telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague):
  "Yes, there will be 5,000 extra police officers."—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 433.]
  One must admire him for standing by a mate who has been caught, but he could, in truth, do little else. The Prime Minister was well aware of what was going on, and he had to stand by his Jack or give him the sack.
  The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary also knew that Labour spin doctors were busy selling the story to the media that there would be 5,000 extra police. Perhaps that is why there was no attempt to correct the story. Today's revelation does nothing to rectify the situation. The penny is beginning to drop in the public mind. They see the thin blue line getting thinner, and they remember that new Labour claimed it would be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. The public remember the Labour manifesto promise that the police had Labour's strong support. They remember the Home Secretary saying that he would get 5,000 more police. They will recognise all too well that every one of those promises has been broken.
  The public will also recall that the Prime Minister told the country that there would be no more lies and no more broken promises. What a shambles. The public will take their revenge at the ballot box.
  The Government promised more police, but they are supervising the biggest fall in police numbers in living memory and the complete erosion of police morale.

  861
  The Government said that they had secured the United Kingdom's borders, but they have presided over the biggest influx of asylum seekers that we have ever experienced. The Government embarked on a modernisation programme that has left the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in complete disarray. When faced with the revelation of the most serious spy scandal in a generation, the Government dithered and prevaricated, entirely failing to understand the seriousness of the situation or to report it to the House.
  New Labour's slipshod stewardship of policing, immigration and national security are just the latest in a catalogue of mistakes and incompetence. Such mismanagement demands that the House register the strongest possible reprimand. I urge hon. Members on both sides to do so by voting for our motion.
  6.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his courteous welcome to me, which I appreciated. In his speech, his only palpable hit was on the Home Secretary's support for Blackburn Rovers football club; the whole House will be aware that Norwich City's tremendous victory over Bolton—the team supported by the Chief Whip—took us above Blackburn in the first division, and I am very glad about that.
  I welcome this debate. It is an opportunity for the Government to set out their case on the various issues that have been raised. I had hoped that it would be an opportunity for the Opposition to set out their policies on the issues, but I regret that yet again the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) showed herself to be more of a rent-a-quote and an unguided missile than a serious proponent of alternative policies. She is more of an embarrassment to her party leadership, as demonstrated on clause 118 of the Immigration and Asylum Bill—currently in the House of Lords—than a positive part of the Opposition team. Perhaps that is why there was no crime pledge in the Conservative list of five commonsense pledges presented at the Conservative party conference. Perhaps that is why today the right hon. Lady has tabled a compendium resolution—or as a friend of mine said, a kitchen-sink resolution. It does not mention the major progress that has been made in the youth justice system and the criminal justice system towards meeting the pledges that we made.
  I shall deal with the three issues that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has identified. The first is that of cold-war spies, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) spoke. There is always good theatre to be had about such issues, but in truth some serious issues need to be looked at properly in considering the future of our country following the cold war and in seeking proper accountability for our security services.
  The Government's agenda is public and clear. We have set out absolutely the need to put everything on a proper basis. I pay tribute to the Conservative Government. Their legislation on the matter and the establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee acknowledged the need to put these things on a proper footing and to have
  862
  serious debate on the issues, and that is what is happening. All parties in the political process have to work together. I am sure that that is the right way to do it. We should eschew cheap political theatre of the type that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wants and focus on cleaning up the whole system.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary paid tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his committee. The all-party approach of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is an attempt to address the issues in a proper way. That is the right way to proceed. It is not cheap posturing of the kind indulged in by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, I will not.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock raised some significant points. The Government must take seriously what he had to say when they examine carefully the conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee once it has considered the issue in the round.
  The second issue is asylum seekers and immigration control. It is striking that five hon. Members raised it this afternoon: my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). It is no secret that the turmoil in Europe at the end of the cold war, especially in the former Yugoslavia, has massively increased the problems. That was acknowledged by some hon. Members today. It is a real situation that affects not only Britain but every country in Europe. It is why we dealt in 1988 with 4,000 asylum applications a year and with 45,000 last year.
  Reorganisation of the immigration and nationality department was long overdue. Investment should have been made to resolve the problems in the past, but it has been down to us to sort out the mess that we inherited. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the stewardship of the Tories under the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald made the situation far worse. They left thousands of asylum seekers to pick up the tab. They established the unfair and arbitrary white list. They failed to tackle unscrupulous so-called immigration advisers. They did nothing whatever to speed up the process of applying for asylum.
  I place on record my appreciation of the comments made by the hon. Member for Woking. He acknowledged that the Government inherited serious problems on asylum and immigration. That was an honest and correct thing for him to say, and I am glad that he had the courtesy to do so.
  The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle made some serious points. We have invested an extra £120 million over three years. We are taking forward a range of initiatives to improve productivity, develop new and speedier working methods, streamline procedures for dealing with general casework and thoroughly reappraise the IT system. We are recruiting an extra 340 staff in Croydon and we have plans to recruit a further 200 in Croydon and 85 in Liverpool. The hon. Gentleman was right to identify the need to speed up decisions. The Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the

  863
  Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), is working exceptionally hard to achieve change in precisely the way that is needed and should have been effected a long time ago.
  I must make reference to the race card, which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald raised. We could not have had a clearer illustration of what is at stake than in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford and for Dover. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said in 1995, having been head of research at Conservative central office:
  "Immigration was an issue which we raised successfully in 1992 and again in the 1994 European election campaign. It played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt."
  Those were not my words but the words of the former Tory strategist who is now the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover put the issue straightforwardly.
  We are making progress on asylum and immigration. My Home Office colleagues and I acknowledge the immense task that needs to be undertaken. Incidentally, at the G8 conference on organised crime last week we secured international agreement to inhibit trafficking in illegal immigrants throughout the world. That is an example of the international co-operation that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary moved forward at the EU summit at Tampere. Many Opposition Members would eschew that co-operation.
  The last issue that the Opposition raised was the police. It is a shame that not once has any credit been given to the Government for the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the establishment of local crime reduction partnerships up and down the country. The Act is described by many chief constables to me as the best legislation that any Government have introduced to inhibit and reduce crime in any area directly. Building a genuine partnership between all agencies is at the core of our approach.
  Another element of our approach is recognition of the fantastic benefits that technology can provide. We are focusing on intelligence-led policing, the use of DNA and the public service radio communications scheme, which has been described. A total of £1.5 billion has been identified for a public finance initiative for the scheme and we are allocating more money to take it forward. Forces want the scheme because they want to communicate with each other and develop in an effective way. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced earlier this year a commitment on DNA which will massively increase our ability to use it to solve crimes.
  I was interested in the remarks made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) about police numbers. I will take him through the ups and downs of police numbers in the past eight or nine years so that the House has them fully on the record, given his absurd claim of an average increase of whatever it was he said. The figures are as follows: 1991–92, plus 132; 1992–93, plus 663; 1993–94, minus 393; 1994–95, minus 675; 1995–96, minus 321—this was all under the Conservatives—1996–97, plus 257; 1997–98, minus 344; and 1998–99, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, minus 715. Those figures do not show a strong record for the Conservative Government. That is precisely why my right hon. Friend made his announcement. He was right to do so and to take it forward.
  864
  The Conservatives should support the process of modernisation and change. They should have initiated it when they were in office, but they did not. The country needs a modern, effective, accountable police service that focuses its efforts in partnership with others on reducing crime. That is what the Government want and what the Government will deliver.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 371.

  Division No. 276]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Horam, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Brady, Graham

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Butterfill, John

  Lidington, David

  Cash, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Colvin, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan, Alan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the Government for its achievements on Home Office issues; notes that the previous government left the youth justice system in disarray, left chaos in the immigration and asylum system, in particular as a result of provisions in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, and that police numbers fell by 1,500 between 1992–93 and 1997–98; further notes the action that the Government has taken in asking the Intelligence and Security Committee to review the handling of the Mitrokhin Archive, including key decisions taken before 1997; and welcomes the Government's initiatives to provide new money to fund the recruitment of 5,000 police officers over and above the number that would otherwise have been recruited, comprehensively to tackle crime and disorder and to develop a fairer, faster and firmer immigration and asylum system, through the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will better serve genuine refugees and help reduce the number of abusive claims in the United Kingdom.'.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): We now come to the next motion. I inform the House that Madam Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and has ruled that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly as the hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.
  Dr. Fox: That was a short soundbite, even for me.
  I beg to move,
  That this House notes and applauds the dedication of those who work in the National Health Service but regrets the inadequacy of the support they receive from Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to deliver a first-class service; deplores the mismanagement of the National Health Service by Her Majesty's Government; regrets the continued distortion of clinical priorities in favour of political targets; urges the new Secretary of State to acknowledge the damage the waiting list initiative has caused to the National Health Service and to abandon waiting list targets as a measure of performance; calls on him to acknowledge the existence of rationing in the National Health Service and to ensure that in future such rationing takes place solely on the basis of clinical need; and calls for a fully informed and wide-ranging debate on the future of health care delivery to ensure that the people of this country have the health services they deserve.
  I hope that tonight's debate will be the first in a series of mature and incisive health care debates. However, given the amendment that has been tabled by Her Majesty's Government, I imagine that it will be a rather rhetorical conversation initiated by those on this side of the House, with Government Members advancing the usual simple, puerile arguments about how the Conservatives seek to privatise the national health service and so on. The Opposition will present reasonable, well thought out ideas about the future shape of health care, which I expect will be met with hissing and booing from the second-rate pantomime audience opposite.
  We have three aims for health care in this country. We want a shift from throughput to outcome and from waiting lists to waiting times, and we want clinical priorities to replace political priorities. I say at the outset that I have some sympathy for the Secretary of State because he knows that we are absolutely right in those aims—he probably shares most of them. He must tonight defend not his waiting list initiative but that of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), and of the Prime Minister. The initiative has been condemned by almost every health care group, including the British Medical Association—that reactionary force which the Secretary of State loathes so much—the Royal College of Nursing, another reactionary group; the Royal College of Physicians; and the Royal College of Surgeons, each of which belongs to the forces of darkness that the Prime Minister sees around every corner. The Secretary of State is desperate to claim our territory, but he knows that he cannot dismiss the Prime Minister's pledge.
  The Secretary of State is another of the Government's political prisoners: he is impotent in his Department because he cannot do what he knows to be right. He is
  870
  desperate for a dose of political Viagra which, in this Government, is in as short supply as the real thing. The real problem that we face is not simply the Government's policy but the culture of the Government. As was revealed by the Home Office team in the previous debate, this Government engage not just in creative accountancy but in crooked accountancy. The Home Secretary's school of accountancy is applied in the Department of Health and in every other Government Department, so when the Secretary of State says that there will be an extra 410 cardiologists by 2005, he does not bother to add that those people are already in training and would be available to the NHS anyway.
  The Government have a wonderful definition of "extra". Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you asked me to get you a sandwich from the Tea Room and I returned with an extra sandwich, you would expect to receive two sandwiches. However, if you sent the Secretary of State, you would get not only just one sandwich but an explanation that it was one more sandwich than you would have received if he had not gone in the first place. That is how the Government manage their accounting and their rhetoric.
  More important is the Government's fundamental dishonesty. The Government promise things that they know they cannot deliver—it is part of the great Labour lie. While that is bad in other policy areas, to promise in health care things that one cannot deliver is to take advantage of the weakest and most vulnerable in our society when they are at their weakest and most vulnerable. The Government say that there will be extra consultants, but there are none. They say that there is no rationing when rationing is occurring. With Viagra and Relenza we have the most specific examples yet of health care rationing. The Secretary of State says that every drug that patients need will be made available—he should tell that to those whose consultants say that they would benefit from beta interferon. The Government, whose rhetoric does not match their actions, take cynicism to heights previously unknown in our politics.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: How does the hon. Gentleman square all that he is going to do for the health service with the fact that a Tory Government would cut taxes at the same time?
  Dr. Fox: During the 18 years of Conservative government we made dramatic moves, not only in increasing the funding for health care available in this country but in reducing the burden of taxation, which was higher when we came into office in 1979 than when we left. It is entirely possible with economic growth, as we demonstrated, to increase health expenditure while reducing taxation. The two, of course, are not mutually exclusive.
  The Government's cynicism is most apparent in their manipulation not only of money but of waiting list figures. There have been several examples recently of quite scandalous manipulation of statistics.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: In a moment; I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's defence.

  871
  In Bradford, for example, it was decided that patients who had previously had surgery to insert metal plates or screws in their bodies through various types of orthopaedic surgery and were waiting for them to be removed were not really waiting for treatment because they had received part of it. They could not get through an X-ray machine at Heathrow, but, according to the Government, they were not waiting for any treatment. They were put on a new list called 05 and are part of the Government's great disappeared of the health service.
  In Derriford in Plymouth, those who reached the 18-month maximum waiting time for heart surgery were, strangely enough, subject to further investigation, after which the clock was stopped. They may have had chest pain or angina, and they may have been waiting in fear for the surgery, but, according to the official statistics, no one waited more than 18 months for surgery at those hospitals. That is a crude and repulsive manipulation of the data. At the Alexandra hospital in Redditch, 759 patients simply disappeared off the waiting list. That was called an administrative clean-up, which is a rather nice term for removing from the list patients who are still waiting for treatment.
  Mr. Dawson: As we are talking about manipulation, can the hon. Gentleman explain why the previous Conservative Government totally failed to give any credence whatever to the Black report, to health inequalities or to the prime role of poverty as a precursor to ill health?
  Dr. Fox: We are talking about patients who are waiting for surgery that could be life saving and who may die prematurely if it is denied to them. That argument demands more than a cheap, sixth-form debating point.
  How many patients are living in pain and fear while awaiting surgery but are simply being removed from the statistics because it is awkward for the Government if they appear in them? Getting on the waiting list is in itself quite an achievement. People have first to get on the waiting list for the waiting list and then, if they are very good, they might get on the waiting list itself. The total number of such people—those who have seen their general practitioner but have not yet had treatment—has increased massively under this Government: 237,000 extra patients are waiting for treatment. They are the real waiters in the NHS, not those who are defined narrowly by the Government.
  The problem of waiting lists lies at the heart of all the Government's troubles. The trouble with the waiting list initiative is that it treats all patients on the list in exactly the same way. Someone who is waiting for a coronary bypass graft is treated the same as someone with an ingrowing toenail. They matter, and are weighted, the same on that particular list, so within a finite budget there is inevitably pressure on clinicians from hospital managers and others to try to get the numbers down by using theatre time in a way that gets the maximum number off the list. That means that three inguinal hernias can be dealt with instead of a coronary bypass and in the same amount of theatre time. That is what has been happening.
  People say, "Surely getting waiting lists down is a good thing?" It would be if the initiative were applied according to correct clinical priority, but clinical priority is being completely distorted to fit the Government's political priorities. That, if not unethical, is certainly an immoral way of running our health care system.
  872
  Since he took office, the Secretary of State has been willing to talk about a change of tack. I urge him to ditch the waiting list initiative, which is continuing to cause clinical distortion across the country. Surgeons and doctors are all complaining that their clinical freedom is being interfered with. He knows that the initiative is causing problems in the service—why does he not just ditch it? That might offend the Prime Minister's ego, but there would be plenty left if we lost a bit of it.
  One matter that I want to concentrate on is the Government's attitude to cancer treatment. I did my junior doctor training in haematology and oncology, and I would be the first to agree that we need to improve our outcomes dramatically in respect of almost all cancers. I am right behind any Government of any political colour who seek to achieve that, but it has to be done in the proper way. The Government's cancer policy, as with everything else that they have tried to achieve, is not properly thought out and is run by gimmicks, headlines, crooked accountancy and incompetence.
  Let us begin with some of the gimmicks. We have a drug tsar, so we have to have a cancer tsar. No doubt they will be joined by the gastroenterology tsar, the respiratory tsar, the cardiology tsar, the over-spending patient care group tsar and, when winter arrives, the winter crisis tsar. We may be short of consultants and have the smallest number per head of population of any comparable western country, but—my God—we will have the highest number of tsars per head of any western European country. What good will that do patients? None whatever. It is one of the many gimmicks employed by the Government, but what matters is the policies that follow.
  The question of crooked accountancy comes up time and again. We hear great announcements of extra money and, before he deserted the sinking ship, the Secretary of State's predecessor sent all Members of the House a letter entitled "Cancer funding boost". It says:
  "I wrote to you with details of £93 million … to provide the biggest ever investment in cancer equipment in England."
  However, sources in the profession tell us that exactly the same money had been earmarked for quite some time. Without extra funding, that money is enough to keep operating about only half the linear accelerators, which are an essential part of cancer treatment. It is a fraud and a sham. The whole thing is a complete charade.
  On top of that, we have another example of Government incompetence. A serious point was put to the junior Minister at Question Time last week. We said that there was a grave danger—the point has today been echoed by the president of the Royal College of Surgeons—of swamping the system if every woman with a breast lump was to be referred within two weeks. I gave the Minister an example: neither the general surgeons nor the gynaecologists could cope if every woman with post-menopausal bleeding was referred within two weeks.
  I asked:
  "What level of clinical suspicion is required"
  before the Government's time pledge comes into account. Is every patient with suspected cancer or only those with urgent referral for suspected cancer included? My understanding is that only urgent patients fall within the two-week time scale. I look to Ministers for clarification of the position, but I assume from the Secretary of State's silence is that my understanding is correct—only patients who are referred urgently will be seen. It is important to

  873
  clarify that because the belief out there, and that which has been spun by Ministers to the press, is that every patient with suspected cancer would be seen within two weeks. Which is it? We look for clarification because it makes a huge difference to the real running of the system with real doctors, not spin doctors, and real patients.
  When the Minister was asked that question, answer came there none. She said:
  "We are working with GPs on the guidelines to ensure that referral takes place properly and according to appropriate clinical priorities."—[Official Report, 19 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 244.]
  That was very interesting because the letter that we received from the British Medical Association said:
  "I have checked with the GP Committee and discovered that they have not been involved in discussions with the Department of Health on any guidelines."
  Will the Minister clarify exactly whom she was talking to?
  My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) has tabled a parliamentary question about what recent discussions have taken place between the Department and representatives of general practitioners regarding guidelines, the level of clinical suspicion in cancer diagnosis and when those discussions took place. Having had a week to consider her diary, the Minister said that she would let my hon: Friend have a reply as soon as possible. Despite all the extra special advisers and civil servants, Ministers cannot even look back in their diaries and decide when they met GP representatives. We suspect, therefore, that no such discussions have taken place, and that that is another part of the fantasy politics in which Ministers are engaged.
  Ministers scoff at the potential overworking of the system, but the president of the Royal College of Surgeons said:
  "Clinics are being snowed under with inappropriate referrals for breast cancer. Breast surgeons are coping, just, at the moment, but it could be at the expense of other things.
  The College is particularly concerned that when they bring on bowel cancer this is going to place an even greater load on hospital services."
  We need to know tonight with far greater clarity exactly what the Government's policies are and what the Government will do in response to those important criticisms from people at the cutting edge of the service.
  We have made our priorities clear. We believe in instituting a patients guarantee, ensuring that the sickest patients will be treated first; and those with less urgent conditions will have to take their appropriate place in the queue.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman talks about taking pressures off the NHS. Would he advise people who can afford it to take out private medical insurance?
  Dr. Fox: I shall deal with the private sector in a moment—it is essential that we do so as part of a rational debate. I want to ensure that people take their appropriate place in the queue, that there is no queue jumping and that some people are not pushed up the queue ahead of those with greater clinical need because some political priority is being forced on hospital managers.
  874
  We have said that we would continue to increase funding for the NHS in real terms year on year, as we did during our period in office. However, we believe that there is a place in health provision for the independent sector and that we should have more mixed provision. The biggest difference between what this country spends on health and what comparable European countries spend is that while our state spend is similar, people in other countries spend rather more from their post-taxation income.
  The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) implied that it is bad to take out private health insurance. That is strange logic for any Government who rake in money from tobacco sales but tell us that we should not buy private health insurance; in other words, people can buy ill health but they must not buy health—what a twisted sense of morality.
  I want to make one or two things absolutely clear for the sake of this debate. My party does not want an entirely private system. I have had experience of such a system in the United States, and I find the idea of a health care system that is not free at the point of use absolutely repugnant, and would not support such a system. Given that the culture in this country has developed from our experience of the national health service, we have the chance to get the best of both worlds. A Government who talk about partnership and mixed provision show how Luddite they are on health when they totally deprecate individuals who want to take out private health provision for themselves or their families.
  Certain conditions must be attached to any independent sector involvement. It must augment NHS provision, not seek to replace it, and it must increase the total capacity of available health care. It must be uniformly regulated, because it would be unacceptable for a Health Secretary to use public money to buy private health care that was not regulated and did not guarantee certain minimum standards that we take for granted in the NHS.
  The most important change needs to come from the insurance industry. I have no private health insurance because, like many people, I believe that the private health insurance products on offer are too inflexible and heavily loaded, have too many exemptions and are too expensive. We need far cheaper and more flexible products which are accessible to a much wider range of our fellow citizens at all income levels. The restriction in that market holds people back from helping to augment the spend on health, which would relieve some of the burden on the NHS.
  Dr. Peter Brand: In continental Europe, there are compulsory insurance-based systems. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is not dissimilar to raising money through taxation, because people have no choice—they have to insure privately? What he advocates would work only if standards in the NHS—the publicly provided service—were such that people had an incentive to go private. What does he think might attract people to pay extra money on top of their taxes?
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman confuses two issues: access and quality. What we should be able to have from the NHS is an absolute assurance that, if we or members of our family are ill, the most serious complaints will be treated first and within a reasonable time, and there will be no distortion of clinical priorities. However, it is

  875
  perfectly acceptable that people may choose to spend their private incomes on any product that they choose, to buy convenience in health care with their post-taxation income, thereby relieving the burden on the NHS. What is wrong with a system that buys everybody the best of every possible world, while allowing us to get better value from the NHS?
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I am conscious of the time and the fact that many hon. Members want to speak.
  Our motion begins by discussing the first-class staff in the NHS. Sadly, however, they are increasingly first-class staff in a second-class service. Morale is very low, from GP recruitment to early retirement for consultants. Despite the Government's attempts to increase recruitment, we are short of midwives and nurses because we cannot retain them. We must increase the total amount that we spend on health. Some money can come from the Treasury, but not enough. We must encourage people to spend more on getting good health through prevention and other products—some 15.5 million of us buy private health insurance for overseas travel every year, and the ground does not open up and swallow us.
  We need more doctors, not more spin doctors. The Government say that they want to think the unthinkable, but now they will not even think the thinkable. They are obsessed with monopoly provision in health, whereas in everything else they claim partnership and mixed provision. It is not the British Medical Association or the royal colleges that are bound by the dark forces of conservatism, but the Government through their health policies. Just as they resisted people's right to buy their council homes and to have their own pension funds, so they seek to deny us choice in the provision of our own health care. The Conservative party, not the Government, will genuinely set the people free.
  7.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "applauds the dedication, skill and professionalism of the staff of the National Health Service but regrets that Her Majesty's Opposition seek to undermine the National Health Service at every turn; welcomes the Government's success in cutting waiting lists in line with its manifesto pledge and its programme to make services faster and more convenient; supports the Government's commitment to modernise cancer, heart disease and mental health services, and to ensure high standards of National Health Service care everywhere; notes that a modernised National Health Service funded through taxation and offering treatment according to need not ability to pay is both fairer and more efficient than private alternatives supported by the Opposition; and so believes that the National Health Service should be modernised not privatised.'.
  It is a privilege to stand here as a Labour Secretary of State for Health in a Labour Government committed to modernising the national health service, which a Labour Government created in the first place. Incidentally, the Conservative party voted against it not once, not twice, but 51 times.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) promised a mature debate. I am still looking forward to precisely that. What we heard tonight was a Conservative party committed not to the future of the NHS or to modernising
  876
  it, but to demoralising it. It is committed to demoralising the public who use it and the dedicated staff who provide treatment and care day in, day out.
  Sir Raymond Whitney: The right hon. Gentleman started his career as Secretary of State for Health with the hoary old myth to which Labour politicians cling. Is he aware that the structure of the NHS was set out in the 1944 White Paper produced by the coalition Government led by a Conservative Minister of State for Health?
  Mr. Milburn: I am aware of how the Conservative party voted when it came to push and shove: it voted against the NHS. Conservative Members entered the No Lobby 51 times. Indeed, some Conservative Members—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must not shout across the Chamber.
  Mr. Milburn: At that time, some Conservative Members warned that the coming of the national health service would bring about the demise of civilisation as we had known it. I believe, as do the staff and the public, that it has been the greatest civilising force this century.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State talked about the future of the national health service. The debates to which he refers took place before I was born, and I am not young. He may be a little younger than I am, but it was before he and most of the people in this Chamber were born. Let us talk about the future instead of the past.
  Mr. Milburn: I am happy to rise to the hon. Gentleman's challenge. It is our intention to build up the national health service, whereas the mantra that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is the new Conservative mantra for the NHS: talk it down, run it down, deny it can ever succeed. We all know that the national health service must change and improve—staff and patients also know that. It must be fairer, faster and more convenient. Yes, it must modernise, but no, it does not have to privatise. That is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservatives.
  Mr. David Wilshire: The Secretary of State says that the NHS must be more convenient. In that case, why will my constituents be forced to travel further because our local accident and emergency department and 70 acute beds are to close? Services are being transferred out of the constituency. Does he consider that to be more convenient?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that changes in NHS structures and services are not a peculiar development of the past two years: they have been going on for the past 50 years or more, and will continue. We should welcome what is happening in the national health service. With the advent of new technology, such as telemedicine, and new treatments and drugs, more and more treatments are being brought closer to where people live. That is a welcome development.

  877
  I can give the hon. Gentleman a good example of that. Twenty or 30 years ago, patients with a stomach ulcer would have gone into hospital for invasive surgery, which would have been risky, and would sometimes have resulted in time off work or serious injury. Nowadays, such patients are treated with drugs. That is better, faster, more convenient and a good development. Those who say that we have an enormous problem with the NHS drugs budget and that it is growing exponentially forget that those new drug treatments are welcomed by patients and by staff. Such developments are not peculiar to the past couple of years. They have been part and parcel of the national health service for the past 50 years or more.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I shall make a little progress, and I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene in a moment.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring made allegations about fiddled figures. It is slightly galling to hear Conservative Members talk about fiddled figures, but I shall let that go for a moment. He made an allegation about Bradford, which was first raised in the House on 9 November 1998, and was repeated on 25 March this year. The hon. Gentleman knows that that allegation has no foundation in truth. He referred to metal plates. Patients go into hospital to have a plate inserted and subsequently have to have it removed. Of course they are not on a waiting list to have it taken out. On that logic, pregnant women would be on a nine-month waiting list. As the hon. Gentleman knows fine well, that is a planned admission.
  The hon. Gentleman and his party seem to gain some perverse satisfaction from trying to convince people that the national health service is failing. What is worse, they try to convey the impression that it is bound to fail and can never succeed.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: In a moment.
  The Conservatives present a catalogue of doom and a counsel of despair. There they are: Dr. Gloom on the Front Bench, and the doom merchants on the Back Benches. They are like some failed 1960s pop group. For each of the past 51 years, the NHS has proved the doom merchants wrong. It has coped with new ailments, new treatments, new drugs and an ageing population. It will go on coping for at least the next 51 years, but it will do that only by modernising and introducing new drugs and treatments.
  There has been a lottery of care. The Conservatives were responsible for that when they created the divisive internal market. The uptake of treatments that work has been too slow, and the uptake of treatments that do not work has been too fast. We want fairer and more effective decision making in all parts of the national health service. That is why we established the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, new national health service frameworks and the Commission for Health Improvement.
  878
  Our answer to those problems is not crude rationing decisions, but clear rational decisions. That is the difference between us and the Conservative party.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall first give way to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
  Mr. Howarth: The Secretary of State should not display such complacency. The Labour party is losing a lot of ground on this issue. How would he respond to my constituent who was diagnosed in February this year as requiring heart surgery? He was told that he would not be able to have that surgery until June or August next year. The reason given was that the Government have said that consultants should set themselves the objective of getting waiting lists down, not addressing clinical priorities. The Secretary of State had better beware, because the complacency that he has shown tonight will not go down well. He should respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) should not make a speech.
  Mr. Milburn: There is no complacency on these issues. If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to listen, he would know fine well that one of the first things that I did when I became Secretary of State was to find new, extra money—
  Mr. Philip Hammond: It is not new money.
  Mr. Milburn: It is new money. I made the first allocation from NHS budgets for next year. No money had been allocated for next year. I allocated extra money to speed up heart surgery—£50 million to pay for 3,000 extra heart operations. Surely the hon. Gentleman should have welcomed that, rather than run it down.
  Dr. Fox: I counsel the Secretary of State against using the word "extra", because it has the same currency as "read my lips". He said that there was no rationing in the health care system. People would say that there is rationing if a new drug is not made available, and if some drugs are available in some parts of the country but not in others on the ground of cost. What is the right hon. Gentleman's view? Does he believe that there is rationing in the health care system?
  Mr. Milburn: The national health service has always faced hard choices. That is the reality of life in the NHS. It is the reality for clinicians on the ground, and it is the reality for those of us who are charged with running the service. There has always been priority setting in the national health service, and there always will be. The issue is how priorities are set. We believe that priorities should be set on the grounds of effectiveness and what works. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that they want a system based not on what works, but

  879
  on who can afford to pay for their care. That is the dividing line between Tories and Labour on health care. It is not about rationing: it is about rational decisions.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Dr. Brand rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to a Liberal Democrat for a change.
  Dr. Brand: The Liberal Democrats supported the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and I support the Government's approach to rational decision making. However, hamstringing NICE by making affordability one of the criteria for NHS treatment is too restrictive. That decision should be made by politicians—the Secretary of State himself—rather than clinicians.
  Mr. Milburn: Clinicians and managers throughout the national health service, whether in fundholding or other systems of care, have always had to decide how to align clinical and financial responsibility. What we are doing is helpful to clinicians. Doctors and managers on the ground want to know that when they take difficult decisions they have support from the centre. We are not abdicating responsibility—that is what happened under the previous lot. We take responsibility and make difficult decisions. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the previous Secretary of State, for the difficult decisions that he had to take on Viagra and Relenza. By and large, those decisions have been welcomed in the national health service.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall make some progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
  The truth is that, in the debate about rationing, the Conservatives' aim is to stimulate not a debate, but doubts. They do not believe that the national health service can cope, and they do not want the public to believe that it can cope. They want more people to be treated privately. The hon. Member for Woodspring was explicit about this, both today and in his speech yesterday, with which I shall deal in a moment. As the Prime Minister said in Bournemouth just a few weeks ago, we want a health care system that delivers care when people want it, where they want it—and we want it on the national health service.
  The Opposition motion is the product of a strange Conservative form of selective amnesia. Since the Conservative party's visit to Blackpool, there seems to have been an outbreak of it. First, on that occasion, the Conservatives forgot even to mention their former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). [Interruption.] It is true: they forgot to mention him. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, slips are made in politics. These things can happen.
  Secondly, the Conservatives managed to expunge from the record their former conference darling, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)—he of the famous "little list". They now want to take that amnesiac approach to politics a stage further by conveniently ignoring their own record on the national
  880
  health service. This must be the first occasion on which a political party has tried to airbrush itself out of politics. Well, the Conservatives may have forgotten what they did, but we have not—and neither have the staff of the national health service, or the public who rely on it.
  Let me remind the Opposition of the Conservative record on health, and the difference that a Labour Government are making to the state of the NHS. When we came to office, the Tories had cut the number of nurses in training by more than 4,000. It is no use the hon. Member for Woodspring going on about the shortage of nurses; the Conservatives created that shortage in the first place. This year, following the biggest real-terms pay increase that nurses have had in a decade, the number of student nurses is at a six-year high.
  When we came to office, investment in new buildings, plant and equipment was at a 10-year low. This year, the NHS capital budget is at an all-time high. The biggest new hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is now under way, and about 200 casualty departments and 1,000 GP surgeries are being modernised. When we came to office, the Tories had undermined the NHS and demoralised its staff by introducing the hated internal market. The motion deplores mismanagement; I deplore it too. That is why we have abolished the internal market in the national health service. That is why we have ended the two-tier system introduced by GP fundholding, and that is why we are putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat to share the task of providing health care in the future. In the process, we are freeing £1 billion from bureaucracy so that we can reinvest it in front-line patient services. Those are the public's priorities for the national health service, and they are our priorities too.
  Dr. Fox rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, for the last time.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
  As a matter of historical fact, can the Secretary of State tell us what proportion of this record capital spend on the NHS is due to PFI projects? Can he also tell us what was his party's attitude before the election?
  Mr. Milburn: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what my party promised in its manifesto at the last general election. We promised that we would rejuvenate the private finance initiative and make it work. The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the private finance initiative in health at his peril, because the Conservatives had not done a single hospital deal by the time we came to office.
  The hon. Gentleman talks of management consultants. The Conservatives spent £30 million on consultants' salaries and lawyers' salaries, and not a single hospital was built. We have the hospital building programme under way, through both the PFI and the public route. Communities throughout the country which have waited for decades are now seeing the building of new hospitals.
  It is this Government, too, who have invested an extra £21 billion in the national health service. The hon. Gentleman skated over that today, which did not surprise me. After all, it was his party that described the extra spending as reckless, madness and irresponsible. Try as

  881
  the hon. Gentleman might to rewrite history once again, his right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the game away when he accused my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of being goaded on class sizes and waiting lists, and to have gone soft on spending. We are spending more; the Conservatives want us to spend less. We will take no lessons from them on the inadequacy of support for the health service.
  Nor will we take any lessons on waiting lists. When we came to office, waiting lists were at a record level, and rising fast. Today, they are falling. They are already down by 69,000, and we will keep them going down. By the end of the current Parliament, they will be 100,000 lower than the level that we inherited. The hon. Gentleman says that I should abandon the promises that we made at the last election. That is the cavalier Conservative way with election promises. When we make promises, we keep them. Indeed, it is because of our success in getting waiting lists down that we are now able to move into the next phase of our modernisation programme.
  Cutting waiting lists was always just the start. I want all aspects of NHS care to be modernised. We start with services dealing with our country's biggest killers, cancer and coronary heart disease. Those are my priorities for modernisation. In the last fortnight, I have been able to put more money into paying for extra heart operations, so that patients can gain quicker access to the surgery that they need.
  The hon. Gentleman says that I did not announce the provision of 400 extra consultants. Let me tell him that I did. He should know that there is a difference between doctors in training and doctors in post. The Opposition are in training, while we are in post—and the same applies to my announcement.
  Yesterday, I also announced more money for cancer services. The hon. Gentleman dismissed that as a gimmick, but it is £80 million of new, extra money, enabling cancer patients to obtain faster, fairer access to care. Let us hear no more from Conservative Members about the distortion of clinical priorities. The question for the hon. Gentleman is simple: does he support our efforts to modernise services dealing with the most severe clinical conditions, or does he not? The public support them; staff support them; patients with suspected cancer support them. They want faster, fairer care, and they know that it will be delivered by this Labour Government.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way one last time.
  Miss McIntosh: Last week, the Secretary of State was kind enough to suggest, in reply to a question, that Shaun Johnstone should have had a brain tumour scan within two weeks. He was not given a scan within two months. The health service clearly failed him. Indeed, the photographer on the local newspaper in his home constituency—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief; they should not be seen as opportunities to raise constituency matters at length.
  Mr. Milburn: Let me repeat what I said to the hon. Lady last week at Question Time. I understand the
  882
  circumstances surrounding the tragic case of Shaun Johnstone. I know that it has been looked into by the health authority, and I know that Shaun Johnstone' s parents have been advised that they should go to the health service commissioner, which is the right thing for them to do. Nevertheless, I repeat my promise to examine the case, and when I have had an opportunity to do so, I shall return to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Simon Burns: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I will not.
  It will take time, effort and investment to turn the national health service around, but, notwithstanding the allegation in the motion, the national health service is not getting worse; it is getting better. More patients are being treated, more doctors are being trained, more nurses are being recruited, more hospitals are being built and more services are being modernised. It will go on getting better each and every year that this Government are in office. No doubt, every step of the way, it will go on being talked down by the Conservative party. The Conservatives are determined to brand the NHS a failure.
  Yesterday, we saw the clearest contrast between Conservative priorities for the NHS and Labour priorities. Yesterday, both the hon. Member for Woodspring and I visited NHS hospitals. I went to visit patients and staff in the cancer care unit at St. Thomas's hospital, which is opposite this place. He visited an NHS hospital in Burton-upon-Trent. I outlined plans for modernising England's cancer services. He outlined plans to get more people to buy private health insurance.
  I talked about more money for the NHS. The hon. Member for Woodspring talked about pricing policy in private health care. I talked about national standards to end the lottery in health care. He talked about product standards in private medicine. What better contrast could there be—Labour creating a faster, fairer health service, available to all; the Tories encouraging a private, pay-as-you-go health system that is available only to a few.
  The differences between Labour and the Conservatives on health have never before been clearer. They believe that improvements in health care can come only through an enhanced role for the private sector. We believe that improvements in health care have to come through the NHS. Only the NHS is capable of offering care on the basis of need, and need alone, not of ability to pay.
  We now know what the next Conservative manifesto will mean for the national health service; the hon. Member for Woodspring has been explicit about that at least. He calls his approach the "silent revolution", although, as he told a conference fringe meeting just a few weeks ago:
  "no one has really picked up on what it actually means".
  I can tell him. We have picked up on exactly what it means. I am determined that his secret revolution gets all the publicity that it deserves in communities throughout the land. He believes that
  "the biggest problem we have in the NHS is that it is not a proper market".
  That will come as a bit of a surprise to NHS staff, who could not wait to get rid of the last market that the Conservatives introduced to the NHS.

  883
  The hon. Member for Woodspring says that the secret revolution could
  "revolutionise private insurance in the way we revolutionised pensions in the 1980s"—
  no doubt with the same impact. The Conservatives' secret revolution can be summed up in a simple phrase: not modernisation, but privatisation. It is a measure of how far today's Conservatives have moved from the political mainstream. They are prisoners of their own extremism.
  Today's Conservatives have no ambition for the NHS. They do not feel comfortable with the NHS's values. They want market forces in a service that is founded on co-operative principles. Fifty years after they opposed the creation of the national health service, they oppose its modernisation. They deserve to be rejected now, just as they were rejected then. I invite my hon. Friends to do just that in the Division Lobby later.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
  8.3 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on his appointment as Secretary of State for Health. For all the demands and pressures, I think that it is one of the most exciting and rewarding roles in government, but there is a profound difference between the way in which he sees the health service and the way in which many Conservative Members see it.
  Behind the rhetoric, the Secretary of State knows the position. He consults the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organisation and other international bodies, which believe that others are copying our changes in the health service over the past decade, the essence of which his party has endorsed. They include a focus on primary care, the introduction of a preventive strategy and greater efficiency: what is called corporatisation of hospitals. Those are all developments that, for all the rebranding and rebadging, his party has, with a lot of noise, endorsed. Evidence-based medicine was the labour of love, if we like, of my term of office. I am delighted to see it move forward with the service frameworks and the development of NICE.
  Where the Secretary of State and Conservative Members differ is that he really believes that the service is getting better. It is a serious criticism of his party that, in office, he and his colleagues rarely visit constituencies of Members who do not belong to their party.
  I spent many days in Darlington, Newcastle, Manchester and Leeds. I saw the investment in hospitals and primary care. I recognise the variations in health and the need for economic and social policies to address the problems, but I ask the Secretary of State and his colleagues to spend the same amount of time in South-West Surrey and other comparable constituencies. The degree of pessimism in the health service in my area and in those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends is appalling.
  884
  I would have liked to have asked the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), who has now left the Chamber, an ethical question about private health services. If your child went to an accident and emergency department with a teacher or nurse—both have come to me in the past fortnight—was not seen after an hour and a half, and it was suggested that you took the child home, would you think that that was a good enough service? If mental health provision were so inadequate that a young man with developed schizophrenia burned his parents' house to the ground, even though they warned the services of his deteriorating condition, would you think that the service was good enough? If you spoke to a consultant, as I did today, who said that the situation has never been worse—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady should not use the term "you" at such great length.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I profoundly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The degree of emotion being generated in west Surrey is such that I want the Secretary of State to be aware of how desperate people feel.
  The Royal Surrey county hospital has moved psycho-geriatric patients into surgical beds. Waiting lists are all rising. On the day that the Secretary of State's initiative on cancer was announced, a cancer specialist approached me saying, "Yes, we have to see people within a fortnight, but the surgery cases and chemotherapy waiting lists are both lengthening." On the day of the heart disease announcement, a doctor rang and said, "That is all very well, but the angiography waiting list has almost trebled in the past year."
  The Secretary of State asks why I did not do anything. During my term as a Minister, I do not believe that I ever suggested that change would lead to a deterioration of services. No one in West Surrey health authority believes anything other than that services will deteriorate.
  The ethical issue is: in those cases that I have identified, when a constituent says, "Should I go private if I can?", what is the appropriate response of the Member of Parliament? I have never believed that that situation would develop, but I have read the headlines of the local paper over the past month:
  "Health chiefs must cut services by £20m by 2002.
  "Anger at cuts in child health services.
  "'Blocked' beds put pressure on services."
  The funding raid on the home counties, which the Government describe as tackling inequalities, means that social services have lost £10 million. At the same time, the health service has a funding package that does not fund staff costs in an area with a high cost of living. It does not cover the cost of rents and all the other expenses in the area, which the Labour party dismisses as prosperous and treats in the same way as it treated the eight children from an independent school at its party conference. Other headlines state:
  "A and E patients forced to wait up to 20 hours";
  and:
  "Hospital could be £1m in the red by March."
  I appreciate that Labour Members have little interest in areas such as the one that I represent. However, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman might have been concerned about recent newspaper reports that tour operators have been advising people visiting the United

  885
  Kingdom to take out private health care insurance. When I held the right hon. Gentleman's office, a frequently heard quip—which no one ever challenged—ran, "If you're abroad and ill, what do you do? You come back to the use the NHS. If you're ill and a foreigner in Britain, what do you do? You use the NHS." Why, therefore, should tour operators, such as the German equivalent of the Automobile Association, now be advising people to take out private health insurance?
  Nouvelles Frontieres states:
  "People have had lots of problems seeing a doctor in Britain. With insurance they can see a doctor straight away."
  Portuguese tour operators have said that special health insurance was mandatory for the United Kingdom, but not for anywhere else in Europe. Elder Alves, of Top Tours, said:
  "We always arrange health protection for people visiting London. We do not use NHS hospitals."
  The French Guide states:
  "You have to have an appointment to see a doctor. Insist that it is urgent—otherwise you could end up being healed next week for this week's flu."
  Henri Menna said:
  "I tell French parents to take out private medical insurance so they can have peace of mind. If the person contracts something serious or needs surgery while in England, it is better to get the person straight back to France, where the treatment and care are much better."
  Those comments should disturb Ministers and other Labour Members as much as they disturb Conservative Members.
  If the reality is that the right hon. Gentleman cannot deliver services or provide adequate resources, it would be better to be courageous and say that there must be more co-payment and more explicit rationing, so that patients might know what is or is not available. Currently, however, people are being told to wait ever longer, and they are getting ever more worried about their inability to receive treatment. The situation is unacceptable.
  Difficulties are being experienced not only by patients. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the problem of disillusioned doctors is bigger than ever before, partly because of the public sector salary structure compared with opportunities available for comparable graduates outside the public sector. However, the difficulties facing doctors, and Ministers' lack of realism, is causing doctors' frustration to become ever greater outrage.
  Time and again, the Government's policy has been driven by the need to please No. 10 Downing street, with media initiatives such as supernurses, walk-in centres and NHS Direct. However, a telephone line will not help to cure the health service's problems. NHS Direct is perfectly all right, but it is essentially a trivial and marginal initiative. It is well known in the service that No. 10 Downing street drove that initiative, and imposed it on the previous Secretary of State for Health.
  The right hon. Gentleman is about to encounter an extremely serious winter situation and all the problems caused by the new millennium. I do not know the accuracy of The Independent's report that the previous Secretary of State decided that seeking the office of London mayor would be preferable to facing the difficulties that he has left the right hon. Gentleman, but my—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: The Opposition motion demonstrates the remarkable narrowness of Conservative Members' views on health issues. In it, they make two key claims—first, that the waiting list initiative has damaged the national health service; and secondly, that there has been a
  "distortion of clinical priorities in favour of political targets".
  As the Secretary of State said, in their motion Conservative Members are sending a clear and quite profound message—that the Government's electoral promises do not matter. I accept that, for all political parties represented in the House, a sad fact of modern politics is that, frequently, hugely complex issues are slimmed down to one-line soundbites or pledges. Nevertheless, rightly or wrongly, an election pledge is an election pledge, and, like other Labour Members, I was elected on a waiting list pledge. Like my colleagues, I owe it to my constituents to ensure that the Government deliver that pledge.
  Mr. Graham Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I shall not; I have only 10 minutes.
  It is wrong for the Opposition to criticise the Government for trying to meet the commitments and promises that we made at the general election. None the less, politics seems to have reached that strange state.
  What evidence has been presented to support the claims made in the Opposition motion? Supporting evidence from Opposition Members has been very thin. However, I am able to state that, in Health Committee sittings, I have seen evidence of distortions in the formulation of waiting list targets. I saw it in 1991, after the introduction of internal markets. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—who usually attends health debates, but is not here today—will recall evidence that we received from some trusts, which said that the internal market's emphasis on competition with neighbouring trusts had forced them into skewing their priorities. I am also able to state that I have seen distortion of clinical priorities in favour of political targets. It happened in my own constituency, when, under the previous Government, the two-tier fundholding system was operating and some of my constituents who were not patients of fundholders were denied operations.
  It is remarkable that the Opposition motion makes absolutely no reference to wider health issues. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) raised the issue of public health—a fundamentally important issue, which, at long last, a Government are taking very seriously. In response, however, the shadow Secretary of State dismissed the public health issue as a sixth-form debating point. Nevertheless, the Government's amendment to the motion rightly mentions cancer and heart disease, which were dealt with at length by the Secretary of State.
  Today's British Medical Journal report on the number of young women who die from heart attacks caused by smoking is also entirely relevant to the public health issue. Let us consider those figures, which the Tories have not bothered to quote today.
  The fact is that, since 1950—during the lifetime of many hon. Members, including me—6 million people in the United Kingdom have died prematurely from

  887
  smoking. The fact is that, every year, 120,000 people die from smoking-related illnesses. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of premature death.
  In 18 years in government, what did the Tories do about those facts? They blocked successive attempts in the House to pass United Kingdom legislation preventing tobacco advertising. They also blocked European Union efforts to reach agreement on tobacco advertising. Why? They did so because they were paid to do so by the tobacco companies. They were in hock to the tobacco companies, and therefore have a direct responsibility for the vast numbers of people who have died prematurely in the United Kingdom. The Tories could have acted on tobacco in their years in government, but they regarded public health—the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—as a public school debating point.
  I ask Conservative Members: who is calling the tune on their health policy? Who is paying for their policy? I have my own suspicions on that. Since the general election, implicit in every statement made by a Tory Front Bencher has been the desire to shift health care into the private sector. Their desire is now explicit, having been written into their document, "The Common Sense Revolution". In their proposal to shunt patients into the private sector, we have an explicit recipe for destruction of the national health service.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: I shall not give way.
  I should like Opposition Members to answer one question that I have asked in probably every health debate since the general election. If people on a waiting list cannot be treated within the time set by whichever Government, possibly because there is a staff shortage in a particular hospital, what sense would it make to push them into the local private sector? That local private sector recruits entirely from the local NHS to treat those same patients. They will take the staff out of the NHS and shunt them into the private sector. It is a downward spiral that will lead to the destruction of a national health service in which the Tories do not believe and in which they have never believed.
  The vast majority of the public, whatever their politics, believe in the basic principles of the NHS, as set out in the motion tonight. I wish the Government well in the process of rebuilding the NHS in accordance with those basic principles.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this evening on the state of the NHS. When I looked at the motion, I could not help admiring the brass neck of the Conservatives in tabling it. As I listened to the entertaining and rhetorical speech of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I felt that one could have been forgiven for imagining that all the catalogue of problems—
  Mr. Hammond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Harvey: I have barely begun. The hon. Gentleman will have to give me a chance to get started.
  888
  I felt that one could have been forgiven for believing that the catalogue of problems that the Conservative spokesman ran through had magically commenced on 1 May 1997, and had come about in the last couple of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the Conservatives caused many of the problems that have been described this evening. Having passed them over—albeit reluctantly—to Labour two and a half years ago, their motion does not seem to have come up with any new solutions.
  Apart from the idiosyncratic ideas of the hon. Member for Woodspring about private health care insurance policies, we heard nothing new tonight. I could have been forgiven for closing my eyes and thinking that this debate was indistinguishable from an Opposition day debate before the last election.
  It all boils down to a question of resources. The NHS Confederation has been warning that the significant problems that authorities and trusts face in the coming winter will come about because there has been a history of ruthless year-on-year slicing and efficiency savings which has gradually stripped the system of flexibility and has eaten into service quality.
  We hear from the Government that £21 billion is going into the NHS. That is a large sum of money which, on initial inspection, seems generous. However, when one looks more closely at the figures, one realises that it is not as much as it sounds. One must consider that, for the first two years of this Parliament, there was a freeze on public expenditure. The Government stuck to Tory spending plans—which it was highly improbable the Tories would have stuck to themselves.
  As the £21 billion is measured out throughout the remainder of a four-year Parliament, we see that the Government will not even have increased spending on the NHS up to the same standard, year-on-year, as the Conservatives did during their 18 years in office. When we take out a few spoonfuls from the £21 billion pot to pay for the latest Government initiatives, we see that the pot shrinks even further.
  The Government come up with eye-catching initiatives which keep the spin doctors happy, but do not result in improvements in the NHS. Some of the initiatives are good ideas. NHS Direct—although it would have been better to have done it on a local footing—undoubtedly contains the kernel of a good idea. However, the extra funding needs to go to the basic bread-and-butter service before we start having Government wheezes and initiatives which, frankly, amount to honey on top.
  As we look forward to winter, reports are coming in that trusts are being forced to overspend, and many are running up deficits that are much bigger than expected. This news comes five months before the end of the financial year, and before we know the scale of the problems that the coming winter may bring with it. More resources are needed.
  I agree with the call by the hon. Member for Woodspring for a rational debate on the issue of rationing, and I was depressed to hear the Secretary of State, yet again, dodge the questions about rationing. Of course there is rationing in the health service—there always has been and there always will be.
  The Government should define clearly the constraints that are presently applied in the rationing of resources within the NHS, and they should take full responsibility

  889
  for the decisions that have to be made within national guidelines. It may be a question of semantics or vocabulary but, in my opinion, that amounts to rationing. We need to have national policies that patients and members of the public understand—for example, on infertility, cosmetic and obesity treatments, and a variety of other issues.
  I was depressed to hear the Secretary of State dodging this matter by hiding behind decisions that will be taken by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. NICE should stick to the remit that it was given when it was set up—of looking at clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. It may be semantics again but, in my view, there is a fundamental difference between cost-effectiveness and affordability. Some things can be cost-effective and yet very expensive. When the White Paper set up NICE, affordability was not included as one of the criteria for the body to consider. When the chairman of the body took up his task, he emphasised that point in response to questions put to him at the time.
  This evening, the Secretary of State surprised us by saying clearly that it is already the role of NICE to consider issues of affordability. That is the Government dodging decisions that they ought to take. I disagree with the general thrust of some of the other remarks this evening—the Government should be making such decisions on a political basis, having received from NICE expert advice on clinical efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The issue is becoming confused.
  I would welcome a broader look at what constitutes cost-effectiveness. It should not be a question simply of what the NHS's current budget can afford, but rather what UK plc will have to pay out as a result of decisions. For example, there may be a variety of treatments that would enable people to get back to work—and which would save money on benefit bills and housing provision by local authorities—which should be incorporated into any true consideration of what constitutes cost-effectiveness.
  I welcome the fact that the Minister with responsibility for public health has a role in considering public health issues that will rove across Departments, but I cannot understand why the same cannot be true when we look at cost-effectiveness issues.
  I wish to refer also to the tension that arises following the central diktats launched by the Department of Health, and the difficulties that these cause to the local providers who must carry them through. The Government are forcing health care suppliers to fund some of their well-spun schemes without providing adequate resources.
  I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring. I agree with those who have suggested that the basic Conservative prescription for increasing health care provision seems to be an expansion of private health insurance. However, I was puzzled by the logic of the hon. Gentleman's case. Some of his comments about the shortcomings of private health insurance policies were right. I understand why they are unattractive for many people. However, I do not understand how a modification of those policies would suddenly make them vastly more attractive to great swathes of the population, unless the NHS was so unappealing and unattractive that people felt driven to go to such lengths. If we follow his logic, he was almost
  890
  arguing—I am not suggesting that he said this—in favour of maintaining long waiting lists to encourage people to make provision for themselves in the private sector. As an hon. Friend said to me yesterday, that is replacing rationing by postcode with rationing by tax code, which is no more desirable than the current situation.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the problem. However, that is what is happening under the current Government. I have a constituent who has paid from his life savings to have a life-saving operation because he could not put up with the ludicrous waiting lists that the Labour Government were inflicting on him.
  Mr. Harvey: It is certainly true that with the current long waiting lists, some people are paying to go into the private sector. I do not query what the hon. Gentleman says about that. However, the thrust of his hon. Friend's case seemed to be that there needed to be a great increase in the extent to which people were making such provision for themselves. A better objective would be to run the NHS so well that such provision became less attractive.
  I also congratulate the Conservatives on taking up the issue of waiting times. It is not an entirely original idea that they seem to have come up with over the past few weeks. The Scottish Administration formed in May after an election campaign that addressed those issues decided that their performance should be judged by waiting times, not by the number of people on waiting lists. It is common sense that the key issue for a patient awaiting care is how long they have to wait: first how long it takes to see a consultant; then perhaps how long it is before they can have a scan or some diagnostic measure; and then how long they spend on the waiting list that the Government measure. Although there have been some extreme comments this evening about the manipulation of figures, it is not a fair assessment of the performance of the NHS simply to look at waiting lists for in-patients and not to consider the growing waiting lists for out-patients.
  Mr. Hammond: For the record, will the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's current estimate of the amount that would have to be added to income tax to deliver, from taxation, the NHS that he feels that the British people deserve in the 21st century?
  Mr. Harvey: One cannot bring about the service that one wants to build in the longer term on the basis of this year's or next year's income tax revenues. We have to invest over time to make good the underinvestment that has been going on for decades. Over time, we have to move towards the proportion of gross domestic product that other European countries spend on health. I agree that the private sector must be counted in that. We have to make progress towards the European average if we are to have health provision comparable with that in our competitor countries and put right the problems to which the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) referred in her comments about travel agent's brochures.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The proportion of GDP spent on health care through the national health service is about the same as that spent

  891
  on the continent. The difference between spending on the continent and spending here is accounted for by the private sector.
  Mr. Harvey: That is simply not true. Our spending is about 2 per cent. lower than the average of other European Union members. The split between public and private provision differs from country to country, but on the total spent we are trailing well behind our competitor nations. I am sorry to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but that is the fact.
  The Secretary of State asked the Opposition to say whether they welcomed the new focus that he has adopted in the past couple of weeks. I should like to make it clear that I do. I hope that he will address the worrying gap between the level of care for cancer patients in this country and that in our competitor nations. Patients and the general public will welcome having those priorities mapped out clearly. If the new cancer tsar, Professor Richards, is to make the progress that we all want, he will need a full increase of resources behind the surgeons to whom the Secretary of State has already referred. That includes nursing staff and equipment. I agree with the comments from the Conservative Front Bench. There have been many representations from health service professionals about the state of the equipment used for cancer care. That will all be important to the work that the Secretary of State is trying to do, and I fear that there will be no scope for recycling any money already committed; the money will need to be genuinely new. Indeed, in planning a work force capable of delivering the new priorities, we must consider what staffing levels throughout the profession will be required.
  The Secretary of State talked about the increase in nursing salaries. Certainly the sharp increase in salaries for new nurses is welcome. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that is beginning to have an impact on recruitment into the profession. However, retention is equally important. If we are to solve that problem, we must do something about salaries for existing nursing staff. There have been some examples of new staff earning almost the same as experienced staff. It costs about £33,000 to train a nurse, and £5,000 to replace one who leaves the profession; that figure covers recruitment costs, agency costs and so on. We must think about cost-effectiveness in a broader sense, because spending on nurses can save money.
  We also need more nurse-led care, more prescribing by nurses and more specialist nurses. In addition to the impact that that would have on efficiency and on the economics of the national health service, it would also encourage nurses to stay in the profession and relieve some of the pressure on doctors. I was pleased to hear about the GP practice in Derbyshire that is run entirely by a nurse, who sees the patients first and employs a GP to whom she passes them if she thinks it is appropriate and necessary.
  Ultimately, without additional funding the NHS cannot remain comprehensive, high quality and free at the point of entry. In the longer run, however, funding the NHS could save other Departments money. When we think about the winter ahead, and the sort of problems that are piling up, including the fact that one quarter of the trusts say that their financial position means that they will have to postpone or cancel developments in the Government's priority area of mental health, we realise that the immediate problems are very serious.
  892
  Expecting trusts and authorities to go through the process of efficiency gain and to continue to come up with savings year on year on year is simply causing additional problems, and adding to the problems that we already have is no solution to the headaches that those who try to provide our health service are already experiencing.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: Having heard the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I cannot help observing—this is an old one but a good one—that in the health debate, the Liberal Democrats have bladder trouble again. I am talking about a continuation of the longest "pee"—[Interruption.] I shall take no lessons from them when they talk about funding.
  The Conservatives, as well as the Liberal Democrats, have a problem. We heard nothing from their Front-Bench spokesman about spending—nothing about the £21 billion that the Government have placed before the nation to be spent on the national health service over three years. The Conservatives do not talk about that, because they cannot say what they would do.
  We heard nothing about the Health Act 1999, either. I had the honour and good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee on that Bill, so I know that one of the reasons why the Conservatives will not talk about it is that they have lost the argument about the structure. In Committee, they talked for hour upon hour about how abolishing fundholding would be the ruin of the health service. Yet we have heard nothing about that today. The Conservatives do not mention it any more, because they lost the argument, and the argument has now moved on.
  We heard nothing from the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) about mental health services. He said that he wanted a mature debate, so why did he not welcome the national frameworks that the Government have recently introduced for major sectors of the health service? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health mentioned public health. If we are having a mature debate, why did the Opposition not welcome "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", the White Paper that addressed that very issue?
  The present Government are the first to consider the effects of ill health when determining health policy. Why do we hear nothing from the Opposition about the wider health debate, including the effect of the new deal on poverty? We hear nothing about the national minimum wage, because the Opposition have lost the argument. We hear nothing about the working families tax credit, which will make work pay for families and do much to reduce ill health.
  Shamefully, we heard nothing from the hon. Member for Woodspring about staff. In a debate on the health service, he failed to welcome the commitment and dedication of the staff. The Opposition are too churlish to welcome the Government's investment programme which will provide more nurses after years of cuts in nurse numbers under the Tories' regime.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring mentioned his theory that private health insurance would get extra money into the national health service. Several powerful criticisms of that approach have been made already, but they are worthy of reiteration. Private health insurance

  893
  would mean a massive boost for the Tories' friends in the City in the health insurance market. That is one of the byproducts of that approach.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hesford: No, because I have only 10 minutes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the powerful point that the Tories were not trusted after the mis-selling of private pensions, so why should they be trusted on the idea of health insurance?
  The hon. Member for Woodspring did not mention what it would take to attract people to private health insurance. One curious theory, expounded by the hon. Member for North Devon, was that waiting times would be lengthened to force people into it. That is one potential method, but what else could be done?
  The method that dare not speak its name was revealed by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) when he made a speech in March 1999 to the Social Market Foundation as a shadow Health Minister. He gave the game away about using tax relief to encourage people to take out private health insurance, although the Opposition seem since to have suffered collective amnesia on the issue. They do not talk about it because of the cost implications. It would cost between £500 million arid £1 billion a year to achieve the take-up of private health insurance that the hon. Gentleman talked about.
  I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who is to reply for the Opposition, could deal with that sort of costing. It flies in the face of the tax-cutting agenda that his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor discussed. So much for the Opposition.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) described what goes on in her constituency, but I will not take from her that doom-and-gloom-merchant view of the health service. I visit my local hospitals, see my local primary care groups and talk to the local trusts. I know what the health service is achieving in my constituency and how the Government's agenda sits very well with the people with whom I speak. I very much welcome the Government's modernising agenda.
  In the Wirral, we will get a walk-in centre, which will reduce waiting times and lists for patients. We have been allocated £800,000 to modernise our accident and emergency unit. The Opposition do not mention that. Waiting lists are down in my constituency and I have received no letters from constituents complaining about shorter waiting lists. It is nonsense to say that we should not honour that commitment, as has been said rightly and powerfully in this debate.
  My local hospital, Arrowe Park, which does an excellent job, is to get a new 12-bed unit to help deal with winter pressures. We are part of the Merseyside health action zone, which returns me to the public health agenda. On the Wirral, we are considering occupational therapies to get those who are suffering from long-term ill health back into employment.
  894
  I will end on this note. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health said that this debate is fashioned around the idea of year zero—the idea that the Conservatives were not in power for 18 years. Their collective amnesia is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must end now. I call the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
  8.48 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: My constituents are growing weary of the NHS propaganda that this Government are pumping out. My constituents are getting less money, not more, they are getting a worse and not a better service, and their interests are being sacrificed on the altar of financial cuts and provider convenience.
  The Government's propaganda machine drones on and on about more money for all, but the truth in Spelthorne is the exact opposite. West Surrey health authority's pro rata share of the much hyped £20 billion would be £5 million a year. Instead of getting that £5 million, the health authority has been ordered by the Government to make £20 million in cuts in the next three years. Those are real cuts—the ending of real services—and not merely getting £20 million less than the authority thought it needed. That is a total disgrace. So much for the propaganda about more money for the health service under Labour. Spelthorne is the victim of one of those Labour lies.
  The Government's propaganda machine drones on and on about better services for all. Again, the truth in my constituency is very different. West Surrey health authority is savaging services in my constituency in order to cut expenditure. The total pay bill is being cut by 4.6 per cent. The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) said that he had heard nothing about staff from Conservative Members. However, I can tell him that in my constituency the cuts will mean fewer nurses and doctors. That is the truth about Labour's national health service. It is the real message about staff that the hon. Gentleman ought to hear.
  West Surrey health authority is cutting spending on surgical, medical and intensive care services by £775,000 a year. It is also cutting spending on clinical support services by £1.6 million a year. I am talking not about savings through modernisation or through cutting overheads, but about cuts to front-line services. The consequences of those cuts for Ashford hospital in my constituency include the closure of the accident and emergency department, and the loss of all its intensive care beds and of 70 other acute care beds.
  That is the truth of what is happening in my constituency. The House need not take my word for it. When one of the consultants in my constituency was asked what the cuts would mean, he said that they would lead to increased suffering and inconvenience for patients. He added that a few of those patients would die as a result of the cuts. So much for better services under Labour: Spelthorne is the victim of yet another Labour lie.
  The Government's propaganda drones on and on about putting patients first, but once again, the truth in my constituency is very different. The Government say that services should be provided where patients want them, and the Secretary of State spoke today about convenience.

  895
  However, the closure of local services in my local hospital—for purposes of saving money for the health service and of provider convenience—is forcing my constituents to travel ever further.
  The Government say that patients will get the drugs that they want. There has been a lot of hype about that, but my patient care group has been told by my health authority to restrict prescribing in order to cut costs. The Government go on and on about how patients will be referred to the most suitable consultant. However, my PCG is being told to restrict referrals, again in order to cut costs. So much for Labour putting patients first: yet again, Spelthorne is the victim of another Labour lie.
  One other truth needs to be taken very seriously, and my constituents know all about it. That truth is that the Labour Government are very willing to play party politics with the NHS in my constituency. Earlier this year, the proposals to cut £20 million worth of services were being drawn up. They were ready to be published when the edict from on high came down prohibiting their publication until after the European elections. We know why that happened, but I am happy to say that my constituents are sensible. They were able to rumble the Government's ploy to protect the Labour position in those elections. Fewer than 4,000 of the 70,000 electors in my constituency voted Labour, because they knew the truth about the Government.
  On top of all that, my local health authority has told me that the Government were pressing it only last week not to make any concessions to the local opposition to the cuts that are being made. That is because when the matter reaches the Secretary of State, he will wish to disguise the cuts that he will make by offering sweeteners that he knows my health authority is thinking about. That sort of politicking disgusts me and my constituents.
  The Labour party needs to understand another truth: however hard the Government spin and no matter how much propaganda they pump out about the health service, patients will always know the truth. The truth will out. The truth is that my constituency has less money than it did when the Government came to power. We have worse services than we did when the Government came to power. Once the cuts are made, Spelthorne will have fewer doctors and nurses than it did when the Government came to power.
  It is time Ministers understood a few simple truths. I shall offer just two tonight: first, propaganda will not cure cancer; and secondly, it is time the Government stopped picking on people just because they vote Conservative.
  8.56 pm
  Ms Oona King: I commend the Opposition for choosing the national health service for debate. If there is one thing on which both sides can agree, it is the importance of health.
  I am afraid, however, that my conciliatory approach might have to end at that point. Those who know me know that I do not engage readily in party political point scoring, but I was astonished by the speech given by the shadow Health Secretary, who did nothing but score points. Frankly—if foolishly—I expected a tiny bit more of him. I was particularly shocked when he described the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) that poverty causes ill health as a cheap sixth form debating point. If that is the starting
  896
  point taken by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), I welcome this debate because it gives everyone the chance to see the Opposition score yet another spectacular own goal.
  The debate also gives me the opportunity to challenge the Opposition on why they want to see an end to specific improvements to the quality of service that the Labour Government's actions of the past two and a half years have already brought about. I shall turn later to improvements in my constituency.
  Meanwhile, what is the latest wheeze dreamed up by the free marketeers at Conservative central office? What do they have in store for the national health service? We have heard all about the patient's guarantee. When I first heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about that, I let my imagination run wild. Perhaps, I thought, the Tory party has undergone a collective conversion on the road to Damascus. But then I read the small print—which, incidentally, hundreds of thousands more of our pensioners are able to do because of the Labour Government's restoration of free eye tests for the over-60s—and found that the Conservatives are offering nothing but a massive expansion of private health care. The policy is simply a way of fanning out NHS treatment to the private health sector. It is back-door privatisation, an assisted places scheme in health care that will be used to subsidise private medicine for the privileged few.
  The only guarantee that patients would receive from a Tory-run NHS would be a health service based on where the patient lives, who the general practitioner happens to be and—worst of all—the patient's ability to pay. Fortunately, while the Tories dream up ever more bizarre ways to flog off the NHS, the Labour Government are introducing modernising reforms alongside massive new investment that will underpin the quality of service. That fact cannot be disputed: my constituents are doing amazingly well out of the Government's commitment to the NHS—
  Mr. Wilshire: Mine are not.
  Ms King: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I shall be happy to give way. What is his point?
  Mr. Wilshire: I wish that the hon. Lady had listened to what I said. My constituents are suffering as a result of her Government's actions.
  Ms King: I find it astonishing that you say that your constituents can be suffering after a—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she must speak in the third person.
  Ms King: I find it astonishing that the hon. Gentleman says that his constituents are suffering under a Government programme that has put £21 billion extra into health, to which his party has objected.
  Mr. Brady: Perhaps I can explain the situation both in a way that will please the hon. Lady's side and to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). The reason why my hon. Friend's constituents and mine are losing out although the hon. Lady's are gaining is precisely because the Government have changed the

  897
  allocation formula. They are transferring money to less privileged areas from other parts of the country. The problem that I have with that is simply that the Labour party was not honest and did not say at the election that that was what it intended to do. It did not tell my constituents that they would lose health service resources.
  Ms King: I find it amazing that the hon. Gentleman is pointing out the very well known fact that we believe that health resources should be allocated on the basis of need. Yes, we do, absolutely, and we are proud of it. I shall come to the funding allocation—[Interruption.] I have given way, if the hon. Member for Spelthorne will allow me to proceed.
  Let us examine the improvements that my constituents have seen. Conservative Members will be aware of improvements up and down the country in Tory-controlled health authorities as well. They are well documented and they have shown a move away from the political engineering in which the previous Government were so quick to engage.
  In Bethnal Green and Bow in Tower Hamlets, East London and the City health authority is receiving an additional £37 million to spend on local health services. That is an increase of 8 per cent.—something that could only have been dreamed of under the previous Administration. Yet all the increased funding is opposed by the Conservative party, with its blanket claim that the funding is reckless.
  In Tower Hamlets we will get a brand new 900-bed hospital on the site of the Royal London hospital at Whitechapel. That is part of the largest hospital building programme ever known in this country. Again, it is opposed by the Conservative party.
  The health action zone in Tower Hamlets is enabling health service professionals to introduce innovative approaches in partnership with other agencies to tackle ill health among our children and young people, to reduce deaths and illness from heart disease and strokes, and to improve the quality of life for those with mental health needs. Again, all of that is opposed by the Conservative party.
  Basically, as far as I can work it out, the Tories do not have a policy to improve health. They have a policy of entrenching ill health among ordinary people. So I am rather less interested in what they have to say and instead I would like to look at how we can continue to deal with the health inequalities that the Government have so vigorously been tackling.
  First, we need to increase access. That is high up the Government's agenda. Access to health care in the poorest areas is denied to many people. Some of my constituents have problems, whether cultural or language problems or just social exclusion pure and simple. Those problems prevent their access to health care.
  A second point about which we do not often hear much is the need to link health care initiatives and regeneration. It is an important point, which the new deal for communities is tackling.
  Thirdly, there is a need to break down health departmentalitis. That is one of the main aims of the health action zone. The best thing about the HAZ is that
  898
  for the first time the Government have embraced, in a way the previous Government never could or would, the wider definition of ill health and its causes, such as poverty. That brings us back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I welcome the Government's approach. If we are to help the poorest people in the poorest areas, we must ensure that the amount of funding that the health authority attracts reflects the number of people who live in an area rather than the number included in the census. I hope that we can ensure that the index of deprivation plays a key part in the funding formula for health authorities.
  Finally, the Government, and, indeed, the Prime Minister, have made it clear that these cash increases are not a one-off flash in the pan such as those that the Tories used to throw at us during the year before an election; rather they are sustainable, year on year, to increase access and quality of treatment, so that the NHS is once more the envy of the civilised world.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Yes, there is a crisis in the national health service, but it is not only there. I must inform the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) that there is also a crisis in education in Southend, where class sizes are growing and we do not have enough places for our secondary schoolchildren. There is a crisis in policing—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the health service?"] I shall come to the health service in a moment. There is a crisis in foreign affairs, but, above all, there is a real crisis in the national health service. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) want to intervene from a sedentary position?
  Last night, I spent a little time in the House of Commons Library, where I was referred to the comic section. There, I found the Labour party manifesto for the 1997 general election. After reading it, I felt physically sick. Obviously, many people have read that manifesto recently because it was well thumbed. It is headed:
  "Britain will be better with new Labour."
  It states:
  "Our case is simple: that Britain can and must be better."
  Turning to page 20, we read that Labour will "save the NHS". I hope that the Secretary of State for Health will soon return to the Chamber because he needs to read that manifesto. In a moment, I shall deal with both the present and the past ministerial teams.
  It is garbage for Labour to claim to be saving the national health service. It should now be stated that after nearly three years of this wretched Labour Government, it will be left to the incoming Conservative Government to save the national health service. After all the drivel that the Secretary of State came out with about the Labour party being responsible for the NHS, I am extremely glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who is somewhat older than the present Secretary of State, and my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) were quietly able to put him right on precisely who was responsible for the national health service.
  In the Labour manifesto, we were told that the NHS
  "is under threat from the Conservatives. We want to save and modernise the NHS."

  899
  The document states that
  "access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live."
  There is much that I could say about that. When we turn to the next page, we see an attractive picture of some chap looking at X-rays, with the caption:
  "We'll spend more on patient care and less on NHS red tape."
  There are also the five daft election pledges, which Labour tells everyone are being honoured, but they are not; it is merely that the goalposts are being completely changed.
  Finally, the manifesto refers to
  "our contract with the people"
  and states "save the NHS". It continues:
  "Over the five years of a Labour government … we will rebuild the NHS"—
  no; the Conservatives will have to rebuild it—
  "reducing spending on administration and increasing spending on patient care."
  The Labour party—new or old—should be thoroughly ashamed of all that nonsense.
  As for the past ministerial team, I become extremely angry when Labour Members try to portray the Conservative party as never having any interest in the health service. I do not have private health insurance, although I wish I did. However, at present, I do not earn enough to afford it—I hope that I am not bombarded with application forms for it.
  It is wicked for Labour Members to try to portray the Conservative party as uncaring. It is interesting to note that, after nearly three years in government, Labour Members are becoming annoyed for being blamed for things going wrong in the NHS. For 18 years—day in, day out; week in, week out; and month in, month out—as soon as someone died, it was all the fault of the Conservatives; Labour Members never worried about the effect on the relatives. Any problem in the national health service was the fault of the Conservative Government. After three years, Labour has been found out, and I do not believe a thing that Government Members say.
  On 10 July, we were treated to an interview in The Daily Telegraph with the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). When asked about his job, he said:
  "I'm the Health Secretary, not Jeffrey Archer. I love my job and hope to have it for a very long time."
  At the end of the interview, he said:
  "It's the only job I have ever wanted".
  When interviewed on live television about the Dick Whittington job, he had the cheek to say that he had been doing a rather good job as Health Secretary—in case you had not noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a member of the Health Select Committee, and when the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers appeared before us I found their so-called responses to our questions deeply disappointing. I am looking forward to dealing with the new ministerial team—I note that the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), is in the Chamber.
  My hon. Friends will be aware that the Government are seeking to present a new health care image. We have a new team and a softer, gentler image. There will be no
  900
  distasteful jokes told at big functions, which was the habit of the previous incumbent. The Government's approach to health care will be more sophisticated in the future; this is a new start. However, I think that the new incumbent will find it difficult to distance himself from the original policy. He was a Health Minister after the general election, and I have pages and pages detailing his recent remarks as Health Secretary. I do not take anything that Government Members say at face value—I get the truth from the Library—and I think that the new Health Secretary will regret some of his comments.
  Labour has undoubtedly broken many promises and let the public down. As shadow Health Secretary, the present Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said that there would be no upheaval in the NHS. Yet Dr. Ian Bogle described the pace of the Government's health reforms as "frightening" and said that doctors were
  "apprehensive and fearful for their future".
  The right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said that Labour would cut NHS waiting times—that is a joke. In March 1997, 30,100 patients waited more than a year to be seen by a doctor, and that figure has now increased by 63 per cent. Many of my hon. Friends have described the growth in NHS waiting lists.
  In Southend, we see the result of Labour's policies at first hand. Since Labour came to power, waiting times for radiology treatment, and particularly barium enemas, have increased dramatically. That is a serious matter. I am advised that the problem has arisen because the hospital has had to divert one radiologist from the barium list to mammogram sessions. That is a direct consequence of the two-week waiting time edict for breast cancer treatment and a good example of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
  There are no secrets about the health service: unless Labour puts up taxes, which it is loth to do for popularity reasons, it will fall on its sword. I am concerned for Mrs. Sara Ashworth who, at 93, is awaiting a cataract operation. I am advised by my local hospital that she will have to wait between 15 and 18 months—which, at 93, is a hell of a long time. I am very concerned about Mrs. Ena Pluckrose who lives opposite me. She is in her eighties and looks after her husband who is in his nineties. She has been told that she is being moved to the "soon" category, which means that she will be waiting 12 to 15 months.
  There is a crisis in the NHS and I blame the previous Secretary of State, the present Secretary of State and, most of all, the leader of the Labour party. The sooner he and this wretched Government lose the next general election, the better.
  9.15 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I have listened to the debate with great attention and interest as this subject is dear to my heart. I am one of only two general practitioners who are Members of the House; the other, who is sitting opposite me, is listening closely as well.
  The Opposition have played their usual tricks, which has rather disappointed me. I was hoping for an intelligent and adult debate, as billed by the Opposition spokesman, but unfortunately his words did not match his intentions and what we heard from them was not intelligent or enlightening discussion but a series of tricks to run down the NHS, demoralise staff and frighten patients into believing that the NHS is falling apart around their ears.

  901
  The truth is exactly the opposite. I am becoming well versed in parliamentary ways, and I was afraid that that might happen, so I took the precaution of phoning around my health authority, my trust and my local primary care group yesterday and today to find out exactly what is happening in my patch, which is in the West Kent health authority area. It is not noted for its left-wing leanings or views and, in the main, is represented by Conservative Members, so the allegation that the Government are rigging the NHS in favour of Labour-controlled areas is nonsense. I shall give examples to back that up.
  My local hospital told me that its waiting list stood at 4,395 on 31 March 1998. By 30 September 1999, the figure was 3,429, which is a 22 per cent. decrease, with no patients waiting more than 18 months and all Department of Health targets being met.
  I asked about recruitment, which is often mentioned.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: I am afraid that I do not have time. I have a lot to get through and, unfortunately, only 10 minutes in which to do it.
  I was told that there was no problem in recruiting junior doctors and that consultant posts are generally well filled, apart from one in radiology. There is a national shortage of radiologists and the problem is being addressed by the trust as that post is currently covered by a locum. The trust is short of 70 nurses and has planned a recruitment drive for the new year, but it told me that that figure is considerably better than it was.
  Today, West Kent health authority has published its annual report, which is entitled "West Kent's Health" and headlined "A Healthier West Kent". The area contains places such as Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells and Maidstone, which are not represented by Labour Members. Nevertheless, it is doing extremely well in terms of health care. I shall give an example from the document, which was sent to me this morning, concerning winter pressures. Time and again, we have heard that the health service is about to fall apart and that it disintegrates when winter comes on, but last year
  "schemes were put in place across Dartford and Gravesham, Medway and Swale, Maidstone, and Tunbridge Wells to help community health teams to provide more services to enable people, particularly the elderly, to stay in their own homes. Over £1 million went to Social Services to provide more care packages for people in their own homes … Half a million pounds was spent on additional packages of care from Nursing Homes … Additional money was also made available for Community Hospital beds in the Livingstone Hospital, Dartford and Sittingboume Memorial Hospital … Some innovative schemes were developed, for example a Recuperative Care Scheme in Dartford".
  That is all well and good, but did it work?
  The document says:
  "The Hospitals and Community services were very busy over the winter period but this was managed and the effects of the additional pressures created by the flu epidemic and other seasonal demands were minimised. The success of the initiatives was seen in the Acute Trusts enabling them to achieve waiting list reductions and maintain bed availability for non-emergency admissions."
  That was during a so-called winter crisis. Obviously, the health authority coped very well indeed.
  902
  I contacted Dr. Alasdair Thomson—
  Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Stoate: Unfortunately, I do not have time.
  Dr. Brand: On that point.
  Dr. Stoate: Very well; I give way.
  Dr. Brand: I believe that interventions are treated as injury time in these debates. Was the winter pressures money not a one-off arrangement, and does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is sad that there can be no consistent planning in the NHS? These schemes ought to be learned from and incorporated in the proper delivery of service.
  Dr. Stoate: In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I shall continue to quote the article. It says that this winter
  "The Health Authority is working with GPs and Trusts to repeat the successful plans of last winter and to improve them further."
  That is not my document, but a West Kent health authority document.
  As I was saying, I contacted the chairman of my local primary health care group, Dr Alasdair Thomson, a GP in my constituency, about what the group was doing to progress to primary care trust status. A ballot has just been held and 116 ballot papers were sent to GPs in the area; 72.4 per cent. responded and 69 per cent. of those who voted, voted yes. That was an overwhelming majority in favour of proceeding to primary care trust status as soon as possible. Public consultation will begin next week and continue until January.
  The group has also started partnership working in many areas, including mental health, and a new psychiatric unit will open in January in my constituency. It has also joined the partnership in action scheme, involving health, social services and user groups of mental health services, radically to improve mental health services in my patch. It is developing clinical pathways with consultants, the idea being that GPs will be able to carry out more investigations more quickly, thereby reducing the number of people passed on to consultants, which in turn will reduce waiting lists and waiting times to see specialists. That is all good, innovative stuff coming out of a primary care group that wants to become a primary care trust as soon as possible.
  However, not everything in the health service is perfect. Many hon. Members have made some valuable points about the difficulties. I wish to raise a number of issues about what we can do to improve the health service yet further. Of course, the health service needs more money, and I am sure that the ministerial team will work hard with the Chancellor to free up resources for it as money becomes available in the economy.
  Naturally, we must continue to increase efficiency in the health service. Will the Minister say how the Government are getting on with their task of cutting red tape and the money spent on bureaucracy? We must make best use of resources, ensuring that every penny is spent to best effect. That means cost-effectiveness as well as clinical effectiveness. It means looking at clinical outcomes to ensure that best practice is available everywhere, every time. We must also ensure that we get

  903
  best value from goods and services. I am alarmed by the rise in the cost of generic drugs due to shortages and difficulties in obtaining them, and I am pleased that my colleagues on the Health Committee have agreed with my suggestion to meet to discuss that issue next week to see what we can do to improve the supply of generic drugs so that primary care groups do not overspend their budgets because of the unavailability of drugs.
  We must also make best use of expertise in the health service. I am particularly concerned that community pharmacists are an under-used resource. They are highly trained and qualified and have much to offer. If there are extra winter pressures—for example, because of respiratory infections or flu—who better than community pharmacists to give good, sensible general advice and symptomatic treatment to people suffering from unpleasant, but generally not life-threatening conditions? That would free up clinicians, doctors and nurses to treat people who really need medical and nursing help and the few who may need hospital treatment. I am working with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) to try to set up an all-party pharmacists group in this House. It will look at exactly that issue and try to raise awareness of how community pharmacists could be used to best effect within the health service.
  Factors outside the health service can also affect health. We have already heard tonight that public health is a huge issue. It is not just about the NHS but includes many other aspects of society as we seek to improve the nation's health. We have heard about the smoking epidemic and the fact that every five minutes someone in this country dies from a smoking-related illness. We are beginning to find out that children are becoming fatter and less active because their diets do not necessarily suit them, and they are storing up the possibility of ill health in later life. That must be tackled. We must ensure that exercise programmes are geared to young people in schools so that they achieve maximum fitness.
  We have heard that poor health is closely related to poverty, social circumstances, life chances and poor education. I know that the new Minister responsible for public health is working hard on that. All the different strands of government should be brought together to ensure that health is a matter not just for the health service but for the whole Government.
  I believe that the NHS is under healthy pressure. Pressure is often a dynamic force for change. If properly harnessed, that pressure can be the driving engine of meaningful change, because we must respond to changing needs in society, changing expectations and the fact that people rightly expect more from the health service. They are entitled to more from the health service and, under this Government, they will get more from the health service.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. David Tredinnick: I congratulate the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Front Bench on their appointments. I wish them well, but I think that they are up against it. That became all too evident when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) talk about the cuts in his constituency.
  If hon. Members are in doubt about statistics, they tend to go to the House of Commons Library. I did just that before the debate. I discovered—there may be some comfort for the Minister—that, as at 31 March 1997,
  904
  the waiting list for patient admissions to the NHS trusts in Leicestershire stood at 16,546 and, by the end of June 1999, the list was 16,539. The Government have achieved a reduction in the waiting list of seven patients. However, there had been an increase of 514, or 3.2 per cent., over the previous quarter, which covers the period since the ending of fundholding on 1 April this year.
  The trend is upwards, and perhaps that is not surprising given what has happened at Hinckley Sunnyside hospital in my constituency. Owing to a lack of funding, 10 rehabilitation beds have been closed at Hinckley Sunnyside hospital, where staff have an excellent record of getting patients back into the community. Six of those beds have been moved to Hinckley and District hospital through the redesignation of six surgical beds for geriatric rehabilitation. That is a reduction in provision for the ever-increasing need for rehabilitation beds, and a reduction in the number of in-patient beds for local people to have operations locally without having to go to Leicester.
  The Secretary of State said that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne had to do with the need to move patients around. That is not the problem. The problem is to do with funding in Hinckley, where there is not enough money to go round. I have received a letter about a 45-year-old stroke victim who cannot get a rehabilitation bed at Sunnyside, and must go to Leicester general hospital, which involves a difficult journey on public transport. Is that what the Secretary of State meant, because it is not what we need? People will face considerable problems if they have to take a half-hour journey to Leicester.
  I want to raise two key issues: the Government's central funding policy and the position of primary care groups post fundholding. The Government have pledged to provide equity in funding across the nation. The situation in Leicestershire is catastrophic. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) will recognise that. We are right at the bottom of the heap, and suffer from an historic problem of underfunding.
  For the financial year 1999–2000, Leicestershire health authority has a funding allocation of £517 million compared with a target funding allocation of £530 million, so there is a gap of £13 million. The Government will not be able to make their policy work in Leicestershire unless the Secretary of State can find more money. I have spoken to the chairman and chief executive of the health authority, and they are cobbling things together by shifting money around from the old fundholding budget, but that will not work in the long term. Leicestershire spends £4 million less on community services than the average health authority.
  The second big issue is the transition to primary care groups. In Hinckley, doctors rightly refused to join the primary care group board, and instead are opting to advise through the medical advisory panel. The problem for doctors is that they are not being given any real authority, and are not being allowed to exercise control over financial decisions. They said from the outset that they knew that the funding of primary care groups entailed the handing over of their fundholding money, and that they would be asked to administer and, as members, give tacit approval to what would increasingly become inadequate funding.

  905
  I have been told privately that the Hinckley model is likely to become a model for the health service in the future. Doctors have refused to take on the burden that the Government wanted to impose on them, but are making a contribution through an advisory panel.
  One of the problems that we have had in Hinckley since the demise of fundholding has been its impact on minor operations carried out by GPs at Hinckley and District hospital. General practitioners in my constituency have complained that the number of minor operations at Hinckley hospital has dried up. The Minister should take that on board. In April 1999, the waiting list stood at nil; since the cessation of fundholding, it has become fairly substantial, and there has been a tremendous knock-on effect, in that operations must now be performed at Leicester general hospital and the Leicester royal infirmary. The waiting list problem—the problem that the Minister and the Secretary of State want to solve—is being exacerbated by the reduction to zero in the number of minor operations at Hinckley hospital. We now have a six-month waiting list, which is growing.
  Under the new arrangements for primary care groups, scheduled operations under fundholding have been stopped. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to the policy of privatisation; I wonder how she will feel about this. A constituent of mine, Isabel Edgar, was due to have a second hip operation under the new primary care group arrangements. The operation had been scheduled under fundholding. She was told, "This is not possible: we will not do it." She has therefore had to have the operation done privately. Is that the kind of privatisation to which the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was referring?
  One of the offices that I hold as a Back Bencher is treasurer of the parliamentary group for alternative and complementary medicine. In that capacity, I recently visited Bath to look at the new Bath spa project, which I commend to the Minister. Doctors whom I met there told me that, when they were fundholding, they were able to save 25 per cent. of their drug budgets through efficient management. That allowed them to offer a three-month wait for all operations, as well as to develop a full complementary medical team on their premises. They had homeopaths, hypnotherapists, herbalists, an osteopath and an acupuncturist.
  Since the introduction of primary care groups—I beg the Minister to listen to this—complementary and alternative medical therapies are not being offered. There is a fundamental problem. People come to our surgeries saying that they can no longer benefit from homeopathy, herbal medicine, healing and other therapies. That represents a serious crisis for the Government. It will not be possible to meet the exponential increase in demand for complementary and alternative medicine, and the Minister must deal with that, because it is a vital issue.
  At health questions last week, I raised the issue of how the prison service is dealing with complementary and alternative medicine. The Government have cut the list of services available from about 20 to about six. I visited Coldingley prison, and saw prisoners being treated there. One, a very violent man, had been treated by a cranial osteopath who had massaged and adjusted his skull plates. Another had received hands-on healing to channel energy.
  906
  Both had responded well, but, although osteopathy remains on the list, cranial osteopathy is a different matter.
  Let me draw the Government's attention to a newspaper cutting from The Times of 12 October in which someone is quoted as saying:
  "I don't know how healing works, but it helped my son."
  The lady says:
  "Sam spent his last 18 months at home, going to school, being a normal boy."
  The boy, a cancer patient, went into remission after someone channelled energy to him through the use of hands. Such services should be available not just to prisoners, but in the health service. If the Minister wants to cut his budgets and to secure a wider service, he should draw on the services of complementary practitioners, many of whom offer their services free.
  What about the future? The level of confidence in the NHS can be measured by a leaflet that has been dropped in my constituency today advertising Nuneaton private hospital and asking "Why Wait?" The truth is out: the waiting time for first out-patient appointments is up, and the waiting time for operations is up. I ask the Minister to note that. We look forward to better funding in Leicestershire.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: It has turned out to be a rather predictable debate. The Secretary of State for Health set the tone. He told us that waiting lists were down. That is clearly incorrect, given the total number of people who are waiting for treatment, or specialist consultation. He told us that the money that he has announced over the past couple of weeks is "new money." That is clearly incorrect as well. It is part of the £21 billion that was announced with so much fanfare last year. Again, he misrepresented Conservative policy. I find it odd that all the professions and patient organisations, and the great majority of informed commentators, agree with us that the waiting list initiative is a disaster.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) and my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) gave a cameo of the position in many parts of the country: a funding crisis, services being cut and dissatisfaction among professionals and patients alike.
  That was in stark contrast with the view of the world that was given by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who seems to have a narrow, at best boroughwide, view of what is happening in the health service. All I can say to her—my right hon. and hon. Friends would echo it—is good luck to her constituents if they have been so lucky in the lottery of the Government's NHS funding formula.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) treated us to his usual review of history, with scarcely a glance to the future. On the only specific question that he asked, he based his position on the fallacy that there would be no complementarity between the private and public sectors.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) criticised the motion, but did not bother to table an amendment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. He argued for greater health spending as a proportion of gross

  907
  domestic product. We would agree with that, but he failed to tell us what split he would like between tax-funded and privately funded spending and, therefore, what income tax increase his party would propose at the next general election.
  The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) accused us of not talking about the Government's additional spending plans for the NHS and challenged us to say what our approach would be. I am happy to confirm what it would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has already stated it, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) when she was the shadow spokeswoman.
  The next Conservative Government will increase tax-funded spending on the NHS in real terms year on year, but we do not believe that that is enough to deliver the health service that people need and deserve as we go into the 21st century. That is why we alone are looking for innovative solutions that will add to—supplement, not supplant—the NHS' s work.
  As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a fine and rousing speech. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) made at least one important point, which I am happy to endorse: community pharmacists are an under-used resource. I wish that he had put that point to the Government before they jumped in with both feet in support of NHS Direct, an untried and untested idea.
  The overall picture that has been painted in the debate is depressing. We have shown the position after two and a half years of government by a party that, in opposition, posed as the NHS's saviour. It is a picture, too, of shocking complacency among Labour Members. Who would have believed just a couple of years ago that, in opinion polls, 41 per cent. of people would tell pollsters that the NHS had got worse under Labour; that staff morale would be at record lows; that waiting lists overall would be completely out of control; and that half the NHS trusts would face massive deficits? Almost all PCGs have overspent, with the likelihood of cuts in drug prescribing later this year, despite the Secretary of State's pledge when he was Minister of State, Department of Health that patients would not be denied the drugs that they needed.
  Clinical priorities are being distorted throughout the system. Patients are being deceived and hospitals are struggling to meet targets, with the sickest people often being put at the back of the queue in consequence. Does it please the Minister to think that, this very week, one of the largest and greatest teaching hospitals in London is having a blitz on grommets, possibly the cheapest and certainly the least clinically proven surgical intervention available, simply to meet the numbers that they need to meet to access a bonus?
  In the face of all that, we have a Government who have not a clue of what their policy or strategy should be. They have their head firmly in the sand. They are perpetuating the myth, in the face of evidence to the contrary, that the NHS can deliver both excellence and comprehensiveness across the range of all demands, and further still the myth that, if the NHS cannot afford something, that something is valueless and should not be available from any other source.
  The Government cannot decide whether they are trying stimulate demand, with 24-hour access and walk-in centres, or manage demand by controlling referrals and
  908
  banning drugs. Indeed, the collective mind of the Government has become so confused on the matter that the previous Secretary of State, in his speech to the Labour party conference, seemed to suggest that the main purpose of the NHS was to compete with the private sector.
  The appointment of a new Secretary of State might have been an opportunity for genuine change—a chance to put behind us the failed policies of the past two and a half years, and embark on a new and coherent approach to mapping out the future of our national health service. However, the Secretary of State has arrived already shackled by the Prime Minister's political pledge, and hemmed in by an ideological refusal to learn from the examples of the health care delivery systems of our European neighbours.
  We have learned from this debate that there will be no change in the old Labour approach to health care. The waiting list pledge subordinates clinical to political priorities, and makes the sickest wait the longest. It turns the ethic of the national health service on its head. However, far from delivering on the waiting list pledge, as the Prime Minister's amendment might suggest, and based on their own fiddled figures, the Government have presided over a 170,000 increase in the total number of people waiting both for treatment and for first specialist consultation in the national health service.
  In opposition, Labour Members said that they would spend £100 million to achieve a 100,000 reduction in the waiting list. In government, they have already spent £780 million to achieve a 170,000 increase. It is no wonder perhaps that the previous Secretary of State was sacked. I only hope that he never gets the chance to inflict on the bus queues of London what he has inflicted on the waiting lists of the national health service.
  The truth is that, as long as the waiting list pledge remains the Government's key target—the one on which they base the rewards and penalties that they levy on hospital trusts—all other announcements are a zero-sum game; the rhetorical equivalent of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The facts are simple, and the Secretary of State knows them, but he cannot respond to them because he is a hostage to the Prime Minister's political pledge.
  The NHS has limited resources and cannot manage now on those resources. If the waiting list initiative continues, any other focus or initiative must be at the expense of something else. Therefore, when the Secretary of State tells us that he is focusing on coronary heart disease, cancer and mental health, he must tell us also, if the waiting list initiative is to remain, what will bear the burden—which services will be discontinued or cut to finance those initiatives?
  In focusing on the killer diseases, the Secretary of State is cherry-picking from the Conservatives's patients guarantee. My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring has proposed precisely that the most serious complaint should be treated first, and that clinical priority should be the sole basis of running the national health service. He has also said that he would scrap the damaging waiting list initiative. He has had the courage and honesty to acknowledge that shorter waiting times for those who are most seriously ill will mean that those with more trivial conditions will have to take their place in the queue for treatment in the national health service. Surely,

  909
  the rational way to run a health service is to deal with the sickest people first, but that is not the way that it works under the waiting list initiative.
  The Secretary of State ignores the evidence all around him of chaos and demoralisation, and piles on more targets without scrapping the old ones. He displayed a frightening complacency when he told us last year that we have the best health service in the world. That is a health service which produces twice as many coronary heart disease deaths per 100,000 population as France; delivers half the lung cancer survival rate of Germany; and is pipped only by Romania for bottom place in a Europewide league table on the availability of renal dialysis. It is a system that delivers us the lowest number of doctors per thousand of population of any country in the European Union, and the lowest health spending as a percentage of gross domestic product.
  If that is the health care system that the Secretary of State thinks that Britain deserves in the 21st century, that is a measure of the contempt in which this Government holds the British people.
  The Government's insistence that the NHS can meet every last demand of every last person is a cruel deception which induces a dangerous complacency and becomes apparent only when it is too late. People are discovering that the NHS is not there for them, and the increasing numbers of elderly people using their life savings to pay privately for drugs and operations will testify to that.
  We have set out our policy—transparent and explicit about the resource constraints on the system, putting the sickest at the front of the queue and letting doctors, not politicians, decide the priorities. That is a commonsense approach.
  The Secretary of State is trying to ride two bicycles at the same time. He is trying to pursue the contradictory agendas of the Prime Minister's failed waiting list initiative and his own well-meaning, but ultimately doomed, killer disease initiative. The Secretary of State is not stupid, and he knows that he can effectively refocus the NHS towards the killer diseases only if the Prime Minister's misguided and damaging pledge is dropped.
  It is time for the Government to grasp that nettle and start the real debate on how to resource the NHS for the 21st century—something about which we heard nothing from the Government this evening. They should stop letting the British people and the staff of the NHS pay the price for the Prime Minister's refusal to acknowledge what every responsible body has told the Government—that the waiting list pledge was a grave error, the pursuit of which is causing serious and lasting damage to our national health service.
  9.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) described the debate as predictable. I would prefer to describe it as fairly comprehensive. We have heard nine Back-Bench speeches, beginning with the speech by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). Much to the surprise of my right hon. and hon. Friends, she began with an apology. It was not, however, the one that many patients and the public
  910
  would have liked her to make. We would have preferred her to apologise for her stewardship of the NHS. Sadly, she declined to do so.
  Much to our surprise, the right hon. Lady dismissed NHS Direct as trivial and marginal. She should say that to the 500,000 people who have used the service, and she could learn about the contribution that the nurse-led service has made for many people.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the Minister believe that the two children with head injuries who were not seen within one and a half hours at the local accident and emergency department and finally went home could have been helped by NHS Direct?
  Mr. Hutton: Obviously, I do not have the details of that case. If the right hon. Lady refers it to me, I will look into it. However, lives have been saved as a result of NHS Direct, and it was sad and unfortunate that she and her right hon. and hon. Friends declined to acknowledge that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) mentioned the importance of public health—rightly so—and the importance that we have placed on tackling health inequalities. He referred also to "The Common Sense Revolution"—a document recently published by the official Opposition. It is true to say that only in the modern Tory party could common sense ever be described as revolutionary.
  The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) made a thoughtful speech, but he was weak on the arithmetic and in his appreciation of the £21 billion of additional resources going into the NHS over the next three years. Like many Opposition Members, he called for more money to be spent on the national health service, but when asked by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, he declined to say how much more he wanted to spend.
  At the election, the Liberal Democrats promised to spend an extra £540 million per year on the national health service. The hon. Member for North Devon might want to contradict that. We have done significantly better, exceeding that target within the first two and a half years of the Parliament, even without taking into account the additional resources available to the NHS under the comprehensive spending review.
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Gentleman refers to pledges at the election. They were on top of NHS inflation. The Government have tried to dupe the nation by bundling up NHS inflation and holding it back until the second half of the Parliament to make people think that the money was on top of what they should have been expecting. The fact is that by the end of this Parliament, the Government will not have increased health service spending as much as the Conservatives did when they were in office.
  Mr. Hutton: I repeat, I do not think that arithmetic is the hon. Gentleman's strong point. He is wrong about the figures.
  However, the hon. Gentleman coined a good soundbite about the new Tory policies on the national health service, saying that they would replace the postcode lottery that we inherited with a new tax code lottery. That would be the effect of Conservative policies. They will be rumbled and rejected by the people of this country.

  911
  I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) for the action that we have taken to improve mental health services, particularly his welcome for the national service framework that we published recently. It will help to drive up standards and improve the quality of care for millions of people who suffer from mental health problems and turn to the national health service for support. I am also grateful for his support for our initiative on health action zones.
  The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) complained about propaganda and then indulged in a serious dose of it. He has probably recently arrived in the Chamber with copies of the press release that I am sure he had written before he made his speech. We all look forward to reading that press release in his local papers.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is yet another Labour lie. The Minister might care to know that I have with me a petition signed by 25,000 of my constituents and that his party in my constituency helped to organise it, because even the local Labour party thinks that he is wrong.
  Mr. Hutton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not take his word for that. I should like to point out some of the facts to which he conveniently failed to refer. The cash growth for West Surrey health authority this year is nearly £20 million, which is a 3 per cent. real terms increase. He and other Conservatives who referred to the situation in Surrey conveniently forgot to refer to the £9 million that is going into the new accident and emergency department at St. Peter's hospital, or the £4 million scheme that has now been approved to redevelop the Weybridge community hospital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It is unfortunate but predictable that the good news stories about the NHS always slip through the fingers of Conservative Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) made a conciliatory speech, but she also skilfully shot the Tory fox, rumbling the real implications of their new policies on the national health service. We know what their intentions are and they have been made clear for everyone to see. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, she was right to emphasise the importance of reducing health inequalities and the benefits of the health action zone in her constituency. We have not forgotten that the Conservatives were consistently unable to bring themselves to talk about the health inequalities that were the legacy of their policies. We are determined to tackle the problems.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), in a typical speech, covered a lot of ground very quickly. Intriguingly, he referred to a foreign affairs crisis in Southend. I am sure that we would all like to hear from him what he had in mind. He also kindly reminded the House of some of our election promises, and I can tell him, and all other hon. Members, that we are meeting those promises and will keep them.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), in a very good speech, referred to the improvements in the national health service in his county of Kent, putting some of the gloom and doom spread by the Conservative party into some sort of context. My hon. Friend asked how successful we had been at cutting red tape and transferring resources to front-line care, and I can tell him that nearly £200 million has already been transferred to front-line services.
  912
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said that he wanted to add to health spending by encouraging more private health care, but his sums simply do not add up. When we were debating the Health Bill in Standing Committee, he said that health spending in the United Kingdom would have to increase by 2, 3 or 4 per cent. of GDP. Current spending on health care in the United Kingdom is about £48 billion—5.8 per cent. of GDP—and an extra 3 to 4 per cent. of GDP spent on health would require at least an extra £24 billion.
  If we assume, as we should, that currently 3.2 million people spend £1.7 million on private health insurance, at an average annual payment of £531, the hon. Gentleman's policy could be delivered only if we increased the number of people covered by private health insurance from 3.2 million to 45 million. That means almost every adult person in the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends say that they do not intend their policies to result in compulsory private health insurance, but that does not add up. The only other way to meet the hon. Gentleman's promise to raise £24 billion would be to increase the average annual payment for private health insurance from £531 to £7,500.
  Obviously, the Conservatives have lost some of the talents and skills necessary to run a country and be in government, but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, as a matter of urgency, he goes away, does his sums again and comes back with something slightly more credible. Throughout the debate we have heard nothing from the Conservative party that could be described as credible.
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Hutton: No; I have given way three times to Conservative Members, and I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman gave way once.
  The debate has highlighted some important differences between the Government and the Opposition concerning the future of the national health service. We want a service in which everyone can have confidence, which provides first class treatment and care to all who need it. The Conservatives want the NHS to be a second-line service for those who cannot afford to buy private health care. We want to modernise the NHS so that it can provide faster and better services where and when people want them. The Conservatives oppose all those changes.
  The Tories opposed the new primary care walk-in centres. They oppose the appointment of a senior specialist to direct our fight against cancer. They do not want the number of people on waiting lists to be cut, and they oppose putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat through primary care groups, which are now up and running. They oppose the new public health strategy, and they described our commitment to spend an extra £21 billion on the NHS as reckless. Their position on all those issues is as dishonest as it is untenable. They claim to support the NHS, but they undermine it at every available turn.
  The Conservatives say that the NHS cannot do everything, yet they oppose all attempts to improve the ability of the service to respond more quickly and

  913
  effectively to patients' needs. We say that the NHS needs to be modernised so that it can provide the fast, convenient, high quality service that people want—
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move,That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 341.

  Division No. 276]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Heald, Oliver

  Amess, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Horam, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Baldry, Tony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Beggs, Roy

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bercow, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Body, Sir Richard

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Key, Robert

  Brady, Graham

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brazier, Julian

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Burns, Simon

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Butterfill, John

  Lidington, David

  Cash, William

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Chope, Christopher

  Loughton, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Luff, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Collins, Tim

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Colvin, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cran, James

  Madel, Sir David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Maples, John

  Mates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan, Alan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moss, Malcolm

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Page, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Paice, James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hammond, Philip

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hayes, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wardle, Charles

  Spring, Richard

  Waterson, Nigel

  Steen, Anthony

  Wells, Bowen

  Streeter, Gary

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Swayne, Desmond

  Whittingdale, John

  Syms, Robert

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Townend, John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tredinnick, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Trend, Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Viggers, Peter

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Walter, Robert

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Chidgey, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Clapham, Michael

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Allan, Richard

  Allen, Graham

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Austin, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Ballard, Jackie

  Coaker, Vernon

  Barnes, Harry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Coleman, Iain

  Beard, Nigel

  Colman, Tony

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Connarty, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cotter, Brian

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Cranston, Ross

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Boateng, Paul

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Breed, Colin

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Doran, Frank

  Burgon, Colin

  Dowd, Jim

  Burstow, Paul

  Drew, David

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cann, Jamie

  Ennis, Jeff

  Caplin, Ivor

  Etherington, Bill

  Casale, Roger

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Caton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Cawsey, Ian

  Fisher, Mark

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Chaytor, David

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Flint, Caroline

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Follett, Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Levitt, Tom

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livsey, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lock, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Love, Andrew

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCabe, Steve

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grant, Bernie

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gunnell, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hancock, Mike

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hanson, David

  McNulty, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  MacShane, Denis

  Harvey, Nick

  McWalter, Tony

  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

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heppell, John

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hill, Keith

  Martlew, Eric

  Hinchliffe, David

  Maxton, John

  Hood, Jimmy

  Meale, Alan

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hurst, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jamieson, David

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Olner, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pendry, Tom

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter L

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Plaskitt, James

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Pond, Chris

  Pope, Greg

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Pound, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

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

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Snape, Peter

  Purchase, Ken

  Soley, Clive

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Spellar, John

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Rammell, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Rapson, Syd

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Rendel, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Rogers, Allan

  Stringer, Graham

  Rooker, Jeff

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rooney, Terry

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Roy, Frank

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Salter, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Tyler, Paul

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Tynan, Bill

  Willis, Phil

  Vaz, Keith

  Wills, Michael

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Winnick, David

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wise, Audrey

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wood, Mike

  Watts, David

  Woolas, Phil

  Webb, Steve

  Worthington, Tony

  White, Brian

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wyatt, Derek

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire.

  Division No. 277]

  [9.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Allan, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Amess, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Ancram, Fit Hon Michael

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gibb, Nick

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James

  Ballard, Jackie

  Green, Damian

  Beggs, Roy

  Greenway, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bercow, John

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hammond, Philip

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hancock, Mike

  Boswell, Tim

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Harvey, Nick

  Brady, Graham

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hayes, John

  Brazier, Julian

  Heald, Oliver

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Burns, Simon

  Horam, John

  Burstow, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Cash, William

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clappison, James

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Key, Robert

  Collins, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Colvin, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cotter, Brian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cran, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Lidington, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Livsey, Richard

  Duncan, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Loughton, Tim

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Evans, Nigel

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fallon, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Feam, Ronnie

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew:

  Flight, Howard

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Madel, Sir David

  914

  Malins, Humfrey

  Steen, Anthony

  Maples, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Mates, Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Oaten, Mark

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Townend, John

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyler, Paul

  Pickles, Eric

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Prior, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Randall, John

  Walter, Robert

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wardle, Charles

  Rendel, David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Ruffley, David

  Whittingdale, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wilkinson, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Willis, Phil

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

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

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soames, Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Spring, Richard

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Browne, Desmond

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burden, Richard

  Ainger, Nick

  Burgon, Colin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Allen, Graham

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Battle, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caplin, Ivor

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Casale, Roger

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Caton, Martin

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Chaytor, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clapham, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Best, Harold

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clelland, David

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Boateng, Paul

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coleman, Iain

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Colman, Tony

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Connarty, Michael

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  915

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cousins, Jim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hurst Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Drew David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Edwards, Huw

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Etherington, Bill

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Laxton, Bob

  Flint, Caroline

  Follett, Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lock, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Grogan, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gunnell, John

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hamnan, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McNamara, Kevin

  Healey, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hill, Keith Hinchliffe, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hood, Jimmy

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meale, Alan

  916

  Merron, Gillian

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

  Pendry, Tom

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  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

  Touhig, Don

  Pope, Greg

  Trickett, Jon

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Tynan Bill

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Wallev Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watts, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  White Brian

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooker, Jeff

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Roy, Frank

  Wills, Michael

  Ruane, Chris

  Winnick, David

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wise, Audrey

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wood, Mike

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Worthington, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Singh, Marsha

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 167

  Division No. 278]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cummings, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Dalyell, Tam

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Austin, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Barnes, Harry

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Doran, Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Dowd, Jim

  Berningham, Gerald

  Drew, David

  Berry, Roger

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Best, Harold

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Betts, Clive

  Edwards, Huw

  Blackman, Liz

  Efford, Clive

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ennis, Jeff

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Etherington, Bill

  Boateng, Paul

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Flint, Caroline

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Follett, Barbara

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Burden, Richard

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Burgon, Colin

  Fyfe, Maria

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gapes, Mike

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Casale, Roger

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clelland, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesfond, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cohen, Harry

  Hill, Keith

  Coleman, Iain

  Hinchliffe, David

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hope, Phil

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  918

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morley, Elliot

  Hutton, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Illsley, Eric

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pendry, Tom

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter L

  Khabra, Piara S

  Plaskrtt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pond, Chris

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pope, Greg

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Gorton (Pendle)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Laxton, Bob

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Lepper, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Levitt, Tom

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rapson, Syd

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Jeff

  McAllion, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Steve

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roy, Frank

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Macdonald, Calum

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Merron, Gillian

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miller, Andrew

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stevenson, George

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  919

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stringer, Graham

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wills, Michael

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winnick, David

  Todd, Mark

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Touhig, Don

  Wise, Audrey

  Trickett, Jon

  Wood, Mike

  Truswell, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Tynan, Bill

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Allan, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Amess, David

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Garnier, Edward

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gibb, Nick

  Baldry, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Ballard, Jackie

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Beggs, Roy

  Green, Damian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Greenway, John

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Boswell, Tim

  Hammond, Philip

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hancock, Mike

  Brady, Graham

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hayes, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Burns, Simon

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Butterfill, John

  Horam, John

  Cash, William

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Collins, Tim

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Colvin, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Cotter, Brian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cran, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Dafis, Cynog

  Lansley, Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lidington, David

  Duncan, Alan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Livsey, Richard

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Fabricant, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  920

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maples, John

  Syms, Robert

  Mates, Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Oaten, Mark

  Townend, John

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Tredinnick, David

  Page, Richard

  Trend, Michael

  Paice, James

  Tyler, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Viggers, Peter

  Prior, David

  Walter, Robert

  Randall, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rendel, David

  Webb, Steve

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Ruffley, David

  Willetts, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Willis, Phil

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wilshire, David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shepherd, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

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

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House applauds the dedication, skill and professionalism of the staff of the National Health Service but regrets that Her Majesty's Opposition seek to undermine the National Health Service at every turn; welcomes the Government's success in cutting waiting lists in line with its manifesto pledge and its programme to make services faster and more convenient; supports the Government's commitment to modernise cancer, heart disease and mental health services, and to ensure high standards of National Health Service care everywhere; notes that a modernised National Health Service funded through taxation and offering treatment according to need not ability to pay is both fairer and more efficient than private alternatives supported by the Opposition; and so believes that the National Health Service should be modernised not privatised.

  PETITION

    Ashford Hospital
    10.27 pm
    Mr. David Wilshire: I have a petition from my Spelthorne constituents, opposing the savaging of services at Ashford hospital. It is signed by 25,000 local people and it was backed by all three main political parties—that means that my local Labour party does not support its own Government.

    921
    The petition opposes the cuts of £20 million demanded by the Government; it opposes the closure of the accident and emergency department at Ashford hospital and of all its intensive care unit beds. It calls for proper Government funding of local health services in my constituency and for the scrapping of the cuts proposed by West Surrey health authority.
    What is happening to the national health service in my constituency is a disgrace. This petition proves the depth of anger felt by my constituents.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Electrical Contracting Industry
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
    10.28 pm
    Mr. John McAllion: The subject of the debate is Government policy towards the joint industry board for the electrical contracting industry—the JIB. When I first became involved with the JIB 10 years ago, I was approached by my constituent, Mr. Frank Graham. He is an electrician and, at that time, he was a member of the EETPU—the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union—and a JIB-graded employee. Initially, his concerns centred on a dispute that took place at Aldermaston in 1989 and which was handled by the JIB. Frank was one of 129 men who were sacked during the dispute. Subsequently, he was most unhappy with the way in which the JIB handled the dispute and he sought the assistance of his local Member of Parliament—that is the reason for my involvement.
    Over the years, my concern over the JIB—and that of Frank Graham—has grown wider and deeper than the board's handling of that dispute in 1989. Together, Frank Graham and I have entered into a massive correspondence with the JIB itself, the Electrical Contractors Association, the EETPU, successive Ministers, the certification officer for trade unions, the commissioner for the rights of trade unions, the then Select Committee on Education and Employment, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the parliamentary ombudsman.
    There is not enough time to go into all that correspondence in detail. I shall focus on what I believe to be the big issues affecting Government policy, but I must first put the JIB into a political and historical context.
    The 1950s and early 1960s were a time of great stress and bitter strife within the electrical contracting industry. At that time, the union with sole negotiating rights in the sector was the ETU, which later became the EETPU. That union was riven by internal battles between right and left, which culminated in the infamous ballot-rigging case that led to the takeover of the union by its leading right-wing members, particularly Mr. Frank Chapple and his close ally, Mr. Eric Hammond.
    The new leadership was determined to consolidate right-wing control of the union and to end what it believed to be confrontation between employers and employees. Militant action was discouraged and strikes were reduced from 36,800 man days lost in 1962 to just 9,900 days lost in 1966. Building upon the new moderate approach, the leadership resolved to import from the United States a new system for running the electrical contracting industry. The new model was called the joint industry board, and it had been operating in New York for more than 20 years.
    Essentially, the New York JIB was a sweetheart deal between employers and the union to regulate and control the electrical contracting industry in the city. In return for the union's disciplining its members, improving productivity and eliminating strikes, the employers delivered an agreed package of pay, welfare benefits and training. The EETPU and the ECA signed a legally binding agreement in 1967 which introduced the JIB into British industrial relations for the first time. At the time, Eric Hammond boasted that it was his "first revolution" in the operation of trade unions in Britain.

    923
    The JIB has only two permanent or true members: the respective executive committees of the EETPU and the ECA. Each of them appoint the members of the ruling body of the JIB: its national board. The executive committees of the EETPU and the ECA are effectively the JIB. They control an impressive bureaucracy and have their own chief executive, secretary, industrial relations officer and other specialist staff. In the late 1960s, they had an annual income of more than £1 million and annual running costs of £100,000. With inflation, those figures would be much higher today. They also own buildings and assets and have their own employment agency. They control and regulate one of the most important industrial sectors in the British economy. The JIB matters, and that is why I have sought this debate tonight.
    What has this to do with Government policy? From its inception, the JIB was registered as a trade union, but the legality of such registration was always in doubt. When it was first registered in 1967, the chief registrar noted in his annual report that it was an unusual type of registered trade union as it included representatives of both employees and employers. As I understand it, employment legislation has never allowed for the registration of a hybrid body such as the JIB.
    The JIB was conscious of the doubtful legal basis of its registration as a trade union. When Frank Graham and I challenged it about its registration, it claimed initially to have received special dispensation to register in 1968 from the then Minister for Labour, Mr. Ray Gunter. The JIB made that claim in letters to the certification officer and to the Chairman of the Employment Sub-Committee, but the claim is bogus. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who was then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, told me in a letter in 1996 that he could find no reference to such dispensation in the Department's records. He added that he could find no statutory basis—past or present—under which anyone in any Government could have given such a dispensation.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), then a Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, later confirmed to me in writing that the Department
    "does not have, nor has it seen, any evidence supporting the view that any Minister ever granted any such dispensation."
    If successive Tory and Labour Ministers are to be believed, we must conclude that the JIB misled the Chairman of the Employment Sub-Committee and the certification officer in claiming special ministerial dispensation to register as a trade union. I believe that the time has come for someone in Government to hold the JIB to account for seriously misleading senior Members of the House.
    There are other concerns over the JIB's registration as a trade union. Why did successive registrars of friendly societies and certification officers allow an organisation that was clearly not a trade union to register as a trade union? Let me refer to some of the extensive correspondence that I have had with the certification officer. In a letter dated 23 October 1990, he writes of the JIB that
    "as the organisation consists mainly of workers, it meets the definition of a trade union as set out in … the 1974 Act."
    Another letter to me dated 10 January 1991 says:
    "I have no reason to doubt the status of the JIB as a listed trade union."
    924
    The certification officer based those views on information supplied to him by the JIB. I have correspondence in which it claims to have three categories of member: the constituent parties to the JIB—effectively the executive committees of the ECA and the EETPU; more than 2,000 employer participant members; and more than 30,000 employee participant members. On the basis of those figures, he ruled that the JIB was a body mainly consisting of workers and therefore eligible to be listed as a trade union.
    Right up to May 1991, that line was defended solidly by the JIB and the certification officer, but in June 1991 Frank Graham complained to him that, as a listed trade union, the JIB was in breach of the Trade Union Act 1984, which requires trade unions to elect their principal executive committees. The JIB's principal executive committee—the national board—is appointed, not elected by the members.
    The certification officer, because of Frank's complaint, was required to write to the JIB to ask why its 30,000 employee participant members had not been allowed their legal right to elect the principal executive committee of the union to which they belonged. In its reply dated 17 June 1991, the JIB was forced to come clean and it was made clear that only the two constituent members—the ECA and the EETPU—were permanent or true members of the JIB. In its own words, the employee and employer members were not full members. Their participation in the JIB was in the nature of
    "transient affiliation rather than true membership of the JIB."
    That statement changed everything. On 23 July 1991, the certification officer wrote that, based on the JIB's own admission, it followed that the JIB was not a trade union and would have to be deregistered. More importantly, he informed the JIB that he intended to hold a public hearing on Frank Graham's complaint. Within a month of receiving that letter, the JIB threw in the towel and asked to be removed from the list of trade unions. It simply was not prepared to appear at any public hearing to defend its status as a registered trade union.
    We must remember that only three months previously, the JIB and the certification officer had resolutely defended the JIB's status as a trade union; not any more, under the pressure of a public hearing. In a later letter, the certification officer wrote to Frank Graham:
    "I remain of the view that the JIB is not and probably never was a trade union."
    Why does any of this matter? Is it not a matter of concern for the Government that between 1967 and 1972, and again between 1974 and 1991, an organisation that was clearly not a trade union was allowed to register as a trade union without challenge from anyone in authority? There was no challenge from the registrar of friendly societies, certification officers or any Minister, despite the fact that Ministers and certification officers had been made aware of Frank Graham's concerns on this issue. Now that we know the JIB to have been illegally registered for so long, will no one in the Government hold it to account for that illegal registration? Is no one in the Government even interested in serious breaches of employment legislation by such important organisations? If they are not interested, they should be.
    The JIB gained considerable material benefits from being registered as a trade union. The research division of the Commons Library wrote to me in 1996 and said that

    925
    registration as a trade union with a certification officer is one of the requirements for attaining certain tax exemptions. This year, the Inland Revenue wrote to me admitting that the JIB had set up a provident fund on 1 October 1977 and that payments out of that fund were allowable as a deduction against tax. That concession stopped only when the JIB deregistered as a trade union in 1991. Thus for at least 14 years, the JIB was receiving tax allowances to which it was legally not entitled. If the Government are not interested in investigating that, I suggest that they should be.
    There are other serious concerns about the JIB. There has only ever been one instance when a Secretary of State substituted a dismissals procedure agreement between employers and trade unions for the statutory provision of unfair dismissals. That instance was the substitute agreement between the ECA and the EETPU, relating to the electrical contracting industry—the dismissals procedure agreement run by the JIB. That substitute agreement was allowed by the Secretary of State only on the premise that workers in the industry would have the right to independent arbitration.
    Frank Graham has produced evidence that, although on paper the JIB dismissals procedure allows for access to independent arbitration, in reality that access is blocked. The JIB's procedure, as set out in its handbook, makes it clear that any appellant must give good reason to the JIB national board to justify reference to independent arbitration. Clearly, if the JIB national board does not accept those reasons, there will be no reference to independent arbitration for that appellant.
    Frank Graham's claim is contested by the JIB, but to the best of my knowledge, the dispute between him and the JIB on this issue has never been independently investigated. Given the unique nature of the substitute agreement run by the JIB, should not Ministers mount just such an investigation?
    On the current legal status of the JIB, we know that it is no longer a registered trade union. I have correspondence from the certification officer, in which he admits that neither is it an employers' association. The JIB itself now claims to be an unincorporated association. According to the Library, legal controls prevent large organisations from operating as unincorporated corporations of association. Should not those controls apply to the JIB, which, by any standards, is a very large organisation?
    I have also seen annual returns from Companies House for a company called JIB Ltd.—a private company limited by shares, which has the same address and the same secretary as the old JIB trade union, but which retains no record of holding any of the old trade union's assets. Who now controls those large assets, which once belonged to the JIB trade union?
    This state of affairs is totally unsatisfactory. We simply do not know the current legal status of the JIB. If it is an unincorporated association, it has no legal personality of its own. We do not know who is legally responsible for registering it, to whom it makes returns, or who holds it to account. For a large and wealthy organisation that exercises tight control over one of our most important industrial sectors, that is entirely unacceptable.
    926
    There are any number of outstanding questions. For example, why was the JIB ever allowed to register as a trade union? Why did those in authority support such registration until such time as the lone campaign by my constituent forced them to do a U-turn? Why have claims about special ministerial dispensation by the JIB never been investigated? Why has no one in the JIB ever been held to account for the misleading statements that they made about it? Why were tax concessions, which are available only to registered trade unions, paid out to an organisation that was never a registered trade union? Has the Inland Revenue attempted to reclaim any of the moneys given out in those tax concessions?
    Those and many other questions need to be answered. That is why I am asking the Minister to undertake a comprehensive investigation into the operation of the JIB from its inception in 1967 to the present day. Most importantly, that is why I am asking him, once he has carried out that investigation, to report back to the House on the outcome of his inquiries.
    10.45 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) on securing a debate on Government policy towards the Joint Industry Board. This is an important issue, and he has pursued it with great vigour and energy on behalf of his constituent. I appreciate the concerns that he has raised.
    My hon. Friend has taken an interest in the affairs of the JIB for many years. In July 1997, he met my predecessor as the Department of Trade and Industry Minister responsible for employment relations, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), to discuss his concerns. He has corresponded with him on several occasions, both before and after this meeting. Moreover, he has tabled a number of parliamentary questions about the JIB, the most recent of which was answered in January this year.
    My hon. Friend has built up a great knowledge of the JIB, as his speech has amply shown. As someone with limited previous experience of the JIB, I feel that my knowledge has been significantly enhanced by listening to his contribution.
    My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues, and I shall try in the time available to deal with his main concerns and questions. He referred to the history of this organisation, and has raised questions about its past and current legal status. As he said, the JIB has had within its membership both a union—currently the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union—and an employers' organisation, the Electrical Contractors Association. I understand that it also has individual companies and workers employed by those companies in its membership.
    The JIB has been in existence for more than 30 years. For much of that period, it was registered as a trade union, first by the chief registrar of friendly societies and subsequently by the certification officer. I shall not go into the convoluted history of the JIB and its on-and-off registration as a union, because there is not time. Suffice it to say that the law on trade unions has changed considerably over the years.
    As a former trade union leader, I know only too well how frequently the legal goalposts have been moved. Those changes have probably affected the views of the

    927
    public bodies concerned as to whether the JIB met the criteria for registration at the time. They may also have affected the JIB's views on the desirability of being so registered.
    The current position is that the JIB is not registered as a trade union. As my hon. Friend said, it removed itself from the list in 1991. It is not the Government's responsibility to say whether the organisation is, or is not, a union. That is a matter for the certification officer and the courts to determine as cases arise. However, it seems likely that it is not a trade union. I believe that that is the view taken by the certification officer, and perhaps by the JIB itself.
    I understand that the JIB currently classifies itself as an unincorporated association. As such, it would not have a legal personality of its own. It would, however, have to make returns for tax purposes to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise.
    Mr. McAllion: As the Minister says, the JIB has to make returns to the Inland Revenue, but the Inland Revenue refuses to give any details of those returns or to put them in the public domain, so no one knows what the nature of this organisation is. Does the Minister think that that is a serious problem for the Government?
    Mr. Johnson: That is a matter for the Inland Revenue. Our ministerial responsibility is to address the important point that has been made about the JIB's status as a trade union and its operation under the definition that has applied at various times over the 30 years of its existence.
    As for the influence that individual electricians have over the affairs of the organisation, such matters should be laid down in the JIB's rules and constitutional arrangements. In that sense, it is no different from any other unincorporated association. Obviously, trade union law will not apply, unless it can be shown that the JIB is a union; and as I said, that does not seem likely.
    However, trade union law applies to the relationship between individual electricians who are members of the AEEU—and who are also members of the JIB—and the AEEU. If individuals are concerned that the AEEU is infringing union law and its rules through its dealings with the JIB, they can always take up the matter with the union. If necessary, they can take their complaints to the courts or to the certification officer. Only yesterday, the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 1999 came into force, extending the certification officer's powers to determine complaints by a union member that his or her union had infringed union law or rules. We believe that the certification officer represents a more accessible and informal way than the courts for individual union members to resolve problems with their unions.
    Let me now deal with legislation on dismissal procedure agreements. My hon. Friend pointed out that his constituent had been dismissed outside the employment tribunal system. The normal redress for an employee who believes that he or she has been unfairly dismissed is a complaint to an employment tribunal. Although employment tribunals do a good job of resolving such disputes, the employment rights legislation sensibly enables employers and independent trade unions to opt out of their statutory obligations on unfair dismissal—I stress that this does not cover other jurisdictions—by adopting other procedures in their place.
    928
    Of course, there must be safeguards. Such an agreement can have effect only if it has been designated by the Secretary of State, and it will be designated only if it meets certain conditions laid down in the legislation. For example, the agreement must provide remedies for unfair dismissal that are, on the whole, as beneficial as the statutory remedies.
    As my hon. Friend rightly said, only one such agreement has been designated—for the JIB, where designated procedures have been operating, with some revisions, since 1979. My hon. Friend said that there was a discrepancy between the wording of the dismissal procedure and the JIB handbook in regard to the right to an independent arbitrator. As I think he knows, that has been taken up with the JIB, and the handbook was amended to bring it into line with the DPA.
    The JIB sees itself as an important industrial relations institution for its sector. It is through the JIB that the main collective agreements affecting the industry are voluntarily negotiated between the AEEU and the Electrical Contractors Association. I understand that the JIB also gives cards to individual electricians who join, grading them according to their level of training and occupational attainment.
    Generally, electricians with JIB cards will work for companies that are themselves members of the JIB, but as far as I am aware JIB rules do not require member companies to employ only electricians with such cards, so there is no reason to believe that the JIB operates some kind of closed-shop practice under another guise.
    The JIB is an organisation with an unusual history. My hon. Friend may imply that "unusual" implies "suspect", but on the evidence presented to me and to my predecessor, we cannot share that judgment. My hon. Friend asked why the Government had not investigated why the JIB was ever registered as a union, and asked whether we could set up an investigation now. I cannot answer for the activities of past Governments, but I see no reason to undertake an investigation now, eight years after the JIB was last registered as a union. There is no reason to believe that any public agency acted improperly in the affair. I understand that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the Parliamentary Ombudsman—has been asked whether there was any administrative fault in the actions of the certification officer. He found that there was none, and was very clear in his rulings. As I have said, the JIB has an unusual history, but that is not sufficient reason to query its actions.
    I will consider the arguments presented to me very carefully, but we are dealing with a case in which the individuals concerned had every right to raise the issues at the time, and which has been referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. My predecessor also examined the issue carefully. We are convinced that at every stage in the history of this affair, the JIB has registered properly under the terms of the legislation that existed at the time.
    I understand the concern that has been caused to my hon. Friend's constituent. I will look at the issues again, but on the basis of what we know at the moment, we cannot support the holding of an investigation into issues that we believe have been properly dealt with by public bodies.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the policy of allowing armed forces personnel below the age of 18 years to serve in war zones, in peacekeeping or other combat roles; and if he will make a statement. [94344]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: The armed forces recruit only volunteers, and those who join under the age of 18 do so only with the written consent of parents and guardians. No personnel are deployed until they are well into their 17th year and only after they have undergone thorough professional training. Our recruitment and deployment policies are in line with international standards set by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recent International Labour Convention 182 which prohibits the forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.

  Training (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list average training days, by Army trade, for(a) 1997 and (b) 1998. [95411]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information asked for is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the length of time typically taken for a soldier to progress from enlistment to completion of Specialist Training, i.e. to be sent to the Field Army as a trained soldier, is shown in the table, broken down by Arm or Corps. These times do not change significantly from year to year and are based on current information.

  Days

  Arm or Corps

  Time in basic training

  Time in specialist training

  Total

  Royal Armoured Corps

  90

  117

  207

  Infantry

  90

  138

  228

  Army Air Corps

  90

  175

  265

  Royal Artillery

  90

  111

  201

  Royal Engineers

  90

  505

  595

  Royal Signals

  90

  398

  488

  Royal Logistics Corps

  90

  282

  372

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  90

  559

  649

  Adjutant Generals Corps

  90

  62

  152

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Falkland Islanders have enlisted in HM armed forces in each year since 1981. [95312]
  766
  Mr. Spellar
  Data readily available indicate that:Naval Service: since 1996, no Falkland Islanders have enlisted as ratings;
  Army: since 1986, two Falkland Islanders have enlisted, joining in 1994–95 on Short Service Engagements;
  RAF: since 1981, no Falkland Islander has enlisted.

  In the case of the Naval Service and the Army, information prior to the dates indicated could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Falkland Islanders are currently serving in each service of HM armed forces. [95313]

  Mr. Spellar
  Data readily available indicate that there are no Falkland Islanders currently serving in the Naval Service, Army or RAF.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on force levels in the Falkland Islands. [96090]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government remain firmly committed to the defence of the Falkland Islands and the right of the Islanders to determine their own future. There are no plans to make changes to the front line strength of our forces stationed there. We have concluded however that minor adjustments can be made to some elements of the Falklands garrison without diminishing our ability to ensure the security of the Islands. These adjustments will reduce the number of service men and service women stationed there by around 100. The first of these adjustments, the withdrawal of a contingent of Royal Engineers, took place in early September. The remaining changes will be implemented over the coming months. These changes are a further demonstration of this Government's efforts to ease the burden on the armed forces where at all possible.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland has to close Army bases or establishments in the Province within the next three months. [95341]

  Mr. Spellar
  The General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland keeps the operational requirement for Army bases in the Province constantly under review. No decision has been taken to close any base within the next three months.

  Manpower Commitments
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list total manpower commitments for the Armed Forces in each year since 1995; and what has been the total manpower available in each year. [95324]

  Mr. Spellar
  We do not hold information on total manpower commitments in the form that the hon. Member requests. These will vary at any point in a year depending
  767
  on the circumstances. The total trained strength of the Armed Forces, including Gurkhas, on 1 April of each year since 1995 was as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1995

  226,328

  1 April 1996

  212,164

  1 April 1997

  197,390

  1 April 1998

  193,914

  1 April 1999

  190,506

  Our commitment to achieve full manning in all three Services is a key component of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). Recruiting is buoyant; for example, the Army have just had their best recruiting year this decade, and each Service is taking vigorous steps to tackle the problem of retention.

  Under 18-year-olds
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many under-18-year-old UK service personnel are serving in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Kosovo. [95684]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 September 1999, the latest date for which figures are available, the numbers of UK service personnel under 18 years of age serving in Northern Ireland and Kosovo are:Northern Ireland: 26
  Kosovo: 49.

  Iraq
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of United Kingdom military actions against Iraq in the current financial year; and what proportion of those costs have been borne by(a) UK public funds and (b) other sources. [95547]

  Mr. Hoon
  Information on the expenditure to date this year on ongoing military operations in the Gulf is not held centrally and could be collated only with disproportionate effort. However, excluding the value of assistance provided through host nation support, expenditure on such operations last year amounted to some £35 million, and is forecast to be some £28 million this year.

  Disposal Sales Agency
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement setting out the key targets which have been set for the Disposal Sales Agency for financial year 1999–2000. [96020]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since its launch in October 1994 the Agency has brought in over £400 million in gross sales receipts and has achieved significant efficiency savings through contractorisation of the disposals business. The Key Targets which have been set for the Chief Executive of the Disposal Sales Agency for this financial year are aimed at a continued focus on receipts, much of which has been achieved through British companies participation, and to ensure continual improvement in efficiency and working practices.
  768
  The Chief Executive of the Agency has been set the following key targets for the financial year 1999–2000:
  To achieve disposal sales income of £66 million from sales of surplus Government owned equipment and stores.
  To reduce the unit cost of generating £1 million of sales to £62,500 from a baseline of £90,500 achieved in 1994–95.
  To undertake customer satisfaction surveys designed to identify key issues and priorities, measure perceptions and expectations, and to communicate results and benefits of actions taken to Agency's customer base.

  Bosnia
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the current security situation in Bosnia and the potential implications for the numbers of UK troops deployed there. [96088]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK remains fully committed to supporting NATO operations in Bosnia. In conjunction with Allies, we have just completed a careful assessment of the current security situation in Bosnia. The situation has improved sufficiently in the four years since the deployment of the Implementation Force (IFOR) for NATO to move safely to a restructured force, of some 20,000 members. The implication for UK forces is that 900 personnel will now return to the UK, without replacement, before Christmas. The UK contribution to the Stabilisation Force (SFOR) will then stand at some 3,300.

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce a decision on the way ahead for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency public private partnership proposals. [96089]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following the announcement on 6 July that further discussions with stakeholders were continuing, we have held consultations with interested parties, including UK industry, our international partners, DERA staff and trade unions. In response to the feedback we have received, and a number of views expressed, we have decided to widen the scope of these discussions to address the issues raised in the consultation process. We will now undertake further work on these issues. This process will continue into the New Year.

  We continue to work positively for a PPP result which will strengthen DERA's ability to continue to provide world class scientific research and enable it to be a flexible and responsive organisation which can attract investment and develop new business, while at the same time preserving our essential defence interests and maintaining our valuable collaborative relationships.

  Serbia
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 427, if he will make a statement on the progress of the Joint Task Force set up by the UN Environment Programme and the UN Commission on Human Settlements on the environmental effects of the conflict in Kosovo. [95810]
  769
  Mr. Hoon
  The joint UN Environment Programme/UN Commission on Human Settlements Balkans Task Force issued its report "The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment" on 5 October 1999. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armed Forces (Running Costs)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and running costs of(a) Royal Navy shore stations, (b) Army core headquarters and (c) RAF bases in (i) the South East of England, (ii) England, (iii) Scotland, (iv) Wales and (v) Northern Ireland. [95277]

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

  Secondments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are(a) on secondment from UK armed forces serving with foreign armed services and (b) from abroad serving with UK armed forces, specifying their ranks and to which service they belong; and if he will make a statement. [95931]

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

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [94001]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) gave on 25 October 1999,Official Report, columns 739–40.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of the £594m of new efficiency improvements achieved in 1998–99, indicating where the savings were made; and if he will make a statement. [95551]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter sent on 27 July by the then Secretary of State, Lord Robertson, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. That letter provides a breakdown of the £594 million of new efficiency improvements in 1998–99, £89 million more than the target of £505 million.

  Both service and civilian personnel made this achievement across all parts of my Department by seeking out genuine efficiencies. The extra efficiency gains have been retained by the defence budget and have contributed
  770
  to funding other defence priorities. This further demonstrates the MOD's commitment to improving our capability and performance.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Biosafety Protocol
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what preparations her Department is making for input into the EU position for the next meeting of the Biosafety Protocol; and if she will make a statement. [94826]

  Clare Short
  My Department has been closely involved in the UK contribution to the EU position for the next meeting of the Biosafety Protocol to ensure that it takes account of developing country concerns.

  Rwanda
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress has been made on debt relief for Rwanda; and if she will make a statement on the Rwanda Trust Fund. [95237]

  Clare Short
  Rwanda's external debt burden is heavy. At the end of 1998, Rwanda's debt stock was around US$1.2 billion, equivalent to 59 per cent. of GDP.

  Multilateral creditors account for over 80 per cent. of Rwanda's external debt stock. A Multilateral Debt Trust Fund was established in 1998 to service Rwanda's debts to the International Development Association, the African Development Bank and the International Fund for Agricultural Development over the period 1999–2001, using funds pooled by bilateral donors. The UK contributed £10.6 million to this Fund in 1999, as part of the disbursement of the £30 million of flexible assistance committed in the Development Partnership Understanding signed by the two Governments in April 1999. The Fund is expected to be adequately financed through to the end of 2000. The UK will keep under review whether a further UK contribution to the Multilateral Debt Fund might be appropriate.

  We strongly support the agreement at the 1999 Annual Meetings of the IMF and World Bank to revise the framework for debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC), and to link it to poverty reduction much more strongly. For Rwanda, the revisions mean additional debt relief, provided that it continues to pursue sound policies, and a start to this relief three years earlier than under the original HIPC framework. Rwanda's Decision Point, when it will start to receive its HIPC debt relief, is likely to be in the next year or so. The UK will press for the maximum reduction in multilateral debt servicing in the early years, consistent with Rwanda being able to spend the savings effectively on programmes to reduce poverty.

  In July 1998, agreement was reached between Paris Club official bilateral creditors (Austria, Canada, France, Japan, the Netherlands and the United States) and Rwanda on a debt rescheduling on Naples terms. All the relevant bilateral agreements with Paris Club creditors have now been signed.

  AIDS Research
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the use of the money earmarked by her Department for Aids vaccine research. [95285]

  Clare Short
  We are providing £14.2 million over 5 years to support the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) in developing an AIDS vaccine which is safe, effective and affordable for the developing world. This supplements our work with the Medical Research Council and the European Commission. IAVI are harnessing public and private human and financial resources to accelerate testing of a number of promising candidate AIDS vaccines suitable to market to developing countries within 10–15 years.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent reports she has received regarding food supplies in Bahr el Ghazal, Southern Sudan. [95236]

  Clare Short
  Latest reports show that food supplies in Bahr el Ghazal are relatively good this year and certainly much better than in 1998. The bulk of supplies consumed in the region are from local production but a top-up of food aid continues at a rate of between 3,000 and 4,000 metric tonnes per month. Although food aid deliveries are below planning figures, the low observed rates of malnutrition confirm improvements over the last year.

  The UN Annual Needs Assessment for Sudan, which is being carried out by FAO and WFP, is presently under way. We await its results with interest.

PRIME MINISTER

  Oleg Gordievsky
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister what papers were passed during the past 10 years on the authority of(a) the Foreign Secretary, or (b) other Ministers, to Professor Christopher Andrew relating to Oleg Gordievsky, (i) in connection with his defection and (ii) in relation to other matters; and if he will make a statement. [94705]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: No such papers have been passed during this Government. I am not accountable for what happened under previous Governments.

  Luxembourg Compromise
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions member states of the European Union(a) have invoked and (b) have threatened to invoke the Luxembourg Compromise. [95306]

  The Prime Minister
  There is no central record of the number of times member states have invoked or threatened to invoke the Luxembourg Compromise. We are not aware of any formal invocation since this Government took office.

  Michael John Smith
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) when Michael John Smith (prison number PR 3345) will receive a substantive reply to his letter of 10 January 1997 to the Secretary of the Security Commission; and what was the reason for the delay; [96168]

  (2) why undertakings contained in the letter of 7 January 1998 from the Secretary of the Civil Service Commission to Michael John Smith (prison number 3345) were not fulfilled. [96167]

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Smith last wrote on 3 August 1999 requesting a substantive reply to his letter of 10 January 1997. An acknowledgement was sent on 13 August by the current Secretary of the Security Commission also apologising for any earlier delays. A substantive response, approved by the Chairman of the Security Commission, was sent on 13 October 1999. This pointed out that the questions raised in Mr. Smith's letter of 10 January 1997 relating to the Security Commission Inquiry had already been dealt with in correspondence from the then Secretary of the Security Commission dated 20 December 1996 and in the Report of the Security Commission on Mr. Smith's case published in July 1995.

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received requesting that a judicial inquiry be held into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Robert Hamill; and if he will make a statement. [95356]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received a number of requests for an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Robert Hamill. Whilst an inquiry has not been ruled out the Government take the view that this ought not to be considered while there is the possibility of disciplinary proceedings by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary against police officers following the (Northern Ireland) Director of Public Prosecution's direction of no prosecution on 30 September 1999.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if fisheries policy will be negotiated at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference. [95786]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Common Fisheries Policy will be reviewed in 2002.

  Drugs
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister which is the lead Department in considering the effects of the drug pyridostigmine bromide in relation to the report of the RAND Corporation for the San Diego Veterans' Affairs Medical Centre. [95658]

  The Prime Minister
  The Ministry of Defence is taking the lead in considering the report of the review, by the RAND Corporation, of the scientific literature on pyridostigmine bromide as it pertains to Gulf War illnesses.

  Former Paymaster General
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the officials in his Department who have held discussions with(a) the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) or (b) his representatives concerning the content of his memoirs. [95874]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93679]

  Dr. Howells
  The spending on official publications since May 1997, which includes the costs incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation and production, was £13,206,319. This excludes the cost of publications produced for internal use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  In addition, my Department spent £221,154 on purchase of copies for official use from The Stationery Office between April 1997 and March 1999. Due to changes in ordering and payment systems this information is no longer held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Helium-Neon Lasers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much income his Department has received from Patent GB222 6443 Helium-Neon Lasers; when the patent came into force; and when it is due to expire. [94465]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: My Department has received income of £29,800 from patent "GB222 6443 Helium-Neon Lasers". It was filed on 5 May 1988, was granted on 8 January 1992 and is due to expire in 2008.

  Y2K Product Liability
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on policy towards year 2000 product liability. [95409]

  Dr. Howells
  Computer equipment which is sold as year 2000 compliant and accessory equipment designed to fix systems so that they will be year 2000 compliant are subject to the Sale of Goods Act 1979. This requires goods to be of satisfactory quality and fit for their intended purpose. People suffering harm from defective products may have a right to compensation under Part I of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 which implemented the EC Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) into UK law.

  Social Chapter
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those proposals within the social chapter remit which(a) have been placed before
  774
  the Council since United Kingdom accession to that Chapter and (b) are currently being drafted; and what has been United Kingdom policy on each. [95296]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Social Chapter proposals placed before the Council since the United Kingdom's accession to that Chapter are:a Commission proposal for a Council Directive concerning a Framework Agreement on Part-time Work (1997/81/EC) was forwarded to the Council on 28 July 1997. The Directive supports the Government's commitment to improving the functioning of the UK labour market by increasing its flexibility while providing a framework of minimum standards for workers.
  a Directive concerning a Framework Agreement on Fixed-term Work (1999/70/EC) was forwarded to the Council on 30 April 1999. We support the aim of ensuring that fixed term contracts are not abused, while retaining flexibility. In implementing the directive, we will ensure that people's freedom to enter into contracts which suit their circumstances is not limited; and finally,
  a Commission proposal for a Council directive establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community (13099/98, COM (98)612) was forwarded by the Commission to the Council on 17 November 1998. The Government is not persuaded of the need for a directive on information and consultation in undertakings operating only at national level, which is difficult to reconcile with subsidiarity and would cut across existing practices in member states to no benefit.

  I am not aware of any further Social Chapter proposals being drafted by the Commission.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the Export Credits Guarantee Department to make a final decision on whether to extend UK export credit support for British firms involved in the construction of the Ilisu Dam in Turkey. [95160]

  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD is some way from taking a final decision on the project. The issues are currently being considered with other interested Government Departments. There will also be further discussion with the export credit agencies supporting other contractors involved in the project.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the environmental and social impact assessments of the Ilisu Dam arrived at by the Government before a final decision is taken on whether or not to extend export credit support for the British firms involved. [95161]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is intended to publish the independent reports commissioned by the Export Credits Guarantee Department on the environment and social impacts of Ilisu before a final decision is taken on whether or not to extend export credit support.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what meetings have taken place between his Department and Balfour Beatty on the matter of the Ilisu Dam. [95162]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since receiving Balfour Beatty's application for support on Ilisu, ECGD has held four meetings with Balfour Beatty. There have also been six meetings on the project at which both ECGD and Balfour Beatty were among the participants, three with other UK Government Departments and three with the other export credit agencies.

  Icecream Industry
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when his Department will publish its response to the Competition Commission's report into the icecream industry. [95079]

  Dr. Howells
  The Competition Commission report on impulse icecream will be published as quickly as is practicable. I cannot comment on the likely publication date of the report, which remains confidential until publication. Copies of the report will be laid before Parliament at the same time as it is published.

  World Trade Organisation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what outcomes the Government aims to achieve at the forthcoming trade round in Seattle. [95289]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government hope that a comprehensive Round of negotiations will be launched at Seattle with a negotiating agenda which reflects the interests of all members of the World Trade Organisation in a substantial new package of trade liberalisation and will be guided by the aim of sustainable development.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received concerning reform of the World Trade Organisation. [95290]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have received a range of representations many of which support the UK's and EU's call for the launch of a comprehensive Round of trade negotiations at Seattle. Some have expressed the desire to see the pace of liberalisation stopped and a review undertaken of existing World Trade Organisation Agreements. In such cases, the Government have explained that we need a new Round to keep up the pace of liberalisation to promote growth in the world economy, jobs for our people and resist protectionist pressures which threaten us all. At the same time, the Government accept that more can be done to strengthen the World Trade Organisation through increased transparency and dialogue. This communication effort is very much the responsibility of national governments and the UK is committed to playing its full part.

  Working Time Regulations
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidance he has given to(a) the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities and (b) Industrial Tribunals, on enforcing the new Working Time Regulations. [95698]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The Department of Trade and Industry published guidance on the Working Time Regulations, which covered enforcement, in September 1998. Copies were sent to the Health and Safety Executive and the Employment Tribunal Service (formerly the Industrial Tribunal Service). Guidance is also available on the Department website.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what provision has been made to increase the resources available to(a) the Health and Safety Executive and (b) industrial tribunals, to enforce the new Working Time Regulations. [95699]
  776
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The Department of Trade and Industry transfers funds to the Health and Safety Executive for enforcing the working time limits. This funding is reviewed in the light of experience.

  Resources are allocated to the Employment Tribunal Service taking account of the Service's forecasts of overall caseload and operational requirements. Recent forecasts take into account the implementation of the Working Time Regulations.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received on the enforcement mechanisms for the new Working Time Regulations. [95697]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The Department of Trade and Industry is in regular contact with interested parties about many aspects of the Working Time Regulations, including enforcement.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps to ensure that the pricing policies of petrol wholesalers do not disadvantage independent retailers. [95746]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Under UK competition legislation responsibility for monitoring markets, including the petrol market, and investigating allegations of anti-competitive practices lies with the Director General of Fair Trading. He has powers to act if necessary. Anyone with evidence of, or concerns about, anti-competitive pricing policies or other behaviour should contact the Director General.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about criteria for allocating structural funds to the regions. [94212]

  Mr. Caborn
  We received over 440 representations in response to the public consultation on determining areas for Structural Funds Objective 2 eligibility.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the procedures used to determine the selection of areas recommended for Objective 2 status. [94234]

  Mr. Byers
  On 8 October the Government submitted the UK proposals for new Objective 2 areas for 2000–06 to the European Commission.

  The procedure the Government used is set out in the document URN99/1021 "The Government's proposals for new Objective 2 areas". Copies have been sent to all Members.

  In drawing up its proposals the Government took account of responses to the earlier consultation exercise, and in particular of the proposals from the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

  Electrical Installations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to require electricity supply companies to upgrade consumer installations to comply with Building Standard BS 7671. [95264]

  Ms Hewitt
  None. The decision and responsibility for any necessary upgrading of consumers' existing electrical installations is a matter for those consumers alone.

  Timor Gap
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent meetings(a) he, (b) his Ministers and (c) his officials held where UK investment in oil or gas developments in the Timor Gap was discussed; when these meetings were set up; with whom these meetings were held; what the precise purpose of the meetings was; and what involvement there was of Indonesian Government (i) Ministers, (ii) officials and (iii) businesses; and if he will make a statement. [95267]

  Mr. Caborn
  All the dealings of my Department regarding oil and gas developments in the Timor Gap have been with the Australian side. To date there has been no involvement of Indonesian Government Ministers, officials or other organisations in relation to such developments.

  My officials visited Darwin in July 1999 and met the Northern Territory Minister, Hon. Daryl Manzie. Meetings were also held with the Office of Resource Development, Phillips Oil Company Australia, Woodside Energy Ltd., the Australian representative of the Australia-Indonesia Joint Authority for the Timor Gap Zone of Co-operation and with the University and local engineering and supply companies.

  These meetings were set up by the British Consulate-General in Perth, WA, to allow an assessment to be made of the likelihood of oil and gas developments going ahead in the Timor Gap and the opportunities these might present for the suppliers of UK goods and services.

  EU Trademark Directive
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the EU regarding changes to the EU Trademark Directive, with respect to allowing branded goods from outside the EU to be imported; and if he will make a statement. [95710]

  Dr. Howells
  Since the European Court of Justice, in its judgment in the Silhouette case last year, determined that European trade mark law allows trade mark owners to prevent the import of their goods into the EU, we have made it clear to our European partners and to the Commission that full discussion, including possible change to European law, must take place. This discussion should be informed by studies into the economic effects of this judgment, in particular on prices, competition and consumers.

  The European Commission has responded with a study undertaken by the consulting firm NERA which demonstrated that there would be a beneficial, if small
  778
  impact on the European economy resulting from change to the law, and that such benefits would be focussed in certain sectors, especially clothing, footwear, perfumes and other luxury goods. Work undertaken by my Department concerning the United Kingdom economy, and by the Swedish government, supports these findings.

  We have ensured that trade mark rights and the results of these studies have been discussed at meetings of the Internal Market Council. The Council will consider the issue again at its meeting in November. In the meantime we are encouraging other member States to undertake investigations to ensure that discussion at the Council progresses and is well informed.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what requirement there is for care workers to be paid at national minimum wage rates for time spent travelling between assignments; what representations he has received from and discussions he has had with care companies on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [95731]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The National Minimum Wage Regulation 15 provides that workers travelling on the business of their employer during their normal working hours must be paid the national minimum wage for that time, except where the travel is between the worker's home and place of work. I have received a number of representations on this issue from organisations involved in the provision of care work.

  We have asked the Low Pay Commission to monitor and evaluate the impact of the national minimum wage on pay, employment and competitiveness. I would expect that care work providers will have taken the opportunity to raise this matter with the Commission.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what training(a) in race awareness and (b) on employers' responsibilities under the Race Relations Act 1975 has been undertaken by (i) the DPP, (ii) CPS chief Crown prosecutors, (iii) CPS assistant chief Crown prosecutors and (iv) CPS branch Crown prosecutors; what plans he has to review training in (a) and (b); and if he will make a statement. [95773]

  The Solicitor-General
  A programme of training in race awareness was introduced in the Crown Prosecution Service for all staff managers in September 1997. In the London Area, which has a high percentage of staff from minority racial and cultural backgrounds, this training was extended to all staff. The course covers the provisions of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Chief Executive have received this training since joining the CPS. The Chief Crown Prosecutors who were appointed to their posts this year will either have received this training earlier or should have done so by the end of
  779
  the year. This training is now provided on an on-going basis so that all new managers receive it shortly after appointment.

  The structure, delivery and content of all training provided within the CPS is currently being reviewed by the Equality Committee that was formed within the Department in August this year.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the present position is in relation to the Commission for Racial Equality's possible investigation into the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement. [95774]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 27 July 1999 the Commission for Racial Equality wrote to the Crown Prosecution Service indicating that it was minded to undertake a formal investigation under section 48 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The Crown Prosecution Service have made written representations to the Commission in response to their letter and discussed these with a number of Commissioners on 5 October. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently waiting to hear from the Commission with their conclusions.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Solicitor-General if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94843]

  The Solicitor-General
  The hon. Member is referred to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the cost of establishing the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. [95136]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: £350,000 has been allocated to cover the costs associated with the establishment of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLAC) in this year and next.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications were received for the position of Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council; how many candidates were interviewed; and what salary the position carries. [95150]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Thirty seven applications were received for the position of Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council.

  Six Candidates were interviewed for the post. The position carries a salary of £67,500.

  Tourism
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many incoming tourists to the UK there were annually since 1995; and what estimate he has made of the numbers for 1999. [95203]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: Since 1995 the number of incoming tourists to the UK has been as follows:

  Thousand

  Year

  Visits to UK

  1995

  23,537

  1996

  25,163

  1997

  25,515

  1998

  25,745

  There were 17.46 million visits to the UK in the first 8 months of 1999, an increase on 17.42 million visits in the equivalent period for 1998.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the effectiveness to date of the Government's tourism strategy. [95117]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: "Tomorrow's Tourism" is a challenging strategy for the next decade with many long-term goals. Together with the industry, we have already made good progress, for example:
  the creation of the English Tourism Council (ETC) to provide strategic leadership for the industry in England;
  the launch of the new standardised accommodation rating system;
  the addition of on-line accommodation booking facilities to BTA's award-winning "Visit Britain" website; the launch of 16 of the British Tourist Authority's planned 36 new websites overseas; and the launch of the "Britain—Now is the Time" campaign to market the UK as a visitor destination for the Millennium;
  the successful hospitality careers festival held earlier this year;
  the inclusion of many seaside resorts on the new Assisted Areas map.

  A fuller progress report will be made at the first Tourism Summit early next year.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has made to Her Majesty's Treasury regarding the impact on the tourism industry of airport passenger duty. [95118]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed many matters of concern to the tourism industry, including air passenger duty (APD), with a wide range of ministerial colleagues including my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, my officials have made contact with their colleagues in HM Customs and Excise when representations about APD have been made by industry representatives or members of the public.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the future arrangements for England-wide marketing within the tourism sector. [95132]
  781
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The British Tourist Authority continues to market England abroad as part of its overall remit. It does so in partnership with the Regional Tourist Boards and the English Tourism Council with which it has an Overseas Marketing Agreement. Domestically, the English Tourism Council retains a strategic policy overview of marketing and has a major role in carrying out market research and providing advice on techniques and best practice.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of visitors to Britain of doubling airport passenger duty. [95124]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The new rates of APD were introduced on 1 November 1997. In the first twelve months (November 1997 to October 1998) in which the new rates were in operation there were an estimated 25.8 million visits to the UK, an increase of 3 per cent. on the previous twelve months.

  Green Spaces
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what amount in(a) percentage and (b) money terms of the New Opportunities Fund budget is currently spent on the purchase of brown-field sites for developing playing fields; [95199]

  (2) what is the breakdown in (a) cash and (b) percentage terms of the moneys set aside by the new Opportunities Fund for the Green Spaces initiative. [95185]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: The New Opportunities Fund is currently consulting on the Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities initiative, and has so far made no grants under it. The policy directions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued to NOF require it to commit at least 75 per cent. of the £125 million available for the initiative to green spaces, and NOF will decide in the light of its consultation exercise whether or not further to allocate this sum between particular types of project.

  Equal Opportunities
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if an action plan for increasing the representation of women in public life has been(a) prepared by his Department and (b) published since November 1998. [94854]

  Janet Anderson
  The Cabinet Office is responsible for co-ordinating the Government's initiative on equal opportunities and public appointments, so I therefore refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 682.

  This Government are committed to the equal representation of women and men in public appointments. A plan of action has been drawn up, which includes individual departmental plans for increasing the participation of women in public life. Details of individual Departments' plans are given in "Quangos: Opening up Public Appointments, 1999–2002", published by the Cabinet Office on 25 May 1999. Copies are in the Libraries of the House and on the Internet. The plans
  782
  contain specific goals and objectives for increasing the representation of women on the boards of public bodies, and are updated annually in the light of progress made.

  Dance and Drama
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment regarding the funding of dance and drama courses. [95114]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had a number of discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and my noble Friend the Minister of State regarding the development of policy for funding dance and drama students.

  Ealing Studios
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received in relation to the future of Ealing Studios; and if he will make a statement. [95128]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: In addition to the representation from the hon. Member, my Department has received four representations about Ealing Studios, three of which were from interested parties.

  The National Film and Television School, as the owner of the land at Ealing, is responsible for the future of the site. As one of my Department's funded bodies, the School will keep my officials fully informed of its plans.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met representatives of the London Borough of Brent to discuss the development of the national stadium at Wembley; and what discussions have taken place regarding section 106 proposals. [95144]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the London Borough of Brent on 15 and 22 July to discuss general progress with the national stadium project. He has had no discussions with the London Borough of Brent about section 106 requirements related to the national stadium project, which are entirely matters for the planning authority and the applicant, Wembley National Stadium Limited, to resolve following submission of the formal planning application.

  I will be meeting representatives of the London Borough of Brent early next month.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to increase public participation in Millennium Experience celebrations at a regional level; and if he will make a statement. [94069]
  783
  Janet Anderson
  The Millennium Experience is already achieving considerable success in encouraging public participation at a local and regional level through its National Programme of events and activities and through its involvement with the Millennium Festival. To date 10 National Programme strands have been launched and another will be launched in December. Through this programme and the Millennium Festival, NMEC estimates it will have reached 40 million people before the end of the year 2000. Equally importantly, it believes it will have delivered a programme which will not only have encouraged people to celebrate this momentous point in time but will have left a legacy, the value of which will continue to be felt long after the Dome has ceased to welcome the public.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what events are planned in Shropshire as part of the Millennium Experience(a) National Programme and (b) Manpower National Skills Festival; and if he will make a statement. [94068]

  Janet Anderson
  The Millennium Experience National Programme is made up of a series of events and activities which aim to inspire everyone across the UK to take part and make a difference to us and to future generations. Shropshire and the West Midlands are keenly participating in many of these initiatives including over 40 major companies and public sector organisations signing up to Children's Promise; hundreds of schools busily composing a song for the Millennium as part of Voices of Promise; schools and the community in Shropshire performing in the Dome on 1 November 2000 for the Our Town Story show; and 74 Shropshire schools taking part in the creation of the greatest modern day domesday book on the internet. The area is also participating in the Manpower National Skills Festival, which encourages the promotion and celebration of vocational skills. The programme features regional contests and demonstrations culminating in the first-ever national skills championships at the NEC in Birmingham in July 2000.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Integrated Public Transport
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the integration of public transport in rural areas. [94220]

  Mr. Meacher
  Most of the proposals in our integrated transport strategy apply to rural areas just as much as other areas of the country. Local Transport Plans in particular will provide a much sounder base for local authorities to develop effective rural transport strategies. Additionally, in view of the urgent need to improve transport in rural areas, we have made available £170 million over three years to improve rural public transport.

  Housing Tenancy Arrangements
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans for the future of housing tenancy arrangements. [94225]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have no immediate plans to make any changes to housing tenancy arrangements. I am aware, however, of the discussion paper published by the Chartered Institute of Housing on a single form of tenure for social housing.

  Roads Programme
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the priority he will give to bypassing towns and villages on major trunk routes in his roads programme. [94227]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  " A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England" sets out the priorities for investment in the trunk road network. Half the schemes in our targeted programme of improvements will provide bypasses of local communities.

  House Building
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure that his target for house building on brown-field sites is met. [94228]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have set in hand a number of policy initiatives to help authorities substantially increase their reuse of previously developed land. Chief amongst these is our radical revision of the last Government's outmoded planning guidance on housing (PPG3), which has caused so much greenfield development over the last decade.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his target for the proportion of new housing to be built on brown-field sites. [94232]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's national target is that 60 per cent. of new housing should be built on previously developed land or provided by way of conversion of existing buildings.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses will be built on greenfield sites in Lancashire in 1999–2000. [94236]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department does not estimate the number of new homes to be built. Estimates for Net Additional Dwelling Provision for 1991–2011, by county, are in Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13), but it does not make separate estimates for 'brownfield' or 'greenfield' sites.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has further to restrict house building in the green belt. [94237]
  785
  Ms Armstrong
  Planning Policy Guidance note 2——"Green Belts"——already recommends that local authorities' development plans should include a strict presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This includes most types of house building.

  Regional Strategies
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the draft Regional Strategies presented by the Regional Development Agencies. [94229]

  Ms Armstrong
  Regional Development Agencies have today formally handed over their Regional Strategies to Ministers for consideration. We aim to respond to the strategies before the end of the year.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the regional development agencies' regional strategies will be published; and if he will make a statement. [96169]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Regional Development Agencies' regional strategies were handed over to Ministers today. Copies of those which have been printed to date have been placed in the Library of the House. The remainder will be placed in the Library as soon as they are published.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many young people sleeping rough in England have been settled in accommodation in the most recent year for which figures are available. [94230]

  Mr. Mullin
  Comprehensive information on resettlement is not available. The Rough Sleepers Initiative has provided about 3,500 units of accommodation over the past 9 years, a large number of which have been let to young people.

  Eastern Regional Development Agency
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in the work of the regional development agency in the eastern region. [94231]

  Ms Armstrong
  The East of England Development Agency has achieved much since their official launch on 1 April this year and are now fully established with a committed and enthusiastic Board.

  The Agency have handed over the final version of their regional economic development strategy today and are currently working hard to finalise their first corporate plan.

  They have already announced over £20 million of Single Regeneration Budget funding, £4.3 million for the Skills Development Fund, almost £3 million for the Rural Development Programme and are managing Land and Property Regeneration schemes with a value of £25 million.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements he has made to ensure the accountability of English Partnerships to local communities. [94233]

  Ms Armstrong
  In carrying out its activities in the former new town areas, English Partnerships has to have due regard for the convenience and welfare of people who live, work or carry on their business there. When drawing up its plans, it consults with local councils and other interested parties.

  Housing Green Paper
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he now expects to publish the Housing Green Paper; and if he will make a statement. [94235]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We intend to publish a Housing Policy Green Paper in due course. The Green Paper will build on our achievements in housing to ensure that everyone is offered the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence.

  Thameslink Services
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the frequency and quality of Thameslink services to central London from Mill Hill Broadway and Hendon. [94239]

  Mr. Hill
  The frequency of service Thameslink are providing from Mill Hill Broadway and Hendon to Central London is greater than required by their Passenger Service Requirement. The Franchising Director is aware that services during peak periods are overcrowded beyond allowable thresholds and he has required Thameslink accordingly to produce a Feasibility Study detailing ways in which capacity can be increased to reduce this overcrowding. In addition to the Feasibility Study, Thameslink are currently negotiating with other train operators to lease additional trains.

  London Underground
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made on the public private partnership for the London Underground. [94240]

  Mr. Hill
  Excellent progress has been made on the PPP. London Underground has been restructured, in shadow form, into one operating company and three infrastructure companies. Four consortia have been invited to tender for each of the two deep tube infrastructure companies. Discussions with Railtrack concerning the integration of the subsurface railway and the national rail network are continuing to make progress.

  The Greater London Authority Bill, which contains the new powers governing the public private partnership, is in its final stages in the House of Lords.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the principal capital sums which need to be expended on the London Underground in respect of
  787
  (a) each line, (b) multi-line improvements and (c) other aspects, indicating the principal purposes of each and the (i) sums and (ii) proportion of each item or the total amount arising from the shortfall in past maintenance. [94792]

  Mr. Hill
  Information is not available in the form requested. London Underground have made the following line-by-line estimates of how much it will cost to implement the performance regime being developed for the first 15 years of the proposed Public Private Partnership. They estimate that £1.2 billion of the total projected expenditure of £7.36 billion can be attributed to past funding constraints on the Underground network.

  £ million (1999–2000 prices)

  Line

  Indicative projection of 15 year investment expenditure

  Bakerloo

  390

  Central, Waterloo and City

  780

  Victoria

  900

  Northern1

  950

  Jubilee2

  280

  Piccadilly

  1,190

  Metropolitan, Circle, Hammersmith and City

  1,700

  District

  970

  East London3

  200

  Total

  7,360

  1Northern Line train investment costs are contracted for under a separate PFI sceme and are excluded from these figures.

  2Excludes operating and maintenance costs for the Jubilee Line Extension project.

  3Excludes costs from potential project for extending East London Line.

  Waste Minimisation Act
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will undertake a review of the Waste Minimisation Act 1998. [94241]

  Mr. Hutton
  As the Waste Minimisation Act came into force only in November 1998, it is too early to undertake a review of it. During the passage of this Act, the Government promised to provide guidance to Local Authorities on the powers it conferred on councils and on the issue of consultation. My Department will be issuing such guidance shortly.

  Urban Task Force
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made in the north west with regard to implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the Urban Task Force, "The Urban Renaissance". [94242]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Government is considering the recommendations of the Urban Task Force's report in its preparation of the new Urban and Rural White Papers which are due to be published next summer. The Government has launched a pilot urban regeneration company, Liverpool Vision, and has invited Manchester City Council to submit a proposal for a second pilot in East Manchester.

  Norfolk Broads
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the impact of aquatic pollution on the Norfolk Broads. [94243]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency, as the environmental regulator, is responsible for keeping this matter under review. On their advice, parts of the Broads have been designated Sensitive Areas (eutrophic) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This is subject to 4 yearly review due to report next in 2001. Designation requires phosphorus removal from sewage treatment works into the affected waters to combat eutrophication. The Agency is keeping this and other pollution sources under review through monitoring and research. Proposals for further action will be included in the Broadland Rivers Local Environmental Action Plan, which is in the final stages of preparation following public consultation.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned into alternative fuels. [94244]

  Mr. Hill
  The most recent research, commissioned jointly by my Department, DTI and MAFF, compared the emissions performance of a wide range of alternatively fuelled vehicles. The results were published by HMSO early last year as "Alternative Road Transport Fuels—UK field trials, Volumes 1 and 2".

  Climate Change
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with Ministers of other EU countries about climate change and the impact upon rare animal species. [94245]

  Mr. Meacher
  I regularly speak to my EU partners about the potential impacts of climate change and how to mitigate it. The EU fifth framework research programme includes a key action on global change, climate and biodiversity, and my Department and English Nature have commissioned research to address this issue.

  Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Chamber
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will report on progress in the establishment of the Regional Chamber in Yorkshire and Humberside. [94246]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Regional Chamber for Yorkshire and Humberside was designated, under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, on 27 July 1999.

  Rural Public Transport
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the provision of rural public transport. [94238]
  789
  Mr. Hill
  We have received representations on the provision of public transport from a range of individuals living in rural areas, as well as from a number of interested organisations.

  Housing Benefit Subsidy
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the reduction in expenditure by his Department on housing benefit subsidy in respect of rent rebates paid to local authorities in each of the years

  Projected rent rebate subsidy savings at time of transfer

  £ million

  Year of transfer

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  1991–92

  3.3

  3.2

  3.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992–93

  —

  14.5

  18.5

  19.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  —

  —

  14.4

  13.3

  9.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  16.5

  14.0

  13.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  26.7

  26.6

  26.3

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.1

  8.3

  8.3

  —

  —

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  28.6

  28.4

  28.6

  —

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  30.2

  28.9

  26.8

  Renovation Grants
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to increase renovation grants for(a) improving the quality of housing in the private sector and (b) helping owner-occupiers on low incomes; and if he will make a statement. [94796]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities are responsible for paying renovation grants to help owner-occupiers on low incomes improve their homes and are funded from within the local authorities' housing capital programme, partly from subsidy allocated by central Government and partly from authorities' own resources. Decisions on the size of their renovation grant programme are taken by authorities in the light of their housing strategy and the housing needs of the different forms of tenure. From April next year, there will no longer be a separate ring-fenced allocation to support renovation grant expenditure. The resources will, instead, be included in a new single capital allocation for housing. This will give local authorities more freedom to decide the balance between investment in their own housing stock and in private sector renewal. Next year, local authorities will be allocated an additional £30 million for capital investment in housing, which is part of the additional £5 billion being made available over the life of this Parliament.

  Minicabs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to cover minicabs, with particular reference to the problems of sight-impaired people with guide dogs. [94865]

  Mr. Hill
  Such a change would require primary legislation and at this stage we have no plans to introduce any amendment in respect of private hire vehicles (PHVs).

  Having said that, there is a power available to licensing authorities outside London under Section 51(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
  790
  1989–90 to 1998–99 as a result of large scale voluntary transfers of tenants to registered social landlords; and what are his estimates for 1999–2000 and for each of the years from 2000–01 to 2029–30. [94346]

  Mr. Mullin
  The only estimates which have been made are the projections made for three years ahead at the time of each transfer. These are set out in the following table. Our records do not extend back to cover transfers made before 1991–92. No figures are available for 1999–2000 and future years because we do not yet know what transfers may occur.

  enabling them to attach such conditions to the grant of a PHV driver's licence as they consider reasonably necessary. Bearing in mind that this power is subject to an appeals procedure, it would be up to individual councils in their capacity as licensing authorities to consider whether it could, or should, be applied in respect of guide dogs.

  With regard to the situation in London, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 25 October, Official Report, column 669.

  Railway Policing
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to enhance railway security and policing, with special reference to assaults on railway staff. [95171]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government expects all public transport operators to adopt the crime prevention strategies in our guidance "Personal Security on Public Transport—Guidelines for Operators". This includes measures such as CCTV, improved lighting and the availability of trained staff.

  My Department has launched the Secure Stations scheme, with the British Transport Police (BTP) and Crime Concern, to encourage railway companies to work with the BTP to improve security and reduce the fear of crime. Stations can apply to become accredited as "Secure Stations" by meeting agreed standards on crime prevention measures. 21 stations have so far been independently awarded "Secure Station" status.

  Assaults on railway staff are a growing problem and the Health and Safety Commission's Railway Industry Advisory Committee (RIAC) organised a conference in July to discuss what could be done to address this matter. The conference was attended by representatives of the Health and Safety Executive, Railtrack, the BTP and the train operating companies. It was agreed that RIAC should develop guidance setting out good practice to

  791
  assist railway managers with developing action plans to combat the problem. RIAC are now developing these proposals.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for the future of parish and town councils. [95329]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  As stated in our White Paper "Modern Local Government—In Touch with the People" (Cm 4014)"Parish councils will continue to play a key role in many of our towns and villages".

  In our forthcoming Rural White Paper we intend to address further how we see parish councils playing their part in rural local governance.

  Paddington Rail Services
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Tnsport and the Regions what was the total number of scheduled passenger train services entering and leaving Paddington railway station in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997 and (iv) 1998. [94874]

  Mr. Hill
  This information is not held by the Government.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give further protection to designated areas of outstanding natural beauty. [95224]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment expects to make an announcement shortly about measures to conserve and enhance designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the preparations made by housing associations in respect of the millennium computer bug. [95215]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Housing Corporation is responsible for assessing preparations taken by Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) to deal with the millennium computer bug.

  In its progress report to the Action 2000 National Infrastructure Forum on 21 October 1999, the Housing Corporation confirmed that no evidence had been found, in respect of those RSLs owning about 80 per cent. of total RSL stock to suggest that millennium bug concerns had been inadequately addressed.

  The Housing Corporation anticipates that all remaining RSLs will be prepared for the millennium change by mid November.

  Thermal Insulation
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and th Regions what changes 792
  were made to BS 5422 on thermal insulation of pipes after the Rio Earth Summit; and what assessment hehas made of its compliance with Part L of the Building Regulations 1991. [94886]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Changes to British Standards are a matter for the British Standards Institute and its technical committees. I am aware however that BS 5422 is currently being revised to incorporate among other things a new method of assessing appropriate insulation thicknesses that takes account of environmental issues.

  BS 5422 is referenced in the Approved Document which supports Part L of the Building Regulations. This too is currently under review. During the course of the review we shall be examining whether standards of insulation applied to vessels, pipes and ducts should be increased, and also whether the reference to the revised BS 5422 is still appropriate.

  Ragwort
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to combat the spread of ragwort(a) along roadside verges and (b) in liaison with local authorities and utilities in respect of land owned by them. [95318]

  Mr. Hill
  For roadside verges, eradication of noxious weeds on road verges in England is the responsibility of highway authorities. These authorities take measures to eradicate ragwort when made aware that a problem exists. The Highways Agency's current policy on noxious weeds for the trunk road and motorway network in England is to seek out infestation and take appropriate control measures. Maintenance of roadside verges on local authority roads is the responsibility of the local highway authorities, who are free to set their own standards. However, DETR are working with local authorities to produce a new code of practice for maintaining their roads, and will recommend that they adopt the same procedures for ragwort elimination as on national roads.

  For land owned by local authorities and utilities, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility for control of injurious weeds, of which ragwort is one, under the Weeds Act 1959. Under its provisions, the Ministry may investigate complaints from any occupiers of agricultural land who consider that their land is threatened by ragwort spreading from land nearby. Where a specific complaint is received about ragwort spreading from land occupied by utilities or local authorities, the local Ministry regional service centre may approach the utility or authority concerned to request that control measures be taken. Where such measures are not put in hand, the Weeds Act gives the Minister powers to implement statutory procedures to ensure that weed control is carried out.

  Shorthold Tenancy Agreements
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) landlords and (b) tenants regarding shorthold tenancy agreements; and if he will make a statement. [94885]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since April 1999, nine letters have been received from landlords and 26 from tenants regarding various aspects of assured shorthold tenancy agreements.
  793
  The main topics raised are repossession and tenants' rights (by landlords) and affordability, condition, housing benefit and security of tenure (by tenants).

  We believe that to encourage growth in long term, good quality accommodation for private letting, we must secure the confidence of landlords in a stable policy framework while at the same time ensuring that the interests of tenants are protected. We therefore have no plans to change the legislative framework of assured and assured shorthold tenancies established under the Housing Act 1988.

  Noise (Heathrow)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the level of night-time noise around Heathrow Airport in connection with attempts to meet the night-time noise exposure levels under the EU Fifth Environmental Action Programme by 2000. [95248]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Fifth Environmental Action Programme does not require such an assessment to be made.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the long-term implications for noise from air traffic around Heathrow Airport and under its flight paths of the adoption of an EU noise abatement programme which has as its objective ensuring that no person should be exposed to levels of noise which endanger health and quality of life; [95247]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the long-term implications of the adoption of the EU noise abatement programme with regard to the operations and competitiveness of (a) Heathrow and (b) other UK airports. [95246]

  Mr. Mullin
  The European Commission has stated its intention to make a proposal for a Directive on environmental noise. However, this is not expected until late next year and the UK Government will treat the proposals on their merits as they emerge.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what level of noise from air traffic he has assessed to be excessive around Heathrow Airport and under its flight paths between 2300 and 0700 hours in the past year; [95460]

  (2) how many people are exposed to excessive noise from air traffic around Heathrow and under its flight paths between 2300 and 0700; and what were the number for each year since 1993; [95461]

  (3) what steps have been taken to measure the levels of noise experienced at night between 1 and 2 metres above ground level in residential areas (a) around Heathrow Airport and (b) under flight paths to Heathrow. [95468]

  Mr. Mullin
  For many years, one of the objectives of the night restrictions has been to protect local communities around Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports from excessive aircraft noise levels at night. It has been the view of successive Governments that policy on night noise should be firmly based on research into the relationship between aircraft noise and interference with sleep and that, in order to preserve the balance between 794
  different interests, this should continue to be the basis for decisions. The "Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted: Second Stage Consultation", published on 17 November 1998, included a summary of research. Copies were placed in the Library.

  My Department has for many years published daytime (7.00 am—11.00 pm) aircraft noise contours for the area around Heathrow. They show a substantial improvement in the daytime noise climate over the past two decades.

  The Department does not publish night-time noise contours. A 1998 study found that there is not enough research evidence to underpin scientifically robust night contours relating noise to annoyance. Its publication was announced on 27 February 1998, Official Report, columns 403–04. However, a comparison of the seasonal totals of the 'quota count' (QC) ratings of aircraft counted against the noise quotas, indicates that there has been an improvement in the night noise climate around Heathrow, between 11.30 pm and 6.00 am, since the introduction of the present night restrictions regime in 1993. Information on this was also given in the "Night Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted: Second Stage Consultation".

  Night Flights
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changing the night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports. [95233]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government announced new night flight restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports on 10 June 1999,Official Report, columns 378–80, which will last for five years, from 31 October 1999 until the end of the 2004 summer season. This followed a two-stage consultation between February 1998 and February 1999. The 10 June announcement included notification of a review of the QC system before the 2002 summer season. It also recognised that it may be necessary to review the Stansted night restrictions before 2004 if the current strong growth in traffic there were to continue. We expect to announce shortly the decision on Part 2 of the second-stage consultation on options for changes to the preferential use of Heathrow's runways at night.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require owners of birds of prey to have a licence of competence before allowing them to fly freely. [95320]

  Mr. Mullin
  Adequate statutory controls are already in place to regulate possession, welfare and trade in these sensitive species. I believe we can continue to rely on the long tradition of British falconry and its voluntary associations to maintain and disseminate satisfactory standards for those who fly birds of prey.

  Turkish Earthquake
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the assistance being given to the UK construction industry to help in Turkey following the earthquake. [R] [95464]
  795
  Mr. Raynsford
  I led a construction sector trade mission to Turkey on 20–24 September. One of the themes of this visit was to explore ways in which UK companies might participate in the planning and redevelopment of the areas worst affected by the tragic earthquake on 17 August.

  I and the businessmen who travelled with me were appalled by the extent of destruction, particularly in the city of Adapazari. Adapazari has a population of 350,000 and is part of the industrial heartland of Turkey with some 350 factories. The World Bank investigation team estimated that the rebuilding of this city would require more time and more careful planning than the others which it had visited, because of the extent of the damage and the poor ground conditions that exist in the area.

  Following the visit, the Government has in principle agreed to provide financial support, on a 50:50 basis, for an initiative by a group of nine UK companies which would provide much-needed consultancy advice on the reconstruction of Adapazari. This offer of assistance was delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister of Turkey on Monday 18 October.

  Countryside Access
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide for greater rights of public access to(a) coastal land, (b) privately-owned woodland and (c) riverbanks. [95434]

  Mr. Mullin
  In March this year, the Government announced plans to introduce a new statutory right of access on foot to specified categories of open countryside—mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. As part of its announcement, the Government also asked the Countryside Agency, together with the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission, to report on the case for extending public access to other types of open countryside, such as coast, woodland and riverside. We look forward to receiving their formal report and advice very shortly (I am aware that the Countryside Agency has already set out its recommendations on its website). We will wish to consider their views carefully before deciding how best to proceed.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of practical driving tests were passed each year from 1983; and in which year the Driving Standards Agency became fully self-funding. [95540]

  Ms Armstrong
  Driving test pass rate data are not available for the years prior to 1989. Details for the financial years 1989–90 to 1998–99 are given in the following table.

  Year

  Car

  Motorcycle

  Lorry

  Bus

  1989–90

  52.2

  71.0

  50.0

  55.0

  1990–91

  52.4

  52.0

  51.0

  55.0

  1991–92

  50.8

  68.3

  50.0

  56.0

  1992–93

  49.75

  69.70

  50.0

  53.0

  1993–94

  47.9

  70.15

  49.0

  52.0

  1994–95

  46.9

  70.5

  47.5

  70.5

  796

  Year

  Car

  Motorcycle

  Lorry

  Bus

  1995–96

  45.7

  70.1

  47.0

  49.3

  1996–97

  44.7

  67.5

  48.1

  48.7

  1997–98

  46.7

  68.6

  52.8

  47.7

  1998–99

  45.9

  67.9

  51.8

  47.8

  The Driving Standards Agency became a Trading Fund in April 1997. Prior to that, it operated as an on-Vote non-statutory trading body, and was required to recover its full costs through fees and charges.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to make an Order to effect the establishment of parish councils for(a) Hereford City and (b) Belmont; and if he will make a statement. [95676]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We intend to consult the Herefordshire Council and other interested parties shortly on a draft Order. Subject to that consultation the intention is to make the Order before the end of 1999 with the view to first elections for the new parishes being held in May 2000.

  Pubs (Business Rates)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will issue guidance on the application of the powers to reduce business rates to 50 per cent. on public houses. [95634]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The village shop rate relief scheme gives billing authorities a discretionary power to grant up to 100 per cent. rates relief to any business in a listed rural settlement, provided the rateable value of the property occupied is less than £10,000 and, in the view of the authority, is used for purposes which are of benefit to the local community. The legislation does not rule out any business or premises from receiving relief, and public houses might therefore qualify.

  Guidance on the village shop rate relief scheme and eligibility for discretionary relief was issued to all billing authorities on 12 December 1997.

  Leasehold Tenure
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce plans to reform leasehold tenure; and if he will make a statement. [95915]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have almost completed our analysis of the responses received to our consultation paper on residential leasehold reform, and will announce our conclusions shortly.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the Electrical Wiring Regulations set out in Building Standard BS 7671 to be incorporated into the building regulations. [95263]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has been working with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and others to develop proposals for
  797
  amendments to the Building Regulations that would introduce requirements for electrical safety in dwellings. The draft proposals indicate that following the recommendations in the British Standard BS 7671 would be a way of achieving compliance. The Building Act 1984 requires consultation with interested bodies before substantive amendments are made to the Building Regulations. I intend to announce consultation on these proposals once I am satisfied that they meet our better regulation criteria. Whether and when amendments are made will depend upon the outcome of this consultation. Electrical safety requirements for buildings other than dwellings are already made in the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans are in place for visitors to travel to the Millennium Dome in the event that the Jubilee Line extension is not fully operable by 1 January 2000. [95807]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government expects that the whole of the Jubilee Line extension will be up and running from end-to-end in time for the opening of the Millennium Experience and hope that all stations will be open by the end of this year. A 15 train per hour Monday to Friday service is already operating to North Greenwich station through the Stratford to Waterloo section of the line. This is expected to be increased to 24 trains per hour seven days a week when through running from Stanmore to Stratford is successfully achieved in due course. Visitors to the Dome will therefore be able to travel on the Jubilee Line, even if access to the line is not possible from all of the stations at the end of the year.

  It had, however, been decided in June 1998 that it would be irresponsible not to have contingency arrangements in place to manage problems on any of the main transport links to the Millennium Dome during the Millennium Year. London Underground Ltd. have therefore, in association with London's other transport operators, developed plans to cover a wide range of possible scenarios and a robust command and control strategy to direct those plans should they need to be invoked.

  In the event of disruption, contingency provision will be made available through a combination of spare capacity on the other available public transport links to the Dome and a small number of additional buses and boats that have been contracted to be made available at short notice. A summary of the contingency plan arrangements has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dogs (Identification)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what legislation exists to require dogs to be identified; and if he will make a statement. [95665]

  Mr. Hill
  The Control of Dogs Order 1992 made under the Animal Health Act 1981 requires every dog (with some exceptions) while in a highway or in a place of public resort to wear a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on a place or badge attached to it. My Department has set up a Dog 798
  Identification Working Group to reflect a consensus view on all the available options for dog identification. They will be producing a report in due course. No decisions will be taken until we have fully considered the report.

  Recycling
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the EU measures relating to recycling which apply in the UK; and if he will make a statement on the UK's performance in respect of such measures. [95562]

  Mr. Mullin
  Currently only the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste (94/62/EC) imposes recovery and recycling targets for the UK. The Directive requires Member States to recover 50 per cent. of all packaging materials by 2001, of which half must be recycled.

  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 implement part of the Directive in the UK. In 1998, according to returns to the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—the bodies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Regulations—UK business exceeded their recovery obligation of 2,393,327 tonnes, with a total of 3,322,715 tonnes, with 2,874,316 tonnes having been recycled.

  Plants (EU Transportation)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) guidelines and (b) legislation applies to the application of fees for transporting certain types of plants across EU borders; what the (i) cost and (ii) purpose of licences for such transportation is; what plans he has to make representations to the EU on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [95728]

  Mr. Mullin
  EU Wildlife Trade Regulations 338–97 and 939–97, implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), contain provisions for the control of trade and movement of listed species of endangered animals and plants. The controls apply to imports and exports across the external frontier. Member states may set fees for issuing the relevant import and export permits. Under the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Fees) Regulations 1997 the current fee for import and export permits for plants issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is £7 per genus. There is a reduction to £5 per genus for non commercial consignments and for consignments of 5 or more genera.

  Within the European Union there are controls on the sale (including movement for sale) and purchase of the most endangered category of plants listed in Annex A of Council Regulation 338–97. Such activities may be subject to the issue of a certificate from my Department although no fee is charged. Detailed guidance is available on demand to all applicants for CITES permits or certificates.

  Domestic Electrical Installations
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he
  799
  has to require domestic electrical installations to conform to a national minimum standard; and if he will make a statement. [95572]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has been working with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and others to develop proposals for amendments to the Building Regulations that would introduce requirements for electrical safety in dwellings. The draft proposals include the publication of approved guidance indicating that following the recommendations in British Standard BS 7671, "Requirements for Electrical Installations" would be a way of achieving compliance. I will announce consultation on these proposals once I am satisfied that they meet our better regulation criteria. Whether to amend the Building Regulations will depend upon the results of this consultation.

  Draft Waste Strategy
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the draft waste strategy; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [95563]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government published for consultation its draft waste strategy for England and Wales, "A Way With Waste", on 30 June 1999. We have received over 500 substantive submissions from a wide range of interested parties, and around 20,000 postcards urging higher recycling targets from members of the public. These views will be taken into consideration as we develop the final strategy.

  The final version of our sustainable waste management strategy-which we will publish early next year-will be a long-term strategy for handling the waste generated by businesses, service providers and households. The Government is committed to introducing and promoting sustainable waste management across the UK. This means using materials resources efficiently, to cut down on the amount of waste we produce. And where waste is produced, dealing with it in a way that actively contributes to the economic, social and environmental goals of sustainable development.

  Mobile Telephone Masts
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the planning requirements as regards the siting of mobile telephone masts. [95679]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The provisions of Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) which govern the installation of mobile telephone masts were amended earlier this year by SI 1999 No. 1661. Guidance on these changes is contained in DETR Circular 04/99 which complements Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised) (PPG8) on telecommunications. In December 1998 the Department issued for consultation a draft circular prepared jointly with the Department of Health on land use planning and electromagnetic fields. We are currently considering the responses received.

  Consumer Protection (Spending)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the levels of spending on consumer protection per head of population in(a) Staffordshire and (b) each other county of England (i) in the current year and (ii) in each of the last three years. [94016]

  Dr. Howells
  I have been asked to reply.

  The figures requested are contained in the following table. Expenditure per head has been calculated by dividing the total expenditure on consumer protection for each county (excluding those abolished during local government reorganisation), as collected by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, by the total population of the county. The population data used are the latest available, namely for mid 1997.

  Total expenditure figures for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 are actual out-turns; those for 1998–99 are provisional out-turns; and the 1999–2000 figures are budget estimates.

  Figures reflect the changes in local authority boundaries that came into effect in 1998–99.

  Consumer protection net expenditure per head of population for the Shire counties for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Bedfordshire1

  2.55

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire

  0

  2.61

  2.57

  2.7

  Berkshire

  2.4

  2.4

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire1

  2.66

  —

  —

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  0

  2.14

  2.13

  2.38

  Cambridgeshire1

  2.2

  2.13

  —

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  0

  0

  2.22

  2.09

  Cheshire1

  2.11

  2.16

  —

  —

  Cheshire

  0

  0

  2.09

  2.39

  Cornwall

  2.38

  2.6

  2.41

  2.88

  Cumbria

  2.8

  2.74

  2.75

  2.74

  Derbyshire1

  1.96

  —

  —

  —

  Derbyshire

  0

  2.38

  3.03

  3.21

  Devon1

  2.26

  2.19

  —

  —

  Devon

  0

  0

  2.2

  2.25

  Dorset1

  2.42

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset

  0

  2.43

  2.84

  2.82

  Durham1

  2.66

  —

  —

  —

  Durham

  0

  2.71

  2.85

  2.99

  East Sussex1

  1.97

  —

  —

  —

  East Sussex

  0

  1.88

  1.92

  1.9

  Essex1

  2.03

  2.02

  —

  —

  Essex

  0

  0

  2.05

  2.1

  Gloucestershire

  2.21

  2.36

  2.62

  2.68

  Hampshire1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Hampshire

  0

  2.12

  2.27

  2.35

  Hereford and Worcester

  2.61

  2.56

  —

  —

  Worcestershire

  0

  0

  2.64

  2.7

  Hertfordshire

  1.88

  1.89

  1.71

  1.74

  Kent1

  2.37

  2.4

  —

  —

  Kent

  0

  0

  2.44

  2.48

  Lancashire1

  2.26

  2.37

  —

  —

  Lancashire

  0

  0

  2.65

  2.73

  Leicestershire1

  2.11

  —

  —

  —

  Leicestershire

  0

  2.11

  2.7

  2.81

  Lincolnshire

  2.43

  2.48

  2.36

  2.39

  Norfolk

  1.98

  2.05

  2.19

  2.23

  North Yorkshire

  2.45

  2.18

  2.47

  2.61

  Northamptonshire

  2.25

  2.21

  2.32

  2.32

  Northumberland

  2.66

  2.83

  3.02

  3.37

  Nottinghamshire1

  2.72

  2.85

  —

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  0

  2.81

  2.78

  Oxfordshire

  2.29

  2.3

  2.31

  2.32

  Shropshire1

  2.95

  3.49

  —

  —

  801

  Consumer protection net expenditure per head of population for the Shire counties for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  £

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Shropshire

  0

  0

  3.86

  3.85

  Somerset

  2.9

  2.91

  3.27

  3.38

  Staffordshire1

  2.39

  —

  —

  —

  Staffordshire

  0

  2.68

  2.65

  2.69

  Suffolk

  2.36

  2.29

  2.42

  2.53

  Surrey

  2.36

  2.41

  2.49

  2.63

  Warwickshire

  3.24

  3.3

  2.93

  3.2

  West Sussex

  2.69

  2.63

  2.77

  2.82

  Wiltshire1

  2.14

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  0

  2.31

  2.66

  2.91

  1 These figures relate to spending by the authority prior to boundary changes as a result of Local Government reorganisation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Commissioners
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount paid to each European commissioner who resigned earlier this year(a) arising from their resignation and (b) over the period to the appointment of the new Commission. [94807]

  Mr. Vaz
  Commissioners' terms and conditions of service are set down in the 1967 Council Regulation 422/67, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current state of investigations into former EU commissioners in respect of possible fraud or misconduct. [94808]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Council has commenced proceedings in the European Court of Justice against Mr. Bangemann, a former Commissioner, under Article 213 (2) of the Treaty. This matter is sub judice.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of each of the proposed reforms to the EU Commission put forward by the Commissioner for Administrative Reform. [94809]

  Mr. Vaz
  We fully support the process of reform in the new Commission. We welcome the progress already made; and in particular, the adoption of a new Code of Conduct covering Commissioners' behaviour, a re-organisation of Directorates General and a reorganisation of senior jobs (which are now filled according to merit rather than on the basis of a quota system). We welcome the Commission's intention to publish a White Paper on reform early next year.

  Paul Van Buitenen
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the European Commission about the position of EU employee Paul van Buitenen; and if he will make a statement. [94810]
  802
  Mr. Vaz
  We have not made any representations on this matter. We welcome the Commission's intention to bring forward proposals for such guidelines and procedures as part of its package of reform.

  Corpus Juris
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the official positions in the European Communities currently held by contributors to the Corpus Juris document. [95229]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The research study "Corpus Juris: introducing penal provisions for the purposes of the financial interests of the European Union" was published in April 1997. It was written by a group of experts from the Association of European Lawyers for the Protection of the Financial Interests of the Community (ALPFIEC). Although the experts worked under the aegis of the Directorate General for Financial Control (DGXX) of the European Commission, they were independent of the Commission and held academic appointments which are listed in the publication. Information on any official positions currently held by the authors of the study is not available.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken to reorganise his Department's workload in accordance with the Working Time Directive; and if he will make a statement. [95399]

  Mr. Battle
  The Department constantly reviews its workload to take account of changing demands and priorities. Guidance issued to staff and managers requires line managers to re-prioritise the work on their staff to ensure that working hours comply fully with the Working Time Directive and Regulations.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his Department's staff are exempt from the Working Time Directive. [95401]

  Mr. Battle
  All staff are subject to the provisions of the Working Time Directive and Regulations.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost to his Department to date of implementing the working time regulations; what additional paperwork has been required; and what checks are undertaken internally. [95403]

  Mr. Battle
  No additional financial costs have been incurred so far. Staff who have opted to waive their rights to a maximum 48 hour week are required to keep records of the hours they work. Guidance for staff and managers on the application of the Working Time Directive and Regulations have been circulated to staff. Line Managers are required to ensure that the working hours of their staff comply fully with the Working Time Directive and Regulations.

  Chinese President (State Visit)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations
  803
  his Department made to the Metropolitan Police about the public order implications of the state visit of the President of China. [95647]

  Mr. Battle
  As is normal practice in preparing for State Visits, there were routine Whitehall meetings to go through the programme so that the Metropolitan Police could make their operational decisions.

  Refugees
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the UK's participation within NATO in respect of the provision of intelligence information regarding refugees. [95569]

  Mr. Vaz
  It is longstanding Government practice not to comment on intelligence matters.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial responsibility the UK has accepted in respect of refugees from the former Yugoslavia. [95570]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Currently, refugees who arrive in the United Kingdom and claim asylum are entitled to welfare benefits if they claim asylum at the port of entry, or help under the National Assistance Act 1948 or the Children Act 1989 if they make their claim after they have entered the country.

  International Criminal Tribunal (Former Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial provision he has made in connection with requests from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; and if he will make a statement. [95566]

  Mr. Hain
  Our total UN assessed contribution to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to date is £7.1 million since the Tribunal was established in 1993. In addition, we have made voluntary contributions totalling just over £2.6 million towards, for example, the construction of ICTY's second court-room; its Exhumations Programme; the translation of Prosecution documents; and more recently a UK Scenes of Crime Team which is helping ICTY's investigation of atrocities in Kosovo.

  China
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government about the persecution of people who practise Falun Gong; and if he will make a statement. [95561]

  Mr. Battle
  We have made a series of representations expressing our disappointment to the Chinese Government at the banning of the Falun Gong on 22 July and supported an EU Presidency demarche in Peking on 29 July to the Chinese Government. We reiterated our concerns about the Chinese government's treatment of Falun Gong adherents during the latest round of our high level Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue between 13–15 September. Both the Prime Minister and the 804
  Foreign Secretary raised the issue of human rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of religious belief, with the Chinese during the State Visit.

  Burma
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma regarding the alleged massacres at Kwei and Hpway Plaw villages, and the killings at Ta Hpo Hkee and the Tavoy District; and if he will make a statement. [95669]

  Mr. Battle
  We had heard reports of these appalling events, but have been unable to substantiate the details. We remain deeply concerned about human rights violations against the Karen and other ethnic minorities in Burma and raise our concerns regularly with the military regime. We will continue to do so.

  Egypt
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department is currently giving to those planning to travel to Egypt; and if he will make a statement. [95574]

  Mr. Hain
  The FCO travel advice for Egypt, as valid on 22 October 1999 is as follows:Begins
  "British nationals travelling to Egypt should keep in touch with developments in the Middle East. Any increase in regional tension might affect travel advice.
  Over 200,000 British nationals visit Egypt each year. Most enjoy a trouble-free stay. Visitors should dress modestly, and respect local customs and sensitivities.
  Beginning in 1992 extremists conducted a campaign of violence against the Egyptian Government, mainly in the Governorates of Minya and Assiut (half way between Cairo and Luxor) but with sporadic attacks in other areas. Most incidents were directed at the police, or were sectarian in nature. However, some were directed against tourists. In March 1999 the principal extremist group reportedly announced a ceasefire, which has held so far. But the risk of a renewed campaign, including attacks on foreigners, remains. In addition, Egypt is one of a number of countries where we believe there is a threat to British interests from global terrorism.
  The Egyptian authorities have expressed their determination to prevent attacks on foreign visitors and have taken a number of steps to increase security, especially at tourist sites. British nationals should be vigilant and respect any advice from the local security authorities.
  There remains a small risk from unexploded mines in some desert areas, and some limited coastal areas. Visitors should follow local advice, especially if travelling off road.
  Local driving conditions and poor vehicle maintenance make road travel outside the main cities hazardous, especially at night. In the event of an accident emergency medical facilities are limited.
  Millennium Bug
  The Egyptian Government are continuing their efforts to minimise the effects of any Millennium Bug problems in Egypt. Based on the information available at present, we believe that as elsewhere, there is a risk of limited disruption in some sectors. Particular sectors include health and the mobile telephone network. British nationals resident in or visiting Egypt should take the potential for temporary disruption into account when making their plans for the New Year period. These should include checking insurance cover and having enough cash to cover contingencies."
  Ends
  805
  FCO travel advice represents an objective assessment of the risks to British nationals. It is designed to help them choose whether to travel and how to reduce their exposure to danger. It is reviewed regularly.

  International Criminal Court
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ratify the Rome Statute for an International Criminal Court; and if he will make a statement. [95567]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government will bring forward legislation to enable ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits. We are strongly committed to the Court and intend to be among the first sixty states to ratify.

  Libya
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to appoint a commercial officer to the British Embassy in Tripoli; and if he will make a statement. [95887]

  Mr. Hain
  We have selected and appointed two UK based commercial officers to our Embassy in Tripoli. Following pre-posting preparation, the Head of Commercial Section should be in Tripoli in early December with his deputy following early next year.

  British Trade International now offer a trade promotion service, within the constraints of the present lack of specialist commercial staff in Tripoli.

  Full commercial support in Tripoli will be available when the commercial section is operational but staff in Tripoli will meanwhile continue to help where they can.

  Special Operations Executive
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to release more records of the wartime Special Operations Executive. [96166]

  Mr. Battle
  The records of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) have been released on a rolling basis since 1993. The seventh batch, comprising SOE Section Histories and its Headquarters War Diaries, will be opened at the Public Record Office today. Further records, including Headquarters policy files, will be released in due course.

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of the Republic of Congo about torture of child witch doctors in Kinshasa. [95231]

  Mr. Hain
  We have asked our Embassy in Kinshasa to investigate these reports. We maintain a regular dialogue with the Minister for Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, covering all facets of human rights and child rights issues. We condemn all acts of violence against civilians and any acts that cause unnecessary suffering. We continue to urge the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to 806
  apply rigorously international humanitarian law and human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

  Tunisia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Tunisian Ambassador; and if he will make a statement on UK-Tunisian relations. [95097]

  Mr. Hain
  The Secretary of State has not yet met the Tunisian Ambassador, Mr. Jhinaoui. I last met him on 6 September.

  Bilateral ties go back a long way and remain mutually productive. Tunisia is an important trading partner and Britain is one of the largest international investors there. Tunisia is also a constructive and moderate influence on many of the Middle East's regional problems. Human rights form an important part of our bilateral agenda. We have welcomed the recent release from gaol in Tunisia of two people championed by international human rights NGOs. We hope to build on this at both bilateral and EU level for a resolution to other outstanding cases.

  Gender Impact Assessment
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason his Department has not carried out any gender impact assessments since June 1997. [95228]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department has introduced three pieces of legislation since June 1997 which were needed to implement internationally negotiated treaties in the United Kingdom. Gender impact assessments were not considered necessary for the legislation concerned.

  My Department works closely with the Women's Unit, and will continue to consider the need for gender impact assessments for all new legislation.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what contacts he has made with(a) trade associations and (b) trades unions on the formulation of strategies for lifelong learning and continuing professional development. [95723]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Department works closely with a variety of organisations in formulating its strategies for lifelong learning and continuing professional development. These include Trade Associations and Trade Unions.

  Toddington and Didbrook
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to make public his decision on the amalgamation of Toddington and Didbrook primary schools in Gloucester. [95712]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed Gloucestershire local education authority on Thursday 21 October that he had rejected the
  807
  proposals. The letter containing the Secretary of State's decision asked the local education authority to inform objectors.

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came; and which of these twinnings related to the (i) education and (ii) employment aspects of his Department. [93998]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, columns 739–40.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he plans to announce the national roll-out of the New Deal for Disabled People. [95726]

  Ms Jowell
  Together with colleagues at the Department for Social Security, we are currently considering what has been learnt from the pilot phase for a national extension of this New Deal. We hope to make an announcement on this in the near future.

  Supported Employment
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what use he is making of research his Department has recently(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the demand for places for supported employment. [95727]

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

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Tim Boswell, dated 25 October 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply direct to your question about research into the demand for place for our Supported Employment Programme. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  The research was conducted by Sheila Honey and Matthew Williams at the Institute for Employment Studies and published in July 1998 under the title: Supply and Demand for Supported Employment. A copy is available in the House of Commons Library.
  The Programme provides job support to over 22,000 disabled people with a range of employers and in supported factories and businesses. It is open to disabled people who face more complex barriers to getting or keeping a job because of their disability, but who can work effectively with support. The Programme is delivered in partnership with over 230 local authority and voluntary organisations and Remploy Ltd. Around 12,000 supported employees work in a variety of jobs with mainstream employers with the remainder working in around 190 supported factories and businesses, including some 6,3000 in Remploy factories.
  808
  The research provided estimates, using a variety of data sources, of the extent to which the supply of places on our Programme matched the potential demand on a geographical basis. Depending on the definition, the research indicated a potential additional demand of between 40,000 and 180,000 places. The lower figures was based on people who were unemployed and actively seeking work and the upper figure included those who were currently inactive in the labour market (such as students, those looking after families or homes, or people temporarily unable to work due to illness). It is unlikely, however, that all of those estimated as eligible for our Supported Employment Programme will actually demand a place—many are likely to find work in open employment or training.
  The research also indicated that the degree to which the potential supply of places on the Programme matched the potential demand varied by Employment Service Region. Wales had the closest match between supply and demand, followed by the South West and the Northern Region. The greatest mismatch between supply and demand occurred in London, followed by the West Midlands and the North West.
  East year some 3,000 people enter the Programme; and we are using the findings of the research to inform contract discussions with a view to addressing geographical imbalances over time. One key factor we take into account in these discussions is that any rapid redistribution of existing places could force people off the Programme (and potentially out of work). Many contractors also have a specific geographical rather than a national remit, for example local authorities, and cannot support people elsewhere.
  Government funding for our Supported Employment Programme for 1999–2000 is £155.1 million. A further £5 million for this financial year and the two following financial years to March 2002 has been allocated as part of a new £30 million fund for disability services, announced in 1998 by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. We are using this additional resource to increase the grant per place to local authority and voluntary body contractors, to support developments at Remploy, and to support proposals for a series of projects to develop and test ways of improving the effectiveness of the Programme and, in particular, its success in helping people to progress into open employment. Helping those disabled people who can cope with unsupported open employment to make the transition will release places for new people to enter the Programme.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Oral Statements
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list(a) the reports published by his Department and its associated bodies, (b) the reports received from bodies set up by his Department, (c) the decisions his Department has taken and (d) events in the UK and elsewhere, since 27 July, which satisfied the criteria he uses for deciding whether to apply to make oral statements to the House when the House is sitting. [93970]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Council on 19 October 1999,Official Report, column 429.

  Remploy
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions he has had with Remploy in connection with divergence from their corporate plan. [94726]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 19 October 1999]: There have been no discussions with Remploy regarding changes to their Corporate Plan. Ministers have approved

  809
  the strategy in the Board's Corporate Plan for 1999–2002, and remain committed to Remploy's current Corporate Plan.

  Age Diversity in Employment
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the outcome of his Department's consultation with heads of employment tribunals about the legal status of the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment. [95951]

  Ms Jowell
  The consultation confirmed that as the Code is non-statutory it cannot be used as the basis of a legal decision. It may, in time, though, help inform the thinking of Employment Tribunals on what constitutes "reasonable behaviour". That will, however, be a matter for the Tribunals themselves.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many higher education places remain unfilled at the start of the academic year. [95725]

  Mr. Wicks
  Student number targets are set by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) each year covering home and EU students (whether fundable by HEFCE or not) who are on full-time or sandwich courses, or on courses of initial teacher training (ITT). For 1998 these targets were broadly met in aggregate at the sector level. Equivalent figures are not yet available for 1999.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students he estimates are entering higher education in the current year; and if he will make a statement on trends relative to the last three years. [95724]

  Mr. Wicks
  The latest figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) show that, as at 13 October, the number of UK domiciled applicants accepted for entry to full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses was 247,318, which represents an increase of 2 per cent. compared to 1998. Figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), which cover both full-time and part-time students, show that undergraduate recruitment has held up over the last three years.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the additional number of staff required in the Employment Service if unemployed claimants had to register every day; and what would be the cost in a full year of employing such staff. [95656]

  Ms Jowell
  Responsibility for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  810
  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. Hilary Benn, dated 25 October 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question concerning the additional staff numbers and costs that would be required should daily registration be required from unemployed claimants. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  Using the current live headline unemployment level of 1.2m along with staffing assumptions for current registration activities, the total additional staff numbers required to manage the daily registration would be approximately 25,000 at a cost of £400m in a full year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  TECs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Chairman of the TECs regarding their contribution to a legal fighting fund to challenge the Governments' proposals on the use of their reserves and assets when they are wound up. [95413]

  Mr. Wicks
  We are aware that the TEC National Council (TNC) has been taking legal advice on behalf of TECs. Officials and the Department's legal advisers have met the TNC on a without prejudice basis to discuss the legal aspects and implications around the termination of the Licence. We have also made it absolutely clear to TEC Chairmen and Boards that we expect TECs to work with us to ensure a smooth transition to the new arrangements and that resources are used effectively and efficiently for the benefit of learners, businesses and local communities.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the reserves and assets of each TEC indicating those moneys which came from(a) public and (b) private sources. [95414]

  Mr. Wicks
  The following table sets out the reserves of each TEC in England based upon information drawn from the companies' audited statutory accounts for 1998–99. The table splits the reserves into those which TECs believe attributable to funds derived from payments made by the Secretaries of State and those attributable to funds from other sources. Reserves include all assets less any liabilities of TECs. We are currently discussing with TECs the basis on which non attributable reserves have been calculated.

  Split of TEC reserves 1998–99

  £

  TECs

  Attributable to SoS

  Attributable to other

  Total reserves

  Hampshire

  6,156,000

  —

  6,156,000

  Wight

  1,040,094

  —

  1,040,094

  Kent

  4,364,691

  1,079

  4,363,612

  Milton Keynes

  1,372,558

  303,262

  1,675,820

  Heart of England

  1,902,407

  361,068

  2,263,475

  Surrey

  2,022,318

  740,914

  2,763,232

  Sussex

  4,578,000

  199,000

  4,777,000

  Thames Valley

  6,808,754

  265,010

  7,073,764

  South East Total

  28,244,822

  1,868,175

  30,112,997

  AZTEC

  3,299,489

  —

  3,299,489

  FOCUS

  3,830,000

  1,316,000

  5,146,000

  LeTEC

  5,215,737

  795,472

  6,011,209

  North London

  1,786,468

  804,977

  2,591,445

  811

  Split of TEC reserves 1998–99

  £

  TECs

  Attributable to SoS

  Attributable to other

  Total reserves

  North West London

  2,691,411

  137,608

  2,829,019

  SOLOTEC1

  3,971,000

  886,000

  4,857,000

  West London

  3,085,429

  207,000

  3,292,429

  London Total

  23,879,534

  4,147,057

  28,026,591

  WESTEC1

  4,213,000

  10,000

  4,223,000

  Prosper

  6,298,000

  —

  6,298,000

  Dorset

  3,141,418

  —

  3,141,418

  Gloucester

  1,806,252

  1,092,191

  2,898,443

  Somerset

  2,877,938

  76,965

  2,954,903

  Wiltshire

  2,650,552

  —

  2,650,552

  South West Total

  20,987,160

  1,179,156

  22,166,316

  Birmingham

  6,440,000

  2,548,000

  8,988,000

  Cov/War

  1,545,060

  2,029,898

  3,574,958

  Dudley

  2,159,637

  84,000

  2,243,637

  HAWTEC

  1,334,449

  1,478,014

  2,812,463

  Sandwell

  1,872,568

  276,500

  2,149,068

  Shropshire

  2,910,359

  1,161,773

  4,072,132

  Staffordshire

  4,773,000

  224,000

  4,997,000

  Walsall

  1,075,097

  200,000

  1,275,097

  Wolverhampton

  1,611,000

  124,000

  1,735,000

  West Midlands Total

  23,721,170

  8,126,185

  31,847,355

  Greater Nottingham

  3,573,000

  788,000

  4,361,000

  Leicester

  2,509,113

  638,834

  3,147,947

  Lincoln

  1,083,140

  2,281,073

  3,364,213

  Northamptonshire

  4,736,401

  —

  4,736,401

  North Derby

  1,157,063

  420,001

  1,577,064

  North Nottingham

  2,228,163

  —

  2,228,163

  South Derby

  3,322,000

  861,000

  4,183,000

  East Midlands Total

  18,608,880

  4,988,908

  23,597,788

  Bedford

  790,696

  527,536

  1,318,232

  Cambs TEC

  1,285,874

  —

  1,285,874

  Essex

  8,090,000

  355,000

  8,445,000

  Greater Peterborough

  1,993,335

  47,000

  2,040,335

  Hertfordshire

  5,695,000

  421,000

  6,116,000

  Nor/Wav

  3,524,000

  181,000

  3,705,000

  Suffolk

  3,890,815

  —

  3,890,815

  Eastern Total

  25,269,720

  1,531,536

  26,801,256

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  6,653,000

  102,000

  6,755,000

  Bradford

  2,148,861

  —

  2,148,861

  Cardles/Kirkles

  1,395,743

  —

  1,395,743

  Humber

  6,069,427

  —

  6,069,427

  Leeds

  4,513,167

  —

  4,513,167

  North Yorkshire

  6,207,000

  —

  6,207,000

  Rotherham

  2,457,875

  322,386

  2,780,261

  Sheffield

  2,874,000

  168,000

  3,042,000

  Wakefield

  889,830

  106,542

  996,372

  Yorkshire and Humberside Total

  33,208,903

  698,928

  33,907,831

  Bolton/Bury1

  2,802,363

  580,132

  3,382,495

  Manchester

  6,891,000

  2,540,132

  9,431,132

  Wigan

  1,103,385

  489,988

  1,593,373

  Oldham

  1,364,670

  214,927

  1,579,597

  Rochdale

  1,713,582

  378,740

  2,092,322

  South and East Cheshire

  3,418,445

  1,371,785

  4,790,230

  Stockport

  2,592,458

  —

  2,592,458

  Cumbria

  1,582,954

  780,752

  2,309,706

  ELTEC

  2,349,000

  673,000

  3,022,000

  LAWTEC

  6,292,364

  —

  6,292,364

  812

  Split of TEC reserves 1998–99

  £

  TECs

  Attributable to SoS

  Attributable to other

  Total reserves

  North and Mid Cheshire

  2,727,169

  —

  2,727,169

  CEWTEC

  2,257,557

  162,686

  2,420,243

  Mersey

  5,973,222

  592,745

  6,565,967

  St. Helens

  1,299,384

  82,291

  1,381,675

  North West Total

  42,313,553

  7,867,178

  50,180,731

  County Durham

  4,956,661

  —

  4,956,661

  Northumberland

  4,423,000

  1,644,000

  6,067,000

  Tees Valley

  8,427,000

  —

  8,427,000

  Tyneside

  3,940,000

  330,000

  4,270,000

  Sunderland

  6,101,434

  66,445

  6,167,879

  North East Total

  27,848,095

  2,040,445

  29,888,540

  Grand Total

  244,081,837

  32,447,568

  276,529,405

  1 Audited accounts are unavailable for 1998–99 and therefore we have used consolidated 1998–99 draft statutory accounts.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps his Department is taking to monitor the use of reserves and assets of TECs in the period leading to their being wound up. [95415]

  Mr. Wicks
  All TECs were sent a formal notification on 13 July 1999 that their Licences would terminate on 25 March 2001. Since then, in accordance with the terms of the Licence, TECs have been required to inform Government Offices of any proposed new commitments or expenditure and must comply with all reasonable requests either to provide information or to limit expenditure. In addition, Government Offices receive regular information from TECs on their financial position and continue to monitor their financial and audit systems.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will ensure that funds commercially generated by TECs from money originally from public sources returns to the public sector. [95416]

  Mr. Wicks
  Under the terms of the Licence, any funds derived from payments made by the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment, for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and for Trade and Industry will return to the relevant Secretaries of State on termination of the Licence. The Secretaries of State will determine their use to ensure that Government priorities and commitments are met.

  New Deal
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many 18 to 24 year-olds have started the New Deal scheme in Shrewsbury and Atcham, broken down by(a) employer, (b) full time education, (c) voluntary sector, (d) environment task force and (e) other; and if he will make a statement. [94247]

  Ms Jowell
  In the period to the end of July 1999, 278 young people had joined New Deal in Shrewsbury and Atcham parliamentary constituency.
  813
  The following table shows the destinations of all those who had left the Gateway by the end of July 1999.

  Number

  Total number of leavers from Gateway

  227

  Immediate destination on leaving:

  Unsubsidised employment

  46

  To a New Deal Option

  123

  of which:

  Employment

  14

  Full-time education/training

  34

  Voluntary Sector

  36

  Environment Task Force

  39

  Other destinations:

  Other benefits

  11

  Other known destination

  12

  Not known

  35

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what telephone access to the Immigration Service is currently available to(a) asylum seekers and (b) local Benefit Agency sections on asylum seeker matters; what plans he has to improve the current level of telephone access; and if he will make a statement. [93984]

  Mrs. Roche
  Asylum seekers, in common with other members of the public, can telephone the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau to seek information on general immigration matters or to chase progress on applications. Major improvements have recently been made in telephone call handling with around 4,000 calls (75 per cent. of calls) now being answered each day. Further measures are planned with the aim of increasing this to 5,000 calls a day.

  Arrangements have been made with the Benefits Agency that local offices should use a dedicated fax line to make inquiries about an asylum seeker's immigration status. Urgent inquiries will be dealt within three days. Inquiries from the Fraud Unit or in connection with terminally ill claimants can still be made by telephone.

  Scout and Guiding Movement
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what estimate he has made of the amount of income that will be generated from fees paid by the Guide Association Movement in the UK arising from use of the proposed Criminal Records Bureau in the first three years of its operation; [93728]

  (2) what estimate he has made of (a) the annual revenue raised from the Scout and Guiding Movement as a result of the charges for carrying out security checks on new volunteers, (b) the cost of administering each charge associated with security checks on people who work with children and (c) the number of individuals subject to such a charge per annum. [94703]
  814
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  When the Criminal Records Bureau comes into operation, it will be expected to recover its costs through charges for the certificates it will issue, on application, to individual employees. The overall cost to the Scout and Guiding Movement will depend upon their decisions as to the circumstances in which its volunteers should apply for a certificate and whether to reimburse the cost. Until the Bureau's operating costs have been determined it will not be possible to fix the charges for certificates but our best early estimate is £10 for the most expensive certificate, the Enhanced Criminal Record Certificate. We have made clear our intention to keep the cost as low as possible.

  Wildlife
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives his Department has launched to protect wildlife(a) in the UK and (b) on Merseyside. [94653]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Government policy responsibility for wildlife conservation rests mainly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR). There are no initiatives on this in which the Home Office has the lead role.

  The principal national initiative, overseen by the DETR, but to which the Home Office suscribes, is the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW), launched in 1995 and fully supported by this Government. It provides a forum for Government Departments, voluntary organisations and wildlife user groups to make a strategic contribution to the fight against wildlife crime. PAW supports a network of over 250 Police Wildlife Liaison Officers (PWLOs) in police forces across the United Kingdom, including the Merseyside Police. PAW also hosts an annual conference of PWLOs.

  Enforcement responsibility for wildlife crime rests with the police and, in the case of illegal imports and exports, with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. Local initiatives to combat wildlife crime are matters for chief police officers in the light of their overall policing priorities. Merseyside Police are active in this area, and have most recently been targeting unlawful collection of birds' eggs, with the result that prosecutions are pending. A number of persons in Merseyside have also been cautioned for wildlife offences this year.

  To assist local enforcement efforts across the country, PAW has made a number of recommendations, including that the courts be given the option, at present unavailable to them, of imposing custodial sentences for wildlife offences. The Government will be implementing this as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Eurodac
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made with the implementation of the Eurodac Implementing Rules (8140/99); and if he will make a statement. [94131]

  Mrs. Roche
  The draft Eurodac implementing rules were drawn up in respect of the draft Eurodac Convention and associated draft Protocol, which were not adopted by the Council prior to the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. A draft Eurodac Regulation is currently under discussion as a First Pillar measure. My right hon.
  815
  Friend the Home Secretary announced on 7 October that the United Kingdom was opting in to the draft Regulation. Implementing rules for the draft Regulation may need to be supplemented in the future in the light of technical developments.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had about the possible transfer to the Commission of competence for implementing the provisions of the Eurodac Regulation; and if he will make a statement. [94130]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Commission has proposed that competence for implementing provisions of the Eurodac Regulation should be transferred to the Commission by the Council in accordance with the terms of the first sentence of Article 202 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community. The Council will need to decide whether there are grounds in this instance for reserving that competence to itself in accordance with the third sentence of Article 202.

  Establishment

  1995–96 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1996–97 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1996–97 as % of 1995–96 %

  1997–98 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1997–98 as % of 1996–97 %

  1998–99 spend £

  1998–99 as % of 1997–98 %

  Acklington

  320,988

  255,692

  80

  226,867

  89

  229,400

  101

  Albany

  247,745

  110,279

  45

  158,413

  144

  172,037

  109

  Aldington

  167,464

  130,183

  78

  135,247

  104

  131,333

  97

  Ashwell

  372,115

  336,886

  91

  341,547

  101

  359,680

  105

  Askham Grange

  155,818

  139,374

  89

  131,372

  94

  142,894

  109

  Aylesbury

  388,924

  321,477

  83

  424,991

  132

  522,455

  123

  Bedford

  225,219

  228,859

  102

  205,957

  90

  204,989

  100

  Belmarsh

  390,367

  367,166

  94

  426,554

  116

  440,854

  103

  Birmingham

  299,945

  213,254

  71

  203,980

  96

  199,999

  98

  Blantyre House

  146,090

  172,466

  118

  184,963

  107

  159,433

  86

  Blundeston

  329,451

  227,839

  69

  248,196

  109

  244,169

  98

  Brinsford

  305,533

  189,433

  62

  173,544

  92

  242,237

  140

  Bristol

  219,098

  154,292

  70

  167,307

  108

  153,388

  92

  Brixton

  432,034

  395,589

  92

  450,427

  114

  312,580

  69

  Brockhill

  270,784

  211,734

  78

  164,372

  78

  174,391

  106

  Bullingdon

  929,823

  545,194

  59

  497,006

  91

  512,312

  103

  Bullwood Hall

  206,707

  223,984

  108

  210,604

  94

  233,355

  111

  Camp Hill

  351,260

  368,614

  105

  367,815

  100

  352,129

  96

  Canterbury

  212,128

  178,896

  84

  154,277

  86

  134,907

  87

  Cardiff

  215,605

  192,010

  89

  187,714

  98

  212,610

  113

  Castington

  256,500

  211,643

  83

  247,594

  117

  256,167

  103

  Channings Wood

  483,715

  416,982

  86

  370,859

  89

  361,226

  97

  Chelmsford

  205,243

  182,372

  89

  170,633

  94

  185,244

  109

  Coldingley

  221,893

  180,317

  81

  164,441

  91

  191,468

  116

  Cookham Wood

  155,655

  140,222

  90

  136,257

  97

  131,159

  96

  Dartmoor

  490,432

  426,430

  87

  376,086

  88

  426,377

  113

  Deerbolt

  393,771

  346,360

  88

  334,390

  97

  422,119

  126

  Dorchester

  267,942

  221,926

  83

  100,197

  45

  130,048

  130

  Dover

  189,120

  141,074

  75

  154,973

  110

  157,403

  102

  Downview

  230,174

  233,426

  101

  225,186

  96

  206,700

  92

  Drake Hall

  203,930

  167,620

  82

  163,714

  98

  156,929

  96

  Durham

  354,246

  346,553

  98

  362,400

  105

  355,476

  98

  East Sutton Park

  132,863

  102,594

  77

  96,178

  94

  85,966

  89

  Eastwood Park

  —

  168,820

  —

  179,756

  106

  226,694

  126

  Elmley

  475,773

  305,430

  64

  261,960

  86

  391,782

  150

  Erlestoke

  335,619

  283,987

  85

  306,365

  108

  309,072

  101

  Everthorpe

  337,331

  431,628

  128

  448,623

  104

  443,146

  99

  Exeter

  211,231

  138,522

  66

  132,976

  96

  154,440

  116

  Featherstone

  260,355

  187,970

  72

  179,526

  96

  181,350

  101

  Feltham

  398,644

  420,368

  105

  479,126

  114

  592,115

  124

  Ford

  269,577

  286,046

  106

  282,219

  99

  260,074

  92

  Foston Hall

  —

  —

  —

  139,476

  230,688

  165

  Frankland

  313,636

  253,805

  81

  279,530

  110

  350,257

  125

  Full Sutton

  671,801

  602,092

  90

  486,519

  81

  467,432

  96

  Garth

  395,810

  369,719

  93

  397,672

  108

  423,618

  107

  Gartree

  280,660

  241,692

  86

  221,795

  92

  208,846

  94

  Glen Parva

  529,564

  439,707

  83

  450,296

  102

  553,878

  123

  Gloucester

  208,789

  205,317

  98

  214,285

  104

  252,051

  118

  816
  The Regulatory Procedure which the Commission has proposed for the implementing rules for the draft Eurodac Regulation would give the Member States considerable control over the Commission's exercise of delegated powers.

  Prison Education Courses
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the amounts of money available in each prison for education courses in each of the past 10 years at current prices and the percentage increase for each year. [94570]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available in the form requested. The table sets out actual expenditure on certain separately identifiable areas of education spend covering payments to education service providers and purchase of education materials. These cover the financial years 1995–96 to 1998–99 and are at 1998–99 prices; information for earlier years is not readily available, neither is information on education costs at private sector prisons.
  817

  Establishment

  1995–96 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1996–97 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1996–97 as % of 1995–96 %

  1997–98 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1997–98 as % of 1996–97 %

  1998–99 spend £

  1998–99 as % of 1997–98 %

  Grendon

  416,997

  362,016

  87

  356,722

  99

  393,318

  110

  Guys Marsh

  248,305

  306,353

  123

  265,237

  87

  359,457

  136

  Haslar

  221,863

  220,134

  99

  123,624

  56

  136,942

  111

  Hatfield

  208,588

  184,771

  89

  230,847

  125

  224,478

  97

  Haverigg

  229,051

  217,593

  95

  307,805

  141

  275,718

  90

  Hewell Grange

  187,496

  155,722

  83

  155,771

  100

  153,081

  98

  High Down

  566,157

  426,147

  75

  339,929

  80

  407,265

  120

  Highpoint

  522,202

  357,017

  68

  518,874

  145

  578,123

  111

  Hindley

  399,586

  714,789

  179

  745,775

  104

  624,206

  84

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  518,083

  431,767

  83

  364,023

  84

  359,530

  99

  Holloway

  364,472

  379,385

  104

  388,327

  102

  433,770

  112

  Holme House

  425,669

  486,164

  114

  586,511

  121

  382,409

  65

  Hull

  372,511

  384,935

  103

  348,541

  91

  375,372

  108

  Huntercombe

  370,931

  319,583

  86

  325,599

  102

  402,591

  124

  Kingston

  131,829

  112,263

  85

  91,701

  82

  106,748

  116

  Kirkham

  260,166

  221,003

  85

  237,869

  108

  242,505

  102

  Kirklevington Grange

  94,276

  40,942

  43

  56,656

  138

  36,554

  65

  Lancaster Castle

  191,599

  190,058

  99

  169,115

  89

  171,845

  102

  Lancaster Farms

  355,794

  428,832

  121

  469,904

  110

  564,437

  120

  Latchmere House

  48,859

  20,378

  42

  19,687

  97

  18,524

  94

  Leeds

  362,199

  410,932

  113

  433,803

  106

  551,235

  127

  Leicester

  207,601

  206,254

  99

  201,130

  98

  201,636

  100

  Lewes

  333,143

  325,761

  98

  280,200

  86

  276,099

  99

  Leyhill

  256,715

  260,851

  102

  251,993

  97

  241,674

  96

  Lincoln

  378,992

  353,502

  93

  228,668

  65

  220,840

  97

  Lindholme

  456,410

  434,242

  95

  431,289

  99

  445,630

  103

  Littlehey

  589,391

  456,617

  77

  432,097

  95

  395,780

  92

  Liverpool

  304,672

  310,245

  102

  340,917

  110

  365,870

  107

  Long Lartin

  249,304

  213,313

  86

  237,430

  111

  200,300

  84

  Low Newton

  378,245

  348,073

  92

  353,312

  102

  360,377

  102

  Maidstone

  252,495

  230,986

  91

  208,931

  90

  195,777

  94

  Manchester

  577,197

  508,335

  88

  480,993

  95

  557,039

  116

  Moorland

  724,341

  657,735

  91

  707,773

  108

  829,616

  117

  Morton Hall

  240,870

  211,571

  88

  193,058

  91

  191,851

  99

  Mount (The)

  529,479

  467,467

  88

  372,248

  80

  377,489

  101

  New Hall

  316,980

  359,568

  113

  309,448

  86

  376,651

  122

  North Sea Camp

  136,350

  134,421

  99

  130,866

  97

  126,023

  96

  Northallerton

  250,127

  242,067

  97

  242,156

  100

  279,352

  115

  Norwich

  581,512

  487,871

  84

  404,560

  83

  417,911

  103

  Nottingham

  238,436

  231,123

  97

  264,019

  114

  250,387

  95

  Onley

  341,343

  331,618

  97

  467,001

  141

  570,060

  122

  Parkhurst

  177,353

  203,573

  115

  228,680

  112

  253,595

  111

  Pentonville

  318,807

  249,295

  78

  271,258

  109

  318,295

  117

  Portland

  458,136

  476,653

  104

  455,097

  95

  500,700

  110

  Preston

  216,330

  202,751

  94

  245,151

  121

  265,367

  108

  Pucklechurch

  145,948

  277

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ranby

  239,595

  373,831

  156

  380,482

  102

  410,498

  108

  Reading

  196,703

  163,667

  83

  146,103

  89

  136,296

  93

  Risley

  691,312

  575,368

  83

  585,171

  102

  593,435

  101

  Rochester

  361,227

  274,862

  76

  152,095

  55

  190,179

  125

  Send

  163,481

  135,870

  83

  144,275

  106

  126,692

  88

  Shepton Mallet

  261,070

  229,425

  88

  210,478

  92

  184,749

  88

  Shrewsbury

  167,624

  135,534

  81

  117,589

  87

  121,260

  103

  Stafford

  392,396

  297,225

  76

  288,926

  97

  261,845

  91

  Standford Hill

  230,451

  208,939

  91

  200,701

  96

  204,993

  102

  Stocken

  363,746

  330,037

  91

  363,977

  110

  393,849

  108

  Stoke Heath

  301,910

  249,703

  83

  301,152

  121

  482,394

  160

  Styal

  245,601

  230,306

  94

  238,478

  104

  277,910

  117

  Sudbury

  414,493

  412,081

  99

  391,876

  95

  399,954

  102

  Swaleside

  360,517

  299,976

  83

  337,231

  112

  351,168

  104

  Swansea

  234,158

  180,318

  77

  146,683

  81

  130,088

  89

  Swinfen Hall

  228,202

  244,270

  107

  217,106

  89

  331,556

  153

  Thorn Cross

  287,383

  365,351

  127

  496,638

  136

  511,470

  103

  Usk/Prescoed

  378,810

  246,897

  65

  385,413

  156

  362,278

  94

  Verne (The)

  272,071

  411,824

  151

  224,120

  54

  211,964

  95

  Wakefield

  381,573

  362,875

  95

  349,726

  96

  359,617

  103

  Wandsworth

  455,950

  263,351

  58

  230,002

  87

  226,969

  99

  Wayland

  489,750

  401,023

  82

  434,827

  108

  413,968

  95

  Wealstun

  424,943

  444,615

  105

  382,561

  86

  343,721

  90

  Weare (The)

  —

  —

  —

  165,098

  —

  318,446

  193

  Wellingborough

  288,771

  209,685

  73

  227,193

  108

  227,327

  100

  Werrington

  217,266

  160,067

  74

  195,469

  122

  201,345

  103

  Wetherby

  283,267

  228,420

  81

  444,925

  195

  497,377

  112

  818 819

  Establishment

  1995–96 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1996–97 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1996–97 as % of 1995–96 %

  1997–98 spend at 1998–99 prices £

  1997–98 as % of 1996–97 %

  1998–99 spend £

  1998–99 as % of 1997–98 %

  Whatton

  379,617

  312,413

  82

  311,847

  100

  298,068

  96

  Whitemoor

  600,985

  442,938

  74

  410,264

  93

  432,700

  105

  Winchester

  303,629

  308,643

  102

  314,370

  102

  323,249

  103

  Woodhill

  551,458

  508,685

  92

  503,416

  99

  486,963

  97

  Wormwood Scrubs

  300,565

  290,010

  96

  296,875

  102

  280,952

  95

  Wymott

  208,603

  359,781

  172

  415,976

  116

  399,012

  96

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the amount per head of population of each prison available for education courses for each of the past 10 years. [94571]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available in the form requested. The tables set out actual annual expenditure on certain separately identifiable areas of education spend covering payments to education service providers and purchase of education materials divided by the average

  £

  Establishment

  1995–96 spend per head at 1998–99 prices

  1996–97 spend per head 1998–99 prices

  1997–98 spend per head at 1998–99 prices

  Spend per head 1998–99

  Acklington

  503

  395

  347

  356

  Albany

  587

  256

  369

  399

  Aldington

  1,384

  937

  987

  966

  Ashwell

  959

  820

  754

  740

  Askham Grange

  1,528

  1,124

  1,034

  1,143

  Aylesbury

  1,760

  1,345

  1,367

  1,593

  Bedford

  734

  646

  541

  548

  Belmarsh

  659

  472

  493

  545

  Birmingham

  332

  214

  196

  189

  Blantyre House

  1,446

  1,500

  1,541

  1,340

  Blundeston

  860

  571

  617

  712

  Brinsford

  663

  387

  333

  482

  Bristol

  430

  282

  287

  265

  Brixton

  741

  662

  753

  474

  Brockhill

  2,036

  1,667

  1,274

  1,246

  Bullingdon

  1,072

  798

  723

  603

  Bullwood Hall

  1,708

  1,821

  1,608

  1,716

  Camp Hill

  894

  882

  733

  744

  Canterbury

  810

  644

  576

  480

  Cardiff

  487

  300

  264

  315

  Castington

  888

  720

  784

  753

  Channings Wood

  868

  706

  613

  611

  Chelmsford

  540

  421

  364

  457

  Coldingley

  784

  626

  556

  660

  Cookham Wood

  1,216

  1,002

  927

  835

  Dartmoor

  859

  731

  600

  657

  Deerbolt

  987

  835

  800

  1,045

  Dorchester

  1,313

  1,004

  436

  588

  Dover

  666

  463

  510

  547

  Downview

  822

  811

  668

  608

  Drake Hall

  1,030

  665

  613

  599

  Durham

  545

  400

  389

  402

  East Sutton Park

  1,444

  1,127

  1,002

  966

  Eastwood Park

  —

  1,384

  1,145

  837

  Elmley

  783

  469

  311

  430

  Erlestoke

  1,271

  1,064

  998

  1,020

  Everthorpe

  1,140

  970

  975

  959

  Exeter

  533

  309

  290

  344

  Featherstone

  471

  333

  301

  304

  Feltham

  492

  486

  536

  674

  Ford

  654

  643

  630

  616

  Foston Hall

  —

  —

  1,134

  1,709

  Frankland

  782

  589

  624

  739

  Full Sutton

  1,226

  1,158

  973

  841

  Garth

  781

  710

  645

  660

  Gartree

  864

  673

  611

  572

  Glen Parva

  684

  507

  516

  671

  820
  population for each prison in that year. These cover the financial years 1995–96 to 1998–99; information for earlier years is not readily available, neither is information on education costs at private sector prisons. The figures are at current, 1998–99, prices.

  The percentage of the population which would have been engaged in education will have varied from prison to prison and from year to year, so any conclusions drawn from these figures must be treated with caution.
  821

  £

  Establishment

  1995–96 spend per head at 1998–99 prices

  1996–97 spend per head 1998–99 prices

  1997–98 spend per head at 1998–99 prices

  Spend per head 1998–99

  Gloucester

  892

  808

  760

  849

  Grendon

  1,012

  864

  830

  839

  Guys Marsh

  853

  995

  717

  752

  Haslar

  1,608

  1,487

  877

  925

  Hatfield

  1,363

  1,155

  1,529

  1,477

  Haverigg

  574

  455

  560

  542

  Hewell Grange

  1,172

  815

  807

  797

  High Down

  918

  650

  488

  523

  Highpoint

  808

  584

  747

  846

  Hindley

  1,373

  1,427

  1,429

  1,345

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  1,584

  1,151

  859

  980

  Holloway

  671

  659

  745

  839

  Holme House

  696

  685

  656

  402

  Hull

  1,043

  879

  686

  755

  Huntercombe

  1,438

  1,310

  1,252

  1,160

  Kingston

  1,292

  1,079

  791

  684

  Kirkham

  511

  361

  362

  400

  Kirklevington Grange

  1,025

  405

  326

  207

  Lancaster Castle

  855

  880

  783

  792

  Lancaster Farms

  1,002

  914

  936

  1,193

  Latchmere House

  370

  130

  110

  108

  Leeds

  340

  465

  430

  454

  Leicester

  643

  610

  581

  579

  Lewes

  1,099

  1,037

  581

  586

  Leyhill

  717

  671

  646

  651

  Lincoln

  635

  549

  366

  443

  Lindholme

  748

  667

  635

  661

  Littlehey

  1,056

  785

  675

  621

  Liverpool

  251

  251

  234

  253

  Long Lartin

  700

  580

  623

  574

  Low Newton

  1,411

  1,226

  1,186

  1,209

  Maidstone

  507

  430

  374

  351

  Manchester

  553

  453

  455

  527

  Moorland

  1,191

  1,017

  1,050

  1,089

  Morton Hall

  1,460

  1,144

  965

  989

  Mount (The)

  1,055

  777

  600

  614

  New Hall

  1,546

  1,657

  935

  1,024

  North Sea Camp

  816

  719

  658

  681

  Northallerton

  1,367

  976

  894

  1,054

  Norwich

  1,638

  857

  560

  605

  Nottingham

  1,152

  1,090

  679

  592

  Onley

  702

  644

  808

  938

  Parkhurst

  778

  704

  648

  622

  Pentonville

  378

  284

  290

  284

  Portland

  1,048

  926

  829

  893

  Preston

  482

  452

  375

  396

  Pucklechurch

  2,115

  —

  —

  —

  Ranby

  690

  726

  678

  588

  Reading

  1,137

  737

  641

  603

  Risley

  937

  750

  671

  684

  Rochester

  1,082

  735

  379

  499

  Send

  1,229

  944

  659

  1,526

  Shepton Mallet

  1,312

  1,108

  988

  876

  Shrewsbury

  588

  440

  363

  386

  Stafford

  678

  489

  465

  422

  Standford Hill

  660

  584

  597

  637

  Stocken

  923

  791

  795

  745

  Stoke Heath

  1,048

  793

  672

  793

  Styal

  1,032

  921

  877

  985

  Sudbury

  1,006

  875

  796

  810

  Swaleside

  720

  577

  569

  569

  Swansea

  1,079

  670

  439

  399

  Swinfen Hall

  1,240

  1,075

  1,080

  1,188

  Thorn Cross

  1,661

  1,752

  2,247

  2,357

  Usk/Prescoed

  1,592

  1,359

  1,372

  1,258

  Verne (The)

  507

  440

  393

  371

  Wakefield

  534

  580

  575

  614

  Wandsworth

  440

  287

  261

  207

  Wayland

  919

  697

  675

  649

  Wealstun

  961

  793

  647

  559

  Weare (The)

  —

  —

  581

  907

  822 823

  £

  Establishment

  1995–96 spend per head at 1998–99 prices

  1996–97 spend per head 1998–99 prices

  1997–98 spend per head at 1998–99 prices

  Spend per head 1998–99

  Wellingborough

  947

  833

  708

  695

  Werrington

  1,940

  1,417

  1,261

  1,598

  Wetherby

  2,146

  1,919

  1,561

  1,535

  Whatton

  1,791

  1,427

  1,368

  1,173

  Whitemoor

  1,138

  842

  786

  847

  Winchester

  575

  554

  519

  542

  Woodhill

  1,096

  814

  732

  700

  Wormwood Scrubs

  371

  260

  223

  250

  Wymott

  493

  488

  522

  501

  EU Documents
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what draft documents were presented by the Presidency of the European Union to be considered at the European Council in Tampere, on 15 and 16 October concerning any aspect of the Union's area of freedom, security and justice; when these were received by Her Majesty's Government; and what steps were taken by the Presidency to make documents publicly available prior to the meeting. [94363]

  Mr. Straw
  The Presidency have produced only one draft document for consideration at the European Council itself. This was a paper dated 5 October on the composition and working arrangements for the body to be charged with the preparation of a draft European Union Charter of Rights; I understand that it was not published. In July, the Presidency presented three discussion papers on possible themes for the Tampere European Council intended to assist member states in their preparations. I understand that these documents were not published.

  I should add that the Presidency have been happy to make widely known their developing policy towards this European Council. In this regard, for example, they gave oral evidence before Sub-Committee F of the House of Lords European Communities Committee on 6 July, in the context of that Sub-Committee's inquiry into Prospects for the Tampere European Council. They have also placed extensive material on their internet website.

  Rapparee Cove, Devon
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 June 1999,Official Report, column 162, regarding the status of the human remains found in 1997 at Rapparee Cove in Devon, if the scientific examination has commenced; and when he estimates it will be completed. [94801]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand tests to establish the origin of the remains have commenced, but are not yet completed.

  Airguns
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will revise the guidance he has issued to the Firearms Consultative Committee on strengthening the provisions on the ownership and use of airguns. [94839]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government have asked the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) to look at a wide range of firearms issues as part of its work programme 824
  for this year, including the controls on air weapons. The FCC has made clear that its main focus in considering these issues, including the controls on air weapons, is in terms of protecting and improving public safety. We look forward with interest to the FCC's annual report at the end of the year and any recommendations the Committee may make.

  Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the procedure for the transfer of persons held in custody under the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (1999/C251/01); if the burden of proof will be equivalent to that required in British courts; and what is the status of this proposal. [95255]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Article 9 of the draft Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters provides that a member state requesting a criminal investigation in another member state may temporarily transfer a person in custody in its own territory to the member state carrying out the investigation to assist in that investigation. Transfer can take place only with the agreement of the competent authorities of both member states concerned, which includes agreement on the date by which the prisoner is to be returned to the requesting member state. Paragraph 3 of the Article would also enable the United Kingdom to seek the prisoner's consent to be transferred. The period of detention in the territory of the requested member state must be deducted from the period of detention that the prisoner would serve in the requesting member state.

  Since the transfer is temporary and is not done for the purpose of prosecuting the prisoner in the state to which he is transferred, the question of burden of proof does not arise.

  The wording of this Article of the draft Convention has been agreed by all the member states.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of requests he will receive for telecommunications intercepts following ratification of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between EU states. [95254]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to provide a meaningful estimate of the number of requests likely to be received for the interception of telecommunications under the European Union Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters if it is agreed and ratified.
  825
  The number of requests made will depend on the requirements of other member states. However, requests to intercept the telecommunications of targets in the United Kingdom will not be granted unless all the tests for issuing a warrant under the United Kingdom's domestic interception legislation have been met.

  Defence Exhibition
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of policing the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition flotilla this summer in the Isle of Dogs. [94898]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that the total cost for policing this event was about £331,000.

  Ms Snejana Fournadjieva
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be taken on the applications by Ms Snejana Fournadjieva for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, References F1001194 and PO 15309/99. [95321]

  Mrs. Roche
  Leave to remain on the basis of marriage was granted to Ms Fournadjieva on 21 October.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost of policing demonstrations in London connected with the arrest and detention of Senator Pinochet. [94899]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that the cost of policing these demonstrations has been about £94,500.

  Immigration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for indefinite leave to remain on the basis of the concession to overseas domestic workers have been received by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; how many of those applicants have now received a decision on their application; and how many of those applications were successful. [95166]

  Mrs. Roche
  The introduction of a revised concession to overseas domestic workers was announced on 23 July 1998. Some 230 such workers were granted indefinite leave to remain in the period July 1998 to September 1999. Available data on the number of applications received for indefinite leave to remain and the number refused do not separately identify overseas domestic workers.

  Metropolitan Police Authority
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria the proposed Metropolitan Police Authority will use in determining whether a police/community consultative group continues to receive approval and support; and what role PCCGs themselves will have in devising an acceptable process for assessing each PCCG's performance. [95167]
  826
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, it will be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) (after consulting the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis) to make arrangements for obtaining the views of Londoners about matters concerning policing in the Metropolitan Police District and for securing their co-operation with the police in preventing crime in that area. This responsibility will be identical to that currently falling on police authorities outside London. It will be for the Metropolitan Police Authority to determine what criteria it will use to assess whether and to what extent individual Police/Community Consultative Groups help it to fulfil its statutory responsibility. In assessing the effectiveness of all its arrangements for public consultation, the MPA will be under the duty of Best Value.

  Drug Treatment Programmes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was in total and in respect of each prison and young offender institution in England and Wales(a) the number of prisoners currently taking part in a drug treatment programme, (b) the number of current prisoners who have completed a drug treatment programme and (c) the number of prisoners who are waiting to join a drug treatment programme. [94904]

  Mr. Boateng
  As an integral part of the £76 million programme to expand drug treatment for prisoners, the Prison Service will be introducing early next year a comprehensive monitoring system to evaluate the effectiveness of both the new services and those already operating. Until then, the information requested cannot be provided.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state in respect of each police force in England and Wales the number of offenders entering drug treatment programmes as a result of arrest referral schemes(a) during 1998–99 and (b) during 1999–2000 to date; and if he will make a statement. [94907]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not currently available. Information from Drug Action Teams' plans for 1999–2000, submitted in December 1998, suggested that coverage of custody suites by arrest referral schemes was partial across police forces. We have set targets to double the number of schemes this year, with coverage of all custody suites to be achieved by 2002.

  Tackling drug related crime is one of the Home Secretary's Policing Priorities for 1999–2000, and it is accompanied by a supporting key performance indicator concerned with the numbers entering treatment as a result of arrest referral. Police forces will report to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on their performance at the end of this financial year.

  To assist the national roll out of arrest referral, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in July that up to £20 million will be available to police forces to

  827
  accelerate the introduction of arrest referral schemes and to help ensure that treatment is available for those with drug problems identified by these schemes.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was in total and in respect of each prison and young offender institution in England and

  The number of prisoners tested for drugs under the random mandatory drug testing programme and the number of those tested who were positive for drugs for the periods 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 to date1

  1997–98 Number of:

  1998–99 Number of:

  1999–2000 to date Number of:

  Prison

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Altcourse

  —

  —

  673

  128

  322

  36

  Askham Grange

  144

  20

  141

  15

  68

  7

  Acklington

  793

  229

  793

  216

  298

  61

  Albany

  783

  59

  523

  7

  152

  0

  Aldington

  164

  39

  157

  35

  19

  5

  Ashwell

  516

  207

  561

  214

  224

  70

  Aylesbury

  370

  47

  346

  48

  165

  19

  Belmarsh

  770

  62

  1,013

  122

  360

  40

  Buckley Hall

  432

  167

  390

  146

  183

  42

  Blundeston

  220

  57

  313

  44

  106

  16

  Bedford

  335

  121

  418

  102

  157

  33

  Blantyre House

  133

  5

  142

  1

  56

  1

  Brockhill

  77

  25

  128

  19

  47

  9

  Bristol

  692

  186

  686

  158

  168

  29

  Birmingham

  1,290

  423

  1,260

  381

  367

  81

  Bullingdon

  549

  190

  483

  128

  220

  47

  Brinsford

  603

  108

  574

  120

  181

  46

  Blakenhurst

  921

  426

  1,019

  393

  375

  19

  Bullwood Hall

  25

  5

  77

  10

  33

  6

  Brixton

  709

  106

  450

  51

  401

  46

  Chelmsford

  313

  75

  402

  93

  57

  11

  Cardiff

  710

  192

  559

  142

  174

  48

  Camp Hill

  279

  89

  184

  50

  45

  15

  Cookham Wood

  176

  12

  186

  11

  62

  1

  Coldingly

  483

  141

  212

  30

  107

  11

  Colchester

  31

  6

  9

  2

  —

  —

  Castington

  352

  38

  342

  61

  83

  13

  Channings Wood

  671

  134

  477

  77

  187

  8

  Canterbury

  324

  60

  343

  46

  141

  20

  Dartmoor

  740

  124

  440

  25

  147

  3

  Drake Hall

  268

  48

  293

  52

  99

  21

  Durham

  1,279

  403

  1,282

  203

  301

  51

  Doncaster

  1,256

  286

  1,335

  171

  538

  61

  Dorchester

  130

  58

  187

  63

  50

  9

  Deerbolt

  473

  71

  419

  37

  96

  21

  Dover

  285

  47

  275

  34

  129

  14

  Downview

  413

  18

  365

  14

  116

  4

  Erlestoke

  348

  99

  373

  96

  148

  44

  Eastwood Park

  133

  11

  229

  35

  126

  21

  East Sutton Park

  116

  9

  120

  5

  40

  0

  Everthorpe

  399

  108

  564

  168

  118

  30

  Exeter

  287

  99

  323

  89

  65

  18

  Elmley

  1,076

  145

  987

  117

  355

  55

  Ford

  555

  55

  481

  52

  169

  19

  Foston Hall

  37

  5

  154

  12

  84

  6

  Frankland

  532

  192

  555

  98

  218

  26

  Feltham

  538

  112

  540

  116

  191

  38

  Full Sutton

  592

  38

  664

  46

  255

  26

  Featherstone

  433

  176

  267

  112

  123

  57

  Garth

  653

  111

  709

  83

  239

  42

  Gloucester

  313

  111

  312

  93

  143

  51

  Guys Marsh

  380

  129

  271

  92

  217

  74

  Grendon

  150

  23

  165

  17

  45

  4

  Glen Parva

  884

  184

  907

  135

  307

  58

  Gartree

  283

  87

  315

  81

  151

  21

  Hollesley

  393

  90

  238

  61

  99

  28

  Huntercombe

  315

  56

  227

  40

  93

  28

  828
  Wales, (a) the number of prisoners who were tested for drugs in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 to date and (b) the number of such prisoners who tested positive for drugs. [94903]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoners tested under the random mandatory drug testing programme by establishment and as a total figure, for the periods 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to date, together with the number of prisoners who tested positive, is given in the table.
  829

  The number of prisoners tested for drugs under the random mandatory drug testing programme and the number of those tested who were positive for drugs for the periods 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 to date1

  1997–98 Number of:

  1998–99 Number of:

  1999–2000 to date Number of:

  Prison

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Hatfield

  156

  21

  172

  27

  57

  6

  Hewell Grange

  197

  30

  232

  24

  77

  13

  Holme House

  1,278

  245

  875

  98

  390

  35

  Hindley

  250

  89

  185

  45

  87

  15

  Hull

  614

  126

  596

  92

  115

  16

  High Down

  349

  89

  652

  134

  236

  41

  Highpoint

  226

  56

  448

  90

  145

  15

  Haslar

  161

  7

  167

  4

  77

  2

  Haverigg

  1,011

  160

  622

  112

  167

  34

  Holloway

  622

  150

  619

  63

  172

  31

  Kirkham

  280

  71

  297

  70

  87

  16

  Kirklevington

  169

  9

  164

  12

  59

  1

  Kingston

  110

  12

  68

  13

  17

  2

  Lancaster

  276

  102

  277

  101

  107

  34

  Leicester

  309

  100

  248

  68

  94

  29

  Leeds

  709

  171

  922

  175

  346

  92

  Lancaster Farms

  587

  29

  423

  25

  207

  12

  Lowdham Grange

  19

  3

  528

  162

  239

  44

  Lindholme

  764

  178

  778

  233

  271

  86

  Lincoln

  541

  187

  525

  138

  222

  44

  Long Lartin

  437

  99

  424

  60

  170

  20

  Latchmere House

  317

  46

  206

  30

  83

  6

  Low Newton

  125

  51

  108

  42

  63

  12

  Liverpool

  1,277

  242

  1,531

  270

  456

  83

  Littlehey

  687

  116

  746

  107

  294

  33

  Lewes

  598

  162

  576

  192

  279

  57

  Leyhill

  478

  63

  439

  59

  169

  25

  Moorland

  824

  89

  770

  43

  356

  16

  Morton Hall

  236

  22

  208

  17

  76

  6

  Manchester

  1,332

  242

  1,425

  221

  465

  70

  Maidstone

  656

  96

  663

  86

  164

  16

  Mount

  268

  75

  577

  117

  98

  17

  Newhall

  352

  28

  413

  20

  129

  10

  Nottingham

  325

  101

  281

  72

  131

  32

  Northallerton

  308

  49

  329

  49

  127

  18

  North Sea Camp

  187

  44

  223

  53

  62

  18

  Norwich

  403

  97

  209

  48

  166

  37

  Onley

  577

  27

  539

  21

  111

  12

  Parc

  14

  8

  823

  367

  356

  117

  Portland

  645

  66

  610

  57

  203

  18

  Parkhurst

  315

  21

  440

  14

  149

  2

  Preston

  733

  145

  382

  88

  255

  69

  Pentonville

  753

  240

  955

  302

  292

  79

  Rochester

  497

  21

  429

  18

  137

  6

  Reading

  132

  32

  147

  43

  13

  3

  Ranby

  679

  108

  833

  72

  353

  31

  Risley

  972

  238

  914

  198

  279

  59

  Send

  216

  65

  102

  20

  47

  6

  Stafford

  696

  141

  634

  109

  179

  28

  Stoke Heath

  458

  37

  283

  28

  122

  16

  Stocken

  500

  170

  570

  176

  218

  51

  Standford Hill

  237

  28

  479

  54

  142

  20

  Swaleside

  650

  126

  682

  122

  208

  36

  Shepton Mallet

  144

  69

  248

  79

  94

  27

  Swinfen Hall

  219

  32

  326

  19

  134

  6

  Spring Hill

  190

  36

  177

  24

  87

  10

  Styal

  213

  51

  240

  32

  53

  8

  Sudbury

  603

  66

  606

  68

  104

  13

  Swansea

  231

  122

  327

  121

  137

  37

  Shrewsbury

  295

  47

  288

  49

  145

  24

  Thorn Cross

  240

  62

  247

  57

  91

  37

  Usk/Prescoed

  342

  27

  342

  19

  132

  8

  Verne

  287

  104

  134

  24

  125

  9

  Weare

  218

  61

  327

  92

  161

  22

  Wellinborough

  386

  128

  405

  93

  163

  45

  Winchester

  519

  151

  298

  93

  124

  34

  Wakefield

  721

  21

  695

  8

  185

  5

  Wealstun

  662

  176

  494

  122

  141

  36

  Woodhill

  796

  201

  712

  118

  194

  20

  830 831

  The number of prisoners tested for drugs under the random mandatory drug testing programme and the number of those tested who were positive for drugs for the periods 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 to date1

  1997–98 Number of:

  1998–99 Number of:

  1999–2000 to date Number of:

  Prison

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Prisoners tested for drugs

  Prisoners who tested positive

  Wayland

  225

  75

  228

  83

  133

  32

  Wymott

  894

  177

  970

  158

  278

  33

  Werrington

  136

  7

  128

  6

  47

  3

  Wolds

  477

  86

  494

  87

  189

  28

  Whitemoor

  627

  80

  470

  36

  91

  7

  Wormwood Scrubs

  826

  136

  840

  192

  185

  21

  Whatton

  280

  15

  300

  13

  129

  2

  Wandsworth

  1,067

  39

  931

  71

  331

  21

  Wetherby

  398

  16

  349

  18

  147

  77

  Total

  62,674

  13,038

  63,182

  11,540

  22,544

  3,762

  1 Figures for 1 April to 31 August 1999

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state in respect of each month from January to date(a) the number of occasions when visitors to prisons or young offender institutions have been caught trying to smuggle illegal drugs, (b) the number of such visitors who have been banned from further visits, (c) the number of such visitors who have been charged with a criminal offence, (d) the number of such visitors who have been prosecuted in court and (e) the number of such visitors who have been convicted. [94906]

  Mr. Boateng
  The total number of visitors arrested for drug offences is given in the table, together with the number of visitors banned. Figures for the number of visitors subsequently charged, prosecuted and/or convicted are not recorded by the Prison Service.

  Visitors to prisons arrested for drug offences

  Number of visitors arrested

  Number of visitors banned

  January 1999

  71

  Not previously recorded

  February 1999

  57

  March 1999

  105

  April 1999

  71

  138

  May 1999

  65

  186

  June 1999

  72

  63

  July 1999

  73

  Not yet available

  August 1999

  73

  September 1999

  53

  October 1999

  32

  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state, in respect of each prison and young offenders institution, the number of prosecutions which have been brought against inmates for assault on prison officers in each year from 1992 to date. [94913]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information on prosecutions for assault is now being collected and will be available in future years.

  The Prison Service collects centrally information on the numbers of proven charges of assault at adjudications
  832
  under the Prison Rules, and the available information is set out in the table. These figures relate to assaults on staff of all grades, not solely prison officers, together with any assaults on others excluding prisoners, such as contractors or visitors.

  Proven adjudications for assaults by prisoners on staff/others1

  Year ending

  Prison

  31 March 1997

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1999

  Acklington

  13

  4

  6

  Albany

  2

  2

  8

  Aldington

  0

  0

  0

  Altcourse

  2—

  18

  65

  Ashwell

  20

  4

  3

  Askham Grange

  1

  0

  0

  Aylesbury

  32

  66

  87

  Bedford

  23

  24

  13

  Belmarsh

  114

  104

  70

  Birmingham

  51

  42

  46

  Blakenhurst

  38

  49

  65

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  23

  17

  8

  Brinsford

  20

  40

  17

  Bristol

  26

  24

  42

  Brixton

  46

  30

  70

  Brockhill

  4

  18

  26

  Buckley Hall

  13

  9

  10

  Bullingdon

  52

  36

  36

  Bullwood Hall

  36

  15

  10

  Camp Hill

  5

  17

  11

  Canterbury

  5

  9

  2

  Cardiff

  28

  19

  18

  Castington

  21

  15

  35

  Channings Wood

  2

  3

  4

  Chelmsford

  21

  31

  17

  Colchester

  0

  0

  0

  Coldingley

  6

  5

  0

  Cookham Wood

  13

  3

  6

  Dartmoor

  22

  35

  28

  Deerbolt

  10

  19

  25

  Doncaster

  53

  70

  48

  Dorchester

  11

  18

  10

  Dover

  10

  24

  19

  Downview

  0

  1

  1

  Drake Hall

  3

  1

  1

  Durham

  34

  33

  41

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  0

  Eastwood Park

  25

  26

  25

  Elmley

  28

  37

  37

  Erlestoke

  2

  1

  2

  Everthorpe

  4

  9

  7

  Exeter

  11

  14

  19

  Featherstone

  14

  11

  6

  833

  Proven adjudications for assaults by prisoners on staff/others1

  Year ending

  Prison

  31 March 1997

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1999

  Feltham

  115

  93

  82

  Ford

  0

  1

  0

  Foston Hall

  0

  6

  13

  Frankland

  40

  47

  18

  Full Sutton

  23

  23

  18

  Garth

  17

  17

  1

  Gartree

  7

  3

  10

  Glen Parva

  56

  55

  81

  Gloucester

  26

  35

  27

  Grendon

  2

  4

  2

  Guys Marsh

  4

  5

  10

  Haslar

  1

  1

  1

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  I

  Haverigg

  5

  4

  6

  Hewell Grange

  0

  1

  1

  Highdown

  67

  91

  83

  Highpoint

  14

  23

  21

  Hindley

  35

  32

  58

  Hollesley Bay

  7

  11

  11

  Holloway

  115

  126

  95

  Holme House

  16

  26

  26

  Hull

  29

  21

  22

  Huntercombe

  7

  15

  13

  Kingston

  0

  0

  0

  Kirkham

  2

  0

  0

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  0

  Lancaster

  4

  1

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  18

  31

  19

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  50

  51

  65

  Leicester

  31

  16

  17

  Lewes

  15

  23

  14

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  0

  Lincoln

  17

  13

  8

  Lindholme

  3

  6

  7

  Littlehey

  11

  8

  12

  Liverpool

  47

  50

  59

  Long Lartin

  30

  32

  12

  Low Newton

  17

  36

  23

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  22

  Maidstone

  1

  11

  8

  Manchester

  63

  49

  59

  Moorland

  61

  62

  38

  Morton Hall

  0

  1

  0

  Mount

  5

  8

  13

  New Hall

  32

  31

  32

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  0

  Northallerton

  5

  13

  9

  Norwich

  30

  41

  37

  Nottingham

  12

  17

  19

  Onley

  24

  67

  65

  Oxford

  0

  0

  0

  Parc

  2—

  11

  34

  Parkhurst

  17

  13

  16

  Pentonville

  59

  69

  95

  Portland

  13

  10

  21

  Preston

  27

  49

  44

  Pucklechurch

  0

  0

  0

  Ranby

  4

  10

  18

  Reading

  20

  19

  18

  Risley

  41

  52

  77

  Rochester

  20

  21

  16

  Send

  0

  0

  I

  Shepton Mallet

  3

  0

  2

  Shrewsbury

  1

  3

  15

  Stafford

  24

  22

  16

  Stanford Hill

  1

  1

  0

  Stocken

  11

  13

  13

  Stoke Heath

  22

  46

  88

  Styal

  15

  14

  9

  Sudbury

  2

  2

  1

  Swaleside

  16

  26

  35

  Swansea

  15

  11

  14

  Swinfen Hall

  2

  14

  18

  834

  Proven adjudications for assaults by prisoners on staff/others1

  Year ending

  Prison

  31 March 1997

  31 March 1998

  31 March 1999

  Thorn Cross

  4

  6

  1

  Usk

  0

  1

  0

  Verne

  1

  1

  0

  Wakefield

  11

  10

  9

  Wandsworth

  46

  42

  57

  Wayland

  7

  5

  9

  Weayallsantudn

  2

  2

  7

  Weare

  2—

  4

  3

  Wellingborough

  9

  8

  7

  Werrington

  7

  25

  10

  Wetherby

  4

  10

  25

  Whatton

  0

  0

  0

  Whitemoor

  55

  36

  58

  Winchester

  27

  28

  27

  Wolds

  18

  12

  26

  Woodhill

  36

  48

  61

  Wormwood Scrubs

  83

  93

  49

  Wymott

  2

  7

  7

  1 The definition staff/others includes staff of all grades, contractors, visitors to prisoners, official visitors and anyone else in the prison with the exception of other prisoners. Assaults on other prisoners are recorded separately.

  2 Indicates that this establishment was not open during this year

  Club Closures
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions to date local authorities have used powers under the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997 to shut down clubs; and if he will list the local authorities which have exercised these powers. [94908]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No arrangements exist to collect this information centrally. Close contact with the police and the club trade suggest, however, that the powers of the Public Entertainments Licences (Drug Misuse) Act 1997 have not yet been used by a local authority to close a club.

  Martin McGartand
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further progress has been made by Northumbria Police in identifying those involved in the attempted murder of Martin McGartand at Whitley Bay on 17 June; if the weapon used has been identified and/or connected with any other crime; and if he will make a statement. [95335]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Northumbria Police continue to make inquiries into this crime. I understand that, at the present time, there is no firm evidence to identify those involved in the shooting; nor has the weapon used been identified or confirmed as being connected with any other crime.

  Cycling Fines
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many on-the-spot fines for cycling on the pavement have been issued by each police force since the scheme was introduced, [95310]
  835
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not yet available.

  Each police force has been asked to monitor the new fixed penalty provisions which came into force on 1 August 1999, but the figures are not likely to be available until early in the new year.

  Racing Pigeons
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been convicted of offences involving racing pigeons in each of the last three years for which figures are available under the criminal law section of the Theft Act 1969 and section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971; and if he will make a statement. [95319]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information is not collected centrally. Although the Home Office Court Proceedings database identifies the legislation under which a defendant is proceeded against, it generally does not hold information on the characteristics of individual cases dealt with by the courts.

  Prisoners (Civil Claims)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civil claims by prisoners against the Prison Department have been settled out of court in each year since 1995. [95074]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information is available only from 1997 onwards and is given in the table.

  Civil claims by prisoners against the Prison Service settled out of court1

  Year

  Civil claims

  1997

  106

  1998

  83

  1999 (to 20 October)

  25

  1 These figures exclude any cases where a settlement has been reached but final resolution on matters such as costs have not yet been completed.

  Paramapathy Pavanathan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Mr. Paramapathy Pavanathan of Acre Road, Kingston, will hear the results of his application for refugee status. [95235]

  Mrs. Roche
  On 21 October, Mr. Pavanathan was granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom until 1 March 2000.

  Domestic Fires
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fires occurred in domestic dwellings caused by(a) an electrical source and (b) misuse of electrical equipment and appliances in the United Kingdom during each of the years from 1989 to 1998. [94974]
  836
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information is given in the table.

  Accidental fires in dwellings where source of ignition was electrical, and where cause was misuse of equipment 1989–98 United Kingdom

  Year

  Number1

  Total number of dwelling fires where sources of ignition was electrical

  1989

  26,976

  1990

  26,432

  1991

  27,410

  1992

  27,844

  1993

  28,167

  19941

  29,659

  19951

  29,468

  19961

  32,364

  19971

  34,094

  19981,2

  33,280

  Total number of dwelling fires where source of ignition was electrical, and cause was misuse of equipment and appliances

  1989

  17,006

  1990

  16,414

  1991

  16,823

  1992

  16,786

  1993

  17,603

  19941

  10,402

  19951

  11,284

  19961

  11,252

  19971

  12,395

  19981,2

  11,936

  1 Includes additional "late" call and heat and smoke damage incidents, which were not recorded prior to 1994

  2 Provisional figures

  Asylum Applications
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the average time from the lodging of the asylum application to the determination of the appeal for those cases where a determination of an appeal to an adjudicator against an initial asylum decision has been made in each of the last three calendar months; [95884]

  (2) what has been the average time from the lodging of the application to the initial decision for those cases where an initial decision has been made on an asylum claim, where the asylum seeker was a single person, in each of the last three calendar months; [95883]

  (3) what has been the average time from the lodging of the application to the initial decision for those cases where an initial decision has been made on an asylum claim, where the asylum seeker had dependent children, in each of the last three calendar months; [95886]

  (4) what has been the average time from the lodging of the application to the initial decision for those cases where an initial decision has been made on an asylum claim in each of the last three calendar months; and how this average has been calculated. [95885]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information is given in the table. The figures were calculated by taking the mean length of time between the date that the asylum application was lodged and the date of the initial decision, for asylum decisions taken in July, August and September 1999. The figures relate to asylum applications lodged by
  837
  principal applicants only. Separate figures for single people and for people with dependent children are not presently available.

  Average time to initial decision, in months1,2,3 July, August and September 1999

  Month of decision

  Pre 1993 Act cases

  Post 1993 Act cases

  Total

  July

  84

  28

  48

  August

  85

  28

  49

  September

  88

  26

  49

  July-September

  88

  27

  49

  1 Figures are estimates based on cases for which information is recorded

  2 Mean average is used

  3 Excluding dependants

  Immigration and Asylum Bill
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with Amnesty International regarding the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Bill; and if he will make a statement. [95568]

  Mrs. Roche
  I met representatives of Amnesty International on 19 October to discuss the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

  Laser Pens
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to regulate the use of laser pens; and if he will make a statement. [95668]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Anyone carrying a laser pointer as a weapon in a public place or a school may be liable to prosecution under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953. In addition, laser pointers which may present an unacceptable risk in the hands of the general consumer, are subject to consumer safety legislation.

  We have no plans to introduce further regulation in this area.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were employed in England and Wales during the most recent year for which figures are available; and how many he expects will be employed in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02. [95664]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 31 March 1999, there were 126,096 police officers in England and Wales. Under legislation passed by the previous Government, the powers of the Home Secretary to set overall police numbers were removed. The number of police officers at any given time is determined by chief constables on the basis of resources made available to them. The Government are making available additional resources, in a new ring-fenced crime fighting fund, to provide 5,000 extra police recruits over the next three years.

  Vivisection
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the 838
  benefits to medical science of vivisection; what plans he has to review the practice; and if he will make a statement. [95722]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The development of many new drugs and medical technologies has depended on, and continues to depend on, the use of animals. Their use is regulated by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which is widely viewed as the most rigorous piece of legislation of its type in the world.

  In 1998, the Animal Procedures Committee completed a review of the operation of the Act. Its results were published in November 1998 as part of the Committee's annual report for 1997. The Committee concluded that further examination of the cost/benefit assessment should be undertaken and that the validity of science using animals could be part of their review. The Committee is planning to consult publicly and I await their further advice.

  Convicted Sex Offenders
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requirement there is(a) for convicted sex offenders against children to notify authorities of addresses they are staying at abroad and (b) for sex offenders convicted abroad for offences against children to notify authorities when residing in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [95564]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the Sex Offenders Act 1997, there is no requirement for offenders to register if they travel abroad or for those with overseas convictions to register if they reside in the United Kingdom. This is one of a number of issues we are looking at in evaluating the operation of the registration requirement in the 1997 Act. Once the review is completed, we shall then need to consider whether, and if so what, changes are necessary.

TREASURY

  Departmental Twinning
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many requests there have been to his Department for placement of officials from Central, East European and CIS states as twins of his officials; how many such officials have been accepted as twins; and from which countries(a) those who were accepted and (b) those who were not accepted came. [93994]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 25 October 1999]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 25 October 1999, Official Report, columns 739–40.

  ONS
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the reasons are for the Office for National Statistics five-year survey of companies' fixed assets; [95917]
  839
  (2) how many companies in (a) manufacturing and (b) food-processing industries have been sent questionnaires by the Office for National Statistics requesting details of their fixed assets; and what is his estimate of the total compliance cost involved. [95916]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick Gibb, dated 26 October 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions on companies' fixed assets.
  The new Fixed Assets Survey to collect details of capital stocks held by businesses is one of a number of measures introduced to improve the quality of the National Accounts. The survey was introduced in 1999 to provide a more reliable basis for calculating the value of fixed assets held in the UK, required for the National Accounts. It will cover all industries in a rolling programme so that each industry is surveyed only once in about five years.
  The questionnaire requesting details of fixed assets was sent to a sample of 264 companies in manufacturing, of which 257 were in the food processing industry. The estimate of the total compliance cost for these industries is£19,000.

  Revenue
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of total revenue was raised(a) directly and (b) indirectly (i) 30 years ago, (ii) 20 years ago, (iii) 10 years ago and (iv) currently. [95517]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Frank Field, dated 26 October 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on revenue as a proportion of direct and indirect taxation.
  The ONS does not publish data under the headings of direct and indirect taxation.
  In table 10.1 of the United Kingdom National Accounts (Blue Book) 1999 a full list of UK taxes is published on a European System of Accounts (ESA 1995) basis. Copies of this publication are available in the House of Commons Library. Broadly speaking they are, split into:

  (i) taxes on products and production (D.2 taxes) including taxes such as VAT and business rates

  and the rest which includes

  (ii) taxes on income and wealth including taxes such as income tax, corporation tax, motor vehicle duties (D.5)

  (iii) social contributions including employers and employees compulsory contributions (D.611)

  (iv) capital taxes including taxes such as inheritance tax (D.91)

  Year

  1968

  1978

  1988

  1998

  Taxes on production as a percentage of total taxes

  39.0

  35.2

  38.1

  38.4

  Other taxes as a percentage of total taxes

  61.0

  64.8

  61.9

  61.6

  EU Funding (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the National 840
  Assembly for Wales with regard to the provision of additional funds from the Treasury for the financial year 2000–01 and subsequent years, to enable Wales to take up European Union strategic funds fully in each year from April 2000, without having to reduce spending on other services to provide the necessary Welsh funding; and if he will make a statement. [95769]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  My predecessor discussed these matters with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. I have also held discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will ensure that the full sums of money provided by the EU for Objective 1 strategic projects in Wales will be passed to Wales outside the Welsh block and not be subject to the application of the Barnett formula; and if he will make a statement. [95770]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  UK Government Departments, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales are required to find full public expenditure cover for EU Structural Funds expenditure.

  I will consider on their merits representations from the National Assembly about the public spending implications arising from Objective 1 status as part of next year's spending review.

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the past five years payments to the Consolidated Fund made by the Crown Estate Commissioners. [95271]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The information requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1994–95

  81.9

  1995–96

  94.3

  1996–97

  103.1

  1997–98

  116.6

  1998–99

  122.0

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to end the above-inflation rises in fuel duty; and if he will make a statement. [95274]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's policy on fuel duty escalators is set out on page 121 of the 1999 Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mortgage Mis-selling
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evidence he has received in the past four months on the mis-selling of mortgages. [95158]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The deadline for submissions to the Treasury's consultation on whether mortgages should be regulated was 22 October. The Treasury has received over 150 responses to date. Analysis is now taking place, with some responses still being received. A decision will be announced by the end of the year.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the median total weekly income of those current recipients of Incapacity Benefit or Invalidity Benefit below state pension age who have private pension income in excess of £50 per week. [94698]

  Mr. Bayley
  Around 80 per cent. of current recipients of Incapacity Benefit below State pension age either have no private pension or a pension of less than £50 a week.

  The median weekly household income before housing costs of current recipients of Incapacity Benefit below State pension age with income from a private pension in excess of £50 a week is £309 a week. The average weekly household income for this group is £343 a week. The average is higher than the median because a significant proportion have high pension incomes.

  Notes:

  1. Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit in April 1995. All existing recipients at that date became Incapacity Benefit recipients.

  2. Weekly income is unequivalised income net of tax and other deductions of the household that the benefit recipient lives in.

  3. All figures are in April 1999 prices and are rounded to the nearest £.

  4. Figures are estimates from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) dataset based on the 1997–98 Family Resources Survey (FRS) for Great Britain.

  5. Private pensions are defined as occupational and personal pensions.

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93682]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has spent £3.216 million on official publications in the period May 1997 to the end of September 1999.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assumption about the indexation arrangements for Income Support underlies his estimate that on unchanged policies one in three pensioners will be in receipt of Income Support by 2050. [94699]

  Mr. Rooker
  For the above estimate, Income Support is assumed to increase in line with average earnings from the year 2000. The assumed rate of increase in average earnings is 1.5 per cent. per year above the rate of inflation.

  Notes:

  1. The estimate referred to above was obtained through an approximate extension of the results for 2025 of the Departments' microsimulation model, PENSIM.

  2. PENSIM provides estimates of pensioners' incomes up to 2025. Using the 2025 income estimates, all sources of private incomes were assumed to increase in line with average earnings (1.5 per cent. per year above inflation) up to 2050. State income (other than Income Support) was assumed to increase only with prices. This provided an estimate of the distribution of pensioners' incomes in 2050. The model's caseload was re-weighted to reflect the projected size and composition of the pensioner population in 2050.
  842
  3. The number of pensioners in 2050 with estimated income below Income Support levels in this year was calculated. The same proportion of this group receiving Income Support in 2025 was assumed to receive Income Support in 2050. This resulted in an estimate of around 30 per cent. of the total pensioner population in 2050 receiving the benefit.

  4. The Department does not currently have a tool to estimate pensioners' incomes in 2050 although a long-term project is underway to develop one.

  Fraud
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of benefits claimants receive benefits by(a) cash payment through the Post Office and (b) direct credit transfer; and what amount of benefit fraud arises from (i) cash payments and (ii) direct credit transfer. [95176]

  Mr. Rooker
  As at August 1999, about 65 per cent. of all benefit recipients were receiving payment in cash by order book or girocheque at the Post Office. Thirty-four per cent. were receiving payment by direct credit transfer and 1 per cent. by other methods of payment into banks (these include payable orders and the small proportion of girocheques paid into bank accounts).

  It is estimated that fraudulent losses during 1998–99 from cash payments were £19 million in respect of girocheques and £83 million in respect of order books. No fraud has been detected to date directly arising from payment by direct credit transfer.

  Overseas Pensions
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received from(a) the Canadian Government and (b) other Governments since 1 May, in favour of restoring parity between the state pension available to British citizens resident overseas and that available to United Kingdom residents. [95076]

  Mr. Rooker
  The issue of frozen rate pensions was raised by Donald Campbell, of Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, during a meeting with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 6 October 1999 in Canada.

  The Australian Government made representations in July 1999 for a limited unfreezing of pensions for some UK pensioners living in Australia. We rejected this proposal. The Australian Government indicated that it would be abrogating the Social Security agreement with the UK. Formal notification of this has not been received.

  We have had no other formal approaches from Governments about unfreezing pensions during the period.

  Pensions
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the value of the basic state pension for(a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples for each

  843
  year since November 1979 to April 1999; what it would have been if it had been uprated in line with whichever was the higher of average earnings or prices; and what were the average earnings and retail prices index figures

  Single pensioners

  Uprating date

  Actual rates £'s per week

  Increased by higher of earnings or prices £'s per week

  Earnings Percentage

  Retail Prices Percentage

  Period used

  November 1979

  23.30

  23.30

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  27.15

  27.60

  18.5

  15.3

  November 1979–80

  November 1981

  29.60

  30.90

  11.5

  12.0

  November 1980–81

  November 1982

  32.85

  33.50

  8.4

  6.3

  November 1981–82

  November 1983

  34.05

  36.40

  8.7

  3.7

  May 1982–83

  November 1984

  35.80

  38.25

  5.0

  5.1

  May 1983–84

  November 1985

  38.30

  41.60

  8.7

  7.0

  May 1984–85

  July 1986

  38.70

  43.45

  4.5

  1.1

  May 1985–January 1986

  April 1987

  39.50

  45.90

  5.6

  2.1

  January 1986–September 1986

  April 1988

  41.15

  49.50

  7.8

  4.2

  September 1986–87

  April 1989

  43.60

  53.85

  8.8

  5.9

  September 1987–88

  April 1990

  46.90

  59.05

  9.7

  7.6

  September 1988–89

  April 1991

  52.00

  65.50

  9.5

  10.9

  September 1989–90

  April 1992

  54.15

  70.50

  7.6

  4.1

  September 1990–91

  April 1993

  56.10

  73.90

  4.8

  3.6

  September 1991–92

  April 1994

  57.60

  76.25

  2.5

  1.8

  September 1992–93

  April 1995

  58.85

  78.85

  3.4

  2.2

  September 1993–94

  April 1996

  61.15

  81.95

  2.8

  3.9

  September 1994–95

  April 1997

  62.45

  85.40

  4.2

  2.1

  September 1995–96

  April 1998

  64.70

  88.90

  4.1

  3.6

  September 1996–97

  April 1999

  66.75

  93.25

  4.9

  3.2

  September 1997–98

  Pensioner couples

  Uprating date

  Actual rates £'s per week

  Increased by higher of earnings or prices £'s per week

  Earnings Percentage

  Retail Prices Percentage

  Period used

  November 1979

  37.30

  37.30

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  43.45

  44.20

  18.5

  15.3

  November 1979–80

  November 1981

  47.35

  49.50

  11.5

  12.0

  November 1980–81

  November 1982

  52.55

  53.65

  8.4

  6.3

  November 1981–82

  November 1983

  54.50

  58.30

  8.7

  3.7

  May 1982–83

  November 1984

  57.30

  61.25

  5.0

  5.1

  May 1983–84

  November 1985

  61.30

  66.60

  8.7

  7.0

  May 1984–85

  July 1986

  61.95

  69.60

  4.5

  1.1

  May 1985–January 1986

  April 1987

  63.25

  73.50

  5.6

  2.1

  January 1986–September 1986

  April 1988

  65.90

  79.25

  7.8

  4.2

  September 1986–87

  April 1989

  69.80

  86.20

  8.8

  5.9

  September 1987–88

  April 1990

  75.10

  94.55

  9.7

  7.6

  September 1988–89

  April 1991

  83.25

  104.85

  9.5

  10.9

  September 1989–90

  April 1992

  86.70

  112.85

  7.6

  4.1

  September 1990–91

  April 1993

  89.80

  118.30

  4.8

  3.6

  September 1991–92

  April 1994

  92.10

  121.95

  2.5

  1.8

  September 1992–93

  April 1995

  94.10

  126.10

  3.4

  2.2

  September 1993–94

  April 1996

  97.75

  131.05

  2.8

  3.9

  September 1994–95

  April 1997

  99.80

  136.55

  4.2

  2.1

  September 1995–96

  April 1998

  103.40

  142.15

  4.1

  3.6

  September 1996–97

  April 1999

  106.70

  149.10

  4.9

  3.2

  September 1997–98

  Notes:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (all items) has been used as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  2. Average Earnings Index Whole Economy (Non Seasonally Adjusted) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  4. From April 1994 the basic rate of Retirement Pension has been increased by 50p on a single person and 70p on a pensioner couple to reflect VAT on fuel.

  5. The figures for November 1978 to November 1982 have been calculated using actual increases in Retail Prices Index rather than forecast increases.
  844
  in the month which determined the level of the state pension each year since 1979. [95678]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases have been considered to date under the Periodic Inquiry into Disability Living Allowance; and of these, how many have resulted in(a) a higher assessment, (b) an unchanged assessment and (c) a lower assessment. [95477]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 25 October 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many cases have been considered to date under the Periodic Enquiry into Disability Living Allowance; and of these, how many have resulted in (a) a higher assessment, (b) an unchanged assessment and (c) a lower assessment.
  Statistics for periodic enquiry are to be published on a quarterly basis. The first figures, which will show the position up to and including 30 September, are due for publication within the next two weeks. They, and all further Periodic Enquiry statistics, will be available in the House of Commons library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  The estimated annual cost of raising the state pension over inflation

  £million (1999 prices)

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  £3, £5

  RP only:

  Gross costs

  1,470

  1,480

  1,480

  1,490

  1,510

  1,520

  Net costs

  1,150

  1,160

  1,170

  1,190

  1,210

  1,230

  With linked benefits:

  Gross costs

  1,740

  1,750

  1,760

  1,780

  1,800

  1,810

  Net costs

  1,330

  1,350

  1,360

  1,380

  1,410

  1,430

  £5, £8:

  RP only:

  Gross costs

  2,410

  2,420

  2,430

  2,450

  2,470

  2,490

  Net costs

  1,880

  1,900

  1,920

  1,950

  1,990

  2,020

  With linked benefits:

  Gross costs

  2,860

  2,880

  2,900

  2,920

  2,950

  2,980

  Net costs

  2,190

  2,210

  2,240

  2,270

  2,310

  2,350

  £8, £11

  RP only:

  Gross costs

  3,660

  3,670

  3,690

  3,720

  3,760

  3,790

  Netcosts

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  With linked benefits:

  Gross costs

  4,360

  4,380

  4,420

  4,460

  4,510

  4,560

  Net costs

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. Gross costs have been calculated by the Government Actuary's Department. Net costs take account of means-tested benefit offsets using the 1999–2000 Policy Simulation Model based on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey.

  2. It is not possible to provide net costs for the third option (£8-single, £11-couples) because they involve disproportionate increases for different categories of pension, which the Policy Simulation Model cannot distinguish between.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 million and are in 1999 prices.

  4. Linked benefits include Widows Benefits and Incapacity Benefit.

  Changes to Regulations
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a list of all changes to Social Security regulations since May 1997, giving a brief summary of the effect of each change, the number of people affected, the cost or saving of each change and the average cost or gain to individuals as a result of each change; and if he will make a statement. [95266]

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

  It is only possible to provide a list of subordinate legislation made by the Secretary of State for Social Security since 1 May 1997. Summaries of the legislation can be found in the explanatory note attached at the end of each piece of subordinate legislation which are also held in the Library.

  State Pension
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost in the next five years of raising the state pension over inflation by(a) £3, (b) £5 and (c) £8 for single claimants and (i) £5, (ii) £8 and (iii) £11 for couples. [95284]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

HEALTH

  Overseas Treatment
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if there is any Government funding for medical treatment overseas using advanced techniques currently not available in the United Kingdom. [94639]

  Ms Stuart
  National Health Service legislation contains no general power allowing purchase of treatment outside the United Kingdom for UK residents. European Community law does permit referral of individual patients elsewhere within the European Economic Area for treatment. Exceptionally, a health authority can seek approval from the Department of Health for ex-gratia funding of treatment outside the European Economic Area provided the costs are met from within the authority's existing resources.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each year from 1994 to 1999 for Southport and Ormskirk Trust and Fazakerley Trust hospitals(a) how many people were on waiting lists and (b) what was the average waiting time for an operation involving (i) orthopaedic, (ii) heart, (iii) urology, (iv) carcinoma and (v) opthamology matters. [94591]

  Mr. Denham
  Table 1 shows the size of the waiting list at the end of March 1994 to 1999 for each provider site.

  Tables 2 and 3 show the average waiting time by selected hospital provider for the financial years 1994–95 to 1997–98 for the following areas:
  An operation involving the trauma and orthopaedic, urology and ophthalmology specialties.
  Heart operations.
  An operation involving a selected primary diagnosis of neoplasms (carcinoma).

  Table 1: Total number of patients waiting for elective admission at the end of March

  Aintree NHS Trust

  Southport and Formby Trust

  West Lancashire NHS Trust

  1993–94

  8,143

  3,135

  1,705

  1994–95

  8,951

  3,250

  1,999

  1995–96

  9,889

  3,792

  2,173

  1996–97

  10,251

  4,197

  2,411

  1997–98

  9,105

  4,122

  2,735

  1998–99

  8,458

  3,635

  2,332

  Table 2: Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: mean waiting time (days) for an operation involving selected specialities and selected hospital provider: NHS hospitals, England

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Lancashire Trust

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  1994–95

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  107.1

  151.4

  101.4

  Urology

  96.3

  93.5

  70.2

  Ophthamology

  96.5

  91.1

  119.4

  1995–96

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  103.5

  144.4

  136.0

  Urology

  100.0

  100.9

  73.1

  Ophthalmology

  81.9

  174.7

  144.2

  848

  Table 2: Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: mean waiting time (days) for an operation involving selected specialities and selected hospital provider: NHS hospitals, England

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Lancashire Trust

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  1996–971

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  95.5

  147.4

  154.9

  Urology

  114.2

  86.9

  88.3

  Ophthalmology

  52.7

  223.2

  130.6

  1997–981

  Trauma and Orthopaedics

  131.0

  162.8

  196.8

  Urology

  93.4

  90.0

  48.2

  Ophthalmology

  37.1

  239.7

  164.0

  Table 3: Ordinary admissions and day cases combined: mean waiting time (days) for an operation involving neoplasms shown by selected hospital provider: NHS hospitals, England

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Lancashire Trust

  Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  1994–95

  63.9

  48.1

  40.4

  1995–96

  54.5

  43.3

  27.0

  1996–971

  63.0

  38.2

  29.7

  1997–981

  54.0

  38.6

  24.8

  1 Figures are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data is ungrossed).

  Notes:

  ICD-9 codes 140–239: Neoplasms were used for 1994–95.

  ICD-10 codes C00-D48: Neoplasms were used for 1995–96 to 1996–97.

  Waiting time statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and waiting times for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment at a given point in time and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the waiting time as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Eye Tests
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Sefton over the age of 65 years had their eyes tested in each year between 1995 and 1998. [94590]

  Mr. Hutton
  From information obtained on the age of patients from an annual, national sample survey of opticians' workload, we estimate that the following numbers of sight tests were carried out among the 54,400 people aged over 65 who we estimate are resident in Sefton.

  Number of sight tests

  1995–96

  21,000

  1996–97

  21,400

  1997–98

  21,900

  1998–99

  22,200

  Trust Funding
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding over and above base budgets
  849
  was received by Fazakerley Trust and Southport and Ormskirk Trust hospitals in each year from 1992 to 1999; and what specific projects were so funded. [94589]

  Mr. Denham
  The table gives details of the funding above base budgets and the projects funded for Aintree Hospitals National Health Service Trust (including Fazakerley Hospital), the former West Lancashire NHS

  Developments funded above base budgets 1992/93–1997/98 for Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust and the predecessor NHS Trusts of Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  £000

  Total

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  C.P.N. Posts—Mental Health

  46

  46

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Community M.H. Team

  160

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  60

  —

  Link Nursing—Mental Health

  101

  —

  —

  101

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Stoddart Nursing—Mental Health

  100

  —

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  Primary Care Team—Mental Health

  136

  —

  —

  —

  136

  —

  —

  —

  Liverpool Investment—Mental Health

  385

  —

  —

  —

  385

  —

  —

  —

  Mental Health Intensive Care and Security

  230

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  230

  —

  Mental Health Intensive Home Support

  186

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  115

  71

  EMI Consultant—Mental Health

  165

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  142

  23

  New Community Mental Health Team (Sefton)

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  60

  Activity Workers (Stoddart House)—Mental Health

  59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  59

  All Other Mental Health Service Developments

  307

  —

  —

  —

  69

  104

  48

  86

  Open Access

  63

  —

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultant

  100

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  A.E.D. Nursing

  57

  —

  —

  —

  57

  —

  —

  —

  A.E.D. Physician

  65

  —

  —

  —

  65

  —

  —

  —

  Anaesthetic Task Force

  62

  —

  —

  —

  62

  —

  —

  —

  3rd Consultant

  62

  —

  —

  —

  62

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiac Rehabilitation

  85

  —

  —

  —

  85

  —

  —

  —

  3rd M.R.I. Session

  40

  —

  —

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  Chair in Rehabilitation

  67

  —

  —

  —

  67

  —

  —

  Consultant Rheumatologist

  156

  —

  —

  —

  51

  105

  —

  —

  High Dependency Unit

  761

  —

  —

  —

  —

  410

  314

  37

  Final H.A. Pick-up of Palliative Care Nursing

  53

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  53

  —

  Palliative Care Consultant

  58

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  58

  —

  Vascular Surgeon

  88

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  88

  —

  All Other Service Developments

  749

  15

  —

  221

  250

  86

  146

  31

  Waiting List Initiatives

  1,645

  397

  —

  151

  77

  —

  1,020

  —

  Additional Activity

  1,672

  —

  —

  —

  1,058

  —

  614

  —

  Total

  7,718

  458

  163

  573

  2,564

  705

  2,888

  367

  Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust

  Former West Lancashire NHS Trust

  Resource Management Initiative

  674

  225

  309

  100

  —

  —

  —

  40

  ENT

  158

  158

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Activity increase

  302

  52

  —

  —

  250

  —

  —

  —

  Waiting List Initiative

  309

  —

  309

  294

  306

  123

  143

  313

  Obstetric and Gynaecologist consultant

  60

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  A&E Consultant

  60

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  CT Scanner costs

  140

  —

  —

  140

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ophthalmology

  100

  —

  —

  100

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultant Gastroenterologist

  62

  —

  —

  62

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Winter Pressures/Emergency Medical Admissions

  694

  —

  —

  92

  37

  90

  185

  290

  Consultant Dermatologist

  57

  —

  —

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Consultant Haematologist

  57

  —

  —

  57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiologist

  60

  —

  —

  —

  60

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiology Out-Patients

  44

  —

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  —

  Admissions

  55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  55

  All Other Service Developments

  —

  26

  30

  13

  91

  20

  31

  101

  Former Southport and Formby NHS Trust

  Waiting List

  3,215

  481

  722

  199

  398

  100

  465

  850

  Winter Pressures

  637

  —

  20

  60

  26

  97

  98

  336

  Spinal Injuries

  40

  —

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  MRI Scanning

  84

  —

  84

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  GUM

  64

  —

  64

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dermatology

  83

  —

  83

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Pressures

  211

  —

  —

  —

  —

  211

  —

  —

  Emergency Medical Admissions

  150

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150

  Consultant Microbiology

  40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  40

  All Other Service Developments

  404

  —

  166

  115

  63

  —

  —

  60

  Total

  7,760

  942

  1,947

  1,289

  1,231

  685

  922

  2,235

  850
  Trust (acute services only) and the former Southport and Formby NHS Trust for each year from 1992–93 to 1998–99.

  The information provided is not kept centrally and was obtained from Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHS Trust and Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust. Further details may be obtained from the trusts if required.

  Young Disabled People
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to collect information on the long-term care needs of younger disabled people. [93829]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has recently introduced a new collection—the Resources, Assessment and Packages of Care (RAP) Project—which will provide information on the numbers of disabled people aged 18–64 assessed by social services and the services identified as being required to meet their needs as a result of the assessment. The data are not broken down further by age. The report of the first "Dress Rehearsal" for the RAP Project has just been published. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Department also collects information on the numbers of younger disabled people in residential or nursing care and the residential and nursing care market provision. Information is also available on the numbers of younger disabled people who receive different forms of day and domiciliary care. Again, this information is available for the 18–64 age group, but it is not possible to break these figures down further by age.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how NHS Direct will be funded once the pilot funding has been discontinued; and if he will make a statement; [94892]

  (2) if primary care groups and primary care trusts will acquire budgetary responsibilities for NHS Direct once the current pilot funding is discontinued. [94895]

  Ms Stuart
  NHS Direct is currently funded through a central budget. The National Health Service Executive Headquarters and NHS Executive Regional Offices will continue to have budgetary responsibilities for NHS Direct for the foreseeable future.

  Airlines (Emergency Medical Equipment)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice he plans to offer commercial airlines in respect of the equipment they routinely carry against the possibility of medical emergencies; [94893]

  (2) what assessment his Department has made of the equipment carried by commercial aircraft for use in medical emergencies. [94894]

  Ms Stuart
  Following informal discussions with the Department, the Medical Directors of the Association of European Airlines are reviewing current provision of emergency equipment and training on aircraft with the European Resuscitation Council. This will take account of what the Civil Aviation Authority already set out, the updated requirements of the EC harmonised Joint Airline Regulations covering commercial airlines, recommendations from the Aerospace Medical Association and ongoing international work. We will consider the expert advice when it is ready and discuss what action may be needed with Ministerial colleagues in other government departments and with the industry.

  Surgical Operating Departments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to establish a scheme of statutory registration for surgical operating department practitioners. [95234]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under powers provided by the Health Act 1999, we are reviewing the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. As part of that review, consideration is being given to the regulation of health professions which are not currently state registered, including operating department practitioners. The aim will be to provide for an NHS which is modern, reliable and fully responsive to patient needs. There will be full consultation before a final decision is taken.

  Community Prescribing
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the second part of the Crown review on community prescribing to be published. [95245]

  Yvette Cooper
  The final report of the Review of Prescribing, Supply and Administration of Medicines was published for consultation and comment on 8 March. We are currently giving detailed consideration on how best to take forward the Report's recommendations in the light of all comments.

  NHS Trusts (Capital Charges)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the capital charges on health service buildings and lands payable by NHS trusts. [95244]

  Mr. Denham
  All the land and buildings in the National Health Service estate were re-valued by the Valuation Office Agency in an exercise completed by 31 June 1999. The resulting valuations will be brought to account in NHS trusts' financial statements at 31 March 2000 and will consequently determine the amount of capital charges payable by NHS trusts in the financial year 2000–01.

  Estimates of capital charges payable in 2000–01 were received from NHS trusts by the NHS Executive in August 1999. These estimates inform the process of allocating funding to health authorities for 2000–01 such that the NHS trusts sector is fully funded for capital charges thus estimated.

  Carers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many carers' assessments have been carried out under the Carers Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [95334]

  Mr. Hutton
  Using information provided from the first dress rehearsal of the Referrals, Assessments and Packages of Care Project, which not all local authorities in England completed, we have been able to extrapolate an indicative number of carers' assessments carried out under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 for the period 1 January 1999 to 31 March 1999. This indicative figure is 62,384. No earlier data are available centrally.

  St. Dunstan's
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons St. Dunstan's recent application for Government funding was rejected. [95911]

  Mr. Hutton
  St. Dunstan's has submitted an application under the current round (2000–01) for section 64 grants. No decision has yet been made. It is expected that Ministers will make their decisions early in 2000.

  Under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, the Department has powers to fund voluntary organisations in England whose activities support the Department's policy objectives relating to health and social services. St. Dunstan's is eligible, as are all registered charities, to apply under the scheme.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional sums for treating coronary heart disease will be allocated to the Morecambe Bay Health Authority in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [95483]

  Mr. Hutton
  Plans for allocating the additional £50 million to help the National Health Service increase numbers of heart operations over the next two years, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 October, have yet to be finalised.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the Question tabled for answer on 16 July on winter pressures (91791). [95811]

  Mr. Denham
  I shall let my hon. Friend have a reply to his earlier Question as soon as possible.

  Human Tissue Act 1961
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the provisions of the Human Tissue Act 1961 to require coroners to consult relatives before removing body organs; and if he will make a statement. [95571]

  Mr. Hutton
  In view of the concerns raised about the removal and retention of organs at post mortem, we have asked the Chief Medical Officer to conduct an investigation. This investigation will look at what has happened in the country generally and at the implications for the National Health Service. Any recommendations relating to coronial practice emerging from the CMO's investigation, the Bristol Inquiry, or other local reviews will receive full consideration.

  Social Workers
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of violence against social workers; and if he will make a statement. [95730]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 25 October 1999,Official Report, column 750.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the report from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence regarding the benefits to sufferers of multiple sclerosis of being prescribed Beta Interferon; and if he will make a statement. [95560]

  Mr. Denham
  We consulted earlier in the summer on a proposal to refer beta interferon to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), for an authoritative appraisal of the available evidence, and an announcement will be made about the outcome of the consultation in the near future

  It will be for NICE to determine its timetable for the appraisal of technologies once they are referred by the Government.

  Response Times Targets
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received over the response times targets for Category B and Category C calls; what discussions he has had with Community Health Councils over these response times; what plans he has to review the times; and if he will make a statement. [95565]

  Ms Stuart
  My noble Friend the Baroness Hayman and I have recently replied to Gloucestershire Community Health Council on the subject of Category C calls and officials have written directly to a number of Community Health Councils setting out Government policy in this area.

  Ambulance response times are reviewed annually and published in a Statistical Bulletin. We have asked ambulance services to submit proposals for pilot studies looking at alternative ways of dealing with less urgent non-life threatening 999 calls. Several services are already piloting such projects, however careful monitoring and evaluation is needed to ensure patients receive appropriate clinical care.

  Health Inequality
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made of current levels of health inequalities in England. [93175]

  Yvette Cooper
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) commissioned an Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, under Sir Donald Acheson, whose report was published in November 1998. This report contained an assessment of current levels of health inequalities in England.

  Our new health strategy, "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation", sets out the main measures of success we shall be using. We shall shortly be publishing a Technical Supplement which will outline in more detail the types of information that will be collated nationally and locally.

  Published alongside the health strategy was "Reducing Health Inequalities: An Action report" which sets out the action being taken across Government—and through partnerships between local and regional organisations—to reduce health inequalities.

  Mental Health Services
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further improvements he plans to make to the quality and provision of mental health services. [93176]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our plans for improving mental health services were set out last year in "Modernising Mental Health Services". This made clear that improvements would be delivered through the implementation of the National Service Framework for Mental Health, reviewing mental health legislation and through new investment and reprioritisation of existing resources.

  We published the National Service Framework on 30 September which sets out detailed standards, service models and milestones for measuring improvements in services. Implementation of the National Service Framework will be subject to rigorous performance management.

  We have made clear our commitment to investing new resources in mental health services over this and the next two years to help health and social services reshape mental health services.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  EU Regulations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the Government's current position in relation to the European Commission proposal to adopt the amended Brussels Convention and the new draft Rome II Convention, pursuant to Article 65 of the Amsterdam Treaty; and if a regulatory impact assessment of the costs and benefits to small and medium sized enterprises of the implementation of this proposed EU regulation has been undertaken. [95174]

  Mr. Lock
  Pursuant to the Protocol to the Treaty of Rome governing the special position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in relation to measures adopted under the Title IV of that treaty, the Government is not yet required to decide whether the United Kingdom should opt-in to the negotiations on the recent proposal for a regulation to replace the 1968 Brussels convention. This decision must be taken before 8 December 1999.

  No proposal for a regulation has yet been made in relation to the draft Rome II Convention which will establish choice of law rules in relation to non-contractual matters; negotiations on this proposed agreement are still at an early stage. There will be proper consultation on it at the appropriate time.

  No regulatory impact assessment of the costs and benefits to small and medium sized enterprises of the implementation of the proposed regulation to replace the Brussels Convention has been undertaken. Such an assessment was not considered appropriate in this case.

  Competition Law (QCs)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he has examined the effect of EU competition law, with particular reference to articles 52 and 85, in relation to the operation of the Queen's Counsel system. [95083]
  856
  Mr. Lock
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the operation of appointments of Queen's Counsel is consistent with the Treaty provisions mentioned.

  Robert Hamill
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the inquest into the death of Robert Hamill will be held. [95358]

  Mr. Lock
  The holding of an inquest into the death of Robert Hamill is a matter for the Coroner for the District in which Mr. Hamill died. The Coroner has indicated that the inquest will be held on a date to be fixed in the New Year.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the constitution of the Public Trust Office; who are its members and officers; to whom it is accountable; how it calculates its charges; and if he will make a statement. [95575]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Trust Office was established as an executive agency on 1 July 1994. Its purpose is to ensure the effective management of private assets and financial affairs entrusted to its care. This includes the administration of private trusts, the supervision or management of the financial affairs of mentally incapable persons and the care of funds paid into court.

  The responsible minister is the Lord Chancellor. The head of the agency is the Chief Executive who holds the statutory offices of Public Trustee and Accountant General of the Supreme Court. The Public Trust Office employs around 580 staff.

  The Chief Executive is responsible for decisions relating to the day to day management of the Public Trust Office and is directly accountable to the Lord Chancellor for the effective and efficient management of the Public Trust Office.

  The Public Trustee is required by statute to cover the cost of work related to the administration of trusts. Fees are fixed by the Treasury and sanctioned by the Lord Chancellor.

  In relation to mental health work, the Public Trust Office charges a fee calculated against annual income after certain deductions e.g. non-taxable social security benefits.

  The Court Funds Office recovers its costs out of income from investments which are managed by the National Investments and Loans Office in accordance with the provisions of Section 39(2)(b) of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

  Hereford Crown Court
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Lord Chancellor has to review the(a) site and (b) operation of Hereford Crown Court; and if he will make a statement. [95933]
  857
  Jane Kennedy
  The lease on the current court building will expire on 31 December 2001. A review will be necessary in advance of that date to determine how the court should operate in future. At this stage, it is too early to judge whether changes to the site or operation of the court will be required.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Publications
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list his Department's spending on official publications since May 1997. [93688]

  Dr. Reid
  The spending on official publications by my Department and its predecessor, The Scottish Office, since May 1997, which includes the costs incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation and purchase of copies for official use was £225,802. These costs exclude the cost of publications produced for internal use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher, the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

CABINET OFFICE

  Ecstasy
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many(a) women and (b) men aged 16 to 25 years died as a direct result of ecstasy overdose in 1998–99. [95871]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jonathan Shaw, dated 26 October 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on how many (a) women and (b) men aged 16 to 25 years died as a direct result of ecstasy overdose in 1998–99.
  In 1997, the latest year for which data are available, there were five drug-related deaths among men aged 16 to 25 years in which ecstasy was mentioned on the death certificate. No deaths associated with ecstasy were recorded among women in this age-group in 1997.

  Neighbourhood Renewal
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress she has made in implementing the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. [94214]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government will publish the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal for consultation in Spring 2000. It will set out a proposed approach for dealing with England's most deprived neighbourhoods.

  The strategy will aim to bridge the gap between the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest; and to deliver on four key outcome targets in deprived neighbourhoods: more jobs, less crime and better health and educational achievement.
  858
  The Social Exclusion Unit has set up 18 Policy Action Teams to drive forward the work to develop the strategy, focusing on key problem issues. These teams bring together civil servants from across Whitehall and outside experts. But the strategy will also need to draw on other work, particularly on ensuring that mainstream public services are enabled to do their job in deprived areas.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list for each of the Next Steps agencies (1) the number of civil servants employed in Scotland; [95281]

  (2) (a) the total wage bill and (b) the wage bill for staff based in Scotland. [95282]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This is a matter for which the Scottish Executive is responsible.

WALES

  Wages Growth
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the average percentage growth in wages in Wales in 1997 and 1998 respectively. [94873]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Figures for the percentage increase in average gross weekly earnings of full time employees, on adult rates in Wales for 1997 and 1998 are set out in the following table:

  Percentage

  April 1996 to April 1997

  5.3

  April 1997 to April 1998

  4.1

  April 1998 to April 1999

  3.2

  Source:

  New Earnings Survey, Office for National Statistics

  GDP
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the percentage GDP growth in Wales in 1997 and 1998. [94875]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  There is no official estimate for GDP growth in Wales.

  Departmental Title
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the title of his Department. [96245]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  With the agreement of the Prime Minister, my Department is known as "Wales Office (Office of the Secretary of State for Wales)".

  The name is designed to address the new, post-devolution, role of my post in Government. It is important that it is clear that I do not retain responsibility for matters which are devolved to the National Assembly for Wales. The name reflects the responsibilities I have for representing Wales in Parliament and in the UK Government. At the same time it points to my role in

  859
  Wales—that is promoting Government policies and making sure that a wide constituency of interest in Wales are able to make their views known directly to the UK Government.

  In Cardiff, I have an office in the National Assembly for Wales building; to avoid confusion my Department will be known there as "The Office of the Secretary of State for Wales".

  World Wide Web
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to secure a Wales Identifier on the World Wide Web. [95159]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Wales Office has already secured such an identity on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ossw.wales.gov.uk.

  Calf Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what role he played with regard to negotiating with the European Commission about the acceptance of the calf scheme proposed by the National Assembly for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [95777]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  It is for the UK Government to put any proposals for a calf-processing scheme to the Commission, and for the National Assembly for Wales to develop any proposals for such a scheme in Wales. I have every confidence in the way the Assembly contributed to the informal discussions which MAFF and UKRep held with the Commission on the proposal. I have been in close contact throughout with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and with the First Secretary and Secretary for Agriculture and Rural Development of the National Assembly for Wales.

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

Lord Fellowes
The Right Honourable Sir Robert Fellowes, GCB, GCVO, having been created Baron Fellowes, of Shotesham in the County of Norfolk, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Vestey and the Lord Charteris of Amisfield.
Lord Harrison
Lyndon Henry Arthur Harrison, Esquire, having been created Baron Harrison, of Chester in the County of Cheshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Clinton-Davis and the Baroness Crawley, and made the solemn Affirmation.

The Lord Bishop of Guildford
John Warren, Lord Bishop of Guildford—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of Oxford and the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
The Marquess of Winchester—Took the Oath.

Stoke Mandeville Hospital Spinal Injuries Centre
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as President of the Spinal Injuries Association and a past patient of the spinal unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they can do to improve the situation of patients with spinal injuries, resulting in paralysis, not being admitted to the National Spinal Injuries Centre at Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Aylesbury.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, Stoke Mandeville Hospital is taking urgent action to ensure that the full complement of beds is open and that specialist nursing staff are in place to provide effective and safe care for those patients with a spinal cord injury. The trust has recruited an additional nine specialist nurses who will be working at the hospital shortly.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is good news about the nurses who were recruited when a private hospital was shut. However, is he aware that the spinal unit is a centre of excellence of international repute but that the swimming pool has been shut for over a year, the canteen that the patients use has also been shut for over a year, and that Jimmy Savile raised £10 million with the aid of volunteers? It is disgraceful that a centre of excellence should be treated so parochially by the hospital trust.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I acknowledge the excellence of the centre and indeed the interest which the noble Baroness has taken in that centre for many years. As regards the pool, my understanding is that it was found to be contaminated and therefore had to be closed. I am glad to note that Sir Jimmy Young has contributed—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, Sir Jimmy Savile has contributed £400,000 towards the refurbishment of the pool. We look forward to it opening. As regards the canteen facilities, my understanding is that both staff and the community health council were consulted on the changes and that the CHC representative on the working party offered no objection to that closure. Of course patients and visitors can access the catering facilities in other parts of Stoke Mandeville Hospital. As regards the support which the hospital gives to the centre, I stress that the hospital is enormously proud of having the centre in its midst. We believe that the hospital is giving the support that is required.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, is it not the case that, as the noble Baroness has said, this hospital is not only a major national centre but also has an outstanding international reputation for care of patients with spinal injuries and for research? Has the time not come when a mechanism must be found for protecting units of this nature which have a major national input by ring-fencing finance to insulate them from the vagaries of local trust financing?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly agree that a centre of this importance needs to be assured that it will have certainty of finance over a long period. That is why we have made the changes that we have to the previous government's internal market to introduce much more sensible arrangements for the commissioning of services. That commissioning of services rests both on the views of local health authorities and primary care groups as to the kind of specialist services that are required and on bringing together at a regional level the views of other health authorities so that a sensible approach can be reached. I am sure that that is the best way forward for such specialist centres.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage of the Health Act strong concerns were expressed about the move towards out-of-area treatments and their effect on specialist hospitals? What evaluation does the department plan to carry out on the implementation of the out-of-area treatment circular, and in particular on the impact on specialist hospitals, and when will such an evaluation be carried out?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, of course this is a matter that we keep under review. Regional offices of the NHS executive have a particular responsibility for ensuring that the operation of out-of-area treatment works effectively and for intervening when there are problems. However, it is worth making the point that we would expect the use of out-of-area treatments to be relatively small—about 10 per cent. of the number of extra-contractual referrals that we used prior to the reforms—because the commissioning of services in the future will be done on the basis of long-term agreements based on patient flows and the decisions of health authorities and primary care groups.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, while I applaud my noble friend's obviously genuine concern for the hospital's future, is it not deeply worrying by any standard that, recently, 11 out of 12 spinal patients seeking admission were turned away? Is not the main issue that, while the trust administering Stoke Mandeville has a regional focus, Stoke Mandeville itself is a national institution? Will my noble friend urgently look again at the proposition that there should be central funding and that Stoke Mandeville should be given independent management?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend for his enormous contribution to this centre over the years.
I am not convinced that ring fencing at a national level is necessarily the right way forward. Many of the problems that have arisen at the centre have been due to a shortage of speciality nurses. It is pleasing that nine new appointments have been made enabling most of the beds in that centre to come back into use. There is much to be gained from collaboration between local hospitals and such centres: services can be shared; the local hospital has the kudos and benefit of having such a centre in its midst; equally the centre has the support of the local hospital and all the services that it offers. As I said, the route through is by strong commissioning based on the views of health authorities and primary care groups as to what specialist services are needed, and an income flow which matches the future patient flow.
Earl Howe: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister said to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Walton, does he acknowledge that the management staff of Stoke Mandeville are experiencing a difficulty in the sense that, from their perspective, there is a lack of clarity and certainty in
162
the new system for commissioning specialist care as it relates to spinal injuries? Does he further acknowledge that there is a need for the Government to look with great care at this particular area of specialist commissioning?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is right that specialist commissioning is a particular focus of our attention—that is why there are specialist commissioning groups within each region of the English health service looking at the commissioning of services and producing guides and plans for the way forward over the next few years. Certainly in relation to the South East Region of the NHS Executive, spinal injuries are a particular focus of its endeavours at the moment. That work will be shared throughout other regions. I say again that the local trust in which the centre is situated recognises its crucial importance and is doing everything it can to support it. The successful efforts to recruit a further nine specialist nurses, which will enable most of the beds to be reopened, is a visible indication of that support.

Teachers' Pay: Remuneration by Results
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What advantages will arise from payments by results when remunerating teachers.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the Government's Green Paper, Teachers: meeting the challenge of change, proposed a major change in teachers' remuneration. This will not be crude payment by results but promotion related to excellence. We offer the prospect of higher pay for high-performing teachers. We want to realise the full potential of our schools, and recruit and motivate talented teachers, as part of our drive to raise standards in schools.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. Even in the circumstances she has just described, is she aware that the role of the teacher, while of great importance, is one aspect only of a child's learning process? Other aspects of that process are outside the control of the education system—for example, home circumstances and other aspects. Is she further aware that the teaching profession is largely opposed to what is being proposed and that to proceed with such an important matter without its full co-operation would be very unwise?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I agree fully with my noble friend that all kinds of factors affect the performance of children in schools, including their home circumstances. In the second part of his

163
plementary question he said that the teaching profession is opposed to these new changes. We believe that it is coming round to seeing the advantage of the Government's proposals. They will provide new opportunities for talented and successful teachers to earn considerably more than in the past. It is right to reward success. In doing so, it will contribute to better results in our schools, to better teaching and to higher performance by pupils.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, how many assessors will he needed to assess the teachers and headteachers who will go over the threshold? What will that cost and what will be the cost of the supporting bureaucracy? Would it not be better to put faith in professional headteachers and governors of schools to determine the performance of their staff?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government do put faith in headteachers and governors. Headteachers will play the crucial primary role in assessing which teachers should go over the threshold and earn considerably more. Headteachers will also be responsible—as they are now—for looking at the performance of those who have gone over the threshold. The Government think it right—and the teaching procession welcomes this—that some external assessors should be appointed to ensure comparability of standards between schools in what will be very substantial pay increases for those teachers who are successful.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I take the points wisely made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, but is it not the case that something has to be done in order to make the teaching profession more attractive to potential recruits of an enterprising disposition? Such people may be reluctant to step on a treadmill where the norms are seniority and "Buggins' turn".
I ask the House to note that for 50 years merit and distinction awards have been made in medicine to very good effect, not least in enabling medical schools to attract and retain the best of clinical teachers through handsome enlargements of salary.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. He is right to remind us that merit awards and various types of performance pay have been available in medicine and in a number of other professions. It is vital that we encourage the very best graduates from our universities and colleges to enter teaching. In order to do that, we have to make it absolutely clear that we will reward success; that those able graduates who enter the profession and do well
164
will be much better paid than under the previous system. A further matter which is relevant to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, is that we will also be appointing advanced school teachers, who will have the job of providing leadership in the classroom. That will allow us to keep able members of the profession in the classroom rather than recruiting them out into administrative positions.
Baroness David: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, there will be time for both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl to ask their questions.
Baroness David: My Lords, does this measure give classroom teachers an opportunity to earn substantially more?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in addition to the advanced skilled teachers I mentioned, there will be opportunities for the best classroom teachers to earn more than £35,000 a year. That is a very big increase. There will be no quota on threshold successes; funding will be available for every teacher who meets national threshold standards.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as a teacher—even if only in a university—I should declare an indirect interest in the Question. Is the Minister aware that many teachers believe that their duties are to their pupils as whole people, including their capacity for intellectual growth at later stages? Does the Minister agree that teachers may believe this duty conflicts with that of securing short-term exam results, and that payment by results, whether crude or sophisticated, risks being seen as contrary to their duty as they conceive it?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I really must knock on the head the myth that we are introducing payment by performance through crude examination results. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can assure the noble Earl that teachers will be assessed across a broad range of skills and that the progress of their pupils will be one of many elements that will be examined when assessing whether teachers deserve the very substantial increases that are on offer.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend mention comparability of standards? Will it be easier—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I apologise for intervening when my noble friend has risen to speak. However, I am in the hands of the House and I believe that we should move on.

The New Forest
3.10 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieuasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the event that the New Forest is designated as a national park, the New Forest Acts 1877, 1948, 1964 and 1970 will remain in force.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, national parks are designated by the Countryside Agency by means of an order made under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which is subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. A New Forest national park designated in this way, under secondary legislation, would not affect any local primary legislation and the New Forest Acts would remain in force.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, I should declare an interest in that I have lived in the New Forest all my life. Is the noble Baroness aware that the public reaction to the proposed national park status for the New Forest varies from apprehension to downright hostility? Is she further aware that public concerns turn mainly on the future status and funding of the Verderers Court and of commoning, which are two historic pillars of New Forest life? Can the Government give an undertaking that they will exercise as much flexibility as they can in their negotiations with local authorities and other organisations in order to provide the best possible protection for this unique part of England?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, all Members of your Lordships' House are aware that very strong views are held both in favour of new national park status and against it. National park designation requires that due regard must be given to both environmental heritage and cultural heritage. Within that context, the role, nature and function of the verderers is obviously of crucial importance in the case of the New Forest. I can certainly assure the noble Lord that the Countryside Agency will consult fully all those with concerns before making a recommendation on the order to the Secretary of State.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the New Forest is a very important and sensitive area and that over the years the Forestry Commission has managed the area and protected all the various interests, while providing controlled public access? Bearing that in mind, can the Minister tell us what advantages will arise from designating the forest as a national park?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the role of the Forestry Commission and its excellent track record over many years in sensitive management of the New Forest groundlands are recognised by all. We
166
want to ensure that the forest continues to benefit from the commission's experience and expertise. My noble friend has raised the question of the benefits of national park status. Quite obviously there was a need for a decision to be taken. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister believes that the process of re-evaluation under the role of the Countryside Agency is important and should begin now.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former verderer of the New Forest. Is the Minister aware that Section 33 of the 1877 Act set up the Court of Swainmote? That is the equivalent of a court of petty sessions. Will this important court be able to continue?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, has mentioned an extremely important aspect of the continuation of the role of the verderers in New Forest life. I feel confident in assuring him that it is part of the recognition of the role of cultural heritage in the area that those matters will be brought to the fore in any discussions and protected as a part of our cultural heritage.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on her response to an earlier question. What advantages will the national park be given that the New Forest does not already enjoy? Other noble Lords have stated that the forest works well now and has made a great contribution as one of our national assets. What advantages will come as a result of national park status? If the Government are still only at the consultation stage, should not that consultation be completed before any final decision is taken?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are acting in response to advice given from a remarkable range of interest groups. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, brought forward a Private Member's Bill in your Lordships' House, it was clear that many noble Lords held the view that now is the time for the process of national park designation to begin. I can recall contributions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. We believe that the security of funding and the full planning protections that will come with the status of national park, together with the full integration of the role of local communities, are important benefits that would accrue were my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to proceed with an order, following the due processes.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I declare an interest in that my family home has been in the New Forest for a long time. Perhaps I may say, first, that I very much welcome the decision of the Government to protect the forest from commercial exploitation. Secondly, does the noble Baroness agree that the general regulations that apply to national parks will

167
not always be appropriate for the New Forest? Will she bear that point in mind when drawing up the regulations for this somewhat unique national park, which has been a national park for nearly 1,000 years?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am certain that I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, the assurance that she seeks. The first and paramount duty of a national park is to take on responsibility for the protection, conservation and enhancement of the area it covers.

Civil Justice: Woolf Reforms
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirralasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the progress made since the introduction of the Woolf reforms to civil justice procedure six months ago.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I am heartened by the reports of good progress from right across the system since the new regime was instituted on 26th April. The object is to drive down cost and delay in court proceedings through firm judicial case management and to promote more settlements.
New time limits are being complied with under pre-action protocols. There is a greater exchange of information and documents earlier on. There has been a 35 per cent drop in new cases since 26th April. It is much too early to draw firm conclusions, but many more cases may be settling pre-court to avoid the disciplines of the new system. Litigation may be becoming the last, not the first, resort.
Fears that reforms would result in a deluge of appeals have been misplaced. There have been very few. These are early days, but it is looking good.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, I welcome the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I welcome too the positive way in which the Woolf reforms have been received right across the field of litigation, making it once again the last resort. Will the noble and learned Lord take this opportunity to welcome the code of best practice on rehabilitation endorsed by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers and also the Forum of Insurance Lawyers as being a model which will at last make the courts able to accept that the primary objective for the victim is rehabilitation? In that context, will he also give the courts power to order income settlements so that we can move away from out of date, often inappropriate lump-sum settlements towards greater security in the future for the victim?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord asked two supplementary questions. First, perhaps I may take this opportunity to welcome as a first-class initiative the new code on rehabilitation, to which the
168
noble Lord drew attention. It is highly progressive to put a duty on both solicitors—the solicitor for the claimant and the insurer's solicitor—to make an early assessment of how the quality of the victim's life can be improved by early intervention, medical treatment or rehabilitation. Appropriate medical treatment as early as possible as well as non-medical treatment--for example, psychotherapy, occupational therapy and counselling—can be critical to rehabilitation.
Secondly, the noble Lord asked about having income settlements in place of lump sum settlements. It is possible, in the context of structured settlements, for the court to make such orders today but subject to a limitation—only if the parties agree. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has called for the courts to have powers of their own motion to make awards of periodic payments in place of lump sum awards. Speaking for myself, I think that there is a very great deal to be said in favour of that. I shall be issuing a consultation paper shortly on settling the appropriate discount rate to be applied to lump sum payments and at the same time I shall be seeking views on whether the courts should be given powers of their own motion to order income settlements.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend share the concerns reportedly expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and by Sir Richard Scott that the court fees are so high with regard to small claims made by claimants that they may be deterred from using the scheme which my noble and learned friend himself has increased in importance by raising the limit to £5,000?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am fully familiar with and sympathise with the concerns that have been raised about the amount of the allocation fees in very small claims. I am actively considering this very issue on an urgent basis. I have to say, however, that it is in the context of a system which requires overall full cost recovery. The costs of the civil courts should be met by the parties who use them rather than fall on the taxpayer. Thus any reduction in allocation fees, for which I can particularly see strong justification in the case of small claims, will have to be dealt with through other fees. But, that said, I am looking sympathetically at the particular problem to which the noble Lord has called attention.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I declare an interest as a solicitor with three offices, all of which do legal aid and two of which are high street practices, and commend what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about the Woolf reforms and progress so far. Will the Government have particular regard to the difficulties faced by many small high street firms in trying to match the higher demands of the Woolf proposals against extremely high caseloads, bearing in mind that they are the only resort for most citizens, and the extremely modest levels of remuneration with which most of those firms have to contend?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we had all this out many times during the debates on the Access to Justice

169
Bill. However, I have to say that a principal benefit of the new reforms is that the state will support only lawyers who are quality assured and lawyers who have sufficient qualifications and expertise to undertake cases calling for these qualities.

House of Lords Bill
3.24 p.m.
[Interruption.]
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Exception from section 1]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("no more than").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is the amendment which we heralded at Report stage when we said that we were prepared to accept by-elections as the mechanism for filling vacancies among excepted Peers in the unlikely event that the transitional House lasts beyond the end of the first Session of the next Parliament. Time and again we have emphasised that the Bill itself is a transitional measure providing for a transitional House. That is why we have always believed that the so-called "fastest loser" system, provided for in the first Standing Order under Clause 2 and agreed by your Lordships' House on 26th July, remains the most sensible and the most flexible way of filling vacancies for the entire duration of the transitional House.
The transitional House will be of short duration, but let us proceed on the hypothetical assumptions that it might last for more than two or three years and that the "fastest loser" system might have outworn its effectiveness by that time. That being so, our amendment provides that after such time any vacancy due to the health of an elected excepted Peer should be filled by means of a by-election.
The amendment itself does not spell out what is to be the constituency for these by-elections. The detail is left to the Standing Order. However, for the sake of clarity and completeness, perhaps I may repeat what was said at Report stage. If a vacancy occurs among any of the 75 Peers elected by the respective parties and the Cross-Bench group, then the voters will be the excepted Peers in the relevant grouping. If the vacancy occurs among the 15 office holders, then the electorate will be the entire House. That reflects the constituencies in the initial elections to be held this week and next. But one thing is clear and is common to all constituencies; and that is that no hereditary Peer who has been excluded from the House at the end of this Session will have a vote. Such excepted Peers may stand but not vote and the electorate will be those who remain in the relevant grouping.
Your Lordships will see that we have also brought forward an amendment to provide a fixed number of 90 excepted Peers rather than a maximum of 90 as currently provided for in Clause 2(2). This is to address the concern that was raised by several noble Lords
170
opposite in Committee, that the language might permit fewer than 90 so that vacancies need not be filled. That was never the intention.
The Standing Orders make it plain that "vacancies shall be filled". The difficulty with making that plain on the face of the Bill arose because there could have been doubts about the validity of proceedings in the House if the number of excepted Peers fell temporarily below a number fixed in statute: for example, if for administrative reasons there were a gap in time before the vacancy was filled. However, now that we have a provision for by-elections, it is acceptable to have the fixed number of 90 in statute. That is because, although there may still be times when the number of excepted Peers falls below 90, as a result of this amendment it will be plain on the face of the Bill that just that state of affairs is contemplated and that it is possible for the number to drop below 90 perfectly lawfully while the procedure for filling vacancies contained in Standing Orders or the by-election procedure is completed.
So in bringing forward the by-elections amendment, the Government have honoured the commitment made on Report, as we have honoured all our commitments throughout the passage of the Bill. I am confident that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will welcome this amendment; it is one for which he himself previously argued. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset what a pleasure it is to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He always creates a slight frisson in the House, but perhaps not quite the one he expected this afternoon. These are two important and welcome amendments. They are a substantial step forward from the original drafting of the Bill. I thank the Government for the way in which they have responded positively to our pressure on this point.
The original wording in the Bill left it open to the suspicion that the number of excluded hereditary Peers might be allowed to decline below 90. I accept that that was not the intention and that fears over that point were largely technical. None the less, it is an important change to make.
Although important, the proposal is not nearly as significant as that in Amendment No. 6, to which the noble and learned Lord referred. Again, we discussed the matter in some detail on Report. The system that is proposed is not the most satisfactory, or indeed the most ideal. I myself might have wanted some of the details to be different. But I believe that it is one that will work and will command support on all Benches, including, I hope, this time the support of the Liberal Democrats.
The agreement of the Government to a by-election after the first three years or so of the duration of this legislation is notable and important. It is notable because the Government thereby accept the principle of a continuing representative hereditary peerage; and it is important because the Peers brought in will have

171
that extra authority and legitimacy which the Leader of the House herself said recently would come from their being elected by their peers. Indeed, they will be the only elected Peers in this House. So I welcome the Government's acceptance of the case that we have put and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition has raised a question regarding the Liberal Democrat view on this issue. We made it clear on Report that we were strongly opposed to the idea of by-elections. It creates all kinds of anomalies, including the fact that when one of the two elected Labour Peers dies, the other will have a personal and individual power to appoint the successor to that Peer. There are a number of other anomalies, but the matter was discussed at length on Report. We certainly do not support it, but we do not on this occasion intend to oppose it.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, perhaps I may ask for clarification. We have heard a great deal about the situation that would arise on the death of one of the 90 Peers. What would the situation be if one of those 90 Peers is unable to continue as a result of illness or difficult family or financial circumstances? Will that Peer be replaced?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, vacancies arise only on death.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("anyone") and insert ("those peers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to refer first to my Amendment No. 3, I respect the fact that Members of this House may have had the opportunity to read and consider the report of the Committee for Privileges and its findings on the Treaty of Union 1707. Its influence on House of Lords reform is obvious. No matter what may have been the opinion of individual Peers, I would argue that Amendment No. 3, and Amendment No. 4 relating to the Privy Council, have a common bond. Both the Officers of State and the Privy Counsellors are the monarch's representatives. They bear that honour and responsibility either by succession or by personal choice of our current monarch, Her Majesty the Queen.
One would be naïve to believe that Privy Counsellors, 28 of whom are hereditary Peers, would have achieved that title without the positive recommendation of Her Majesty's Government, whichever government it may have been, who select the names for that esteemed position, which is held by Letters Patent. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are quite separate from Amendment No. 4. Perhaps I may speak briefly to the first two.
172
We have been advised that the inclusion of this provision in the Bill would make it hybrid. I do not know whether the Minister will confirm that. As the House reached a judgment on that issue last week, it would seem to us a mistake knowingly to attempt to import hybridity into the Bill—that being despite the fact that the Grand Offices of State of Scotland could certainly bring a speech out of me if your Lordships particularly wished it. But probably your Lordships do not, so I shall leave the matter and turn to Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 4 invites the Government to consider the inclusion of all the current members of the Privy Council who are hereditary Peers and have not been "caught" by other measures taken in the Bill. Membership of the Privy Council is a high and singular honour. I say that with some feeling, being a member myself. Fortunately, I am a life Peer, so I do not fall into this category. There are, however, a number of distinguished noble Lords who are members of the Privy Council and who have either decided not to stand for election or are doing so and, as is possible, may not be elected. For example, a group of former Leaders of the House fall into that category. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, my noble friends Lord Jellicoe, Lord Cranborne and Lord Belstead are all members of that group. My noble friends Lord Denham and Lord Ferrers are two hereditary Peers who have given long and distinguished service to the House. They are Privy Counsellors who would, so to speak, fall by the wayside if they were not to be elected by their colleagues. My noble friend Lord Carrington is a distinguished former Foreign Secretary. He will not be a Member of this House. He will be the only former Foreign Secretary who will not be a Member of one or other of the Houses of Parliament. It is perhaps even more ironic that my noble friend is a former Secretary-General of NATO and will leave this House almost at the same time as Mr George Robertson is appointed Secretary-General of NATO and the Government have felt it important to send him to your Lordships' House. I would have thought that what is sauce for the Robertson goose is sauce for the Carrington gander. Perhaps the Government will look seriously and sympathetically at this issue.
I have not mentioned all the members of the Privy Council, but that does not mean to say that I do not believe they have a good case for retaining membership of your Lordships' House having been given that honour by Her Majesty. In particular, those whom I have underlined illustrate the force of the case for special consideration to be given to this particular group.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, these amendments fall into two parts. First, they seek to reserve a place in the transitional House for the Lord High Constable of Scotland, this time accompanied by three of his fellow Great Officers of the Royal Household. Secondly, they seek to preserve a place for any hereditary Peer who is also a Privy Counsellor. I believe that the second of the

173
two proposals would affect 20 individuals, not including hereditary Peers of first creation who will be offered a life peerage, hereditary Peers who are also life Peers or members of the Royal Family.
As quickly as possible, I shall deal first with the Scottish office-holders. As my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn made plain in reply to the earlier attempt by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, to save the Lord High Constable of Scotland, the reason why the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain are excepted in Clause 2 is that both have ceremonial functions in relation to your Lordships' House. They are responsible for the conduct of royal affairs in the Palace of Westminster, for such ceremonies as the State Opening of Parliament and the Coronation. That is why it is proposed that they should retain their places here.
As my noble and learned friend also made perfectly clear, the role and functions of the office of the Lord High Constable of Scotland have nothing whatsoever to do with Parliament. The same is true of the other office-holders named in the amendment. The principal role of the Lord High Constable of Scotland is to ensure the personal protection of the sovereign north of the Border. The role of the Bearer of the Royal Banner is to carry the Royal Banner in the army of Scotland, that of the Bearer of the National Flag of Scotland is to bear the royal insignia in Scotland and so on. I suggest to your Lordships that it is wholly inappropriate to consider allowing those officeholders to remain, given that their offices have nothing whatsoever to do with the work of your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has touched on one last point. The House authorities have indeed advised the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that the inclusion of the Scottish hereditary office-holders would make the Bill hybrid because
"[the traditional office-holders] do not constitute a class that is germane to the Bill. Accordingly, this amendment would affect the private interests of some hereditary Peers differently from the private interests of other hereditary Peers".
We went into the issue of hybridity in some detail last Wednesday when we debated the Motions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, to refer the Bill to the Examiners. It was clear from that debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, rightly said, that your Lordships' House had no desire that the Bill should be hybrid; nor, we were assured, any desire to invoke the procedure to deal with hybridity merely for the sake of delaying the passage of the Bill. I hope that none of these arguments has lost any force since last week.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to intervene. I understood from the debate on
174
hybridity that there were no private interests, only public duty, involved in this matter. Therefore, that argument can hardly be used.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I understood it, the point which was made in debate was that the last thing your Lordships' House wanted was that the Bill should become hybrid.
The second part of this amendment enables hereditary peers who are Privy Counsellors to remain Members of the transitional House. I accept that your Lordships' House benefits from the accumulated knowledge, wisdom and experience of the Privy Counsellors among its number, whether or not they are hereditary Peers. It would be invidious to name names, and I do not intend to do so. However, I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and those who support his amendments of the one and only purpose of this Bill, which is to remove the hereditary principle as the basis for membership of your Lordships' House. It does this regardless of the individual merits of those who happen to be hereditary Peers. The Government have always made it clear that they value the contributions of hereditary Peers and the 75 to be elected by their fellow hereditary Peers, but they are the only hereditary Peers, together with the 15 office-holders and two hereditary office-holders, who will be elected by the whole House and will remain.
There is nothing to stop a Privy Counsellor standing for election to become an excepted Peer, and I am heartened to see that a considerable number have put their names forward for election. But for our part we have no intention of accepting any additional provision over and above the agreed number enshrined in Clause 2 as presently drafted. In those circumstances, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, not to pursue his amendments any further. To do so would be a clear breach of the agreement and would make the Bill hybrid.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord. I disagree with his observations and those of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. This House voted on the hybridity of Clause 1. If noble Lords read, as I am sure they have, what I said following the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, they will understand that I did not make reference to Clause 1 on which the House divided. Having corrected the noble and learned Lord—the need to do so is most unusual—I ask the House to remember that when it divided on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that the matter dealing with the 1707 Act should go to the Committee for Privileges, 275 noble Lords supported him. I hope that that number will do exactly the same today.
These amendments are not inappropriate at this late stage in so far as they add to the list of excepted holders of great Scottish offices. I take into account the words of the noble and learned Lord. This corrects an apparent drafting oversight which, unless remedied,

175
devalues Scotland's place in the Union. We are concerned here with the United Kingdom despite devolution.
My third amendment goes on to except Peers who are members of the Privy Council because, by parity of reasoning, that particular batch of personal experience and distinction should receive the same recognition.
Obviously, I shall not divide the House on Amendment No. 2, but I wish to have the opinion of the House on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 10, after ("Marshal,") insert ("Lord High Constable of Scotland, Master of the Queen's Household in Scotland, Bearer of the Royal Banner of Scotland, or Bearer of the National Flag of Scotland,").
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the. Not-Contents have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 11, after ("Chamberlain,") insert ("or as a member of the Privy Council,").
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the Question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the Not-Contents have it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 13, after ("shall") insert ("have t he right to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, the first point to emphasise is that it is only an enabling amendment. It does not oblige this Government or any future government of any political complexion to do anything they do not wish to do. However, should a future government wish to alter the rules so as to permit the Weatherill Peers who are no longer able for whatever reason to attend on a regular basis to retire and be replaced by other hereditary Peers, probably by means of by-elections, the Procedure Committee would be able to put that into effect, provided the amendment is agreed to, without the need for new primary legislation. I cannot believe that many people would look forward to the prospect of another House of Lords Bill.
The Government will doubtless argue that this is academic since stage two will come into effect in about two years' time. I do not doubt the Government's sincerity in saying this. However, Harold Macmillan has been quoted at least a hundred times in the past 12 months and I do so once again: It is "Events, dear boy,
176
events", that upset the best laid plans of women and men. I think that the Government must recognise this in their hearts. On "Despatch Box" on BBC 2 in the early hours of 22nd October, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, was asked by the interviewer when stage two would come into effect. The noble Lord replied—I am sure I took his words down correctly—"Within a few years, at the very most". I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on the skilful way in which he hedged the Government's bets.
The longer stage one drags on the more likely it is that a significant proportion of the Weatherill 90 will become less active or even totally inactive. This applies especially to the Deputy Speakers, who need plenty of stamina. Those who, unhappily, die will of course be replaced in accordance with the formula which has already been agreed upon. But those who merely become incapacitated will not be replaced as the Bill stands.
Let us take the example of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, whose death most of us were extremely sorry to read about a week or so ago. He used to be an extremely active Peer on the Liberal Benches. I remember this well as he was often helpful and supportive of me on various amendments that I moved in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Indeed, he once backed a Private Member's Bill of mine. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, attended the House on 120 occasions in the 1985–86 Session; on 116 days in the 1987–88 Session; and indeed on 119 days as recently as the 1992–93 Session. But in the last four years of his life he was able to attend only on five days in four years. And that is not an isolated instance. Your Lordships can think of many similar examples of distinguished people whom it would perhaps be unseemly to name at this moment. Not everyone is blessed with the health and vigour of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, or the late Douglas Houghton.
Nor is it simply a matter of advanced age. People can be struck by accident or severe illness at any age. Alternatively, they may be obliged to move house a long way from London, possibly abroad, for the sake of their wives' or husbands' health. Again, younger Peers may be offered the chance of a lifetime to go abroad to work in Singapore, Sydney or San Francisco for five-years or more. No one can afford to turn down the chance of such a valuable career move in the competitive age in which we live.
The Scottish and Irish representative Peers with whom the Weatherill 90 were frequently compared at earlier stages by both the Government and Conservative Front Bench were, I understand, elected for five-year terms. So, in effect, are honourable Members in another place. If they feel no longer up to the job, they have the option of standing down at the next election. They even have the option of applying for the Chiltern Hundreds in between elections.
This modest amendment would allow the same humane principle to be applied to the representative Weatherill 90. I would also contend that it is fully in the spirit of the Weatherill agreement.
The leader of the Conservative Party, Mr William Hague, recently called for more common sense in Government and in our affairs generally. This is a common sense amendment. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will support it. I beg to move.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand and to some degree sympathise with the points put by the noble Lord. Certainly if Parliament wishes to keep in its counsels 92 hereditary Peers it would be unfortunate if that effective number were lower because of infirmity.
On the other hand, that has always been the way of this House. It is the way with the hereditary peerage. It is the way with the life peerage also. There are some among our number, always at any time, who are not able to be with us as often as they would wish on ground of infirmity. We do not require their replacement and we accept that as part of the way of this House.
Having carefully thought through what the noble Lord said, and knowing that this amendment would arise this afternoon, I believe that we should therefore treat the Weatherill Peers in the same way as we treat all other Peers in this House. They are representative Peers. But they are also hereditary Peers; and the whole essence of hereditary peerage is that, except in the exceptional circumstances of a renunciation shortly after inheritance, it is held for life. Even where a peerage is renounced no one else can take that place so long as the one who has renounced it lives.
There are many these days who decry the hereditary principle, but I do not. It is the way of family inheritance, of property, of the passing of hereditary titles, and of course of the monarchy itself. I do not think that we should muddy or change that. For that reason, I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I cannot support his amendment.
Lord ColeraineMy Lords, I have listened with respect to the retrospective constitutional view of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. However, I believe that in a reformed House it will not be practical to fail to permit Peers—life Peers—to renounce their peerages. This will follow essentially from the political nature of the new House and the importance of maintaining a political balance. I am, therefore, pleased to say that I would go along very strongly with the feelings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, arguing the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the excepted Peers should be treated in no way differently from any other Member of the House, as is proposed by this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, no Member of your Lordship's House has the right to relinquish his or her membership. That is the current position and will remain the position in the transitional House.
There is no reason why excepted Peers should be any older, any more sickly, or any less able to attend your Lordships' House than life Peers. Indeed, it could be
178
argued that they may well be younger, healthier, keener and more active than any of the rest of us, as no doubt these are some of the criteria that will apply and carry weight with the Weatherill electorate.
The terms of Clause 2 are perfectly clear in this matter. Subsection (3) states:
"Once excepted from section 1, a person shall continue to be so throughout his life (until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary)".
That means that once a hereditary Peer has been excepted under the elections to be held this week and next, his or her continuing membership of your Lordships' House may only be ended due to death or to stage two of reform. This accurately reflects the compromise agreement reached between the parties and encapsulated in the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and others and overwhelmingly endorsed by your Lordships' House as a whole. I do not think that there can be any question of altering the terms of that agreement.
I should make one matter clear. In the unlikely event that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, were to find favour with your Lordships' House, unless the Standing Orders also agreed by your Lordships' House were changed, it opens up the possibility of the number of excepted Peers being allowed to dwindle below 90. As your Lordships' House may recall, Standing Orders under Clause 2 currently reflect the agreed policy that vacancies should be filled due only to death, not retirement or any other reason.
We have had a fair amount of debate at earlier stages of the Bill about the possibility of a retirement age. I do not believe that it is worthwhile to go back over those debates now. We have made it plain that this Bill is a single purpose Bill to end, and now to restrict, membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage. There is no intention on our part to change any aspects of the terms, conditions and other arrangements of your Lordships' House. These may all be matters for stage two, but we are not here to decide them now.
In all the circumstances, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for his solitary support.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has missed the point. With 751 hereditary Peers, it does not matter too much if a few, through no fault of their own, drop out and become inactive. There are plenty more where they came from, so to speak. However, it is extremely important where there are only 90. Every diminution in numbers has an effect.
As regards the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, it is right to say that Standing Orders would have to be changed. That is a point that I believe I tried to make at the beginning of my speech. I am sorry if I did not make it with sufficient clarity. Of course they would have to be changed. There would have to be a belt and braces

179
arrangement to ensure that nothing could happen without the consent of the Procedure Committee, which is absolutely as it should be.
For obvious reasons, I am not privy to the Government's innermost secrets, but I assume that they held one of two attitudes to the Cranborne and Weatherill amendment. The first is, "We do not like the idea that 90 active hereditary Peers should remain in this House, but we agreed in order to get the Bill through and will therefore abide both by the letter and by the spirit of the agreement". The alternative attitude was, "We do not like the idea of 90 active hereditary Peers remaining in this House, but we are obliged to stick by the letter of the agreement. However, the spirit is expendable. If there is any loophole via which the agreement could be effectively watered down so as to reduce the number of active hereditary Peers, we will exploit it to the full". Sadly, it seems that the Government have opted for the second alternative.
If I had had more support, I would have divided the House without hesitation. As I have not had such support, unless other noble Lords indicate otherwise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) Standing Orders shall make provision for filling vacancies among the people excepted from section 1; and in any case where—

(a) the vacancy arises on a death occurring after the end of the first Session of the next Parliament after that in which this Act is passed, and

(b) the deceased person was excepted in consequence of an election.

that provision shall require the holding of a by-election.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

House of Lords Bill

  EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 1: NON-VOTING PEERS
  (" .—(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of section 2, section 1 shall not apply in relation to 90 people who are holders by succession of a hereditary peerage and who satisfy the condition set out in subsection (2), who shall be entitled to receive a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords in accordance with this section and by or in accordance with Standing Orders of the House, which may be made in anticipation of the enactment or commencement of this section.
  (2) The condition referred to in subsection (1) is that such person had received a writ of summons at any time before the day on which this Act is passed.
  (3) Any question whether a person is entitled to receive a writ of summons in accordance with this section shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments., whose certificate shall be conclusive.
  (4) A person entitled to receive a writ of summons in accordance with this section shall not be qualified to vote—

  (a) on any question to be determined by the House or by any Committee of the whole House; or

  (b) subject to subsection (5), as a member of any other committee of the House appointed to consider any Bill, Measure or instrument.

  (5) Standing Orders of the House may provide that a peer entitled to receive a writ in accordance with this section shall be qualified to vote in any such committee as is referred to in subsection (4)(b) in such circumstances as Standing Orders may prescribe.
  (6) In this section "vote" means to give voice upon question put or take part in a division.
  (7) A peer entitled to receive a writ of summons by virtue of this section shall continue to be so entitled throughout his life (until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary); and in the event of the death or disqualification of such a peer no vacancy shall arise.
  (8) Nothing in this section affects the validity of proceedings of the House of Lords or of any committee of that House conducted before this section is commenced or before provision is made by virtue of it for the exception of peers from section 1.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment would permit 90 hereditary Peers to remain in or, perhaps I should say, return to this House as speaking Peers. We have discussed the merits and demerits of speaking Peers on many previous occasions. I do not propose to go over that old ground; nor do I propose to dwell at length on Amendment No. 58 which I moved on Report on 30th June (col. 378) and for which this amendment largely stands. On that occasion I moved a similar amendment. However, I provided in the amendment that the 90 Peers should be divided between political groups. Because that amendment would make the Bill hybrid, I did not press it. It therefore does not fall to me to make any strong suggestions to the House as to how the 90 should be divided or elected. That would have to be left to the House itself on the advice of the Procedure Committee.
  Having considered the debate in June, I have looked again at my amendment and made certain adjustments to it. The first is that the right to come in as one of the speaking Peers would be limited to those who, as stated in subsection (2),
  "had received a writ of summons at any time before the day on which this Act is passed",
  whenever that may be.
  In subsection (4) I have provided that hereditary Peers who had speaking rights could also, Standing Orders provided, vote in Select Committees and the like (off the Floor of the House) to which they happen to be appointed.
  Finally, in subsection (7), I have made it clear that this is intended to be a one-off arrangement and that the death of any Peer who remains in or comes back to this House will not generate further returns or by-elections.
  When the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied to the debate, it was quite clear that the Government could not accept the amendment because they did not, under any circumstances, want any further representatives of the ancien régime in this House. He said:
  "It is right to say that after all this time we have decided very few things. We have decided two at least: first, that this House does not wish to see a two-Writ system".
  That question has not been decided. A two-Writ amendment allowing all hereditary Peers to remain was, I believe, rejected or withdrawn at an earlier stage. This amendment bears no resemblance to that amendment. The noble and learned Lord went on,
  "secondly, that the House does not wish to alter the numbers in Clause 2" [Official Report, 30/6/99; col. 382.]
  This clause stands entirely apart from Clause. 2 and would have no possible relationship to the Weatherill amendment. I suggest that it should be considered on its merits. I beg to move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, as I understand the amendment, it has two elements, as has been underlined by the noble Lord who has just spoken. The first is that there should be an extra 90 hereditary Peers as part of the transitional House. The second is that those extra 90 hereditary Peers should have the right to speak but not the right to vote. Both of those elements have been considered almost ad nauseam in the course of the passage of the Bill.
  As far as concerns the first element, I had thought that the House had made it perfectly clear that while it was prepared to accept an extra 90 hereditary Peers in the transition, it was not prepared to go beyond 90. That is certainly my position, and I suspect that it is the position of many of those who sit on these Benches.
  As regards the issue of speaking but non-voting Peers, my recollection is that this was first raised at the very first Committee sitting on this Bill. The question that this would be a desirable importation into the Bill has been raised on every single occasion since then, and on each of those occasions it has been defeated. At this stage in the Bill's passage, I firmly believe that we should not revert to two fundamental issues which have been discussed a great deal and upon which the House has already made a decision.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I very much admire the careful thought that my noble friend Lord Coleraine has given to this amendment. I deprecate the Government's habit of saying that this or that amendment has come too late. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has again suggested that we have debated this in full in the past. Perhaps we have. However, it is never too late for your Lordships to improve a Bill. Therefore, I will not follow the line that has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Richard.
  My difficulty with this amendment is rather more fundamental. Although the concept of non-voting Peers is one that found favour with your Lordships in 1968, it is not one which is, rightly or wrongly, on the table today. I understand that it would need quite a shift in government thinking for it to be taken on board, and I have difficulties with it in any case.
  I have always been opposed to the idea of two categories of Peer. As I said only last week, this is a poison that the Government have injected into this House by this Bill. But in creating a class of non-voting Peers, we would be including in our number a class of second-class Peers. I suggest that that would be
  182
  demeaning to them and unhelpful to the House. Are we to listen to protracted debates while those who have no vote feel compelled to express their opinion in voice? I do not believe that that is a way forward.
  It may be argued that this is a way to keep available to us the advice of some people who this House would always want to hear but who we might otherwise lose because they are hereditary Peers. If we want to keep the wisdom of hereditary Peers among us, let us keep them as full Members of our House, as the Bill now provides—albeit, not enough—and not propose the kind of half life which will over time prove unsatisfactory to all.
  Although I admire my noble friend for bringing the amendment to us one more time, I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot support it or commend it to the House.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the purpose of the new clause is to provide for a further 90 non-voting hereditary Peers to be retained. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for going to some lengths to correct the technical faults in his previous approach during earlier stages of the Bill.
  I am afraid we have to disappoint him by saying that we still do not accept either the underlying principle or the arguments which he has adduced. I shall deal first with the principle. Our manifesto commitment was to remove the right of hereditary Peers to sit as well as to vote. We have agreed to a modest transitional measure in respect of the Weatherill Peers. That, however, is as far as we are prepared to go. Our commitment to the principle of ending the right to a privileged access to this House by reason of birth is not dimmed, and it applies to those who may not vote as much as to those who may.
  As has been pointed out in our earlier debates, on most normal Bills votes are taken comparatively rarely. Indeed, even on this Bill, despite the many days we have spent discussing it, we have had comparatively few Divisions. If that is not a Chief Whip tempting providence, I do not know what is! They happen to have included the issue of whether a two-Writ system would be desirable and the number of hereditary Peers who should be excepted from the effect of the Bill. But this proposal would give a further 90 hereditary Peers a privileged right to have a voice heard; a privileged right to hold Ministers to account; and a privileged right to examine witnesses before a Select Committee.
  The noble Lord says that he wants a bank of expertise to be available to the House from those who could contribute, but do not have the time or the stamina to make a full-time commitment. Is he proposing any way of ensuring that the Peers he desires to fulfil his proposals are actually the ones who do so? What is to prevent Peers turning up to speak on subjects on which they are not experts? There is ample experience, both inside and outside the House, among the life Peers.
  The noble Lord's proposal cannot be entirely to do with numbers. I recall at an earlier stage that he did not think the House could function properly without the

  183
  help of the hereditary Peers, because something over 500 life Peers would not be enough. How would 90 who are only intended to be part-time and experts, and non-voting, help with that?
  Moreover, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, pointed out at an earlier stage, would such a proposal not spoil the free and frank way in which all Members of this House are given equal attention? There were also doubts expressed in our earlier debates, which I think are justified, about the wisdom in a parliamentary Chamber of giving anyone the right to speak without also giving him the responsibility to decide.
  To summarise, two-Writ systems are not acceptable to the Government. Changes to the number of excepted hereditary Peers are not acceptable to the Government. If the noble Lord is, after all, minded to put his amendment to the vote, I hope that the House will join us in voting against it.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am going to vote straight; in other words, vote obsequiously. But I cannot sit here and have it assumed that there is something in Labour principles which is against the idea of some Peers coming here and speaking but not voting.
  I was meaning to go back to Keir Hardie or to 1960 when the Labour Party—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. We are at Third Reading and the only person who should speak after the Minister is the person who moved the amendment, unless there is a particular question of fact which the noble Earl wishes to put to me.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not know about the relevance of that, but I am sure that it was! I thought I was docile but I am not servile. The noble Lord needs a lot of refreshing to cope with me! Thirty years ago this House—Labour leaders, leaders of all parties and everyone—accepted the principle of some hereditary Peers coming here and speaking and not voting. No question of principle was involved; it was accepted by the Labour leaders long before some of the younger fellows here were born.
  Now I am docile so I shall put it straight because I am instructed to: I cannot accept the idea that there is something wrong in principle with the notion of two kinds of Peer.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am more than grateful for the entirely factual intervention of the noble Earl. I shall not spend much time replying to the Government Front Bench. However, I want to say to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde that I am sorry that the wind has changed as far as he is concerned. I detect that perhaps he has been speaking with my noble friend Lord Cranborne or reading earlier debates in which he spoke. The noble Viscount first suggested that a nonvoting Peer was a second-class Peer. If that were the case, I should be happy to be a second-class Peer, but
  184
  I am not given that opportunity. For one reason or another, I do not think that this is an opportune moment to test the feeling of the House on such an amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 8:
  After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

  NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF LORDS
  (" . The maximum number of persons entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House is 750.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lord, Amendment No. 8 seeks to place a limit of 750 on the size of your Lordships' House. Those of your Lordships who have had a chance to glance at the manifesto of the Labour Party and the Government's White Paper on reforming your Lordships' House will be aware that distinct principles underlie the plans for the composition of your Lordships' House at stages one and two.
  For the composition of the House at stage one, the principle will be that each time there is a general election there will be an adjustment in the number of life Peers to reflect the overall result. The principle for the transitional House is that there will be broad parity between the Government and the main opposition party, with proportional increases for the other parties and a substantial representation by the Cross-Benchers.
  Today we are considering the transitional House, but I cannot resist saying, in passing, that the plans for the House at stage two, if they reflect what is said in the Labour Party's manifesto, are seriously flawed. I say that for two reasons. First, if we have to adjust the number of life Peers each time there is a general election in order to reflect the result of that election, your Lordships' House will grow in size exponentially. Very soon its membership will exceed 1,000 and more.
  Secondly, if the composition of your Lordships' House reflects the composition of another place, if this House is a photograph of another place, what control will your Lordships' House be able to exercise on that other place? Therefore, I hope that between now and the time when the Government consider their plans for stage two they will reflect on the principles set out in their manifesto and reconsider the position.
  As regards the composition of the transitional House, the principle of broad parity has been made crystal clear by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal both in Committee and at Report stage. Perhaps I may draw your Lordships' attention, first, to the Hansard report of 11th May 1999. The noble Baroness said, somewhat late in the evening:
  "Let us say that we have agreed that x will be the number"—
  that is, the total number of Members of your Lordships' House. She continued:
  "Within x, the Government will merely seek to ensure that there is almost precise parity with the official Opposition. That is a guarantee of the overall ceiling, which is rather clear, on the size of the House". —[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1194.]
  Just before that, the noble Baroness elucidated the meaning of the expression "Official Opposition", by saying:
  "There is only one Official Opposition party in this Chamber at any one time. But if the government of the day—that is, the Labour Party—are to have broad parity with the Official Opposition, that means parity with the Conservative Party".— [Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1191.]
  Just over a month and a half later, on Report on 30th June, the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal again addressed her mind to this particular matter. The noble Baroness quoted paragraph 7 on page 32 of the Government's White Paper, Reforming the House of Lords, which stated:
  "We set out in our manifesto the broad principle which we believe should govern the appointment of life peers but our present intention is to move towards broad parity between Labour and the Conservatives. The principle of broad parity and proportionate creations from the Liberal Democrat and other parties would be maintained throughout the transitional period".—[Official Report, 30/6/99; col. 347.]
  It is my submission that nothing could be clearer than those statements about where the Government stand on the situation which will be maintained throughout the life of your Lordships' House in its transitional stage.
  The noble Baroness also hazarded on Report a view of what the total number would be that would properly reflect those principles in the event that—I should qualify myself—the Weatherill amendment were to pass and become law. The noble Baroness estimated that the size of your Lordships' House would be in the order of 700 Members.
  Your Lordships will no doubt be pleased to hear that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have made their own calculations. Taking into account the Weatherill amendment and applying to it the principles of parity between the Government and the Official Opposition party, proportionate increases for the Liberals, and a substantial representation for the Cross-Benchers, we believe that the figure that will be arrived at will be somewhere between 715 and 720 Members.
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: Too many.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, says "Too many". That, I believe, is a matter which he might take up with someone he knows very well on his own Front Bench.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, that will leave the Government some 30 to 35 spaces to fill in the way that they believe appropriate within the rules that they themselves have imposed upon themselves. The noble Baroness also said on Report that she felt that that number was adequate to meet the various tasks that the transitional House would face throughout its life, however long or short that may be.
  186
  I am well aware that when the noble and learned Lord comes to reply, he may well say to me, "What is all the fuss about, then? The principles are clear: the number is going to be something over 710. Why do we need a fixed number in the Act at all?"
  My answer to that question is in two parts. First, we do not yet know—and indeed cannot yet know—how long the transitional phase will take. We hear optimistic estimates from the Government of two or three years. But let us suppose that the transitional phase lasts five, 10, 15, or even 20 years. What weight will undertakings given in Committee and in the Report stage of the Bill as it goes through your Lordships' House carry 10, 15, or 20 years later with the government of the day?
  Let us suppose that the government of the day find that your Lordships' House, with a composition consistent with the principles of broad parity, does not like a Bill that is served up to them by the other place. Let us suppose that your Lordships' House is obstinate. Fifteen or 20 years later a government might well say, "We are going to change the rules", which they can do unless there is an overall cap on the size of the House.
  Secondly, the Government have expressed themselves to be quite determined in their intention to move to stage two. Many pundits talk about the shape of the House in stage two. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, say that about 700 would be too many. Many believe that the second Chamber should have fewer Members than another place. Many also believe that your Lordships' House should have a substantial number of elected Members.
  If that is to be the case, the number of life Peers likely to survive at stage two could be no more than 200, 250 or perhaps 300—we cannot be sure. However, one thing of which we can be sure is that the larger the transitional House grows, the fewer life Peers will survive to serve in the stage two House.
  Therefore, the larger the transitional House grows, the bigger the problem facing the government who seek to shift your Lordships from stage one to stage two. I wonder whether, in the course of those debates, the voices in your Lordships' House will demonstrate the graceful self-restraint which the voices of noble Lords have demonstrated throughout the debate on this Bill.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, as I believe the House is aware, the procedures for Third Reading in this place differ from those in another place. There are times—I must admit that this is one—when I believe that the other place has it right. In the other place, there are no amendments on Third Reading. The whole Bill is revisited, much of it having been dealt with on Second Reading, if the Bill is considered in its entirety with further amendments. I have felt for some time that it is a change in our procedure which at some stage should be properly considered.

  187
  Certainly I reflected on that matter today when I looked at the amendments, most of which, although they were not repetitive, could easily have been proposed at an earlier stage of the Bill. Most of the ground is familiar to those of us who have sat through many days of debate over a period now of some six months. There is always an argument for some sensible tidying up at this stage, and I certainly should not complain about that. I do not complain about the government amendments in that respect. However, it was very much in the spirit of our view about how Third Reading should be treated that my noble friend Lord Goodhart made it clear that we did not intend to vote on the previous amendment. Indeed, it is not our intention to vote in favour of any of the amendments before the House today.
  The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, chose not to move the amendment standing in his name. It would have been very bold of him to do so because he remembers our fourth day in Committee, as do I and as does the House. On that occasion the noble Lord moved an amendment to the effect that a figure of 615 Peers should be written into the Bill, being roughly the figure that the Government would need. However, again as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will recall, in his very engaging way, 45 minutes later he said,
  "I surrender; I do not pretend that the figures were entirely correct".—[Official Report, 11/5/99; col. 1192.]
  Therefore, when I say that the noble Lord is bold, it is in allowing this amendment to stand and in allowing the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to propose it.
  I draw attention to one other occasion in the course of our earlier debates. That was during a debate on Report on 2nd June. Then, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House confirmed our understanding of the object of broad parity between the two largest parties in your Lordships' House and proportionate creations for the Liberal Democrats and for other parties. The meaning of "proportionate" is as set out in the Government's White Paper in relation to votes cast at the previous election.
  Because I, too, may get my sums wrong, I am reluctant to embark upon a detailed study of the figures, about which there must be still some doubt until our four little elections have taken place. However, it appears likely that when the Bill reaches the statute book about 665 Peers will be entitled to sit. But at that stage there would be no broad parity between the Labour Benches and the Conservative Opposition. In accordance with paragraph 7 of Chapter 6 of the White Paper and the view expressed in this House—a view not opposed from the Conservative Benches—it will be entirely in order for the Government to make additional creations to make up the number. I would put that figure at about 40, but the figure might differ by five or six either way. At the same time, it would be appropriate to make proportionate creations, again in keeping with the plain undertaking that the Government have given openly.
  If we had broad parity and proportionate creations, my estimate would then be that the number of Peers entitled to sit in your Lordships' House would rise from 665 to about 740. The significance of that figure
  188
  is that there will be, either between the passage of this Bill and the end of this Parliament or the passage of this Bill and the next stage, vacancies for 10 additional Peers. Again, there would have to be broad parity and again there would have to be proportionate creations. In that case, there would be room for about four new additional Conservative Peers between now and an unknown date.
  Some good working Peers will lose in the ballot. What about them? There will be former Cabinet Ministers knocking at the door. What about them? There will be men and women who have contributed generously to party funds. What about them? However, I put it to noble Lords on the Opposition Benches that, with only four additional Peers at their disposal, they will not have much scope between the passage of this Bill and the next stage. It is a sobering thought. It is not for me to give advice to those on the Conservative Benches, but I should be extremely cautious indeed in tabling such an amendment unless a figure had been agreed in advance with Ministers and with the Liberal Democrats. If it had been an agreed figure, they could then have decided whether it should be 750, 775 or 800—think of a number and write it into an amendment.
  It is ironic that the Conservative Party, which year after year has been content with a House of nearly 1,300 Peers, should suddenly feel that there must be a cap, and a cap of only 750. It is a very odd way to proceed. I should like to know the logic in it.
  Of course, I agree that with a figure of 750 there would be too many Peers. I said that on a previous occasion. If the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was not listening at that time, he can read what I said in Hansard. A House of 750 would be much too big for the long term. Indeed, I have mentioned a House of perhaps 300 to 400. However, we need to see how the transitional interim House works: whether the Members who are now sitting on these Benches and will still be here in a few months' time will be active working Peers; whether it may be necessary to supplement them; or whether it will be possible to reduce the numbers. We do not know. To Conservative Peers and to all your Lordships sitting here today—there are many faces that we have not often seen before and I am very glad to welcome them—I say respectfully that they should think very carefully and do the sums for themselves, because they may be excluding the possibility that they themselves will be sitting here again after this Bill has passed.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on Report my noble friend Lord Stanley and I also moved an amendment on the question of numbers. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was right to draw attention to the difficulty in deciding what the numbers should be. It was precisely for that reason, after discussion on the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley, and myself, that I wrote to my noble friend Lord Kingsland on the Front Bench, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, to see if a meeting could be arranged to discuss the numbers.

  189
  I had the courtesy of a reply from my noble friend on the Front Bench. I did not receive a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. I saw the noble Lord some time later outside the Chamber and reminded him that I had written to him. He promised to get in touch with me to discuss the matter. We have not had that meeting because he has not been in touch with me. It is for that reason that I wholly support the number proposed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland.
  It disappointed me somewhat that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, did not acknowledge my letter or follow up our brief discussion outside the Chamber. However, it occurred to me that that was perhaps done out of the kindness of his heart because there had been some sort of deal between the Liberal Democrat Party and the Labour Party on the question of proportionality about which he did not wish to tell me and he thought that it was better that I should be kept in the dark.
  My noble friend Lord Kingsland drew to the attention of the House the remarks of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House at col. 347 of Hansard on 30th June. That was in reply to a question which I asked the noble Baroness about what exactly she meant by "proportionate". As your Lordships will have listened to my noble friend Lord Kingsland, I shall not read that out again. However, the noble Baroness did not answer my question. I believe that I asked the Government Front Bench on four or five occasions what exactly they meant by "proportionate" as it related to the other parties in this House. We understand what they mean by broad parity between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, but there is no clear definition of "proportionality".
  I believe that my noble friend Lord Kingsland summed up the matter extremely well when he said that there is great concern about the exponential growth that this House could achieve if the interim stage were to last a long time. It is with that concern in mind that I support my noble friend in his amendment and hope that he will take it to a Division.
  Lord Acton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, can he remind us what his figure was at Report stage?
  The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords, indeed I can. I believe that my noble friend Lord Stanley and I proposed a figure in excess of 800, but since then I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with my noble friend Lord Kingsland and have agreed his figure.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, particularly when he endeavours to import the habits of another place into your Lordships' House. The noble Lord and I were together briefly in another place. One of the things that I noted was that it was not particularly effective as a revising Chamber.
  190
  If a large proportion of our time is to act as what his noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, called "the legislative housemaid", it seems to me that whatever the merits or demerits of the way we handle Bills, there is a great deal to be said for maintaining the habit of your Lordships' House of being able to introduce amendments at Third Reading as well as at earlier stages.
  The size of both Houses of Parliament is a question which, quite rightly, is beginning to exercise people interested in this constitution at a time of change. I venture to suggest to your Lordships a sensible and compelling case for reducing the size of another place. It is one which I suggested in a Bill to which your Lordships were kind enough to give a Second Reading this summer.
  There is, perhaps, a rather more difficult argument to put forward in favour of a smaller or very small upper House, reformed or otherwise, for one simple reason advanced with great clarity and elegance, if I may say so, by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon, in his evidence to the Royal Commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham.
  My noble and learned pointed out that so long as your Lordships' House is peopled by unpaid amateurs—I use the word "amateurs" in the best sense, as a compliment rather than an insult—it is inevitable, particularly when those amateur politicians are expert and active in their respective fields of endeavours, that they will tend to turn up sometimes rather sparingly. Nevertheless, as your Lordships know, many Members of your Lordships' House are listened to with great attention even though they are only occasional contributors to your Lordships' debates. They are busy acquiring their experience, authority and expertise in their individual realms of endeavour.
  As my noble and learned friend points out in his evidence, this is an argument for a larger House in the upper Chamber as opposed to a smaller House in another place. That is a distinction which, even at this late stage, I should like to draw to the attention of your Lordships.
  There is an argument for a larger upper House so long as we are not a House of professional, paid, full-time politicians. I hope that your Lordships would agree that we already have one House too many consisting of those. To have a second would be perverse.
  The argument put forward so elegantly, as usual, by my noble friend Lord Kingsland boils down to the question of broad balance. That is a phrase with which I became familiar during the course of my conversations with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As the whole House knows, that was an integral part of the agreement to which we came. It was put before your Lordships' House and your Lordships have finally to decide one way or the other today.
  To what extent can we rely on the undertaking given by the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues in the Government that during the transitional phase of your

  191
  Lordships' House, which has been ushered in by this Bill, they will seek no absolute majority but merely parity with the principal opposition party which, at present, is my party?
  One of the agreeable aspects of dealing with the noble and learned Lord—I pay tribute to him once again—is that through thick and thin he has unquestionably stuck to the letter and spirit of our agreement. Based on experience, I have no doubt, therefore, that the noble and learned Lord will stick to his word, as I am sure will his colleagues.
  The high proportion of your Lordships who have been members of Cabinets will know that Governments of both complexions are subject to intense pressures which, rather regrettably, once in a while cause them to undermine the undertakings given by their predecessors. This is not an ad hominem attack on Members of the present Government.
  If by some misadventure the transitional House lasts rather longer than both the noble and learned Lord and I would like, it becomes important to have some means of assuring ourselves that it would be difficult, under those circumstances, for his successors to abrogate the agreement he has made and which I have no doubt he will keep.
  It may be appropriate for me to ask the noble and learned Lord for a legal opinion. Perhaps I am entitled to do that on the Floor of this House without him charging me. That request is stimulated by the experience of sitting as a lay member of the Privileges Committee during the hearings that took place in recent days.
  During the course of those proceedings, some play was made about the extent to which judges can rely on the famous Pepper v. Hart judgment. I believe I understood correctly that noble and learned Lords sitting as judges on that committee made it clear that they were not altogether happy that the Pepper v. Hart principle should apply without qualification and, indeed, that many of them had endeavoured to hedge around the Pepper v. Hart conclusion with all sorts of restrictions.
  In view of the undertakings that have been given by the noble and learned Lord, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and all Members of the Government who have spoken on this matter, to what extent will Pepper v. Hart principles be available for us to rely upon in the matter of broad parity? If not at all, my noble friend Lord Kingsland is right to wonder how far we can rely in the long term on the undertakings given by the noble and learned Lord if, by some misadventure, this transitional House was to last longer than his tenure of office, which I hope will be a very long one.
  That is my question and why I venture to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, is wrong to suggest that we should undertake in this instance the procedures from another place. I also suggest that my noble friend Lord Kingsland is right, even at this late stage, to press for some reassurance from the noble and learned Lord on this important matter.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Annan: There is a simple way of reducing the numbers in the House. However, I would not table an amendment because I realise that it would gain virtually no support. I refer to the fact that there should be a retiring age for appointed Peers, such as myself, who reach an age when perhaps their utility becomes markedly less.
  Perhaps I may say how much I enjoy listening to the noble Viscount. Curiously, he reminds me of Milton's Comus. The noble Viscount will remember that in that masque there is a noble lady who becomes lost in a forest, having been separated from her two brothers. She meets a shepherd who, of course, is Comus in disguise. He says, "Come along with me and I'll show you the way out of the forest" and leads her to his palace. There he is surrounded by his rout of oughly-headed monsters. He makes no pretence at all about what he is at.
  "I, under fair pretense of friendly ends
  With well-plac't words of glozing courtesie
  Wind me into the easie-hearted man
  And hugg him into snares".
  Nobody will accuse the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of being an easy-hearted man: warm-hearted, yes, but easy-hearted, no. As for the noble Baroness, I cannot conceive she would wish to be hugged by any Member of the Opposition.
  Nevertheless, why has this dilemma arisen? It is because of what we call the Weatherill amendment. Here again, the noble Viscount is so remarkably like Comus because he always referred to it as the Weatherill amendment.
  "Thus I hurl
  My dazzling spells into the spungy ayr
  Of power to cheat the eye with blear illusion".
  The illusion is that it was the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, who invented it. Of course, it was the noble Viscount who did that and increased our numbers in the interim stage. I have no doubt that that will cause great trouble to the Government at the second stage, when every effort will be made to prolong the life of the 90 Members. It is for that reason that I ask the House not follow the line that the noble Viscount has taken.
  I ask the noble Baroness a very important point. If by any chance the Third Reading was refused or the Bill was not passed, I ask for an assurance that the so-called Weatherill agreement would not be reintroduced into the House in another place. That assurance would give some people great pleasure.
  The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I wish to make one point. As I read the amendment, I came to the conclusion that it was a very ingenious way of preventing any future government—I stress "any future government"—from swamping the House by creating a great number of Peers. In the early part of the debates many noble Lords tried to find ways of achieving that. I hope that the Government will look at this amendment for a second time and see that from their point of view it could have a real advantage. It would avoid the Lloyd-George method of threatening the House. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will

  193
  consider this amendment in that sense. That point has not been touched on by anyone else although it is inherent in the amendment. That is all-important. There is to be a transitional House. If this amendment is included in the Bill now, it has to be taken into account at a later stage.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are two reasons why we believe that this amendment is inappropriate. First, we do not think that we should do anything in this Bill which appears to pre-empt the conclusions and recommendations of the Royal Commission. A statutory provision of the kind envisaged in this amendment would inevitably be taken as giving an indication of what in future would be a suitable overall size for the second Chamber. Indeed, noble Lords opposite, in one of their earlier promotions of an amendment of this kind, made that linkage explicit when they proposed a number which was identical with the very figure which they had recommended in their evidence to the Royal Commission. We believe that the Royal Commission should be allowed to formulate its own recommendation, starting from the functions of the second Chamber, and without any attempt by us to pre-judge the number that it might produce.
  Secondly, we believe that it adds nothing to the undertakings which the Government have already given about the way in which life peerages will be created in future. The real safeguards about abuse of the appointments process are related to the balance of forces in the House, not the overall numbers. In our White Paper, and in successive debates in this House, we have spelled out what those guarantees are. None the less, I suppose that it is some three months since the issue was last addressed. Therefore, perhaps the time for repetition has arrived. I can do no better than to repeat and endorse what my noble friend the Leader of the House said on 1st May. She said,
  "We do not intend to seek more than broad parity between the Labour Party in the House and the main Opposition party. We will allow proportionate creations from the other parties and we intend to maintain a significant Cross-Bench presence. All of those pledges are designed to ensure that your Lordships' House becomes genuinely bipartisan and is better equipped for the primary function of taking a dispassionate look at the details of legislation".—[Official Report, 1/5/99,co1.1188].
  I have said before that I am confident that the transitional period will be short and that during that time there will be no question of anything other than broad parity and proportionate creations to which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, referred.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, asked me to give him from the Dispatch Box some free legal advice. It now seems to be a very long time since I last gave legal advice for little reward. I am not about to begin giving it free even when the request is made from as necessitous a source as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne!
  However, I can say that Pepper v. Hart has no bearing on these undertakings because they are not an exegesis of any provisions of the Bill. I repeat that the undertakings previously given on stage two issues are
  194
  for another day. We urge the House to reject this amendment if the noble Lord decides to press it to a Division.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I say briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that had he had the discussion that was suggested to him by my noble friend Lord Caithness he would have seen clearly that the appropriate figure was well below the one he quoted. Far from having a margin for manoeuvre of three or four, he would have had a margin of between 30 and 35.
  I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for underlining the principles set out by the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal at Committee and Report stages. However, I very much regret the fact that the noble and learned Lord is not prepared to incorporate a ceiling into the Bill given the reasons that I have suggested. I do not accept that, in some way, the Bill should be unconstrained by a maximum figure because of the work presently being undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham. Indeed, it seems to me that the best way to further the work of that noble Lord is to insert an overall figure. But the Lord Chancellor has given undertakings. The Opposition will be vigilant in ensuring that they are met. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 3 [Appointments Commission]:
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 9:
  Page 2, line 21, leave out ("least") and insert ("most").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10. The two amendments in effect make one amendment to the Bill. The matter at issue is Clause 3, the appointments commission, which was inserted into the Bill after a Division on the advice of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It is one amendment about which in my opinion it can possibly be said, using the jargon of these Benches, it makes a bad Bill a little better.
  Clause 3 of the Bill gives certain functions to the appointments commission and one of them, set out in subsection (4), is that,
  "It shall … make proposals to the Prime Minister for nomination as Cross Bench peers".
  However, the subsection says that it should do that,
  "at least every 6 months, and at most every year".
  There is a certain internal inconsistency about that arrangement. I suggest it should have provided that the commission make proposals "at most" every six months and "at least" every year.
  Amendment No. 9 is designed to clarify an inconsistency or error in an amendment which I supported at an earlier stage and I hope it will find favour with the House. I beg to move.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry to tell my noble friend that I cannot get too worked up about exchanging "most" for "least" and

  195
  "least" for "most''. However, what is important about this part of the Bill is that we seek some assurances from the Government in relation to Clause 3 and the wider aspects of the commission's work. Whether the commission makes recommendations at six-monthly intervals and at least once a year may be important, but it is not nearly as important as the fact of the commission itself.
  Clause 3 is in the nature of an amendment which your Lordships insisted on inserting in the Bill in an attempt to ensure that this House does not become a House of patronage dependent entirely on the Prime Minister of the government of the day.
  Of course, the Government will assure us, as they have done, that they intend to set up such a commission. I suggest that the Government Chief Whip, who is to reply to this debate, will give us those assurances and say that my noble friend need not trouble with his amendments. It is a "trust us" operation. But your Lordships know all the various "trust us" phrases. This is very much, "I am from the Government. Trust me".
  I say to the Government, "We are trying to be helpful to you, so trust us". By asking for this commission we are helping the Government to fulfil their commitments. So perhaps the Government Chief Whip will tell us when we will get an appointments commission. Do the Government intend to ask the House of Commons to remove this clause from the Bill on the ground that they will give us an appointments commission off their own bat? If so, when will we get it? How many lists will be drawn up for your Lordships' House before we get it? In particular, will we have an appointments commission before the millennium list comes about? I have great fears that it will be as large and extravagant-looking as the Dome.
  The Government have been long on promises on this commission and short on action. Therefore, I hope today, while I am not going to bother too much about "most" and "least", that the Government will give us an assurance that the commission will be set up very quickly after the Bill's passage and prior to the publication of the lists of new Members of your Lordships' House at the turn of the year.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the Government's anxiety to answer the important questions asked by my noble friend Lord Mackay will not obscure to them the importance of the drafting changes my noble friend Lord Coleraine drew to their attention. If we do something every six months, we do it more often than if we do it every year. It means that the two qualifying words are the wrong way round, as my noble friend rightly pointed out.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seems to be to correct the grammar of the original clause, which was drafted by the Opposition. I am surprised the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, as a former teacher, is not concerned about the grammar in the Bill; it is important.
  196
  The appointments commission will be set up as soon as practicable after the passing of this Bill. It is pretty rich of the noble Lord to ask that question. It was the insertion of Clause 3 which delayed the setting up of the commission because the clause is defective. However, it is the clause in the Bill which is presently before Parliament and the activities of the Opposition, as the noble Lord well knows, in inserting the clause in the Bill against the wishes of the Government delayed the setting up of the commission.
  Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 seek to correct the grammar of the original amendment. But to the Government it is a matter of stunning neutrality whether or not the amendments are accepted. It was a clause inserted by the Opposition against the wishes of the Government; we were opposed to its insertion. We have already made it clear that we shall be asking our right honourable and honourable friends in the other place to take it out. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 do not make any difference to our overall attitude to the clause.
  Having said that, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, is probably right in his proposals. At the least he has shown that the present drafting of Clause 3 is ambiguous. We assume that its intention is to provide that the appointments commission may make two rounds of appointments a year and must make one. But is that what it says? The noble Lord thinks not and I have some sympathy with him. The question is whether we are defining frequency or interval. The House will have to determine which it thinks is right and vote accordingly if the noble Lord presses the amendment. From these Benches, we shall not oppose it.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish did not feel that this was something to get worked up about when the amendment he and his colleagues moved is possibly inaccurate. However, having listened to the Government Chief Whip, and in the hope that this amendment will have the approval of my Front Bench, I commend it to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 21, leave out ("most") and insert ("least").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 11:
  Page 2, line 40, leave out ("life").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 11, which also affects Clause 3, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12.
  One of the functions of the commission under this clause is to report to Parliament whether or not certain criteria are being observed. One of the criteria, according to the Bill as it now stands, is that,
  "the proportion of the Cross Bench peers to the total number of life peers in the House remains as it was on the day before the passing of this Act".
  The effect of that paragraph is to compare a mixture of life and hereditary Peers existing on the Cross Benches before the Act with life Peers only on their Benches and the Benches of the House after the Act. The effect would be to greatly magnify the number of Cross-Bench Peers who would be entitled, under the amendment, to sit, and to provide for a much greater number than was ever in the contemplation of my noble friends.
  In this case I am taking a view that will diminish the rights of the Cross-Benchers under my noble friend's amendment whereas before I was trying to make it work more satisfactorily in their favour. Subsection(7)(c) should read, "the proportion of the Cross Bench peers to the total number of peers in the House remains the same as the proportion of the Cross Bench life peers to the total number of life peers in the House". I beg to move.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think, on past experience, that I shall tell my noble friend that I am not very fussed one way or another and the Government will promptly indicate that they quite favour his amendment. Then we will all be happy. I can see my noble friend's point. From the way that the clause is drafted, it seems to compare all Peers on the one hand, and then, on the other hand, life Peers. My noble friend's amendment would make it quite clear that the proportionality would be of life Peers on the Cross Benches to life Peers in the House at the time that the Bill comes into place.
  Although I may be wrong, I calculate that the Bill as it currently stands would require that the present proportion of Cross-Bench Peers to the total of life Peers, which would have to be maintained, would be about 23.6 per cent. I do not know quite how the 0.6 per cent of the Cross Benches feel about that, but I suppose whether or not anyone gets in on that figure will depend very much on what it is a percentage of.
  I do not quite know what the consequence of my noble friend's amendment would be in terms of a significant number change to the Bill as it stands. No doubt the Chief Whip will again inform us. If he is quite relaxed about it, then I am happy to be relaxed about it. However, I am not relaxed about the knowledge that, frankly, whatever we do with this clause, the Government propose to knock it out in the other place. I really do not accept the excuse that the commission would have been set up by now if we had not tabled this amendment. I cannot for the life of me see why this new clause changes anything. Indeed, the Government could simply set up the commission, or indicate when they intend to do so, regardless of what we seek to insert in the Bill—especially as they are quite clear that they will overturn it in the other place. I look forward to hearing what the Chief Whip has to say.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, before I deal with the amendment, perhaps I may respond to the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. As I said earlier, we were advised that
  198
  it would be inappropriate to try to set up the commission if there was a Bill before Parliament which was designed to establish a commission in a way with which the Government did not agree. I give way to the noble Lord.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not agree with his argument, but I will accept it for the moment. Does that mean that the moment this Bill is passed we can expect the Government, within a week or two, to indicate the setting up of the commission?
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the commission will be set up as soon as practicable after the Bill is passed. I will not say that that will happen in a couple of weeks, as the noble Lord would like me to. It will be very quickly after the Bill is passed. In fact, it would have been established by now in shadow and would, perhaps, be considering the New Year's Honours, but the Opposition have delayed the process by inserting Clause 3 into the Bill.
  I turn now to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12—
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me whether my memory is wrong in recalling that certain commissions or shadow commissions were set up in connection with Northern Ireland while the Northern Ireland legislation was actually going through the House? It did not seem to restrain the Government then, so why should it restrain them now?
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am told that there was no amendment to that legislation which would have taken out the power of the commission. Therefore, the noble Lord's point is not correct. We were advised that it would be constitutionally inappropriate.
  The purpose of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 is to allow the Weatherill Peers to count towards maintaining the proper proportion of Cross-Bench Peers and to ensure that a true comparison of like with like is taking place. As with the previous amendments, we do not think that these amendments make the difference between acceptability or not of Clause 3 as a whole. In any case, they deal only with a reporting requirement, and not with the actual criteria for creations.
  Once again, I think that the noble Lord may have spotted a genuine problem with the drafting of Clause 3—I wonder who did the drafting for the Opposition. We assume that the intention of Clause 3(7)(c) is to provide that the Cross-Bench share of the House remains roughly where it is now. Comparisons of the Cross-Bench share of the whole House and the Cross-Bench life Peer share of all life Peers both produce a figure between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. This is the sort of figure which I had always understood most people regarded as a reasonable and a ballpark figure for the transitional House.
  However, a strict analysis of the current wording of the clause would suggest that, in future, the proper Cross-Bench share would be two-thirds of the House,

  199
  as that is the proportion that all Cross-Bench Peers, including hereditary Peers, currently bear to the total number of life Peers. The comparison could be made accurate by inserting the word "life" into the clause before the term "Cross Bench".
  The noble Lord has proposed a different approach, which takes account of the Weatherill Peers on both sides of the equation. As between the two approaches, we make no judgment. But either would be better than what is presently there. Therefore, if the noble Lord wishes to press the amendment to a vote, or put the matter to the House, we shall not resist it. That is entirely without prejudice to what my honourable friends in another place will do to the clause as a whole when the Bill is returned to them.
  Lord Coleraine: My Lords, it seemed to me that my noble friend did get a little hit more healthily worked up about getting this right. He said that he could not work out the true figures. I must confess that I did not have them to hand, but I knew that there were about 220 Cross-Benchers who were hereditary Peers and that that was bound to have a considerable effect. I was glad that the noble Lord from the Government Front. Bench was able to provide me with the full figures. I hope that this amendment will find favour. I seek the opinion of the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 2, line 41. leave out ("as it was") and insert ("the same as the proportion of the Cross Bench life peers to the total number of life peers in the House").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("; and
  (d) more than half of the total membership of the House of Lords is composed of peers who, in the opinion of the Commission have experience of, and expertise in, fields other than (or in addition to) politics").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have degrouped this amendment with Amendment No. 14 and have informed the Table, both Front Benches and the Deputy Speaker.
  My noble friend Lord Caithness and I moved similar amendments to this in Committee and on Report, a principle of which received support from both Front Benches. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was particularly sympathetic on Report. Her main objection was that the time was not right. I hope that your Lordships will agree with us that this most certainly is the time to decide, and let the public know, who are to be the future Members of the interim House, which, inevitably, must influence the final reformed House—if that is ever to happen.
  Indeed, the prime concern of the odd person outside the Chamber, who is at all interested in your Lordships' House. is not that the hereditary Peers should continue but who is to follow us. I should have
  200
  liked a much more explicit amendment, but then I fear it would have been considered a wrecking amendment; and this amendment is not. The amendment spells this out by stating that over 50 per cent of the Members should have had, or, more importantly, continue to have, experience and expertise in some other sphere than politics. Everyone in your Lordships' House knows those who fall within that category. They have been referred to today, not least by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. Sometimes they are euphemistically called "specialist Peers".
  Although I have not put my name forward for one of the 92 hereditary vacancies, I am most anxious that your Lordships' House should have credibility in the future. Bearing in mind that the standing of professional politicians is at an all-time low—partly because they are alleged to know everything about nothing—this amendment would ensure that your Lordships' House would not be so condemned. It would ensure that at least 50 per cent of the Members' main reason to be there was outside party politics. I am absolutely convinced that that is what the great majority of people would like to see.
  Before I get castigated by the loyal party members, I should say that I fully accept that there is a need for the dedicated, professional politician. However, like good claret, even though it is French, too much of it is disastrous. In any event, our amendment suggests that 49 per cent of the House could be dedicated party politicians.
  On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, had the following problems with our amendment. She asked whether the Law Lords and Bishops would be included. They, like life Peers, would, as of right, be Members of the interim Chamber. Of course if the noble Baroness wants to allow our amendment to affect the composition of the final reformed Chamber I am sure that we on this side of the House would be delighted, but somehow or other I doubt whether she or her noble friends would appreciate that very much.
  The noble Baroness and other noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in particular—asked how expertise and experience would be defined. The Prime Minister has promised us an appointments commission; indeed it is now in the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said, if it is taken out of the Bill it will be put back again quite soon afterwards. If the appointments commission cannot make a decision on that matter, I know not what use it will be. For instance—if I may make a personal point here—I know that even I after a few minutes' conversation can tell whether someone who claims to be a competent and experienced farmer has those qualifications. Please do not say therefore that my amendment is defective because the body cannot judge who is who. If it cannot do that, please let us not have an appointments commission.
  The noble Baroness's final objection—I have to say she would be inconsistent if she did not say that—was. "Never do today what you can put off until

  201
  tomorrow", in which she was supported, I am sorry to say, by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, whom I do not think is present.
  Noble Lords: He is!
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I see that he is. Over the past 28 years I have had the privilege to move amendments to 78 different Bills. This will be the last, which I fully realise will be a great relief to the Government and no doubt to many, if not most, of my own Front Bench. I beg to move.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sure we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for tabling this amendment. There is nothing much of interest or seriousness on the Marshalled List of amendments and as we have many hours ahead of us we may as well go into one of our favourite modes which is that of a sixth form debating society. This is precisely the kind of thing that is so beloved by sixth formers.
  In introducing the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, did not feel that he had any obligation to meet the kind of point that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, had made; namely, of telling us what he meant by experience and expertise, or telling us how we determine that separately from politics. My experience of life has been—notice that I use the word—that those who most protest that they are not political and are not committed always turn out to behave in a definite and particular way. I remember when I was a student at the London School of Economics that one of the most famous professors said that he always considered all problems on their merits. A brave student piped up and said, "Yes, and then you always end up voting Conservative!"
  I take a dim view of this kind of amendment. I think that it is insulting to those who devote themselves to politics. Speaking as a party hack who always loyally supports my own Front Bench, I have never felt that it was disreputable for someone to say, "I devote my life to politics". Indeed I do not see how parliamentary democracy can work without people who are committed to politics. I am less enamoured than some Peers of the Cross-Benchers. I am much more enamoured of the committed political Peers who take a party Whip and make a contribution in a definite and positive way.
  I have two further remarks. It seems to me that my noble friend the Leader of the House was quite right; namely, this is not the time—nor in this Bill—for this kind of amendment. Further, once you start to go down this line, you end up with essentially unworkable amendments. As I say, I think that it is useful to occupy the hours with this kind of debate because I cannot see that the other amendments are useful. But subject to filling out the time, I really do think that it is about time this Bill is passed into law.
  The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Stanley on the amendment. As he
  202
  has said, we have tabled this kind of amendment before but we have widened it for the very reasons that he spelt out so clearly, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Cranborne on an earlier amendment.
  It is our duty as a House—and indeed I believe it to be the duty of the interim Chamber—to review, revise and improve on the quality of draft legislation. I am not disrespectful of full-time politicians. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, for whom we have much admiration, that they play a useful part. I have no hesitation in saying that I was a full-time politician for 10 years of my life and I believe that that will be an essential ingredient of the House. However, I also believe—I hope that your Lordships will agree with this—that an added ingredient of this House, as opposed to another Chamber, is that it gives a wide breadth of experience outside politics which is necessary for the revision of draft legislation. There are plenty of examples all around the House. I refer to the Labour Benches and the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, with his experience of the City. If he is not part of the interim House, his experience will be missed.
  I believe that the last thing this House wants to become is a cosy cartel of professional politicians. I believe that we also want Peers who do not attend on an every day basis. I think that those who attend infrequently are listened to and are well respected. They have played an important part in this Chamber. I hope that a similar kind of Peer will be included in the interim Chamber.
  Over many years my noble friend Lord Stanley and I have tabled amendments together, when in opposition in the 1970s and when in government in the 1980s. It has been a great pleasure to work with him. I believe that the whole House will miss my noble friend. I tried to persuade him to put his name into "the hat" but the House will be the poorer for his going. I think that the least one can do is to pay tribute to him by accepting this amendment.
  The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I support this amendment. Amendment No. 14 is drafted in parallel terms. It has one major difference; namely, that it includes mixed ages. When we are talking about a criterion—
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I believe that we have degrouped Amendment No. 14, as I believe that the noble Lord wished. Therefore I think that it would be better to discuss Amendment No. 14 when we reach that amendment.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I echo briefly the closing words of my noble friend Lord Caithness when he paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley who has been such a distinguished Member of this House for so long and has brought his real expertise, knowledge, understanding, and—dare I say, as a former government chief whip—independent nature to this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will remember well, on more than one occasion the Conservative government lost a measure

  203
  at the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. It is a deep regret to me that my noble friend has not put his name forward to stand in the elections.
  It is in that tone that I express my great respect for both my noble friends who have put forward their ideas. The aim of the amendment is one that I can sympathise with; namely, to ensure that the House retains the broad spectrum of rounded experience that it has always had. We do not want to become a House of professional politicians fawning on ministerial answers and proposing laudatory Motions in praise of whoever happens to be the Prime Minister of the day. I understand that the Government have said that they want a more representative House, but at times that has seemed to mean little more than obedience to the political correctness of whoever is Prime Minister.
  We have proposed a new, open, independent and statutory system of appointment. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government seem unwilling to accept it wholeheartedly. After all, they said they wanted it and the Labour Party's propaganda states that the Prime Minister has given up patronage already. It does not feel like it from where I am looking or, I imagine, from where some noble Lords on the other side sit.
  When he winds up, I hope that the Government Chief Whip will confirm that the Government want a broad range of experience and accept that the spirit of the amendment is right. I know what my noble friends intend in moving the amendment—we should all sympathise with it—and I wish I could be confident that the Government will accept it.
  The amendment also gives your Lordships an opportunity to ask the Government some direct questions about the appointments commission, questions that so far they have not begun to answer. Can the Government Chief Whip confirm that the Government will follow the lines put forward by the House in the amendment that has been accepted into the Bill? Will they set up a statutory commission or will it be run at the whim of the Prime Minister? Are they preparing a commission already? If not, why not? When do the Government propose to have the commission in place? Will it be ready to deal with recommendations that are put forward by the Prime Minister for the New Year's Honours List?
  It will not have escaped the notice of the House that it was recently mentioned in the press—it may or may not be true—that the New Year's Honours List in recognition of the millennium will be very substantial and that we can expect a number of new Members.
  It is important that these questions are answered today. My noble friends are entirely correct to have probed this matter. If the Government stay silent behind promises that have already passed their expiry date, the suspicion will grow that they do not want an appointments commission until they have appointed a House that suits their purposes. That would greatly damage the House.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, before I turn to the amendments and deal with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps I may pay a further tribute, on behalf of these Benches and personally, to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. He referred to the amendments and the changes to Bills that he has made in the past. He will remember that we shared some amendments with which we defeated the previous government on agriculture Bills. I remember particularly one important amendment on rural housing. He said that he could tell whether a farm was any good from a few moments' conversation. I prefer to look at the crops and livestock.
  Turning to the points raised by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the appointments commission, we have made our intentions absolutely clear: it will be set up under the Nolan rules; it will be non-statutory and a public body; and it will be set up as soon as practicable after the passing of the Bill. The insertion of Clause 3 into the Bill has delayed the setting up of the commission. Clause 3 introduced into the Bill an incompatible provision. We were advised that it was improper on constitutional grounds to proceed with a different approach while Clause 3 remained in the Bill. That is the advice we received. The insertion of Clause 3 has delayed the setting up of the appointments commission. It is not for me to comment on the possible contents of the New Year's Honours List.
  As the noble Lord said, Amendment No. 13 seeks to draw continued attention to the desirability that the House of Lords should continue to contain a significant non-political element. As with the last group of amendments, we regard this issue as more of a private one between noble Lords opposite and their own Front Bench, who supported the insertion of Clause 3 into the Bill. The succession of amendments demonstrates just how badly the clause was drafted. As we pointed out on Report when noble Lords moved an amendment which would have obliged the appointments commission to ensure that 50 per cent of the House had non-political expertise, there seem to us to be formidable problems of definition in the approach. How does one decide what "experience of" and "expertise in" mean? How recent does it have to be? How full time? To continue the farming analogy, is it based on conversations the appointments commission may have with potential Members of the House, or does it look at their crops and livestock—that is, at their practical experience?
  The amendment simply requires the appointments commission to report on whether the criteria have been met. It does not say what it is to do about it if they have not been met. There is no provision for saying that the commission must immediately nominate sufficient Cross-Bench Peers to meet the requirement; nor could the appointments commission prevent the parties making further nominations on their own account which could dilute the non-political element again.

  205
  On the whole, unlike the previous group of amendments, we consider that this provision will—to paraphrase an expression often used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—make a bad clause worse. I would advise the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. As with previous amendments, if he wishes to ask the House to include it in the clause, we shall not resist.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask one question. The noble Lord said that Clause 3 would inhibit or delay the setting up of the commission. Why should that be so?
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I have been given to understand that there is an incompatible provision present in the Bill which concerns the way we intend to set up the appointments commission. We were advised that it would be constitutionally inappropriate to proceed with a different approach while Clause 3 remains in the Bill—a Bill which is before Parliament and which has not yet received the opinion of the other place.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I did not agree with him because I had already said that I like party hacks just as much as I like the noble Lord.
  I am touched and flattered by the remarks made about me. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not moving the amendment with me because he would have then had the pleasure of destroying his own arguments, as he has done in the past.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
  Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 15:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  LIFE PEERS
  (".—(1) No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958, other than—

  (a) 400 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who are elected in accordance with subsection (2) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (5), and

  (b) 16 holders of peerages conferred under that Act who have declared to the Clerk of the Parliaments that they are ready to serve as Deputy Speakers of the House of Lords or in such other office as the House may require and who are elected in accordance with subsection (3) or at a by-election in accordance with subsection (5).

  (2) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) shall be the holders of peerages conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958.
  (3) The electors for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) shall be the members of the House of Lords at the date on which the election is held.
  (4) A person elected under this section shall continue to be entitled to receive a writ of summons to the House of Lords and to sit and vote in that House throughout his life.
  206
  (5) On the death of a peer elected under this section, a by-election shall be held for the filling of the vacancy.
  (6) Standing Orders of the House of Lords may make further provision relating to the holding and conduct of elections and by-elections under this section; and a person may be elected under this section by or in accordance with Standing Orders made in anticipation of the enactment or commencement of this section.
  (7) Any question whether a person is elected under this section shall be decided by the Clerk of the Parliaments, whose certificate shall be conclusive.").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 is associated with Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 21. It is a fairly simple amendment in so far as it enables life Peers also to be elected. After the Bill has passed, we shall be in the curious position that hereditary Peers will be the only ones who have been elected to your Lordships' House. It is a pity, therefore, that life Peers are not elected too.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill we have heard a lot about the "legitimacy" or otherwise of hereditary Peers. It is a strange kind of word. It is rather like other Civil Service words such as "coherent", "cohesive", "effective" and "efficient". I never know what they mean. Now we come to "legitimate". The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said:
  "The presence of the hereditary peerage has weakened the legitimacy and the effectiveness"
  those are two of the words—
  "of our second Chamber".—[Official Report, 20/1/99; col. 583.]
  The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General said,
  "We believe that the House which will result from the passage of the Bill will be more democratic, more legitimate".—[Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1082.]
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that the Bill,
  "will have the effect of providing a more legitimate House".— [Official Report, 20/4/99; col. 1149.]
  The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General even talked about "illegitimacy", which is always a sensitive subject. He said:
  "the present privilege of hereditary connection is illegitimate in our House".—[Official Report, 30/3/99: col. 42.]
  "Illegitimate" means "against the law". There is nothing remotely illegitimate about hereditary Peers being in Parliament when the law allows them to be there. That does not mean to say that there is not an argument—even if it is a rotten one—for changing the law. That is another matter. There is no question of hereditary Peers being illegitimate when they attend your Lordships' House. When Ministers talk about illegitimacy in this context they are using fine-sounding magisterial words which are wholly inappropriate.
  I hate to pick on the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General again, particularly when he is not here—he has got plenty of people with howitzers to support him, if necessary—but he said that the House which will result from the Bill will be more democratic. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, what he says is complete nonsense. There is nothing remotely democratic in the way noble Lords are appointed by a Prime Minister, whether that is

  207
  because one is his friend, one has contributed to party funds or any other cause. Then of course one may happen to have got onto the elevator that takes one up to the attention c f the Prime Minister. What on earth is democratic about that? The answer is nothing.
  However, to use the Government's own terminology, when the 90 or so hereditary Peers have been elected they will be the most democratic and the most legitimate Members of the House, far more so than the life Peers who have arrived in the House by appointment. I simply ask noble Lords: why should not life Peers also be appointed? I beg your Lordships' pardon; elected. The word "appointment" trips so easily off the tongue nowadays because everyone is appointed.
  After some thought, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General stated that he had once been elected to the Bar Council. That is a start, and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord would top the poll in any election in which he stood. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has also gone through that particular election. I do not know. However, I am sure that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has not because that is not her forte; in that her forte is not being a barrister rather than not in being elected. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, may well have passed that hurdle and have been elected, because he is a legal gentleman.
  If all life Peers were subject to election, as they have forced upon the hereditary Peers, then the Attorney-General and all the other life Peers would have the legitimacy—I use that lovely government word—of having been elected. It would be a democratic process, and what is wrong with that?
  Plenty of Peers are given their peerages, but then never come to your Lordships' House. I shall not embarrass those noble Lords by rehearsing their names—
  Viscount Cranborne: They are not here to be embarrassed!
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has shown his usual intelligence and perspicacity by pointing out that they are not here to be embarrassed. However, I shall refer to one noble Lord who was also referred to by my noble friend on the Front Bench. He mentioned the previous Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson. He has been given a peerage but understandably has said that he has no intention of attending here, because he holds an important job in Europe as the Secretary-General of NATO. However, he will be able to come here when eventually he leaves that position. However, others have held that post before him. My noble friend Lord Mackay referred to my noble friend Lord Carrington. A few years ago my noble friend occupid that post with distinction, but what will happen to him? Unless he puts down his name for election—I understand that he has not done so—he will be ejected from your Lordships' House. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Robertson,
  208
  retires, he will be able to come here. Where is the fairness or the legitimacy, or indeed the democracy, in that?
  It would be better if life Peers were also elected. That is the purpose of my amendment. As my noble friend Lord Kingsland said in his carefully argued speech on Amendment No. 8, to which I listened with fascination, the time will come when the House of Lords may well be elected, and most life Peers will then go too. I do wonder whether life Peers will want to go on to the hustings to seek the votes of the proletariat. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will visit B&Q to find out whether he can secure some votes there?
  One also wonders whether the voting proletariat will wish to vote for the life Peers. I am sure that many will, but then many will not. I do not believe that the life Peers should smile so widely—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is smiling very cheerfully now—because the time will come when it will be their turn to be on the end of this greasy pole. The fact is that once the hare has been let out of the bag—namely, reform of your Lordships' House—you do not know where it will run. It would be better for the life Peers to get dug in to your Lordships' House, as it were, by seeking election now, rather than to wait for Boadicea's chariot to come round a second time with those long knives and chop them up as well. For all those reasons, I suggest that noble Lords approve this amendment. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Earl is following the lead of his noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in keeping our debating society going rather than discussing serious matters. However, he is right in saying, as was his noble friend Lord Kingsland, that when we come to build the new House of Lords, the life Peers will have to face up to their positions and their destinies. I look. forward to that happening soon, and I say only that compared to the behaviour of the hereditary Peers some of us will do that in a much more correct and proper fashion.
  Noble Lords: No!
  Lord Peston: Oh, yes, my Lords. To echo the words that I know noble Lords opposite did not like when expressed by my noble friend the Leader of the House, we will not be clinging to the furniture. We will know that reform implies that a considerable number of us must go. We will then have a House of a viable size, and that number will be much lower than anything suggested by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Kingsland. For the House to shrink to a sensible size, many of us must go. We shall have to face that fact, and I can say only that I look forward to it. I have had a great time here, as has the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. However, there comes a time when one must go. I do not see that as a problem, and I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has put down the amendment so that others can now place on the record their views.

  209
  I should like to record one more point. I do not have the slightest intention of standing for election, either among my fellow Peers or placing myself before the electorate. I have never stood for election to anything, and I firmly believe in achieving high positions by merit, or by being a hack—noble Lords can make their own interpretations. At this stage in my life I have no intention of seeking election to anything.
  I believe that we should thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for reminding us that once the Bill has been passed, we shall have to face that harsh reality. I can say only that I look forward to facing it because, for the first time this century, we shall be building a decent House of Lords.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I rise only to say that there is quite a serious objection to a highly amusing amendment; that is, that it wholly pre-empts the work of the Royal Commission that has within its remit the constitution and reconstruction of this House, on recommendations which may well in due course impinge upon what has already been decided by this House on the Weatherill amendment. Furthermore, I do not believe that any of the life Peers can smile too much, certainly not an octogenarian such as myself. I have already made it plain that inevitably, sooner or later, the question of the life Peers will receive consideration. I assuredly would not stand for election for the simple reason that nobody would elect me.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is a great entertainer, and once again he has treated the House to his amusing words. Those of us present at the time will remember his marvellous speech on the subject of whether the Bill should refer to "a hereditary Peer" or "an hereditary Peer". However, behind the wit the noble Earl has made a perfectly fair point. I believe that life Peers do recognise that we will have to go. I should like to summarise the attitude of the noble Earl with a misquotation from T.S. Eliot: "This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a giggle". I have to say that I think a giggle will be better than a whimper.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the debate by saying how much I admire my noble friend Lord Ferrers. I am never quite sure what noble Lords opposite think of my noble friend, but his voice has been heard in this House for nearly 45 years and it is always of great benefit to the House. He has an unerring ability, always with good humour, to put his finger on the nub of the matter. He has an ability to identify illogicality in the case made by the Government and home in on it. That is why, sometimes, he appears to get under the skin of the Front Bench opposite. I suspect that he has done so again today.
  I do not think that it is possible at this late stage to accommodate my noble friend's proposal in the Bill; and even he might acknowledge that. But I do think that he has raised a question that will not die and that
  210
  it should be called the "Ferrers Question". Why, if the heirs to beneficiaries of patronage past are unacceptable in the House, are the beneficiaries of patronage present so acceptable? If it is right, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said in a recent edition of the House Magazine, that the election of some hereditary Peers from among the total number of hereditary Peers gives those elected a greater legitimacy, why would the same not be true for life Peers? That is the nub of the argument made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
  The day that the Government began to push the hereditary peerage from this House was the day that the life peerage—the receivers of present patronage—moved to the front of the stage. This Bill has made it inconceivable that a reform Bill could be introduced without addressing the present status of the life peerage. We may find in time that the "Ferrers Question" becomes part of the Lords' answer, but that would be to anticipate much and to go far beyond any conclusion that our party has yet to reach. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment to a Division as I would be unable to support it. But, in so saying, I submit that the "Ferrers Question" will hang in the air, and the more Peers that the Prime Minister sends to this House, the more he will need to find an answer to it.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the "Ferrers Question", as I understand it, is that if the hereditary Peers who stay in the House are to be elected, why should not the life Peers who stay in the House be elected as well. That is how the noble Earl posed his question to us. The answer to the question is this: the purpose of the Bill has always been to remove the right of people to legislate on the basis of heredity. That is the limited purpose of the Bill and that has always been stated to be the limited purpose of the Bill. What the second stage of reform will be is a matter for the two Houses of Parliament to decide after the benefit of the Wakeham commission's report on the second stage of reform. So if the aim of the Bill is to remove the right to legislate on a hereditary basis, that is why the hereditary Peers go, subject to the Weatherill amendment, and the life Peers stay. That is the principle of the Bill and that is the principle often stated.
  Accepting that principle, what is the point of choosing again between those life Peers who have already been chosen? Every life Peer in this House has been explicitly selected on the basis of his or her past career or potential contribution to this House for the purpose of being a Member of it. There is no other proper rationale for a person to be in this House as a life Peer. For as long as it is necessary to have a peerage to be a Member of the second Chamber, all those explicitly selected for that purpose, which is life Peers and hereditary Peers of first creation, should continue to have that right to sit. So that is my answer to the "Ferrers Question", as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, put it, and I think it is the answer that we have been giving throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

  211
  Quite separately from the question of principle, the amendment itself also seems to be unworkable. First, for example, it provides for the electorate of the 400 life Peers to be all the holders of life peerages. Perhaps wisely in the light of last week's debate, it does not say anything about a party split. Neither, of course, does the present Clause 2 of the Bill; but nor does Clause 2 contain any provision ruling out the Standing Orders making provision for separate party elections. This amendment does. We think it highly unlikely that Standing Orders could ever override the specific provision in the Bill. Perhaps it is the noble Earl's idea that the House in the future should be entirely non-political. But we have to start from where we are and many life Peers are party political appointments.
  Secondly, I am not at all sure where in the future the candidates will come from. Why should anyone accept a nomination as a potential working Peer if he has no guarantee that he will ever be called to work in the House? Why should anyone offered a peerage on the basis that he is good Cross-Bench material actually decide to stand for election? Could one force him to do so? I am also slightly puzzled as to why the noble Earl (who I thought was of the school that the existing life Peers, after the hereditaries had gone, would find it quite difficult to cope with the workload of the House) thinks that they could cope when their number was down to 400. If there are 400 who care enough about the House to stand for election, presumably they care enough to turn up and fulfil their responsibilities anyway.
  As we have said again and again, this Bill is not about life Peers; it is about hereditary Peers. The Royal Commission will report shortly. That is the time to consider what transitional arrangements might be needed for life Peers. I urge the House to reject the amendment.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that this was the continuation of a sixth-form debating society. I do not think that it was anything of the kind. It happens to be a very serious amendment, as I endeavoured to point out.
  My noble friend Lord Campbell said that it is an amusing amendment. I do not know whether it is particularly amusing. He also said that the one reason why it could not possibly be accepted is that it pre-empts what the Royal Commission is going to do. But the whole Bill pre-empts what the Royal Commission is going to do. So that, even coming from my noble friend, is a rotten argument!
  I knew that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, would try to destroy my amendment through a mass of rhetoric; and he did not do too badly—in the eyes of some! Did your Lordships notice that he did not use the word "legitimacy"? He changed it to "rationale". I bet he crossed that out at the last moment. He said that my amendment would not work because there would not be enough noble Lords to undertake the workload and he asked who on earth would do it. That is not much of a compliment to the
  212
  life Peers. I presume that they would just have to choose the very young, hefty packhorses to stay up all night.
  I am interested in the amendment because I introduced an amendment in your Lordships' House earlier in the Bill's passage to suggest that your Lordships should be known not by their title—because that is not what people want to come here for—but by their surname followed by ML, which I knew would meet with the favour of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House because she wrote an article about it. However, when I came to put the amendment to the test I found that the Government Whips had been put on, and noble Lords on the government side marched into the Division Lobby in order to be able to continue to call themselves "Lords", including the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, because of course she was under the direction of the Chief Whip.
  The Chief Whip made a curious remark this evening. He said that he did not think that we had had very many Divisions. I am going to have a Division on this amendment because, even if the Government have put on their Whips and said that the amendment is not acceptable, I just want to see all the noble Lords on the Benches opposite traipse through the Division Lobby in order not to be elected.
  5.59 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 186; Not-Contents, 238.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Ailsa, M

  Ellenborough, L.

  Alanbrooke, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Fisher. L.

  Annaly, L.

  Forester, L.

  Arlington, B.

  Gage, V.

  Arran, E.

  Gainford, L.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Gormanston, V.

  Banbury of Southam, L.

  Grantley, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Gray, L.

  Bell, L.

  Gretton, L.

  Biddulph, L.

  Grey, E.

  Blyih, L.

  Halifax, E.

  Boston, L.

  Hambro, L.

  Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Burton, L.

  Hampden, V.

  Byron, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Calverley, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Carew, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Chalfont, L. [Teller]

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Chilston, V.

  Head, V.

  Clanwilliam, E.

  Hemphill, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Hesketh, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Clinton, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Hothfield, L.

  Cochrane of Cults, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Coleraine, L.

  Iliffe, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Cowdray, V.

  Ironside, L.

  Craigmyle, L.

  Iveagh, E.

  Cross, V.

  Jeffreys, L.

  Cunliffe, L.

  Keyes, L.

  Dartmouth, E.

  Killearn, L.

  DeLaWarr, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Denbigh, E.

  Lauderdale, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Devonport, V.

  Lawson of Blaby, L.

  Donegall, M.

  Leathers, V.

  Dudley, E.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E

  Dundee, E.

  Liverpool, E.

  Dunrossil, V.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  245

  Long, V.

  Saint Levan, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Saltoun of Abemethy, Ly.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Sandford, L.

  Lytton, E.

  Sandys, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Spens, L.

  Marks of Broughton, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Strathalmond, L.

  Monckton of Brenchley, V.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Monson, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Moran, L.

  Swansea, L.

  Morris, L.

  Swinton, E.

  Morton, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Temple of Stowe, E.

  Mountgarret, V.

  Teynham, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Munster, E.

  Torrington, V.

  Napier and Ettrick, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Napier of Magdãla, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Naseby, L.

  Waterford, M.

  Newall, L.

  Wedgwood, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Weir, V.

  Norton, L.

  Westmorland, E.

  Nunburnholme, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller]

  Winchester, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Wise, L.

  Plumb, L.

  Woolton, E.

  Rennell, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Romney, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  St. Germans, E.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Addington, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Cobbold, L.

  Amos, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Annan, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Cromartie, E.

  Attenborough, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Bach, L.

  David, B.

  Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

  DaviesofCoity, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Desai, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Diamond. L.

  Blease, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Bledisloe, V.

  Dixon, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Brett, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Elder, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Ewing of Kirkford, L.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Ezra, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Burlison, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Filkin, L.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Gale, B.

  Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Gifford, L.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Gilbert, L.

  Charteris of Amisfield, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Clancarty, E.

  Goodhart, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  246

  Goudie, B.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Gould of Pottemewton, B.

  Newby, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Grantchester, L.

  Northfield, L

  Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Orme, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Patel, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Paul, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Peston, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Hardie, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Razzall, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Rea, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Rennard, L

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Renwick of Clifton. L.

  Hooson, L.

  Richard, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Russell, E.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Ryder of Warsaw, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

  Sawyer, L.

  Chancellor)

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

  Serota, B.

  Privy Seal)

  Jeger, B.

  Sewel, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Judd, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Kennet, L.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Simon, V.

  KilbracKen, L.

  Smith of Clifton. L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Stair. E.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Stern, B.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Strafford, E.

  Listowel, E.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Lockwood, B.

  Taverne, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Longford, E.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Templeman, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  [Teller]

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Thornton. B.

  McNair, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  McNally, L.

  Tope, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Uddin, B.

  Marlesford, L.

  Varley, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire. L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Meston, L.

  Walton of Detchant, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Warner, L.

  Miller of Chilthome Domer, B.

  Warnock, B.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Molloy, L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  247

  Whitty, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh Lord Clifford of Chudleigh moved Amendment No. 16:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

  CONSTITUTIONAL BILLS: VOTING RIGHTS OF HEREDITARY PEERS
  (" . Section I shall not apply in respect of any proceedings in the House of Lords on a constitutional bill or a bill including constitutional provisions, and any person who is or becomes the holder of a hereditary peerage shall be entitled to sit and vote on such proceedings.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad that the House has had the opportunity of a preamble to my amendments. I do not believe that my first statement will come as a surprise to anyone in the House. Many hours have been devoted to debating the merits of reforming this revising Chamber. The many words written in newspapers, magazines and articles that cover the same subject indicate the size, nature and importance of this constitutional beast.
  Those of us who read Sir Robin Day's article in the Daily Telegraph on 2nd September will be aware that he listed the occasions on which this House had been subject to review since the Reform Act 1832. He quoted the Reform Acts 1867 and 1887, the Ballot Act 1872 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, as well as the Life Peerages Act 1958. Those and other reforms have, step by step, broadened and transformed our Parliament as upholder of the democratic
  216
  constitution. Surely, no one can argue that Members of this House are, or have been, blind to its faults over the past 100 years.
  I remind another place that this House agreed to a massive reform of its composition and influence some 21 years ago, only to be turned down by the House of Commons. It was with deep regret, and obvious surprise, that on 30th March we heard the noble Lord, Lord Randall of St Budeaux, say that he had met with an "unexpected feeling of hatred" within the corridors and Benches of this House. I admired the contents of his well balanced speech but was shaken by his initial impression that this was a "House of Hate".
  I turn to the former Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and to the present holder of that office, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and request that they examine their consciences, for they have not appeased but propagated the unnecessary feeling of spite—"SPITE" being a n acronym for "socialist ploys inclined towards envy"—that has marred such an important period during which we have been negotiating the future of this country's constitution.
  As a hereditary Peer, I am likely to have been slighted for a greater period of my life than many life Peers because I have a title, or was born with a title (if that is a little more pleasing). For the Leader of the House to slight me out of spite and to belittle hereditary Peers as nothing better than Armed Forces material or farmers—I hope that the Chief Whip also notes this—ruffles the feathers somewhat. When another place posts our peace-keepers to Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland and now East Timor, and the present Government appear to show continued disrespect for farmers' support of the rural way of life, we in this House are supposed to act like parliamentarians and not be subject to a system of "flooding" by politicians. Surely such a bias smacks of power preservation by the executive—the Cabinet, the leaders of the policy-making body which regulates this country's future. Surely both Houses of Parliament can credit this nation's population with sufficient intelligence to note that such a bias is designed to benefit the fat cats of the Cabinet.
  Since 1997 more and more electoral privileges, human rights and choices have been removed or outlawed by another place; and yet, when it comes to making a monumental constitutional choice as to who should monitor our legislators and harness the possible dictatorial nature of the executive's wishes, this House has been persuaded against holding a referendum—asking the people their opinion about how well this House, as it is composed, reflects public opinion on farming, Europe, demands on the Armed Forces, education, pensions, the disabled, health, management of our services, the infrastructure, and so on.
  The Government were elected as the people's choice by 30 per cent, or thereabouts, of the electorate on what they promised in their manifesto. I agree that the removal of hereditary Peers was one of the intentions expressed in the Labour Party manifesto, but so was a

  217
  freedom of information Bill, better standards of education, shorter waiting lists for medical attention, and the removal of sleaze—the usual political bilge that the electorate expect at every single election. They were promised a referendum on Europe. Do they really think that they will have one? Those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were lucky. They were given a referendum on a matter of constitutional importance: devolution. This House, this body of mature individuals, does not pretend to be anything but a practical listening institution which hopes and endeavours to work with the elected Chamber in good faith to produce sound legislation for entry on to the statute book.
  Although, like another place, we are subject to lobbyists, most of us are at, or close to, the zenith of our careers and do not care for being lectured on, or told repeatedly, our responsibility and duty. But having considered the House of Lords Bill in full, and having been told that we are to elect 90 hereditary Peers for an interim Chamber two months before the Royal Commission presents its report on a proposed interim Chamber, it is clear that this House of Parliament is being subjected to arrogant bullying, not the considered opinion the nation expects from its leaders.
  Parliaments should be able to distinguish between mere casual opinion, which should not be paramount, and the way laws affect people's livelihood and settled way of life. If they do not do so, they will encourage and be subject to media rule, a mode espoused by fascists and communists alike. Such extremists are permitted to introduce whatever takes their fancy under a smokescreen of misinformation and a persistent drizzle of indoctrination.
  Taking account of the well considered statements made by your Lordships since 1998 acknowledging our role as the final revising body of Parliament, and not abrogating that responsibility, it is clear that the House of Lords Bill contains defects and requires redrafting.
  I recognise that many noble Lords have offered themselves for election by their hereditary Peers on 3rd November. Seventy-five may attain that goal. By considering the legal facts, the details given to noble Lords on the subject of the constitution, and taking notice of their consciences, noble Lords will see that the fair governance of this country is most important. I remind your Lordships that infidelity to the truth destroys dignity. I beg to move.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise not because I had intended to say anything on this amendment, but because the noble Lord was moved to say something about me in the course of his remarks. I listened to what he said with great interest. I found it impossible to relate it to the amendment he was supposed to be moving.
  The noble Lord accused me of arrogant bullying, and of slighting him because he has a title and out of spite. I am very sorry if he feels slighted. I am very
  218
  sorry indeed that as a hereditary Peer he finds himself at the sharp end, so to speak, of the Bill. I do not slight him. My meaning is very simple: "We don't want to lose you but we think you ought to go". Why do we think you ought to go, my Lords? The answer is simple. The noble Lord used the phrase that the function of this House was to be a check on the executive. I agree that the function of this House is to be a check on the executive, in particular when the executive has a majority of 170 (or whatever it is) in the other House of this Parliament. But the reason that the hereditary peerage has to go is that the composition of this House in its present form means that it cannot do its job as a check on the power of the executive properly and well.
  I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, does not take that as a personal slight. It is, as I see it, a fair reflection of the state of play between both Houses of Parliament. Since the 1968 attempt at reform, this House has laboured continually under the imposition of a majority of this House being of the hereditary peerage and, indeed, a majority of that hereditary peerage taking the Conservative Whip. Looking at the facts and the composition of this House, it seems impossible to come to any other conclusion than that it is the illegitimacy of the composition of this House which deprives it of, and removes it from, the proper position that it should occupy in the British legislature.
  I am sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, thinks that that is a Socialist ploy inclining towards envy. It seems to me a realistic appreciation—it is one that I and the party on this side of the House have held for some time—of what has to be done to this House to make it effective. If the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, wants to make it effective, I am surprised that he is not voting with us.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has made an immense contribution to the passage of this Bill at all stages. No one who has heard him promote his amendments can have any doubt whatsoever about his sincerity, his determination and his passionate attachment to the cause he seeks to promote.
  Many of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord have been of a high standard and have posed testing and apposite questions to the Government. Often his perspicacity has illuminated dark corners of peerage law or, more widely, our constitutional law.
  I felt, however, that his speech was too wide-ranging for the text of his amendment which refers to constitutional matters and constitutional law. If a lawyer were to be responding to his advocacy in court, he would say that the problem with the noble Lord's amendment is that it is void for uncertainty.
  What is a constitutional Bill in your Lordships' House or another place? I tried in the early stages of the passage of this Bill to argue that a Bill altering the composition of the sovereign was a constitutional Bill. However, the Government were quick to point out that that gave it no special status in our constitution.

  219
  It is difficult to define what amounts to a constitutional matter. Even if that can be agreed by some, it is difficult to know who should decide what it is. There are no answers to either of these questions in the amendment. In those circumstances, I fear I have to say to the noble Lord that his amendment serves no practical purpose.
  I would rather turn your Lordships' attention to the amendment that was passed at Report stage in your Lordships' House by my noble friends, Lord Mancroft and Viscount Goschen, which sought, at least at this stage successfully, to entrench the quinquennial Act in the law of our nation. I earnestly hope that noble Lords on the Government Benches opposite will not seek to have that amendment overturned when it goes to another place.
  More widely, the important question of what constitutional role your Lordships' House should play in the transitional phase is a matter that the new House will need to consider at an early stage. If the Government are right that the new House will be more legitimate than the previous House, it is also right that the new House should have new responsibilities, and those responsibilities should encompass constitutional matters. It will be the task of your Lordships' new House to determine what they are. That is the proper moment for a debate on constitutional matters and what constitutes those matters and not, I submit, in this Bill.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I wonder if I may bring the House back to the grouped amendments which I believe we are discussing; namely Amendment No. 16 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chudleigh. I believe that he has ungrouped Amendment No. 28.
  A Noble Lord: Lord Clifford.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am so sorry, Lord Clifford. I do apologise. That is in no way a slight. It is simply forgetfulness on my part. May I ask him whether he has ungrouped Amendment No. 28?
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I have put in that preamble in order to support.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall speak to Amendment No. 16, which is the amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that I believed we were discussing.
  It may be helpful to your Lordships to know that the effect of the amendment is to allow any hereditary Peer, whether or not he has previously been a Member of the House, to return to take part in any proceedings on a constitutional Bill or a Bill containing constitutional provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, used the legal expression that this was "void for uncertainty". Perhaps I can explain it in layman's terms. There is no attempt in the amendment to define what Bills might fall into these categories, nor
  220
  is there any attempt to spell out what arrangements, if any, the hereditary Peers in question would have to go through in order to turn up for these debates.
  This is now the third time that we have considered an attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, to preserve a role for hereditary Peers in this somewhat undefined area of constitutional Bills or Bills including constitutional provisions. With this Third Reading amendment, I suggest that we revert t o what I might call the somewhat extreme version which I understand the noble Lord originally proposed at Committee stage, whereby any hereditary Peer, whether or not he has ever been a Member of this House and whether or not apparently he is a minor, an alien or a bankrupt, can simply turn up and take part in proceedings on certain Bills.
  I know that my noble friend Lord Peston may well rise to say that this is another example of sixth form debating on a subject which is not central or serious. Let the House be in no doubt that the amendment is quite unacceptable to the Government for the reasons which we gave when it was previously discussed. First, it is unacceptable to us because it implies that life Peers, by the simple fact of being life Peers, are not to be trusted to deal adequately with these constitutional issues. It implies that there is something about the mere status of a hereditary Peer—not experience but simply status—that makes him better able to judge the needs of the country, in these particular respects, than those who may be charged with that task by the people—that is, those in the House of Commons—or the life Peers.
  Parliament is the guardian of our constitution. That simple but profound statement was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, when, on a similar amendment in Committee in your Lordships' House on 29th April 1999 he said:
  "I find it constitutionally odd that Parliament itself should not be trusted to perform one of its central functions in its control of government;"—[Official Report, 29/4/99; col. 466.]
  Nothing that has been said today alters that fundamental position, so elegantly put by the noble Viscount. If the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, seeks the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 16, I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
  Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I thank the Leader of the House for her last few comments. My preamble contained a particular statement specifically designed to show her and other members of the Government that the House feels, as I do, that it should be reformed. I hope that that was understood.
  With regard to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in relation to slight, I talked about slighting farmers and the Armed Forces because they were hereditary Peers, or vice versa.
  Usually, as on this occasion, this House considers legislation, returning its opinion to another place and asking its Members, the executive, to think again before committing the legislation to the monarch and then to the statute book. So many details, though not

  221
  all of them, have been presented to your Lordships on this occasion, that I am asking your Lordships to think again and to remember that the people of this country, the electorate, will be affected should we condone the disbandment of this essential, independent part of Parliament. Should we relinquish our responsibilities towards the electorate? Despite the fact that we are unelected, we have responsibilities. We have responsibilities to monitor the executive and to give a balanced, well considered opinion of legislation.
  We should remember the opinion of a particular Member of another place in 1968, a man named Enoch Powell, a Conservative who, together with the late Michael Foot, overturned the Bill which I previously mentioned. He said something which I think we all ought to remember. He said:
  "Too often today people are ready to tell us that this is not possible or that is not possible. I say, whatever the true interest of our country calls for is always possible. We have nothing to fear but our doubts".
  I ask your Lordships to consider what I have said. I shall withdraw my amendment, in the light of the fact that we have yet to consider Amendment No. 18. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 [Commencement and transitional provision]:
  [Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 3, line 19, leave out ("Session of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if I say that Amendment No. 25 has been degrouped from this group of amendments, which leaves solely Amendment No. 18 and those which are consequential upon it, if that is correct. That is what I understand.
  I have not taken very much part in the proceedings on this Bill since it came to your Lordships' House. I felt at the very beginning that I had a fairly clear idea of how things would go. I felt that I did not have too great a chance of changing those things. I also felt that at times I might well be at odds with some of my colleagues on the Front Bench in my approach to the Bill. Therefore, I have not joined in many of your Lordships' debates until this stage.
  A similar amendment was discussed at about midnight on 30th June and was withdrawn by my noble friend Lord Mountgarret. In reply, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, observed that it would delay the Bill and that he was against delay. That was the totality of his argument against the amendment. I have to say that I am in favour of delaying the Bill. A century or two would suit me reasonably well, but if I could have a little less I should have to be content.
  Delay for its own sake is not the purpose of the amendment. The first point I want to put to the House, and the prime reason for tabling the amendment, relates to the interests of justice and what we now
  222
  regard as common human or democratic rights. Every man and woman has the right to be represented in this Parliament. Those who are not Peers are able to stand for, and to vote in elections to, the House of Commons. Peers are not in that position. None of us, unless we have been recently ennobled, was able to vote for the present House of Commons. Now, the hereditary Peers are to be thrown out of this House. It is a breach of the understanding that Peers did not vote in general elections or parliamentary elections because they had the right to sit and vote in this place, because no hereditary Peer voted for the present Parliament.
  If the Bill is enacted and comes into effect at the end of this Session of Parliament, for up to two and a half years hereditary Peers will have no representative in the Commons and they will not be represented by their own voice in this House. That is the change that is being undertaken and, in my judgment, it is a breach of faith. As the Bill was originally drafted, it was an absolute breach for there were to be no hereditary Peers elected by their colleagues to continue to sit here. Now there are to be 92. Are there, my Lords? It would be most helpful if the Minister in replying to the debate could be clear in giving an undertaking that the so-called "Weatherill amendment" will not be reversed in the House of Commons.
  The Minister may say that Ministers here cannot give guarantees about what happens in the other place. I know that, but I recently heard the Prime Minister himself giving what he called a "guarantee" that while he was Prime Minister he would not allow to pass any legislation outlawing fishing or shooting. The fact that he does not have the power to do that, because the Scottish Parliament can do it, is beside the point. He says that he can give those guarantees. Presumably it has been discussed in government and a decision has been made. Perhaps we should have it clearly set before us tonight, if necessary on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, whether or not the Government will resist and vote down an attempt to tamper with the Weatherill amendment.
  There is a second thought here. As the Bill is presently drafted, there will be no time to receive the report of the Wakeham commission or for the Government to make their position clear on it. Of course, the Government claim a mandate for expelling the hereditary Peers, but they have no mandate for stage two. They say that they do not know what stage two will be. It seems to me that it would be for the better health of our democracy if the Bill did not come into effect until the proposals of the Wakeham commission, the Government and the other political parties were made known. It would seem sensible that the delay should run up to the general election. All the parties will then be able to put forward proposals for stage two after a reasonable period in which they have been considered, discussed internally and put to the electors.
  We do not know whether the Government intend to hasten through another House of Lords Bill for stage two. Again, it might help if the Minister would give an

  223
  assurance about a second Bill. It would help if he gave an assurance about how long the 92 hereditary Peers will remain.
  I was made even more uneasy today by what we were told of the Government's attitude towards Clause 3 of the Bill. There may be some drafting defects in the proposals in the Bill for a commission, but to leave a hole there would be an even greater defect. Will there be put into the Bill in the other place the Government's intention on that aspect so that when it comes back here we may hear their proposals; or will they simply be by order, done in what was referred to as an independent and non-statutory manner?
  Recently, we had a glaring example of the Government's idea of what shape an independent, non-statutory commission should take. They set one up in order to select the Labour Party's candidate for the London mayoralty. It gives us little confidence in the way the Government behave towards such matters. I remember that not long ago it was one man, one vote. It still is; and we k low the one man, we know where he lives and we know that he casts his one vote!
  The matter could be eased for him by something that I read about in the newspapers the other day. It appears that a company is manufacturing robot dogs. It was claimed that they could be trained in three weeks. Well, we have until May for the mayoral elections. That is ample time to produce a dog called Dobbo which will roll on its back and put its legs in the air whenever it is commanded to do so by its master.
  There can be few people in this House whose confidence in the Government's commitment to the democratic process, or to the fair and reasonable selection of candidates for high office, has not been badly damaged by the events of the past month relating to the selection of the Labour candidate for mayor.
  For all those reasons, it would be appropriate if we agreed tonight that this Bill should not come into effect until the end of this Parliament. What is the rush? I am told that there has been great anxiety on the part of the Labour Party to do something about this ever since 1911. That is a wait of 88 years. Would two more make any difference? Is it not better to get things right than suddenly to go hell-for-leather in a scuffle to get the Bill through at the last moment?
  This is a reasonable amendment. It accepts the Bill and does not attempt to turn it over in any way. It merely says, first, that the hereditary Peers should not be deprived of their ability to vote and speak in this House until they have been given the opportunity to elect their own representatives in the other place. Secondly, it says— I say this with some regret—that we do not trust the Government when they say that they will produce these wonderful ideas at some future time, but are not prepared to do so before the Bill comes into effect.
  The noble Baroness the Leader of the House smiles her usual smile on these occasions. If she were to ask her colleague and friend from the other place, Mr Ken
  224
  Livingstone, whether he would trust this Administration with the selection of people for high office, she would receive a clear reply.
  Lord Barnett: My Lords, I have not as yet spoken in this debate, but I have often been provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, over many years. I once did him the grave discourtesy of accusing him of being basically a nice man. Since then, and indeed before that, he has tried very hard to dispute the charge that I levelled against him. On this occasion he has made some very strange statements. He said that the Bill we are debating tonight is a "breach of faith", despite the fact that a majority of 170 in the elected other place proposed this Bill and sent it to your Lordships.
  I respect, and have always respected, the fine work done by many hereditary Peers, but that is not a justification for them to stay in a second Chamber. I equally have great respect for many life Peers, who do a great job of work in this second Chamber, but equally, that is no justification for there being a second Chamber of that kind. It is positively sensible—indeed, dare I say to noble Lords opposite, it is common sense—to start with legislation first and foremost, as we have done in the manifesto, to dispense with the rights of hereditary Peers full stop. Since then, there have been changes.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked what was the view of the Front Bench. I cannot answer for them at the second stage, but I personally am not in favour of unicameral parliament. The only serious democratic Chamber is, in my view, a wholly elected one— I make no apologies for saying so. The mixture of elected and nominated Peers, which we are led to believe might be installed, frankly might well be hybrid in the sense in which noble Lords have tried to dispute the present Bill. The trouble for the Government, and indeed, the other place, on stage two is that if there were an elected, or even partially elected, second Chamber, that second Chamber would want real powers. I make it plain that, in my personal view, that is the reason why it will not happen.
  The Bill we are debating tonight was originally very simple. It became far more complex through the acceptance of an amendment which has come to be known as the "Weatherill amendment", but we all know that the author of the amendment was the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I was surprised earlier to hear the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, from the Front Bench say that the Government have by this Bill created two classes of Peer. With great respect, it was not this Government who did that; it was the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. That is what created two classes of Peer. It was part of the deal which we are now discussing in this Bill tonight. Previously the Bill was not at all complex. It became so when the Government were persuaded by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, in his usual charming way, to accept his proposals. I make it clear that I do not agree with them.
  I should prefer the Bill without those complex clauses. I make that quite clear to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asked what was the rush and

  225
  said that we could wait. If the Bill did not pass tonight and we therefore entered a new Session with a simple Bill, I personally should be very happy indeed. I assume that that is unlikely to be the case because the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, has already told us that he will recommend the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and his colleagues not to vote down this Bill. For my part I hope that they do vote it down. We could then move to a simple Bill, and that is what I support.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I rise to give my wholehearted support to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. Some of my noble friends have asked me to explain why I support this amendment so firmly and wholeheartedly. I owe to the House the obligation of explaining why I do so.
  This amendment can almost be described as the "last-chance saloon". If it is not accepted by the House, the only logical alternative for those who object to the Bill is to vote against it on the Question, "That the Bill do now pass". Some noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, would welcome that and I believe that many noble Lords will suggest it when the time comes. I have difficulty with that procedure. I feel that there is an intellectual and logical problem in a House which passes a Bill on Second Reading and then rejects it at Third Reading, when all that has happened to it in the mean time is that some concessions have been made by the Government.
  Having said that, I have great sympathy with those now pressing the case for the Bill to be rejected. That is why this amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is so important. I hope that neither the noble Lord, Lord Peston, nor anyone else will say that this is a sixth-form debating society or a sixth-form debating point. It is a vital point. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, has said that he does not mind delay. That is what the amendment proposes. It does not propose that the Bill be rejected, nor that the principle of the removal of the hereditary peerage should be reneged upon, but simply that it should be delayed for a period. I regard that as a very serious constitutional point.
  Before I go any further, perhaps I should make one interjection into my general argument. It is especially relevant to the fact that this amendment has been tabled by a Conservative Peer. One of the things about which I am sorry is that the Conservative government, when they were in power, did not take some steps towards reforming this House. Had they done so, we should not be in the mess in which we now are. Let there be no two ways nor mealy-mouthed talking about this: the whole of this Bill, everything concerned with it and the additions around it are a mess. It is a greater mess than anything I have seen in my 35 years in your Lordships' House. I have to make that point. I am sorry that when the Conservative Party was in office it did not do what in my view it should have done; that is, adopt an orderly, civilised, long-term approach to the problem.
  226
  I also believe that the Government and the governing party have lost a great deal of sympathy by the way in which they have handled this Bill. At the beginning, some people—not too far from where I stand at the moment—felt a certain sympathy for the new Labour Party and the new Labour Government and for the things which they were trying to achieve. However, I believe that the Bill, and the way in which it has been handled, has destroyed, abated and dispersed a great deal of that sympathy. That is a great shame because it could have been handled in a much more orderly and civilised manner.
  I believe it is not going too far to say that hereditary Peers are being treated in an almost humiliating way. They are being cast out at the drop of a hat with no right to return here even, as far as we can see, for a cup of tea or to read a book in the Library; they will be without any kind of redress. Suddenly, families which have had an association with this House for hundreds of years are to be cut off. That is all right. That is what the Bill and the government policy intend. However, I believe that some noble Lords will agree with me when I say that the matter could have been handled in a more civilised, orderly and sensitive way. I, for one, am sad that that has not been the case.
  This amendment now gives us an opportunity to stand back at a little distance, with all the experience that we have had of the debates on the Bill, and take advantage of whatever advice is given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, when his Royal Commission reports, and to look at things in a new light.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that we should not pre-empt the Wakeham report in any part of this legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh have already said, the whole point of this Bill is to pre-empt the Wakeham Commission. I believe that it is very odd to give to a distinguished Member of this House the commission to decide upon, or at least to recommend upon, the long-term future of this House and, while he is still in the middle of it, to take steps to alter the House in a constitutionally profound and radical way. That appears to me to be totally illogical and wrong.
  As I said before during this debate, I believe that this is a bad Bill. I do not like the Bill at all. I wish it had never come into the House. I want to see it defeated in one way or another. I have already said that to throw it out at Third Reading for many reasons, including one that I have mentioned, is probably not the ideal solution. In my view the ideal solution is to do what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, asks us to do; that is, to agree that the Bill should come into force not at the end of the Session but at the end of the Parliament. That is an important difference, of course, but it does nothing to undermine the Labour Party's manifesto nor to undermine its right and obvious determination to change the nature of this House. That is why I give this amendment my wholehearted support.
  Before I sit down, I should like to add something which I hope will not be taken amiss by anyone. My experience of the whole debate on this Bill since it was

  227
  first introduced into this House has been somewhat unhappy. I regret having to say this but I believe that the debate has sometimes been vindictive and acrimonious. Some noble Lords have either never read or have never understood the Standing Order on asperity of speech. There has been a great deal of that over recent weeks and months. Whatever else we may lose from this House—and I believe that we are about to lose a great deal—I hope that we shall not lose our traditions of civility. In that context I hesitate to use the expression noblesse oblige because it might be misunderstood. Therefore, I should like instead to use a somewhat old-fashioned word: I hope that we shall not lose our dignity.
  7 p.m.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, before I address myself to the arguments of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, I suggest that, during the course of what I have to say, noble Lords should remember the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and that those remarks should run as a sort of leitmotif through what I have to say in the next few moments.
  I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, let the cat out of the bag It was extremely interesting that so authoritative a figure as the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, approved so loudly, although from a sedentary position, of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, when he said that he would welcome this Bill returning to its original form. In view of the majority which pertains down the Corridor, I hope that my noble friends will remember the remarks of the noble Lord. Lord Barnett. I agree wholeheartedly with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Tebbn, speaking particularly as he does—and has done so often in the past—as something of an expert in the ways of Labour governments. If I understood him aright, my noble friend had divided his argument into two main parts. The first part was an elegant restatement—certainly far more elegant than I have ever managed during what have seemed to be endless debates in your Lordships' House on this subject—and reasoning behind that rather inelegant slogan which I believe I coined, it seems aeons ago: no stage one without stage two. I am pleased to find that my noble friend and I agree wholly on that slogan. The Government would have been very wise indeed to have followed it. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, if we had done so, without any question we should not have been in the mess that we are in today.
  During the course of his restatement of why this is the wrong way to approach reform of your Lordships' House, I do not believe that my noble friend made the connection—if I may venture to suggest with the greatest of respect to him—which flowed from a number of the reasons he gave for saying that we should return to insisting upon that. The first reason was—and it is again one with which I agree—that it would have been very much better to have waited for the results of the Royal Commission before deciding on reform of your Lordships' House. I do not believe that anyone on this side of the House will disagree with
  228
  that. I suspect that a great many people on other sides of the House will not disagree either. I wholly agree with that.
  I also agree with my noble friend's suggestion that there was an inequity in depriving a number of your Lordships of the implied benefits of sitting in this House. That was the counter-party to their not being allowed to vote for membership of another place or, indeed, to stand for membership of another place.
  If the Bill passes in its present form, there will be a period—perhaps 18 months or two years—during which many of us who are not fortunate enough to sit in this House will be represented nowhere in Parliament until the next general election. That, of course, is self-evidently true. However, I am well aware that the argument which I am about to put to my noble friend will not be one that he will find enormously seductive. In many ways, neither do I. But recently I was privileged, if that is the right word, to sit on the Committee for Privileges. It was put forcibly that a breach existed on this very point under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Your Lordships will be aware that the three noble and learned Lords who served on that committee and guided us, as lay-members, were very clear that the margin of appreciation doctrine made that point invalid because of the relatively short period between the passage of the Bill and the next general election.
  I am well aware that my noble friend is, if anything, even more sceptical than I am about some of the effects of the ECHR on our own parliamentary system. Nevertheless, it seems that it is difficult for us to argue that point when it is governed by something to which we have already signed up.
  Both those points carry enormous weight with, I should think, all of my noble friends. They certainly do so with me and clearly have persuaded my noble friend. They are supplementary arguments to the perfectly obvious point that we should not undertake a reform of your Lordships' House stage by stage but that the matter should be undertaken in one fell swoop.
  This is where my noble friend's argument about the unreliability of the Government comes in. He is self-evidently right, again. This Government are profoundly unreliable. We know that they are extremely cavalier—I put it no higher—in the way in which they deal with constitutional matters. I need lay only one example before your Lordships. Your Lordships will remember that the Government had no scruples about indulging in two pre-legislative referendums before introducing in this House devolution legislation for Scotland and Wales. We know equally that both those referendums were rigged. I have no doubt that the Scottish result would have differed little, even if it had not been rigged. I wish I could say the same about the Welsh referendum.
  We also know that the effect of this constitutional outrage of pre-legislative referendums is clear. It emasculates the will of Parliament to give proper scrutiny to constitutional legislation. We know that that is yet another example, which is even more

  229
  powerful, dare I say, than the ones adduced by my noble friend in support of his argument, for illustrating the Government's inherent unreliability.
  However, I would say to my noble friend that the Government decided to change your Lordships' House in at least two stages; possibly more. I am highly sceptical as to whether stage two will appear for some time. However, that is no more than idle speculation. We also know that we are presented with a Government who have a vast majority in another place. The Government are utterly determined, no matter what happens, to get this Bill through in one form or another whether we like it or not. The Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House has made that clear beyond peradventure more times than I care to remember.
  I do not trust the Government, although I have the greatest respect for the people in it. However, as a government—not as individuals—I do not trust them further than I can spit, and that is not far with a dry mouth. It is for that very reason, that they are unreliable, that we have two guarantees that there will be a powerful incentive for the Government not to remain with an entirely nominated House. The first is that the Bill will have to return here from another place. If they break their agreement—which they have not so far—and we have kept our side of the bargain, I, for one, would have no hesitation in doing my best to ensure that the revised Bill, in the form which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and, I dare say, most of the Labour Party, would like to see it, as amended, is thrown out. I remind my noble friend that your Lordships will still be in a position to do that.
  My second point is that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will recognise that in spite of the overwhelming force down the corridor, we have at least managed to persuade the Government, in however inadequate a form, to proceed to stage two. I am no defender of what the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, kindly and probably quite wrongly attributed to me as author of the Weatherill amendment. It is far from perfect. However, it is at least some inducement to a government which have, over and again, said how much they dislike the idea of hereditary Peers, to proceed to stage two if only to get rid of the provision for the 92 Peers which your Lordships have ensured is inserted in the Bill. That is not a copper-bottomed guarantee, but at least it is inducement for them to proceed to stage two.
  I apologise to the House for taking so long. Of course my noble friend is right in his analysis: the Government are unreliable. He is right about no stage one without stage two. However, the truth of the matter is that unless we can hang on to what we have, the Government will ensure—with the greatest of pleasure, I am certain—that the desires of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will be satisfied.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I should like to reinforce exactly the comments of the noble
  230
  Viscount. I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. Many of us would have preferred the original Bill. Because we know the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and the influence he has with his own party—or we thought he had—for the sake of the Government's other legislation, and in order to ease the path of the Bill through the House, we were ready to support the compromise of the 92 hereditary Peers. In my view, they should all go, and go quickly. I have always thought that. However, we were ready to support it.
  I make clear that if in any way attempts are made to alter the composition of the Bill or its timing, certainly I and, I imagine my noble friend Lord Barnett and many others, will feel entirely relieved of our obligations to support the compromise which we have steadily supported all the way through and will continue to do so as long as no change is made. From the murmurs of assent of my noble friends, I see that perhaps I carry one or two of them with me.
  I should like, therefore, to reinforce the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. The gloves are off. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, always manages to take them off. However, he usually makes a rather stronger argument. He does not normally have to bring in, in defence of his case, Ken Livingstone on a matter regarding the procedure for selecting candidates in the Labour Party. I am sorry to say that that only goes to show how weak his case was on this occasion. There were not even those flashes of humour which I normally associate with him and much like and respect. Perhaps I may say that it was not the best speech I have heard from him. I doubt if he thinks he has a case.
  Frankly, the only case he has is, "I don't like the Bill. I am going to use every stratagem and scrape I can in order to delay it". That is his only argument. I am sorry to say that I do not agree with him. I shall use what power and influence I have, which is very little, I am bound to say. I shall certainly use my vote and my influence, if I have any, with those in another place to stick to the original Bill. That is my position and it always has been. It has always been the position of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. We will stick to our view on these matters.
  If noble Lords opposite feel that it is worth their while to preserve the 92 Members in order that we should then proceed to a sensible reconstruction of this Chamber—which I hope we will have; I put my views to the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, several months ago—they will not attempt to delay the Bill or to mutilate it in any form. If they do not think it is worth their while preserving the 92 Members and proceeding on that basis to a reconstruction, they will vote against the Bill. Those of us who try to have some influence on the Government know what we will do if they do that. The Government should then return to the original Bill and put it through under the Parliament Act. We

  231
  have a majority in the country. It wants hereditary Peers to go. I have always wanted that and I hope that they are going tonight.
  Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I can truly say that I yield to no one in my admiration and, from a distance, my affection for the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. I cannot understand why he excites himself in this manner. This Bill is put forward as a way of allowing the Government time. In my view it is put forward in the interests of the Government. It is buying time for them to perform a very important function which is entirely missing at the moment from their programme.
  I emphasise that a vote for this amendment is in no way a vote against the Bill, which is preserved in every particular. The Weatherill Amendment is preserved in aspic. We are simply saying that the Bill should come into full operation at the end of a Parliament rather than in the short order which the Government have chosen.
  It has not been mentioned in all our long debates, as far as I can recall, but the main reason for some delay is the present state of public opinion, understanding and education. Whatever view we take about the so-called mandate, whether we regard it as a wholly bogus proposition or as holy writ, as the Labour Party regards it, opinion polls have repeatedly suggested that there is no full-hearted enthusiasm for the mutilation of the present House before knowing what is to take its place. In this House we have enjoyed endless debates over many months. We have had remarkably interesting and instructive speeches from all quarters. But the electorate does not bury its head in Hansard to try to follow the intricacies of the argument.
  I strongly welcome the announcement by the editor of the Daily Telegraph that that paper is reinstating a parliamentary report as a regular feature, which has been dropped from most other papers including The Times which was once regarded as the paper of record.
  My anxiety is that the Government, for their own party reasons, is racing ahead of public opinion and understanding. A major job of education has to be done in the next year or two whatever emerges from the Wakeham report. I call in support a rather unusual ally. The noble Lo d, Lord Goodhart, on the Liberal Democrat Benches made a remarkable speech at Report stage on the issue of a referendum. Of course, the noble Lord was on the wrong side on that matter. But the remarkable thing about his speech is that it is an all-purpose economical one which does just as well when it is stood on its head. For example, he said that the issue of hereditary Peers had been settled in 1910 because two general elections were fought on that particular matter. That is absolutely correct. But to compare that with a brief mention in a mandate including 200 or 2,000 more succulent pledges in 1997, is quite a different story.
  On that occasion the noble Lord said that in 1910 the elections had been concerned wholly with the issue of hereditary Peers and not just majoring on it. The important point I want to emphasise is that the noble
  232
  Lord said that the problem with a referendum is much more serious than the matter having been decided 80 years earlier. He said,
  "It will be extremely difficult to explain to the public what it is all about".—[Official Report, 10/4/99, col. 1052]
  That is the state of innocence of the public. They would be unable to face a referendum, according to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because it would be difficult for them to understand what it was all about.
  I have taken that matter very seriously because it puts the mandate in a rather diminished mode. The intellectually convincing case for this amendment is that it leaves the Bill intact in its present form, complete with the Weatherill safety boat. It allows time for Her Majesty's Government to consider their constitutional arrangements for the future, to heed the Wakeham report and, above all, to engage in an urgent, continual and sustained effort to educate the electorate in these constitutional matters.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there is a defective thread in the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Tebbit and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. None of them appears to recognise that no stage one before stage two suffered an unnatural death by slow strangulation at the hands of the great cross-party contrivance to ratify the deal, to confirm the Weatherill amendment and its implementation under Standing Orders.
  I opposed that unsuccessfully. I stood by on no stage one before stage two throughout the Bill, but unsuccessfully. I have not changed my personal views. But I defer to the will of two-thirds of this House. It has to be accepted that although many of us at one time—and I, alas, still—believe that the only answer is no stage one before stage two, another answer has been found and ratified by the House.
  Amendments Nos. 18, 20 and 21 have substantially the same effect as a set of amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mountgarret, and myself tabled in the wake of the 15-minute speech—perhaps less than that—of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, on 30th. Tune at about midnight. That amended Clause 7(2) and has caused a multitude of problems. It was not fully explained at the time or since. The object of the amendment to Clause 7(2), in substantially identical language to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, was to force the Government to have a meaningful debate if the matter was not referred to the Committee for Privileges. The Government opposed the application to send it to that committee. Your Lordships decided that it should. The matter was put to the committee and in the result the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, and I withdrew our amendments.
  The purpose of this amendment, in almost identical terms, is otherwise. If I heard the noble Lord. Lord Chalfont, aright, he said that in one way or another this Bill has to be opposed or has to fall. I have forgotten quite how he put it. This amendment is one way. A vote against the Bill do now pass is another. I am grateful that the noble Lord nods in agreement. So this amendment is a killer amendment. and let me explain why.

  233
  On the practicality of the situation, if this amendment were to be carried into the Bill, as I understand the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, and other noble Lords opposite, the Government would simply remove the Weatherill amendment when it goes to another place and take the Bill as it is. Frankly, why should they do otherwise? I am looking at the practicalities. I do not want them to do that, but why should they not?
  I want to take one other short point. The situation is that the House agreed by a massive majority the terms of the sale of the successor entitlement. Having agreed them, how can we now renege on them? Having granted, as we did, planning permission for the erection of a new House which is now near to completion, will it not be seen by the people as being rather quixotic to serve a demolition order now. I speak only in deference to the view of the House. My personal opinion was always and still is otherwise.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, when he addressed the House a few moments ago, said that we should avoid acrimony; that we should read the rule against asperity. I wish the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, had taken his advice. In a few short minutes the noble Viscount accused his party of "rigging" two referendums. He used the phrase, "I do not trust them further than I can spit and I cannot spit very far". I hope the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, will address his remarks to that side of the House as well as looking at this side.
  If I may say so, the noble Viscount did not express himself tonight with his usual "elegance", as he so fondly describes the speeches of others. His message is sometimes distorted by the elegance with which he expresses it. But I assume that what he was telling his colleagues on the Conservative Benches was that he was not in a position to support his noble friend Lord Tebbit in his amendment.
  The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is absolutely right; this is a killer amendment. If it is carried I sincerely hope that the Government will treat it as such. I have no great love of the Weatherill amendment. My views on it were made clear when it was passed. If the Weatherill amendment has to go because of the way in which the Opposition behave, so be it; then the Government have at their disposal the Parliament Act. If we have to use the Parliament Act, I shall not be discontent that the Bill should go through in that way.
  However, I am determined about one thing, so far as I can influence it; that is, that the Bill will go through. Noble Lords on the other side of the Chamber should be under no illusion about this. The Labour Party has spelt this out for years. Indeed, when it came to the last election we could not have been clearer about our intentions in relation to this House. Not only did we say what we wanted to achieve; we also said the way in which we were going to achieve it.
  We said that we would do it in two stages. We said that the first stage would be the abolition of the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote. We said that thereafter
  234
  there would be a test of public opinion. I concede that the manifesto said that that would be done by a joint committee of both Houses. Later on the Government came to the conclusion—rightly so—that it should be done by a Royal Commission. We said that when the results of that public consultation were out, we would consider them and bring forward proposals for further representative and democratic reform.
  The matter could not have been clearer. Nobody who looked at that manifesto—I am sure noble Lords opposite did—could have been in any doubt what the Government were proposing. We have done exactly what we said we would do. For the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, to say that the Bill is in a mess only proves that he does not like it. For those of us on this side of the House, the Bill is proceeding in a somewhat protracted way through Parliament. It has been down the far end. It came up here and is now going through its proceedings in the House of Lords. I trust that tonight it will leave the House of Lords and go back to the House of Commons.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Richard, give way? It is true that I do not like this Bill; it is a bad Bill. I have said that many times before and he has said what he said tonight many times before. But may I make this point? The Labour Party and the Labour Government may have made up their mind what they want and what they are going to get. That does not mean that the rest of us should lie down and accept it.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I have not suggested that for an instant. Of course one should have healthy, lengthy, protracted and rigorous debate. But at the end of the day, when the Government have made their position absolutely clear, I am saying to the House tonight that to pass this amendment is a clear denial of the Government's right to get their legislation. It is not a difficult point to grasp. I am sure that even the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, understands it. Indeed, I know he does because it is precisely the point that he would have made if he were standing in my position tonight.
  I want to make just one other point. Much of the confusion on the other side of the House in relation to this Bill comes from a desire to confuse stages one and two. I have a firm view about stage two. I believe that we will not reform this House properly unless we have a considerable, directly-elected element in the new House. I have never made any secret of that. Indeed, my noble friends Lord Barnett and Lord Peston said very much the same thing this afternoon.
  But that is not the point tonight. That is the central argument that will take place when the Royal Commission has reported. Tonight we are saying farewell to the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote; no more and no less. An attempt to put that back for another three years is a mere attempt at delay, and

  235
  delay, and delay. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, shakes his head. But that is what he wants to do; to delay the Bill.
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I nodded.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry; the noble Lord nodded. That is much more important than a shake in this instance. Of course he wants to delay the Bill. He does not like it. He does not want to see it implemented. But we on these Benches like the Bill. We want to see it implemented. We have a public manifesto. We had a mandate at the last election. We have an overwhelming majority in the House of Commons. We have had it in this House for nine months. With great respect to the hereditary Peers, for whom I have considerable admiration, the time has come that this Bill should now pass
  Lord Sandys: My Lords, I have attempted to speak on this amendmen six or seven times. As I may be the first hereditary Peer to speak on it after nearly 59 minutes of discussion I should perhaps declare an interest. I shall be brief, as colleagues will be pleased to know.
  I thank the noble Lord, Lord Richard, for enlightening us on much of the situation. I should like to quote from his helpful speech over a year ago, on 14th October 1998. It is the only speech as far as I can see—I have researched this carefully—from the Government in relation to timing. Amendment No. 18 concerns timing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Tebbit for bringing it forward. It is not a killer amendment. It is an amendment of sophistication. Last year the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said this:
  "I do not envisage legislation on the report of the Royal Commission until the first or second year of the next Parliament, so that the whole process would take around four years. As I said earlier, in many ways the issue of the hereditary peerage and its right to sit and vote in this House in some ways resolves itself into a question of timing. Should that step be taken at the beginning or at the end of the prccess? In all candour, I have heard no convincing arguments for postponing it. Indeed, when pressed, the opponents to the Government's proposition seem to condense the point to one of not being able to trust the Government to do what they say".—[Official Report, 14/10/98; col. 947.]
  It was very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Richard, to give us a time-scale because we had had none whatever until that time—that was about six months before the Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House. That time-scale clearly indicates that the Government had quite a long time-scale in mind.
  This amendment which is such a very good one, would allow time for further consideration and, indeed, would assist my noble friend Lord Wakeham who will almost certainly ask for an extension of time. I remind your Lordships that the first public hearing was held on 12th May. It really stretches credulity to a great extent if my noble friend is expected to report by 31st December, or thereabouts, knowing that the subject has nearly 90 years of history behind it. If he is going to devote enormous care, as I am sure that he will, to certain reports which came before his own Royal Commission, he will be looking at the Bryce
  236
  commission of 1917–18. If any noble Lords have looked, as I am sure that they have, at its recommendations and the sense of balance and objectivity which come from the words of Lord Bryce and his commissioners, they will realise what a very difficult task has been placed in the hands of my noble friend Lord Wakeham.
  I support this amendment. I do not believe that it is a "killer"; I believe that it is an enabling amendment.
  Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I, too, do not like the phraseology used of a "killer amendment". I must take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, in this respect. I am not sure that it is within the remit of your Lordships' House deliberately to seek to frustrate the Government's policy which has been clearly laid down. However, I believe that this House should—and does—assist the Government genuinely and sincerely to try to enact legislation in a right and proper fashion.
  The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, very kindly referred to me as his noble friend. I am very honoured to feel that perhaps de facto I am, although politics does not permit that. None the less, the noble Lord did make reference to the fact that this amendment is almost exactly the same as the one that I, with the great assistance of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, put forward in Committee. A number of arguments were deployed then; indeed, we got flak from the Government who said, "All you want to do is to delay the whole thing". That is not true. It is not a question of wanting to delay the whole thing: there would be no delay if only the Government had taken the Bill step by step.
  For the life of me, I cannot see how anyone who runs a business or any enterprise can make dramatic changes to the entire set-up without giving thought to what is to replace it. That is all, no more no less. Unfortunately, the Government were incalculable and said, "No, we don't like this; we don't agree with it". I then withdrew the amendment in the hope that the Government would give the matter a little more thought. But, alas, it was not to be. So, on Report, I tried a different tack; namely, relying on the question that hereditaries had received their Writs for this Parliament and, therefore, by right ought to be here for the remainder of the Parliament. I later learnt that that was to be referred, very sensibly, to the Committee for Privileges for it to adjudicate thereon. The answer has since come back, "No, that is not correct".
  I cannot speak for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but that is the reason why I withdrew the amendment that I intended to move on Third Reading. However, I am delighted to see that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is raising the matter and is able to deploy the magnificent arguments in the lucid style for which he is so well known. I feel that he should be given maximum support.
  There is an expression,
  "fools rush in where wise men fear to tread".
  I would not like to be accused of suggesting that noble Lords in the Labour Party are foolish, or that they are fools, either in the particular or in the generality. That

  237
  would be wrong. However, they are acting in a foolish way in not thinking through what will come next after we trot out into the twilight. Some will go to Church and sing:
  "Dear Lord and Father of mankind, forgive our foolish ways".
  The efforts of the Almighty will be greatly taxed if He is to forgive the gross foolishness of this, if it is proceeded with in this manner. For that reason, I feel that your Lordships' House has a duty to support the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and consider where we are going, what we are doing and how we are going to do it before this Bill comes into force.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I want to respond to a number of points that have been made in this fairly lengthy debate. A number of words have been used which, speaking as a hereditary Peer, I found quite offensive. The noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, spoke of the Government acting foolishly and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, spoke of uncivilised behaviour. He also spoke of losing expertise from the House, which is certainly true in part, and of losing dignity. I have to say that I believe that to be wholly untrue. I have sat through most of the proceedings on this Bill—
  Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I never said that this House had lost its dignity; I said that I hoped that it would not. We must be accurate about these things.
  Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord if I misquoted him. Indeed, I agree with him. It is right that this House should not lose its dignity, but I think it is in danger of doing so because it is not accepting the often repeated words of my noble friends on the Government Front Bench. They have repeatedly said that they recognise the individual contribution of many hereditary Peers; but that the Government will stick by their manifesto commitment and their intentions, which have been as plain as a pikestaff for as long as the Labour Party has been in existence. So I really cannot see that there is any objection to the Government's intention.
  The Government have been consistent and determined. When the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, started toying with the idea of invoking the European Convention on Human Rights, it very nearly took my breath away. I am a parliamentarian in the Council of Europe, which, of course, is the custodian of the ECHR. I was in Bucharest last week and talked to some Romanian parliamentarians. When I explained to them how I became a member of the British legislature, they just could not believe it. It was completely beyond their comprehension that there were hereditary Peers anywhere in the British legislature. Therefore, to talk about the ECHR, which, as I said, is the custodian of human rights, is beyond my understanding.
  238
  In conclusion, it is worth repeating that the reason for this Bill is a matter of privilege—it seeks to abolish the hereditary privilege which is wrong in principle. For that reason alone, the Bill should pass. I hope that it will do so quickly.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, this debate is not about whether or not the Bill should pass; it is about whether this amendment should be accepted. It is also about whether or not this amendment is some new animal, recently introduced into your Lordships' House, called a "killer amendment". It has been so described by an ex-Leader of the House, by an ex-Prime Minister and by an ex-Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but we have not yet heard from the Government Front Bench and that is where power lies. This is realpolitik; it is not about the elegance of our exchanges, the length of our history or our courtesies to one another; it is about political power, as the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said in a most notable speech some four or five days ago.
  The facts of the realpolitik are that Her Majesty's Government have a commanding majority in the other place and an agreement in this House. Everything turns on the definition of that agreement because if to pass this amendment would be a breach of that agreement, then the Government are off the hook and can do away with the 92 places so far secured. My own aspirations apart, it will be valuable to have 92 voices available at the time when this House decides with the other place what the succession to this House will be. If there were to be no such voice the country as well as your Lordships would be a great deal the poorer because those voices owe their privilege of speaking to no one except their ancestors who are not here to complain about their use. As my father was made a Peer on the recommendation of Ramsay MacDonald I am perhaps relieved that that criticism is not available. However, he moved far across the Floor of the House before he died!
  The reality of the situation is that this debate turns on the definition of that agreement because if this amendment were to breach that agreement, it would flaw that concession. I myself cannot see how it can. I do not think that a government ought to hold a House of Parliament to ransom and say, "You may not send any discussion about any particular aspect of this Bill to the other place or we shall then destroy the final sound of your hereditary Lordships' voice in this Chamber". But this is realpolitik; they have the ability to do so. I think, therefore, we have to be guided by my noble friend Lord Cranborne who has made it fairly clear that if we were to take that step it would put the Government in a position not to renege on but to withdraw the concession. I avoid provocative words because I think that that is a good thing to do at this stage of a debate. I must say with the greatest respect that I think that is the advice we should follow and that explains why I am wearing a black tie today.
  Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether I am abashed or gratified at having been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in such

  239
  kindly terms a moment or so ago—perhaps both. I have intervened in the debates on this matter two or three times and I think that I have made my position fairly clear. On the whole I approve of the Bill although I have certain reservations about the detail. These reservations have been dealt with—that is, ignored—by the Government and we are where we are now.
  I have to say that I agree almost entirely with the comments of my noble friend Lord Richard who spoke a little earlier except in respect of one matter; namely, when he spoke about an elected House. Both he and I have some experience of elections, sometimes happy and sometimes less happy. I have divided views about the value of elections. I shall not go any further into that.
  However, what worries me here arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said a moment ago when he reminded us that we were not dealing with the fact that the Bill should now pass—though, oddly, we seem to have been doing that—but rather with an amendment. It struck me that the great difference between this House and the other House is that we can move amendments at Third Reading, which the other place is unable to do. However, there is, or has been, in my 20-odd years in this place, an underlying convention as regards the nature of the amendments moved at Third Reading. It was generally thought that Third Reading amendments were marginal, tidying up amendments to "tweak" a Bill. This amendment is nothing of that nature and is not an appropriate amendment for Third Reading. I would go so far as to say that it is a total abuse of parliamentary procedure that this amendment should be on the Marshalled List.
  It is not my place to put amendments on the Marshalled List but it is the place of Members of this House to put down only such amendments as are appropriate to the stage of the Bill with which they are dealing. This matter has been debated several times in this House already. There is absolutely no reason whatever why it should creep in as an amendment at Third Reading. It is totally out of order and should never have been put down. Those who put it down should have had more respect for this House than to have put it down. I say that it should be thrown out and the Bill should go through as it stands.
  The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, as it states, and as has been said, the effect of this amendment is that the Bill would come into force as an Act at the end of the Parliament instead of at the end of the Session. That effect is consistent with four connected aims and it enables an improved means for expediting those connected aims.
  First, there is consistency with the Bill. The aim of the Bill is to remove automatic parliamentary rights from hereditary Peers within this Parliament; its method is to do so by the end of this Session. The aim of the amendment is the same: to remove automatic parliamentary rights from hereditary Peers by the end of this Parliament. That is what the terms of reference state. If its different date constitutes a delaying tactic for Lords reform unrelated to substance, then of
  240
  course it would not command cross-party support. If, on the other hand there is evidence that it is not a delaying tactic, and that it is in fact related to substance, its different date can command a greater degree of cross-party consensus for implementation of the Bill.
  Secondly, there is consistency with the Weatherill proposals. Clearly if the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit does not alter the Bill and affects only the date when the Bill comes into force, then, by definition, it does not affect the Weatherill amendment which is already part of the Bill.
  Thirdly, there is consistency with the Wakeham commission. Certainly a professed intention of this Bill is to implement stage one of Lords reform before the Royal Commission reports. However, by accepting the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit, we still achieve stage one of Lords reform as the Bill, and the Weatherill amendment within it, are guaranteed to come into effect by the end of the Parliament.
  Fourthly, and not least, is the amendment's consistency with the objective itself of Lords reform and the amendment's improved method for achieving a balanced version of Lords reform. The reason for this is simple. If we pass the Bill as it is, we are left in doubt—as a number of noble Lords have said—whether stage two will be reached before the elapse of a great many years, let alone within this Parliament. Yet as my noble friend's amendment states a different date for implementing stage one, it may itself appear to delay Lords reform. In fact, it does the reverse. The later date which it states for implementing stage one makes it far more likely that stage two will be carried out at the same time and by the end of this Parliament.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Tebbit made several important and powerfully argued points. I do not believe that it was his intention to introduce an amendment that would block the Bill. However, it must at least be arguable that that would be its effect. Let us be under no illusion: the Government—I do not need to speak for them as I am sure that they will tell us charmingly enough in due course—will not accept a deferred commencement of this kind. They have made that view plain on several occasions during the course of our debates on the Bill.
  My noble friend introduced a secondary point which concerned the European Court of Human Rights. The issue has not been widely debated but perhaps the Minister who replies will answer this question: can he say whether the bringing about of hereditary Peers being unrepresented in a Parliament—which will then tax them and pass laws affecting their property rights—is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights? Can he say who the Government consulted about that issue?
  As to the point made by my noble friend about seeking to delay the introduction of the Bill until at least the Royal Commission has reported and the Joint Committee of both Houses has sat—thereby delaying its introduction until the end of this Parliament—it is

  241
  my understanding that the Government will not accept it. I agree that it may be entirely logical to wait for the Wakeham Commission; I agree that it may be sensible to wait for the outcome of the Joint Committee of both Houses which will follow; I agree that it may be statesmanlike to seek cross-party agreement on such a far reaching measure as change to one of our Houses of Parliament. But it should long have become clear to your Lordships that on the issue of this Bill we are not dealing with a Government who are logical, sensible or statesmanlike; we are dealing with a Government who are increasingly pig-headed, foolish and partisan. We are dealing with a Government that will have their Bill come what may.
  If some of my noble friends do not believe me, they have only to remind themselves of the speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Barnett, Lord Richard, and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who have made the point time and time again. We have heard it before. Those of us who were here on one of his frisson days will have heard it directly from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He has said in the past that any kind of sunset clause, sunrise clause or commencement clause is unacceptable to the Government; they would consider the Bill defeated and the Weatherill compromise dead.
  To be blunt, there is no chance of the other place—dominated as it is by the factions circling around No. 10—agreeing to this House dictating to them how and when this Act of Parliament, as it would be, should come into force. Your Lordships' House does have that right, but we do not have the power. The end result is likely to be that instead of playing our game the Government will tip up the table and rewrite the rules. They will use the rule of decreed power of the Parliament Act, for which they have already shown considerable relish. The end result will be that far from having all our hereditary colleagues here for another two or three years until the next general election—as I believe they should be—we will find a House of patronage imposed on this country by the rule of decreed power of the Parliament Act, probably in the course of the next four or five months. There would be no hereditary Peers left here; we would have a totally appointed House by Easter. That would be bad for the House and bad for the country.
  It does not please me to say that, although my heart may tug in the direction of the Lobby if my noble friend presses his amendment, a cool head points elsewhere. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment. If he does, I will abstain and encourage my noble friends to do the same. If we do not want this Bill to pass then we should address that issue directly later this evening when the Motion is put before your Lordships.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, let me address the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in support of his amendment. He asks the House to delay the implementation of the Bill from the end of this Session until the end of the Parliament, a delay of potentially in excess of two years. What
  242
  reason does he give for that? He gives two reasons. First he says "common humanity requires it" because hereditary Peers, who will be removed by the Bill from sitting and voting, did not have the opportunity of voting for an MP in the other place. He said that that is unfair; that it is wrong that they should not be represented. Should the Bill go forward in its present form the hereditary Peers—unlike practically everyone else in this country—will have one representative in Parliament to 10 hereditary Peers. In those circumstances, it seems odd that it can be seriously suggested that common humanity requires their representation.
  The noble Lord's second argument in support of his amendment is that there should be no stage one before stage two. His amendment has nothing whatever to do with stage two. The implementation of the Bill does not depend upon stage two coming into force but only upon the end of the Parliament being reached. So his second argument is not touched by the amendment.
  In his third, disconnected, point in support of his amendment, the noble Lord questioned whether we can be sure that the other place will uphold the Weatherill amendment. As has been repeatedly said, the Weatherill amendment was agreed to by the Government in exchange for obtaining in substance their legislative programme during the course of this Parliamentary Session. It is for the other place to judge whether the agreement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, is upheld.
  In regard to the fourth point in support of the noble Lord's amendment, he said that one cannot trust the Government because an electoral college has been set up to select the mayoral candidate for London. The electoral college set up to select the mayoral candidate for London allows all sections of the party to be represented in the ballot. With great respect to the noble Lord, that is a wholly fallacious basis on which to say the Government cannot be trusted in relation to the undertakings they have given in relation to the appointments commission—undertakings which the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, accepted at an earlier stage of the debate; undertakings that he accepted in the making of the agreement.
  When considering the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, I ask the House to consider whether there has been any basis advanced to justify the up to two-and-a-half year delay that he proposes. Upon analysis, there is absolutely none. I ask the House to reject the amendments.
  Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I shall be as brief as I possibly can. To my enormous surprise, a simple amendment has been debated for an hour and a half. That is vastly in excess of what I expected; I am absolutely astounded.
  I am grateful for the support which has been given by a number of noble Lords, not least from the Cross-Benches by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Chalfont.
  We heard an extraordinary number of Second Reading and Third Reading speeches, which were either being made or remade, or perhaps some of them

  243
  have been made several times. We even had the experience of some advice from Bucharest on democracy. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, slightly misunderstood the point I was making about the breach of faith. I think he has probably now picked-up that point from others during the course of the debate.
  I was slightly surprised that the noble Lord claimed that the Weatherill amendment was the work of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, and he alone. Who on earth else was there at No. 10 Downing Street? Who was my noble friend talking to when the Weatherill amendment proposal came out? Good gracious me, was it his work alone? I heard a number of others mentioned as being there—the Prime Minister, Mr Campbell and all kinds of other distinguished people. That was a very extraordinary point.
  If I may say to my noble friends who spoke about the ECHR, I can understand their view that the deprivation of the rights of hereditary Peers was probably not a sufficient misuse of power to be illegal. It is a wonderful example of the housemaid's baby not merely being rather small, but because it will be dead before long one does not have to mind too much about it.
  I believe that I have dealt with the major points that have been raised. The noble and learned Lord who replied to the debate on the amendment was rather hurt that I questioned the procedures adopted by his party for selecting its candidate for the London mayoralty. I do not believe that my comments were any more or less relevant to the debate than a number of other speeches that have been made; perhaps they were a little more relevant, but not by very much. However, the noble and learned Lord should understand that if there are 30 people in London who think that that is a fair and democratic way of doing business, there must be some 10 of them sitting on the Front Bench opposite. Goodness only knows where the other 20 are, but I think very few people have met them. Let us be honest; that has been all about fixing up the candidacy. That is why we mistrust this Government.
  I regret that the re has been so much hurt over the issue of the lack of trust between the Opposition and the Government. I regret that some hard words have passed here and there this evening. However, when listening recently to the Prime Minister, I heard in my mind the echo of two great speeches of the 1945 Labour Government: "We are the masters now", and, "Lower than vermin".
  I accept that, on the whole, hereditary Peers are Conservatives, and therefore, according to the Prime Minister, they are of a class that should be extinguished. We know that Conservatives are to blame for all the evils in this world. They are to blame
  244
  for resistance to trades union reform. They are to blame for Stalin's purges, the murder of Stephen Lawrence—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Lord Tebbit: Even recently I find, according to the Prime Minister, that the hard men of the IRA are the men who are Conservatives. If that was so, they misdirected themselves as to which party conference they should have gone to a few years ago.
  As enough noble Lords in the House have heard the debate and probably want to go to dinner, it might be wise if I take the feeling of the House. Therefore, I shall take the amendment to a Division.
  8.12 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 18) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Con tents, 238.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further proceedings after Third Reading be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, perhaps I may suggest that the House does not return to this business before 9.25 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  Air Traffic Control
  8.26 p.m.
  The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether arrangements for air traffic control at London's airports are satisfactory and what is their response to recent reports of near misses between civil aircraft.
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this debate in the dinner hour may come almost as light relief after the supercharged atmosphere which we have just experienced and which has gripped the House. After the debate on the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Tebbit, the House seems almost like a ghost town. However, the safety of our skies—the air traffic control of our airports and over our cities—is no small matter. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, has chosen this debate to make his maiden speech; on a topic on which he is more than qualified to speak. I wish him well. I am also very pleased that other noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, are to take part in the debate. That will give the Minister a chance to dig deeper into his brief.
  As the time is limited, I shall come quickly to the purpose of the debate. In case there is any confusion, I should say that I intend no criticism of either the regulatory body or National Air Traffic Services, the service provider. Both are recognised internationally as world leaders. National Air Traffic Services, in particular, is a highly professional body of some 1,500 people who provide an efficient and vital service dealing with the most dense air traffic in the world. We should recognise that it is not only the custodian of our national air space but it has a major impact on our economy, security and public safety.
  The air traffic market is huge. In 1998 159 million passengers passed through British airports; British carriers have doubled their number of passengers over the past 10 years; and air transport movements stand at 1.8 million a year. Having said that, I am sure that the Minister will agree that: there is no room for complacency about safety. I am concerned that there are factors which, if not watched, could lead to this excellent record of safety being inadvertently undermined.
  The first issue is the very pressure of the annual growth of traffic. It is remorseless and stands at about 7 per cent a year. The capacity needed to meet this growth lies in the London area—at the West Drayton centre. The second is the constant reports of increased numbers of overloads of air traffic controllers, where too many aircraft enter a sector. That undoubtedly affects the stress level of the controllers. The third is the number of incidents of "airproxes", or near misses, where aircraft have passed too close to each other. They include quite a number of risk bearing incidents. I believe that there were 34 such incidents last year.
  A fourth, perceived factor is the increase in aircraft kept in a holding pattern waiting to land. It particularly affects short domestic services. I understand that during the summer of last year Edinburgh flights often spent 25 minutes in a holding pattern.
  The fifth factor is crucial. We still do not know how successful the Swanwick centre will prove to be. So much depends on it. The delays have been embarrassing. The latest forecast is that the centre will come into service in the year 2002. I hope that the Minister will be able to restore our confidence. I hope that he will tell us that the development has now reached the stage of a design audit being passed and that the centre will meet future capacity for many years.
  I want to touch on the future plans of the recently announced ownership of NATS. As regards the public-private partnership, there is a view that the very fact that this body will move into the joint private sector could lead to a lowering of safety standards. I find that argument wholly unsustainable. It has not happened to British Airways or the British Airports Authority. I do not see why NATS would suffer.
  However, I hope that the Minister will confirm that those working in NATS will not be left in limbo regarding their jobs, their pensions and their future. Not only would that be unfair; it would be extremely damaging to this vital service. It could interfere unwittingly with efficiency.
  A matter close to my heart, and I suspect to the Minister, is the future centre at Prestwick. We do not hear much about it. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that there is a planned programme, that we know what the investment is likely to be, how many jobs are likely to be created and when the centre will become operational.
  The 14th Report on Aviation Safety referred to the importance of English being the "language of the air". The report went further. It stated that the Government should seek to make that mandatory through the JAA. I am sure that everyone would agree with that recommendation. Safety can so easily be put at risk through a misunderstanding of language. The increased number of foreign pilots using British air space and flying British aircraft makes the urgency of a firm decision the more important. Perhaps the Minister will comment.
  One final issue that I should like to raise with the Minister relates to the progress of Euro-control—in regard to which I believe the United Kingdom is one of 27 member states. I understand that one of the objectives is to harmonise and improve air traffic management with centralised flow management. Whereas I can see the advantage to British carriers in crossing Europe, are we being invited to give up any of our responsibilities regarding our air space? Perhaps I may ask the Minister also about the introduction of the traffic collision avoidance system on each major aircraft, which is due to come into operation in the next two months for airlines of all 27 member states. How many airlines have agreed, and how many have not agreed, to fit the system?
  I very much look forward to the contributions of other noble Lords and the noble Baroness. No doubt we shall receive a robust, decisive reply from the Minister. Britain has a proud record in air safety, whether it be on a registered aircraft, British airlines or in our managed air space. But with the planned expansion of all three London airports to handle an ever-increasing traffic flow, vigilance will remain paramount in future if we are to hold on to our proud record.
  8.36 p.m.
  Lord Brett: My Lords, I rise with gratitude and trepidation to make my maiden speech—gratitude for the opportunity to speak on a matter on which I believe I have a contribution to make; gratitude to the noble Earl for introducing the Question and making salient points; and gratitude to all the other noble Lords who have gone to dinner. I should have been rather more nervous making the speech to a crowded House. I have a sense of trepidation, but I do not suggest that nerves alone are the reason, although I have all the nervousness of a maiden speaker. I know that your Lordships are kind to maiden speakers. My trepidation relates to the possibility that I may offend one of the conventions of the House; namely, I may not make a maiden speech which passes the test of not being controversial.
  My credentials for speaking on this issue are these. For 10 years, up to April this year, I was general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, the body that organises the air traffic controllers, engineers and professional staff of both the Civil Aviation Authority and the National Air Traffic Service. Prior to that, I was the officer who physically took care of the affairs of the air traffic control service. For a number of years I was executive secretary to the ground engineers, an international body of air traffic engineers who maintain the radar and equipment. Finally, I checked my "frequent flier" collection and discovered that I made 79 journeys through London airports in 1998. The mystery is that I am here. All those journeys emanated from, and returned to, London airports. So I have presumably lost one of the flights in terms, of "frequent fliers", otherwise I should not be here.
  250
  My task is easy in that I believe the Minister's answer to the Question will be yes—yes, with qualifications. I am sure that he will be able to quote statistics, take pride in the CHIRP system—a non-attributable system of reporting, which is now needed in other areas of transport. I believe that the Minister will be able to give us good news as regards the prospects for Swanwick successfully coming on stream.
  The problem is this. I believe that there is a dark cloud hanging over the air traffic control system in the future. I refer to the proposals that are still being pursued for a part privatisation of the ownership of the air traffic services of NATS and the full privatisation, in effect, of the day-to-day running of that organisation. The proposal has little support outside this House. I do not know the opinion of this House, but I know that the proposal is actively and vehemently opposed by the staff of NATS, the airline pilots of this country, and by the House of Lords Select Committee; and public opinion is opposed to it. A reputable, independent public opinion poll of over 1,000 people, obtained over the past two or three days and published today, indicates that 72 per cent of those polled are opposed to the Government's proposals, and only 16 per cent support them. Indeed, 68 per cent believe that the proposals will damage air safety standards in this country. The latest doubter of the proposals is a consortium of airlines, including British Airways and Virgin. Anything that unites those two airlines has to be remarkable. But they are now coming together to ensure that the privatisation of NATS does not allow it to pass outside the industry. Interestingly, their reasons for doing that are safety, investment and costs.
  The declared position of the Government is that they wish to provide air traffic control services in future in the private sector independently in terms of the provision of investment—some £40 million is required in the next five years—and also to raise some £500 million from the sale to the private sector of a 49 per cent interest.
  The view of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists—I declare an interest as its honorary adviser in this House, but my opinions here are my own—is clear. It has proposed at least three other methods to achieve the same end: first, investment that is not attributable to the PSBR; secondly, an IPOC, which is an independent company owned by the Government—the Post Office is an example—that can invest freely. Thirdly, it has proposed a trust. Our Canadian colleagues have created NAVCAN Canada which is a 3 billion Canadian dollar trust with stakeholders where funding is independent of government. Fourthly, there is the much under-stated but very valuable opportunity to issue bonds on occasions like this. The 5 per cent per annum plus growth of the sector and guaranteed en route charges mean that bonds would be very attractive to the City.

  251
  I should be interested to hear the Minister on one very curious matter. We now all pay an airport duty tax: £10 for domestic and £20 for international flights. That will raise this year some £700 million. Only 1 per cent of that money would provide for the National Air Traffic Services investment programme each year. As I understand it—I ask for confirmation—currently none of that money goes back to the aviation industry in any form.
  We should also look at the motives of the organisations that oppose this move. Is the IPMS ideologically opposed to privatisation? No. Is it Luddite? Indeed, no; it supports the privatisation of British Nuclear Fuels. Are air traffic controllers and colleagues acting cut of fear for their jobs, as the noble Earl suggested they might be? The jobs of air traffic controllers and engineers are safe. IPMS represents on a voluntary basis 96 per cent of those staff. Is there a fear of monetary loss in any form? They are being offered a 5 per cent share in a company which in the view of the Government is conservatively estimated to be worth £100 million. The sum of £50 million is being offered and declined, not because they are against share ownership. The IPMS pioneered share ownership in Amersham International, one of the first privatisations under the previous administration.
  Why is it that air traffic controllers and NATS staff are opposed to it? The answer is, simply, safety. NATS has a fine record. It has no record of industrial action and a very sound record of productivity: 8 per cent growth year on year. In the UK en route charges have come down by 12 per cent in real terms since 1990. Across the North Atlantic the reduction has been 18 per cent. Working practices have been examined and changed by agreements. NATS returns to the Treasury a real profit, which in 1997 was £55 million. All of that has been achieved without compromising air safety. There has never been a mid-air collision in this country between passenger-carrying aircraft. The staff at the coal face of aviation, both engineers and controllers, fear that with the commercial ethic there will be a gradual erosion of safety. They would rather not see that happen in an organisation which they believe to be imbued with safety from top to bottom, and it is that fear which carries them forward.
  The staff also have the support of British airline pilots—BALPA —100 per cent of whom are employed in the private sector and are subject to commercial pressures. They do not want: to see a privatised air traffic control. In the short time available, I ask the Minister to give an assurance that the door is not closed to further consultation. We believe that there are better ways to achieve the Government's end. I support the Government and their Transport Bill. Without the privatisation of NATS in the next Session I believe that it will be a tremendous Bill; with it the Bill will be of less value. When the Government came to power I was told by Ministers that their attitude to privatisation was one of pragmatism, not dogmatism. If they cannot see that public opinion, the traveling
  252
  public, the staff and pilots in this country have grave doubts about the proposal, I fear that if it proceeds dogmatism will have triumphed over practicality.
  8.44 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I declare an interest. I am President of BALPA, to which my noble friend has just referred. I am delighted to welcome my noble and very dear friend to these Benches and the House in general. He has made an admirable and short speech that was very much to the point. He has had a distinguished career in the trade union movement, in particular in the IPMS, and he is an expert on the subject of air traffic control. We look forward to hearing from him on those matters and many others in future.
  I very much share the apprehensions that my noble friend expressed about the possibility of the full or semi-privatisation of a service which has distinguished itself on the national and international stage as far as aviation is concerned and the way it has co-ordinated safety and standards. We are entitled to be very proud of NATS. The case for the radical change envisaged in discussion over the past few weeks and months needs to be made out beyond reasonable doubt. I do not believe that that has happened up to now. The price for mistakes in this respect would be much too high. Lives could be placed in jeopardy, and the reputation for safety that NATS has earned could be sullied.
  I do not seek to make a case against all privatisations. Privatisation of British Airways has been very successful. I seek to make out a case that privatisation in this area is not something to be lightly entertained. The benefits that NATS provides for the airline industry are enormous. As my noble friend said, without exception airlines take the view that the Government should not take the course that they propose.
  To change the basis of management could raise two very important issues. Not only could safety be compromised but the whole work of NATS could be undermined. At the moment it is a very efficient, well managed organisation. All this must be viewed against the background of a vast increase in air traffic movements. It has an impressive record in the face of undoubted capacity constraints that have been imposed on the system as a whole. Despite all of that it has managed to achieve a reduction in charges of nearly one third at major British airports—and it is innovative and dynamic. If some difficulties have emerged, as they have, I believe that they have arisen directly from the delivery of air traffic control infrastructures rather than from the NATS management itself.
  I had responsibility for aviation in the Labour government of the 1970s. I also had responsibility for transport in the European Commission. I can say without fear of contradiction that the services provided by NATS in this country have been remarkable, and they have been lauded by many organisations within the European Union as proving to be greatly beneficial to the aviation system as a

  253
  whole. I do not doubt that investment is needed; it always is in an organisation of this kind. It must be brought up to date. But why should NATS not be allowed to borrow from the financial markets within PSBR limits?
  I do not believe that the public-private partnership scheme is one that will work effectively in relation to this particular industry. There are long-term dangers. The reason flight crews, air traffic controllers and many others mentioned by my noble friend have supported NATS is that they believe that here is an industry that works and safety goes to the very heart of everything that it does. And that is not something that should be obstructed or deflected from by any plans to denude it of some of its strength. Why imperil a system whereby military and civil air traffic are so well integrated? Is there any insuperable financial burden involved here? I do not think that anyone can make out a case on that basis. I do not have time to go into all the relevant matters relating to that.
  What I wish to do is to touch on the possible alternatives. An independent, publicly-owned company, governed and managed by stakeholders, a Companies Act company with the Government retaining the shares and having the freedom to borrow in the financial markets, seems to me a far better route to follow. The principal shareholders could include the Treasury, civil and military authorities, airlines and customers, managers and employees. In that way accountability would be assured.
  The other possibility is the bond finance model which has occurred in the United States. There long-term investment in the public infrastructure has been assured.
  A model has also been devised in Canada: a non-share capital corporation charged with operating and developing the air traffic control infrastructure.
  No country, even where privatisation has been practised on a substantial scale, has engaged in privatising this service. The partnership envisaged is not, I believe, a genuine one. It is a decision to entrust air traffic control to private sector management; and I do not believe that the case has been remotely made out for that. With respect, I think that it is a misconceived idea and the safety functions should in no way be compromised. I hope that the Government will reconsider their position.
  8.51 p.m.
  Viscount Simon: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent and well-informed maiden speech. Unfortunately my asthma medication has affected my voice, as it does from time to time, which means that I shall be brief. Perhaps I should withdraw the word "unfortunately".
  On 16th July of this year at col. 641 of the Official Report I drew attention to the fact that in one hour there were 98 movements at Heathrow. That is one take-off or landing every 36.7 seconds. It is a tribute to the air traffic controllers that this was achieved safely
  254
  and that both before that date and subsequently aircraft have been monitored and routed safely from all our airports.
  Safety in terms of the number of reported airproxes where NATS was implicated have fallen over the past three years with the number of risk-bearing incidents falling further. Passengers have safety at the forefront of their minds when it comes to transport of all types and, like other public corporations, NATS has to ensure that all operations are both safe and efficient. This has been achieved.
  Other noble Lords have mentioned the new centre at Swanwick. It is forecast that with suitable development of appropriate operational procedures and tools, this centre has the inherent capability to handle far more movements than can be possible at London ATC. Notwithstanding lack of investment, significant improvements have been delivered in the form of the automatic dependent surveillance broadcasts, separation monitoring function, and final approach spacing tool. In association with its European partners, a new traffic management system has been developed.
  It is proposed that a partial privatisation of NATS take place. I fail to see the advantage of that. A recent edition of the IPMS Bulletin quotes a former Minister for Transport as saying:
  "The only way to make it more profitable is to cut costs: this is bound to carry a serious risk of compromising safety standards".
  NATS runs exceptionally well now and will continue to do so in the future.
  8.53 p.m.
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for introducing the debate—a peaceful lull and an opportunity for refreshment for some in the midst of battle. Will it not be sad if, as a result of that battle and whatever our feelings on the rights and wrongs of the main case, we shall no longer have the noble Earl with us in our debates in which he so often distinguished himself.
  I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brett, on a most informative and expert maiden speech. I was glad that he did not eschew entirely controversy. I do not think that we shall become very angry with him for that. We look forward to many more contributions from him with the same level of expertise which is always valued in this House. From my point of view, the only problem with his speech is that he has taken all my best bits. As noble Lords will see from the way that I hold my sheets of paper, some reconstruction has had to take place.
  I share all the expressions of confidence in NATS made by every noble Lord who has spoken. We are extremely lucky to have such a splendid, reliable, trustworthy and internationally well regarded service at our disposal, living as we do under some of the most crowded skies anywhere. Recently, I was lucky enough to watch some of the air traffic controllers at work at Manchester Airport. Of course, there is no comparison of frequency of movements, and so on, with Heathrow. But it was fascinating to watch their

  255
  monitoring not just of the Manchester Airport movements but those taking place over central England, north to Prestwick and south to London.
  Noble Lords have referred, I think rightly, to the public's lack of confidence in the proposals to change the status of NATS. Such anxiety reappeared following the Paddington rail crash. There is no real connection between the Paddington rail crash and the structure of NATS. But, rightly or wrongly, the public have become alarmed about the safety of public transport. Rightly or wrongly, the public have become sceptical that private companies can be relied upon to put safety above profit. That, I think, is the nub of some of the public opposition. Meanwhile, the Labour Party has not been very supportive (to put it mildly) of the proposals. Such sterling Members of the House of Commons as the honourable lady Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody and the former Minister for Transport, Dr Gavin Strang, have been extremely vocal in their opposition to the proposals. I understand that no fewer than 115 Labour MPs have signed a Motion urging the Government to find another method of securing the future financial well-being of NATS.
  There are other problems. It is not just a matter of safety but of how structural change interacts with the need to continue the modifications and improvements at Swanwick, which is already £180 million above budget and six years behind the completion date first envisaged. At the same time, many of us were glad to hear that the modernisation of Prestwick is now being undertaken. These are difficult projects to manage, as the history of Swanwick has made perfectly plain. One is bound to ask whether structural upheaval fits well in the context of a need for clear, constant and successful management of projects which are already under way or in the pipeline.
  I and those on our Benches support the separation of NATS from the CAA. However, there is no reason why that separation needs to be carried out in the context of a partial privatisation of any part of it. At the same time, we very much oppose the dispersal of any of the CAA's functions into other bodies. We believe that the CAA should remain at the centre of the governance or regulation of safety in this country. It possibly may one day become the British arm of the European regulatory organisation which it is anticipated may one day be established.
  We very strongly feel, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others have said, that there are other ways in which we could secure the necessary finance for NATS, which I believe amounts to about £1 billion over the next 10 years, without going down this road. Indeed, an emergency resolution to this effect, stimulated by the announcement in July of the Government's firm intention to go ahead, was passed at our conference. Let us not forget that the road chosen by the Government involves not the Government or any government organisation but the private partners in the PPP making all the day to day decisions on the running of NATS. I believe that we really need to look again at a public interest company, at the Canadian example and at other examples that noble Lords have suggested.
  256
  I urge the Government to tell us today that their minds, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis said, are not closed and that they will look again at the very serious concerns of the public, the politicians and the people who have spoken in this debate.
  9.1 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for introducing such a topical debate. I also join other noble Lords in contragulating the noble Lord, Lord Brett, on an excellent maiden speech. If may slightly rephrase the normal wording, I hope that I shall be here to hear many more contributions from him!
  I was Minister responsible for aviation during a period in the late 1980s when there were serious delays in air traffic control. Many of those were caused by industrial action on the other side of the Channel. It is a great tribute to the management of National Air Traffic Services, to the controllers themselves, and to their union, of which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, was then in charge, that we have experienced nothing of that sort over here for a very long time indeed.
  We have a very good air safety record in the United Kingdom. Despite very large increases in traffic over many years, the number of airprox incidents—they used to be called "air misses" in my day—namely; those with a risk of collision in categories A and B, has fallen to 1.2 per 100,000 flying hours last year, from 2.37 in the year before and 2.87 in the year before that. However, as my noble friend Lord Kinnoull and others have said, there is no room for complacency.
  What is worrying, however, is the increase in the periods of overload—up to 49 in 1998–99, compared to 24 the previous year and 16 in the year before that. Indeed, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee of another place said in its report on aviation safety in July this year:
  "We are extremely disappointed, and very concerned, by the reports of increased numbers of overloads of air traffic controllers at LATCC. We believe that they are evidence of the risk to safety posed by continued delays of NERC at Swanwick".
  This business if full of acronyms. NERC stands for New En Route Centre. The report continues with other such remarks. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to that.
  What is needed, of course, is the new capacity in the ATC system that is to be provided by the new centre at Swanwick. I had the pleasure of visiting Swanwick this summer. It was the first time that I had been there since I dug the first sod of the new building as Minister back in 1991. There is no arguing that, for very good reasons, it is running very, very late. Can the Minister now give us the latest on its opening and tell us how much extra capacity it will provide? Can the Minister also say who is to bear the costs of the delay in opening? What is the cost overrun, and is it true that most of the cost overrun will in fact fall on the contractors and not on the CAA?
  I turn to the question of future funding for investment in NATS. It is estimated that NATS requires some £100 million of capital investment per

  257
  year. At the moment, that would have to count as part of the PSBR. We know that the Treasury does not want that. On this side of the House, we support the privatisation of NATS. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, the Minister and I are probably alone in the House on that. Certainly the rest of the Back-Benchers in the Liberal Democrat Party are not with us. Indeed, it was in our manifesto at the last election. However, we are well aware of the views of many in the Labour Party and in the House tonight. The idea was described as "crazy" by the former Labour Party transport spokesman, the right honourable Member for Oxford East, Mr Smith, when in opposition. He said:
  "Labour will do everything to block this sell-off. Our air is not for sale".
  What do the Labour Government now propose? They propose a public/private partnership by means of a disposal of 51 per cent of the shares, handing over day-to-day control to the private sector and, of course, keeping a golden share. When we sold 51 per cent of British Telecom and kept a golden share, it was described by the then opposition as a "privatisation", and indeed it was. So is this. However, we welcome the albeit late conversion by the party opposite. It is not just the Conservative Party that describes this as a "privatisation". The IPMS, the union of the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and the air traffic controllers' union, suggests that the PPP is "privatisation by another name".
  Can the Minister say whether there will be legislation in the next Session? We on this side of the House hope that there will be, because NATS' need for investment is becoming desperate. We would also like that to be a separate Bill, not part of some giant transport Bill dealing mainly with rail and road.
  Of course, safety is the main concern of NATS. However, I do not believe that safety will be jeopardised by a transfer to the private sector, and here I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, and others. Indeed, I welcome particularly the reference made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, to the separation of the regulator—in this case, the safety regulation group of the CAA—from the provider, NATS, which is, of course, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CAA. I challenge anyone to suggest that British Airways has become any less safe since it was privatised; nor has BAA in any of its safety-related activities.
  On the question of the railways, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred briefly, I do not believe that in the recent tragic accident at Paddington there is any evidence that privatisation played a part. But, of course, we shall have to await the report of Lord Cullen.
  However, I would take issue with those who say that because there is a profit motive, that will cause people to take unacceptable risks. I remind noble Lords that even the old British Rail tried to make a profit or, more usually, to make a smaller loss and not to breach its EFL. Far better a profitable company which can
  258
  afford to take safety really seriously and invest for safety than one which has to skimp and save and try to cut corners, possibly on safety.
  We are also concerned about the possible future ownership of NATS. Could it be allowed to fall into foreign hands? There is an issue of national security here, especially because of the joint RAF/NATS operations. What of the golden share? Are the Government concerned about the European Commission's recent challenge to the Government's ownership of golden shares?
  The Minister's reply will be interesting. I am grateful to my noble friend for tabling this Unstarred Question tonight. I have run out of time and I look forward to the Government's reply.
  9.9 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for bringing this important subject before your Lordships. I have listened with interest to the views of noble Lords. Air traffic control provides a vital service to the nation's economy, to the 100 million or so passengers who use London's airports each year, and to public safety. Therefore, perhaps I may reassure your Lordships' House that the Government are fully committed to maintaining and improving wherever possible our high standards of aviation safety.
  The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, asked about the safety aspects of services related to London's airports. The provision of air traffic control services to aircraft approaching and departing from London's airports is centrally co-ordinated to gain safety benefits, capacity increases and improvements to the efficiency of the service. The services are combined into one operation and provided from one location.
  The London Terminal Control Centre, and its modern, purpose-built operations room at West Drayton, functions very effectively to provide integrated control services at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and at other airports, and uses some of the most up-to-date and sophisticated equipment. The controllers there enjoy a very close working relationship with the air traffic control staff at the airports who are now responsible for the services in their immediate vicinity and, together, they are among the most highly trained and motivated in the world.
  These centralised services also bring benefits in terms of the optimised flows of traffic so that air traffic control and airspace capacity are maximised to reduce delays. However, noble Lords will wish to be aware that delays can be induced through the imposition of restrictions to traffic flows in the UK and Europe to provide another safety valve. I can assure the House that flow restrictions can be imposed quickly to ensure the safe separation of traffic while services are maintained with the maximum flexibility.
  The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, expressed concern at the pressure on air traffic controllers through overloads, as did the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of

  259
  Tara. Despite the reduction in the number of airproxes recorded in 1998, there was an increase in the number of overloads reported by controllers at the London Terminal Control Centre. That was partly due to management encouraging staff to report such incidents. Feedback on overloads allows action to be taken to prevent further problems and it is important that staff can report them openly.
  The noble Earl's example does not necessarily mean that safety has been compromised. There is rarely a loss of separation between aircraft as a result of such incidents. I assure your Lordships that all reports of overload incidents are investigated thoroughly and actions arising from those lessons are learnt and implemented. In 1999, the trend in the overload reports is consistent with the number of reports in 1998.
  As regards airproxes, we are far from complacent. Several noble Lords expressed concern about near-miss incidents in the past. All airproxes are a matter of concern. But all recommendations are followed up quickly and carefully and the Civil Aviation Authority ensures that appropriate corrective action is taken. Therefore, despite the high taffic growth in the 1990s, the number of reported airproxes in UK airspace has been falling. Indeed,1998 saw the lowest figure in more than a decade, with 13 airprox incidents reported in the London area in contrast to 22 in 1997. That picture is mirrored nationally and the trend in airprox reports in 1999 is similar to that experienced in 1998.
  Noble Lords asked about the new ATT centre at Swanwick. That will be introduced into operational service as soon as possible, consistent with the need to ensure its safe operation. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the most likely date for that remains the winter of 2001/2002. That was noted by the DERA report in November 1998. Since then NATS has met all its target milestones in this project.
  The main advantage that Swanwick will offer is the capacity to deal with much larger numbers of aircraft flying over the rest of England and Wales. Until Swanwick opens, measures will be taken to ensure that traffic flows are kept within capacity.
  I was asked about the costs. I am aware of the need for commercial confidentiality in some areas, but I shall explore which areas would be exempt for that and write to the noble Lord on that matter.
  I also reassure noble Lords that we still expect the new Scottish centre, Prestwick, to come into operation by the winter of 2005–2006. NATS has told us that the existing centre is able to cope until then. Noble Lords may recall that the new Scottish centre was originally planned to be a private finance initiative project, but when we came to Dower and examined the proposed PFI, we saw that the contract NATS had been obliged to negotiate by the previous Government was not viable. However, we believe that the new arrangements we are putting in place will allow Prestwick to develop into operation by the winter of 2005–6.
  The noble Earl. Lord Kinnoull, asked about the question of the English language. I agree with him about the need to maintain its status as the
  260
  international language of the air. He also asked about Euro-control and the European airlines' take up of various systems. It is a matter of some complexity. I do not have the answer to hand, but again I undertake to write to the noble Earl on that matter.
  My noble friend Lord Brett feared that his speech was controversial. I found it very cogent and informative. I congratulate him on his maiden contribution and I look forward to taking his advice on this and many other matters in the future. With regard to the consultation on our plans for the PPP. noble Lords will wish to be aware that they have been developed in full consultation with stakeholders in the industry, including the trade unions. We launched a formal consultation in October 1998 when we published a paper setting out our outline proposals for NATS. Interested parties were invited to comment by the end of January 1999. In all, we received 230 responses from across the aviation industry and we published the report on the consultation in July.
  Although the formal consultation has ended, my department is continuing to consult with the aviation industry as the detail of the policy is being developed. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it clear in another place that that process of consultation is ongoing. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for aviation recently met union representatives and the safety regulator to discuss concerns about safety issues. He is planning further meetings with unions and pilots' representatives, and intends to invite NATS' management to participate. We are also in the process of discussing our proposals with Members of another place.
  There is no need for a new process of consultation. We are not stopping consulting and shall continue to talk to the industry. We believe that there is support for our plans within the industry, and considerable interest from potential investors and from our overseas counterparts, a number of whom are contemplating following our lead.
  The question of the opposition of NATS staff to our proposals was raised. Certainly some staff have expressed concern, which is hardly surprising. Everyone is apprehensive of such changes. The NATS staff are a key factor in the future of the PPP and we hope that they will come to see, in the course of this debate, that the PPP is an opportunity and not a threat. Not only will staff have 5 per cent shareholding in the new partnership company, but they will be represented on a stakeholder council. I assure the House that this is not an old-style privatisation. NATS has a lot of potential opportunities in an expanding global market-place. The employees' shareholding will enable staff to share in the company's success.
  I treat the contribution of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis with great respect, given his ministerial experience and the European dimension to the work he has done. He urged the Government to consider a trust model, perhaps along the lines of NAV Canada if the Government's overriding objective is to raise money from a partial sale of NATS. However, we are not

  261
  driven solely or even primarily by financial considerations, but by what we can do for NATS and for UK aviation.
  When they looked initially at the options for the future of NATS, the Government considered model trusts and not-for-profit company models. We agree that those models have some attractions. Principally, they would lend themselves to stakeholder involvement. However, we felt that the drawbacks outweighed the advantages. The ownership structure would be complex to put together because we would need to ensure that no one stakeholder could dominate and that there was no conflict of interest. We would need to have provision for the emergence of new user stakeholders and the disappearance of existing ones. We felt that the structure was not necessarily conducive to maximum efficiency. Although the proceeds are not our main objective, it was also felt that we nevertheless have a duty to the taxpayer. It would be difficult to achieve value for money because of the lack of a competitive sales process. Canadian law is not like ours. The nearest equivalent to NAV Canada and UK law would be a company established by Royal Charter, such as the BBC.
  The Government rejected the concept of an independent publicly-owned company, a so-called IPOC, for NATS. I assure your Lordships that the Government considered a number of those public sector solutions for NATS. Indeed, we have incorporated many aspects of the IPOC into our proposals for the new partnership company. For example, either would be able to secure access to private capital, separate safety regulation from operations and include a role for the Government to ensure that the company was operating in the national interest. I assure my noble friend that we have ensured in the structuring of the deals in prospect that national interests will be maintained through the Government's ability to use their position through their golden share.
  However, we believe that our new partnership company does more. It introduces top-level project and financial management skills, commercial freedom to expand into foreign markets, private sector efficiency drivers, and it provides proceeds for use in other transport projects.
  I turn briefly to the points made by my noble friend Lord Simon. I was very pleased to hear his praise for the London ATC centre. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree that there is no advantage in the proposed PPP. NATS' business—and it is very good at it—is air traffic control. Where I believe that it is less experienced and consequently less skilled is at project management, as the Swanwick project has shown. I do not dispute that Swanwick was a massive undertaking. Nor do I underestimate the effort that NATS put into the project and in ensuring that the London centre could continue to handle traffic safely until Swanwick became operational.
  However, there are areas in which NATS is less strong and we brought in Bechtel to assist in managing the new Scottish ATC centre project.
  262
  I return to the core of the original proposition. I conclude by saying that the air traffic control arrangements serve London's airports very well. It operates in a high density, complex environment due to the proximity of the airports and the volume of traffic. However, a measure of success of those services is that they are well appreciated by all the airspace users. They are also the envy of Europe and of the rest of the world.
  I apologise to those noble Lords whose points I have not been able to meet in the time available. I shall certainly write to them on any points that are outstanding. I assure your Lordships that this Government believe that our air traffic control system is safe, efficient and effective. I assure noble Lords that it will continue to be so under this Government.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.25 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 9.23 to 9.25 p.m.]

  House of Lords Bill
  Proceedings after Third Reading resumed on Clause 7.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 not moved.]
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 3, line 24, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall, before any election or by-election is held to the House of Commons or the European Parliament,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 22, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 23, which is consequential, and Amendment No. 24, which is related but not consequential.
  I do not think that this will take a great deal of time. Perhaps I might christen the amendment, at the beginning, the "Kensington and Chelsea by-election amendment" and explain to your Lordships the reason for the amendment by reference to that by-election.
  If the Government get their way, in mid-November a number of your Lordships will no longer have a seat in this House either because your Lordships will decide not to stand or, having stood, will not be successful. That is a situation which some of us from another place have experienced and we know exactly how that feels. Despite no longer being Members of this House, those noble Lords—at least in Scotland—will have a large black "L" beside their names. I am not sure about the situation in England. That will indicate that they cannot vote in a general election. Any of those noble Lords who are registered in the constituency of Kensington and Chelsea and want to vote in a by-election some time between now and, let us say, January or February, will find that they are not allowed to vote. They will no longer have a seat in this House but they will not be able to vote in that by-election.
  I think that your Lordships will agree that that position is unfair. I shall not argue the point strongly because I am not a great expert in such matters, but it could also be an infringement of those noble Lords' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. I noted yesterday that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, suggested that depriving convicted prisoners of their right to vote is an infringement of the rights conferred by Article 3 of the First Protocol. I do not know whether that is the case. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester—who I am sorry is no longer in his place—has told us on a number of occasions that he is a great expert. I have no reason to doubt that. I gather that he appears occasionally in those courts. Therefore, he certainly knows more about such matters than I do. If he thinks that there may be a case which suggests that convicted criminals should not be deprived of their vote, I should have thought that hereditary Peers should at least be considered in the same way as convicted criminals, if not slightly more favourably.
  If any noble Lords in Kensington and Chelsea are deprived of their vote in the by-election, they might arguably be able, if they could afford it, to retain the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to look after their interests in the European Courts. I am not really relying on that argument. As the Government lay such store on the European Convention on Human Rights, they ought to be absolutely sure that they are not infringing that right.
  We discussed this matter at an earlier stage. Mindful of the rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, I return here with something of a tweak, which is due entirely to the by-election in Kensington and Chelsea. On 17th May—it seems a long time ago—we discussed this matter in general terms. I was then thinking of a by-election in the Falkirk constituency caused by Mr. Dennis Canavan resigning on his election as a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I was concerned about the rights of any hereditary Peers in the by-election. Mr. Dennis Canavan has not yet resigned. The position may still be that any hereditary Peer living in that constituency may be deprived of a vote in the by-election.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in answer to me, said that the orders which the Government intended to bring forward would, they hoped, make sure that every hereditary Peer who lost the right to sit in this House would be on the register by February 2000. I see today that we have in his place the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I nearly said that a number of times when we discussed the Welsh Bill and various other constitutional matters. It was not then the case, but it is now a pleasure to call him properly the noble and learned Lord. I note that he is answering on this amendment. He will be aware of what his noble and learned friend Lora Falconer said on that day.
  Is that still the timetable? When shall we see the regulations? Will they be in place in time for the new register? It is already being made up. The qualifying date was 10th October. I know that there is time for people to be put on the register, but we now have to be
  264
  sure that the new regulations will be put in place in order to preserve the right of your Lordships who have lost the right to sit in this House to vote in connection with the other place.
  Related to those regulations is Amendment No. 24 and in some ways also Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. would welcome some words on the timetable and assurances about the timing of the regulations from the noble and learned Lord. It would be helpful to hear some assurances that the regulations might be in place for a by-election perhaps later this year.
  Amendment No. 24 is about the regulations themselves. In the earlier debates in May I wanted to put on the face of the Bill provision for a seamless transfer from losing the right to sit and vote here to being on the electoral register. But the Government were against that. They said it was best done by regulation. That is to be dealt with by the negative resolution. I believe that it would be better to deal with it by the affirmative resolution, whatever the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee may have said. That would be best. Therefore, Amendment No. 24 asks that it be done by the affirmative resolution.
  It would be as well for the Government to give in because I fully intend to pray against the regulations if only to have a discussion to make sure that they are properly carried out and put in place as quickly as possible. I should have given this amendment to my noble friend Lord Coleraine who has had much more success than I in persuading the Government to accept amendments. I still hope that the Government might treat me as kindly as they treated my noble friend earlier today.
  I believe that I have made the requests behind these amendments perfectly clear to the Government. They are about parliamentary elections. European elections are included because, for some reason I have never quite understood, the Bill refers to elections to the European Parliament as well. It may be that I should have probed that earlier on. All Members of your Lordships' House had a right to vote for the European Parliament. I do not know why that matter is in the Bill, but the reason that it is in my amendment is to try to be logical with the Bill otherwise the noble and learned Lord would have reprimanded me for not being so. I beg to move.
  9.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am a little surprised that the Conservatives appear to be so worried about their chances of winning the Kensington and Chelsea by-election that they are desperate to get all those hereditary Peers on to the register.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very unkind. For all I know there may be some members of his party who are hereditary Peers and who live in Kensington and Chelsea.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, having been a candidate on three occasions in parliamentary elections for the

  265
  old Kensington constituency, I have to say that it was my impression that there were several hundreds, if not thousands, of Conservative hereditary Peers living in that constituency.
  I assume that it is the intention of the Government to lay the necessary regulations for allowing hereditary Peers to vote in parliamentary by-elections as soon as possible and that that will be done in time to enable them to vote in that by-election, unless the Writ is moved extremely quickly. If that assumption were wrong, I would take a more favourable view of this amendment; but if that undertaking is forthcoming, I see no reason to doubt it.
  It is not a case of hereditary Peers getting on to the register. They are already on the register and entitled to vote in both local and European elections. It is the same register. All that will need to be done is to remove the block that prevents them from voting in parliamentary elections—and that should be a simple matter.
  Amendment No. 24 puzzles me a little for two reasons. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, of which I am a member, decided that there was no need for the affirmative procedure here even though this is technically a Henry VIII clause and gives power to alter other legislation. In the special circumstances, the committee felt that an affirmative resolution was not necessary.
  Secondly, use of the affirmative procedure would actually delay matters. As I understand it, a negative resolution statutory instrument takes effect as soon as it is laid before Parliament, but there has to be a delay between an affirmative resolution being laid in draft and being voted on in both Houses. I cannot see, therefore, why the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is so keen on the affirmative procedure.
  The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as always, was very gracious in his introduction of these amendments. He mentioned on three occasions the word "timetable". After the 19th day of considering this Bill, "time" and "table" are not concepts that I readily recognise.
  There is no more to be said on Amendment No. 24 than what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and indeed prefigured by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. He asked about timetabling in a subtext. I can tell him and the House that officials have begun work on drafting the regulations with the aim of permitting hereditary Peers, other than excepted Peers, to vote in any parliamentary election taking place after the coming into force of the new electoral register. There are bound to be one or two persons in the Kensington and Chelsea by-election who will not be able to vote. That is true whether or not they are hereditary Peers. That is always the case. One is bound to have marginal anomalies in any registration system.
  266
  Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 are unnecessary. They add nothing to the powers the Secretary of State would already have. The power under the noble Lord's amendment can only be used immediately prior to an election or by-election, but not subsequently. The noble Lord raised one or two interesting questions in relation to disenfranchisement. Perhaps I may repeat a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
  Hereditary Peers, on the Weatherill compromise arrangements, will be able to have Members of Parliament; one for every 10 of them, as opposed to most citizens in this country who have a Member of Parliament, one to every 50,000 or 60,000. So they are not being disfavoured; on my mathematics—it is a field I enter into with caution in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—they are being well favoured.
  The noble Lord also asked about the question of instructing the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, and wondered whether any of your Lordships had any cash available. I had understood that any cash readily available for litigation had already been disbursed to Mr. Beloff, and others, in the Committee for Privileges. I had the deeply disagreeable experience then of reflecting on the fact, as the hours and days passed by, that I was the only one present who was not earning any money of any sort.
  The European Convention on Human Rights was raised in front of the Committee for Privileges. It was deployed as a question distinctly before that committee. I believe it is fair to say that it was not thought much of, for reasons that one can readily recognise. I think that I have dealt with the probing nature of the noble Lord's question. I realise that we need to get on with the regulations, but, until this Bill becomes an Act—which is not entirely in the hands of my noble friend the Leader of the House, nor, indeed, in mine—we will not be able to get on with very much, will we?
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he say whether there is any reason why Peers who are already on the register in Kensington and Chelsea, as voters in European and local elections, should not, under the regulations, be allowed to vote immediately without having to wait for the new register to come into force?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the regulations need to be amended to deal with that situation. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for raising a question about parliamentary elections. The reason for including the European parliamentary elections is that it will be much more convenient for hereditary Peers to be able to register singly to vote for the European parliamentary elections, which I know they can do at the moment; in other words, it is an added convenience for those who will be leaving this House.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the last explanation relating to something which has puzzled me for some

  267
  time. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced about that, but I am sure that the Minister—even if he is not very well paid—is quite correct in that regard. However, I think that everything is relative when it comes to these matters.
  I am grateful for the assurances that the regulations will come forward in time to enable those of your Lordships who will not be here to be included on the registers to vote in parliamentary elections from February. I am more relaxed about Kensington and Chelsea because I anticipate an overwhelming Conservative majority, and I do not think that even thousands of hereditary Peers would make much difference to that; indeed, it will still be overwhelming. As I said, I am grateful for the Minister's assurances and look forward to seeing the regulations, perhaps tabling a little Prayer against them and, if necessary, having a little debate on them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
  The Earl of Dartmouth The Earl of Dartmouth moved Amendment No. 25:
  After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—

  DURATION OF ACT
  (". This Act shall cease to have effect at the end of a period of three years beginning on the day on which it is passed, unless during that period—

  (a) a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament has reported Oil the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords, and

  (b) a Minister of the Crown has introduced into either House of Parliament a Bill providing for the election of at least one third of the members of the House of Lords by those entitled to vote in an election for the House of Commons.".

  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am honoured, and have been honoured, to take the Conservative Whip in this House. However, this evening I speak primarily as the inheritor of a peerage which dates back to the creation of the 1st Baron Dartmouth in 1682, over 300 years ago. In that time, my forebears, along with the forebears of other hereditary Peers, gave significant service to this House. In particular, my grandfather's brother, the 7th Earl of Dartmouth, was Lord Great Chamberlain in the 1920s, having previously been the Member of Parliament for West Bromwich.
  In consequence of the passing of this Bill, Weatherill amendment or no Weatherill amendment, about 90 per cent of the hereditary Peers will be leaving this House for good. It marks the end of a long period of British history and, I also believe, a long period of distinguished service. Before we go, my argument this evening is that we should demonstrate that the principle of "no stage one before stage two", which has been enunciated with great clarity and eloquence by the Conservative Front Bench, and others, over a long period of time, was not just, as has been suggested, a device to save our own skins or to prolong our membership of this House, but that as Peers our goal has always been to do what is best for Britain and what is best for the constitution.
  To be specific, this country needs an effective second Chamber. I am sure that if we can agree on one thing everyone who is a Member of this House can agree at least on that. In case one needs any further confirmation, one need look no further than the 500 or so government amendments that it was necessary to table in this House to the Greater London Authority Bill.
  A revising Chamber has to be credible to be effective. To be credible there has to be democratic legitimacy. In the 21st century this means, inevitably, that there will have to be a substantial elected element. I say in passing that it is noteworthy that all the genuine Conservative reformers of this House, from Lord Curzon right through to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—who I do not think is present—have all been in favour of there being a significant elected element to this House. Of course, a significant elected element has also been favoured by reformers in other parties and by Peers of no other party as well.
  The figure of one third in the amendment is in one sense arbitrary but in another sense it has been carefully chosen because it enables the position of life Peers to remain unaffected. Let me make it crystal clear as the tabler of this amendment that, should it pass, the position of life Peers as holders of peerages for life would be sacrosanct.
  I must make two other important points of detail in relation to the passing of this amendment. First, the amendment does not contradict the Weatherill amendment. That would remain if this amendment were passed. More importantly, it does not contravene the Salisbury Doctrine. What the amendment does is to put on the face of the Bill—this is our last chance to do it—a commitment to reform. What the amendment does is to put the Government on the spot as to whether their oft stated intentions as to meaningful House of Lords reform are in fact genuine. Otherwise, the effect of the amendment is that the Bill lapses and we shall return in three years' time. What the amendment does is to send a message to my noble friend Lord Wakeham as to the clear wishes of the House.
  If I may be allowed a small personal note, as the inheritor of a hereditary peerage of some longstanding, the passage of this amendment allows those of us leaving to do so with honour, knowing we have done all that we can to deliver to the country a credible and thereby improved second Chamber which is what the country needs for the 21st century. I beg to move.
  9.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if no one wishes to intervene, I shall offer a few thoughts after 54 years here. I want to say quite clearly that I am an admirer of the contribution of the hereditary Peers to this House over the past half century. Why do people like to come to this place? Why do people want to come here at all? Perhaps it is because of the building but it is not only that. There is something about the culture of this place that people really respond to.

  269
  I have been here quite a few years. I am not the eldest Peer, although I nearly am. However, other people have been here longer; for example, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. We were here quite a time before there were any life Peers. Nevertheless this House has some culture, intellectual, moral and religious. The question is whether the hereditary Peers have contributed to that. There is no doubt that they have made an enormous contribution. When I say the hereditary Peers, out of 750 of them only a proportion have made an enormous contribution. But can one leave the position like that? One cannot leave it like that. There are some 750 hereditary Peers, two-thirds of whom attend either infrequently or not at all. So there must be reform. With the help of the Government Chief Whip I have sat up all night in order to vote in favour of the Bill; I shall do so again tonight. There must be this reform.
  But, in the end, what will happen to the whole culture of the House? Are we only going to say, "Oh well, the hereditary Peers did a good job in their time. They have had it."? Will we benefit at all from their legacy? I said earlier when I intervened—I was perhaps out of order—that the best solution was the one I suggested 30 years ago when I was the Leader of the House—it was accepted by the leaders of all the other parties at that time. I suggested that we should let the next generation of hereditary Peers come and speak but not vote.
  But that is out. The next best thing is the Weatherill amendment. I shall vote against anything that interferes with the passage of the Bill. If it is not passed, we shall end up with something much worse; we shall not have the Weatherill amendment. I hope to heaven the Bill goes through as it is.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, makes an extremely valid point. He asked whether we will benefit from the legacy of the hereditary peerage. I agree with his answer that the best way for the successor House to benefit is to accept the 92 hereditary Peers currently provided for in the Bill and for them to continue into the new House—perhaps for a very long time.
  Turning to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dartmouth, many of the essential questions he raised were discussed in an earlier debate. I responded to them when we discussed the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tebbit. The essential difference between the two amendments is that my noble friend Lord Dartmouth proposes that this House should come back into being if certain things are not done. I suggest to my noble friend—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will make the point more forcefully than I—that that is even less realistic when it comes to the likelihood of the Government accepting an amendment.
  However, my noble friend makes a good point about a more democratic future House. He is quite right to follow the line of the report produced by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern
  270
  and the evidence given by our party to the Wakeham commission, and to say that, in considering stage two, an elected House, or an elected element to the House, cannot be excluded as the Government clearly seek. It is such a fundamental point. That is why the Government have spent the whole of this debate, from when it started, from the moment they were elected, not wanting to discuss stage two. My noble friend has done us a service by reminding us of just how much the Government seek to duck that issue.
  Sadly, that is as far as it goes. I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment. I look forward to the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. If the amendment was agreed to, I suspect that it would be ultimately counter-productive. In the light of the decision of the House on the earlier amendment, I trust that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for his support in my opposition—which he correctly anticipated—to these amendments. Both noble Earls spoke of the contribution that hereditary Peers have made to the history of this Chamber. I have on several occasions said that my personal belief is that that is so; some hereditary Peers have contributed very significantly, not only to the life and work of this Chamber but also to the life and work of the nation; so have some life Peers, and life Peers may well do so in the future. I am hopeful and confident that they will. So there is nothing between the two noble Earls and myself about the past contribution made by the hereditary Peers.
  I sense in the Chamber that your Lordships would like me to follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and be relatively brief. I hope that I am not being disagreeable or discourteous when I say that this amendment simply could not work under any circumstances. If one examines it, one realises that the House would have to reconstitute itself after three calendar years following the coming into effect of the Bill as an Act unless a committee of both Houses had reported, and a Minister of the Crown had introduced into either House a Bill providing for the election of at least one-third of the Members by those entitled to vote in a parliamentary election. It simply could not work. The amendment would automatically bring this House back into life three years after the Bill was passed. That could happen in the middle of a parliamentary Session, or it might be at the tail end. Bills might be going through your Lordships' House. It would be completely unmanageable.
  Many noble Lords have observed that they may wish to stand for election to the other Chamber. They might well have been elected, and then they would be ejected from that Chamber to return to this place. Even a moment's scrutiny demonstrates—I hope that I say this courteously to the noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth—that it is not workable.
  I do not stand on those comments alone. I am entirely in accord with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and I shall put this as briefly as I can. We have traversed this ground many times before. The

  271
  House has indicated its view and I do not believe that I can do the House any further service by expanding upon the objections.
  The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I rather thought that someone would say that we must keep the Weatherill amendment, and I am glad that the noble Earl referred to that. However, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, made it clear in his remarks that the 92 surviving hereditary Peers by virtue of the Weatherill amendment are in effect 92 hostages to good behaviour. I should make the point that the Weatherill amendment ensures only a very short-term survival of those 92 hereditary Peers, and has been achieved at a very heavy price. That comment would be borne out if one attended a Labour Party constituency meeting.
  Previously, the hereditary peerage had some slight reputation in the country for being public-spirited, disinterested, altruistic and selfless. I shall quote from a speech made by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy, on 11th May, when she said:
  "The publicity which the noble Viscount's action received at the time"—
  that is to say, the action of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne—
  "was such as to make he people of this country think that it"
  namely, the Weatherill amendment—
  "was entirely a ploy by some of the hereditary Peers to save their own skins".—[Official Report. 11/5/99; col. 1129.]
  That is something we should bear in mind, because I am afraid that that is how it looks. By reason of the Weatherill amendment, as a group the hereditary peerage has now lost that regard and the small respect in the country which previously it had enjoyed. I wish that my noble friends would take full cognisance of that fact.
  Since they have come to power, this Government have been trashing our constitution in a dangerous and irresponsible manner. Sometimes it takes place in a relatively minor way, such as the compulsory closed party lists for the elections to the European Parliament. Sometimes it takes place in a more major way. I refer to the rules for referenda which consistently tilt the playing field in the Government's favour. The latest and most blatant example of this has caused even the Government's own appointed ethics committee to protest. More seriously, the Government trash our hard-won constitution most of all in their open contempt for both Houses of Parliament. This disreputable Bill is the most important example of that contempt.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is right to say that in practice this amendment would probably be unworkable, but that is precisely the point. The purpose of this amendment—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  The Earl of Dartmouth: No, my Lords, it is so that the Government keep their promises and introduce
  272
  stage two. It would ensure that the Government do not have a House of supine appointees run by the control freaks at No. 10 Downing Street.
  The purpose of the amendment is to hold the Government to account and to make them keep their promises. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde urged me not to call a Division. Normally, I would not have called one. However, in today's Daily Telegraph the editor rightly said that noble Lords should support the amendment. Under the circumstances, I think that it would be wrong for me not to give them this opportunity.
  On Question, amendment negatived.
  10 p.m.
  Clause 8 [Interpretation and short title]:
  Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 3, line 36, leave out ("House of Lords") and insert ("Removal of Hereditary Peerage Rights").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the noble Earl. Lord Dartmouth, is a difficult act to follow but I shall make a short and simple speech on this short and simple amendment. It requires almost no explanation. It is quite clear what it purports to do. I feel strongly that the term "House of Lords Bill" has very little meaning in itself. As there will be more House of Lords Bills, it has even less relevance. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, has already said, the basic point of the Bill is exactly as I have described it in my amendment—the Removal of Hereditary Peerage Rights. I think that it is only right and proper that the Bill should be called by the proper name and should give an indication of what it is going to achieve.
  I hope that the Government will consider this an appropriate thing to do as just calling it the House of Lords Bill is neither here nor there—it could refer to the improvement of the building or the replacement of the carpets. The Long Title will have to be very long, but I believe that the Short Title should have the correct description of the contents of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I think that my noble friend Lady Flather is absolutely right. Indeed, earlier today I recall one noble Lord saying—I cannot remember who but certainly he spoke from the direction of the Government Front Bench—that the Bill is about the removal of hereditary Peers or the disposal of the hereditary peerage. So I ask noble Lords on the Government Front Bench: why not be absolutely open, honest and frank about what you are doing and change the title of the Bill'?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to see the position of the Official Opposition. Indeed, had the noble Baroness been sitting in her more accustomed place on the Cross Benches, she knows that my personal regard for her would have caused me to think very carefully about the amendment, which of course I have. But I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reflecting on the position as it will

  273
  continue in the life of this country, that the rights and privileges attached to a peerage, as we all now know, are not limited to membership of this House. It is not right to say that all the rights and privileges of the hereditary peerage are being removed. Therefore, the title proposed by the noble Baroness would be a misnomer. I look for the full support of every hereditary Peer for the principled and considered stand which I have taken.
  Baroness Flather: My Lords, that reply was very interesting. I cannot refrain from commenting on the fact that I have returned to the fold, which I left only temporarily, as the noble and learned Lord knows very well, in protest at something that happened. We all know what that was. I have never crossed the Floor, and I never said that I had left the party. I am extremely disappointed that the noble and learned Lord's regard for me has gone down as a result.
  Lord Marsh: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question. I declare an interest as a Cross-Bench Member. Just out of interest, will she tell us why she came to the Cross-Benches, and why she left?
  Baroness Flather: My Lords, I should have thought that that is somewhat irrelevant on this occasion. It is not the subject of the amendment. As my rights are not being eroded in any sense, I am entitled to go to the Cross-Benches; I am entitled to return to my party of origin; and I am entitled to cross the Floor if I so choose.
  Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Baroness Flather: My Lords, thank you. It begs the question: had I crossed the Floor, would the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, have had yet more regard for my amendment apart from the regard that he has for me?
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should have had more regard for the noble Baroness, but not for her amendment.
  Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am relieved to hear that. I would still press the noble and learned Lord to consider this matter again and perhaps come up with a better Title. I still do not feel that "House of Lords Bill" is an appropriate Title for this fundamental change to the constitution. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Preamble:
  Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 27:
  Insert the following new Preamble—
  ("Whereas it is expedient that provision should be made for bringing to an end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords:
  And whereas it is intended to further reform the House of Lords as soon as may conveniently be accomplished:
  274
  And whereas it is intended, pending such further reform, to make provision for an approximate equality between the representation of Government and Opposition parties in the House of Lords, and for the maintenance of a substantial independent element in that House:").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we take a great deal of care of the fabric of this building. In that regard the Government have an admirable record of conservatism on which I congratulate them. We should take equal care of the fabric of our constitution.
  Our constitution represents the accumulated wisdom of our peoples over hundreds of years. As such, it is in its very essence and purpose conservative. One might therefore think that it was under considerable threat from a Government who say that they abhor everything conservative. But that should not be the case.
  The Government have an enormous programme of constitutional change in hand. If they expect to gain respect for the changed constitution from those who succeed the present one, they must want those who succeed to be conservative, at least with a small "c". The amendment addresses the question of maintaining respect for the constitution.
  These days, constitutional change should be evidenced in a resolution of Parliament. The Government say that the word of the Prime Minister is enough. My noble friend Lord Cranborne has dealt with the limited life of the word of even the best of Prime Ministers. By their support for the by-election amendment, the Government have admitted the possibility that the interim House may be with us for a long time. The prime ministerial word is just not a suitable fabric for this part of the constitution. I introduce this amendment in order to put the promises that the Government have made, and reiterated today, regarding the constitution of the interim House on a proper constitutional footing.
  As the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said earlier, Parliament is the guardian of our constitution. I agree with her completely. It should be Parliament that puts the seal on the promises that the Government have made, so that they may endure for as long as is necessary until the interim House is replaced.
  A Preamble should present no obstacle to the Government. It has no legal effect. It does not affect the interpretation of any parts of the Bill. It will present no obstacle to any of the plans that the Government have outlined for the near or even slightly longer-term future. It is utterly anodyne so far as the Government are concerned, particularly because all that the draft contains is government policy, or to some extent an over-statement of government policy in the Government's favour.
  I do not believe that the Government can have any objection to this addition to the Bill, except perhaps to wonder why it is necessary at all. For that I point noble Lords to the preamble to the 1911 Act. That part of the 1911 Act has been quoted endlessly by the Government on this Bill. I am sure that many of us have had it in mind as we have considered our proper relationship with the Government while our overwhelming presence in this House continued.

  275
  Every change in the constitution of this House since 1911 has been in the direction set out in that preamble. It has been slow but sure; it is the tortoise that has overtaken our "heirs".
  The 1911 preamble has commanded respect for the best part of a century. If those same promises and ambitions had been set out merely in the words of Lloyd George, they would have been long forgotten and ignored. Surely the Government, who are intent on doing so much to our constitution, want to maintain respect for it. If they do not respect the constitution as they change it, they are in danger of asking their successors to treat their own constitution with similar contempt. If, through the passage of this Bill, we allow it to become an accepted principle that the word of the Prime Minister of this country is enough to effect constitutional change, it will be dangerous not only for the longevity of the Government's own reforms, but for all of us. I beg to move.
  Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I recall that earlier today the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave full support to both principles set out in the third paragraph of the preamble; that is, equality between the representation of government and opposition parties in the House of Lords and the maintenance of a substantial independent element in your Lordships' House. I can see no reason, therefore, why the Government should wish to oppose this amendment.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, returns to an issue that we have discussed before in various forms. He deals with the issue of a preamble to the Bill which he has raised in different debates. Without hinting that I necessarily agree with anything that the noble Lord says, perhaps I may say that he has played an intellectually energetic part in the progress of this Bill. I have enjoyed his contribution both on the Floor of the House and in private conversation with him. I believe that the noble Lord does not intend to press this particular amendment to a Division. However, in case he has changed his mind, or some other noble Lord takes it upon himself to move the amendment for him, it would be appropriate to repeat why the Government find inappropriate an amendment that inserts a preamble into the Bill.
  Our objections are based on the ground of principle. I entirely accept that the words to which the noble Lord has spoken tonight reflect nothing that the Government have not themselves said several times. We intend to move to the next stage of reform and we pledge ourselves to both broad parity between the two main parties and a continuing strong, independent presence in the House. We do not, however, believe that provision needs to be made beyond the Prime Minister's pledges since these are, after all. matters for the exercise of the prerogative.
  We have already been round this course several times in relation to purpose clauses. I can only repeat what I have said before. Acts of Parliament are legislative vehicles that are supposed to do something.
  276
  They are not places for uttering aspirations. I accept that in the past—I recognise the noble Lord's point about the preamble to the 1911 Act—this practice was more common. There was a preamble to the Parliament (No. 2) Bill in 1968 that dealt with some of the same proposals now before us. But, on the whole, in 1999 that is not how legislation is drafted. We rely on the operative words of an Act to tell us what the legislation means, while the Long Title informs Peers and Members of Parliament about its subject-matter and purpose. Words that do not mean anything have no place in modern legislation, and that practice certainly predates the present Government.
  To summarise, the preamble which the noble Lord proposes, while spelling out nothing more than the truth, contains one term which is self-evident, but is probably more properly dealt with in the Long Title to the Bill, and two terms which are simply descriptions of what it is intended will happen in future. Neither type of expression has any place in modern legislation of this kind. I am reminded of the strictures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I do not see him in his place—on the prolixity of today's statute book which surely apply to the noble Lord's amendment. I beg him to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Lucas: My Lords, of course I shall withdraw the amendment. I accept defeat, but sadly. It will be of great interest to hear details of the appointments commission once the Government tell us. They have been quite secretive about the details. I look forward to that; and it may calm many of the fears and concerns I have about how the Government's promises will be enacted.
  I do not share the concerns of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House about preambles to Acts. The year 1911 is not that long ago as regards this House and a Government who prefer in place of the 1911 precedent a procedure which goes back to the Divine Right of Kings. But perhaps that suits this Prime Minister better. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
  In the Title:
  [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
  10.15 p.m.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. It is now over a year since this House began to consider the Government's manifesto pledge to legislate to end the right of hereditary Peers to sit and vote in Parliament. Taking account of all the debates in your Lordships' House, including the Bill, the White Paper, the debate on the Report of the Procedure Committee and the debate on the reference to the Committee for Privileges, we have spent some 19 days—I do not need to remind your Lordships that some of them have been exceedingly long days—considering this question. I do not think

  277
  that anyone can fairly claim that the relevant issues have not been fully aired, duly explored, and duly responded to.
  It is customary at this stage of the Bill to go back to first principles and, although it is already late, I should like to do so tonight because the basic principles of this Bill are clear and simple, and can be simply put.
  The Bill is a central part of the Government's programme to modernise the British constitution. It is the start of a process to reform the second Chamber of Parliament to make it fit to serve the whole country in the 21st century. We believe that a necessary first step is to remove the profoundly undemocratic element that the hereditary Peers represent. We believe that it is a change long overdue.
  Perhaps I may repeat—my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General said it recently—that although we believe that the change is overdue, I and no one on the Government Front Benches belittles the contribution of individual hereditary Peers to this House. Many of them have been most distinguished and assiduous in their duties. I should like to pay special tribute to the hereditary Peers who sit on these Benches. We have all been continuously impressed by the dignified and constructive way in which they have taken part in the proceedings on the Bill. If they are unsuccessful in the elections next week they, and indeed other hereditary Peers in other parts of the House, will be missed. However, as I said in my very first speech on reform last October, the time has come to wish them well and to say thank you and goodbye.
  The Labour Party's manifesto commitment to initial stand-alone change for the House of Lords was precise and explicit in the run-up to the election in May 1997; so precise and explicit that the Bill before us today, even as it has been amended, is only a little longer than the original proposal on which the Government were overwhelmingly elected. Of course it is because the Bill was exactly previewed in the election manifesto that on its passage through this House the Salisbury Convention has been properly adhered to. I must put on record my gratitude to the Opposition Front Bench and Liberal Democrat spokesmen for reinforcing their acceptance of the Salisbury Convention at every relevant point in our proceedings.
  The Bill which we must now pass is not, of course, the same Bill as that which came to us from another place last March. The Government readily accept some of the changes. The Government agreed to the inclusion of Clause 2 as a way of easing the passage of both the Government's programme and the hereditary Peers.
  I once again pay tribute to the work of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who have so effectively prepared the way for the new Clause 2. The noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and his Cross-Bench colleagues deserve great credit for proposing and carrying through the amendment which has now become Clause 2.
  278
  So far, everyone in this House has stuck to the spirit and the letter of the undertakings which lay behind this important change to the Bill. Today, for example, the Government have introduced amendments, to which your Lordships have now agreed, to make Clause 2 yet more acceptable to the excepted Peers. I anticipate that these arrangements will hold in your Lordships' House. However, the amended Bill must now, of course, be considered in another place. I cannot prejudge how my right honourable and honourable friends will respond to it in its different form. That is a matter for them.
  The Government regret the insertion of Clauses 3 and 5. We believe that Clause 3 is unnecessary in the context of the transitional Hoduse. It is internally inconsistent. It raises difficult questions about the relationship between the Crown and Parliament which have not been resolved. It is our view that Clause 5 is a rather insulting provision. The debate which led to its inclusion demonstrated an attitude to life Peers which we on these Benches found offensive. I suspect that my honourable friends in another place will take the same view. However, that again is a matter for them.
  For the present, your Lordships' duty is to give them an opportunity to take a view on all these matters. It is not constitutionally right for this House to deny the elected House the chance to consider whether a Bill which has been amended in this way is, in its new form, acceptable to the other place. Your Lordships make much of your constitutional right to ask the other place to think again. In order to do that, they must have the Bill before them. By every tenet of the conventions under which your Lordships operate, therefore, the Bill should pass. I commend it to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
  10.24 p.m.
  Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in 1968 this House voted by a 195 vote majority to remove the rights of hereditary Peers to vote in this House. The notorious Tory hereditary Peers voted in favour of that proposal. Of course, there was in those days a Tory majority of hereditary Peers; not so today, even though that is one lie emanating from No. 10 Downing Street that still continues today.
  The hereditary Peers did not cling to the furniture in 1968, and we do not do so today. The ethos of this House is not one of self-service; it is one of public service. Therefore, on behalf of the noble Lords on all sides of this House who are hereditary Peers, and for myself, I reject utterly the imputation that we have acted through the generations out of narrow and petty self-interest, and not always in the interests of what we believed was best for our country. I would welcome later this evening some recognition by the Government of the truth of what I have just stated. It would be gracious, it would be proper and it would be just.
  Ours is a tradition of courteous debate, of distaste for narrow ideology, of respect for differing views and background. It is a tradition of dignity and decency.

  279
  Let us today, even at this hour, be true to that tradition. Like so many noble Lords, crowded anxiously here tonight, I honour those on all sides, people who I am proud to claim as friends, who soon will be driven from us by this Bill. A long chapter of history is being closed tonight. The tale is now told; the past is done; the glass is shattered, and it cannot be remade. The Prime Minister has taken a knife and scored a giant gash across the face of history. But the past is no longer the point. The point is the future; the future of this House and the future of our Parliament.
  An obsession in parts of the media with a stereotype of what hereditary Peers never were has for too long diverted attention from what is the original aim of the Bill; the biggest accretion of power to the Executive in this country that we have seen for many years—possibly ever. That is the real issue. It is not 75 words on an election address with which the media have regaled themselves, but a blank page; the blank page of the Government's plans for the future. That is the real issue for the country. These are the first principles; the modernisation to which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House clings.
  As the old book closes, a new and urgent question arises. What kind of House do the Government want? Do they care? Have they any thing else to tell us about that tonight? Are we to have a stronger, more independent Parliament? Do we slide further down the road for partisan presidentialism? Perhaps it is only by our passing that the nation will awake to that question. If so, even this dismal Bill will have served a kind of paradoxical purpose.
  I believe that your Lordships know my view of the Bill. We have discussed it at length and I and my noble friends have debated it extensively among ourselves. But it is not the least or last tribute to this House that it leaves it a bad Bill still, but a better Bill by far than when it arrived. We had a Bill sent to us that would have imposed a quango House of patronage; patronage remaining in the hands of the Prime Minister. There were no plans for a Royal Commission and there were no safeguards for the future. Now there are. And here I pay tribute to the statesmanlike endeavour, as did the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, of my noble friend Lord Cranborne and of the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
  Now we have the certainty of the survival of some independent hereditary Peers until stage two arrives—whenever that may be. We have the grit in the oyster to push this Government on to a long-term reform that I do not believe they truly want. In the meantime, we have avoided the nightmare of a quango House that the Government originally desired. What is more, today we have secured another notable concession. The Government have agreed that the hereditary peerage will continue through by-elections until the overall reform arrives—whenever that may be.
  Who would have thought that we could have achieved all this when the Bill was published in another place and the Government laughed scornfully at the hereditary peerage? But we have still more. We have a
  280
  defence in the Bill against Parliament extending its own life. We have a statutory framework for an independent appointments commission to supervise patronage; one to which every future Prime Minister will have to pay heed.
  If the Government punches out those constitutional safeguards when the Bill returns to another place, as I was truly astonished to hear today that they might, the whole country will hear the sound of vandals breaking glass. They will rightly wonder what is afoot and why.
  In all of this we have made progress—limited progress—progress from a bad base, but progress none the less. As a result, there are two alternatives left to us. After the hours of debate, the 19 days that we have discussed the Bill, there are only two alternatives left. The first is this Bill—to some degree the House's Bill—improved as it has been in this place. The other is the Government's preferred Bill; the quango Bill; the Bill the Government would impose if we gave them the pretext under the Parliament Act. That is the choice and this is the moment to make it.
  I have thought long and hard about the right course to take. To me that course is clear. I ask my noble friends to acquiesce in this Bill. We will take the Government at their word; we will hand on the task to a new interim House with a promise from the Government that that House will soon be superseded. In that way, no one will be able to say of the old House that it clung on to life in such a way as to deny the hope of something better. That lie will at last be firmly nailed.
  I do not give this advice with anything other than a heavy heart. Of course, the Government could have acted better. Of course, we could, and should, have had comprehensive reform in one go. They are a self-styled radical party with a huge popular mandate. They could have given us a real and lasting reform instead of tearing down a House of Parliament and leaving behind a question mark. They could have done so, and I believe that they are mistaken in not having tried.
  However, the Government have the right to do what they are doing, even if what they are doing is not right. As well as having the right, they have the power. If we reject this Bill tonight, we shall call down on our heads, and far more importantly, on the country, something far worse.
  The Government have complained tonight that we do not trust them. My noble friend Lord Tebbit used precisely those words earlier this evening. He may well be right, but I believe that we should put that trust to the test. If the Government betray that trust, I shall not be the one to call them to account; the country as a whole will do so. Noble Lords opposite now stand on the proposition that this Bill is only the first stage of reform. The country knows that. The country will not be forgiving if, on this great issue of the future of a free and independent Parliament, it turns out that the Government did not mean what they have been saying.
  For many of us, this is a profoundly sombre moment. It is perhaps the last time that so many of us will assemble in this ancient House in the way in which

  281
  it has been constituted for so long. In the words of my noble friend Lord Elton in this House last week, the House has been a great resource of free wisdom, advice and service to the nation. It has been a great and honourable task, and it has been nobly done.
  This chapter closes. A new one is opening and I feel confident in this: much that is best in that new chapter will come long after we are gone from what was built and left behind from the House that this Bill destroys. All that is worse will be avoided by holding to the virtues that this House and so many of those in it exemplify.
  Therefore, I must invite my noble friends this evening to abstain; to let this Bill pass, repugnant though that may seem. Some have called that surrender. I reject that utterly. It is a course that keeps the continuity of this House alive, one that may yet enable us to win the long battle for a strong, authoritative and independent House of Lords. That would be a fitting legacy of what has gone before.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I should like first to join in the courtesies expressed, very rightly at this stage in the Bill, by both the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. We all owe debts to our own teams, as indeed I do to my noble friends and to Members on Benches behind me who often agreed to fall silent when they would much have preferred to intervene, and often agreed not to vote against the Government when their instincts, particularly over the Weatherill amendment, were to do precisely that.
  I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and all their team for being persistent and good-humoured throughout almost all, if not all, of our long proceedings and for advocating their case with great skill. As for the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, I find him genial at all times. It is sometimes a little difficult for that reason to take him seriously, but if I may say so, he has led his troops extremely well and shown a wisdom on which they should all reflect.
  As we come towards the end of the Bill, I remember what my noble friend Lord Goodhart said early in our proceedings. He said that we wanted the Bill, the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill. It was our view then on Second Reading, has been our view throughout the proceedings, and is still our view, that we should have preferred the Bill as published rather than with the Weatherill amendment which is now attached to it.
  I noted, for example, what was said today by the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Richard. Indeed, I believe that many on that side of the House do not like the Weatherill amendment. Therefore, if noble Lords on the Conservative Benches were to revolt against the otherwise wise advice of their Leader and vote against the Bill at this stage, I should not weep too much if the Bill went away and came back in precisely the form it was first published, without the Weatherill amendment.
  282
  There will be colleagues who will be missed. The view has already been expressed on other Benches that there are colleagues behind us who we shall not expect to see again. Moreover, I shall be sorry to see go colleagues in other parties. Indeed, I have a sharp stab of sentiment which would surprise some of them at the thought that I may not see them again, perhaps even in the Bishops Bar. But that is the way it is. We are not legislating for the best club in London; we are legislating for one of the Chambers of our Parliament. That must always have been the undercurrent and spirit behind the decisions which we made even though those decisions have meant that we shall be losing some of those with whom we have enjoyed our time here and who have contributed considerably to this House.
  I should say in passing for those who do not know or remember that before the Weatherill amendment was introduced, on these Benches we believed strongly that there were many hereditary Peers who, in terms of their service to this House, deserve to come back. However, we should have preferred to see them come back as life Peers rather than that they should continue the hereditary principle—for that is precisely what it is—in the second Chamber of our Parliament.
  I make just two further comments. For how long will this new House last? I should be extremely surprised indeed if we do not last for at least five years. I have wagered that we shall not last for less than 10. It is extremely doubtful whether the Royal Commission will produce any proposals which will command support in all-party talks. There will certainly be no agreement in this Parliament. The time will come when we settle down again with old friends and with friendships renewed and feel that perhaps, after all, the interim House might be a semi-permanent House.
  I should greatly regret that because I believe that the reforms should go further. Having said that, on these Benches we accept fully that had it not been for a decision which the Government made that the reform of this Chamber would take place in two stages, it would not have taken place at all. To that extent, we believe that the right decision was made and we rejoice in the fact that this Bill is passing through this House.
  We do not do so with a song in our hearts. It is not that, not with this Bill. But we do so at least in the belief that we can take some satisfaction from one step, and quite a large step, in the reform which we have all long wished to see.
  Lord Weatherill: My Lords, tributes have rightly been paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, for the part which he played in negotiating this compromise. I repeat those tributes this evening. We are all extremely grateful to him.
  When we started these negotiations almost a year ago I was asked how many Cross-Bench Peers I could deliver. I had to say that there were three; that is, my noble friends Lord Carnarvon and Lord Marsh, and myself. That is because, as your Lordships know, we have no Whip for the Cross Benches and we really speak for ourselves.

  283
  The House knows that the amendment which I moved with the noble Earl, Lord Carnarvon, and the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, on 11th May was overwhelmingly supported by this House. It was, of course, a compromise. As the House well knows, it was designed to overcome the fact that this House could not act effectively or efficiently if all the hereditary Peers were to disappear at once.
  I share the views of many that it would have been better to have had the Royal Commission first and thereafter to have dealt with the composition of your Lordships' House. Indeed, in 1992, when first entered this House I went to see the then leader, the noble Lord, Lord Wake ham, and asked him if it would not be wise for him to set up all-party talks then in order to ensure that a compromise could be reached through the usual channels and with all-party consent. I agree with the comments made earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, that that is an opportunity, over 20 years, that has sadly passed.
  However, we are where we are. The Government have a right to bring forward the Bill. It was in their manifesto and has been in Labour Party manifestos since the early part of this century. To their credit, the Government have accepted a number of amendments, notably that which we moved on 11th May and that on the by-election procedure.
  To their credit, the Government have regularly repeated the manifesto commitment; namely, that no political party should seek a majority in the House. Despite what was said today by the Leader of the House about Clause 3, I hope that they will set up an independent appointments commission to ensure a strong independent element in this House in the days to come. To their credit, the Government have kept to all the agreements which we negotiated in the autumn of last year and throughout this year. This is obviously not an ideal solution, but it is a fair compromise. I hope that tonight it will be accepted by your Lordships' House.
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, we are all aware that this has become an extremely unhappy place in the past few months. I hope that, if and when the Bill finally becomes law, all of us, if we are lucky enough to remain, will do our best on all sides to reconstruct the atmosphere which made the old House work so well. That atmosphere has, I fear, inevitably been undermined or even destroyed as a result of the dramatic change we have been discussing for so many months.
  In expressing that wish, I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. Sparing my noble friend Lord Strathclyde his blushes is something I endeavour to do all the time. I hope he will forgive me if I make an exception this evening. I pay tribute to his perspicacity, balance and the remarkable
  284
  way he has led my party, particularly given the extraordinarily trying circumstances in which I handed on my baton.
  Noble Lords: Hear hear!
  Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I owe it to him to put on record my sense of gratitude and admiration to him and his team. This is not a moment for long speeches. From now on I shall be extremely brief.
  Perhaps I may turn to my own side. The question before us is a simple one. Much as we may dislike the Bill and the way the Government have attacked it, we have to decide whether we think it is more glorious to destroy the Bill as it is now and to have it back in its original form in a way we could do little to prevent, or whether to accept a less bad Bill and hope that we will have at least produced an incentive for the Government to go on eventually to a better and more thoroughgoing reform at stage two. It seems to me that that is the choice before all of us this evening who dislike this legislation. If, like me, noble Lords feel that the least bad option is the second, then we have no option but to support my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in the recommendation he has made to us this evening.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, tributes have been paid across the Table. I would not like the night to pass without paying tribute to those who actually brought us to where we are. I speak as one of the most recently joined members of the hereditary peerage, but 700 years ago it was the barons who actually brought about the fact that we have a Parliament at all. Your Lordships should spare a moment to recall that the order which is now to be almost totally banished from this House has secured democracy by, first, bringing the Executive under control in the 13th century and, secondly, then co-operating in its transfer into Parliament when we had a king who could speak only German and had to have a Prime Minister. It has served this country well.
  I would like to pay tribute not to my own forebears, but to those noble Lords of far more ancient lineage than I am, some of whose ancestors took part in bringing Parliament into being. It is a sad moment but also, I believe, a hopeful one that we now look to a future in which some of that order will be able to contribute to the institution which will replace the one we have now.
  If I may be so bold as to call it my order, the hereditary peerage has played a very great part in securing the future of democracy in this country. Those of us who now have to leave entrust that burden with confidence and hope to those who remain.
  Lord Cobbold: My Lords, we have now reached the last hurdle—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—this dismal little Bill has to jump in this House on its road to the statute book. At Second

  285
  Reading in March your Lordships supported my condemnation of the Bill. Perhaps we should have thrown it out then and there, but convention ruled and we agreed that it should be allowed to run the course of detailed debate at various stages. Much time and energy has been spent on that detailed debate over the intervening months.
  In essence, the only major change in the Bill is the celebrated Weatherill amendment, now incorporated as Clause 2. The question we have to ask ourselves now is whether that clause sufficiently improves the Bill to justify our voting for it tonight. Listening to the lengthy debates that we have had and in conversations outside the Chamber, I believe that most hereditary Peers accept that the automatic birthright to a seat in this Chamber is no longer justifiable in the modern world.
  However, I do not believe I am alone in believing very strongly that that is quite different to saying that all connections between the hereditary peerage and this House should be broken. Abolishing the automatic right of all hereditary Peers fulfils the much-quoted Labour Party election manifesto commitment. Preserving some representation of the hereditary peerage in a reformed Chamber does not conflict with that commitment.
  On the positive side, it has the advantages of retaining a link with the long and distinguished history of this House that other noble Lords have referred to this evening and of retaining in this House some of the people who have made a huge contribution to the House, in some cases over many years. It maintains a degree of continuity and tradition which has been an important characteristic of constitutional change throughout our history. Last but not least, it maintains a historic link with our much-valued hereditary monarchy.
  Clause 2 of the Bill provides for a reasonable and effective representation of the hereditary peerage in the transitional House. It ensures, importantly—as noted earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that there will be a strong voice of the hereditary peerage in the deliberations of the transitional House on all subjects, but in particular on the forthcoming recommendations of the Royal Commission and the consequent proposals for stage two. And it is always possible—dare I say even likely?—that the transitional House may last for a considerable time.
  But tonight we have to decide whether Clause 2 represents a genuine change of heart on the part of the Government, which they would be willing to see perpetuated in some like form in a stage two reformed House, or whether it is merely a political deal and a smokescreen designed to appease us hereditary Peers and to persuade us to accept the Bill only to be cast aside in the stage two proposals next year.
  286
  I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give us some assurance on that point before we vote tonight. I realise that she will not be able to prejudge the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I realise also that, should the Royal Commission propose and Parliament accept the radical option of a 100 per cent elected second Chamber (a most unlikely outcome in my opinion), participation of both hereditary and life Peers would cease. But on the assumption that at least a proportion of the stage two reformed House will be appointees, can the noble Baroness give us the assurance tonight that, in those circumstances, the Government would support or at least not oppose some continued representation of the hereditary peerage along the lines proposed for the transitional House in Clause 2 of the Bill before us? If the noble Baroness is able to give us such an assurance, I shall be happy to vote for the Bill tonight. But if there is no such assurance from the Government on this point, I shall be inclined to believe that we are being hoodwinked and be much tempted to revert to my former opinion and to vote against the Bill.
  Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, it would seem I enter this debate almost literally at the eleventh hour. I simply did not believe that we would ever reach this point. Perhaps I underestimated the extent to which this Government are committed to altering the composition of your Lordships' House before a credible option for reform has been presented and considered—many noble Lords have already mentioned that tonight.
  I have learnt that we have a government devoid of principle that psychobabbles its destructive way with spin doctors and an army of special advisers. On these Benches we have been slow and plodding to respond and are now faced with the possibility of a shameful and disastrous end-game. It is our duty to reject this Bill. I say that as the great grandson of a distinguished soldier who represented Newcastle-under-Lyme for 35 years as Liberal and then later Labour Member of Parliament. He was finally elevated to your Lordships' House in 1942 on the recommendation of the then Labour leader, Mr Attlee. Ironically, the peerage was created in order to strengthen Labour's representation in the House of Lords which was considered disproportionate.
  Like many other noble Lords, I have a business life outside the hallowed halls of Westminster. An earlier great-grandfather than the one I mentioned, by the same name, started a business in 1759. I am proud to represent that business around the world, especially as the company is still a major source of employment in the same area near Stoke-on-Trent. It also happens to pay the bills and keep a roof over my head. So I have responded to the Writ of Summons, obviously not for personal gain, but out of an acute sense of duty; yes, the type of duty encouraged by family and education;

  287
  the type of duty that fortified our fathers to face the forces of evil and so protect our freedom. This duty cannot be removed so easily.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords
  Lord Wedgwood: My Lords, the noble Earl will have his time. This is not the Commonwealth of Australia where the people will soon decide if her Majesty the Queen is to remain Head of State. If this Bill is enacted, how long will it take before the monarch is scuttled out of Buckingham Palace in the next step of the first president of the "People's Republic of England" and a vice-president like Peter Mandelson. Jonathon Friedland's ghastly book, Bring Home the Revolution, is a blueprint for such a scenario. So perhaps the day is not so far away.
  Many noble Lords have correctly asked the question of why the Government are so determined to enact the Bill before the Royal Commission report, and again we have heard today from many on that subject. We can only guess at their motives. It remains unclear what the Government propose in terms of the future composition and envisaged role of the second Chamber within the legislature. At the very least, it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that, if the current system is to change, it must be a change for the better. Without that assurance, we can only bring shame upon ourselves if we depart from Westminster with the tail between our legs—or, as a Member of another place suggested, with "a boot to our rear-ends". The picture of the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and other noble Lords opposite applying their ample-sized boots makes for quite a scene.
  Some of my noble friends appear to have succumbed to the ridiculous side-show in the form of the Weatherill amendment. Certain would-be "TULIPs"— that is, temporary unpaid Lords in Parliament—have been required to express in writing why they should be elected. Has anyone stopped to think how pathetic this appears to the rest of the world? This demeaning act has made a laughing stock of this House. The would-be "TULIPs" have no doubt considered what is I he better of two evils: to give in to what they consider to be the inevitable or to accept a back-room deal so that they can remain, but without any assurance. What a disgraceful compromise. I ask my noble friends: where is your mettle? We are not respected for doing business through ill-thought-out deals and half measures. No, we are applauded as a revising Chamber, which delivers in a non-partisan manner like no other second Chamber of Parliament. Why? Because we believe in duty and principle; and we are unpaid.
  It would be foolish to think, if this Bill is enacted, that the subject of remuneration will not rear its ugly head. Heretofore not an issue, it will be a travesty for your Lordships' House and the nation. How do we think the electorate will respond to the prospect of even greater costs at. Westminster and the sheer greed of its incumbents?
  Many eloquent and powerful speeches have already been made. However, my message is very simple. It is this: we must fight—and these words have been used
  288
  today—this repugnant cancer. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition mentioned last week in a debate on hybridity, and again today, that the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and her party had injected poison into this House. I agree, but it is far worse. A cancer has permeated every function of the body and we must purge it. We must illustrate that this Government, or any government, cannot bully your Lordships' House into submission. We must reject this Bill outright. Not to do so would be to our eternal shame.
  My noble friends bound for Hatfield tomorrow in coaches and people-carriers might reflect on events. As the watchdog of the constitution, we could wish for a group of loyal, if ill-trained, spaniels as opposed to a bunch of Mr Blair's poodles. I had the great privilege of serving in The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment). I am proud to say that after a hotly contested campaign to save the regiment—a regiment raised in 1633—from amalgamation, it is still the first regiment of foot and stands at the right of the line. The motto for this regiment which I used in my maiden speech is one that I use again tonight—I hope, not for the last time—because I believe it is most appropriate, "Nemo me impune lacessit".
  11 p.m.
  Lord Richard: My Lords, I think that it is the turn of this side.
  Lord Shepherd: My Lords—
  Lord Bragg: My Lords
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Bragg is perhaps associating himself too formally with the Bishops' Bench. I am afraid that he cannot speak from there. I think that the House would like to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
  Lord Bragg: My Lords, for once I am lucky.
  Lord Shepherd: My Lords, we have had a long and by and large good natured debate through the many series on this Bill. I say to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that his speech tonight in a sense—I hope he will forgive me for putting it this way—was a coming of age. I thought that it was a statesmanlike contribution and showed leadership to his own party under very difficult circumstances.
  I could be honest and say that I do not like this Bill. I am a hereditary Peer. The Bill means that my grandson will not be able to follow me in this House and cannot enjoy the privileges that I have had over some 40-odd years. I think that I speak for my noble friends on this side of the House when I say that we feel no anger in regard to the hereditary Peers who sit on the other side of the House, not only now but also in the past. In some ways I may have had more friends on the other side of the House than I may from time to time have enjoyed on my own side. I believe that the hereditary peerage within this House, our system without a Speaker and loose rules have meant that we

  289
  have been able to have a debating society, a Parliament, which is unlike that of any other parliament. I only hope that in the new House of Lords that regime and that understanding will remain.
  I believe that the greatest contribution that we hereditary Peers can now make this evening is to bring this debate to an end with a degree of grace and hope that whatever may come may be better but certainly not worse than what we hand over to. I do not believe that an extended debate will be helpful. This is not necessarily the end of the process. We have to consider the messages from the House of Commons. However, I think that in the interests of the House we should leave here tonight with a sense that what has been of the past has been of good report, that we who have served in the House as hereditary Peers can leave with honour, with a duty well done, and that we leave without animosity. I think that the sooner this debate is brought to an end, the better.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in what he has said. I hope that when this Bill comes to an end we shall leave without animosity. The noble Lord said that this has been a good natured debate. I am not so sure that it has been so all the way through. I can understand anyone—I hope that noble Lords opposite can understand this—who feels aggrieved at the thought of 600 years of history coming to an end. People get worked up and feel incensed. But at the end of all that we must have a House which works, and, for goodness' sake, a House which is happy and content. Happy the Houses which smile at each other. Far too often there has been a tendency for vitriol to creep in.
  I regret the Bill as much as any noble Lord on this side of the House; I wish it had not come to pass. I object to the fact that one does not know what will replace your Lordships' House. That is a great mistake. But we are at the stage, that the Bill do now pass, and either we pass it or we do not. I believe that if we were to vote against the Bill in any great measure it would meet with the most appalling disapproval of another place, of people in the country and of the media as a whole.
  That is not our job. Our job has been to try and improve the Bill where we can and, having done our best, we should let the Bill go through with relative contentment. Whatever happens in the future, for those of us who may be here—and none of us knows who will be here—I hope that we will get back to the happy state we had before, where we all tried to co-operate and work together. In the end, that is the only way a revising chamber such as your Lordships' House can ever operate.
  The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I wish to—
  Noble Lords: Front Bench!
  The Earl of Erroll: Front Bench, fine. My Lords, I am going to say something—
  Noble Lords: Front Bench!
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  11.7 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the Bill do now pass?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 221; Not- Contents, 81.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Addington, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  Freyberg, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Gale, B.

  Amos, B.

  Geraint, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Gifford, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Attenborough, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Glanusk, L.

  Bach, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Blease, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Borrie, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Grantchester, L.

  Bragg, L.

  Gregson, L.

  Brett, L.

  Grenfell, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Hacking, L.

  Brightman, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Hankey, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Hanworth, V.

  Burlison, L.

  Hardie, L.

  Burns, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Castle of Blackburn, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Haskins, L.

  Clancarty, E.

  Hayman, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Hollick, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Clwyd, L.

  Holme of Cheltenham, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Howells of St Davids, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Dacre, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  David, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord

  Desai, L.

  Chancellor)

  Dholakia, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Dinevor, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord

  Donoughue, L.

  Privy Seal)

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Judd, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Eatwell, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Elder, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Kirkwood, L.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Falkland, V.

  Lipsey, L.

  291

  Listowel, E.

  Russell, E.

  Lockwood, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Longford, E.

  Sawyer, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Serota, B.

  Mcintosh of Haringey, L.

  Sewel, L.

  [Teller]

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B

  Shepherd, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Simon, V.

  McNair, L.

  Simon of Highbury, L.

  McNally, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Meston, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Templeman, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Monkswell, L.

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Montague of Oxford, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Newby, L.

  Thurlow, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Thurso, V.

  Northfield, L.

  Tope, L.

  Ogmore, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Orme, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Patel, L.

  Varley, L.

  Paul, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Peston, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Walton of Detchant, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Warner, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Prys-Davics. L.

  Watson of Invergowrie, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Ramsay of Cart vale, B.

  Weatherill, L.

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Rea, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Richard. L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds. L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  292

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Alanbrooke, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

  Blyth, L.

  Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Bruntisfield, L.

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Burton, L.

  Marks of Broughton, L,

  Cadman, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Calverley, L.

  Mills, V.

  Chesham, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Chilston, V.

  Monson, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Morris, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Morris of Kenwood. L.

  Clitheroe, L.

  Morton, E.

  Coleraine, L.

  Moyne, L.

  Coleridge, L.

  Munster, E.

  Cowdray, V.

  Napier of Magdãla, L.

  Cross, V.

  Naseby, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Newall, L.

  Nunburnholme. L. [Teller]

  Derwent, L.

  Patten, L.

  Dudley, E.

  Rennell, L.

  Dundee, E.

  St. Germans, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Exmouth, V.

  Sidmouth, V.

  Falmouth, V.

  Sudeley, L.

  Gormanston, V.

  Suffolk and Berkshire. E.

  Grafton, D.

  Swansea, L.

  Grantley, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Gray, L.

  Temple of Stowe. E.

  Grey, E.

  Teynham, L.

  Halifax, E.

  Torphichen, L.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Hampden, V.

  Waterford, M.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Wedgwood, L. [Teller]

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Weir, V.

  Hesketh, L.

  Westmorland, E.

  Hothfield, L.

  Wise, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Wrenbury, L.

  Inchcape, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Ironside, L.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
  Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock.

  ACP Countries: Regional Economic Partnership Agreements
  ACP Countries: Regional Economic Partnership Agreements
  ACP Countries: Sugar Accords
  ACP Countries: Sugar Accords
  The Mall: Parking Spaces
  The Mall: Parking Spaces
  Tate Modern: Admissions Policy
  Tate Modern: Admissions Policy
  Peers' Expenses
  Peers' Expenses
  Military Vehicles: Convoys
  Military Vehicles: Convoys
  Bosnia
  Bosnia
  Defence Evaluation Research Agency
  Defence Evaluation Research Agency
  Falkland Islands Garrison
  Falkland Islands Garrison
  WTO Negotiations and Developing Countries
  WTO Negotiations and Developing Countries
  Bioethics: International Committee Meetings
  Bioethics: International Committee Meetings
  Malaria
  Malaria
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
  Statutory Instruments
  Statutory Instruments
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Human Rights Act 1998
  Parliamentary Commissioner Appointment Procedures
  Parliamentary Commissioner Appointment Procedures
  Devolved Assemblies: Members' Correspondence with Ministers
  Devolved Assemblies: Members' Correspondence with Ministers
  International Conventions and the UK
  International Conventions and the UK
  Iraq: Oil for Food Programme
  Iraq: Oil for Food Programme
  Iraq: New UN Resolution
  Iraq: New UN Resolution
  Iraq: Papal Visit
  Iraq: Papal Visit
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Live Sheep Export
  Live Sheep Export
  Pets: Quarantine Requirement
  Pets: Quarantine Requirement
  Sand Eel Total Allowable Catches
  Sand Eel Total Allowable Catches
  Drift Net and T Net Fishing Licences
  Drift Net and T Net Fishing Licences
  Salmon and Sea Trout Catches
  Salmon and Sea Trout Catches
  Seals: Fish Consumption
  Seals: Fish Consumption
  Atlantic Salmon Catches
  Atlantic Salmon Catches